Talk:Islamic Golden Age

Denial

I am no authority on this subject, but after some cruising around, it seems to me that there is a fairly strong current of people who deny the existence or significance of the Islamic golden age. I am not agreeing with those folks, but I wonder if it would not be wise to place a subsection that addresses this trend. (not to be macabre, but a bit like the page on the Holocaust provides links to holocaust denial)

FYI, this trend seems to largely be spearheaded by Robert Spencer. Thoughts? -Maxkbennett

actually that is an important point as Europe though all ages, ancient to modern (particularly the Christian theocracies and monarchies), covered up Islamic advance, with most in Europe assuming that Islamic states were backwards primitive people despite using many Islamic inventions in everyday life. Hypo Mix (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably every theory and mainstream view is denied by someone. Unless someone can point to this being a well established view I don't think this has any potential. --85.145.56.218 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Islamic Inventions? Since when does a "religion" invent things other then religious ones? Were Newton or Galilei Christian Scientists or made inventions in the name of Christianity? Or is it not more the case that they were just scientist who lived in a Christian society? There is only one true Islamic-Sciene and that is Ilm al-Tafsir, and it has nothing to do with physics or mathematics.-- 77.117.11.214 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See also Science allah carte http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/science_allah_carte --178.115.126.90 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Why was the "neutrality is disputed" tag removed and the whole discussion moved to the archive, although more than half a dozen (!) contributors have complained over time about both the main authors lack of actual knowledge of the sources he quoted and its overall tendentious treatment? Is this how things are done when nobody is looking for a moment? The article still is biased. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so... the only person I remember accusing me of a "lack of actual knowledge of the sources he quoted" is you. Also, the talk page was archived obviously because the length of the talk page was over 65K. And for the record, I had no part in any of the decisions that were made for this article over the past six months (besides maybe a few minor edits here and there). Jagged 85 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not a scholar in the history of science, many statements advancing the idea that much of Islamic science preceded Western science need an urgent peer-review in this wiki. Anyone willing to request it in the boards? Meanwhile, a major de-wikifying of the article is needed. Lots of blue words should be turned black. Wikification is only pertinent with the first mention of a specific word. Instead, many words are being wikified multiple times in this article. —Cesar Tort 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) OK, I've requested it already. —Cesar Tort 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Finetooth has commented on this article and yes: we need a lot of cleanup, starting from de-wikifying dozens of words in blue. Please see his comments. —Cesar Tort 05:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis

Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm

Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677

• • Islam and Religious Freedom**? Was that supposed to be a joke or something? A systematic destruction of pagan places of worship and persecution of followers of such religions was a key policy for most of the Islamic Rulers. Islamic invasions absolutely routed Buddhism and Zoroastrianism from Iran, Central Asia and South Asia.Islamic Rule in South Asia marked a pinnacle of bigotry and religious suppression in a region that was usually known for religious tolerance and mutual co-poeration among differing ideologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.154.164 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A Bigger Picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.86.123 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I can see that this article has taken many people by surprise, causing disputes and even pushing some to religious comparison. I would like to point out that this article is about the Islamic civilization and empire, not religion. I would also like to add that this Islamic golden age lasted for a period no less than 500 hundred years and extended from Spain in the west, to India in the East. The empire included peoples from every almost every race on the eastern side of the Atlantic. It is only natural that a nation holding the sole super power status for half a millenium would go through ever-changing phases. No doubt that at certain, historically documented times, oppresive rulers took hold of power. Some promoted religious intolerance and others opression of the sciences. But it is also important to note that during the majority of the age of this empire; expansion, development and innovation were the main themes in a multi-ethnic, religiously tolerant environment. Numerous scientists, artists and philosophers achieved milestones in their fields. Such fields include documented works on medicine, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, literature and more. Scientists were mostly muslim; as was the majority of the population. However, several prominent Jewish and Christian scientists flourished in the empire. I am compelled to add a very brief outline on the rise of the Islamic empire, Geography:starts in Mecca with the birth of the prophet, expanding to the inter-continental borders within 80 years. Academia: a belief in the divinity of knowledge led to the pursuit and translation of academic texts from Greece, Egypt, India and other ancient civiliations, followed by an explosive growth in scientific research and experimentation. I have not written this article, but I found that aside from some exaggerated facts and boldly stated misconceptions, most the information within is correct. Do excuse me if my reply was short or overly general. I would be glad to discuss any of the topics mentioned above in finer detail, do not hesitate to initiate contact. H.AB

Syriac (Assyrian) Influence

i agree with Gun Powder Ma, there isnt enough detail, and for me about the advances brought on by East Syrians (members of the Church of the East) during the Sassanian period where they were the driving force in the translation of Greek philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. from Greek to Syriacs ... these translations were predomenatly found in School of Edessa (before it was close) then in School of Nisibis, and from there in many other schools. It was after the Islamic invasion of Mesopotamia that once again these Greek texts were translated from Syriac to Arabic by Assyrians themselves. This is the reason why the "Islamic Golden Age" began. Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" I think there needs to be a seperate section just on the Assyrian (Nestorian, East Syrian, Syriac etc.)contribution to the Islamic Golden Age. I advize you to research on this topic, and if you want me to I am able to make this section for you. Malik Danno (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

“ Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" ”

Uh...r-i-g-h-t... You do know there were other ethnicities involved? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only see question marks instead of your signature. Which software are we missing? —Cesar Tort 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who, me? It's in Japanese. Can you still click on it? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes: I can click on it. I guess I don't have the software to see the letters. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

u dont need any software change ur browser encoding to unicode or UTF-8 Supersaiyan474 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but by far the Assyrians were the most influential players in the Early Islamic Golden Age, yet there is no mention of them whatsoever. Malik Danno (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting question. Was, what now is usually refered to as the "Islamic Golden Age", just the last breath of a much older tradition and "Golden Age"? The region had been under Persian and Hellenistic influence for a long time and that has to have had a great impact on science and culture in the early Islamic world. Joe hill (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If so, you need to site a source which supports this analysis. If you want to improve the article, get to work, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here.Maxkbennett (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction- Ibn Al Nafis

How can Ibn al-Nafis be the same person in the two views???

Traditionalist Muslims at the time, including the polymath Ibn al-Nafis, believed that the Crusades and Mongol invasions may have been a divine punishment from God against Muslims deviating from the Sunnah. As a result, the falsafa, some of whom held ideas incompatible with the Sunnah, became targets of criticism from many traditionalist Muslims, though other traditionalists such as Ibn al-Nafis made attempts at reconciling reason with revelation and blur the line between the two.[205]

wrong

Why is this a part of wiki iran even though islam originates from mecca (which is a part of KSA"SAUDI ARABIA") why is there written about rice and mango coming from india actually pakistani rice and mangoes are famous it means a over-proud indian or irani wrote this page !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark dragon474 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

--Arabwiki (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To the poster above who wrote the section "wrong", I'm an ethnic arab and never been to iran or india or any of the countries you whine about. I would like to say to you stop. Stop these sad arguments. What are we now? all of us in the islamic world, what is our status as a nation? Iran and Turkey are two major pillars of the Islamic world. Iranians and Turkish scholars have contributed tremendously to the Islamic world. The land of Arabs - or Arabia (I will not call it the new name that a family of thieves gave to it) is where some of the finest muslims come from. But just because our great prophet comes from there doesn't mean that you or me as arabs have any special status. Mohammed came to all humanity and Allah himself said that no one is better than the other except by faith (Taqua). Persians and Turks in the days of our greatness were shining muslims. So this is to all of us, all the major races in islam that contributed to what was once the leading nation of the whole world, to them I say lets at least unite in our past. To have an appreciation of what we used to be as an integrated nation.

So let them call it part of WikiIran or WikiIraq or WikiWhatever.

I must say that mention of persian scholars is a little too much compared to others, but it is not biased as you put it.

May Allah bless you all my brothers.

60.53.52.1 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer-review on this article

The first comments on this article are already coming. Please see here and also here. Thank you.

—Cesar Tort 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added an {overlinked} tag at the top of the article per peer-review. —Cesar Tort 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue with the article is less its extensive use of links, it is much more the one-sided way in which sources are given, sources whose contents and meaning are clearly not understood by the author, who also shows IMO a lack of motivation looking for contrary scholarly opinions. The tag should be about the unbalanced views given. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've tagged it. I'm specifically concerned about what I say in Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1. —Cesar Tort 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I'm curious. I have this page on my watchlist somehow, must have made a minor edit one day i don't remember, and have noticed several times information being added, and then reverted as vandalism, about slavery. Why is this vandalism? Were there actually no slaves in the Islamic Golden Age? Is the information, including references, made up? If there were slaves, surely that deserves a mention, which it doesn't get in the non-vandalised version, if for no other reason than completeness? As i say, i'm curious; just not enough to go trailing through archives (though i did have a quick look) and the History of the page in order to find out. Can someone tell me why this edit[1] is vandalism? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slave trade did exist during Islamic Golden age, but it was not a product of this era. Slave trade existed way back before Koran and Islamic societies were in any case not among the worst practitioners of slave trade. How would slave trade be relevant to this article? Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, how would it not be relevant? If it existed at the time, if it was a part of the Golden Age, even if it wasn't exactly what it was built on, surely that's relevance. As for your other point, slavery existed way back before the United States was founded, but that doesn't mean we don't talk about it in any discussion of the first half of the Nineteenth Century in that country. I guess i'm just failing to see why something that appears to be an effort to make Islam look better isn't what it appears, and i'm hoping someone can help me see that. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Zencv was wrong to revert it as vandalism and tag it a minor edit on the revert. Wikipedia would be so lucky if that was the quality of "vandalism". As Zencv doesn't look like they'll self-revert I'll do that. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one can mention slave trade in islamic golden age within a specific context, but having a specific section on this, completely out of rhythm with the flow of article is not warranted. The Anon IP editor who has added this has done the same on this Islamic_economics_in_the_world though I dont understand the relevanve of slave trade in that article. Sorry, you have not given me a convincing argument that why should we have a separate section on this and how having this section would help an unbiased reader understand Islamic golden age better. As for your opinion on "an effort to make Islam look better", why is it a problem to mention good points of Islam without having to mention all the irrelevant and unimportant negative points? As for comparison see Catholic_church. Neither slave trade, nor paedophilia are mentioned anywhere though they engaged in these practices abundantly. Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

See the relevant section in the talk. Next time please WP:AGF instead of simply assuming vandalism. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assumed vandalism for some good reason - the editor tried to add a completely new and irrelevant section for the second time without

• discussing in the talk page
• arguing or explaining his rationale for it to be included in the article Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Slave trade

The edit [2] was reverted as vandalism. This is wrong. I have reinstated it because it is relevant to the economy at the time and it is well cited (well nothing glaring jumped out and said blog). Argue in this section why the slave trade can' be mentioned. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted because someone doesn't like it and once again tagged as a minor edit. I don't think they understand the process here. The specific context is the economics. It would seem that slaves are essential to the economics of the Islamic Golden age. Would the person please WP:AGF regarding any editor even if they are an IP editor. Also there is no reason to equate this article with the Catholic_church. Each article in Wikipedia is edited according to the topic. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I pointed Catholic church as a good example. Your edits were not reverted because of dislike, but you failed to give any convincing argument to have your section included in this article. Having foolproof grammar and even reliable sources alone doesn't warrant inclusion. What you wanted to be included if it is disputable have to be discussed in the talk page and a concensus have to be built. I am afraid that the onus is on you to do that Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The role of slavery in the economy can not be ignored. Restore the section and link to Islam and slavery or delete the entire economic section.J8079s (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. The IGA economics can't include the slave trade as this was strictly Arab. Many in the Golden age were of different ethnicities (Muslims, Christians and Jews etc...) who did not partcipate in the slave trade. Don't confuse religion with IGA please. Obviously it can't be ignored. I would suggest amalagmating it to another section if need be mentioned. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the institution of slavery played some sort of role within the economy of Muslim states, just as it did throughout the rest of the world. Does it have anything to do with the Golden Age as such? This connection must be verified by the reliable sources, else making the connection ourselves is original research. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the Mamluks ?J8079s (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the person who added this section back did not explain

* How slavery played a role in IGA and how big a role to warrant a separate section?

* How can Islamic slave trade be equivalent of Arab slave trade?

* The practice of slavery existed before and after IGA and Christians and Jews were quite important chains in the slave trade. How does it warrant a separate section here? I am deleting it as the questions are unanswered and an NPOV tag stays there like a big thump for no reason Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree Zenv. We should delete it. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 21:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV et al

This article has multiple issues; {{POV}} {{Disputed}} {{Self-published}} {{citecheck}} {{Primarysources}} Please read these sources:

• Labour in the Medieval Islamic World By Maya Shatzmiller Published by BRILL, 1994 ISBN 9004098968 (see at google books)
• The Making of Humanity By Robert Briffault Published by G. Allen & Unwin ltd., 1919 Original from the University of California Digitized Oct 18, 2007 371 pages available in its entirety here: http://books.google.com/books?id=usdCAAAAIAAJ please see part II chapter V
• How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs By De Lacy O'Leary D.D. First published in Great Britain in 1949 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Reprinted three times. This edition first published in 1979 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 39 Store Street, London WC1E7DD, Broadway House, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG91EN and 9 Park Street, Boston, Mass. 02108, USA Printed in Great Britain by Caledonian Graphics Cumbernauld, Scotland ISBN 0 7100 1903 3 Assyrian International News Agency Books Online read it here: http://www.aina.org/books/hgsptta.htm#ch13 (O'leary is using "Arab" in the same sense that the article uses "Islam")

Reading wikipedia should make us smater. Please help.J8079s (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give us an argument? What is the point of reading these sources? I mean the tags are very wide ranging. What specific place in the article does this apply? LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you like The Golden Age of Islam, you will love these books. I am going off line for a few days. I will try to help in the new year.J8079s (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has a great deal of one-sidedness and puffery about it. I note the presure to exclude critical features like the basis in slavery. There are also extremely dubious statements such as that islam invented the hospital and the public library! Untrue. Xandar 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on that, we should clear up those points. We should add a little bit about the nature of slaves, and their roles in the Golden Age. [3] We should also add the role of women during the era [4] Faro0485 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hash/Soap

Under technology it says they invented "soap bar", which, along with being a bar of soap, is a slang term in the UK for low-grade hash. Now, these guys did invent hash, or at least the word hashish, but which does the mean. If the article is referring to "a bar of soap" hadn't we better put it that way? And if we mean hash, hadn't we better put it that way?Didshe (talk)

Quran

There are only two mentionings of the qur'an on this article.

As far as the arabic literature wiki goes, shouldn't the quran be added as a reference. Perhaps number of copies made over time, styles developed during the era? Also shouldn't their be something about literacy rates, since literacy and language would have been a precursor to any civil development? Faro0485 (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't the quran be added as a reference... No, Wikipedia relies primarly on secondary sources. Please refer to WP:PRIMARY. As for the second part of your post, I must say 'yes, definitely. do you have any figures and information?' -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The following might be something Islamic economics Faro0485 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

scientific method being rather the islamic method Faro0485 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nestorian/Jacobite involvement

as I stated above, the 'Islamic Renaissance' would not have existed without the translation of Greek/Latin works to Syriac and finally to Arabic. The fact is that ancient works were translated by Nestorian and Jacobite monks (initially) then were taught throughout schools in Mesopotamia (school of Edessa) and when the Arabs conquered Mesopotamia it was these people who translated the works to Arabic. That link is missing in this page ... there is mention of Greek/Latin works used for the flourishing of Islamic Renaissance, however no mention of Nestorian/Jacobite involvement in that matter. Malik Danno (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and Islam-Watch.org

The whole Controversy section is supported by one source - islam-watch.org which obviously is a highly biased, extremist, fringe site which would satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. In my opinion, those sections should be removed as they are not supported by mainstream and widespread reliable sources. Any comments? Zencv ^Whisper 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All the cites in that section seem to refer back to a single book, apparently (according to its listing on Amazon) published via Felibri.com, which advertises itself as "A Community of Self-Published Authors". There appears to be one reference to a non-self-published work right at the end, but the section just refers to this book as containing "A similar and even more detailed analysis" without actually citing or quoting any specific part of it, which seems to fail the verifiability test's citation standards. I've therefore removed the entire section, as per WP:V/WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone was going to clean that up. I do think though that a denial section may not be out of place as a number of "experts" (self proclaimed or otherwise) deny this period's existence or significance. I'm gonna set up a denial section, just to recognize that these guys do exist, and they make a lot of noise. If you think this is inappropriate, let me know. Maxkbennett (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By "denial" section, I assume that you meant a section similar to "Criticism of ...". The problem with such a separate section in any article is that it often becomes a placeholder for pseudo academic research or other polemics. But we should incorporate other well sourced and relevant pointing of shortcomings of Golden age in the existing sections wherever appropriate, thus maintaining the flow of the article. Zencv ^Whisper 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I do think it is worth mentioning the pseudo academic elements in the discussion because they have become so prevalent. If you visit a bookstore (in the states anyway) many of the books that deal with this are by deniers.Maxkbennett (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as something is well sourced and relevant, alright. As for a separate section, I was just stating a general opinion. In fact, there is no clear guidance in this regard. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section Zencv ^Whisper 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Technology

Some of the inventions listed under technology need greater specificity. I am referring to primarily crystallization, purification, oxidation, and evaporation. Except for purification these are natural processes, not inventions. The links either go to either an article on the natural process or a disambiguation page, so its very difficult to determine just what invention the article is talking about. Most of the inventions listed are clear and specific enough. It is really just the few that I previously mentioned that are unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlenthe (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Picture

The article states that the Golden Age lasted from the 9th-13th centuries (or, at latest, the 15th century) CE. The Taj Mahal was built in the mid-17th century. Does this make sense? I'm sure that we could find a more suitable illustration. 99.23.131.154 (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Islamic Golden Age lasted longer than the 13th century, this is nothing more than people trying to diminish Islams great history and signifficance to the world. It ran until at least the 15th century, some people try to push that the Islamic Golden age is a myth and that it never existed, none of this is factual but people trying to strangle Islam and it's powerful impact on our society, a shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.62.236 (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims on life expectancy

I've just tagged the Islamic Golden Age#Urbanization section, in particular the section on life expectancy, with almost every tag in the book.

The basic claim that life expectancy was higher in this civilisation is supported only by WP:SYNTH, by taking figures to suit the argument from various sources. No source used here actually makes this claim.

In particular no source makes the leading claim that any increase was due to improved medical care; in fact the sources contradict the claims made there. For example the citation of Conrad (2006), The Western Medical Tradition to support the claim for the average life expectancy in the Caliphate actually says that Arab-Islamic physicians "could do little, for example, to change the facts that life expectancy was not much above 35 years" (p. 137). Elsewhere in the same book we find the statement about "the well-being of the general population, with which the early caliphate was not particularly concerned" (p. 102).

Add to this that the studies quoted from Shatzmiller (1994), Labour in the medieval Islamic world, are described by her as "a misleading sample" (p. 66).

Also some of the sources cited are of very poor quality (TV program summaries, a University 'thought for the day' page, etc.).

If no-one can find some decent sources to support this, I will delete it.

All the best. —Syncategoremata (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've entirely re-written the paragraphs on life expectancy and literacy, based on the reliable sources, while quoting extensively from those sources to make sure what's written in the article is consistent with the cited sources. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and disputed neutrality

I tagged the article since the issues are numerous.

• POV: Generally, the article seems to be a bit too keen to trumpet 'Islamic' achievements, trying to make it appear the earlier and better Western civilization. Obviously, someone has an axe to grind.
• Presentism and anticipation: modern (Western) terms like "globalization", "age of discovery", "industrial growth", "market economy" are used anachronistically. The same is true of "Islamic democracy", today a rare occurrence, back then as unknown as atomic energy
• Revolution: supposedly revolutionary aspects are far too much stressed, the evolutionary or stagnant aspects of pre-industrial societies is systematically overlooked or downplayed
• Disputed material: Much of the material included here has already been shown to be flawed elsewhere and consequently removed or reworded. This clear-up needs to be done here, too. E.g. claim of the earliest 'hospital', 'universities', 'public libraries', but in fact much more.
• Synthesis: the recent addition which compares life span of Islamic scholars with the average life span in other ancient societies is a point in case. It then hurriedly goes on to put the comparison into perspective, but one is still left wondering why apples and oranges are compared here

In sum, what the article urgently needs is editing work which shows a willingness to adapt the article to historical reality, not one which tries by misinterpretation to adapt the cited sources to a pre-conceived, rose-coloured view. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reference to my recent update as "Synthesis" is completely false. Nowhere does the paragraph directly compare the "life span of Islamic scholars with the average life span in other ancient societies" in any way. Neither does my update contradict what's in the cited sources in any way (as you can see from the quotes I've provided). Of all the edits you could have nit-picked, I'm surprised you went for that one, as it can only hurt your case if anything. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, since we both agree that the original sources don't compare the life-spans that way, I wonder why you still juxtaposed them? This is classical synthesis: to take two unconnected sources A and B and to bring them together in close proximity to suggest C which, however, can be found in neither source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. The conclusion was based on Maya Shatzmiller alone, not on a "synthesis" of two or more sources. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And Shatzmiller, as you write yourself, considers this sample misleading. So why do you include it in the first place? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fatimid Caliphate instead of islamic age?

You dont have British calling the industrial revolution a 'Darwinian age', nor do you have Americans calling technological advances a 'Christian age'

So why should it be called the Islamic age? Why not the Ayyubid dynasty?78.149.198.245 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree...

The reason lies in the religious zeal expressed by many Muslims, who have a vested interest in arguing that everything positive that happened was due to their religion and holy book, while in the same breath applying a clear double standard by vehemently arguing against including slavery and other negative aspects under the same religious label.

Another reason is a policy of appeasement by some Western scholars who know full well that this kind of labeling will be received favorably by Muslims increasing their own stature in the process.

In reality, though, this is a highly offensive label given the non-Muslim religious affiliation of many of those who are posthumously included as parts of a so called "Islamic Golden Age". It's abuse of history at its worst, serving contemporary religious and political purposes, the third sentence of the article says it all really:

"Muslim artists and scientists, princes and laborers together made a unique culture that has directly and indirectly influenced societies on every continent".

I guess all these people were posthumously converted to Islam thanks to which we all can marvel at the "Islamic" accomplishments? Labels such as Islamic Physics are even more absurd, though they are merely a logical derivative of this initial wrong label.

Abvgd (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Islamic golden age is a myth

"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis

Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm

Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677

Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698

The architectural design of mosques, for example, long a source of pride among Muslims, was copied from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches… The seventh-century Dome of the Rock, considered today to have been first great mosque, was not only copied from Byzantine models, but was built by Byzantine craftsmen… The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. Avicenna (980-1037), Averroes (1128-1198), and the other Muslim philosophers built on the work of the pagan Greek Aristotle. And Aristotle’s work was preserved from the ravages of the Dark Ages not first by Muslims, but by Christians such as the fifth-century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. The Christian Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873) translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac, from which they were translated into Arabic by his son. The Jacobite Christian Yahya ibn ‘Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote his own; his treatise The Reformation of Morals has occasionally been erroneously attributed to various of his Muslim contemporaries. His student, another Christian named Abu ‘Ali ‘Isa ibn Zur’a (943-1008), also made Arabic translations of Aristotle and other Greek writers from Syriac. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital, another source of pride among Muslims and often a prominent feature of Islamic accomplishment lists, was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate by a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians. The world’s first university may not have been the Muslims’ Al-Azhar in Cairo, as is often claimed, but the Assyrian School of Nisibis. source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006014.php

Islam's much-vaunted "golden age" was in reality the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed. The brief cultural blossoming during the first centuries of Islamic rule owed its existence almost entirely to the pre-Islamic heritage in a region that was still, for a while, majority non-Muslim… Jihad piracy and slavery remained a serious threat to Europeans for more than a thousand years. As historian Ibn Khaldun proudly proclaimed about the early Middle Ages: "The Christian could no longer float a plank upon the sea." The reason why the West for centuries didn't have easy access to the Classical learning of the Byzantine Empire was because endemic Muslim raids made the Mediterranean unsafe for regular travel. It has to be the height of absurdity to block access to something and then take credit for transmitting it, yet that is precisely what Muslims do. source: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3017/print

Islam’s Golden Age: An Archaeological Nonentity, by John J. O’Neill: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/islams-golden-age-archaeological.html#readfurther

The Nostalgia of Islamic Golden Age vs. the History of Science, by Syed Kamran Mirza: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Nostalgia-of-Islamic-Golden-Age.htm

Quinacrine (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that this does not match my own understanding and reading on this subject, where the idea of an "Islamic golden age" is not uncommon (though the dates and exact scope tend to vary from author to author). I don't have the time right now to look at the sources you have listed here, but if they were to be reliable (and not just belonging to a fringe or minority position), then a summary of their position might well belong on Wikipedia, however much I might personally disagree with it.

Then again, looking at your other edits here on Wikipedia, it seems extremely unlikely that you have a neutral POV and extremely likely that this material is, as it appears, a fringe or minority position.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

To those who try to claim, as some here have in their posts, that the Muslim scholars, scientists, philosophers, inventors, etc. of this period that has become known as the Islamic Golden Age were allegedly "oppressed" this is nothing but a lie. There are no examples of this, in fact read the following [5] this shows that no Muslim scholar or scientist was ever "burned at the stake" for their scientific or other academic ideas; this was not the case in the West were the Church often burned "heretics" or at least brought them before the Christian Inquisition for daring to claim things like "the system of Copernicus is true" (i.e. that of the heliocentric system). Just see Galileo Galleli brought before the Catholic Christian Inquisition and censored! There are no example of this from anything in the great history of Islamic science and invention. Countless Muslim scholars like al-Biruni openly stated that the earth was obviously round (and attempted to calculate and measure the earth) just as was done at Bayt al-Hikma (The House of Wisdom) of the great reign of Caliph Harun al-Rashid in Abbasid Baghdad. Again there were no Muslim "Inquisitions" that the Christians had so much of along with Christian "witch" trials and such! --Historylover4 (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recognize all of the linked sources in the first post in this section, but several of them are considered fringe / right-wing / anti-immigration, and none of them look like scholarly works. I would avoid using any material from these pages in this or other wikipedia history articles.

I have personally wondered about the title of the article, which seems to me to lean towards POV, as if an article on the roman empire's peak was called 'the Glory of Rome', but there is a large body of reliable scholarship which details technological and scientific advances made by Islamic society during the early Caliphate period, and claims that this progress was a myth don't have traction in reliable scholarly works. Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

End of the Golden Age

It seems that the section End of the Golden Age needs be reorganized.

• Wars and Invasion: Mongols from east and Colonials from west.
• Loss of unified leadership. Divisions between Sunni and Shia, Arabs, Turks and Persians.
• Loss of connection to previous generations of knowledge by losing libraries and single copy books.
• Intellectual division of clerics and scientists: increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought.
• Economic lag behind that of the West, lack of monetary support for scientists.

--Nevit (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevit you make some good points, except I would challenge you to show concrete examples of alleged "lack of tolerance of intellectual debate". There are no real strong examples of this occurring in any sizable manner, unlike the Christian "West" with Galileo vs. the Catholic Church, the witch hunts, the Christian Inquisitions, etc. The main reasons for the wane in the power of certain Islamic Empires were due mostly to the Mongols pillaging and destruction of the Islamic heartland and most importantly the Mongol siege and utter destruction of the once mighty Abbasid capitol city of Baghdad in 1258 C.E. The Crusaders from Western Europe also did much damage to the Islamic Empires for a time. The Islamic world became fragmented and lacked communication for a while after these events (again Mongol invasions and Crusades). It took a time for the next great Islamic Empire the Ottomans to build up to the world power they were to become in their age.--Historylover4 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on topic but there are several words and definitions for different kinds of infidels in Islamic world. Kafir used for atheists. Mushrik used for polytheists. Conversion of Muslims to other religions, is also strictly forbidden and is termed Mortad or apostasy. Monker: denialist. Munafik: one who pretends to be Moslem and hiding his infidelity. In most interpretations of Sharia, the penalty for being labeled of infidelity is death. Remember Salman Rushdie? There are other punishments such as forbidding social contacts with infidels, or imprisonment. Under strict application of religious laws it would be impossible to delve into some fundamental debates such as existing of God. The important question is how strictly these laws applied in different era, and how powerful was the clerics. Razi (865–925) wrote three books dealing with religion; they were: The Prophets' Fraudulent Tricks (مخارق الانبياء), The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets (حيل المتنبيين), and On the Refutation of Revealed Religions (نقض الادیان). He offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences. It would be impossible to write those without relative freedom of expression. Many of the scholars where aware of the power of clerics in their era and balanced self-censorship to adopt to their environment and avoid danger. I am not aware of courage examples like Galileo. Omar Khayyám (1048-1131) criticizes clerics in one poem: O cleric, we are more active than you, even so drunk, we are more attentive than you, You drink the blood of men, we drink the blood of grapes [wine], Be fair, which one of us is more bloodthirsty? Although I have no exact dates, it seems very unlikely to me that scientific freedom of expression would be possible in a society where sharia laws are applied strictly or clerics own the position of power. --Nevit (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for a single example of "lack of tolerance of intellectual debate" off the top of my head, consider the imposition of the miḥna (or inquisition) by al-Ma'mun concerning the doctrine of the created Quʾran. There are plenty more such examples but be aware that I am not claiming that they were more or less important than the other factors you mention, or that they were better or worse than similar problems in the Latin West; but certainly it is clearly wrong to claim that there were no such events in the Islamic civilisations.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your example is wrong as it preceded the rise of the Islamic civilisation and the bulk of scientific and intellectual contribution occurred after that period. The issue also showed the ruler of the time encouraged rationalism (mutazalites) by opposing non-rational approaches and conclusions. I think recent Ottomanist experts' works need to be included who question the whole nationalist revisionism of the end of the Ottoman empire, which was economically growing and innovating like crazy - the decline appears to have began post-1924 with the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate, division of the middle east, disrupting trade networks, rupturing cultures and civilisations, and forcing new wester political philosophies on the region. Somaya Farooqhi and Donald Quatert amongst others may be relevant citations. Zaf159 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What started the Islamic Golden Age?

What started the Islamic Golden Age? Summary and suggestion for reorganization of foundations paragraph.

• Religious motivation, The Prophet exhorted Muslims to seek knowledge.
• Unified leadership
• Money. Increased capital due to conquests, trade and taxes
• Need for brains: Newly established empire needed brains to manage a territory from southern Spain to India
• Human capital flight or 'brain gain' to Baghdad, where they had opportunities to prove their capabilities and they where highly regarded and rewarded
• Brain storming: Scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather at "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad, where they discussed ideas.
• Expanding written language
• The art of paper making was obtained from Chinese prisoners taken at the Battle of Talas (751)
• Usage of pen instead of brush for writing
• Usage of Arabic as unified and transcultural language
• Translation Movement: where all major non-Arabic texts in Latin, Persian , Hebrew, Sindhi and Hindu texts was translated to Arabic
• Large libraries like Library of Baghdad, collected translated and original manuscripts. 70 libraries, the largest of which had 600,000 books.
• New practices including the first book lending libraries.

--Nevit (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for the origin of lending libraries, please add it. This idea had previously appeared in the article, but the reference only described libraries and made no mention of lending, so I removed the claim. Dialectric (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no reference. I watched BBC science and Islam last week, browsed some relevant articles in wp, and and encountered it in another wikipedia article. --Nevit (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Vallely

Note that the Paul Vallely article used on this page, cites www.1001inventions.com, and that is just another FTSC site, as per MuslimHeritage.com. I would guess that it has the same "unreliable source" problem.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A Golden age?

This period of Abbasid rule in my opinion can not be classified as a golden age , since it was limited to the rule and lifetime of one or two abbasid caliphs (probably Al-Ma'mun who is known in shia islam for his order to exile Ali ar-Ridha); and the so called golden age had no societal and popular background. It is a case of exaggeration and overstatement.

92.42.52.23 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)goshtasp

Maybe it is the concept of golden age itself that is problematic. 195.90.104.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Giving it some further thought, I believe that the main source of problems with this article is indeed the concept of the golden age. What does the concept signify? How is it defined? Who claims an age to be golden, and why? In my opinion, an article on the Islamic Golden Age, if seeking to be scientific or encyclopedic, should not try to describe this age in a directly historical manner, that is chronologically or otherwise listing its "golden" elements. Rather it should primarily adress the concept of the Golden Age in relation to the times and places it commonly refers to in a meta-historical manner. I would like to know: When was the idea of an Islamic Golden Age first conceived? Who first mentioned it as such? In what context was it mentioned? What notable scholars, historians, theologists, politicians, or orientalists, have debated the subject? Which are the main points of argument? What is the status of this debate today? On a side note - but not an unimportant one - any article on a particular golden age should probably use the same approach. 195.90.104.27 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me worth of consideration. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, here are some other articles on various Golden Ages: Dutch Golden Age, Spanish Golden Age, Golden Age of Elizabeth (redirected to Elizabethan Era), Polish Golden Age (short), Irish Golden Age (redirects to History of Ireland). Those were all the articles I could find on Golden Ages of nations or empires. Then there are tons of others on various cultural phenomena (Golden age of baseball for instance). Nejtan (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)