|Muqaddimah has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Translations and questionable Arab racism
I think that Wikipedia should do an investigation into translations when it comes to racism against "blacks". If any of the editing that I did here on this article was unnecessary please edit and fix it, but at the very least maybe put different translations of the same passage side by side in different articles where this racism shows up that might be questionable. Whats important about this is not just whither or not these scholars were biased the importance is gaining an accurate view of history and this can't be done if there is mistranslations, on the other hand bigotry and prejudiced writing certainly occurred so this is also a sensitive topic that should be taken carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markellion (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, this page requires some sources, doesn't it? I mean, especially with the last two sentences of the entry. There seems to be absolutely no material supporting the claim--it would be really great if someone could do something about it. :)
Connection to Modern Sociology
Stating that Hegel and Marx were all about feedback loops and not structures whereas Durkheim was all about structures and not feedback loops seems to gloss over important issues. More importantly, it is far from true. If anything. Marx exemplifies a structural discussion. It is interesting that such a claim would appear, considering that reading Durkheim lead me to think of Ibn Khaldun and I came to this article to jog my memory. Having read this impressive tome for my undergraduate work, I hope someone who has read it in the nearer past will revise and add. At any rate, Ibn Khaldun's cyclical vision of society does not resemble Marx's progress driven one. Ibn Khaldun recognized the inevitable corruptability of man. Durkheim saw a similar cycle of societal 'creative destruction', but did not define it into a full theory. At any rate, I'm not changing anything because I don't have the time to write a thorough well-written paragraph, but I would vote to remove the paragraph rather than mislead. Also, this may not be the place for the big Durkheim/Marx debate, but rather those two venerable philosophers's articles. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that Ibn Kaldun argued for an initially positive, but eventually negative relationship between tax rates and revenues. But to refer to it as the 'Khaldun-Laffer curve' instead of the 'Laffer curve' will only unnecessarily confuse the issue. There are many other 'laws' that are known by their modern promulgators, the principles of which were discovered in the past. We should refer to concepts by the names they are best known by. lk 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive the technical ignorance but I didn't intent the post I made today to be in bold type but can't undo it. Can some computer literate type please help? I also don't know how to properly add a link so could someone do it for the http I've added. Jjc2002 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Jjc2002
It seems the objections above (which should be archived probably) have been dealt with decisively. So much so, that this article should be upgraded from start-class, and considered as a featured article candidate.
If you disagree, then, find another article that does such a clear and specific job relating medieval Muslim thought to Western/modern thought, fairly crediting modern ideas to their Islamic-civilization originators, and is so well sourced.