Talk:Islamic Golden Age

Clarification Needed

Under the section detailing the decline of the Islamic Golden Age this wiki article says: "Muslims in lands subject to the Mongols now faced northeast, toward the land routes to China, rather than toward Mecca." There is no citation and it is ambiguous. What is this referring to? Prayer? General political alignment? Why did they face northeast? By decree? By choice? I'm utterly baffled. 2601:45:4000:CE8C:89D2:B4A1:AF39:49D1 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Fabricated hadith?

I was curious about the "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the Martyr" quote in the intro; at least one random website I found claims it is fabricated: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Fabricated_Hadith#The_ink_of_the_scholar_is_more_holy_than_the_blood_of_the_Martyr Can anyone confirm/deny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.199.67 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More Al-Jāḥiẓ evolution claims

The claim that Al-Jāḥiẓ 'made observations that suggest natural selection' was recently added to the article, echoing earlier claims of Islamic 1sts in this area. The claim is based on a quote from Gary Dargan, but the wording suggested it was a quote from Al-Jāḥiẓ himself. The source used, Gary Dargan, Intelligent Design, Encounter, ABC, is reliable to the extent that it confirms Dugan said this, but the question is whether Dugan's interpretation merits inclusion. As he is not a historian, and the Al-Jahiz talk page includes evidence that Dugan's interpretation is flawed, I believe this quote should not be included.Dialectric (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the version from the Al-Jahiz article. I take it that that's the version consensus could come up with. Sodicadl (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nestorian/Jacobite influence

There seems to be absolutely no mention of the astonishing influence the Church of the East and Syriac Orthodox leaders have had in the Golden Age. Without the translations from Greek/Latin to Syriac and then to Arabic by Christian monks ... there would not be a Golden Age at all. There is also no mention of Bukhtishu and other such Christian groups who played a massive role in the Caliphate and the education/spread of the Golden age.

I just was wondering why all of these very important points were never mentioned/ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.226.250 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why only Fatimids?

Here presented only Fatimids and not other islamic states. Qadeer Nil (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine because a Wikipedia editor was interested in the Fatimids and added a large chunk of information about them. Wikipedia tends to reflect the interests of the people who edit it. If you can add good quality information about other Islamic states I'm sure we would be very grateful. --Merlinme (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd introduction to "Causes"

What does this paragraph have to do with the "cause" of the Islamic Golden Age?

• "Within a very short period of time, Islam went from being a relatively small and insignificant regional state in Arabia, to become a huge and powerful empire, encompassing all of ancient Persia and large chunks of the Byzantine Empire and beyond (app. 634-670 AD). Once firmly established across these vast territories problems arose that needed quick solutions. Many of such could be mentioned, but in this case the religious ones speak out as being the most important, as these invading hordes (a 150.000 tribesman according to Ibn Khaldun were driven primarily by a newborn religious zeal."
  

1. Islam was not a state, it is a religion.
2. What does invading hordes have to do with the Islamic Golden Age?
3. This entire paragraph, including other added paragraphs are completely unsourced.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm new here, excuse me if I am not following the correct procedures...

-)

But...

I truly believe, as do many Muslim scholars, that one of the causes to the Islamic golden age, was to solve problems regarding fulfilling the commandments of God. The astrolabe is a brilliant example. I forgot that yesterday, and also I have some changes in the text, following your comments.

Hello again

I have been told to discuss things in here before posting. So let's start with the comparison by Edward Said (Islamic Golden Age=High Renaissance in Italy. What is wrong with that?

J J Karim (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoting E. Said is fine, but (1)you should cite Said's book directly. The odsg.org pdf you linked is a likely copyright violation, and should not be used as a source, and (2)calling the period 'an extremely creative epoch in human cultural history' extends beyond Said's direct quote, which was "Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with Arab or Islamic history will know that it was a high point of Islamic civilization, as brilliant a period of cultural history as the High Renaissance in Italy." This could be fine, but your use of 'extremely' will stand out to some editors as an indicator of bias. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.Dialectric (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Happy for your kind help. I can "almost" see your point with (2), but thought that it was a well established fact that the high renaissance in Italy was an extremely creative period in human cultural history, and since the Islamic period was as brilliant, I thought my statement could stand closer scrutiny. Still do actually, but be that as it may.

I have one more question: Since I can't quote the pdf file and I only have the book in Danish (I am a Dane). can I quote books that are not in English?

J J Karim (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Have just read manual of style/words to watch. Helped a lot. Thanks!

J J Karim (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading the entire manual of style is a good idea if you plan on putting more time into editing wikipedia. You can quote books that are not in English, but English language sources are strongly preferred, and if there is an english language version, or original as in the case of Said's book, you should use it. The full citation info is on page 3 of your pdf, so you could cite the book without citing the pdf. Also, I suggest you use edit summaries with your edits - they will let other editors get some sense of what changes you've made, and will reduce the chance of a revert.Dialectric (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see an explanation from JJ Karim, for the massive change including the odd paragraph(which I have already mentioned) that has nothing to do with the Islamic Golden Age. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not call it the "Abbasid Golden Age"?

If covered most of the time of the Abbasid Caliphate. So why not call it Abbasid Golen Age? It would certainly remove a lot of the controversy surrounding it, especially in Europe among certain eurocentric historians. --90.149.188.205 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This era include Fatimid period of 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. In the era a lot of work done in the field of art, culture and science. The details were included earlier which got deleted on wrong pretext, being added again.--Md iet (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article

Many of the Islamic philosophical articles lacks the status of Featured Article or Good Article. At least make this article a Good Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.198.198 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Fatimids section

This is undue weight for one dynasty. Additionally, there is too many weasel words, such as "The history of the Fatimids, from this point of view, is in fact the history of knowledge, literature and philosophy. It is the history of sacred freedom - freedom of expression" that do not belong in an encyclopedia. That is cited to imamerza.net, which I don't think will be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Sodicadl (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is concerning the issue that the fatimids section was added again by Md iet. The issue of it all being cited to an unreliable source was not addressed. Additionally, the article is appropriately structured around subjects like culture, mathematics, philosophy etc, not on different dynasties. Why should Fatimids be an exception? Wikipedia articles should not be skewed towards the special interests of individual editors. Sodicadl (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead para start with "The Islamic Golden Age is an Abbasid historical period beginning in the mid 8th century lasting until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.." and further describe only Abbasid.This era include Fatimid period 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. My aim is not to give preference to any particular dynasty but to get included information regarding contribution they provided in education,artichecture etc. If we have objection to have this information in single para highlighting Fatimid we may include these information at relevant subjects.--Md iet (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should include the information in the relevant subjects, instead of a separate section for fatimids as was done. I added some info into the art and architecture section. However, as was mentioned before and in the talk archives, much of this info is cited to a source considered unreliable by Wikipedia. Sodicadl (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What "Golden Age"?

There are no references given to justify the use of this term. Is it a genuine academic term? Given that it was hardly a "golden age" for those being invaded, occupied, enslaved, and massacred in the name of Islam, is this a phrase used by anyone except nostalgic Islamists? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a widely used term. See [1] for many, many citations. However, the term Abbasid Golden Age is often used to describe almost the same thing. -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield in that much of the "Golden Age" is historical revisionism. It was better in the Muslim Empires compared to Europe but most of its "innovations" were merely Persian, Hindu, or Greek. Unfortunately it's mentioned in the article on Humans, not cited properly of course. --monochrome_monitor 17:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to point out that this historical revisionism is primarily used by Islamophobes to deny that the Islamic Golden Age ever happened, it is part of their ignornace and bigorty and thinking all Islamic people are Arabs and unaware that people of all races were Islamic. There were no massacares, invasions, occupations, the reason the empire grew so big was because they treated people better and brought them a better life. The Islamic Golden Age is an academic term, it is widely used in universities around the world. 24.46.60.24 (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Gary Dargan on evolution

I replaced Gary Dargan in the Biology section with the source Conway Zirkle, who noted in his 1941 article "Natural Selection before the Origin of Species" (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84) that al-Jahiz discussed the struggle for existence in the 9th century. This seems interesting and unobjectionable. Sodicadl has however put Dargan back in. The Dargan quote seems to be rather straining; the Zirkle article lists more than twenty writers who discussed ideas which were eventually unified by Darwin. I don't think any of them would be described as having "made observations that described evolution". Dargan seems to be implying that al-Jahiz got there nearly a thousand years before Darwin, and I haven't seen anything to support that at all. So if Dargan is making an exceptional claim, in what way is he an exceptional source? Who is he, exactly? He's described as a Muslim and paleontologist, but I know nothing more about him than that. If one of the most important things about him is that he's a Muslim, than the suspicion must be that he's not unbiased when ascribing ideas to medieval Muslims. If the other interesting thing about him is that he's a paleontologist, then without evidence to the contrary he's neither a historian of science nor a biologist, so to be honest I don't see why he's being quoted in this section. I do not consider Dargan a Reliable Source for what is an implied assertion that al-Jahiz was exceptional in his views on one of the ideas that led to the theory of evolution. I'm happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if we can't gain consensus here.
I also think it's worth considering the previous debate here: Talk:Al-Jahiz#Al-Jahiz_and_Evolution; e.g. "Al-Jahith is a historic scholar & scientist that I am proud of, but as stated elsewhere, I am fluent in Arabic, have access to electronic copies of Book of Animals, and I believe that Al-Jahith never even remotely mentioned anything that has to do with natural selection, speciation, or evolution. Al-Jahith only touched on the struggle of existence, no more nor less, and without even using those exact words or terms! I would welcome a challenge from someone who can show me any references in his original Arabic book to such evolutionist concepts.Wisdawn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)". --Merlinme (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I support removal. The text cherry-picks some off-the-cuff remarks by a paleontologist talking about whether Muslim scholars support the theory of evolution, when what is needed is a historian of evolutionary science. A longer extract of what Zirkle found is here, and there is no credible path from those extracts to the quoted text from Dargan. Also, the quote marks are extremely misleading—is someone claiming al-Jahiz wrote those words? Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This quote, attributed to Dargan or worse, as Johnuniq notes, misattributed to Al-Jahiz, has appeared in several articles and talk page discussions over the past few years. My view is that without similar claims from other scholars, Dargan's views are fringe, and their inclusion undue weight. The quote is also currently on the Al-Jahiz page.Dialectric (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an arguable case for including the Dargan quote in the large section in the Al-Jahiz page, where it can be put into context by what he actually said (based on the Zirkle translation). In an article about Al-Jahiz, there may be space for fringe view from a Reliable Source; where one academic argues differently to other academics, for example. I'm not completely convinced, to be honest, that Dargan qualifies as such a fringe but Reliable Source, but consensus may be different on the Al-Jahiz article. What I am convinced about is that Dargan is not a good enough source to quote re: Al-Jahiz's views in a short section which is part of the Islamic Golden Age article. --Merlinme (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"caliphates"

re this (there were multiple caliphates (at times even simultaneously) not single), Khestwol, could you please at least read the introduction to the caliphate article?

The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates".

Why the scare quotes? Because this is not what is meant by the term originally, and not here. Of course the Muslim world was never really united, because the sectarian split occurred before they really got going, it was still mostly united under the caliphate, by its nature singular, and this is the very reason why the period is called a "golden age".

The concept as it is now mostly used (yes mostly, I took the trouble to cite some literature, as opposed to how the article stood before, with random unreferenced and unchallenged claims) basically covers the Abbasid caliphate, late 8th to early 13th century or so, but of course the "golden age" of cultural achievement also covers areas not controlled by Abbasid caliphs, notably Andalusia. I am happy for the lead to state as much, and details on divergent definitions can go to the section on this question which I have just introduced.

There are still some authors who would have the period end in the 12th, 11th or even 10th century, but these are a clear minority. There seems to be some kind of former (pre-1950) usage of the term, which is rather rare, using the term not for this period at all but for the Rashidun period, 632-661 or even just 632-644, which was "golden" not in terms of cultural achievement but of military success; this is a distinct, non-overlapping meaning of the term which can be disambiguated, and it does not now seem to be in use. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Dbachmann, the present lede of the article looks like it is for "Golden Age of the Abbasid Empire" only, rather than for all of Islamic Golden Age. But, we should make additions, and add as well, for example, information from the contemporary Fatimid Caliphate, and Umayyad Emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba. Khestwol (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also it needs to be made further clear that the start and end dates for this are not fixed. They vary depending on source used. Khestwol (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Arabic for Golden Age

What do Arabic scholars call the Golden Age? Can this be included in the article? 203.1.252.5 (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

Merlinme replaced the "politically united" part in the lead which was added by Dbachmann. Perhaps, the sourcing may be discussed as the edit summary left by Merlinme is OR. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely the onus is on whoever added "politically united" to provide sourcing for that claim? An edit summary cannot be original research, because it's never seen by a reader. On the other hand a claim that Muslims were "politically united" under the caliphates certainly needs a good source. --Merlinme (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, "politically united" is a strong claim which needs a strong source. "Ruled by" is a neutral term which implies nothing except there were caliphates, which is of course undisputed. Please do not use "politically united" without demonstrating clear consensus and/ or providing a strong, reliable source for that statement. --Merlinme (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not neccessary for text that repeats in the main body, so a ref might be found in the article. However, a quick search turns up this, the "politically united" statement is in the section titled "Why Arabic Science Thrived", third para. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If the claim is referenced in the article then it doesn't necessarily need a citation in the Lead. The words "politically united" do not appear anywhere in the rest of the article, with a reference or otherwise. "United" only appears twice in the article, once for "politically united" in the lead, and once for "United Kingdom". That is another strong reason to not have "politically united" in the lead, as (per WP:Lead) the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, it should not contain additional claims or information. "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Regarding your "quick search", that is not a good source. You are using a web page written by "Hillel Ofek", "a writer living in Austin, Texas". He makes no claims to be an expert on medieval Islamic history. The article is published in the "The New Atlantis", which describes itself as "an effort to clarify the nation’s moral and political understanding of all areas of technology". The New Atlantis might be considered a reliable source on US science and technology issues, depending on its editorial policy etc., but it's not a reliable source for medieval Islamic history. If you wish I could take it to WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, but I'm pretty confident what their answer would be.

Please could you self-revert the words from the lead until consensus can be demonstrated and you have provided a high quality, Reliable Source which can be referenced. It doesn't matter if the reference is provided in the lead or the main body, but "politically united" does need a solid reference. --Merlinme (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

> the old Islamic caliphate (as well as Kievan Rus)

What? Seriously? And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus ?

I'm not sure what your point is. Kievan Rus is mentioned in passing in the Islamic Golden Age article as part of the Eurasian land mass which was conquered by the Mongols. The Kievan Rus article says: "The state finally fell to the Mongol invasion of the 1240s." --Merlinme (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

misleading comment and apparently sourced material for "Science" section.

the comment removed clearly tries to discredit Greek scientific advancement ranging from 1200 years before this period. Archimedes for example is a true scientist with a load of professional titles under his belt, and that is Archimedes alone (287 BC)

Alhazen for example has two titles under his belt (polymath and philosopher) none of which technically classify as "scientific method" via experiment + result.

I guess "thinking" is the best way to travel... but it sure doesn't beat going there thru practical experiment in trial and error?

Need I even mention the Antikythera mechanism? yes the world got this device from thinking about earth, air, water and fire... @@

I am led to deduce that "true science" didn't exist for Jim Al-Khalili personally before Alhazen... what else is one to conclude?

Jim Al-Khalili's logic is obviously flawed, and biased.

---

Conclusion #2

I have come to decide that there never really was an "islamic golden age" if one can consider an age of conquest and barbarity and religious zeal "Golden" at all?

Everything Islam has ever known, they came into possession of it via conquest and thus the knowledge and supposed contributions to humanity was just "war booty"

This methodology doesn't classify as "golden" at all, it was fundamentalism just as it is still this very day.

I also find it quite ironic that what the Western World considers "the Dark Ages" is Islam's supposed golden age... maybe we should call it Islam's Blood Red Age? because anyone with 2 bits of common sense or interest would fathom and maybe even research if there happens to be a connection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.214 (talk) 11:44, February 12, 2015

Your comments should stay focused on the content of this particular article. Comments about the Quran are unhelpful and outside of the scope of this article, and I have removed them. The history of science can be a controversial topic; given that you disagree with Jim Al-Khalili's view, your best course of action would be to find a reliable source, ideally by a historian, that presents a different point of view, and point out relevant quotes here. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dialectric (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

RE; My apologies, but sheesh what is becoming of Wiki? you can't get any correct information from here anymore, everything is falsified and fantasy history!

You Mr/Ms editor need to do your job and start adding "Historical Fact" which is unbiased. Not everyone in the world is a professional wiki editor wizard you know?

Wiki's so called "verifiable sources" are nothing but controversial conspiracy theorists being quoted half the time and the other time is it biased and not "factual"

We want truth, not conjecture...

Meet Aristotle the inventor of the scientific method, http://www.marshallfarrier.com/aristotle/work_method.htm

"What is becoming of Wiki?" You've lost me. This is a free encyclopedia written by volunteers in their spare time. Most articles have become more reliable, not less reliable, in the last few years, but everything in Wikipedia is only as reliable as the underlying source, and should be taken with a big pinch of salt unless you personally verify the reference. When you refer to "Mr/Ms" editor, you are aware that you're referring to yourself, right? If you see a problem in Wikipedia, please work to correct it. There was a problem with historical Muslim related articles in Wikipedia (including this one) where a particular editor overran them with large chunks of dubious text supported by bad references, and I have been trying to fix them, as my spare time allows, for several years now.

To the extent that I can see some point in what you're saying, there is a debate on the extent to which scientific method can be attributed to the Greeks. Archimedes was a mathematician and an engineer, he does not generally feature in the history of the scientific method. The fact that he was capable of building jaw droppingly complex machines with the materials available to him at the time says little about his approach to theory and experimentation, which to the best of my knowledge does not feature in his surviving written works. To take another brilliant Greek thinker, Aristotle believed so strongly in inductive reasoning that he seems to have preferred it to what we would now consider a scientific method. To grossly over-simplify, he believed all the most important truths could be deduced by thinking about them hard enough. Of course he was aware of empirical proofs, but he didn't set out to test them or create new evidence.

Have you actually read the Marshall Farrier web page you've provided as a reference? Ignoring for the moment that it doesn't seem to be an authoritative source, the bits I've glanced at re: Aristotle seem reasonable. The specific page you've pointed to is titled "Scientific method", but it's mainly about Aristotle's ground breaking approach to logic, which did get him quite a long way, but ultimately is not enough on its own to advance science beyond a certain point. "But Aristotle's focus essentially on the progressive refinement of a science's basic concepts at some point becomes a limitation in physics and chemistry. In the Renaissance, these sciences began a period of rapid development when their methodologies broke out of the Aristotelian framework and became more oriented toward the quantitative verification of hypotheses and the specification of physical laws. Neither quantitative methods nor the notion of a physical law not derived from definitions fit well into Aristotle's proposed method for deriving first principles in the empirical sciences." In other words, thinking on its own only gets you so far, at some point you have to do experiments and test your hypotheses.

Respectable academics have argued that Alhazen was unusual in the extent to which he emphasised experimentation under controlled conditions. His ideas on experimentation don't appear out of nowhere (ideas never do), but there is a respectable strand of argument that the Arabs' ideas on experimentation in general and Alhazen's ideas in particular represent an advance on common practice in the Greek and Roman world. History of scientific method has a reasonable summary, although as always, be careful of Wikipedia unless you know the underlying sources.

If you disagree that the medieval Islamic world made any scientific advances on the Greeks and Romans, please provide a reliable source to argue your case. Your "truth" is another person's "conjecture" unless you can demonstrate that your view has solid academic backing. --Merlinme (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili

I am not sure how reliable is he, for such a strong claim as invention of scientific method.From what I see he is not historian of science. I think we need more reliable sources.Ravik1988 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's Jim Al-Khalili "OBE (born 20 September 1962) is an Iraqi-born British theoretical physicist, author and broadcaster. He is currently Professor of Theoretical Physics and Chair in the Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey." So no, not a historian of science exactly, but not just some tv presenter either. A more specialized source would be good. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, not historian of science. Moreover his research has been criticized by historians of science such as Sonja Brentjes in Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas, p133. It's available on google books you can check it. I think that a claim that Alhacen was significant in history of scientific method sourced by Schramm should certainly stay, but claims by Al-khalili should go.Ravik1988 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See History of scientific method, Ibn al-Haytham was the first scientist to implement the modern inductive experimental method. IMO, the claim is not overblown. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fauzan and Johnbod. A more specialized source regarding the invention of the empirical scientific method would be good. But for now, Al-Khalili's source should stay. Khestwol (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fauzan, nowhere does it say in that article that he is "first scientist" and moreover you can't use other Wikipedia article as a source.Not to mention that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Al-khalili is certainly not an exceptional source.Regards.Ravik1988 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with Ravik1988. The section is of course poorly written and needs more sources and some improvement but the statement that Ibn al-Haytham is described as the first true scientist is not at all extraordinary, considering that many modern scientists have acknowledged him as such. Khestwol (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty meaningless title and there is no chain of influence from Alhazen to what is regarded as scientific method today. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct but patience is needed because there is an industry devoted to puffing up topics in this area and there is no shortage of "reliable" sources claiming that someone born a thousand years ago was the father of this or the first true that. Alhazen was exceptional but many of the claims surrounding him are pulled out of people's imaginations, and the article carefully uses phrases like "has been referred to as..." which cannot be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry

Chemistry is not mentioned (or alchemy as a proto chemistry). I am not qualified to add anything myself but maybe someone who knows the subject could add a line or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.116.170 (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh, and Boko Haram for that matter

Considering how both those groups are attempting to start or restart caliphates while carefully re-enacting and restoring as much of these ancient teachings and practices as possible, some well-sourced comparison may be appropriate. It's also worth noting how much people hate this once it's put right in front of them and they no longer have the luxury of revising their history from a distance. This subject matter is indefensible and should not be celebrated. This is an appropriate conclusion when approached from a NPOV, and I readily admit that is the whole point of asking that these comparisons be made. 2601:244:4E00:7CB8:500E:878C:8292:8E24 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ISIS/Daesh/etc has no relevance here, they're just a terrorist group, and giving legitimacy to them claiming their a Caliphate is as absurd as giving legitimacy to Bundy Ranch for their claims that the Federal government has no jurisdiction over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.60.24 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning those groups in this article would be about as relevant as mentioning Italian Fascism in the |Golden Age section of the Latin literature article. Konchevnik81 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)