Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Council of Exotic Muslims...
Today at 08:48 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 08:46 PM

Apostasy Alternative
Today at 08:25 PM

Tunisia tensions boil ove...
Today at 06:35 PM

Islamophobia is Wrong Wor...
Today at 06:40 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 07:04 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
July 24, 2021, 08:55 PM

ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
July 24, 2021, 04:12 PM

Eid Al-Adha
by akay
July 23, 2021, 07:56 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
July 23, 2021, 06:20 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
July 22, 2021, 09:52 PM

Afghanistan
July 22, 2021, 07:42 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Random Islamic History Posts

 (Read 111537 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 20 21 22« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Random Islamic History Posts
     Reply #630 - June 06, 2021, 01:06 PM

    Anton Howes - Did the Ottomans Ban Print? https://antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-invention-did-the-ottomans

    Anton Howes - Why Didn't the Ottomans Print More? https://antonhowes.substack.com/p/age-of-invention-why-didnt-the-ottomans
  • Random Islamic History Posts
     Reply #631 - June 17, 2021, 08:42 AM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405331983341850626
    Quote
    Earlier I promised a thread on when most people converted to Islam.  125 years ago Thomas Arnold simply assumed that most Middle Easterners converted to Islam within 50 years of Muhammad's death. Most non-scholars still think Muhammad came, then boom, everyone's Muslim!

    Fifty years later, Daniel Dennett (not the philosopher, his father) published a study which (inter alia) pointed out the lack of evidence for conversion in the Umayyad period, leading him to conclude that most people converted to Islam around 750, the Abbasid revolution.

    In 1979, Richard Bulliet published Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, which pushed the timeline back even farther.  He suggested that Iran became 90% or so Muslim by around 890 CE, but Iraq & Syria took about a century longer.

    When I criticize Bulliet's argument, it is important to keep in mind that he sharpened the regional focus that Dennett had introduced, and that he was pushing later the timeline that scholars presumed before. On these points, my complaint is that he didn't go far enough!

    There is a difference between historical arguments based on interpreting evidence and the numerical arguments advanced by Bulliet: when interpretive arguments fail, they are usually approximately correct, but when the wrong math is used, the true answer can be unrelated!

    Outside of Iran, Bulliet's conversion curves were based on essentially two points: an assumed 3% of the population converted by 64 AH, and the calculated peak of "Muslim names" the moveable parameter establishing when he assumes 84% of the population had converted.

    But as I pointed out elsewhere, at least 3 of the uniquely "Muslim names" were not uniquely Muslim
    ( https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405214849760739331 )

    Furthermore, outside of Iran he is using essentially one primary source: al-Dhahabi's Kitab al-I`bar, and its abbreviation by Ibn al-`Imad.

    If we take out the mistaken use of "Muslim names," his method would imply that, by the time these biographical dictionaries were authored, the population of each region was not only 100% Muslim, but also 100% ulama. That didn't happen by 1348, nor even 1679!

    Imagine trying to do US demography from the ancestors of Christian seminary professors.

    The odd thing is that despite these errors, and 42 years later, the book continues to be cited, as the last systematic attempt to grapple with when the population converted to Islam.

    The problem is the book's math is wrong, so it tells us nothing. We simply don't know when most of the Middle East had converted to Islam (or other factors like immigration, different birth-rates).

    I took a different tack, using geographies rather than biographies.

    I learned that Islamization happened very locally, not at the scale of large regions, but individual villages or neighborhoods.

    There was no large-scale "tipping-point," because 51% doesn't matter outside of a democracy. We probably couldn't distinguish 45% from 55%.

    But in Syria there were still very few rural/village mosques around 1000 CE. In an agrarian society, the bulk of the population is rural. If the bulk of the population of Syria in 1000 CE had no mosques, it seems hard to believe the majority were Muslim, let alone 90%.

    Iraq is less clear, but there I found evidence that the ecclesiastical hierarchy and monastic system was not significantly reduced by 1000 CE, which I would expect to see if 90% of the Christian population had converted to Islam and stopped their donations.

    Egypt was long assumed to have become majority Muslim after the failure of the last Coptic revolt in the 830s, based on a remark by al-Maqrizi (d. 1412). But in 1973 Friedmann pointed out that this misreads al-Maqrizi's Arabic. It refers not to conversion, but victory!

    So we must take seriously the possibility that Muslims were a demographic minority even after 1000 CE, even in areas that remained under Muslim rule. This different context may reshape our understanding of how religion functioned in society (to be continued...)


    Also this thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405239176086306819
    Quote
    When did the Middle East become Muslim?

  • Random Islamic History Posts
     Reply #632 - June 17, 2021, 12:04 PM

    Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405331983341850626
    Also this thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405239176086306819

    Quote
    Earlier I promised a thread on when most people converted to Islam.  125 years ago Thomas Arnold simply assumed that most Middle Easterners converted to Islam within 50 years of Muhammad's death. Most non-scholars still think Muhammad came, then boom, everyone's Muslim!

    Fifty years later, Daniel Dennett (not the philosopher, his father) published a study which (inter alia) pointed out the lack of evidence for conversion in the Umayyad period, leading him to conclude that most people converted to Islam around 750, the Abbasid revolution.

    In 1979, Richard Bulliet published Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, which pushed the timeline back even farther.  He suggested that Iran became 90% or so Muslim by around 890 CE, but Iraq & Syria took about a century longer.

    When I criticize Bulliet's argument, it is important to keep in mind that he sharpened the regional focus that Dennett had introduced, and that he was pushing later the timeline that scholars presumed before. On these points, my complaint is that he didn't go far enough!

    There is a difference between historical arguments based on interpreting evidence and the numerical arguments advanced by Bulliet: when interpretive arguments fail, they are usually approximately correct, but when the wrong math is used, the true answer can be unrelated!

    Outside of Iran, Bulliet's conversion curves were based on essentially two points: an assumed 3% of the population converted by 64 AH, and the calculated peak of "Muslim names" the moveable parameter establishing when he assumes 84% of the population had converted.

    But as I pointed out elsewhere, at least 3 of the uniquely "Muslim names" were not uniquely Muslim
    ( https://mobile.twitter.com/Tweetistorian/status/1405214849760739331 )

    Furthermore, outside of Iran he is using essentially one primary source: al-Dhahabi's Kitab al-I`bar, and its abbreviation by Ibn al-`Imad.

    If we take out the mistaken use of "Muslim names," his method would imply that, by the time these biographical dictionaries were authored, the population of each region was not only 100% Muslim, but also 100% ulama. That didn't happen by 1348, nor even 1679!

    Imagine trying to do US demography from the ancestors of Christian seminary professors.

    The odd thing is that despite these errors, and 42 years later, the book continues to be cited, as the last systematic attempt to grapple with when the population converted to Islam.

    The problem is the book's math is wrong, so it tells us nothing. We simply don't know when most of the Middle East had converted to Islam (or other factors like immigration, different birth-rates).

    I took a different tack, using geographies rather than biographies.

    I learned that Islamization happened very locally, not at the scale of large regions, but individual villages or neighborhoods.

    There was no large-scale "tipping-point," because 51% doesn't matter outside of a democracy. We probably couldn't distinguish 45% from 55%.

    But in Syria there were still very few rural/village mosques around 1000 CE. In an agrarian society, the bulk of the population is rural. If the bulk of the population of Syria in 1000 CE had no mosques, it seems hard to believe the majority were Muslim, let alone 90%.

    Iraq is less clear, but there I found evidence that the ecclesiastical hierarchy and monastic system was not significantly reduced by 1000 CE, which I would expect to see if 90% of the Christian population had converted to Islam and stopped their donations.

    Egypt was long assumed to have become majority Muslim after the failure of the last Coptic revolt in the 830s, based on a remark by al-Maqrizi (d. 1412). But in 1973 Friedmann pointed out that this misreads al-Maqrizi's Arabic. It refers not to conversion, but victory!

    So we must take seriously the possibility that Muslims were a demographic minority even after 1000 CE, even in areas that remained under Muslim rule. This different context may reshape our understanding of how religion functioned in society (to be continued...)


    that subject is a very neglected area dear zeca ., unfortunately Daniel Dennett  Junior did not become as famous as his son.. The man who explores complex subjects such as  VOoodoooo  or CONCIOUSNESS   or Darwin THE KILLER who made human being nothing more than  evolved  animals..

    I wonder any one of the readers of this forum read this book of Daniel Dennett  Junior??





    well that is that book review by Prof. Norman Anderson

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Random Islamic History Posts
     Reply #633 - July 22, 2021, 11:19 PM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FDtc9vC2lE
    Quote
    In this roundtable Ahmad Al-Jallad and Mehdy Shaddel host Dr Antonia Bosanquet (Universität Hamburg), Dr Anna Chrysostomides (Queen Mary University of London), Prof. Lev Weitz (Catholic University of America), and Prof. Philip Wood (Aga University, London) to talk about Philip's newly published book, The Imam of the Christians: The World of Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, c. 750-850 (Princeton University Press, 2021).

  • Random Islamic History Posts
     Reply #634 - July 23, 2021, 06:20 PM

    Well this is an interesting publication on Islam and its Calipha political system
    The Caliphate in the Era of Nation-States

    Quote
    The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seems to dominate the news of late for committing atrocities in areas  under its control. A splinter group of Al Qaeda, ISIS has now gained a reputation which can rival other terror groups. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared that his group has established a caliphate which spans roughly a  third of the territory of both Iraq and Syria.

    But what exactly is a caliphate?

    How does ISIS envision the caliphate it aspires for?

    Caliph comes from the Arabic word khalīfah, which means vicegerent, deputy, or successor. The caliphate  (khilāfah) was formed after the Prophet Muhammad’s death when Abu Bakr was elected as his successor. Abū  Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī are known as the Rāshidūn Caliphas  The practices  of the Rāshidūn era provided precedents for later theories of the caliphate.

    1 The abolition of the caliphate in 1924 precipitated a debate in the Muslim world as they sought to create  institutions by which to organize and govern themselves. Until now the debate continues, with ISIS bringing it to  the fore. ISIS is romanticizing the notion of the caliphate to legitimize its actions by proclaiming its desire to create  a state reminiscent of the time of the four rightly guided caliphs as I have problem with existance of Prophet of Islam "Muhammad"

    2 It raises the question of whether the caliphate as  a system of governance remains relevant in this day and age.

    Should we equate the concept of caliphate with that  of an Islamic state?

     so that publication comes from Virgemarie A. Salazar and published in 2014.,  from National Chengchi University ., Taiwan

    that is  indeed interesting  publications ., Forget ISIS or Taliban or TAILBONES  .. or whatever  But I have more Question and problems with  those four Rāshidūn Caliphs.,

    What I am interested is any publication on these guys who were they? and where did they come from??   

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Previous page 1 ... 20 21 22« Previous thread | Next thread »