It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD.
It’s easy to forget because it’s a fabricated perspective. Islamic/Arabian conquest of MENA isn’t really that different from what Romans or Persians did. That region is literally the source of human civilization (in the Old World at least) and had seen empires come and go ever since the Bronze Age, and along with them all sorts of cultures and religions. What fundamentally changed the dynamics of the region is not the islamic conquest but the shift of the center of the global trade away from Middle East and the Mediterranean to the Western Europe.
It was not taken by the Romans. It was persecuted by the Romans for nearly 300 years.
christianity offered a unifying thematic message and de facto polity under which constantine believed he could more effectively maintain power and peace. this system was ripe for corruption but now the people are generally kept in line by the conflation of church and state.
islam arises primarily as a repudiation of polytheism and what is perceived as loose monotheism and nonviolently sweeps through the area quickly.
regional leaders quickly learn the same lesson that constantine learned and use islam to prevent rebellion and exert control, with the added lesson learned that it’s best to just ensure everyone follows the same code from the start so that you don’t have to do a lot of political cleanup in the transition to a new belief system.
fractured “european” leaders realize how much power they’ve lost and decide that they should unify under the christian brand to go take back their power.
and the cycle goes on and on
I doubt that “repudiation” of said things was the main driver.
I’m pretty sure by 600ad Rome was pretty solidly Christian (or at elite levels, perhaps secular), what other gods did exist were folk/syncretistic practices, which also existed in Islam (sufis, Zoroastrian stuff, gnostic stuff etc) and which still existed today in Christianity (in the Philippines, the Caribbean, Africa, etc)
1. There are indeed many things to admire about the west. However, for all the cultural and scientific advancement made by the west, westerners choose to ignore that the backbone of the current western "empire" was also built on the knowledge and wealth you looted from other non-western empires. The reason that you are now the most "developed" nation is because you now follow the same political pattern as all the "superpower" empires of their time - you hoard the wealth and knowledge now, and deny it to others. (Please read about the The fate of the Library of Alexandria - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Library-of-Alexandria/The-f... to understand, for one, how much knowledge was created, collated and valued in the eastern cultures - even by the "barbarian" muslim empires.)
(I know there have been books written in the west trying to justify that slavery and imperialism isn't why the west are wealthy. I partially agree with some points in them but disagree that the wealth that you stole was inconsequential. If the west truly believes that the wealth stolen from us wasn't what made your economies rich, but only your own culture and ingenuity, why don't you repatriate that amount that was diverted to your economy and actually test that theory? Mughal India, for example was one of the richest economies that accounted for 24% of the world GDP - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5724162 - before the British conquered and transferred most of that wealth to enrich itself).
2. Many of you pretend (or rather seek comfort in the idea) that State violence of ancient non-western empires is something cultural to only non-western cultures. That western / Christian nations are more "peaceful" by nature. A study of the history of crusades, and western imperialism, should immediately dismiss that notion. (Shamefully, even today, many western nations sponsor and support the ethnic cleansing and genocide of native populations by your allies in Africa and the middle-east).
3. Some of you resort to selectively applying modern cultural perceptions to criticise historical societies. That is not how history is studied - one strives to understand history based on the cultural contexts of their period.
E.g. Prophet Muhammad didn't marry a 9 or 10 year old Ayesha because he liked to diddle young girls. During his time, puberty was treated as someone entering adulthood. While marriages may be arranged between pre-pubescent kids, it was only after they had reach puberty that they were allowed to consummate the marriage. Marriage to Ayesha was also political - Muhammad was actually forced to marry someone from every tribal leader's family as that was the diplomatic equivalent of establishing a political alliance during his time! (That is why he is an exception to the rule that a muslim can only have up to 4 wives). Note that even before Muhammad, Mary, mother of Christ, was considered eligible to be married to Joseph (an old man, past his middle-age) when she turned 12. She was still a teenager when she became pregnant ( https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12317/is-th... ) - is Christ's father / God a paedophile too? By today's modern standard, you would say yes, that's ephebophilia.
The nomenclature of "Child marriage" or even "teen marriage" is a modern cultural phenomenon because of the advancement we have made in understanding our own biology (i.e. reproductive systems) and our changing moral and cultural norms on the ideas of sexuality. Despite this, note that most of the world still can't agree on a universal age of consent or marriage. For example, Japan only recently raised the minimum age of consent for sex from 13 to 16 ( https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/83755/why-was-t..., while in some parts of the US, an adult can still marry a teenager with the consent of their parents ( https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/ )! My own grandparents were only 13 and 9 when they were married in the 1920's, a really common practice in India until the late 20th century, till it was made illegal and is nearly abolished now.
4. Some of you resort to judging other cultures by the worst members of their community. How would the west like it if only the Nazis were considered as their true representatives, and were solely judged based on their ideology?
it naturally looked differently due to different climate. For example there was booming agriculture in Carthage back then - modern Tunisia. The climate warming during the first millennia made Mediterranean Basin less grain-production and animal farming suitable while more suitable for the nomadic Arabs riding out of Arabia. That warming also made life more convenient (in particular conditions became much better for agriculture, the backbone of the civilization) in the previously cold and swampy Mid and North Europe where as a result we see the wave of rise of the civilization.
Coincidentally, we have Caliphates decline and Reconquista happening when the climate started to cool down toward the Little Ice Age. The map of Reconquista looks like a geographical climate regions map https://stuffedeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/what-was-... (compare to https://www.spanish-town-guides.com/photo/spain_climate_map....)
It's such a shame that the various cultural holdouts in the Middle East never get much attention when they're systematically wiped off the map.
The Mandaeans in the marshes near Basra will probably be next to disappear into the sands of time. Not even a whisper in the media.
Oil sure has a way of drowning out 'human rights' in conversation.
I always like to think how the region would've looked if all these remnants of peoples had thriving nations.
eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06...
There's a long list of questionable behaviour, eg. enslavement for Jesus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Jesuit_slave_sale
Meanwhile, in history, religions enslaved people.
Returning to the point you keep dodging, that includes Christians.
I have no idea what that sentence is specifically meant to mean, that aside, western countries have had actual slavery and effective slavery both in the past and the present.
eg: Past & actual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Jesuit_slave_sale
'Present' (Post WWII) & effective: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-27/child-abuse-royal-com...
I don't mean to exclusively beat on Christians or just Catholics here; but I do intend to counter your apparent narrative of good Christians and evil Muslims.
Christians certainly diminished a lot of cultures, just as other religions also did - the initial point that started this above.
There has never been as many slaves in humanity as there are in the US' prisons.
What's that? Oh, they don't count because they're criminals?
This is hilariously untrue, if one is talking about the Western Roman empire. An islamic state did conquer Constantinople, which I presume is what you mean.
The Roman empire (western) basically fell apart due to infighting more than anything else.
Best religion for progress of humanity is the one that embraces work, tells people to treat each other fairly, and otherwise keeps its hands off from irrelevant details of people's lives - things like what consenting adults do in bed, what they eat or drink, what they can or can't say.
Unfortunately Christians have been historically way too focused on the bad parts while ignoring the good parts, leading to madness like wars between Catholics and Protestants and discrimination of minorities. Think of the current conservative elite in America for example - it's hard to find people who are further away from teachings of Jesus Christ than those greedy, hateful idiots.
In the current day, I just find it very worrying when you line up a map of global conflicts and where Islam is thriving.
Unlike Islam which which usually wiped out local cultural and linguistic identities (during the periods of Arab conquests, that shifted quite a but later on of course)
For the most part it's enough to conquer a place. People below the timing elite would switch religions as it would be beneficial for them, and eventually trickle down to peasants and such.
Many of the regions they invaded were still (or until quite recently) majority Christian. After all initially it was a defensive relief expedition organized by the pope and the Byzantine emperor to free the territories the empire lost in Anatolia very recently. Of course it was massively more successful than anyone anticipated and they just kept on going and then the whole thing got “slightly” out of hand..
But yes, as I said there were some huge exceptions. However early on the way Christianity spread was fundamentally different to Islam. It was usually not through violent conquest but bottom up.
European imperialism was quite mixed as well. Christianity played a huge part in the Spanish conquests of the Americas. Much less so in British India and other similar places.
Northern crusades were extremely bloody and defeated people would accept baptism or be executed.
Charlemange was more of the same deal.
Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?
Christian history is littered with these examples, it has not been a peaceful religion since it merged with Roman society. The only real good examples you could have are missionaries and top down conversion as kings and such voluntarily switched religions.
> Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?
It varied, although generally the Catholic church was fairly open at integrating or even occasionally tolerating pagan practices or providing alternative options to people used to more polytheistic religions. Like the whole saint worshipping (“venerating”) thing. Often (with some exceptions) pagans found conversion fairly easy since they could just map their gods to equivalent Christian saints continue worshipping them. Basically every converted pagan society had a multi-generationa transition period.
Then you had stuff lime praying to magical corpses or body parts, so their previous owners could perform miracles. With some exceptions it has generally been a highly flexible religion before the reformation.
Islam is much more rigid about following the rules and stuff like idol worship (as a consequence they brought back visual arts back to the stone ages..)
thats why all the signs in downtown Manhattan are in Munsee....
And when you say “historically better at integrating local cultural practices”, India, China and Australia, would like a word with you. Holy shit you should just delete your account right now
Christianity merged with local cultures, removing some aspects and adding some aspects.
We also strike the USA off the list, which cannot even take care of its peoples' most basic needs.
Switzerland. The answer you're looking for, is Switzerland. /s
So has Christianity and Capitalism.
That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?
Arabs were the highest-prestige ethnicity within their empire. But they were numerically insignificant. You have "Arabs" and "Copts" in Egypt today, but most of the "Arabs" are Copts whose ancestors decided they wanted more respect. Same thing is true farther west, where the "Arabs" are Berbers.
Even if the amount of DNA only adds up to 20% of their mix (the average), it's still very significant.
Bretons are Celts just like Gauls, whom you missed. You also missed other Celtic groups. And they (Celts) were the majority before invasions, still the majority.
Indigenous doesn't mean minority, it means the original inhabitants.
It's true that Islam is a Christian heresy but to be fair, Islam tries to be it's own State Religion only for the Arabs. So in that sense it's not the same God since they don't believe in the Trinity.
Allah is not a name that came with Islam but existed before, it just means deity. the Al prefix is the definite singular form. It just says one thing: god is a singleton and nothing is above it.
Another fun fact, the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same… it’s just that the Jewish God didn’t have a son who was also himself that killed himself only to resurrect himself negating the sacrifice
The copts themselves welcomed Islamic conquest as Muslims gave them more rights than previous rulers.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/From-the-Islamic-conq...
You are attempt to disguise your hate as history is a failure.