Talk:Islamic Golden Age

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)

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 Islamic the civilization and empire, not the religion itself. 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)

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)