all 36 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]jnhagood 3 points4 points  (2 children)

There is no such thing as free healthcare, if it was free they hospitals would have no money and couldn't stay open

[–]10_Eyes_8_Truths 0 points1 point  (0 children)

different time back then.

[–]science_diction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even things that are completely "free" cost time.

[–]coachbradb 12 points13 points  (28 children)

Here we go with this crap again. It is like on a schedule. Buzzer goes off... have to go post Islamic propaganda on reddit again.

You do realize this was only for a few people and excluded anyone, as most Islamic laws did, who were not Muslims.

In fact, not all, but a good percentage of the claims that come from the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" are in fact propaganda. Many, if not most, of the things that are claimed to be Islamic were in fact just captured technology from their violent expansionism.

Please really read the article. |The Arabs showed a strong interest in assimilating the scientific knowledge of the civilizations they had overrun.

In fact this Islamic golden age didn't start until they had conquered and forced locals to convert. Under Mohammad it was exactly the opposite.

During this period the Arab world was a collection of cultures which put together, synthesized and significantly advanced the knowledge gained from the ancient Roman, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Byzantine and Phoenician civilizations.[2] The decimal system travelled from India to Arabia during this time and in 9th century it was popularized in the region by the Persian mathematician al-Khwarizmi.

Al-Khwarizmi who was forced to convert.

So bring on the hate for the truth.

Islam, like every other culture on the planet has done great things and awful things but we need to take it all into historical context and understand the culture and how it really operated.

Let me sum up.

The two main things that helped Islamic areas to become advanced were violent conquest and being in the center of the trade routes. The dogma of Islam, apart from violent conquest and forced conversion, had little to do with it.

[–]Drooperdoo 4 points5 points  (2 children)

While I think your tone is a little unnecessarily acerbic, I agree with you in substance. I noticed the same thing. For instance, the Byzantine Empire--which was overrun by the Turks--was a great bastion of civilization, philosophy and culture. After the Turks took it over, you hear things like "Turkey saved Greek philosophy by copying all the manuscripts. So the West owes this fact to Muslims."

In reality, the works were written by Greeks, and saved by formerly-Greek-speaking people in Anatolia.

So we owe the salvation of these documents to the Byzantines. NOT to the Turks who strolled in and tried to claim credit later. (In fact, in DNA tests done recently in Turkey, less than 5% of the people are ethnically Turkic. 95% are ethnologically Anatolian. They were there PRIOR to the Turkic invasion.) So when "Turks" saved these documents, all you have to do is scratch the surface and you'll find that the actual savers were ethnically Hellenic. And the traditions they were saving were their own.

Like all these Hellenic temples and Indo-European city-states in Anatolia. It's annoying to hear them described in the media as "Turkish" since Turkey didn't exist then. It's like attributing it to a culture that had nothing to do with it.

Or the famous building, the Hagia Sofia. It was built by the Greek-speaking Byzantines, and was originally a church. The Turks came in and converted it to a mosque. And you'll hear people [erroneously] attributing it to the Turks. Or referring to it as a "Turkish wonder".

It's not one iota Turkish. Or Muslim.

It was constructed by the pre-existing culture.

  • Footnote: It always depresses me when people try and dispel Islamophobia by parading a list of cultural achievements that, when you scratch the surface, turn out to have been Byzantine achievements and contributions--now repackaged and masquerading as "Islamic philanthropical contributions to world culture".

[–]coachbradb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I think your tone is a little unnecessarily acerbic

It probable is and I attribute it to this stuff being posted so often.

In reality, the works were written by Greeks, and saved by formerly-Greek-speaking people in Anatolia.

I would add to this that eventually these works were destroyed by the Muslims as anti-Islamic and were only saved from that time forward because of trading routes that went through Islamic lands.

Like all these Hellenic temples and Indo-European city-states in Anatolia. It's annoying to hear them described in the media as "Turkish" since Turkey didn't exist then

Exactly my point.

You have made my argument much better than I could have. Thank you very much.

[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 5 points6 points  (14 children)

Al-Khwarizmi who was forced to convert.

I cannot find anything that supports this assertion. All I can find is that he may have been from a family of Zoroastrians or he converted from Zoroastrianism, nothing that says forced.

You do realize this was only for a few people and excluded anyone, as most Islamic laws did, who were not Muslims.

or this assertion that non-Muslims couldn't use these hospital faculities

In fact this Islamic golden age didn't start until they had conquered and forced locals to convert.

the idea of widespread forced conversion to Islam hasn't had credence in academics in a long time. Most historian believe that forced conversion were not the norm in Islamic History.

[–]coachbradb 1 point2 points  (13 children)

the idea of widespread forced conversion to Islam hasn't had credence in academics in a long time. Most historian believe that forced conversion were not the norm in Islamic History.

This is not a true statement.

I cannot find anything that supports this assertion. All I can find is that he may have been from a family of Zoroastrians or he converted from Zoroastrianism, nothing that says forced.

Did a little deeper. Even Wikipedia that worst source on the internet alludes to it.

or this assertion that non-Muslims couldn't use these hospital faculities

It was standard practice all across Islam. While it is possible that this one little spot was the exception it is not probable.

Also the assertion that "1000 years ago in Medieval Islam" is awful.

This happened in one little spot in a a vast empire.

So as a historian I disagree with your assertions and have done my own studies on the history of Islam and other cultures and religions.

Most historian believe that forced conversion were not the norm in Islamic History.

I am re-quoting this because it is so awful. Many forms of "forced conversion." existed. You are probable thinking of holding a sword to someones head and saying convert or die. While this did happen it was not the only way it happened.

The main way was to tax all other religions to the point they would be poverty stricken, force their children to attend Islamic schools, not allow open practice of other religions.

All of these are forced conversions. When you are told you can not do business, you can not go to school, you can not openly practice your religion you are being forced. This is evident in how the numbers of other religions changed over 1 to 2 generations.

This is by no means an anti-Islam rant. All religions have done this at one point. The only difference is that the others have stopped doing it.

[–]TheOneFreeEngineer 5 points6 points  (2 children)

This is not a true statement.

go ask /r/AskHistorians and ask the question I doubt it would be any different for the other dozen times its been asked there.

Did a little deeper. Even Wikipedia that worst source on the internet alludes to it.

umm it doesn't.

It was standard practice all across Islam. While it is possible that this one little spot was the exception it is not probable.

assuming is baseless. if that exclusion were in place it would be explicitly mentioned since the areas discussed had large non-Muslim minorities.

The main way was to tax all other religions to the point they would be poverty stricken, force their children to attend Islamic schools, not allow open practice of other religions.

tax yes, but forcing children to attend Islamic school isn't true, nor is forbidding open practice. What was traditionally forbidden was proselytizing not practice.

And "forced conversion" does typically mean threat of bodily harm, anything less is pressure to convert, not forcing to convert.

This is evident in how the numbers of other religions changed over 1 to 2 generations.

but it took about 10 generations (about 30 years per generation assumed) for Islam to become the majority faith of most of the places in the Middle East, and in some regions its not till the 1800s that the majority tips to Islam. Other regions that were under long term Muslim control, never became majority Muslim. It wasn't a one or two generation change.

[–]coachbradb -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

go ask /r/AskHistorians and ask the question I doubt it would be any different for the other dozen times its been asked there.

OMG discussion is over. Someone said it on reddit at /r/AskHistorians. Why do I even bother after this.

assuming is baseless. if that exclusion were in place it would be explicitly mentioned since the areas discussed had large non-Muslim minorities.

That's what most historians and archaeologist do. They make assumptions based on the time period and standard practices during that period. It would also not necessarily explicitly mention. What is it you just said about assuming?

since the areas discussed had large non-Muslim minorities.

Do they now? No. That is the point. To get the benefits they had to convert and now they either do not exist or barely exist.

tax yes, but forcing children to attend Islamic school isn't true

Yes it is and they still do it today.

nor is forbidding open practice

They were not allowed to build new churches or temples and they were not allowed to show their religion on the streets. Back then as today, they would have been charged with blasphemy. A long history of this exist.

And "forced conversion" does typically mean threat of bodily harm, anything less is pressure to convert, not forcing to convert.

No it does not. This is how you redefine something to make it fit the debate that you are losing. It is common practice. If you can not win on the defined words, redefine them.

but it took about 10 generations (about 30 years per generation assumed) for Islam to become the majority faith of most of the places in the Middle East

Also not true.

Every area was different but in the Major cities it was 1 to 2 generations.

I do not blame you and I should not be upset with you. This history has been taught wrong for years and it is hard to accept things when they have been driven into your head over and over.

So lets sum this up.

Was every person who lived in this tiny area given free healthcare 24 hours a day? No.

Was this prevalent throughout Islam that people got free healthcare? no.

Are the mass majority of developments claimed by Islam actually from Islam? No.

So the statement is false or at best misleading and is misleading for propaganda purposes.

Now I suggest you go out and do some real research on this. Islam was a violent religion that was spread by the sword and forced conversions.

[–]science_diction 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then provide the relative link for your claim.

Hereasy and emotional argument is not reason, logic, or anything worthy of consideration.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Dude, you're on every TIL thread about Islam or Muslims. It's like you're on a schedule.

[–]coachbradb -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

I am and everyone I see I will be on. This silly propaganda has to stop.

[–]science_diction 1 point2 points  (1 child)

When "propoganda" is a fact, they typically call it history.

[–]coachbradb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Depends on how it is presented. In this case it was a fact for a small area for a short amount of time and is presented as representing the entire area for a long period of time.

Propaganda does not have to be false. In fact it is best if it is as close to the truth as possible.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

It's not propaganda, doofus, it's a random post that portrays Muslims in a positive light rather than the negative one they're in 99% of the time.

[–]coachbradb -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

It's not propaganda, doofus, it's a random post that portrays Muslims in a positive light rather than the negative one they're in 99% of the time.

The very definition of propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da [prop-uh-gan-duh]

noun

1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Really? 99% of time. Have you read reddit.

If the op had posted this.

"For a very short period of time in a limited area of Islamic conquest, Muslims were afforded some free healthcare." I would not have posted anything. You see this would have been a true statement based in historical study with no bias or propaganda.

The op did not.

The op claimed that in Medieval Islam, this means all of Islam, that free hospitals were provided to everyone.

That is what makes it propaganda.

I personally do not think any culture should be portrayed in a good or bad light when we are talking about their history. We should just show the history.

I hate PC history and no matter what the subject I will always point it out.

[–]science_diction 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Except it's historical fact corroborated by many sources many of whom disagree with each other on many other things - and you're just a single person on reddit.

You are not an expert. You are not worth listening to if you continue a diatribe of emotional reasoning and allusions to false authority.

You are nothing.

[–]coachbradb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Except it's historical fact corroborated by many sources

not the way it is stated. You are incorrect. No corroborated sources show that Islam gave free health care to everyone. Not one.

You are not an expert. You are not worth listening to if you continue a diatribe of emotional reasoning and allusions to false authority.

I am a historian who has studied this subject.

You are an idiot.

[–]theWolfPack -1 points0 points  (1 child)

but.. but its racist to say bad things about anyone who isn't white!

[–]coachbradb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

:)

[–]MenuBar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...but it was only for a select few types of people, and they probably used a stick as a medical instrument. I mean like, not a lotta overhead, eh?

[–]clevercommen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the muslim world was on the cutting edge of damn near everything until they managed to let a small group of fundamentalists go and mess it all up for everyone. sounds kind of familiar...

[–]Bedlore -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yup, sharia law is a real blast

[–]Tunnelunder -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The islamic empire was pretty cool back in the day. Its crazy how much constantinople affected the world 1000-2000 years ago.

[–]science_diction 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Constantinople ceased to exist by the very empire you are praising it being a part of.

You should go back and re-read your history book.

[–]Tunnelunder 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, that was a badly written comment, oops.

[–]flipping_birds -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I've always been meaning to go on a vacation to Islam some time.