ybinator604g3

Yes, he seems well spoken and very articulate.

While his reasoning about his world view and consequently the name of the book is sound, he is not establishing a causal relationship between religion and anything outside the realm of philosophy. He argues that this is the best common trait for philosophical work of those people in that era in the region. It's also natural that he sees everything through a philosophical lens.

> "Islamic World" replaces several earlier-prevalent terms. Again, Adamson makes the case against several proposed alternatives.

We don't have to cover it under the same _umbrella_ term. In the clip (around 11:07) he shows the slide again and says "As an American, I am a born marketer". Imagine if we were to apply the same argument with a comparable time frame (important distinction) and call him a Christian European. Maybe being good at marketing does was not one of their traits. This is the missing nuance.

That's a pretty big assumption. It's natural to like your heritage and it's fine doing so while being respectful of other people's culture and heritage. I like other people to know about my culture for what it really was, what it went through and what it is right now. This is in contrast with how western media has tried to depict Iran as their political foe. Interestingly, Modern Persia and Islam (more with Islamic rulers) are at odds right now, evidenced by recent social movement and political unrest.

> Imagine if, Islam was opposing to the idea of science

Are you suggesting the biggest contribution was not getting in the way? I wouldn't call it a contribution.

> economic and political prosperity after conquering many places

That happened despite the invasion, not because of it. Iran was well prosperous before that and the fall of Persian empires eventually cleared the way for a destructive Mongol invasion which Iranians had held back for a long time before.

Thanks for the link. I watched the first 20 minutes and will watch the rest now. It's very interesting.

A small note, popularity (being generally recognized) is not a good indicator of the validity of any view point and it certainly does not mean we cannot challenge them.

> It's also more nuanced than hot takes suggest.

I believe as an Iranian and a history enthusiast, what I expressed was one of those these nuances which is presumably being labeled as hot take, or am I mistaken and you referring to something from somewhere else?

edit: fixed typo

While intertwined, History and Religion are two different concepts. Of course one can differentiate between them.

The other day I was watching Neil deGrasse Tyson on Joe Rogan show and he was talking about Islamic Science and how Algebra, Astronomy, etc. come from Islam. I was baffled as an Iranian. I get that there is this anti muslim rhetoric lurking around and these people are trying to fight it. I assume they are well intentioned but in doing so they are doing the same thing that they advocate against.

But I like your point of view.

It is so unfortunate. I am from Iran and I much prefer the current name. It's an ancient name that includes not only Persians, but also Medians, Partians, etc. Iran has been multi cultural since old times and it's nice to have an inclusive name. I believe after we throw the occupiers (mullahs) out, we have a lot of work to do.

The only weird thing with the name Iran, is that it literally means "The Land of Aryans" which got a bad rep after Nazis (rightfully so).

Could you please elaborate?

I think it’s a complex topic that involves religion, society and culture. In this case it’s important to know if they are singling out hijab or also other religious symbols? For instance France banned full face covers and burkas which are not even mandated by the religion if I am not mistaken.

I believe banning a piece of clothing is not reasonable, like banning jeans or headscarves. On the other hand there is a lot of stigma around hijab if you choose not to wear it among some muslim families so much so that it’s not a real choice anymore and it’s not a simple piece of cloth. So I think it’s not bad to have some legal ways to protect you against your over zealous family/community but this kind of lawmaking is very prone to other issues too. Furthermore, banning and enforcing are two sides of the same authoritarian coin which is ultimately the root of the problem. It’s very complicated. I wish I had a straightforward answer.

Is it really a choice when you are talking about religion? I am from Iran. In the school they teach (scare) children that if you don’t wear hijab, you will be hanged from your hair and burned on a stick till eternity in hell after you die. By the way that subject is not elective. You have to pass it. What kind of choice is this?

Update (context): I am not talking about the people in west who want to (not)wear hijab. I understand the premise of that choice. But this word (choice) is used daily in government propaganda. Maybe its analogous to talking about the choice of working in a cotton field to a slave. It’s a whole different environment/context. Hence my negative reaction to this word. It’s a matter of feeling which I just expressed. Nothing against someone who has a real choice, without religious stigma.

School girls poisoned in many cities in concert using similar method and government officials claimed it’s nothing but hysteria and the “supreme” leader finally condemns it after a lot of bad press outside of Iran. They install cameras to find one unveiled woman but have trouble to identify who is poisoning school girls nationwide. His condemnation is there to be sold to BBC. Nobody in Iran believes him.

They are taking revenge for the protests and unveiling in schools. Their whole terror machine mocked by a bunch of school kids.

Exactly, like all the external influence that keep the mullahs afloat :)