Would you consider the coming of Islam as a destabilizing force for the Middle East?

[6644kp]

I mean before Islam there was the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. Both of which had excisted for hunderds of years. However after the split of the Muslim Empire in 750 and the continuing decline of the Abbasid more and more dynastical empires emerged since Islam discouraged differences based on ethnicity.

Rather than city states or empires based around an ethnic group empires were centred around a royal family. And these empires only lasted for an averge of 100 years. Everytime a royal family died or was overthown that particular nation ceased to exscit and it would be a free for all to create a new 'nation' 'dynatical empire'. So constantly these empires kept fighting eachother. So many rose and fell and image the amount of resources they spent on fighting eachother. Resources that a unified empire like the Sassanids or Byzantines could have used for extending or consolidating the empire.

Furthermore image the common people constantly trapped in warfare. How many died in these futile wars. Wars fought in the name of nations that were there for only a brief amount of time.

How much better would it have been if the first persian Empire instead was there. An all powerfull empire whose people could trade with cities far from eachother. A stable nation with no war for the common and a clear law of the land. The vast resources could be used for defending and expanding the empire.

So do u agree that the coming of Islam and its dynastic empires brought great chaos and squandering of resources and lives?

I mean France has continuesly exscited for over 1000 years. Since 987. Yet the oldest country in the ME has only been there since 1501 (Iran).

[Seleucos of Olympia]

The problem is that there was not one great power which considered that region its rightful territory, but two. That led to constant, large scale warfare between those two empires, devastating the cities in between. The Arab conquest, if anything, increased the prosperity of the region (if we are to judge from its cultural and scientific output). Before the 20th century, it had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, just the great power with unchallenged control for the land that you envision. It became politically fragmented again only after WWI. I obviously don't include Persia in that region, since it was its own empire at the time.

[hellheaven1987]

Blah, Modern France started after Franco-Prussia War, that is like 140 years. Besides, saying Byzantium and Sassanid rule provides "stability" is full of garbage - in fact, most extreme atrocities were committed between two states during their endless conflicts, some were even worse than Sack of Jerusalm committied by Crusaders.

[6644kp]

interesting I would like more opions on this subject. I agree that output on scale of knowlege was increased sice Islam so encourages learning.

[Gromovnik]

To answer the question: yes I would.

[motiv-8]

To answer the question: yes I would.

And you would be completely wrong, because Islam was exactly a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Before the Arabs conquered the region it was stricken with war and civil strife both due to the long-standing conflict between Persia and Byzantium, as well as the internal religious conflicts of Eastern Christianity and state-imposed Zoroastrianism.

The coming the Arabs and the institution of Islam as an unquestioned overclass removed all these pressures and fostered a short-lived political unity with a much longer-lived social and cultural unity.

[ShADoW]

ME being destabilized is recent, Islam has been there for much longer.

[pwf224]

theres many factors at play it depends on what conflict you want to focus on. you can look at sunni vs shia or palestine vs israel or even between states. the recent stuff goes back to 1918 and the partitioning of the middle east but there are religious factors fueling conflict as well. it's naive to cite one factor as the sole cause in history though. every conflict in history has a multitude of various long term and short term causes. but to answer your question, yes, religion does play a factor in many of the conflicts in the middle east.

[Dr. Oza]

ottomans ruled the land with stability for 700 years

if u read A peace to end all peace , David Fromkin makes the point that the end of the ottoman empire which had bonded the region lead to all the conflict there

in fact many of the hot spots of conflict, balkans, caucaus, middle east, were all peaceful under the ottomans

it was the superficial borders of the european victors and colonizers that messed the region up

its the same in africa as well.. borders based on which european nation ruled it and not on cultural, historical or topographical basis lead to conflict

------

and no.. if anything it helped the region.. a persian and a arab and a egyptian became bonded through islam

the only periods of heavy conflict were in the crusades , the mongol invasions, ww1 .. all of which were external forces

----

I mean France has continuesly exscited for over 1000 years. Since 987. Yet the oldest country in the ME has only been there since 1501 (Iran).

dude do you know no history at all

first of all what you call France came into existence under Henry IV at the earliest and by most accounts by the time of Louis XIV .. before that it was a feudal state with no centralization in any way whatsoever, people had loyalty to a duke or count, not to a king even.. not to even mention that that france is not what u consider france

and the dynasty changed in france many times, which is essentially what happened in iran, not in ottoman empire tho (ottoman family ruled from 1299-1923) ..

lol don't be fooled by movies or total war maps... that blueness in france was just a country that happened to be there, not even a country as we know it... with no uniform taxation, customs, language(yes, french was not spoken throughout, think occitan, Burgundian, celtic(brittany) and many others) ...


and in the middle east

oldest country is turkey/ottomans... since 1300s ,

not to mention iran is also older, the turkic/islamic empire which began in the 1500s had its roots in the Qara Koyunlar and the Ak koyunlar which were Turkish tribal confederations that ruled iran

------------

Rather than city states or empires based around an ethnic group empires were centred around a royal family. And these empires only lasted for an averge of 100 years. Everytime a royal family died or was overthown that particular nation ceased to exscit and it would be a free for all to create a new 'nation' 'dynatical empire'. So constantly these empires kept fighting eachother. So many rose and fell and image the amount of resources they spent on fighting eachother. Resources that a unified empire like the Sassanids or Byzantines could have used for extending or consolidating the empire.

all empires and nations everywhere until the 1780s was based on a royal family only (some exceptions) .. it was the Valois, bourbons, Habsburgs, etc... when nationalism arrived after napoleon... people thought themselves german or french.. before that they were from Orleons, or Hamburg

To answer the question: yes I would.

coming from you ... no big suprise

anything to snipe at islam eh?

[Sher Khan]

I mean before Islam there was the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. Both of which had excisted for hunderds of years. However after the split of the Muslim Empire in 750 and the continuing decline of the Abbasid more and more dynastical empires emerged since Islam discouraged differences based on ethnicity.

And this didn't happen with Byzantium, with Roman emperors hailing from a variety of ethnic groups? Or a new Imperial family line starting with an usurper or conquering, populist general?

Rather than city states or empires based around an ethnic group empires were centred around a royal family. And these empires only lasted for an averge of 100 years. Everytime a royal family died or was overthown that particular nation ceased to exscit and it would be a free for all to create a new 'nation' 'dynatical empire'. So constantly these empires kept fighting eachother. So many rose and fell and image the amount of resources they spent on fighting eachother. Resources that a unified empire like the Sassanids or Byzantines could have used for extending or consolidating the empire.

Sounds like the exact same troubles the Byzantines and Sassanids had to go through from time to time, fights for the throne and lots of skulduggery against rival claimants, many times leading to full out civil war.

Furthermore image the common people constantly trapped in warfare. How many died in these futile wars. Wars fought in the name of nations that were there for only a brief amount of time.

I'm fairly certain the almost apocalyptic scale of the last Byzantine-Sassanid War and the death and devastation it wrought make for a perfect example of why the above is incorrect.

How much better would it have been if the first persian Empire instead was there. An all powerfull empire whose people could trade with cities far from eachother. A stable nation with no war for the common and a clear law of the land. The vast resources could be used for defending and expanding the empire.

Uh... Sounds like it would have been a pretty good deal.

Like when those Ummayad-Abbasid empires in their heyday, with people moving freely from Spain to India.

So do u agree that the coming of Islam and its dynastic empires brought great chaos and squandering of resources and lives?

Are you suggesting that, before Islam, there weren't dynastic empires squabbling over the Middle East expending huge numbers of lives and resources every few decades in massive wars or civil strife? That sounds a bit silly. Wasn't the Sassanid Empire built on the conquered bones of the previous dynasty, the Parthians?

I mean France has continuesly exscited for over 1000 years. Since 987. Yet the oldest country in the ME has only been there since 1501 (Iran).

Yeah, and look at those 1000 years of peace and stability for France where so many lives and wealth weren't squandered on territorial wars, dynastic usurpation, invasions, short-lived dynast conquests, or several attempts to extend the temporal power of the crown of France over its neighbors (and some attempts in the opposite fashion).

[husker9.2]

In all honesty i don't think the region was ever entirely stable. It's one of the oldest human inhabited regions in recorded history with limited resources in terms of food, farming, water. With such little of these and large populations war's are inevitable.