Islamic learning

John Jay Ray (fellow godless reactionary) issues a corrective toward the soft-tinted view of the Islamic “Golden Age”. A minor quibble or two, many of the translators of Greek learning were in fact Christians fluent in the Hellenic tongue, but they might have spoken Aramaic at home, so let us give credit to the Syrian role in preserving the past. Additionally, the culture of the East Roman Empire was not necessarily “Greek” from its initial stages. I believe either Zeno or Anastatius in the late 5th century (150 years after the seeds of Byzantium were lain) were the first Greek speaking Emperors (as their native tongues). Even after them, Justinian in the early 6th century was a Latin speaker that ruled from Constantinople (and presided over the recompilation of Roman Law). The true Hellenization of the Empire began with Heraclius in the early 7th century, he introduced the organizational structure of themes to replace the provinces and diocese from more archaic times and became basilieus (king) as well as imperator (emperor) [1].

On a peripheral note, this brings up the concept of what an “Arab” is. Is a Christian who speaks Arabic an “Arab” or just an Arabic-speaking Christian? Remember that the Christians of Egypt, Syria and Iraq were originally speakers of other tongues, whether Coptic, Syriac or Greek. Eventually the Islamicization of society led to its Arabicization so that Arabic became the colloqiual and the previously dominant lingua francas became fossilized as liturgical shadows of their rich spoken pasts. The true Arabs are the people of northern Arabia, the Nefud, and the arid portions of Syria, Jordan and Iraq (the Byzantine Emperor Leo who repelled the Umayyad assault on Constantinople was of Arab descent, of the Ghassanid line of Syria). All other “Arabs” are Arabicized peoples, whether that be closely related ones such as the people of Yemen (Sabaeans) or the Levant (Armaeans), or more distant peoples such as Egyptians (Copts) or Maghrebis (Berbers). It seems clear to be a Muslim that speaks Arabic is a clear indication of ones’ affiliation, but what about non-Muslims that speak Arabic? Though the Christians of Lebanon/Syria are traditionally termed “Arabs” I have read that some of them bristle at this assocation, and would like to associate more with the European Christian civilization of the Mediterranean. Certainly those of Maronite and Greek Orthodox religious orientation have other affinities besides the Arabic one despite the language of their birth [2]. Jews, whether Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian or Yemeni have always been excluded from the concept of “Arabness” despite their fluency with the language of the majority. A flexibility in the nature of Arabness is illustrated by the fact that four nations with very tenous claims to being Arab, the Comores, Djibouti, Somalia and Mauritania are members of the Arab League. Arab is I suppose a state of mind….

[1] Important point, remember that the Romans abhorred kings, so an emperor was preferable. Also, note that imperator was used as a common term for the princeps (first citizen) from the reign of Vespasian, circa 75 CE. Additionally, the 3rd century witnesses what some label a transition from the Principate (the high pagan civilian Empire) to the Dominate, the militarized late Empire that would become part of the forerunner of the Christian monarchies of the medieval period (the other root being of corse Germanic sacral royal traditions as well as decentralized tribal forms).
[2] The Jacobite Churches who reject both the Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonian communion and Rome have even a more ancient lineage, that of the Syrian/Aramaic traditions that reach back into the pre-Alexandrian age.