Historically, is there a reason on why the Muslim world post-conquests developed such a ‘crabs in buckets’ mindset?
Al Andalus cannibalised itself.
The Abbasids Caliphate cannibalised itself.
The Mongols when they converted to Islam cannibalised themselves.
The Ottomans where torn apart for being too unstable.
Wasn’t the aim of the Prophet to unify everyone under just one umbrella?
Ismael's curse
>quoting the bible
Now tell us about the prostitute that liked bbc. What book was she in?
>Now tell us about the prostitute that liked bbc. What book was she in?
Quran and other arab books that revolved around black men.
The Bedouins are often more strict in disbelief and hypocrisy, and are most likely to be ignorant of the limits of what Allah has sent down to His Messenger. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
That's from the Quran. Might make a bit more sense than "he'll be an ass, everyone will die"
Infighting isn't just a Muslim thing.
This map has so many problems, also empires rise and fall OP not unique to Islamic realms
If I could speculate, it'd guess something to do with their rules of succession being more unstable than their contempories. By having both a horizontal, and vertical succession line, a greater number of claimants could arise and lead to the fragmentation of a state, with even those outside the royal family being able to carve out their own state, as we see in the Taifa Period.
Inherently unstable polities. Outside of Umayyad Syria for example, the Caliphate was unable to directly tax or constrain other regions of their Empire because of the tribal nature of much of the land grants made. From Egypt they recieved little to no taxes as it all went to the tribal leaders in the area settled by the Caliphate. It is an inevitable mess and greatly contributes to the shattering of the periphery. Although not quite as bad the Sassanids on the eve of the Arab Conquests were themselves suffering from collapse in their Easternmost provinces and the Empire was thrown into anarchy, only the coming of the Arabs saved it from a complete internal collapse.
The Roman Empire on the other hand just didn't have any entity that wasn't the state, which could challenge the state. Neither was independence something actually wanted by many Romans. The only way you are able to challenge an Emperor through internal means is by using the state to do so. The Army was the only military challenge and it existed due to the state alone, so nobody wanted to do away with it for that. The Senate and much aristocraticic power outside was either curbed into irrelevancy and was deeply invested in the Roman project, especially the Senate. There was just never going to be a point where the Roman Empire internally collapsed.
>There was just never going to be a point where the Roman Empire internally collapsed.
wut. Thats half the reason the West fell. Its the majority of the reason the Easy continued having internal issues that consistently ripped away at it's ability to stay afloat. Do you mean like, first or second century Rome? Even then, there was plenty more than just the state and the military as authority in the Roman Empire. If you mean as a whole, you're dead fricking wrong lol
>wut. Thats half the reason the West fell
Foreign conquest is not the rupturing of the state by its own means. The Romans did not end their own Empire through their own means.
>he majority of the reason the Easy continued having internal issues that consistently ripped away at it's ability to stay afloat
You're probably going to point religious strife (which had little impact on the actual running on the state) despite the fact these people had no real avenues of power in the state which were not granted. Neither did they actually conflict or try to bring on the demise of the Roman state, they had no actual power to stop the institutions of the state like the army or civil service, because they had nothing to do with either. The arguments over religion in Byzantium until the 9th century were almost purely only about ideology, they had no impact on the military or civil arms of the state.
Lol, another anon who has that highschool education of 'barbarian invasion' theory. There are so many things wrong with your statements lmao
Ever heard of like, the entire collection of crises that followed Julius Caesar's death? How Rome teared itself apart? Or how the 'barbarian' migrators eased to Roman authority well, and much of their aggression was caused by Roman mistrust and (sometimes) outright genocide.
Rome was not some internally sound, robust and verdant monolith of the ancient world, at least not in the stability sense. Constant replacement of emperors and capable generals and mismanagement of foederati towards the death of the West shows how incapable it was at managing itself internally by the 4th century. Crisis of the 3rd century before that, and so so many more. Are you getting all your information from video games?
>the entire collection of crises that followed Julius Caesar's death?
None of which were going to end the Roman state. They were explicitly for the domination, not the end of the Roman state.
>Rome was not some internally sound, robust and verdant monolith of the ancient world, at least not in the stability sense. Constant replacement of emperors and capable generals
None of which was going to end the Roman Empire through its own means? A replacement of an Emperor is not an attempt to destroy the Roman state but obtain dominance over it.
> mismanagement of foederati
Which was an external force to the Roman Empire. It is no different from bad foreign policy. So this has no place in the argument, unless you believe all interactions with the Goths, Vandals and so on were all of bad faith were the Roman party deliberately pushed them to make actions knowingly detrimental to Rome.
>Are you getting all your information from video games?
Not an argument
You have yet to give a single example of the ROMAN STATE attempting to destroy the ROMAN STATE. All you have done is give examples of civil war, none of which has anything to do with the end of the Roman state through internal means, likely because there was no internal actor actively trying to destroy the Roman state.
I mean if you're looking at this at a purely technical sense where the concept of Rome or it's state -or however you define it- would never really end, you would be right. The idea of Rome continued long after, simply looking at the successor empires claiming to be Rome.
Regardless of this though- while internally and even externally the idea of the Roman Empire was continually kept alive or at least wanted to- there's no arguing in the fact that the West and partially even the East both fell in large part to internal factors; that want for dominance you mentioned. Ultimately, their infighting and civil wars did not help their survivability.
>you're looking at this at a purely technical sense where the concept of Rome or it's state -or however you define it- would never really end, you would be right
I'm only talking about the real state entity. Not the idea of it.
>there's no arguing in the fact that the West and partially even the East both fell in large part to internal factors
Which isn't what I'm arguing for. I'm arguing that the Roman state was never going to end itself internally, unlike say the Sassanid Empire or the Caliphates.
Galerius wanted to destroy the Roman empire and rebuild it in a Dacian/Getae fashion.
One hostile author does not represent what Galerius actually wanted. He in fact had complete reign in the East after Diocletian's retirement and just continued to ape Diocletian for how to rule and represent himself. Imperial propaganda was little different from the forms created by Diocletian. The only thing Galerius wanted was to be Diocletian. During his entire dominant reign in the East he took no actions to make a 'Dacian' style Empire.
1. Every conqueror says, "there will be peace once everyone submits to me".
2. Arabs and Mongols couldn't reproduce the civilization of Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc.
>Historically, is there a reason on why the Muslim world post-conquests developed such a ‘crabs in buckets’ mindset?
Berber and Turkic moronation