Map of Postclassical India

Diagram for Chinese Influence on Japan, Korea, and Vietnam

Harun al-Rashid

The Wikipedia article on Harun al-Rashid would be considered a good source. It did not show any favorable partiality towards this person, meaning there was no evident sign of a liking for him. As a result, this piece had an objective viewpoint, especially because it included both the good and the bad of his caliphate. For example, the article incorporated that the time of his reign was actually one of turmoil and rebellion. Also, it explained how he led to the division of the Abbasid empire by appointing it to both of his sons while giving each one the means to overtake the other. Due to al-Rashid's decision, a civil war started after he died. Some of the positives of his rule were that Baghdad thrived, becoming one of the most splendid cities of its time, and that the large amount tribute received went to architecture and an extravagant court life. This can be looked at as a quality source as well because along with the information provided, the article also offers reasonable explanations and analysis to parts that are unclear. For instance, this document describes that the tale about the romantic story regarding Ja'far and the decline of the Barmakids is most likely untrue. As a result of this, the article includes a more acceptable approach to this fall based on legitimate accounts from scholars around at this period. More specifically, one possible reason was that the behavior of the Barmakids caused al-Rashid to feel disrespected. The use of scholars' works who were living at this time or who have studied al-Rashid and thus, provided intellectual accounts also results in the increased validity of this source. The explanation for the Barmakids' fall as well as many other ideas, such as the exchange of presents between al-Rashid and Charlemagne, have support from the writings of scholars. However, there was one real setback in this article, but should not have any effect on its quality. Some pieces of information are out of order, making the seemingly chronological sequence of the article confusing. The part about his death and the division between the sons afterwards was not placed directly at the end where it would have made more sense. Also, his campaign against the Byzantines should have been incorporated before the tidbit on the Barmakids and the control of the administration.

Based on this reading, the main question that comes to mind is how capable of a governmental leader was this man. It seems that he never truly had control over his administration or he always looked for help in difficult situations. The article points out that the Barmakids controlled the admistration, but does not include an indication of al-Rashid trying to stop this. As a result, it would appear that with this control and a lack to hinder it that entering al-Rashid's court without permission and making decisions without his content would be alright for the Barmakids to do. In a sense, al-Rashid is allowing them to keep their control over the administration. Therefore, without establishing himself as being higher than the Barmakids, they felt it was sensible to continue their actions. He also punished the man he appointed governor of Khorasan after a revolt broke out when the governor tried to impose al-Rashid's central government on its inhabitants. The idea of punishment was initiated as well with the Barmakids. This shows his lack of a proper ruling system, since he resorted to punishment immediately to fix problems. He also went to his mentor when giving complete executive powers for the administration. He did not seek who was best qualified but just a person he knew, and this was definitely dangerous considering the amount of power he gave and what happened before when others had control in his government. By doing this, he again shows his weakness. The Wikipedia article helps in answering some questions, but the lack of his political authority in the piece presents the need for more information. In order to search for this in Google, one would write Harun al-Rashid political influence in the search engine. To refine the search, one could access "more" on the Google toolbar, hit "even more" at the bottom , and then scroll to "specialized search" and press "scholar". This would provide definite accurate information.

Harun al-Rashid's link to fantasies and tales explains the reason for his prevalence in pop culture. The article clearly identifies this by stating how the Thousand-and-One Nights stories turned al-Rashid into a legend rather than a historical figure. This also gives a reasonable explanation for his fame and notoriety. His accomplishments are not as substantial as other leaders in the past, but the numerous tales about his court made him famous. The article adds to this by including some of the stories and how significant they were. One such tale was about a clock that he sent to Charlemagne which appeared to play tricks. Another indication of his being a part of pop culture, which is included in the article, is that music and art boomed during his time. Therefore, it opens his reign to more cultural activity than others before.

Benjamin of Tudela's Credibility based on Baghdad and Constantinople

Based on the readings by Benjamin of Tudela on Constantinople and Baghdad, he can be considered as a biased writer. In his account of Baghdad, he only explains the Abbasid caliph and his palace in detail while his description of Constantinople includes almost all aspects of the city. His favoritism towards this specific part of Baghdad especially the caliph is clearly evident through the lengthy explanation of this leader's power, wealth, generosity, and righteousness. However, he fails to provide any significant details about other life such as the citizens. He also does not include much about the economy of Baghdad, especially in comparison to Constantinople. His description of this city incorporated how merchants constantly came there and the large amount of tribute brought to Constantinople. His depiction of this capital, while it may be less enthusiastic than his account on the caliph and Baghdad, still serves as a better objective viewpoint since includes almost all facets of the city. Due to his like of the Abbasid caliph as indicated by his repetition of how great and kind this man is, Benjamin seems to favor Baghdad more. Also, the writing on Constantinople compared its wealth to nothing like it in the whole world. However, this makes him appear unqualified because of his inability to know that this city's prosperity is better than all others on earth. In describing Baghdad, he includes that the city was like no other in all of Mesopotamia. By limiting the region of comparison, he makes himself more accurate in his account but, it again shows his favoritism towards Baghdad since he decided to refine his comparison when explaining this capital. The clear enjoyment he received from visiting here is easily portrayed in his writing, which leads to the proposition that it is not valid or it is far-fetched. His increased use of the word "great" in the Baghdad depiction as well as the fact that he found a way to incorporate Baghdad in the Constantinople description but not vice versa shows his clear liking for only one city. He even states that Baghdad was great while he was still describing Constantinople. As a result, his bias or personal feelings in portraying Baghdad, even if it was only this capital, causes him to lose some credibility in his other accounts of cities.

Map of Expansion of Dar-Al-Islam

Islam vs. Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Zoroastrianism

The relationship between Allah and human beings, as outlined in the Quran, relate to the teachings of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity; however, these religions also have differences in regards to such a relationship. According to the Quran, there is only one God that followers must worship, Allah. This is similar to both Judaism and Christianity in that Jews only follow Yahweh and Christians only believe in God. On the other hand, Zoroastrians believe in two main gods, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, as well as six lesser deities. All of these religions had a main prophet who helped in guiding and informing people of the correct relationship to have with their God. For example, Islam had Muhammad and Judaism had Moses. Also, each religion stressed that humans behave to the highest moral standards in order to please their God. In addition, each one incorporated the idea of judgement in that their God would reward those who obeyed him and punish those who did not. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism all believed that their respective God was almighty and beneficent as well as a divine creator of all things. Each religion similarly included that there is an evil being who is against the followers' God trying to persuade people to follow him instead of their benevolent God. As a result, each religion's God provides the guidelines in which the people must behave accordingly to. Another dissimilarity, however, is that Zoroastrians saw the material world as a sign of kindness from Ahura Mazda and thus, should enjoy it. The other three religions encouraged help to the poor, especially Islam in that the Quran points out that people are expected to share their goods with the needier.

Foltz: Spread of Islam

The spread of Islam according to this reading by Richard C. Foltz supports Bentley's argument of how people convert to religions, which could be from voluntary association, syncretism, or pressure. Muslim control of the western half of the silk roads led to voluntary association, especially among the merchants. A converted businessman would benefit from communication with Muslim traders as well as from the pleasing conditions received from Muslim officials and Islamic laws focused on commerce. Assimilation, or syncretism, also occurred as indicated by the conversion of Central Asians. By living in rural areas, they kept their Iranian (agricultural) or Turkic (pastoral) religious ways while attaining or adding Islamic meanings, interpretations, and appearances. The final factor of pressure could be seen through the political pressure provided by increased Muslim rule over Central Asia. In addition, Islam's convert-or-die method, despite only being used on local rulers who objected the Muslims, still displayed the use of force or threat to spread the religion.

Perspectives of Authors of Descriptions of Constantinople

Ibn Battuta provides a neutral perspective on the city of Constantinople.  In his description, he explains both the negatives and positives of the city, which therefore, balance each other out.  He describes how Constantinople is split into two regions due to a river running through and the second part, Galata, is rebellious, dirty, and filthy.  However, Battuta also gives a depiction of what seems to be the prominent feature for the city, the church, since it is explained as being “one of the greatest churches of the Greeks”.  His portrayal of the other part, Istambul, is definitely neutral because he does appear to be praising anything.  He just gives a list of all of its features such as the bazaars, city-wall, and citadel, but never shows absolute admiration for any of these.  The information Battuta provides can be trusted because of the fact that he was not biased in his descriptions.  Also, he went to great depths to ensure he included everything as indicated by his inclusion of the other, but worse, region of Galata.

Benjamin of Tudela, based on his article, has a positive outlook on Constantinople.  He describes how the wealth of the city cannot be found in any other area of the world.  Also, he includes that the entertainment the emperor provided was like that of no other society.  The description of the Greek inhabitants as looking like princes indicates the extent of the city’s prosperity.  The main point he made to support his positivity was when he expressed that Constantinople was like no other city in the world except Baghdad, another extremely prosperous city as well as the center of Islam.  All of these statements of an indication to the idea that Constantinople is unique in regards to its wealth and high business activity portray Benjamin’s positive perception of this capital.  His description should not be trusted because it appears to have some bias.  His explanations that stated the city or something about the city was like no other in the world are opinionated and assumptions rather than truthful facts.

Liudprand of Cremona's description is clearly presented as a negative perspective on the city of Constantinople.  Throughout his entire account, he consistently and unenthusiastically describes his experiences with the city.  Right at the beginning of this piece, his pessimistic attitude is evident as indicated by his description of the dwelling he was admitted to as a “hateful, waterless, draughty stone house”.  In addition, he depicts the emperor Nicephorus very negatively in that he is described as being “a monstrosity of a man, a dwarf”.  During the procession of the emperor, he attacked the wardrobes of the nobles, tradesmen, and even the emperor.  For example, he portrayed the emperor as looking “more disgusting than ever in the regalia” that was created for him.  This explanation also cannot be trusted because it is full of bias.  It only accounts for his encounter with Constantinople at one period of time.  Unlike the other descriptions, there is no account of any of the city’s features.  The only thing Liudprand did was attack the people, especially the emperor, living in the city.