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)

Time Period

It would be great to have an approximate time period at the start of the article. It is difficult to figure it out.

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?

The Said quote is not a source for an encyclopedia. Even if his scholarly work is acceptable, that doesn't mean everything he wrote can be used. A phrase like "anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with ..." is a dead giveaway that we're not dealing with scholarship. It's an appeal to "of course!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

The term is biased and not objective. It represents an islamocentrist view. Nobody outside the Caliphate would have used such a term. In modern times it is exclusively used by Muslims themselves and some Islamophiles. The article should be either renamed to "Abbasid Age" or deleted.

154.123.14.83 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Mortran

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)

Why are Islamophobes so butthurt that Europe was in a dark age while Islam was in a golden age? I'm guessing they try to deny this because it contridicts their Islamophobic rhetoric of the 21st century. You come to that conclusion because that is want you want to believe and you simply do not care about facts at all. Go back to your circle jerk in breitbart or conservipedia and write your articles. This is about the Islamic Golden Age, not about Greek History. This is not the place for your drivel. 67.80.214.161 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2017 (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)

No mention of Fascism Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete Source

Under Commerce and Travel, it says "Tolerance was extended to non-Sunni Muslims such as Christians, Shias, and Jews,[73] who occupied high levels in government based on ability." Reference 73 simply says "Goldschmidt 84-86" and is the only reference mentioning Goldschmidt in the entire References section. Nor is Goldschmidt mentioned in the article itself or anywhere in the talk section. Someone who knows what book this refers to please include the full reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoukittenme (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This apparently refers to "A concise history of the Middle East" by Arthur Goldschmidt ([2]), which has a discussion of the Fatimid Caliphate on the cited pages. The only part of the paragraph supported by this source is about the religious tolerance, but it's not really relevant to the section "Commerce and travel", so I've removed the whole paragraph. Eperoton (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Copied material

I am troubled by the section Islamic_Golden_Age#Role_of_Christians

Note the comparison to Eastern_Christianity#Role_of_Christians_in_the_Islamic_culture

And to Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Role_of_Christians

And to Christian_influences_in_Islam#Role_of_Christian_in_science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

And to History_of_the_Assyrian_people#Islamic_empires

There are provision for the copying of material within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

I believe all were added by the same editor.

@Moonriddengirl:@Diannaa: I am pinging a couple copyright experts, to help discuss what should be the next steps. Is it as simple as identifying the first addition, then adding null edits along with edit summaries to provide proper attribution?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's how I do it: For each copied edit, identify the source Wikipedia article. Perform a tiny edit on the content, section, or paragraph, with an edit summary providing attribution. Sample edit summary: Attribution: Content in this section was copied here from [[Speed (1994 film) ]] on July 10, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution. Notify the involved editor using template uw-copying. For example, {{subst:uw-copying|Speed (1994 film) |to=Annie Porter (character)}} If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. ~~~~ — Diannaa (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, sounds like a good plan. However, my expectation is that this should be done by @Jobas:, whom I failed to ping originally, but now have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

the: Assyrian Christians especially Nestorian contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayads and the Abbasids by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic.[12] They also excelled in philosophy, science (such as Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Qusta ibn Luqa, Masawaiyh, Patriarch Eutychius, Jabril ibn Bukhtishu etc.) and theology (such as Tatian, Bar Daisan, Babai the Great, Nestorius, Toma bar Yacoub etc.) and the personal physicians of the Abbasid Caliphs were often Assyrian Christians such as the long serving Bukhtishu dynasty.[13][14]

I'm the one who wrote or add this text from the first place and the author of the prose that was moved see here. here the oldest prose that was moved. and i'm the author.

I know Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia but this material i'm the one who wrote it, so how i infringement of the rights of the text I've typed. Anyway i will add the edit summary, and Sorry for that mistake.--Jobas (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, but I believe it is still required. FWIW, I located the various sections first, then realized you were the common editor. The first one I found, was added very recently, and popped up as a possible copyvio, because it matched some words in an external source. It turned out that source had copied formfrom one of your earlier edits, but it would have saved an hour of research had I seen the explanation in the edit summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Geology

The only entry for "Geology" is a reference to Al-Biruni's 11th Century calculation of Earth's size. "Al-Biruni (973-1048) estimated the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.[59]" I see two problems with that entry. First, it has nothing to do with geology (it would be geodesy or geography). Second, the fact that several Greek scholars obtained such values or better values beginning a thousand years earlier makes that statement misleading at best. Islam did not produce the first or most accurate estimates of Earth's size. Third, the single source cited is just a vague reference to another source, that is, it is just a claim based on yet another reference. It doesn't explain at all how al-Biruni achieved his result or how it compared to other work at the time. An encyclopedia ought, above all else, put specific works into the context of the broader world of knowledge. Pooua (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, "geodesy" would be a more accurate section title. As I noted in the edit summary, we are constrained by the Wikipedia policy against editorial synthesis, which is described in WP:SYN. That means we can only make or imply conclusions that have been explicitly stated in the cited sources. You have not presented a source which explicitly states that al-Biruni's estimate was not the most accurate by that time, but rather implied that conclusion through editorial synthesis. There could be non-trivial reasons for the apparent discrepancy between the numbers in different sources; contradicting a RS based on our own understanding of the topic would violate WP's policy against original research (WP:OR). If you can find a source explicitly comparing the estimates of al-Biruni and Eratosthenes, we can use that. If you find a RS which states that Eratosthenes made the most accurate estimate until modern times, this can also be used here, since both sources make explicit statements on the same question (who made the most accurate pre-modern estimate). So far, all I've come across is a source which states that al-Biruni's estimate was "almost ten times more accurate" than that of Eratosthenes [3]. Eperoton (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't explicitly claim that Al-Biruni's calculation was the most accurate to that time; it claims that his estimate was "a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century." That certainly implies accuracy, but it literally states that the West did not have such a value. Incidentally, the value stated in the University of St Andrews page disagrees with other sources (such as the other source that I cited before you reverted the page). In fact, the source that I cited for Al-Biruni's value describes the method that Al-Biruni used, and notes sources of errors in his calculation (he used an inaccurate value for sine and did not take atmospheric distortion into account). I actually did cite several sources showing comparable or better accuracy from Eratosthenes (again, you removed those citations when you reverted the page). Eratosthenes is a well-known historical figure, and his calculation of Earth's circumference was his most famous work, so sources for him are plentiful and easy to produce. I will include some examples for you:

"Eratosthenes then used this to calculate the circumference of the Earth to be about 250,000 stadia. Modern scholars disagree about the length of the stadium used by Eratosthenes. Values between 500 and about 600 feet have been suggested, putting Eratosthenes’ calculated circumference between about 24,000 miles and about 29,000 miles. The Earth is now known to measure about 24,900 miles around the equator, slightly less around the poles." https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

"Due to the uncertain distance that stadia represents (and particularly which stadia he was using), historians believe that Eratosthenes’ conclusion was between .5% and 17% off the mark. Even if the latter case was true, it was astoundingly accurate given the limited technology he was dealing with at the time. But many scholars think it likely that he was using the Egyptian stadia (157.5 m), being in Egypt at the time. This would make his estimate only about 1% too small." http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/amazing-eratosthenes/

"R = 6263 km NOT BAD - TODAY WE MEASURE 6371 km" http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/public/seth/107/Time/erathos.htm

"From this he determined the circumference of the Earth to within less than 2% accuracy!!" http://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Science/en/Eratosthenes.html

"His records show that the distance was found to be 5,000 stadia. The stadion (plural = stadia) was a common distance unit of the time. Unfortunately, there was not a universal, standard length for the stadion; so we don't know exactly which version of the stadion Eratosthenes used, and therefore are not exactly sure how accurate his solution was. He may have been correct to within less than 1%, a remarkable accomplishment! Or, if it was actually a different stadion that he used, he may have been off by about 16%." http://www.windows2universe.org/citizen_science/myw/w2u_eratosthenes_calc_earth_size.html

"By the fifth century BCE, the Greeks had firmly established that the earth was a sphere. Although they knew it was a sphere, they didn't know how big the sphere was.

"The philosopher Plato (400 BCE) declared the earth's circumference to be 64,412 kilometers (40,000 miles). Some 150 years later, the mathematician Archimedes estimated it to be 48,309 kilometers (30,000 miles). It's not known exactly how Plato or Archimedes arrived at their calculations, but Plato's measurement was off by sixty percent and Archimedes' by twenty percent. At least they were making progress.

"Observations and calculations by two later Greeks, Eratosthenes and Posidonius, finally resulted in accurate estimates of the size of the earth.

"In the third century BCE, Eratosthenes, a Greek librarian in Alexandria, Egypt, determined the earth's circumference to be 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers (25,000 to 28,500 miles) by comparing the Sun's relative position at two different locations on the earth's surface. Because of differences in translations or interpretations of his records, and his own methodological errors, the exact figures are in dispute. Today, the earth's circumference is usually accepted to be 40,096 kilometers (24,901 miles). If you take the lowest estimate attributed to Eratosthenes, his error was less than one percent—a phenomenal calculation." http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~jochen/gtech201/lectures/lec6concepts/Datums/Determining%20the%20earths%20size.htm

In contrast, Al-Biruni's calculated value was 6335.725 km, according to "Biruni’s Measurement of the Earth," by Alberto Gomez Gomez http://www.jscimath.org/uploads/J2011172AG.pdf Uncertainty remains as to exactly what value Al-Biruni produced, though:

"The result obtained by Al-Biruni had been discussed in [2]. Let us just tell that, if the Arabic mile used by Al-Biruni was equal to 1.225947 English miles [10], his value of the Earth’s radius was different of only 2% from the mean radius of curvature of the reference ellipsoid at the latitude of measurements [10] (Al-Biruni made measurements when he was at the Fort of Nandana in Punjab [11])." http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=443

As for accuracy, I found, "Various sources credit al-Biruni with an incredibly accurate result from his measurements, which is to be seriously doubted. For various reasons it is almost impossible to accurately determine the angle of dip and the method whilst theoretically interesting is in practice next to useless." https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/getting-the-measure-of-the-earth/

"Eratosthenes's calculation proliferated far and wide and was preserved by successive generations, and geographically disparate civilizations. This estimate of the size of the earth and its method, would remain canonical for the educated elite of the future civilizations of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia till the 17th century, when more precise measurements could be made to constrain the size of the earth." https://brilliant.org/wiki/calculating-the-size-of-the-earth/

Based on these sources, the exact values calculated by Eratosthenes and Al-Biruni are not known, but the range of uncertainty given for them overlap. According to some of these sources, the Western world used Eratosthenes' value until the 17th Century. Pooua (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You've unearthed some interesting observations, but it may help to point out up front that our mandate as WP editors is not to establish and reflect the truth. It is rather to establish what sources meeting the WP criteria for reliability (WP:SOURCES, WP:RS) say on the subject and then reflect them with due weight (WP:NPOV).

I'm not sure if you're trying to say that the source we're currently citing states something other than that al-Biruni's estimate was the most accurate until the 16th century. I think that's the only reasonable interpretation of that passage. We can quote it verbatim, and the readers will come to the same conclusion.

If there are RSs casting doubt on the accuracy of al-Biruni's estimate, we can use them. The article at Philica is a RS, but there's too much connecting of dots needed to go from what it says to contradicting our statement for us to use. The following two sources are more explicit, but they are self-published by authors of no evident academic credentials, so they don't meet RS requirements (the same goes for Gomez' paper, as I see no evidence of credentials or proper peer review). You're welcome to continue looking for other sources. Eperoton (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pooua:. Figures quoted for the radius by the Greeks and al-Buruni (6339.6 km) are useless, unless we also include the error in the results. The accuracy in al-Buruni is misleading; it suggests an error in the order of 10 meter (highly unlikely) but the error might be 10 km or even 100 km, that is not clear. The Nasa Earth Fact Sheet gives the following values: Equatorial radius (km): 6378.137, Polar radius (km): 6356.752, Volumetric mean radius (km): 6371.008

I wonder where we can find the earliest manuscript that can reliably be attributed to al-Buruni, which is the start of all later interpretations of his work - I would like to see a scholarly evaluation. I did a quick search with al biruni earth radius manuscript jpg, but didn't get much wiser - I do not read Arabic. --Gerard1453 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is probably as close as you can get to something even remotely "original". --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda:. Jan Hogendijk, die ken ik wel. Dat wordt al aanzienlijk betrouwbaarder. Thanx for info. Gerard1453 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The figure for the radius of the earth, which al-Buruni arrived at, is quoted in Ref. [76] in section Geodesy (as per 14/08/2017): http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Al-Biruni.html. There it says: ′Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by al-Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century (see [50])′. This reference '[50]' is the article: K Norhudzaev, al-Biruni and the science of geodesy (Uzbek), in Collection dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the birth of al-Biruni (Tashkent, 1973), 145-158.

I cannot find 'K Norhudzaev' on the internet, let alone the article. So I suggest another source. Is it good practice to quote web pages? Usually they have a high entertainment value - but no scholar will publish serious work this way.

The radius quoted is 6339.6 km, but the (kilo)meter didn't exist in al-Burundi's time. So the conversion from old units to km was done after 1800, may be even quite recently. Who did it and how and if he/she pimped the result a bit - totally unclear. The old units and thus the conversion factor are unknown. They might even change from one region to the other. Then there is the matter of accuracy: unknown. Summarizing I conclude that the figure of R=6339.6 km is devoid of scientific meaning.

′a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.′. Obtained by whom? And which value was arrived at, expressed in which length units? --Gerard1453 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203013254/http://www.ut.ac.ir/en/main-links/historical.htm to http://www.ut.ac.ir/en/main-links/historical.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological remains of Roman Medicine pre-date Islamic hospitals

Section Health care/Hospitals states ′The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid′, quoting an article by DAVID TSCHANZ in AramcoWorld March/April 2017 (Ref. [69] in the article). This is the familiar position, which virtually no one questions or dares(!) questioning. Almost no one asks the very obvious question: How were the sick and wounded in the army and civil society cared for in other cultures, in the centuries before Islam? How did medical care change? Was there any change at all? Without clarification on this point, talk of 'firsts' is just empty bragging. Archeological finds can help us, just as searching for the earliest written accounts of reliable authenticity.

It is not difficult to find papers on this subject (e.g. using search strings like roman hospital excavation), which discuss the results of archaeological field work. E.g. [1] by historian and archaeologist Dr. Patty Baker, focuses on Roman medical tools that date from the first to fourth centuries AD, and examines the structures that are thought to be a valetudinarium, the Roman military hospital. The instruments she and others found, bear a striking resemblence to the medical equipment depicted in documents, often of very dubious authenticity, that purport to demonstrate the superiority of early islamic surgery. Either early islam reinvented these tools, or, what is equally probable, they 'took over' the equipment they encountered in the conquered zones of the Middle-East and ibero-gothic-roman Spain. In that case, there is no sudden explosion of innovative practices but just continuity.

According to Peregrine Horden in [2], ′For a relatively brief period, the Romans occasionally built hospitals (valetudinaria) for slaves and soldiers - the two categories of laborers who mattered most to the functioning of the empire.′ (p. 372). The first known public hospital was erected by Leontius of Antioch, bishop from 344 to 358. The year 350 is a round date accepted for the emergence of xenodocheia or xenones, hospitals for strangers or migrants.

By the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, this medical innovation had rapidly diffused around the Mediterranean,—areas in contact with Byzantium. It is the existence of numerous Christian charitable foundations active within the land of Islam after the conquests and the plurality of medical centers, that probably served as inspiration for Islamic foundations. ′Christian hospitals [thus] formed a background continuum. But no late Sassanian or early Islamic rulers (or other benefactors) seem to have founded any hospitals between the mid-sixth and the late eighth or early ninth century. No Umayyad or early Abbasid hospitals are in evidence until the Barmakid hospital in ninthcentury Baghdad, the first Islamic hospital.′ (p. 370)

On the subject of medical excellence, Horden warns: ′But the medicine of these hospitals was, to judge by surviving manuscripts, simple, atheoretical, and little concerned with etiology or prognosis (...) Even the much-vaunted medicine of the Islamic bimaristan may not have been so superior as was once thought, if the casebooks of Razi, a ninth-century medical writer and hospital physician, are any indication. Although physicians often attended inmates at several of the earliest hospitals, they had no professional qualifications—none was to be had—probably rendering them not much different in competence from nurses and other attendants.′ (p. 389)

Finally a note on the sources that the editor(s) of this section (Health care/Hospitals) employ: they seem to be more intent on promoting Islam than caring for objective knowledge of the history of Medicine. This is better left to specialists like Patricia Baker and Peregrine Horden.

Ref.

[1] Dr. Patty Baker, Archaeological remains as a source of evidence for Roman Medicine, University of kent

[2] Peregrine Horden, The Earliest Hospitals in Byzantium, Western Europe, and Islam, Journal of Interdisciplinary History Volume 35, Number 3, Winter 2005.--Gerard1453 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The AramcoWorld piece doesn't seem to meet WP:RS requirements either by the publisher or the author, and that particular claim isn't familiar to me at least (nor to the Islamic tradition, which ascribed the origin of hospitals to Egyptian and Greek precedents, according to EI2). RSs state only that it was the first Islamic hospital. We should verify the content sourced to AramcoWorld against RSs and either provide reliable citations, if it's supported there, or remove it if it is not. Eperoton (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Arts and Culture/Freedom of expression - but not for Mansur Al-Hallaj

′A significant feature of the Fatimid era were the freedoms given to the people and liberties given to the mind and reason.′ May be this was the case in the Fatimid Caliphate, but outside it, there was not much freedom ′to the mind and reason′. The terrible fate of the 9-th century mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj proves this; he was punished for his spiritual teachings and executed in Baghdad in 922 AD.--Gerard1453 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This whole section is unencyclopedic despite citing "encyclopedias". Just a bit of Shiite propaganda based on two unreliable sources by the same author. The Fatimids assiduously promoted Ismailism, though they concentrated on the elites and left the populace to their Sunni traditions, as explained briefly by Lapidus. One could have a discussion of juristic pluralism and communal autonomy somewhere in the article, but this would need to be written from scratch based on RSs. Eperoton (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually the whole article is beyond repair and has to be completely rewritten - most if not all of the so called sources are a joke. In general, the whole subject of Islamic Science is never treated with anything like the rigor with which cultural developments in Western late antique and Medieval era are approached. E.g. Arab documents from the Islamic Golden Age are seldomly 'tested' on authenticity with the same rigor that texts from say the Christian West (late antique, Medieval) are analysed (Palaeography). Never one is told who found the document, where, when, in which museum or library the work can be admired and which journal discusses its paleographic aspects.

Few people know that the Arabs until the 10-th/11-th century used the Kufic script, a script that only a handful of specialists can decipher. This means that a scientific document that claims to be written in early Abbasid Baghdad and that uses the modern Arabic script with its many helpful Diacritic symbols (the arcs and the dots), necessarily must be a forgery.--Gerard1453 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article certainly has room for improvement, but this needs to be done in accordance with WP policies. Text which is verifiable in RSs cannot be removed without justification, and alternative views should be reflected in accordance with WP:NPOV. We also have to avoid WP:OR. The question of scripts is a case in point. "Kufic" can refer to any number of styles, including the cursive "new Abbasid" style which emerged in the 9th century (see Grove, for instance). We aren't here to expose forgeries through original analysis, but to report what is stated in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I won't change tittel nor iota to the text of the article; my idea of reliable sources differs too much. But this field can certainly use a bit of rigour. E.g. so far no excavations in or around Baghdad have uncovered any remains that can be attributed to early Abbasid Baghdad (see my remarks on the Baghdad Talk-page). Not a trace of the huge circular walls which were 50 meter(!) at the base. One might argue that modern Baghdad is too heavily built over. But if you hover over Baghdad with Google Earth, you'll notice many open spaces that lend themselves to sample wise excavations. And of course there are infrastructural works and site preparation of land during which most archaeological discoveries are made. After centuries and millions of people inhabiting Baghdad, its soil should be chock-a-block with artefacts. As long as archaeology doesn't lend weight to any the wild claims made about early Baghdad, it is better to consider its history as mere fiction and to refrain from adding new layers of extravagant details.--Gerard1453 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Causes

• Religious influence. ′The various Quranic injunctions and Hadith, which place values on education and emphasize the importance of acquiring knowledge, played a vital role (...) in their search for knowledge and the development of the body of science.′. I read the Quran cover to cover, but nowhere encountered any injuction to ′search for (...) the development of science.′ How could it be otherwise? (Modern) Science, its mentality and methods, took centuries to ripe in the West, and to the illiterate Arab audiences of that era, the message must have sounded completely alien, in a world dominated by wind, sand and desert, demons and djinns. One can only wonder why the Prophet himself didn't take the message to heart and learned to read and write, thereby setting an example for others to follow.

• Government sponsorship and Earlier cultural influence. ′The Muslim government heavily patronized scholars (...) showed a strong interest in assimilating the scientific knowledge of the [Greek/Persian] civilizations that had been conquered.′ How could the government have known that the Greek/Persian ancient knowledge was of any importance when they couldn't read Greek/Persian and the relevant manuscripts were not yet around anyway? Let's assume for arguments sake, that the Muslims were aware of its importance and set out to enrich it. That raises the question: why were the other civilizations in the region, e.g. the Sasanian Empire not inclined to do so? Why weren't the Persian rulers not interested in a similar House of Wisdom? And then there were the Greek speaking Byzantine elites (mainly) in the cities; they 'sat' on their own heritage and could easily have decided to extend the ancient knowledge.

• New technology. ′Islamic paper makers devised assembly-line methods of hand-copying manuscripts to turn out editions far larger than any available in Europe for centuries.′ Sounds impressive, but ... there is a even fancier technology, called the printing press. Why didn't Islam come up with the idea of the printing press? It transformed European society from the 15-th century onwards. Then there is the subject of literacy and education. How widespread was it and how do we 'measure' literacy of the masses who were supposed to read and understand the books with their new knowledge? Were the humble city-dwellers and the poor peasants really able to grasp the new ideas?--Gerard1453 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with most of your statements, we just need one or two good books/scholars that say, "the descriptions of Islamic Golden Age achievements are exaggerated" coz pretty much they are. That's a formality of the wiki. :( Swingoswingo (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, these sources will also state by whom they are exaggerated. Certainly, this article seems to have NPOV problems. Some of the cited sources may not be represented correctly, in which case the statements need to be verified against the cited source and corrected. Some of them don't meet WP:RS criteria, in which case the statements should either be tagged (if they may be verifiable in reliable sources) or removed (if they're evidently false). For other problems, alternative viewpoints found in RSs should be reflected with due weight. Otherwise, we're getting into WP:FORUM, which is not what this talk page is for. Eperoton (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton. On your user page, you are much more explicit about your sources: ′I'm currently concentrating on Islam-related articles, since many important ones among them have much room for improvement. My goal is to use the best modern scholarship (...)′. --Gerard1453 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This is my personal goal and also a recommendation expressed in WP:BESTSOURCES. However, WP policy defines a RS (WP:SOURCE, WP:RS) in a more permissive fashion and we can't remove content with citations that meet those criteria just because we think the source isn't "best". That way lie violations of WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Swingoswingo:. Unfortunately, you won't find many scholars stating that Golden-Age claims are exaggerated or beg to differ from the traditional viewpoint on other aspects of Islam; it can be dangerous for your career or even your life. Medievalist Sylvain Gouguenheim wrote Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel: Les racines grecques de l’Europe Chrétienne (2008) and then saw a genuine war waged against him by his colleagues in and outside France (L'historien à abattre, Le Figaro, 15/07/2008). It strongly resembled a man-hunt. Then there is Christoph Luxenberg, scholar of ancient Semitic languages, who wrote The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (2007 for the English translation), and who has to publish under pseudonym for fear of his life. Etc. Etc. Remember, Islam is sacred to the chattering classes.

I am afraid you have to mostly piece together the evidence yourself by reading studies you won't find in the public library. Or scan e.g. https://www.jstor.org/ for articles. You asked for ′one or two good books/scholars that say, "the descriptions of Islamic Golden Age achievements are exaggerated"′. Well, above I gave some examples of articles on the origins of the Islamic hospital. The Gouguenheim-book is still not translated into English. --Gerard1453 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Piecing together evidence yourself? Ahem, please read WP:SYNTHESIS. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Natural sciences and Engineering: where are the applications??

• Optics (in Section Physics). I've always been surpised that the Islamic world excelled in optics, but never got as far as inventing glasses, the telescope or the microscope. Eyeglasses were invented in Italy in the 13-th century ([1], p. 91). If the Italians based their invention on Islamic optical theories which include the magnifying effects of convex lenses, and not by empirically observing the distorting effects of curved glass, why didn't the Muslims come up with the same idea of adding a second lens in front of the other eye and then connecting the lenses mechanically??

An importanty point seldomly addressed, is the composition of the glass; early Medieval glasses were seldom truly clear and were based om ancient recipes. It took a while to develop clear glass and the consistent manufacture of glass that was colorless and without blemish was a late medieval invention of considerable difficulty and merit ([1], p. 93). The composition of the material that was used in lenses in the Islamic world, is unknown. One wonders when the first eyeglasses reached the muslim word.

A similar story applies to telescopes - by simply looking through a lens and then placing another in front of it - just for kicks, Alhazen and others might have seen its magnifying effect. But they stopped short of doing the obvious.

• Engineering. The Book of Ingenious Devices, Baghdad, 9-th century, describes one hundred devices including automata. But ... the obvious application, the mechanical clock, is missing. Instead, Islam never got beyond the water clock. The mechanical clock and the new understanding of time had a huge effect on the European psyche and technology - all that went unnoticed by the Muslim world.

• Electricity and magnetism are conspicuously absent from the immense list of islamic scientific achievements, even though static electricity, e.g. by rubbing amber (Triboelectric effect) was known to the ancient Greeks. Yet, to my knowledge, there is no mention whatsoever of electrostatics by early Islamic authors. And yet the basic experiments are simple enough, for instance Faraday's ice pail experiment, which doesn't require batteries or generators.

Magnetism too was known to the Greeks and the Chinese, it was also known to the North African church father Saint Augustine, who describes in his work The City of God (book) written in the years 413-426 AD, the experience of attracting iron rings by lodestone (XXI:4).

No reports originating in the Islamic Commonwealth on magnetic phenomena are known, even though Muslims very soon tried to conquer China (Islam during the Tang dynasty#Early contacts between Islam and China) were it was used for geomancy and navigation. The first references to the magnetic compass made by an Islamic scholar date from the 13-th century, after its introduction in the West ([2], p. 132: The first Muslim reference to the compass comes in a Persian story of 1232-3. The earliest Arabic mention of it, written in 1282 but explicitly referring to an episode of 1242-3, speaks of it as a novelty. Moreover, the Arabic word al-Konbas indicates that its use reached the Muslim Levant from the West, probably from Italy.)

So we have an immense list of scientific 'firsts' by the Islamic world from which two of the most important, electricity and magnetism, are missing. Science that never led to important and rather obvious industrial relevant applications. It as if we are watching a technologically advanced train which halts just before reaching its destination, leaving the passengers stranded.

It is important to look for material remains and for independent reports by travellers from outside the Muslim world. They could tell us more about the state of Islamic technology and society.

[1] Friedel, Robert D., A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millenium (2007)

[2] Lynn White, Jr, Medieval Technology & Social Change (1962)--Gerard1453 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You're not following Wikipedia's No synthesis and No Original Research policies. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Education: "seek knowledge, even in China"

The information in this section smacks of religious propaganda posing as a regular wikipedia lemma. It also shoots itself in the foot: ′The importance of learning drew on the authority of a hadith attributed to Muhammad, instructing the faithful to "seek knowledge, even in China".′ How could Muhammad have known about China and its culture when he never left the Arabian Peninsula and couldn't read?

So he was clair-voyant (Clairvoyance). Given that he was a holy person receiving revelations by the angel Gabriël no less, that isn't too far-fetched. But what is the point of remaining illiterate when you are clair voyant and able to gather information over any time and distance? The whole idea of his illiteracy was to insure not be suspected of having studied the books of the ancestors, in particular the Bible (Quran, section History/Prophetic era).

He might as well have told his companions all that was to be known about Chinese technology, which would have saved the muslims the trouble of the journey to China.--Gerard1453 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in WP:FORUM, but the encyclopedia I used for this can be found online. You're welcome to check whether it's summarized correctly. The author is a leading academy authority on the subject, and this entry is cited in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Eperoton (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gerard1453: according to tradition, Muhammad married into a merchant's family. All those caravan's he was in contact with must have brought tales and stories from the east. Nothing supernatural about travelling traders spreading news from point A to point B. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:. It says in section Education ′While it is impossible to calculate literacy rates in pre-modern Islamic societies, they were likely relatively high, particularly in comparison to their European counterparts.′. If it is impossible to calculate these rates, it is probably best to leave it at that and write something like ′It is impossible to calculate literacy rates in pre-modern Islamic societies, in particular is it difficult to compare with pre-Islamic societies, e.g. that of Byzantium, the most important power in the region until the end of the 7-th century.′. Was there a measurable quantum-jump pre-Islam → Islam in literacy and education? What do archaeology (density and distribution of remains of spaces which can be identified as schools, remains of learning materials), epigraphy and the study of extant manuscripts say about changes in levels in literacy with the coming of Islam to the region?

In the rest of this section the claims are not supported by independent means like archaeology etc; see above. If there is neither material support, nor travelogs by travellers from outside the Islamic world, then these claims must count as fiction, or better: the section should be rewritten as ′According to tradition, <list of claims>, but so far archaeology etc. haven't been able to support these claims.′ That way, everybody is happy.

'(...) literacy rates in pre-modern Islamic societies, they were likely relatively high, particularly in comparison to their European counterparts.' This sounds rather polically correct, and I like to refer you to Charlemagne#Education_reforms or even better, read the seminal studies by e.g. scholar Rosamond McKitterick. Here is a clipboard & stylus used by medieval schoolchilderen, dating from the period 750 - 900, the Carolingian era, found in Dokkum, North Netherlands. Where are the writing materials from the pre-modern Islamic era??--Gerard1453 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Having read your walls of "advising" text in the preceding sections, I am just going to put this bluntly: if you think you know better, stop bossing people around and do it yourself. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gerard1453: I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand -- or perhaps simply haven't bothered to read -- the core Wikipedia policies that I've pointed you to, WP:V and WP:OR. The only assertions we can put into the articles are the ones explicitly made in RSs that we can cite. I encourage you to read those policies, because otherwise you're just wasting your time making suggestions which aren't actionable because they don't comply with site policy. The statement you're objecting to summarizes the following content from the cited source: "It is of course impossible to estimate with any degree of certainty the number of individuals in premodern Islamic societies who were educated or literate, and it may even be difficult to be precise about what it meant to be “educated” or “literate.” Nonetheless, it is almost certain that premodern Islamic societies achieved (at least in comparison to premodern European societies) relatively high levels of literacy and of familiarity with the texts in which knowledge was embedded." As you can see, I've actually weakened the assertion from "almost certain" to "likely", which is more liberty than I should have taken. Eperoton (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:. Strange source you are quoting: "It is of course impossible to estimate with any degree of certainty the number of individuals in premodern Islamic societies who were educated or literate (...) Nonetheless, it is almost certain that premodern Islamic societies achieved (at least in comparison to premodern European societies [how does your author know this? What are his sources?] relatively high levels of literacy and of (...)". It is ′of course [why??] impossible′ and yet ′almost certain′: how can both be true? The author hasn't the foggiest idea about literacy levels in pre-modern European societies; the Dark Age is old hat - the ideas of the author are at least 30 years out of date; see e.g. Rosamond Mc Kitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (1989). How could the European Society suddenly jump - without transition - from a backward and illiterate society to the considerably more sophisticated Renaissance of the 12th century? How could Europeans understand the complicated Islamic science if they couldn't even read or write? --Gerard1453 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: I am not going to mess in other people's contributions; with the ideas about rigor that I entertain, my amendments would almost certainly be immediately turned back to the old state. I would rewrite the article completely. My remarks are for people who made contributions, to think them over and comply or reject them. If you do not like my suggestions, then do not read them. I think that you do not like my ideas at all. If so, why? --Gerard1453 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You assume so much... you assume that your edits will be so bad that they will be reverted, you assume that I do not like your ideas, not to mention the assumptions you make to question the article (who says European society "jumped" from barbarianism to civilisation?). Why can't the opposite be true? What's that expression in your language again... Wie niet waagt, wie niet wint? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gerard1453: These might make good objections if your were on the editorial board of the encyclopedia where Berkey's entry appeared, but they don't belong in a Wikipedia talk page. Here, we have to summarize what we find in sources which meet WP:RS requirements without letting our editorial work being influenced by our own opinions as far as possible (WP:NPOV). If you disagree with Berkey's views, you can become an academic authority on the subject and publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal. Then I'll be glad to reflect it in the article. Eperoton (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This indeed. An encyclopedia is a tertiary medium, which mostly relies on secondary sources, i.e. reviews and summaries that have put primary sources in perspective. Using primary sources directly is strongly discouraged except for certain plain statements of fact, while drawing your own conclusions is not allowed at all, like your proposal a few lines earlier that essentially says "there is no archaeological evidence, because I could not find any". Come back when you have a source saying that early Islamic society actually was not as literate as thought. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline

Invasions

Article: ′The destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom by Hulagu Khan in 1258 has been seen by some as the end of the Islamic Golden Age.′ However, in section Education it says: ′Madrasas soon multiplied throughout the Islamic world, which helped to spread Islamic learning beyond urban centers and to unite diverse Islamic communities in a shared cultural project.′ If that is the case, how can the disappearance of one city, be responsible for the demise of the whole Islamic Common Wealth?

Either: Learning was widespread, but then the destruction of one city would only have ment only a (temporary) set back. Or: with Baghdad all science disappeared, but that would mean that learning was a very local affair, the pet project of a wealthy potentate, say, and had little to do with Islam as such.

One counter example (there are many): Japan in WWII. After Tokyo and other cities in Japan were put to the torch by the Allies, Hiroshima - a city of both industrial and military significance - was vaporized by the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. It didn't prevent Japan becoming a technological power house rather soon after the war, e.g. taking over the European camera and electronics market.

Economics

• ′(...) Sunni Revival in the 11th and 12th centuries (...) decreased the relative payoff to producing scientific works. With the spread of madrasas and the greater influence of religious leaders, it became more lucrative to produce religious knowledge.′ But in section Education we are told that acquiring knowledge was a religious duty! Muhammad even explicitly ordered the faithful to ′seek knowledge, even in China′. In section Education the spread/growth of (scientific) knowledge is linked to the spread of madrasas throughout the Islamic world where as in this section the same spread is associated with the decline of scientific knowledge!

• ′Al-Hassan extended the golden age up to the 16th century, noting that scientific activity continued to flourish up until then (...) More recent research has challenged the notion that it underwent decline even at that time, citing a revival of works produced on rational scientific topics during the seventeenth century.′ The real problem is: when did Islamic scientific knowledge ceased to be of relevance to the outside world? If it survived into the seventeenth century, having thrived for (almost) a thousand (!) years, it becomes even more puzzling that it went into decline at all. The decline has only been deferred for several centuries, but the riddle remains.

Culture

′Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher Al Ghazali (1058–1111) "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science", as his works contributed to rising mysticism and occasionalism in the Islamic world.′ Can it really be possible that one man changed the fate of the whole Islamic commonwealth? How robust is a scientific tradition when it can be blown away like a puff of cigarette smoke by an outsider to rational science??

His works had to be spread over a huge area, from the Atlantic Coast to deep into Asia and all muslims then would have complied in virtually the same manner - very doubtful. This would have taken a long time and many intellectuals would have protested loudly - not unlike modern day scientists/scholars raising their voice in public over a real or perceived threat to fincancial support and/or academic freedom. Thousands of pages must have been written by Islamic scholars, lamenting the demise of learning in the Islamic world. It is worthwhile to look for these manucsripts.

Other

Several other mechanism have been proposed:

• Crusaders. But the Crusaders never conquered more than a narrow piece of land (100 by 750 km) along the Mediterranean coast. Same story as with Baghdad and the Mongols.

• Black Death. The Black Death Killed about 30% of the population in the Middle East. But the same precentage perished in Europe.

• Islam never deployed the printing press and so was at a disadvantage in spreading information fast, reliable and in large quantities. Ok, but why didn't Islam do so, given they were so technologically advanced?

• Etc, etc. None of the mechanisms proposed are convincing.

Why did the Islamic Commonwealth never recover from disasters like other vital civilizations did (including Byzantium after its own Dark Age in the seventh century - see Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty)? The Mongols and Crusaders were defeated, the plague disappeared eventually and Al-Ghazali has long gone. And according to the Muslims themselves their religion is very vital (′fastest growing religion in the world′). Well then .... where is the science? --Gerard1453 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's good that you're showing what you're agenda here. You're not here to abide by Wikipedia's policy you're here to argue about religion and to push for a political or religious viewpoint. Wikipedia is about neutral point of view. The tone of your last line says a lot. Furthermore the Talk page is not a forum. And if edits were to be implemented by what you're saying, those edits would be breaking Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the discussion on User talk:CaliphoShah, you seem to be involved in edit-wars & other unpleasant activities. I suggest you change your own behaviour first before criticizing others. Apart from that the Golden Age of islam is not sacred - so far it is far too uncritically accepted, subject to political correctness, and it is time to have a cold, hard look at the many holes in the arguments and the many loose ends; it is time that the islamic past is studied with the same rigour that Western world applies to the study of its own heritage. An example is the study of the Shroud of Turin, which probably is a forgery. Or the famous Donation of Constantine which was shown by the the 15-th century scholar Lorenzo Valla to be a forgery. --Gerard1453 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)