This is a brilliant lecture on historiography of the Islamic world. It is not straightforward, perhaps, but it is nevertheless worth unraveling for its brilliant insight.
I have read the same elsewhere At 29:11 min: Seemingly the most, the money man behind the revolt that brings the Abbasids to power in 750 appeared to be the son of a BUDDHIST monk from a very powerful monastery in Northern Afghanistan. And in the late 700s, the descendants of this particular, the abbot of this Buddhist monastery, became the most powerful family in the Abbassids Caliphate other than the Caliphs themselves.
The adherents of Ali ibn abi Talib(RA) were adhering him to be successor of The Prophet (PBUH) because they believed Successorship should remain within The Prophet's household and The Prophet(PBUH) declared Ali ibn abi Talib (PBUH) member of household, once. People (“Shites”) were Not seeking leadership of descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib(PBUH), But Ali ibn abi Talib's(RA)
The monolith on the coin could be a stylized minaret, seems like a simpler explanation. It also seems entirely possible that the revision was merely to remove the christian imagery, and that they themselves had no real notion of what it was other than a tower or spear or other such common sigil of power...
A question he's raising here is... why do some civilisations spread their culture to subject peoples and others do not? And how? Islam is known for spreading itself to conquered areas quite thoroughly and successfully. Coinage is a natural way to 'brand' your culture... yet here muslim rulers were minting coins but initially putting Byzantine symbols on them. That's a bit odd. On the other hand, Ancient Greece did not see itself as the One True Faith as Islam did.
I do agree that his style is quite unstructured and rambling, which makes it hard to work out specifically what he is trying to communicate (if anything).
This is a grand summary of Prof. Bulliet's private thoughts, independent of his book; it synthesizes documentary and peripheral, incidental history and evidence. The question I want to ask him is if we would all be as interested if there wasn't oil in Iraq and Iran. It all might be just a passing comment in history rather than compelling.
Common Era... As in AD. But since the term AD has heavily Christian connotations which seem arbitrary while discussing the history of things that have nothing to do with Christianity, the more culture-neutral term CE is used. Hope this clears it up.
@Oloveelhoceima- Hadith in wiki is described as 'tradition' or 'sayings of the prophet'. That doesn't sound like history to me, just laws and anecdotes. Not exactly 'scholarly'. Also, you have no evidence pointing to whether or not urban areas adopt the culture of their conquerors faster than rural areas. If anything, urban areas are more likely to be culturally diverse (or political hot beds), but that's my subjective speculation. But like you said, the use of the arabic language probably contributed considerably to adopting a more arabic culture. That makes more sense to me than whether or not it was more urban.
What a terrible lecture on The Rise of Islam. Prof even doesn't care to get some important dates write. At 7:18 prof got the year in which The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ left this world and subsequent years in which Rightly Guided Caliphs (first four Caliphs) took charge, wrong. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ left in 632CE. First Caliph, 632 - 634 Second Caliph 634 - 644 Third Caliph 644 - 656 Fourth Caliph 656- 661
Its success has been due to its people’s true understanding of of Islam.
This is a brilliant lecture on historiography of the Islamic world. It is not straightforward, perhaps, but it is nevertheless worth unraveling for its brilliant insight.
Yes Diana. Yes
The most notable thing about this lecture is that universities in Iran predate those in Europe.
InfiniteUniverse88 the same goes for Al Qarawiyyin university in Fes, Morroco; established in the late 900's
If this course is still being taught, Columbia should really redo these vids with proper audio. This is embarrassing.
I have read the same elsewhere
At 29:11 min: Seemingly the most, the money man behind the revolt that brings the Abbasids to power in 750 appeared to be the son of a BUDDHIST monk from a very powerful monastery in Northern Afghanistan.
And in the late 700s, the descendants of this particular, the abbot of this Buddhist monastery, became the most powerful family in the Abbassids Caliphate other than the Caliphs themselves.
You read it before because it really happened.
Does anyone know which of his books he is referring to?
The adherents of Ali ibn abi Talib(RA) were adhering him to be successor of The Prophet (PBUH) because they believed Successorship should remain within The Prophet's household and The Prophet(PBUH) declared Ali ibn abi Talib (PBUH) member of household, once. People (“Shites”) were Not seeking leadership of descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib(PBUH), But Ali ibn abi Talib's(RA)
The monolith on the coin could be a stylized minaret, seems like a simpler explanation. It also seems entirely possible that the revision was merely to remove the christian imagery, and that they themselves had no real notion of what it was other than a tower or spear or other such common sigil of power...
A question he's raising here is... why do some civilisations spread their culture to subject peoples and others do not? And how? Islam is known for spreading itself to conquered areas quite thoroughly and successfully. Coinage is a natural way to 'brand' your culture... yet here muslim rulers were minting coins but initially putting Byzantine symbols on them. That's a bit odd. On the other hand, Ancient Greece did not see itself as the One True Faith as Islam did.
I do agree that his style is quite unstructured and rambling, which makes it hard to work out specifically what he is trying to communicate (if anything).
Leos
He was not rambling. To understand him thoroughly requires some background knowledge
This is a grand summary of Prof. Bulliet's private thoughts, independent of his book; it synthesizes documentary and peripheral, incidental history and evidence. The question I want to ask him is if we would all be as interested if there wasn't oil in Iraq and Iran. It all might be just a passing comment in history rather than compelling.
plz tel me meaning of C.E
Common Era... As in AD. But since the term AD has heavily Christian connotations which seem arbitrary while discussing the history of things that have nothing to do with Christianity, the more culture-neutral term CE is used. Hope this clears it up.
CE in islam means Christian Era.
Well, as Muslims we call it Christian Era to respect Isa or Jesus (AS)
No one from Columbia University actually reads these comments.
@Oloveelhoceima- Hadith in wiki is described as 'tradition' or 'sayings of the prophet'. That doesn't sound like history to me, just laws and anecdotes. Not exactly 'scholarly'.
Also, you have no evidence pointing to whether or not urban areas adopt the culture of their conquerors faster than rural areas. If anything, urban areas are more likely to be culturally diverse (or political hot beds), but that's my subjective speculation. But like you said, the use of the arabic language probably contributed considerably to adopting a more arabic culture. That makes more sense to me than whether or not it was more urban.
Hadiths are rigorously tested before putting together. So it is not just anecdotes
What a terrible lecture on The Rise of Islam. Prof even doesn't care to get some important dates write. At 7:18 prof got the year in which The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ left this world and subsequent years in which Rightly Guided Caliphs (first four Caliphs) took charge, wrong.
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ left in 632CE.
First Caliph, 632 - 634
Second Caliph 634 - 644
Third Caliph 644 - 656
Fourth Caliph 656- 661
He is not making any sense in this leacture