Clivedurdle

A throwaway line on p 293 of J J O'Donnell The Ruin of the Roman Empire (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Can anyone explain this?

premjan

As compared to Eastern mysticism I guess.

razlyubleno

I remember from a long time ago when I was studying the history of science, the professor was at pains to tell us why the West is indebted to Islam. Muslims considered it to greatly honor Allah for them to study his creation. And apparently, during the so-called dark ages, Islamic science actually flourished, and we are not only scientifically, but also culturally, indebted to Islamic thought.

... but it's all so hazy in my memory. Sorry. Hope that helps anyway.

(I guess I should've said: the professor tried very hard to erase perceived differences between Islamic thought and Western thought. He argued that they are so very similar, if only you bother to look, and that the differences are artificial and vapourous.)

razly

Clivedurdle

The context was more that Islam was a result of the fall of the Roman Empire, that unnecessary conflicts between Rome and Persia - Persia had asked Rome for Tribute for years to share the cost of holding back the hordes who came regularly through the Carpathian gate and the equivalent long term threat from Arabia - had meant attention was turned from the real long term threats.

If Alexander had lived he would have been recognised as a Persian Emperor - Macedonia and the West are really outposts of Persia and Islam is a result over centuries of the interplay of Greek Western ideas in the orient.

Kharsus had three extra thrones in his throne room - for the Roman, Chinese and Northern Emperors. They never went to see him.

The Buddhas in Afghanistan are a possible example.

GakuseiDon

Hi Clive. That sounds interesting. A quick Google search didn't supply any information. Can you supply any further info on Kharsus and the three thrones, please? A link would be great.

Clivedurdle

Sorry I mean Khusro II, O Donnell quotes G Fowden Empire to Commonwealth Princeton 1993 - 13

Toto

Khusro, not Kharsus. see p. 243 of the book.

Slightly different take here:

GakuseiDon

Thanks Clive.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Iranian...s_488_-_628_AD

Above (and Brown) gives the classic - and wrong - picture of Justinian versus Barbarian kings that O'Donnell so coherently demolishes in favour of a much later death of the Roman Empire at the hands of Justinian that makes far more sense.

Islam can be seen as a result of the stupid decisions of a religion obsessed Roman emperor.

Why does it matter if god is of one substance or Jesus is equally god and man?

This is what I mean - the Persians were attempting to get Rome to share in a common defensive issue - but Rome misunderstood it as a tribute payment.

IamJoseph

Like European christianity, Islam was inculcated by Jews in their midst since 586 BCE [Babylonian exile], to 4 CE - when the Jews spread out to Arabia. This will be seen in Arab, then Islamic admin, in all of their health services, universities [including the use of numbers], legal institutions, cultural traditions and religion. The Jews were placed foremost in these country's pivotal structures - every king had his Jewish doctor and accountant responsible for his health and wealth. So was the case with Greece and Rome, upto the time of the Spainish empire. This is what inspired the premise the Jews control [as opposed took over] the banks.

This is considered a negative thing to admit, so denial and omissions is inevitable. If one examines Islam correctly, they will find it represents the antithesis of Rome and a total emulation of everything which was Jewish before and after the Babylonian exile - to the extent nothing new will be found other than what Judaism represented, al biet with some name changes. I've no idea why this is denied or seen negatively.