Talk:Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe

Islamic or Arab?

Should this article use "Islamic" or "Arab" as a qualifier? As far as I know, "Arab" refers to an ethnicity, and does not encompass Muslim culture as a whole (northern Africa is not "Arab", neither is Iran, nor Turkey). On the contrary "Islamic" refers to the Muslim realm as a whole. I think "Islamic civilization" is an expression which is extensively used. Does anybody have comments? PHG (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Arab would be too narrow, since there were plenty of Persians, Turks, and Africans involved. But isn't this covered in other articles already? Islamic science? Islamic Golden Age? Etc... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic" is the most commonly used term to refer to the medieval Arabic/Persian/Turkish/Moorish civilization in academic literature. Since the consensus among everyone who has commented here agrees with the term "Islamic" being used rather than "Arab", I think I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Hello. There is reason to assume that user Jagged 85 does not actually reads what he writes and cites, but rather relies on a method of creating articles by copy and paste tidbits from all over WP and elsewhere. This combined with his consistent one-sidedness creates controversial contents. His Islamic Golden Age has also been critically regarded by other users. Before posting the same things twice, I would like to point at Islamic Golden Age#discussion for further discussion.

I have to stress that the problem of Jagged 85's articles cannot be fixed by punctual improvements. It is created by his C&P method, with which he creates more rapidly controversial contents which knowledgeable users can counter-check with the claimed sources. So please do not remove the neutrality tag. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not the creator of this article, but did contribute to more than half of the article. I do of course use copy-and-paste quite often, but I only copy information from other articles which have been reliably-sourced and not under dispute. It would be more helpful if you could be more specific about what looks unreliable in the article (rather than commenting on the editor). I know you don't trust me, but that alone is not a good enough reason to condemn the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And for your information, I do read the sources I cite. Most of the information I copy-and-paste between different articles are information which I myself added to Wikipedia in the first place. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

===

The article seems biased to me because it assumes that Europe would not have retained the documents and knowledge of classical Greece and Rome without Arab help. That is false. It must be remembered that the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall and did not lose any of the knowledge of classical Greece and Rome. Indeed, the Eastern Empire was the source of Arab knowledge. The Eastern Empire ultimately fell to Arab armies and we are "indebted" to the Arabs for whatever they saved from that collapse. But, that indebtedness is akin to being thankful to a man who saved one painting from your house after putting the house on fire. The article just does not seem neutral to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.235.82 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't flame editors and make personel attacks. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Are there still outstanding issues with this article? Or can we remove the tags? If anyone has concerns, could you please provide details? Thanks, Elonka 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still problems. One is the loose use of 'Islam' where 'Islamic civilization' would be better (e.g., in "Islam was not just a retransmitter" -- I hope I've cited that correctly; clear contradiction, such as "in Islamic Spain, particularly in Toledo (with Gerard of Cremone, 1114-1187, following the conquest of the city by the Spanish Christians in 1085)" -- since it had been conquered and assimilated into Castile, it was no longer "Islamic" Spain (which, in any case, is better referred to as Al-Andalus). Just two examples from a skim read. One of the authors cited (Hunayn ibn Ishaq) was a Christian -- and one of the most important of all translators into Arabic. From that point of view, 'Arabic civilization' may have something going for it, since it does not demean the efforts of Jews and Christians within a society dominated by Muslims.Hostiensis (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, using the term "Arabic contributions" may not be representative of the Persians, Berbers, Turks, Jews and other non-Arabs who contributed to the Islamic civilization. "Muslim contributions" could be used, but again, that may not be representative of the Christian and Jewish minorities. Another interesting term used by a few authors is "Islamicate", although this term is not widely used by scholars. In my opinion, I think the term "Islamic world" might be more representative. Or we could just leave it as "Islamic", which has been explained by Bernard Lewis quite well in the article's lead. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute (balance)

The jury system was Nordic Anglo-Saxon:

"The legal traditions of the Danes were also different. It was they who evolved the 12-man jury system. This was soon borrowed by the English, who exported it to the rest of the world..." (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/wessex_kings/anglosaxon_law_02.shtml

So basically, the article lies - it says that the Normans introduced the jury system into England, which is rubbish, and that the Normans got this from the Arabs, which is also Islamist drivel.

The article paints a very one-sided picture, and has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam. Europeans in the Middle Ages, had superior ship building and armour technology (to the Arabs), crossed the Atlantic at the end of the Middle Ages(before the Arabs) invented and developed the art and science of writing Music, and the Bible was PRINTED in Europe, centuries before the first Koran in the east. The banking system of the Crusaders was way in advance to that used by the Arabs. A Knight could deposit money in Scotland and withdraw the cash in Jerusalem - the Arabs had nothing like that. When the Turks finally took Constantinople, they marvelled at its riches and fantastic architecture, which was superior to that found in their own Empire ... Constantinople was a CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN city. The Christian cathederal there, then became the finest "mosque" in the Muslim world - built and designed, of course, by "Barbaric" European Christians of the Middle Ages. I admit that none of this is actually denied in the article, but neither is it mentioned. It should be clearly stated that in many ways parts of Medieval Europe were more advanced than Arabia.

Finally, the Arabian / Islamic societies had a love for autocratic regimes that seems to linger to this day, whilst in much of Europe the Feudal system (which was by no means Utopia) at least limited the abslote power of a ruler - eg - the Magna Carta, and within the European Feudal system everybody had their civil rights relative to their social position, whilst in Islamic kingdoms, civil rights rarely exsisted outside the whims of the current ruler. The article paints the picture of a debased backward Medieval Europe reliant upon the light of Islam for guidance - HA! Oh well, politically correct Wikipedia strikes again. TB --121.218.100.212 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Please don't make assumptions about the religion or motivations of editors. In the first place, you're likely wrong; in the second place, it's insulting.

2) Please cite sources for your claims. If you can show historians that have spoken on your issue, do cite them. It's impossible to verify or contradict a summary from memory like the one you give above.

3) No article can cover everything; the various roots of the jury system are discussed in Jury, with dates (which the BBC "popular summary" lacks); the fact that this article doesn't speak on areas where Europe influenced the Islamic world is just how things have to be in a million-article encyclopedia.

In summary: Calm down. Don't insult. Cite sources. Thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I do spot a few fibs in what the IP has said. Again I too would like to say that whatever you say you would like to put in, back it up with evidence and sources. This is a discussion to improve the article not flame the religion, editor or history itself. If you're angry about a religion, really no one cares if you are, go do it on a forum not on Wikipedia. In addition to this Wikipedia is not a profiteering organisation, so how can Wikipedia be PC if it's written by people?

Furthermore if this "has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam" do you mean to say the sources are wrong? It seems well referenced to me. Again please don't flame. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources..... I mean really, everything I stated is just common accepted history ... but fair enough, here it is:

JURY SYSTEM

Encyclopedia Britannica ... (6/660 15th edition) "Historical details of the jury's inception are unknown, but it may have originated in England." Encyclopedia Britannica says nothing about the Arabs as far as the jury system goes - but they do mention the Saxons & Ancient Greeks, who I seem to remember were not Muslims (-:. Winston Churchill, in his much valued History of The English Speaking Peoples, also says that the Anglo Saxons introduced the Jury System. So there you have it: Encyclopedia Britannica, Winston Churchill & The BBC - good enough?

So, your -quote- "well-referenced and POV free" article (see below) in fact, is telling us lies. And they want to promote this to GA?

Now can I ask for a source please.....

We often hear how the Muslims "invented manned flight" - the story goes that a Muslim strapped wings to himself, in the manner of a bird, in Spain, jumped off a cliff .... fell, and killed himself. No technical drawings of this "glider" were ever available (which is a good job, because it obviously didn't work). This is not my POV by the way - this is the story as Muslims tell it. No Muslims in the Middle Ages ever tried it again - least of all those who actually saw the would-be aviator fall to his death.

Now, how on earth did this obscure, tragicomic and little documented event influence later European glider experiments???? Of course it didn't! I have given my sources, now let me ask for theirs! Prove the link!

I am insulting nobody, but a fact's a fact: this article was obviously written to promote Islam. But alas, it is only a "fool" that points out that the emperor has no clothes.

TB --124.176.66.35 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WRT jury: Have you checked the source that's given in the article?

WRT flight - please check the sources on Abbas Ibn Firnas. None of the sources say that he was killed - he did hurt his back. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all give me a link. And your argument still makes no sense. What do the above arguments have anything to do with promoting Islam? You have reached not a plausable conclusion and you provide unsourced information with exaggeration. Are you going to say that the renaissance was written to promote it? Wikipedia writes solid facts and is POV free. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

Do you think we can possibly promote the article to GA? It seems both well referenced and POV free. I shall nominate the article on the GA page and if it has any issues then we'll sort them out. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 14:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you not to proceed. The chief problem with this article is that it finds all the mentions scholars have made suggesting some route of Islamic influence into Europe and lumps them together, giving the appearance that Islam has had fundamental influence on almost every aspect of European culture. I do not deny Islamic influence, but a scholar who disagrees with the extent of it implied by this page will not write about the lack of influence, he simply won't write about the influence. It is very hard to provide references for negative assertions. A lot of this article consists of sentences that basically say, "the Muslims did something like this before the Europeans". This is hardly convincing, even if some scholars, quite possibly with axes to grind or agendas to promote or just plain biased, suggest that it might imply a causal connexion. To suggest that Gothic architecture is Islamic-influenced is, in my opinion, to go beyond what our current knowledge can allow. So the Muslims had pointed arches? Is that where Suger got the idea? Was the writer of that assertion aware that Gothic architecture did not catch on in Italy until the 13th century, and barely so in the south? It just seems like a bizarre claim, with or without a source. The section on legal systems seems equally hard to believe. It's not that Islam made no important contributions to medieval Europe, but that many things arose in medieval Europe without an Islamic basis and many "Islamic" influences were really other influences mediated by Islam. This article is just not a nuanced look at the subject but a collection of sourced assertions about various "contributions" made by "Islam" to medieval Europe. Let it be and don't try to promote to GA. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and the sources seem to be good. It is not a case that religion had anything to do with it but that you have to remember that Islam was a civilisation once and a powerhouse for knowledge and co-existance. We are not talking about religion but the sources are reliable. If the truth seems to shock you then thats really has nothing to do with the article. I think it is fairly balanced and what's more is the renaissance article seems to include info on the subject. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the claims are not backed up. For example, the claim that Alhazen's Book of Optics is mentioned in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, is untrue. In fact Rhazes, Averroes and Avicenna are mentioned by Chaucer in the Prologue. Avicenna is mentioned twice, in the Prologue and The Pardoner's Tale. But Alhazen and his book are not, to my knowledge and research, in Chaucer's Tales or Prologue. IAC-62 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not talking about religion at all... I have not forgotten tha Islam was a civilzation "once", nor that she was ("once") a "powerhouse for knowledge and co-existance" (whatever that means). Italicising "are" does not make the sources reliable, but none of this shocks me (nor did I say that it did). You assert that you disagree with me, that the sources are reliable, and that it is fairly balanced (is that enough?), but these assertions are unconvincing. I only suggest that you not drag this article through the mud of a GA nomination. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I've checked most of the sources and they do check out. I cannot see anything wrong with them. LOTRrules (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and it seems to me that a lot of it is just plain wrong. From a common sense approach, if the Arabs/Muslims/Islamic Civilization invented algebra, then the Roman built their aqueducts without the use of algebra, and similar engineering feats by the Egyptians and Greeks were performed without the use of any advanced mathematics. Likewise, the jury system is known to predate Islam and not be of Arabic origin: to quote Wikipedia's Jury article, "The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes". Wikipedia's University article says that the University of Constantinople was founded by Theodosius II in 425 with 31 chairs -- again antedating Islam. The detail in the section on Education is unnecessary. It would be sufficient to note that some ideas were borrowed from the universities in Islamic lands and incorporated into European universities, rather than implying that there was no educational system at all in Europe until the Muslims came along. Economics: COME ON. It's been the goal of men to get rich since the idea of value was first imagined. The roots of the ideas of capitalism, partnership, credit, profit and suchlike concepts are lost in antiquity. There was nothing unique about the Arab/Muslim/Islamic Civilization monetary system. The concepts mentioned in the article can all be found in the Old Testament, to give one source. Absurdly, the picture implies that they invented coin weights -- the ignorant Vikings never thought of such a thing! The Point of View appears to me to be intentionally skewed by using citations from Islamic writers instead of European authorities. In short, I think this article has SEVERE problems. It approaches the level of propaganda. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Eric

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I feel that the article has enough relevant content, as well as being broad enough in scope, to meet the Good Article criteria. It also appears to be well sourced with over 140 footnotes and 4 separate references. I reccomend the article for GA status. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd reviewer

While i agree with all the above, looking at the talk page confirms my inital feelings of the article being one sided. there must be scholars that contest this, and whether that is because of their studies or their biases is immaterial, they should still be included. And even with all the citation, there are a lot of:

• Lack of blanace. eg: "Some writers trace back the earliest stages of merchant capitalism to the Caliphate..."

But many writers do not, and i expect some have views that cannot be reconciled with this at all. That needs to be said in many cases.

• vague assertions of influence: eg "The story also anticipated Rousseau's Emile: or, On Education in some ways, and is also similar to Mowgli's story in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book as well as Tarzan's story, in that a baby is abandoned but taken care of and fed by a mother wolf.[125]"

Yes, they are similar, as the citation says, but so is the story of Romulus and Remus. Similariy != influence. We don't claim this author was influenced by the Aeniad.

• uncited whole paragraphs making multiple specific claims: eg "These texts were translated back into Latin in multiple ways. The main points of transmission of Islamic knowledge to Europe were in Sicilia, and in Toledo, Spain (with Gerard of Cremone, 1114-1187). Burgondio of Pise (died in 1193), who discovered in Antioch lost texts of Aristotle, translated them into Latin."

• uncited sentences making specific claims - many may have references, but need the citation duplicated more often. eg:Medical sciences were also highly developed in Islam as testified by the Crusaders, who relied on Arab doctors on numerous occasions. Joinville reports he was saved in 1250 by a “Saracen” doctor.[10]

The second sentence is cited, but the claim doesn't cover the first sentence. If the first was extropolated from the second, this is synthesis. If not, it needs a cite (maybe just a dulplicate of the appropriate cite). One guy reporting treatment != hughly developed medicine, so needs to be cited seperately.

also: "European scholars and writers influenced by this novel include John Locke, Gottfried Leibniz, Melchisédech Thévenot, John Wallis, Christiaan Huygens, George Keith, Robert Barclay, the Quakers, and Samuel Hartlib."

Are the uncited authors without reference, or included in one of the other references? Why only cite some? either duplicate the cites, or delete those uncited.Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Lead to short. For an article this long, and such a scholoarly treatment, the full 4 paragraphs would suit it better, touching on the important points, hence making it a summary that can stand alone.

Well written:
(a)Prose
(b)MOS

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) references
(b) (depends on what one considers contentious)
(c)

Broad in its coverage:
(a)
(b) (presence of islamic characters in a play = too much detail imo, is not an important influence in itself)

Neutral: (needs to show people disagree with this interpretation of history)
Stable:
Illustrated: (a)
(b)

Overall, i think this article should go through a thorough peer review process before it can be called a Good Article.Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

• Prose

I started looking at this article to provide a second opinion but found so many prose issues in the lead paragraph alone I am inclined to agree with Yobmod about a peer review. Its an important and interesting topic with a mass of sources and information and a peer review can only do it good!

examples;

...varied areas as arts.... the arts.

...Europe literally absorbed... Use of literally in this way is too slangy and stylistically unencyclopaedic. Its also unecessary.

This had considerable effects on the development of Western civilization, leading in many ways to the achievement of the Renaissance. Loose wording. What had considerable effects? The growing number of scholars?

Achievements?

• References

These are not consistent. Many books have no publisher or ISBNs. At least one has no author.

Many passages are unreferenced. For example Various mechanical and agricultural equipment was adopted from Islamic lands, such as the noria and the windmill. Numerous new techniques in clothing, as well as new materials were also introduced: muslin, taffetas, satin, skirts. Trade mechanisms were also transmitted: tarifs, customs, bazars, magazins.

• Links

A number of these link to irrelevent articles of the same name or disambiguation pages.

• Lead

Far too short, simple and one-sided for such a substantial and important topic. I was surprised at the assertion from McDonald made in the lead as I thought such contributions were pretty well recognised and documented. Then I looked at the reference for McDonald and it is dated to 1931, yet it is presented as if it were the state of play now. This has a somewhat misleading effect. If there was a growing number of scholars in 1931 - then make that point. What is the general scholarly take on the subject now?

Fainites ^barley 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got to understand that when you talk about "Islamic" we are talking about civilised society (history) not the religion. The "Islam" word is used because that is what the whole world refered to as the civilisation. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course we are talking about a civilised society! The basic premise - that there was a significant influence over a range of domains, is not in dispute I think. There's a good article in all this to cover all the aspects, some of which are covered in more detail in various other articles. The concerns are about requirements for GA relating to the use of sourced information only, neutral and NPOV presentation and a range of MOS issues regarding prose,referencing, links and the like. Personally I always find a thorough peer review an illuminating and helpful process and this article will be the better for it. Fainites ^barley 21:51, 30 September 2008

For example, this statement; "Industries established for sugar plantations,[90] ceramics, chemicals, distillation technologies, clocks, glass, mechanical hydropowered and wind powered machinery, matting, mosaics, pulp and paper, perfumery, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, rope-making, shipping, shipbuilding, silk, sugar, textiles, water, weapons, and the mining of minerals such as sulfur, ammonia, lead and iron, were transferred from the Islamic world to medieval Europe" is not supported by the source given. Fainites ^barley 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the comments and suggestions above by Fainites. The article is too detailed with trivial mentions and has too many wikilinks. (You mention "clocks" more than one, and wikilink it each time.) Could not the article be condensed into sections on the major contributions of Islam? Matting, rope-making, water, perfumery, shipping etc. were developed by many cultures independently. Perhaps Islamic techniques should be renamed Islamic technologies and the sections under it condensed into fewer sections concentrating on the major technical innovations that are unique to the Islam heritage. Another major section could be Art or Aesthetics which could include literature, music, etc. Then a section on Science could include Medicine, Astronomy and mathematics, Alchemy and chemistry, Physics etc. Has this article undergone peer review? No one is denying the importance of the article, but I suggest you enlist help in organizing it and copy editing it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right I'll get to work right away. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs

Jagged 85 has made a start I see. I really can recommend the experience of peer review though you know. Whenever I've asked for one, I 've been lucky enough to get really knowledgable reviewers who have put in alot of work and helped transform an article from merely good to something verging on FAC quality. Fainites ^barley 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Islamic" vs Middle Eastern culture/technology

Hey, first, let me say that I think this is a great article - good topic, well defined and well written. However, given the possible problems around the term "Islamic" in this context I think the article should clarify somewhere in the intro that:

1. "Islamic" culture to a large extent borrowed from previous non-Islamic cultures/knowledge in the region, and

1. during the Middle Ages a very substantial share of the population of the Middle East was still Christian (or Zoroastrian or other culture systems). Thus, incfluences on Crusaders are likely to have also come from Christians in the Middle East.

I don't think we should change the existing text of the article, only point out these things somewhere in the intro to the article. The fact that no culture is an island is hinted at in the first section today, but I think it could be expanded/clarified with (at least) the examples I give above.Erikarver (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

However point 1 & 2 is original research (WP:OR). I'm sorry but what you say is not true, the [[Islamio Empire] was spreading far and wide and only monority populations contributed to it. And no offence, but it is a lie. Please read the article and further subsequent articles that outline Christians as a minority who contributed to the Islamic Culture. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Arabs were a small minority/military elite in the lands they conquered and as such largely assimilated their cultures. Even the term "Islamic empire" is a misnomer given that after the first Umma was broken there was no coherent/centralized "empire" in the modern sense of the word. However, I'll find the sources to prove what I claim above. All the bestErikarver (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Read the article on the Islamic Golden Age. You should know there are links there to support my argument that Muslims were of course the majority. It would be original research otherwise. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but I didn't find it in that article. Could you please point me to the source.Erikarver (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've finally found an online version of Ira Marvin Lapidus' A History of Islamic Societies. It is considered one of the key books on Islamic / Middle Eastern history. She makes it quite clear that there was a great deal of continuum between the pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. Regarding Christian populations in the Middle East, on pages 200-201 she writes:

...the mass of Middle Eastern peoples were not soon or easily converted. Only with the breakdown of the social and religious structures of non-muslim communities in the tenth to twelfth centuries did the weakening of churches, the awakening omf Muslim hostility to non-Muslims, sporadic and localized persecution, and the destruction of the landed gentry of Iraq and Iran destroy the communal organization of non-Muslim peoples... Large parts of Egypt and Iran were probably converted in the tenth and eleventh centuries. In northern Syria, however, Christian majorities survived through the twelfth century, until - compromised by their sympathies with and assistance to the Crusaders - they were put under severe pressure. Most converted in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but substantial Christian minorities remained. Similarly, most of the remaining Christian population of Egypt adopted Islam in the fourteenth century.[1]

I would also suggest the sections on Persian and Hellenistic influences (p. 76-77). With regard to the Persian and Hellenistic/Greek influence Lapidus writes (p. 76):

With political advice came technical and scientific knowledge. Iran was an important transmitter of Indian and Hellenistic medical, mathematical and astronomical ideas... Thus, elements of the Persian heritage became an integral part of Islamic civilization.[2]

On Hellenist influces (p. 77-78) she writes

Alexandrian Hellenistic thought also came into the mainstream of the emerging Islamic culture. The Alexandrian school was moved to Antioch in Syria and then to Marw in Khurasan and Harran in Mesopotamia. Some of the scholars were Nestorian Christians, but others, at Harran, were pagans... Thus Greek thought survived under church and royal patronage and was transferred to Abbasid Baghdad.[3]

So, to me the term "Islamic culture" is about as complicated and intertwined with previous and other cultural influces as "Christian culture" of the time was. Any comments on the above? The above views are supported by William Dalrymple, author of several books on the Middle East and religion. In this interview with Australian national radio he says:

And it's interesting that the Middle East was still a majority Christian area when the Crusades began, it was the bitterness brought by the Crusaders into the Middle East that led to the Middle East becoming a largely Muslim area. It's a very, very important fact that right up to the 11th century, the Middle East was still majority Christian.[4]

I would also urge you to read How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs by De Lacy O'Leary.Erikarver (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Muslims were in the majority is different to suggesting that Arabs were (all Arabs - as an ethnic group - were expected to be Muslims, but, with the rise of the Abbasids, not all Muslims needed to be Arabs). But whatever ethnic origin they came from, they were Arabized -- they adopted Arabic as their language without necessarily adopting any Islamic practices or beliefs (cp. the liturgy of the Melkite church, which rapidly adopted Arabic after the conquest). Yet the idea that Muslims formed a majority is also open to question. I have not met anyone anymore who takes seriously Bulliet's idea of a rapidly increasing conversion based on use of 'Islamic' names. Rather, some areas in Muslim dominated territories would have had no Christians or Jews in them (they had become depopulated, either because of unbearable taxation or warfare); others with few or no Muslims (they just carried on as before); and many places in the middle. Most of the time it's difficult to know; large cities were probably majority Muslim -- although with very powerful minorities from the other faiths -- the countryside probably varied. Dalrymple is talking through his hat though: the Crusades didn't register all that much at the time; the demonization of the Crusades and crusading is more the product of nineteenth century reaction to European intervention than anything similar at the time. Hostiensis (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence of Islamic coinage on Europe

Feel free to add the following info to the article PHG (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC):

Influence of Islamic coinage

A gold dinar of the English king Offa of Mercia, a copy of the dinars of the Abbasid Caliphate (774). It combines the Latin legend OFFA REX with Arabic legends. British Museum.

Islamic coins did have some influence on early European coinage. The 8th century English king Offa of Mercia minted copies of Abbasid dinars struck in 774 by Caliph Al-Mansur with "Offa Rex" centered on the reverse. The moneyer visibly had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text contains many errors. Such coins may have been produced in order to trade with Islamic Spain.

Tarì gold coin of Roger II of Sicily, with Arabic inscriptions, minted in Palermo. British Museum.

In Sicily, Malta and South Italy from about 913 tarì gold coins of Islamic origin were minted in great number by the Normans, Hohenstaufens and the early Angevins rulers. When the Normans invaded Sicily in the 12th century, they issued tarì coins bearing legends in Arabic and Latin. The tarìs were so widespread that imitations were made in southern Italy (Amalfi and Salerno) which only used illegible "pseudo-Kufic" imitations of Arabic.

According to Janet Abu-Lughod: "The preferred specie for international transactions before the thirteenth century, in Europe as well as the Middle East and even India, were the gold coins struck by Byzantium and then Egypt. It was not until after the thirtheenth century that some Italian cities (Florence and Genoa) began to mint their own gold coins, but these were used to supplement rather than supplant the Middle Eastern coins already in circulation."

This was  Done. Thanks! Phg (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Western imitations of Arabic script

Feel free to add the following to the article. PHG (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Western imitations of Arabic script

Main article: Pseudo-Kufic

Pseudo-Kufic script in the Virgin Mary's halo, detail of Adoration of the Magi (1423) by Gentile da Fabriano. The script is further divided by rosettes like those on Mamluk dishes.

The Arabic Kufic script was often imitated in the West during the Middle-Ages and the Renaissance, to produce what is known as pseudo-Kufic: "Imitations of Arabic in European art are often described as pseudo-Kufic, borrowing the term for an Arabic script that emphasizes straight and angular strokes, and is most commonly used in Islamic architectural decoration". Numerous cases of pseudo-Kufic are known from European art from around the 10th to the 15th century. Pseudo-Kufic would be used as writing or as decorative elements in textiles, religious halos or frames. Many are visible in the paintings of Giotto. The exact reason for the incorporation of pseudo-Kufic in early Renaissance painting is unclear. It seems that Westerners mistakenly associated 13-14th century Middle-Eastern scripts as being identical with the scripts current during Jesus's time, and thus found natural to represent early Christians in association with them: "In Renaissance art, pseudo-Kufic script was used to decorate the costumes of Old Testament heroes like David". Another reason might be that artist wished to express a cultural universality for the Christian faith, by blending together various written languages, at a time when the church had strong international ambitions.

References

• Braden K. Frieder Chivalry & the perfect prince: tournaments, art, and armor at the Spanish Habsburg court Truman State University, 2008 ISBN 193111269X, ISBN 9781931112697
• Cardini, Franco. Europe and Islam. Blackwell Publishing, 2001. ISBN 9780631226376
• Grierson, Philip Medieval European Coinage Cambridge University Press, 2007 ISBN 052103177X, ISBN 9780521031776
• Mack, Rosamond E. Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600, University of California Press, 2001 ISBN 0520221311
• Matthew, Donald, The Norman kingdom of Sicily Cambridge University Press, 1992 ISBN 9780521269117

Christian and Muslim playing ouds

Christian and Muslim playing lute, miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X.

Image of Christian and Muslim playing lute (ouds), miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X. Feel free to insert this image into the article. Phg (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic carpets in European painting

Feel free to insert the following paragraph into the article. Phg (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic carpets in European painting

Main article: Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting

Left image: A "Bellini type" Islamic prayer rug, seen from the top, at the feet of the Virgin Mary, in Gentile Bellini's Madonna and Child Enthroned, late 15th century.
Right image: Re-entrant prayer rug, Anatolia, late 15th to early 16th century.

Islamic carpets of Middle-Eastern origin, either from the Ottoman Empire, the Levant or the Mamluk state of Egypt or Northern Africa, were used as important decorative features in paintings from the 13th century onwards, starting from the Medieval period and continuing into the Renaissance period. Such carpets were often integrated into Christian imagery as symbols of luxury and status of Middle-Eastern origin, and together with Pseudo-Kufic script offer an interesting example of the integration of Eastern elements into European painting.

Acknowledgements

Here's an extract of Obama's Cairo speech, regarding Islamic contributions to civilization and Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment, possibly an interesting quote regarding the modern acknowledgement of these contributions:

"As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality". Barack Obama, 4 June 2009, Cairo (Obama speech: An analysis BBC 4 June 2009)

Phg (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometry

Westerner and Arab practicing geometry together. 15th century manuscript.

• Westerner and Arab practicing geometry together. 15th century manuscript.

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Medieval archaeology (London)

Syrian medicinal jars circa 1300, excavated in Fenchurch Street, London. London Museum.

Syrian or Egyptian pieces of glass with Arabic inscriptions, excavated in London. London Museum.

Early-1500s Andalusian dish with pseudo-Arabic script around the edge, excavated in London. London Museum.

British coin weights introduced from the Arabs through the Vikings, 9-10th century CE. British Museum.

Some elements from the London Museum and the British Museum:

• Syria-made medicinal jars circa 1300, excavated in Fenchurch Street, London.
• Syrian or Egyptian pieces of glass with Arabic inscriptions, excavated in London.
• Early-1500s Andalusian dish with pseudo-Arabic script around the edge, excavated in London.
• British coin weights introduced from the Arabs through the Vikings, 9th 10th century CE.

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Designs

Islamic-inspired Albarello with head of a Turk, Faenza, Italy, 1555.

Plate with head of a Turk, Faenza, 1540-50.

• Islamic-inspired Albarello with head of a Turk, Faenza, 1550.
• Plate with head of a Turk, Faenza, 1540-50.

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

aristotle contribution ?

we don't need to make assumptions that aristotle text was lost and then muslim scientist found it and use it....moslem scientists achievement were nothing related with aristotle text, maybe too little, and we know that aristotle was a philosopher not a scientist, philosopher not use scientific methode, maybe only a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatree (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Two meanings of Islam?

The rationale for this article's title and scope rests on the premise that "Islam is used in the meaning of a civilization and not that of a religion", a premise, which, however, is simply asserted but not supported by sources. So what is the difference and how are these two notions kept apart in the article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)