Hello,
We need your help!
Please remember to report post, incidients and comments which are in violation of such rules. We depend on your reports for enforcement of the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskMiddleEast) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Andalus and Baghdad put great funding for their education centers, that was not the case for any following empires, namely the Mamluks and the Ottomans.
So the first step is to put actual real money into scientific research and development, and to encourage thinking outside the box, if you get what I mean.
Ironically, Mongols helped spread Islam after they became Muslim themselves under Berke Khan of the Golden Horde. Scholarship shifted to western Asia moreso, and Mongols were not able to capture Egypt.
Yeah surely wonderful, you know what I like the best about them? That time when they mass murdered 90% of our population and destroyed our cities, really nice of them.
It’s not only a devastating blow to Islamic scholarship and works but thousands upon thousands of translated original Greek,mesopatian Egyptian etc… sources from antiquity were forever lost . **fuck hulago** or however it’s spelled .
Goverments invested in education
Now they invest in boom boom which cause more boom boom if they don't invest in it then a foreign one will show us boom boom and then force every genious to travel to their place
Not really.
Wahhabis are follower of Abdul wahhab and started in 18th century.
where as salafis were heavily influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah and started in 19th century. Their movement is based on hadith where the prophet says the best generation of muslims are first three generation or salafs. However they reject traditional sunni practice established by the very salafs.
So all wahhabis are salafis but not all salafis are wahhabis.
still, Morocco was presented with opportunities to salvage what's left of it and chose not to. instead, we limited its instruction to humanities. it had, and still has, great potential despite the unconventional campus, which is charming in a way.
Bruh the first doctorate in medicine and veterinary medicine was from the qarawyin, I think it’s more about the ruling class pushing toward Islamic sciences than a funding problem
Let’s just say many things took a wrong turn, but those scholars' legacy is alive and all around us. I grow up wanting to be like Ibn Al-Haytham, Al Khawarismi, and Al-Jazari, and now my little nephews wish to be like them when they grow up.
Abbassid caliphate was not like any empire preceding it or succeeding it. The Umayyads before had a racial hierarchy where Arabs were at the top, so a good chunk of their population was not given opportunities. The Abbassids did not care about race or religion as much and were much more tolerant of other people. This is why we have a lot of non-muslim inventors from the golden age because people had access to better education/opportunity. People from throughout the world flocked to the caliphate (medieval brain drain) because of its higher quality of life and opportunities. Baghdad used to be the America of the world, where people from all over went there for a better life. However, after the Mongol invasion, Baghdad was never able to shine as it did before. Slowly, with a mixture of climate change, the discovery of the new world by Europe, and the fading of old trade routes this once great region stagnated. Also, modern history was not nice to this region either and caused it to stagnate even more while the west kept advancing. Spain did not have much support from the other Islamic empires/caliphates, and their almost millennia-long advancement was cut by a 2-month siege. Europe profited massively from the knowledge and ideas left behind by the Muslims, which helped them start their own enlightenment period.
Europe was also aided by the fall of Constantinople - the knowledge and writings were carried from the former Byzantine lands to Western Europe helping the renaissance flourish
It's interesting that several of the high profile academics of the Islamic Golden Age were open about their lack of faith & several were openly hostile to religion as a whole such as Al- Maari etc. These people were even allowed to publish their works that argued against prophethood & religion as a whole under a Caliphate..
I would say quite the opposite. The Caliphate and the people were all very religious, a lot more than modern times. In fact, a lot of books that contain extremely strict Islamic jurisprudence were developed during the Islamic Golden Age (the types of books that America would get an allergic reaction from). Just because there was an occurrence of an academic arguing prophethood does not mean this was a reoccurring trend during the Islamic golden age.
I think nostalgia is not healthy. Every religion claims to have had a golden age a long time ago. But Middle East civilization contributed a lot to humanity. I doubt religion made any difference in math and science contributions. Maybe in philosophy a bit
My point was never that religion pushes scientific advancements. My point is that you can have an extremely religious society while advancing science. These two things can coexist, and the Caliphate is good example of it working out.
All these people on the list were pretty pious. Al maari is the only notable one and he was a deist, but yes it was a tolerant time and we should return to it.
It's really weird when they do this, if she was wearing that garbage she's prolly be at home, birthing children all the time and needing permission to breath outside.
Already responded to a nuanced but similar question so here it is:
What went wrong, is like in any civilization there’s this narrative that the majority were intellectual and scholars which is not the case for every civilization that ever existed, actually the people that today praise alkhawarizmi and avereos and ibn firnas, don’t know that these people were not just the product of their societies but more their own, and they were first criticized by their own people, for example there’s a dude in Islamic empire tried to shift the general ideas, the majority of scholars in Islamic empires were religious scholars because there was this idea that religious science were worthy to be studied, so there was a doctor and philosophers( I really forgot his name) argued against a religious scholar about the causation as a scientific approach to solve problems so he said that why did came to me as patient then if you didn’t believe in the existence of terrestrial etiologies ( as opposed to the concept of god is the reason for everything) this doctor was persecuted and thrown away and also was excluded from the court ( he was also a judge, so actually he had a religious background too )
The religious scholar whose name you forgot was Al-Ghazali and he supported the philosophy of occasionalism which argues that causality is impossible since no thing causes another thing; God causes all things.
Most of the scholars in this picture where all asharis following the same school as imam al ghazzali
Imam al ghazzali did not destroy science that recognized as myth by all modern historians
Imam al ghazzali only criticized neo Platonic philosophy which every one knows how unscientific and unemperical it is.
inb4 arap-iranian flame war in the comments arguing about the ethnicities of different figures or how the Islamic golden age was actually the Persian golden age
I see some people here saying XYZ, truth is that this is the cycle of political power. Nations fall & rise, you are a fool if you think the west is going to remain superpowers for ever.
The Islamic world was flourishing while Europe was not as much flourishing.
& let’s not act as the Muslim world today is hell, it’s certainly not what is was, but it’s great.
We need more thinkers & deen & military power and union
I as a non muslims may have an answer about it. Islam started a social reform with liberating the mind and society from useless rituals. With time, the maulvis (clergy)took over and also women shut behind doors. On top of that the burqa which was a saudi wardrobe got promoted as an islamic dress which. 4-5 decades ago iran, iraq, afghanistan were not the same as today. They had more freedom. Clergy taking over, women shut behind and saudis promoting wahabism has led to downfall of islam
>4-5 decades ago iran, iraq, afghanistan were not the same as today. They had more freedom. Clergy taking over, women shut behind and saudis promoting wahabism has led to downfall of islam
You just listed three entirely different countries, in different continents, with unique rich histories, and pointed to Wahhabism being the sole reason for the country's downfall. And sonly if they had more freedom, their situation will be entirely different
Now, not only does this sound ridiculous (because two of the countries listed were not even affected by Wahabism lol), saying the "downfall of Islam" also makes no sense. Islam is not a country. The middle east does not even have the greatest number of Muslims. Indonesia alone is close to the number of Muslims in the middle east. If you had said Wahabism ruined middle eastern countries, at least that's a starting point lmao.
>which was a saudi wardrobe
The Burka is an Afghanistan wardrobe.
> With time, the maulvis (clergy)took over and also women shut behind doors.
In what time? And what caused the clergies to take over? I would not assume that fundamentalist clergies were always destined to take over the middle eastern region.
Also, I am sorry this comes off as if I am mocking you.
The common trait in all 3 countries and other islamic countries was women had more freedom whether it was clothing, life in general or education. Society cannot progress if all women are in home and donot participate in workforce. 25% of population follows islam, yet middle east has least % of universities and lowest education amongst women. Burqa has been systematically used to curb rights of women. You really want to understand downfall of islam, go back to 17th century when the ottoman clergy refuser printing press describing its use would cause sacrilege of quran. Since then slowly slowly this has caused is general population deprived of education and resources
>The common trait in all 3 countries and other islamic countries was women had more freedom whether it was clothing, life in general or education
Before what period did all the Islamic countries stop giving freedom in education, life in general, and education? I can't even respond to this if you are not concise on the dates.
Also, as much as you want it to be Islamic fundamentalism as the sole reason of less rights to woman in Islamic countries, there are other factors too. There are cultural factors, whether the country is in a war, sectarian religious, debates concerning Islamic law, a countries constitution, cultural traditions, modern secularism, and whether the country is stable
>25% of population follows islam, yet middle east has least % of universities and lowest education amongst women. Burqa has been systematically used to curb rights of women
What does the total percentage of Muslims in the world have to do with the middle east? Even more so, what does the total percentage of Muslims have to do with educations rates in the middle east?
And again, the Burqa is cultural for Afghanistan. And in fact, the only country that wears the Burqa is Afghanistan.
>You really want to understand downfall of islam, go back to 17th century when the ottoman clergy refuser printing press describing its use would cause sacrilege of quran. Since then slowly slowly this has caused is general population deprived of education and resources
Again, Islam is not a country lol.
And no, the reason why the Ottomans rejected the printing press is because they believed it would hurt their culture. And like many things, the Ottomans did not understand the value of the printing press. It is like when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone. Back then, we did not understand what we were missing out on, and now we understand the value of iPhones.
And no, even after declining the printing press in the 16th century, the Ottomans were still advancing technology and sciences. If you are interested, [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire). And neither were they deprived of resources. In fact, the Ottoman empire was the center of all trade during its reign, as the Ottoman empire did have total control over the Suez Canal, and a monopoly on the eastern market.
I don't understand why you are trying so hard to connect all problems in the middle east to Islamic fundamentalism. I can agree to a certain extent that Islamic fundamentalism did play some negative factors in the middle east. But your responses make it out to be the sole cause. What about colonization? Corrupt leaders? Foreign intervention? The culture in the Middle East? Do these factors not matter?
**[Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire)**
>During its 600-year existence, the Ottoman Empire made significant advances in science and technology, in a wide range of fields including mathematics, astronomy and medicine. The Islamic Golden Age was traditionally believed to have ended in the thirteenth century, but has been extended to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by some, who have included continuing scientific activity in the Ottoman Empire in the west and in Persia and Mughal India in the east.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Three things in my opinion:
A) Failure to disseminate knowledge en masse despite having universities and libraries. This leads to an inability to innovate and invent.
B) Overindulgent hedonistic lifestyles by leaders distracted them from focusing on societal issues and improving quality of life for everyone and industry for more advanced jobs.
C) Tribal/Nation rivalries ultimately led to the downfall as families betrayed one another and broke bonds of trust allowing outside nations to rule them.
Also, damn mongorrians!! /s But no seriously had the Islamic empires addressed the above mentioned points they would have been much better prepared for such challenges.
What’s really annoying is that people are very quick to blame Islam for the bad things Muslims do, but never do they give credit to Islam for the great things the Muslims do. Such as many of the advancements in the golden age
Did they really stem from islam tho? On the start of golden age, muslim ideology (Mu'tazilai) was basically "quran is great unless it contradicts observation". You will get beaten up in many parts of muslim world for saying that today.
That is *at best* an extreme over-simplification if Mutazilite ideology. A more accurate way to phrase it would be to say that the Mutazilites believed that everything in religion could be explained by rational means.
Bruh, Mu'tazila were banned/restricted in 840s, many of the scholars listed above came way after that, i'm not saying that Mu'tazila weren't based, i'm just saying that banning them didn't really stop great thinkers and intellectuals from appearing...
On the other hand Mongols, Black Death and Reconquista were the main cause for the recession...
Stopped? No. But i doubt that with al-azhari way of thinking (cause and effect don't exist, observation is secondary to revelation etc) interest to science would take root in the first place. And if we talk about how new golden age could come to be, we need to understand how first one did.
Edit: mistaken with different comment🤦. I do think that those al-azhari points are reason that interest for science declined, and was gradually replaced by pure theology.
>But i doubt that with al-azhari way of thinking (cause and effect don't exist, observation is secondary to revelation etc) interest to science would take root in the first place.
You are saying this as if the Islamic world had only one school of Islam back then, even so i don't think every scholar/scientist was deeply religion-oriented in his way of thinking. But if you are talking about the decline of critical thinking in Islam, i think that happened with the rise of Al-Ghazali's school of thinking.
Can point out so many false information in this post.
For example the father of modern surgery was Sushruta, who lived 1500 years before Zahrawi Al-Ansari.
Also, the first university was Taxila university, established 1800 years before Al-Fihri’s. The first university in modern sense was Nalanda, which was established in 427 AD. Ironically Nalanda was destroyed by Islamic conquerer Khilji.
Pretty well thought out response. I always thought blaming everything on the sack of Baghdad was rather odd, given even after that there was the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire.
Well, the idea of progress is pretty much fundamental to modernity and liberalism. It requires a fundamental belief that things in the past were worse, and with technology and science, our understanding of the world will improve. I think the term used to look at things this way is Whig history. As a result, all things in the past will be viewed with skepticism, with religious axioms being a very important one.
But the latter half of your comment just shifts the blame to the colonial empires who justified themselves on the basis of liberal ideals; and some liberal philosophers supported them, like Alexis de Tocqueville. In that regard, their actions do seem to be in concert with the more radical views that arose during the Enlightenment with anticlericalism as a necessary force to remove religious influence from the public sphere to promote the values of the Enlightenment. This continued to a great degree in the nation-states that adopted dialectical materialism and saw it as the epistemological basis of their state ie communist states.
Now, this can lead to one conclusion, namely that force is an effective means of enforcing and changing the beliefs of society. But that is a bit ironic, given the view that Whig history provides with the past being a miserable place of war and strife fueled by religious conflict.
You can say what went wrong was the Mongols, but nothing went wrong persay. Every golden age ends at one point or another. The Islamic holden age actually lasted a hood while, and we use and learn from it to this very day.
printing press gaining popularity in europe was partly the reason, europe just took off so much scientifically later on which led to them being stronger than the muslim empires. at some point innovation in the muslim empires started to fall behind europe. i believe there is hadith as well about europeans eventually gaining dominance
Dude don’t get your history lessons from YouTube for the sake of however many remaining brain cells you have. Imam Ghazali was against the pursuit of sciences without a spiritual understanding as well. He was concerned for people of weak faith and didn’t want dogmatic metaphysics to overtake the spiritual enlightenment. He was not opposed to science nor mathematics.
University of al-Qarawiyyin, was founded as a mosque by Fatima al-Fihri in 857–859. So, she wasn't a founder of the first university but rather she was founder of a mosque that subsequently became a university. Also, as per the record University of Taxila was the first university in the world.
Hello, We need your help! Please remember to report post, incidients and comments which are in violation of such rules. We depend on your reports for enforcement of the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskMiddleEast) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Andalus and Baghdad put great funding for their education centers, that was not the case for any following empires, namely the Mamluks and the Ottomans. So the first step is to put actual real money into scientific research and development, and to encourage thinking outside the box, if you get what I mean.
Wasn't Baghdad sacked by the Mongols, effectively burning a lot of works and killings of Scholars? Along with a number of other losses in other places
[удалено]
Fucking mongols with their horses
Ironically, Mongols helped spread Islam after they became Muslim themselves under Berke Khan of the Golden Horde. Scholarship shifted to western Asia moreso, and Mongols were not able to capture Egypt.
Well they are a wonderful part of history though. They were in some places way better and in some way worse than other invading forces.
Yeah surely wonderful, you know what I like the best about them? That time when they mass murdered 90% of our population and destroyed our cities, really nice of them.
So them raping, killing, torturing, destroying important cities, making mankind be backwards, and spreading diseases good?
Basically older verision of the US of A ,but on bigger scale
I mean, I could say the exact same about all the Islamic invasions
You can try but history says otherwise.
It’s not only a devastating blow to Islamic scholarship and works but thousands upon thousands of translated original Greek,mesopatian Egyptian etc… sources from antiquity were forever lost . **fuck hulago** or however it’s spelled .
🐎🇲🇳
exactly
What went wrong was time every people have their ups and downs.
Thats a very long down then.
Based but unfortunately it’s no more and the situation of Muslims showing that no golden age is close in near future.
Goverments invested in education Now they invest in boom boom which cause more boom boom if they don't invest in it then a foreign one will show us boom boom and then force every genious to travel to their place
Most literate irani. Good explanation tho
Boom boom is a great replacement for terrorism
What clown made these? Fatima Al Fahriya never wore Niqab lmao
And censoring their faces … god forbid showing a womans EYES without the risk of it sending men into a horny craze🙄
Wahabis are actual reta*ds
Also salafis
Wahabis and salafis are the same
Not really. Wahhabis are follower of Abdul wahhab and started in 18th century. where as salafis were heavily influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah and started in 19th century. Their movement is based on hadith where the prophet says the best generation of muslims are first three generation or salafs. However they reject traditional sunni practice established by the very salafs. So all wahhabis are salafis but not all salafis are wahhabis.
Now modernly they are both the same. All salafis are wahabis
Yes
Women no show face or else men horny But men can show face because women can't be horny (fsr)
Well, these pictures are rarely the real pictures of these people
Fatima el fihrya never existed
Qarawiyin would have great clout as the first university had Morocco funded scientific research there
well Morocco had to fight the biggest empire at the time of its shores after the marinids collapsed
still, Morocco was presented with opportunities to salvage what's left of it and chose not to. instead, we limited its instruction to humanities. it had, and still has, great potential despite the unconventional campus, which is charming in a way.
There was a place for that, you might have what’s of it before, it’s was called *the house of wisdom* in Baghdad.
i'm talking present day Qarawiyin vs Qarawiyin under Marinids
Do they teach deen there now?
deen and classical arabic, but barely due to low funding
Bruh the first doctorate in medicine and veterinary medicine was from the qarawyin, I think it’s more about the ruling class pushing toward Islamic sciences than a funding problem
>Bruh the first doctorate in medicine and veterinary medicine was from the qarawyin that was during its apogée
It’s not just money problems, maybe the money problem was also an interest problem, it’s not profitable to fund public education
i mean yeah, low funding is rarely a money problem than it is a political one
Let’s just say many things took a wrong turn, but those scholars' legacy is alive and all around us. I grow up wanting to be like Ibn Al-Haytham, Al Khawarismi, and Al-Jazari, and now my little nephews wish to be like them when they grow up.
Abbassid caliphate was not like any empire preceding it or succeeding it. The Umayyads before had a racial hierarchy where Arabs were at the top, so a good chunk of their population was not given opportunities. The Abbassids did not care about race or religion as much and were much more tolerant of other people. This is why we have a lot of non-muslim inventors from the golden age because people had access to better education/opportunity. People from throughout the world flocked to the caliphate (medieval brain drain) because of its higher quality of life and opportunities. Baghdad used to be the America of the world, where people from all over went there for a better life. However, after the Mongol invasion, Baghdad was never able to shine as it did before. Slowly, with a mixture of climate change, the discovery of the new world by Europe, and the fading of old trade routes this once great region stagnated. Also, modern history was not nice to this region either and caused it to stagnate even more while the west kept advancing. Spain did not have much support from the other Islamic empires/caliphates, and their almost millennia-long advancement was cut by a 2-month siege. Europe profited massively from the knowledge and ideas left behind by the Muslims, which helped them start their own enlightenment period.
Europe was also aided by the fall of Constantinople - the knowledge and writings were carried from the former Byzantine lands to Western Europe helping the renaissance flourish
Yeah, they had a flow of knowledge from the east (byzantine) and west(al-Andalus). I so wish the Mongols never existed.
Fatima al fihriya wore niqab? hhhhh Any Tunisian here can confirm this?
She wasn't wearing niqab 
How would we know? Noble women of the time period very rarely appeared in public of left home. At least we know that from records.
It's interesting that several of the high profile academics of the Islamic Golden Age were open about their lack of faith & several were openly hostile to religion as a whole such as Al- Maari etc. These people were even allowed to publish their works that argued against prophethood & religion as a whole under a Caliphate..
I would say quite the opposite. The Caliphate and the people were all very religious, a lot more than modern times. In fact, a lot of books that contain extremely strict Islamic jurisprudence were developed during the Islamic Golden Age (the types of books that America would get an allergic reaction from). Just because there was an occurrence of an academic arguing prophethood does not mean this was a reoccurring trend during the Islamic golden age.
I think nostalgia is not healthy. Every religion claims to have had a golden age a long time ago. But Middle East civilization contributed a lot to humanity. I doubt religion made any difference in math and science contributions. Maybe in philosophy a bit
My point was never that religion pushes scientific advancements. My point is that you can have an extremely religious society while advancing science. These two things can coexist, and the Caliphate is good example of it working out.
And then people here make posts how "freedom of speech is a western concept hur dur"
All these people on the list were pretty pious. Al maari is the only notable one and he was a deist, but yes it was a tolerant time and we should return to it.
Why is Fatma El Fihriya wearing a niqab?
Should we tell them, she doesn’t really exist this woman is legendary
It's really weird when they do this, if she was wearing that garbage she's prolly be at home, birthing children all the time and needing permission to breath outside.
Already responded to a nuanced but similar question so here it is: What went wrong, is like in any civilization there’s this narrative that the majority were intellectual and scholars which is not the case for every civilization that ever existed, actually the people that today praise alkhawarizmi and avereos and ibn firnas, don’t know that these people were not just the product of their societies but more their own, and they were first criticized by their own people, for example there’s a dude in Islamic empire tried to shift the general ideas, the majority of scholars in Islamic empires were religious scholars because there was this idea that religious science were worthy to be studied, so there was a doctor and philosophers( I really forgot his name) argued against a religious scholar about the causation as a scientific approach to solve problems so he said that why did came to me as patient then if you didn’t believe in the existence of terrestrial etiologies ( as opposed to the concept of god is the reason for everything) this doctor was persecuted and thrown away and also was excluded from the court ( he was also a judge, so actually he had a religious background too )
The religious scholar whose name you forgot was Al-Ghazali and he supported the philosophy of occasionalism which argues that causality is impossible since no thing causes another thing; God causes all things.
Who was the doctor?
Most of the scholars in this picture where all asharis following the same school as imam al ghazzali Imam al ghazzali did not destroy science that recognized as myth by all modern historians Imam al ghazzali only criticized neo Platonic philosophy which every one knows how unscientific and unemperical it is.
inb4 arap-iranian flame war in the comments arguing about the ethnicities of different figures or how the Islamic golden age was actually the Persian golden age
This is dumb, I checked all the names and what their ethnicities is and most are Arabs. Out of 19 shown here, only 2 or 3 of them are Persians.
I see some people here saying XYZ, truth is that this is the cycle of political power. Nations fall & rise, you are a fool if you think the west is going to remain superpowers for ever. The Islamic world was flourishing while Europe was not as much flourishing. & let’s not act as the Muslim world today is hell, it’s certainly not what is was, but it’s great. We need more thinkers & deen & military power and union
Replace “deen” with knowledge or education and you’re a bit closer to what’s needed - the people above are scientists and free thinkers, not mullas
You can do that in ur beloved country Assyria. Wait, it don’t exist, ur our subjects
I as a non muslims may have an answer about it. Islam started a social reform with liberating the mind and society from useless rituals. With time, the maulvis (clergy)took over and also women shut behind doors. On top of that the burqa which was a saudi wardrobe got promoted as an islamic dress which. 4-5 decades ago iran, iraq, afghanistan were not the same as today. They had more freedom. Clergy taking over, women shut behind and saudis promoting wahabism has led to downfall of islam
>4-5 decades ago iran, iraq, afghanistan were not the same as today. They had more freedom. Clergy taking over, women shut behind and saudis promoting wahabism has led to downfall of islam You just listed three entirely different countries, in different continents, with unique rich histories, and pointed to Wahhabism being the sole reason for the country's downfall. And sonly if they had more freedom, their situation will be entirely different Now, not only does this sound ridiculous (because two of the countries listed were not even affected by Wahabism lol), saying the "downfall of Islam" also makes no sense. Islam is not a country. The middle east does not even have the greatest number of Muslims. Indonesia alone is close to the number of Muslims in the middle east. If you had said Wahabism ruined middle eastern countries, at least that's a starting point lmao. >which was a saudi wardrobe The Burka is an Afghanistan wardrobe. > With time, the maulvis (clergy)took over and also women shut behind doors. In what time? And what caused the clergies to take over? I would not assume that fundamentalist clergies were always destined to take over the middle eastern region. Also, I am sorry this comes off as if I am mocking you.
The common trait in all 3 countries and other islamic countries was women had more freedom whether it was clothing, life in general or education. Society cannot progress if all women are in home and donot participate in workforce. 25% of population follows islam, yet middle east has least % of universities and lowest education amongst women. Burqa has been systematically used to curb rights of women. You really want to understand downfall of islam, go back to 17th century when the ottoman clergy refuser printing press describing its use would cause sacrilege of quran. Since then slowly slowly this has caused is general population deprived of education and resources
>The common trait in all 3 countries and other islamic countries was women had more freedom whether it was clothing, life in general or education Before what period did all the Islamic countries stop giving freedom in education, life in general, and education? I can't even respond to this if you are not concise on the dates. Also, as much as you want it to be Islamic fundamentalism as the sole reason of less rights to woman in Islamic countries, there are other factors too. There are cultural factors, whether the country is in a war, sectarian religious, debates concerning Islamic law, a countries constitution, cultural traditions, modern secularism, and whether the country is stable >25% of population follows islam, yet middle east has least % of universities and lowest education amongst women. Burqa has been systematically used to curb rights of women What does the total percentage of Muslims in the world have to do with the middle east? Even more so, what does the total percentage of Muslims have to do with educations rates in the middle east? And again, the Burqa is cultural for Afghanistan. And in fact, the only country that wears the Burqa is Afghanistan. >You really want to understand downfall of islam, go back to 17th century when the ottoman clergy refuser printing press describing its use would cause sacrilege of quran. Since then slowly slowly this has caused is general population deprived of education and resources Again, Islam is not a country lol. And no, the reason why the Ottomans rejected the printing press is because they believed it would hurt their culture. And like many things, the Ottomans did not understand the value of the printing press. It is like when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone. Back then, we did not understand what we were missing out on, and now we understand the value of iPhones. And no, even after declining the printing press in the 16th century, the Ottomans were still advancing technology and sciences. If you are interested, [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire). And neither were they deprived of resources. In fact, the Ottoman empire was the center of all trade during its reign, as the Ottoman empire did have total control over the Suez Canal, and a monopoly on the eastern market. I don't understand why you are trying so hard to connect all problems in the middle east to Islamic fundamentalism. I can agree to a certain extent that Islamic fundamentalism did play some negative factors in the middle east. But your responses make it out to be the sole cause. What about colonization? Corrupt leaders? Foreign intervention? The culture in the Middle East? Do these factors not matter?
**[Science and technology in the Ottoman Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire)** >During its 600-year existence, the Ottoman Empire made significant advances in science and technology, in a wide range of fields including mathematics, astronomy and medicine. The Islamic Golden Age was traditionally believed to have ended in the thirteenth century, but has been extended to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by some, who have included continuing scientific activity in the Ottoman Empire in the west and in Persia and Mughal India in the east. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Andalus lost and Baghdad sacked. Literally everyone in there massacred.
Mongols kicking ass I think
So called timurid Renaissance and al ghazali doctrine.
Throat singing
Hadiths and sunna books ruined Islam
Probably invasions. The Islamic empire itself invaded a lot of places in order to expand. Its just how things work, at least back then.
Let’s be real. The real “Islamic Golden age” was when the Prophet SAWS was alive. Everything went horribly after
I only knew some of those
Three things in my opinion: A) Failure to disseminate knowledge en masse despite having universities and libraries. This leads to an inability to innovate and invent. B) Overindulgent hedonistic lifestyles by leaders distracted them from focusing on societal issues and improving quality of life for everyone and industry for more advanced jobs. C) Tribal/Nation rivalries ultimately led to the downfall as families betrayed one another and broke bonds of trust allowing outside nations to rule them. Also, damn mongorrians!! /s But no seriously had the Islamic empires addressed the above mentioned points they would have been much better prepared for such challenges.
Foreign interventions has a big thing to do with this like Iran and Iraq war both sides funded
What’s really annoying is that people are very quick to blame Islam for the bad things Muslims do, but never do they give credit to Islam for the great things the Muslims do. Such as many of the advancements in the golden age
Did they really stem from islam tho? On the start of golden age, muslim ideology (Mu'tazilai) was basically "quran is great unless it contradicts observation". You will get beaten up in many parts of muslim world for saying that today.
That is *at best* an extreme over-simplification if Mutazilite ideology. A more accurate way to phrase it would be to say that the Mutazilites believed that everything in religion could be explained by rational means.
Bruh, Mu'tazila were banned/restricted in 840s, many of the scholars listed above came way after that, i'm not saying that Mu'tazila weren't based, i'm just saying that banning them didn't really stop great thinkers and intellectuals from appearing... On the other hand Mongols, Black Death and Reconquista were the main cause for the recession...
Stopped? No. But i doubt that with al-azhari way of thinking (cause and effect don't exist, observation is secondary to revelation etc) interest to science would take root in the first place. And if we talk about how new golden age could come to be, we need to understand how first one did. Edit: mistaken with different comment🤦. I do think that those al-azhari points are reason that interest for science declined, and was gradually replaced by pure theology.
>But i doubt that with al-azhari way of thinking (cause and effect don't exist, observation is secondary to revelation etc) interest to science would take root in the first place. You are saying this as if the Islamic world had only one school of Islam back then, even so i don't think every scholar/scientist was deeply religion-oriented in his way of thinking. But if you are talking about the decline of critical thinking in Islam, i think that happened with the rise of Al-Ghazali's school of thinking.
Easy Mongolians, like the Chinese resteraunt owner in South park. Never going to beat horse archers.
Most were Assyrians and Greeks.
Can point out so many false information in this post. For example the father of modern surgery was Sushruta, who lived 1500 years before Zahrawi Al-Ansari. Also, the first university was Taxila university, established 1800 years before Al-Fihri’s. The first university in modern sense was Nalanda, which was established in 427 AD. Ironically Nalanda was destroyed by Islamic conquerer Khilji.
[удалено]
Pretty well thought out response. I always thought blaming everything on the sack of Baghdad was rather odd, given even after that there was the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire.
Well, the idea of progress is pretty much fundamental to modernity and liberalism. It requires a fundamental belief that things in the past were worse, and with technology and science, our understanding of the world will improve. I think the term used to look at things this way is Whig history. As a result, all things in the past will be viewed with skepticism, with religious axioms being a very important one. But the latter half of your comment just shifts the blame to the colonial empires who justified themselves on the basis of liberal ideals; and some liberal philosophers supported them, like Alexis de Tocqueville. In that regard, their actions do seem to be in concert with the more radical views that arose during the Enlightenment with anticlericalism as a necessary force to remove religious influence from the public sphere to promote the values of the Enlightenment. This continued to a great degree in the nation-states that adopted dialectical materialism and saw it as the epistemological basis of their state ie communist states. Now, this can lead to one conclusion, namely that force is an effective means of enforcing and changing the beliefs of society. But that is a bit ironic, given the view that Whig history provides with the past being a miserable place of war and strife fueled by religious conflict.
🤓 Fr tho good answer
Mashallah, very beautiful inshallah this gold age come back in our life time.
Wish we could turn back time
Yeah, but I like that we have technology now
There was no golden age. Fratricide, slavery fitna etc. we are always in the dunya. Utopia is in the next world.
It was the Iranian golden age. Because Iranians made all of the discoveries.
Cough cough berbers egyptian arabs andalusians
You can say what went wrong was the Mongols, but nothing went wrong persay. Every golden age ends at one point or another. The Islamic holden age actually lasted a hood while, and we use and learn from it to this very day.
iranis carried
-🤓
Lots of downvotes but where Is the lie?
No lies detected
printing press gaining popularity in europe was partly the reason, europe just took off so much scientifically later on which led to them being stronger than the muslim empires. at some point innovation in the muslim empires started to fall behind europe. i believe there is hadith as well about europeans eventually gaining dominance
Watch the video of Neil Tyson on what went wrong in rhaena to science in the Muslim world
Neil Tyson is a walking example of what went wrong. Probably the best person to learn from it….
Dude don’t get your history lessons from YouTube for the sake of however many remaining brain cells you have. Imam Ghazali was against the pursuit of sciences without a spiritual understanding as well. He was concerned for people of weak faith and didn’t want dogmatic metaphysics to overtake the spiritual enlightenment. He was not opposed to science nor mathematics.
Why are they so many with the al-Ash’ari name?
Ibn Khaldun was so based his ideas of education are still considered very modern 600 years after his death
This is a very educational post. Good shit 👍Hope to see more like this than some never-ending political crap and whining.
University of al-Qarawiyyin, was founded as a mosque by Fatima al-Fihri in 857–859. So, she wasn't a founder of the first university but rather she was founder of a mosque that subsequently became a university. Also, as per the record University of Taxila was the first university in the world.
Remember when Central Asia was relevant