This source was indeed bad; I don't mean to hop on the "Wikipedia is the worst thing ever" bandwagon, but there are certain things about it that I just can't seem to trust. Such as him being strongly influenced by our very own Mike Ackerman, now isn't that some great history! No but seriously, even the organization was not up-to-par, I like the intro at the beginning before the great wall of text, but there is very little "organization". I guess you could call it organized with Wikipedia's little contents box that always comes after the intro paragraph(s), but I'm not convinced its good enough. However, this Wikipedia article is seemingly full of mostly facts, though I think the accuracy could be a little off. Mike Ackerman probably disagrees with me though.
The only questions I have are about his gain in power and how the people viewed him at a person in society. I guess the only reason I have so little questions is because of the lack of interest I read most Wikipedia articles with; but I also think the views given on his life were relatively in-depth. To find out more about him I would probably just run an internet search, and try to look for more reliable sources that not just anyone can edit. To filter Google searches of his name, I would probably look for things like the URL's to look for something more official than .com, probably more along the lines of .org. But also adding keywords into my search for whatever specifically i might be trying to find out about him would work.
He probably sparked so much imagination because of his role in flourishing Baghdad, but I didn't see anything in the article about him in pop culture, or why, at least. I don't think I have ever heard his name until today, which I think about sums up why I'm sort of confused as to whether I should have known about him previously or not.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Benjamin of tudela
If you ask me, Benjamin of Tudela is a guy who should be taken seriously; he is a well-educated Spanish rabbi, who is more the qualified of making educated decisions. He does not give a very biased view on things, he gives the good and the bad, the palace and the caliph, for example. But the bit of bias he did was was towards Baghdad, he seemed to favor it a bit more, perhaps because of its magnificence, but more likely because of his social experiences there. He doesn't put down Constantinople directly, but he indeed gives "bland" descriptions, unlike what he did with Baghdad, but i do believe that he is someone to take seriously.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Comparing Islam to other religions
Compare the Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings with the views of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians discussed in earlier chapters (pg 350)
The Quran's teachings, are for obvious reasons, very similar to that of Zoroastrianism's, Jusaism's, and Christianity's. Just as in Zoroastrianism and Christianity, Islam believes in a final salvation, a judgment day. Also it is said that like in all other religions, the main god of the religion is the only one who can lead you to salvation, and to a happy afterlife. And similarly, there is only one existing god in all of these religions, so all the monotheistic beliefs have that way to be similar to each other. All of these beliefs also preach of practicing good faith and good deeds by being good to others and other things. However, in Islam, it would seem that a follower would be more subjected to the will of Allah.
The Quran's teachings, are for obvious reasons, very similar to that of Zoroastrianism's, Jusaism's, and Christianity's. Just as in Zoroastrianism and Christianity, Islam believes in a final salvation, a judgment day. Also it is said that like in all other religions, the main god of the religion is the only one who can lead you to salvation, and to a happy afterlife. And similarly, there is only one existing god in all of these religions, so all the monotheistic beliefs have that way to be similar to each other. All of these beliefs also preach of practicing good faith and good deeds by being good to others and other things. However, in Islam, it would seem that a follower would be more subjected to the will of Allah.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Islamization of the Silk Road
Richard C. Foltz's article supports the ideas in Bentley's argument, specifically the pressure, voluntary association, and assimilation.
Voluntary association was accomplished in a few different ways, the most effective was trade. Not as if the beliefs were traded along and exchanged for money or something, more in the sense of interaction by merchants leading to the spread of their beliefs. It was said that no other religions thus far had "favored trade as much as Islam did", showing how even they knew that trade was beneficial to them in multiple ways. Also, Prophet Muhammad did things like dealing with the greviances in society, which pretty much served as a follower magnet; this just about led people to tell more people, who told more people, etc.
Now for pressure, I guess you wouldn't have to do much reading about to figure out. People under Muslim rule, who had not already converted, would feel pressure from society to make the switch. Also another rapid growth factor in pressure was the raiding caravans; basically being under Islamic faith would have ensured safety.
Last, and definitely not least (not to say any of the way these spread was a "least")is assimilation; the key thing about assimilation was the mixed marriages. Because when a child was born into a mixed marriage couple, he/she would have to be raised as a Muslim in the parents' new community.
\
Voluntary association was accomplished in a few different ways, the most effective was trade. Not as if the beliefs were traded along and exchanged for money or something, more in the sense of interaction by merchants leading to the spread of their beliefs. It was said that no other religions thus far had "favored trade as much as Islam did", showing how even they knew that trade was beneficial to them in multiple ways. Also, Prophet Muhammad did things like dealing with the greviances in society, which pretty much served as a follower magnet; this just about led people to tell more people, who told more people, etc.
Now for pressure, I guess you wouldn't have to do much reading about to figure out. People under Muslim rule, who had not already converted, would feel pressure from society to make the switch. Also another rapid growth factor in pressure was the raiding caravans; basically being under Islamic faith would have ensured safety.
Last, and definitely not least (not to say any of the way these spread was a "least")is assimilation; the key thing about assimilation was the mixed marriages. Because when a child was born into a mixed marriage couple, he/she would have to be raised as a Muslim in the parents' new community.
\
Thursday, November 1, 2012
On our own.
Ibn Battuta has an overall negative opinion on Constantinople. He describes parts of it and gives a very brutally honest opinion. He says "The bazaars in this part of the town are good but filthy, and a small and very dirty river runs through them. Their churches too are filthy and mean". This shows how he isn't exactly fond of Constantinople. However, I wasn't to sure on the use for the focus of Ibn Battuta; he seemed to give a very focused opinion. His opinions were focused more on the money side of things (of course.).
Benjamin of Tudela's view of Constantinople, in contrast to Battuta's, is positive. Similar to Battuta, however, Benjamin's focus on the wealth was very noticeable. He says that their wealth is "not to be found in the whole world", showing how fond he is of it. It could be said he idealized the idea of Constantinople as a place to live, he compliments pretty much everything. The entertainment, the wealth, the people, he loves it all; quite the jolly guy it seems.
Liudprand of Cremona sticks to an Ibn-esque description of Constantinople, he tends to stick to the negatives. He doesn't hesitate to just flat out give his honest opinion on it, he uses his experiences to help express why he seriously dislikes it. When he came there, he was treated as an inferior, and was forced to walk on foot even though he arrived on horseback. He also seriously dislikes the king, emperor, "Rex", take your pick, but he describes him with serious brutality. He calls him a "monstrosity of a man, a dwarf, fat headed" among other things, very biased and almost immature.
Benjamin of Tudela's view of Constantinople, in contrast to Battuta's, is positive. Similar to Battuta, however, Benjamin's focus on the wealth was very noticeable. He says that their wealth is "not to be found in the whole world", showing how fond he is of it. It could be said he idealized the idea of Constantinople as a place to live, he compliments pretty much everything. The entertainment, the wealth, the people, he loves it all; quite the jolly guy it seems.
Liudprand of Cremona sticks to an Ibn-esque description of Constantinople, he tends to stick to the negatives. He doesn't hesitate to just flat out give his honest opinion on it, he uses his experiences to help express why he seriously dislikes it. When he came there, he was treated as an inferior, and was forced to walk on foot even though he arrived on horseback. He also seriously dislikes the king, emperor, "Rex", take your pick, but he describes him with serious brutality. He calls him a "monstrosity of a man, a dwarf, fat headed" among other things, very biased and almost immature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)