Hacker News Reader

Comment by ybinator604g3 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe a bit off topic but it's always strange when someone says "Islamic Golden Age" when talking about Iran. Nothing against a specific religion. It's like saying Newton's work came during Christian Golden Age in Europe. The religion had nothing to do with it. In fact, there is a book [1] (in Persian) title "Two Centuries of Silence" that talks about the significant blow to Iran's culture, literature and science after Arab invasion [2] that it took two hundred years to somehow get back on track.

[1] https://web.sas.upenn.edu/persian/2018/09/06/talk-two-centur...

[2] Since I've mentioned this, I need to add that the focus of my statement is the nature of such "invasion" and not a certain ethnicity. No malicious intent here. If you are an Arab and reading this, hello neighbors! with love from Iran :)

View on HN

Applying labels is always fraught and involves compromises. "Islamic World" is well-established and generally recognised. It's also more nuanced than hot takes suggest.

Peter Adamson, host of the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast and author of the book series from the same project, devotes roughlythe first 20 minutes of his Google Talk about Islamic Philosophy to the matter of why "Islamic World" is in fact the most useful term to use, in contrast to alternatives such as "Arabic" (obviously inapplicable to Persia), "Islam" (fails to acknowledge the role of non-muslim religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, etc.).

<https://yewtu.be/watch?v=_NKi-XRZ4KI>

As Adamson notes, it would be more accurate to call mediaeval European philosophy "Christian Philosophy" than to call the philosophical tradition of south-Western and south-Central Asia "Islamic Philosophy", as effectively all mediaeval European philosophers were Christian. Adamson also notes that philosophy of the Islamic World draws heavily on Greek and Roman philosophy (largely via the Byzantine empire) as well as Indian and African philosophical traditions.

"Islamic" refers to not merely the religious foundation, but the greater cultural, political, legal (Islamic jurisprudence is a major factor and influence), etc., etc. As with many other contexts, "dominant influence" does not mean "exlusive" or even "majority", but "that which has the greatest overall impact in a specific area". (Cue numerous tedious HN discussions over questions of "monopoly" or geographic applicability of toponyms such as "Silicon Valley" (contrast "Hollywood" or "Bollywood").

Thanks for the link. I watched the first 20 minutes and will watch the rest now. It's very interesting.

A small note, popularity (being generally recognized) is not a good indicator of the validity of any view point and it certainly does not mean we cannot challenge them.

> It's also more nuanced than hot takes suggest.

I believe as an Iranian and a history enthusiast, what I expressed was one of those these nuances which is presumably being labeled as hot take, or am I mistaken and you referring to something from somewhere else?

edit: fixed typo

Adamson's work generally is excellent. I've been following the podcast for about 4--5 years now, and have worked through the entire mainline backlog (I'm now revisiting parts), though I'm still catching up on the Indian and Africana Philosophy track. Very highly recommended.

"Islamic World" replaces several earlier-prevalent terms. Again, Adamson makes the case against several proposed alternatives.

On which point, what specifically is yours?

Yes, he seems well spoken and very articulate.

While his reasoning about his world view and consequently the name of the book is sound, he is not establishing a causal relationship between religion and anything outside the realm of philosophy. He argues that this is the best common trait for philosophical work of those people in that era in the region. It's also natural that he sees everything through a philosophical lens.

> "Islamic World" replaces several earlier-prevalent terms. Again, Adamson makes the case against several proposed alternatives.

We don't have to cover it under the same _umbrella_ term. In the clip (around 11:07) he shows the slide again and says "As an American, I am a born marketer". Imagine if we were to apply the same argument with a comparable time frame (important distinction) and call him a Christian European. Maybe being good at marketing does was not one of their traits. This is the missing nuance.

> "dominant influence" does not mean "exlusive" or even "majority", but "that which has the greatest overall impact in a specific area"

The burden of proof for "high impact" is heavy. I recommend reading some of the articles by the Inarah Institute <http://inarah.net/publications> on how shaky the dominant Islamic history narrative is.

To clarify: It is unclear what the direction of the influence is. Was it Islam that impacted/influenced what happened in Persia, or was it the Persian/Syriac/Nestorian culture that created something called "Islam."

Indeed and that's what makes labels difficult.

You can make the same argument about Middle Ages Western Christian philosophy for what it's worth. While it originated in the erstwhile Roman Empire, the cultural and religious norms at the time were very much attuned to the various Germanic norms of the peoples that dominated the formerly Western Roman Empire rather than the joint Roman and Greek culture that constituted the Roman Empire during the founding of Christianity. Eastern Roman Empire viz Byzantine norms were codified in the Orthodox Church canon and philosophy in the region had a much larger overlap with "Islamic" and Greek cultures of the time.

The discovery and dating of Sana’a manuscripts to 630-650AD have debunked much of the “historical critical “ theories of Islam wrt origins of the Quran. It turns out the the traditional narratives seem to be lining up with historical evidence.

In what way, and could you point to a reference on that?

One way around the awkwardness with "Islamic world" is to use "Near East", which is used to cover the core geographic area in pre-modern times.

If you try thinking of when was a "golden age" of the Near East, it becomes evidently a less sound idea.

"Near east" suffers from the issue that it's a geographic classification rather than one encompassing both a region and a period.

It's also, of course, a relative description in that it is "near" relative to a specific presumptive geographic centre, that is, Europe.

That's not to say that the term isn't viable. But again, nuance and compromise.

"Near East" is not used in academia as simply a geographic classification. It is used among historians as a standard term for a cultural realm and a specific time frame. "Middle East" is another standard term for a more expanded realm and a different time frame. By analogy, "the West" does not connote a precise geographic territory.

I'm familiar with the term.

So far as I'm aware and some quick online checks suggest likewise[1], it largely came into widespread usage in the 20th century and tends to refer to either the Olttoman Empire or the post-WWI nation-states of the roughly from present day Turkey to Egypt to Iran. Wikipedia gives origin of the term to roughly 1855, at which point it would have referred to the Ottoman Empire, as opposed to India, China, the East Indies, and Indochina).

"Near East" has since largely been replace by "Middle East", though that term largely refers to the post World War Two states in the same region. The Wikipedia article noted here gives criticisms of the term largely along the lines I've suggested.

And I'm not aware of either term ("Near..." or "Middle...") being used to apply to the period from the 8th - 13th centuries, a/k/a the Islamic Golden Age.[2]

________________________________

Notes:

1. Largely Wikipedia and Google's Ngram Viewer: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Near+East&year...>

2. For Middle East: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East#Usage_and_criticis...> <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Middle%20East&...>

3. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age>

> And I'm not aware of either term...being used to apply to the period from the 8th - 13th centuries

The Journal of Near Eastern Studies (https://www.jstor.org/journal/jneareaststud) is typical in defining its scope as the Near East, from the ancient times to pre-modern Near East. As I said, "Near East" is the standard term for referring to the history/archaeology of this cultural region in pre-modern times.

When you want to specify the pre-Islamic Near East, the standard term is "Ancient Near East", as this from the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History (https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/janeh/html?lang=en).

The Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History seeks to encourage and stimulate the study of the history of the ancient Near East, which is broadly defined to include areas from Iran to the western Anatolian coast and the Black Sea to Southern Arabia from its prehistoric foundations to the Late Antique period.

The Late Antique period is very roughly the 3rd-7th centuries.

Thanks, fair points.

Persian influence was incredibly important, in fact the Islamic Golden Age is marked by Persian customs being absorbed into daily living with the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate.

So if you're feeling like it's taking value away from Persian history, instead, try to see it from the perspective that Persians are a large part of the reason why the Golden Age is even a thing :)

The other day I was watching Neil deGrasse Tyson on Joe Rogan show and he was talking about Islamic Science and how Algebra, Astronomy, etc. come from Islam. I was baffled as an Iranian. I get that there is this anti muslim rhetoric lurking around and these people are trying to fight it. I assume they are well intentioned but in doing so they are doing the same thing that they advocate against.

But I like your point of view.

Seems like a lot of reknowned arab thinkers were from the most eastern parts of the arab empire (aka persia). Al Kwarhizmi was born near what is current uzbekistan IIRC.

Ah the famous historians Neil deGrasse Tyson and Joe Rogan...

Better to head to /r/askhistorians with those kinds of questions.

How dare they, the arrogant fools, talk to each other

Surely I can also talk about aircraft design or Sanskrit, but nobody will pay attention or base their opinions on that, right?

It's difficult to separate Persian history from Islam during the Golden Age of Islam in Persia.

While intertwined, History and Religion are two different concepts. Of course one can differentiate between them.

The reason behind drawing such a distinction may be more telling, as there is a larger push in some groups to draw this distinction for the sake of harkening back to pre-Islamic Persia. But of course, modern Persia and Islam are intertwined, so usually those who wish to draw a distinction do so for political or religious bias reasons.

That's a pretty big assumption. It's natural to like your heritage and it's fine doing so while being respectful of other people's culture and heritage. I like other people to know about my culture for what it really was, what it went through and what it is right now. This is in contrast with how western media has tried to depict Iran as their political foe. Interestingly, Modern Persia and Islam (more with Islamic rulers) are at odds right now, evidenced by recent social movement and political unrest.

Right so you have a bit of an agenda here.

You want to separate the scholarship. The problem is there really isn't enough historiographical work done here to meaningfully tease out the differences. Surviving primary sources often ended up in the hands of colonial governments which are loathe to open up access today or in the hands of estates of former colonial figures where they rot in a dark room somewhere.

Another large historiographic gap in the Islamic world around this time was the lifestyle of peasants. We have records of kings and lords because of the widespread practice of autobiographies. We also know the thoughts of philosophers based on their texts. But we lack a lot of knowledge about how peasants and other commoners lived around the time. If you think about it, that's the majority of the people living at any time.

>Right so you have a bit of an agenda here.

A perfectly valid one i.e. nothing wrong with it. That is why "Historical Revisionism" (when done in the pursuit of Truth) is so very important.

> western media has tried to depict Iran as their political foe.

They are foes. Not the people, but the political regimes. Iran is pretty clear about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America

100%. As I said in another thread, it took many centuries for the majority of the Persians to convert to Islam. Most of the population were not even Muslim during the "Islamic Golden Age."

A good parallel is the Mughal Empire in India. The rulers where Muslim but the population was not.

> The religion had nothing to do with it.

I would disagree with it.

Imagine if, Islam was opposing to the idea of science, as the largest religion of that area (which not only included Iran, but many others), what would happen? Science would have been abolished, stopped immediately. Instead, Islam encouraged people to learn more science, even greek philosophers work was translated by hiring Christian people.

On the other hand, economic and political prosperity after conquering many places helped people to calm down and focus on science, helping other people, coming up with solutions for different issues.

I think Islam had direct impact to the science of that era.

> Imagine if, Islam was opposing to the idea of science

Are you suggesting the biggest contribution was not getting in the way? I wouldn't call it a contribution.

> economic and political prosperity after conquering many places

That happened despite the invasion, not because of it. Iran was well prosperous before that and the fall of Persian empires eventually cleared the way for a destructive Mongol invasion which Iranians had held back for a long time before.

An invasion in the 7th century paved the way for the Mongol invasions over 500 years later? That’s incredible reasoning.

> Science would have been abolished, stopped immediately

Most invaders in history did not violently impose their own philosphies and idealogies on day 1. Generally you let the conquered people keep their philosophy and religions to a big extent until the population has adopted it naturally through softer means, Islam specifically has a few verses around tolerance for "people of the book". Islam for example puts higher taxes on the non-muslims and people will then naturally gravitate towards Islam. Once the population has islamized to a higher percentage the islamic ideology will be implemented more deeply.

The tax on non-Muslims was not always higher, sometimes it was lower as well.

> Imagine if, Islam was opposing to the idea of science, as the largest religion of that area (which not only included Iran, but many others), what would happen?

We don't have to imagine. A shunning of empiricism and natural philosophy is one of the reasons the Islamic Golden Age came to an end. Islam as a religion was never a monolith, and like in Christianity some movements embrace science more than others, and their rise and fall in prominence is reflected in the society.

Is it actually causational though? Or did the golden age come to an end, and the academics were ousted from power as a result?

Traditionally the age is considered to have come to an end with the Mongol Siege of Baghdad, wherein the invaders sacked the city. Baghdad was the center of learning, and the fact that scholars from all around the empire (including non-Arab, and even non-Muslim) were able to travel to and, more importantly, find institutional support in Baghdad was one of the main drivers behind the age.

But institutional support had already begun to wane as a consequence of a theological shift in Arabic Islam from Mu'tazilism to Ash'arism. Ash'arism is often described as pro-rationalism, but compared to Mu'tazilism it was a significant regression, especially in terms of the motivation for official, institutional support for the study of natural philosophy. Despite the sacking, Baghdad recovered relatively quickly, but institutional support for natural philosophy never did recover.

Work in mathematics, medicine, and natural philosophy in the Islamic world didn't end. But it found much less support, and often came from the periphery, further away from the now more theologically conservative Arab world, and fragmented. Proximity is everything, especially before the age of telecommunications. There were no fewer geniuses in the Islamic world, but now they were cut off from each other. It's much like the Dark Ages in Europe--there was no shortage of smart people doing smart things, but they lost networking benefits and enjoyed less patronage.

True. During the Golden Age, most Persian scholars and scientists had to write their books in Arabic to preserve them in libraries. Most Persians had to choose Arabic names. That's why when people see a Persian mathematician like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi, they might think he was Arab.

Fun fact: The word "Algorithm" comes from this guy's name!

He wasn’t Persian. This is a daylight robbery from the people of Central Asia. Look at his last name. Khwarazm is in Central Asia and it has no ethnic Persians(ethnic Tajiks don’t count).

The Wikipedia page literally says he was Persian. Khwarazm was part of Persia at the time.

It's going off on a tangent, but Isaac Newton was quite intertwined with Christian religion:

> In 1667, Newton became a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,[11] making necessary his commitment to taking Holy Orders within seven years of completing his MA, which he did the following year. He was also required to take a vow of celibacy and recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto...

Well, think of it as a term of art and less a description of the ground truth. We can bike shed whether it's the best description, but it's what we have.

Indeed, there are plenty of examples of similarly reductionist terms used throughout history.

For example, until recently the western world marks the era of history in which we live as existing within the reign of our Lord, Jesus Christ [0]. We have now invented a backronym to work around this unpleasant detail, but we couldn't even get so far as to switch out the letters (so as to avoid upsetting people who we know are going to keep thinking in terms of "anno domini" regardless).

There's also the related "Christendom" [1] term which was in broad usage.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom

I find it strange when people deny basic well known history regarding this. In fact, post Islam, Persia was at the forefront in what is known as the "Islamic Golden Age".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Iran

Books by the Oxford Historian Peter Frankopan are a great read if you want to learn more about this.

Iran isn’t Persian only and that distinction needs to be always made. Persian as a language has been used by various people to do science and literature in, and same goes for Arabic, but they were majority neither Arabs nor Persian by ethnicity.

Religions only tolerate progress when it does not interfere with their power. That why religions are cool with math.

Now if you go to physics and biology, oh well depending on the age you were born there is some risk of losing your head.

this is a quite Eurocentric take. In the Islamic world, the distinction was not initially science vs religion but the encroachment of philosophical rationalism on religious interpretation which was famously articulated by the Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali in his refutation of the Falasifa (called philosophers of that time but they differ from modern philosophers we mean today).

The reason it is called the Islamic golden age is because of the Islamic empire that connected the innovations of the east to the west. Muslims themselves didn't directly have any contributions other than their philosophy and attitude unleashed from a reformed Arabian expansionism. The places they touched and the bridges they made changed everyone and all of history.

The Renaissance of Europe is directly a result of the Islamic golden age. The vikings who conquered Italy sought to learn both Sicilian Arabic, and Italian causing a bridge between Europe and the middle east of North Africa.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35698118

I think Persians of that era would not make a distinction between religious and governmental rule.

Could you please elaborate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com