Chinese Influence in East Asia

Harun al-Rashid

         This is a mediocre quality source. The organization of the page is simple though it is not evenly written. It appears that the writer or writers were negatively biased towards the life of Harun al-Rashid. The anecdotes given that have details are negatives against al-Rashid. His life is portrayed as a man who makes stupid decisions like marrying his sister to his friend and expecting them to act unmarried. Then al-Rashid's brutality is shown when he kills and displays Ja'far publicly.

          After reading this entry, I'm intrigued by the stories that surround him. How did he manage to rule his empire? And have a prosperous reign? The Wikipedia page answers the basic questions about who he is, but for more details I would google his name along with different key words like Ja'far or Bayt al-Hikma to find out the role he played in different aspects of his lifetime.

          Lastly, Harun al-Rashid sparks imagination because of the wild stories that surround his life. The variety of experiences he had leads to a wide variety of references that add to his fame. I think the Wikipedia page does not do justice to the largeness of his presence.

Benjamin of Tudela's on Bagdad

          Benjamin of Tudela's description of Bagdad is biased. As a Spanish rabbi who has visited many cities, I think he has the ethos to discuss these cities, but he lets his viewpoint affect his descriptions. He describes the different ways that the city is prosperous, like the place, the riches and the caliph's lifestyle. Benjamin seems to be dazzled and enchanted by the city and writes a biased description. He likes Constantinople better because he does not mention any negatives in that description; in his description of Bagdad, he mentions the hospital for sick people and he shows a negative side to the city.

Expansion of Dar-Al-Islam Map

The Quran on Allah and His Expectations of Humankind

          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.

          Zoroastrian teachings in the Gathas recognize both Ahura Mazda as a supreme deity who is the creator of all good things and six lesser beings who represented the forces of evil. Ahura Mazda's teachings allowed human beings to enjoy the world in moderation. The Jews' Hebrew scriptures recognized Yahweh as the single supreme deity. The Christians' Old and New Testaments recognize the trinity as their single deity. The Muslim's Quran recognize Allah as the single supreme deity who created the world. Human beings who obeyed Allah would receive mercy and blessing, but those who rejected Allah would suffer eternal punishment.
          All four beliefs have the concept of an after life in which there is either blessing and rewards or eternal suffering. The Jews, Christians and the Muslims believe that their god is the one deciding who gets what. This is different in Zoroastrianism where the amount of good and bad in a person determine their fate and the gods are only rooting for good or evil. Also they share the general idea that there is one good god. Once again, Zoroastrianism is the outlier where there are also six lesser gods who are evil. The Christians can also be considered different because of their belief in the trinity which is made up of three beings, rather than only one god.

Foltz on Bentley's 3 Patterns of Conversion

Richard C. Foltz's discussion on the expansion of Islam helps prove Bentley's three patterns of voluntary association, syncretism, and pressure to spread religions. Foltz explains the three patterns though another example, Islam. He says that that "Arab Muslims had strong reason not to want non-Arabs to join the faith"(228) due to economic reasons, yet the domination of Muslim domination in commercial activity led non-Muslims to voluntarily convert. People also converted to Islam due to assimilation like the incorporation of the religion into "succeeding generation[s]"(231) where the converts will have seen the way of "the father's new community" and not "his original one"(231). This suggests that the "new community" is more applicable to the new generations and therefore is accepted more widely. This change of religion from original to improved is the spreading of Islam by assimilation. Lastly "Muslim rule over the western half of the Silk Road"(230) gave them the power to impose their religion on others. Foltz uses the same three patterns as Bentley to describe the spread of Islam.

Constantinople

Article 1) Ibn Battuta
          Mr. Ibn Battuta has a negative view of Constantinople especially because of the religion practiced there. I think that Battuta dislikes the new Christianity and the prominence of it in Constantinople turns him off. "[O]ne of the greatest churches of the Greeks" stands in the city, but Buttata thinks that "[t]heir churches too are filthy and mean." Despite his dislike, I think his account is reliable. The details and specifics lead me to believe he was accurate in his descriptions. When he describes the Hagia Shophia, he states that he "can only describe the exterior, for [he]did not see its interior"; this implies that Buttata only wrote down what he observed, and did not make up information.

Article 2) Benjamin of Tudela
          Mr. Benjamin seems to be positive. He emphasizes the uniqueness of Constantinople though mentioning repeatedly that wealth and entertainment are "not to be found in the whole world." He sees the difference between the declining Byzantine Empire and the flourishing Constantinople. He doesn't add his own opinions to the account, but has a generally positive look on the city. I think his account can not be trusted because of the exaggerations and the vagueness.

Article 3) Liudprand of Cremona, Embassy to Constantinople
          Mr. Liudprand of Cremona had a negative view of Constantinople due to previous experiences. He represents the Roman Empire and seeks to "stir up strife" according to Leo the bother of the Emperor Nicephorus. Mr. Liudprad's negativity is a mutual feeling as displayed which is displayed through an unflattering description of being "disfigured", "disgraced", "old, foul smelling." Through the tone of the account, it seems are though there have been tense unresolved issues that lay unspoken between the two empires, of which neither would like to address, and both would rather "resolve" by insulting the other. This festering problem gives Mr. Luidprad a negative view of Constantinople and taints his account with contempt which results in an unreliable account.

The Post Classical Era

I expect that the Post Classical Era will be a repeated cycle of what happened in the Classical Era, except with slightly different conditions. In the Classical Era, empires were formed with centralized governments, then through internal and external causes, those large empires collapsed. New ideas had formed and religions sprouted out of the Classical Era. In the Post Classical Era, I expect that from the turmoil, people will try to take control and create governments and that they might create something that will only collapse like all other empires. Also the religions that were newly created in the Classical Era will probably flourish and or get modified.