What caused the end of Islamic intellectualism and achievement? Was it the mongols? Geopolitics? What happened?

islamic theology was also a major factor to the fragmentation since it spawned a bunch of meme denominations and caused the infighting

in reality they should have done what the Ottomans and avoid science/philosophy alltogether while enforcing Hanafi laws, atleast then they would rule for longer

This is another good answer.

>Dude inspiration lmao

End of the Medieval warm period, the change of polarity of the NAO, over-farming and soil salinization drastically altered the climate into an arid shithole.
t. your local environmental determinist

What did the Christians do right that the Muslims did wrong? Assuming you're aware that Christianity was amazing for science throughout the Middle Ages (for the most part) and dont subscribe to the dark ages meme

>Christianity was amazing for
Another pitiful meme, explain yourself.

>What did the Christians do right that the Muslims did wrong?
They limited their autism and fragmentation to the HRE while not having to deal with constant threats of horse niggers until much later into the 13th century

Truly, the parallels and affinities between the Mohammedan and the Eternal Kraut run deep into history.

Being a bunch of desert-dwelling camel jockeys that worship a war criminal pedophile. Oh but thank God we have the process of distillation and a better numeral system.

Are non mongolian horse niggers and norse sea niggers comparable in disruption?

Dont want to detail but cursory overview

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization

Tl;DR The "Dark Ages" despite pop culture perception are a meme that no historian takes seriously anymore. Christianity was overall a net positive in terms of scientific development. The Church was also vital in the Middle Ages as the founder of the first European universities, orphanages, hospitals and such. This isnt to say that the Catholic church didn't also get corrupt as fuck because it certainly did. also pic-related.

Check out threads in /r/askhistorians for more info

>weren't there groups of muslims at the time that applied Ancient Greek rationality to Quranic their worldviews?

that still happens now. Ayatollah Khomeini was an authority on Plato as a scholar and it's not commonly realized but many of the key elements of the system of government he devised for Iran is straight out of The Republic

He called it the Islamic Republic for a reason

Mongols were a huge factor, they destroyed Baghdad which was the centre of Islamic intellectualism and advancement in the Middle East, the sacking of the city destroyed lots of material like books. Many Muslims also believed they had become decadent, lazy and drifting from God and when the Mongols came and wiped out so many Muslims in places like Iraq and Iran they believed they were being punished by Allah and starting shifting away from science and development.

People tend to forget, or are simply ignorant of the fact that the university system in the Middle Ages was run by the Church and that the schism of religion and natural philosophy didn't exist until Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo came along.

you know, now that I think about it kinda

considering they both liked to pillage and enslave while taking clay (vikings settling in coastal areas around France and Britain and Turks Central Asia) and would later be given roles in court of each religions major hubs (vikings being Varangians while Turks became Mamlukes).

they both also were converted into respective religion around the same time, this really made me think

>Islamic
>Intellectualism

Pick one

Islamic intellectualism was more centralized and institutionalized (basically inherited from Greco-Roman intellectual traditions and intellectual centers). When those institutions became defunct or lost funding over time from political and economic changes they lost the intellectual tradition. In Europe, though science and philosophy was perserved by Church members (monks and priests and such), it was generally a personal undertaking related to Monasticism, not to say there were no intellectual centers and that there was no tie to a centralized power, but generally it was the task of men in monasteries, bishoprics, and within the courts of individual nobles, than through schools, libraries, and the staff of high level Bureaucrats. Ofcourse as others have said there is also the overly-direct tie to religion that islamic intellectual tradition had that eventually led to theologian conservatives to undermine it

>People tend to forget, or are simply ignorant of the fact that the university system in the Middle Ages was run by the Church
This. We would literally not have a university or scholarly system as we now know it if not for the Church as an institution. When Rome fell, they filled that vacuum. This is why I cringe when I read all the butthurt atheist comments on videos where Milo will speak glowingly of religion. They literally have no idea. I'm not a believer myself at all but I find it impossible to deny crucial role Christianity played in every aspect of European civilizational development.

>who is Ibn Al-Haytham

hmm ive never thought of that. Christian intellectualism was more decentralized through various monasteries.

One guy in a sea of retards driking camel urine

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_scientists

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_scientists_and_scholars

>Was it the mongols
Yes

>What caused the end of Islamic intellectualism and achievement?
The widespread adoption of Islamic values among the formerly advanced civilizations conquered by Islam.

>jew spotted

>What did the Christians do right that the Muslims did wrong?

Islam explicitly forbids monasticism, ergo no Islamic monasteries churning out and preserving classical literature.

>eastern """""""""""""""roman""""""""""""""empire""""""""""""""""

>advanced
>roman
>empire

The reformation lead to the church losing much of their influence, which as a result allowed for non-Aristotlian natural scientists to express their ideas without being condemned as heretical.

>Check one guy randomly
>Jaghmini
>Wrote a short summary on Avicenna's Canon of Medecine
>Didn't discover anything

Literally every White high-school students can be counted as scientists if it is just about wrtting some shitty commentary.

>Check another
>Shihab al-Din Muhammad al-Nasawi
>Shihab al-Din Muhammad al-Nasawi (died c. 1250) was a secretary and biographer of Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu, the Khwarezmid dynast. Born in Nasa in Khorasan, he witnessed first-hand the Mongol invasion of Khorasan and Jalal ad-Din's subsequent flight and military adventures of which he left an account written in Arabic c. 1241.[1]
LMAO

So desesperate that you're forced to include FUCKING SECRETRARIES as scientists.

It's exactly like when some dumb nigger assembled a computer and every liberals where having an orgasm cause this shitskin was able to use his two hands.

Anyway, we just need to look at you and your shitholes to know that your golden age was a meme.

>catholic church facilitates progress
>protestant reformation creates even more progress
why is christianity so based?

>having this much confirmation bias

But how does that make Alhazen, al-Khwarizmi, al-Razi, Avicenna, al-Haytham, Omar Khayyam, al-Tabari, al-Farabi, Jalal ad-Din or Averroes works any less relevant just cause you cherry picked a few that were students/adherents of said muslim scholars I mentioned?

That model pretty much explains why most cultural and intellectual capital disappears over time in any given instance, it becomes tied to some monetary or political force, and then that economy or political force collapses.

Don't forget Abdul Alhazred, his work on the al-Azif is criminally underrated and deserves much greater attention by academia. Sadly his writings are suppressed to this day and very difficult to get a hold of.

>criminally underrated and deserves much greater attention by academia
sounds like Lovecraft himself

but your sad attempt of backpeddling aside, I forgot to mention Ibn Khaldun, who is attested for being the father of modern sociology and demography

Some universities were Church run, but no where near all of them, especially not at the earliest period when the system was getting started across Italy.

Islamic intellectualism was actually less centralized and institutionalized than in the Classical world. It shared this quality with Christian Europe (and predates it).

The issue was that, whether centralized or decentralized, the whole academic system relies upon a solid economic foundation for either a state to run academies pumping out bureaucrats to help run its institutions or for separate private schools and researchers to fund themselves through donations and book sales.

After a period of overwhelming prosperity and global power, the Muslim world began to fragment politically while violent immigrants and refugees started pouring in taking jobs and driving up criminality. A variety of populist, military loving governors and social conservative religious revivalists started populist movements blaming them and liberal academia for all their woes, and set about on disastrous campaigns to Make the Emirs and Caliph Conquer Again (MECCA) which further unraveled the Middle East's political, military, and economic power as China cut them out of the trade loop and Russia undermined their politics, all while plebeian mobs started calling out their intellectuals and bureaucrats for not being Islam-First.

This is a solid answer.

I would argue against it, because much of the era's best philosophical and artistic output came out of an era of great political breakdown and regionalism - the Samanids, Fatimids, Spanish Umayyads, and the lesser states each broke down into were all together as much as if not more important than the Abbasids in Baghdad alone.

What the various Turkic states did was progressively militarize (and segregate) aristocracy while the region's population, agricultural fertility, and trade all declined. It's actually very similar to what happened with Rome when the highly educated senatorial class that ran the Republic was overshadowed by a series of Germanic or germanicized military governors who didn't appreciate or take to Classical education as well, all while Rome's population and economy collapsed considerably.

This

>What caused the end of Islamic intellectualism and achievement?
it never even began

Turks and Mongols fucked em up pretty bad. By the time they recovered the West was already in the Renaissance. That being said they were still pretty decent under the Safavids. Not to the level of Western Europe, but they certainly weren't backward for their time. The current shit show that is Iran is the direct result of Cold War meddling.

sure is pol here

Once the conquered areas became almost thoroughly converted and integrated into muslim empire intellectual contributions sharply stopped. Short time revival under new muslim rule allowed scientists to prosper as the new rulers were keen on stabilizing their reign.

You're thinking of the muta'zilah. Their theology was abandoned because, in the end, it didn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

Al Ghazali integrated Greek logic, Sufi mysticism, and Islamic Law together long after them though. The muta'zila school was mostly a theological and political dispute.

...

Islamic fundamentalism is very much a reactionary movement

Wahhabism is emerged in the 18th century, in the original Islamic heartland, at a time when that region was utterly irrelevant and Islamic power was on the decline

Salafism manifested in the 19th century when the Muslim world was getting colonized by Europeans and the Ottoman Empire was literally a joke
Qutb/Muslim Brotherhood is later (20th century) but similar circumstances

Not to mention the caliphate at the time (Ottomans) were not exactly paragons of virtue, and the Muslim world had been fractured for centuries

ISIS/Taliban/al Qaeda are a result of such feelings of inadequacy, decline, oppression, etc. and a need to fight it cause your faith is supposed to be superior yet is actually impure/deviated from the original (the aversion to 'innovation' goes back to the Golden Age period)

All great empires stagnate and eventually fall. At a certain point people seem to stop looking towards the future for inspiration and began to focus on the past. That makes it difficult to innovate. They were victims of their own success.

As to its exact cause, that may be difficult to determine, as it was probably influenced by many different factors.

>Real answer: it was the mongols.

Decadence.

>smoking hash killed it
>implying it isn't the eternal khat

Why do Mongols look exactly like the Chinese? (Japs and Koreans look way different than their Chinese ancestors whereas Mongols are identical.

>What caused the end of Islamic intellectualism and achievement?

False premise: There was never a period of Islamic intellectualism and achievement, merely a brief window where non-Muslims and heretics were able to operate before the full weight of Islamic rule crushed them.

crawl back to /pol/, nigger.

Its all haramxianbei north of the yellow river babe

...

They couldn't still anymore so their inventors which in reality where just translators didn't make any important discovery after sacking half of the known world

There wasn't any Islamic intellectualism to begin with.

It was simply a leftover from Sassanid empire (which inherited and fostered the Greek tradition from Parthia). Once 2 generation was gone, the Greek tradition died.

Stfu retard

The nullification of trade roots with the economic and political instability brought about by the mongol conquests.

The "It was just persians not muslims :^)" meme is just that; it is straw-grasping to deny Islamic history any source of merit. It is a way for /pol/ posters to wish away the Islamic Golden Age.

Except all the important works of the era came more than 200 years after the fall of the Sassanids, and in an area that never had a long Sassanid academic tradition, nor any notable scholarship for centuries whatsoever.

these types of arguments are literally never found on Veeky Forums except for /pol/ shitposting such as this

Mongols have bigger cheeks then chinese.

Hardly. Ghazali just hated the philosophy of the Greeks since it amounted in his eyes to "Nothing is real." Meanwhile he had a great love for mathematics and engineering. Just thought they could be a bit souless at times.

Them Arab genes kicked in.

Mongols fucked Baghdad, then the Turks banned the printing press.

Islam

But it's not a deflection of a Muslim Golden Age, it's deflecting the implied Arab Golden Age by attributing it to Iranians.

George H.W and George W. Bush obviously

Bump an interesting thread

Race mixing to the point of mudslime

bump

Most specifically the islamic spring

Except it isn't true. There were plenty of Arab philosophers, writers, poets ect. Just as many as the Persians

Like who?

Them inbred Arab genes finally kicked in.

Talk about a hyperbolic caricature

Mongols. It's always the damn mongols. Also, the excess of Gold and Luxury.

>What caused the end of Islamic intellectualism and achievement?
>the end

But there wasnt even one to begin with

>who are christian communists

...