Talk:Psychology in medieval Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name?[edit]

It strikes me that this might be better named as Islamic psychology - it's dealing with the parts of the field of psychology developed in the Islamic world, rather than the "psychology of Muslims" per se, and this title seems to vaguely imply the latter. Shimgray | talk | 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Islamic psychology sounds more accurate. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the article accordingly. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OR tag[edit]

The recurring problem in this article, and the explicit reason for the OR tag, is the use of language which frames meaningful and important phenomena using terms that suggest alternate interpretations. This represents an attempt at original research because it misrepresents the contribution of "ancient Islamic mental philosophy" to contemporary Psychology, the language of which is used to describe the earlier "discoveries." Scholarly discussions of these issues, in independent peer-reviewed journals, treat them with much more nuance than is reflected here. This is not noted out of colonialist pique, but out of necessity in preserving the differences between medieval ideas and contemporary psychological research. Attempts to incorporate new influences into the disciplinary history must be made in the proper forum. (For an example of such an article, see here [1].) For more on this issue, see below. -JTBurman (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


From the WikiProject Psychology talk page:
Discussion about "doing history" in psychology

In response to the spate of recent edits of the history of psychology article, which incorporated anachronistic presentations of Islamic "psychology" into the general description of the discipline, Chris Green started a discussion at his blog. Having evolved over several weeks, this examines the clashing historiographic sensibilities evinced between expert and naive contributions to Wikipedia, as well as suggestions from both communities about what to do about it. Although further comments are of course welcome, the discussion itself may serve as a useful touchstone for future edits with historical implications. (In short, the argument is that historical movements should be examined in their own contexts, rather than in ours.) --JTBurman (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made between "psychology" as a general term, at times almost synonymous with Philosophy, under which almost anything may fall on wikipedia, and Psychology as a science and discipline that originated, we could perhaps agree, in the 1800s with experimental psychology (e.g. Pavlov) and writer/clinicians such as Freud, Kraepelin (really psychiatrists) and others continuing on to Alfred Binet, William James etc. through John Watson and its formation as a recognized profession with standards and credentials in the 1940s, in the United States at least. In short, I agree with the above statement. by JTBurman. Mattisse 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that the article could do with some improvement, I think the Template:Original research tag is inappropriate. Almost everything written here in this article is based on what is written in published sources or peer-reviewed journals. I've already re-worded whatever anachronisms I've noticed in the article in my recent edits, and I can assure you that, as the article currently stands, almost none of it is my own original research. The only part of the article that is unverified is a paragraph in the Islamic psychology#Mental health and mental illness section (though not written by me personally), which I've now removed from the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is holistic; it can't be addressed by tweaking things here and there. Phrases like al-‘ilaj al-nafs are presented to mean "psychotherapy," when this word means something specific in contemporary Psychology. From what I can tell checking other sources, the phrase's literal translation is closer to "The Curing/Treatment of the Ideas/Soul/Vegetative Mind." But that's not the same thing as "psychotherapy." If the current state of the article is an accurate reflection of the referenced material, and the presentist bias is not in fact a problem of the article misrepresenting the nuances of its sources, then indeed that material is to be questioned as contributions to the discipline we call "history of psychology." (Was it all published in peer-reviewed journals? Are they all by credible scholars with academic appointments? Is there activist intent or straight historical exegesis? etc.) With respect, that's not something we can decide without a larger discussion; reverting my OR tag without extended debate is irresponsible. As it stands, the current presentation represents an original contribution to knowledge: it presents the implicit argument that contemporary Psychology is ignoring its true origins, even though professional historians have disagreed -- in writing [2] -- and have suggested instead that there is a basic problem of understanding reflected in these edits. -JTBurman (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Rereading my own description of the problem, and having referred to articles that are known to me to be more nuanced than what is presented here (e.g., Marmura, 2008[3]), it seems more accurate to describe this situation as a type of original research called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" (WP:SYN). The tag has been updated to reflect this, with the appropriate note posted at WP:NORN. -JTBurman (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering how almost all of the information in the article is attributed to verifiable sources, don't you think it was a bit irresponsible to add the OR tag in the first place? Nevertheless, the synthesis tag which you now replaced it with is certainly more reasonable than the OR tag (even though I still disagree with it to an extent). As for the source which I cited for al-‘ilaj al-nafs, it does in fact use the word "psychotherapy" to refer to the term (i.e. in the sense that al-nafs means self/mind/psyche and al-‘ilaj means cure/treatment/therapy). I'm not sure whether this is the exact correct meaning or how much it has in common with the modern discipline of psychotherapy, since I'm obviously not a psychologist nor am I an Arabic expert, but all I am doing is simply reporting what I read in sources which are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. I am quite certain that there is no original research in the article as it currently stands, nor am I attempting to synthesize the sources to make any kind of implicit argument that the modern discipline of psychology originated from the Islamic world. The purpose of the article is simply to present various psychological/psychiatric/psychotherapeutic/mental concepts developed in the medieval Islamic world. The only significant problem I see with the article is the presentist terminology used, most of which I have already removed from the article (or at least the ones which are not attributed to any reliable sources). And maybe the title could also be changed to something like "Islamic psychological thought" (or one of the Arabic terms like al-‘ilaj al-nafs, al-tibb al-ruhani or tibb al-qalb) instead? Jagged 85 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, if the presentist terminology is the problem with the article, then I think Template:Weasel might be more appropriate than Template:Synthesis for this article. The latter implies that the article's conclusions differ from the sources cited, which is not the case at all. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've changed it to a NPOV tag instead, since presentism (the topic of discussion) is really a bias issue. Jagged 85 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that many, if not most, of the psychological/psychiatric terms used in the article did not exist before the 19th century. In fact, the term psychology is a relatively new concept as a separate discipline from medicine and philosophy. And some of the terms used, like neurosis, have already outlived their usefulness and are no longer used in the field today. Yes, there is a history of human beings dealing with issues of mental states of mind going back thousands of years, but to say that, for example, Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi ca (850-934) used these terms as they are defined today is not possible. The terms used today are diagnostic terms determined by some attempt at scientific consensus. The fact that some of these writers referenced in the article used terms that are translated into modern Western medical terminology does not mean that the writers "invented" the concepts. Perhaps the article content is actually Islamic philosophy. Regards, Mattisse 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In all honesty, judging from the Wikipedia articles on psychotherapy and psychiatry, I honestly don't see how they differ too much from what physicians in the medieval Islamic world were doing. It may very well be presentist to apply those terms to medieval times, but wouldn't it also be modernist to suggest that similar concepts could not have existed before modern times? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Briefly: The contemporary concept of mind is different from the medieval Islamic concept of nafs. Therefore, any treatment/curing/therapy of that entity will be bound up with different implications. As a result, they need to be treated differently. To conflate them is considered presentist by the professionals in the discipline.[4] If you wish to make the case that this is incorrect, then the appropriate venue for that argument is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal; to do otherwise, at Wikipedia, meets the criteria for "original research." -JTBurman (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC).
The study of the mind dates back to ancient Greek and Indian philosophy, and the study of the mind in the Islamic world was understood in the same pre-modern sense. Just because the same term was used does not necessarily mean it must refer to the same contemporary concept. Jagged 85 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I grant that philosophical interest in what we call the mind dates back beyond the beginning of contemporary Psychology.... But the use of presentist terms in describing those endeavours is to imply things of those earlier works that simply cannot be: they are incommensurable, in the sense that meaning is lost in translation. For this reason, terms need to be adequately defined and put in their proper context. Only then will their meaning be adequately communicated: the translation of technical terms is a problem of implication, as well as of word choice. JTBurman (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You made a good point. The terms used in the article do need to be adequately defined to avoid confusion. I think Ragesoss' suggestion of having a terminology section is a good way for resolving this issue. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to go from here[edit]

JTBurman has asked me to chip in on this discussion. First, like Jagged 85's suggestion of retitling the page "Islamic psychological thought", which will help underscore the thrust of the article, which is to describe what Islamic scholars and physicians thought and practiced regarding the working of the mind and mental diseases.

I generally agree JTBurman and Mattisse about the danger of projecting too much of the framework of modern thinking into a decidedly different cultural context that has only limited continuity the history of (the discipline of) modern psychology. But the main point of contention here seems to be whether there is a holistic problem with the way this article is put together, beyond just terminology. I don't see that being the case. Or rather, what problems there are mostly seem to reflect the state of scholarship; at least judging by the venues of publication, the sources being used seem legit (by academic standards as well as Wikipedia's).

If how to talk about Islamic psychology/psychological thought a problem the academic community hasn't solved, then it's probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia to correct that. JTBurman suggests an alternative translation for al-‘ilaj al-nafs, and points to the meaning of nafs as a central issue. Perhaps adding a section on terminology immediately after the lead could help clarify things, and explicitly lay out usage conventions for the rest of the article, noting the caveats with respect to seemingly similar modern concepts.--ragesoss (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've now moved the article to Islamic psychological thought and added an Islamic psychological thought#Terminology section, though it might need to be expanded. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've ironed out a lot of the presentist terminology (except for the ones explicitly stated in the sources) and have expanded the "Terminology" section slightly more. I think the article as it currently stands is a lot less presentist than before, so I think I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV tag for now. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Please leave the tag alone for a while. There's still a ways to go. And it's a signal to readers that we're headed there. JTBurman (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote, from one of your own sources, that may help make my point:
It is also important here to make a distinction between Muslim and Islamic philosophy as the two are not necessarily the same. The term Muslim philosophy generally refers to the works of those Muslim thinkers who were highly influenced by Greek thought whether or not they liked it. It includes metaphysics and other philosophical concepts not only of the early scholars but of different schools of thought that emerged within Islam over the years. The unique characteristic of Muslim philosophy is that it blended foreign philosophies with Islamic thought resulting in a change in the Hellenistic philosophy itself.... The term Islamic philosophy is narrower in approach and draws ideas mainly from Qur’an and Hadith. It is related to the external (Shariya) aspects of the Qur’an as well as the hidden meaning (Haqiqah) of its verses. Islamic philosophy is actually an endeavor to get to this Haqiqah, which is the sole reality and the only truth as well as the ultimate goal of Islamic philosophy. It is well known that almost all early Muslim scholars including Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd against whom charges of atheism were made (because of their Aristotelian conception of the world being co-eternal) found inspiration primarily from the Islamic sources.[1]
To conflate "Muslim philosophy" with "Islamic philosophy" is therefore to misrepresent the implications of the arguments cited (where MP is more Hellenistic and IP is more explicitly religious). This is the same problem as equating al-‘ilaj al-nafs with "psychotherapy." They are not the same. -JTBurman (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

--

French Translation Traduction Française[edit]

I am lookin' for crew to translate this article in French, thank you to contact me. Je cherche des gens motivés pour traduire cet article en Francais, merci de me contacter. Allahnis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

Cut piece[edit]

The section below has been cut as it conflicts with the name of the article but perhaps deserves a new home (or a change of article title?)

Modern contributions[edit]

Neurology[edit]

In 1991, Saudi Arabian medical researchers discovered "neuro-Behcet's disease",[2] a neurological involvement in Behcet's disease, considered one of the most devastating manifestations of the disease as described by an Egyptian researcher Sahar Saleem.[3] In 1989, Saudi neurologists also discovered "neurobrucellosis", a neurological involvement in brucellosis.[2]

Biopsychosociology and neurochemical pathology[edit]

Dr. Muhammad B. Yunus is a Muslim physician and neuroscientist who practices internal medicine and rheumatology in the United States.[4] In 1981, he published the "first controlled study of the clinical characteristics" of the fibromyalgia syndrome, for which he is regarded as "the father of our modern view of fibromyalgia."[5] His work was the "first controlled clinical study" of fibromyalgia "with validation of known symptoms and tender points" and he also proposed "the first data-based criteria." In 1984, he proposed the important concept that the fibromyalgia syndrome and other similar conditions are interconnected. He showed serotonergic and norepinephric drugs to be effective in 1986, published criteria for fibromyalgia in 1990, and developed neurohormonal mechanisms with central sensitization in the 1990s.[6]

He also made important advances in the understanding of the chronic fatigue syndromes in general, the biopsychosocial model, medical sociology, neurology, psychosocial development, and neurochemical pathology.[7] His "biopsychosocial perspective" of fibromyalgia and other chronic fatigue syndromes is the "only way to synthesize the disparate contributions of such variables as genes and adverse childhood experiences, life stress and distress, posttraumatic stress disorder, mood disorders, self-efficacy for pain control, catastrophizing, coping style, and social support into the evolving picture of central nervous system dysfunction vis-a-vis chronic pain and fatigue."[5]

(show refs)[edit]

  1. ^ (Haque 2004, p. 359)
  2. ^ a b Ravi Malhotra (2004), "Saudi Arabia", Practical Neurology 4: 184-185.
  3. ^ Saleem, S. (2005), "Neuro-Behcet's Disease: NBD", Neurographics, 4 (2, article 1), retrieved 2008-01-23 
  4. ^ "Dr. Muhammad Yunus, MD". HealthGrades, Inc. Retrieved 2008-01-23. 
  5. ^ a b John B. Winfield (2007), "Fibromyalgia and Related Central Sensitivity Syndromes: Twenty-five Years of Progress", Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 36 (6): 335-338.
  6. ^ F. Fatma Inanici and Muhammad B. Yunus (2004), "History of fibromyalgia: Past to present", 8 (5): 369-378.
  7. ^ "Further Legitimization Of Fibromyalgia As A True Medical Condition", Science Daily, June 25, 2007, retrieved 2008-01-23 

end[edit]

Redheylin (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Stub and rework[edit]

For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 225 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (the 2nd ranked user has 9 edits to his name).

Ethics and theology

Cause of concern, no. 7 The section says:

This positive understanding of mental health consequently led to...an early scientific understanding of neuroscience and psychology by medieval Muslim physicians and psychological thinkers, who discovered that mental disorders are caused by dysfunctions in the brain.

The source cited was:

Youssef, Hanafy A.; Youssef, Fatma A.; Dening, T. R. (1996), "Evidence for the existence of schizophrenia in medieval Islamic society", History of Psychiatry 7 (25): 55–62 (59)

However, Youssef et al. argue that Muslim physicians judged schizophrenia more in terms of social deviation rather than biological dysfunction:

Medieval Islamic physicians did not have a clear biological model of mental illness, although they suspected dysfunction of the brain. For them, the insane had lost touch with reality and had lost their reason. We propose a rather controversial definition for schizophrenia in medieval Islamic society; namely that it is a deviation from the usual cultural and social norms.

Neither here nor elsewhere in the entire article it is claimed that these doctors were driven by an "early scientific understanding of neuroscience and psychology"; in fact the terms "scientific", "neuroscience" and "psychology" don't even appear once in the article.

Alpharabius (872-951) and his On the Cause of Dreams

al-Farabi (Alpharabius) (872-951) wrote the On the Cause of Dreams, which appeared as chapter 24 of his Book of Opinions of the people of the Ideal City, was a treatise on dreams, in which he was the first to distinguish between dream interpretation and the nature and causes of dreams.[13]

The source cited was:

Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 (363)

But the claim of being the first to make this distinctions is freely invented; in fact Haque only states:

He also wrote On the Cause of Dreams—Chapter 24 in the Book of Opinions of the people of the Ideal City and made distinction between dream interpretation and the nature and causes of dreams.

Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi

Cause of concern, no. 3

He also first discussed various mental disorders, including sleeping sickness, memory loss, hypochondriasis, coma, hot and cold meningitis, vertigo epilepsy, love sickness, and hemiplegia

The source cited was:

Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 (363)

However, the cited source does not claim that al-Majusi was the first to describe these medical conditions:

Majusi described the anatomy, physiology and diseases of the brain including sleeping sickness, loss of memory, hypochondria, coma, hot and cold meningitis, vertigo epilepsy, love sickness, and hemiplegia.

Avicenna

Cause of concern, no. 3

He was also the earliest to note that intellectual dysfunctions were largely due to deficits in the brain's middle ventricle, and that the frontal lobe of the brain mediated common sense and reasoning.

The source cited was:

Millon, Theodore (2004), Masters of the Mind: Exploring the Story of Mental Illness from Ancient Times to the New Millennium, John Wiley & Sons, p. 38, ISBN 9780471469858

However, the cited source does not claim that Avicenna was the first to investigate into these intellectual dysfunctions :

To his credit as a sophisticated scholar of the brain, Avicenna speculated that intellectual dysfunctions were in large part a result of deficits in the brain's middle ventricle, and he asserted that the frontal areas of the brain medietaed common sense and reasoning.

Avicenna

He dedicated three chapters of The Canon of Medicine (1020s) to neuropsychiatric disorders...and [he] discovered that it is a disorder of reason with its origin in the middle part of the brain

The source cited was:

Youssef, Hanafy A.; Youssef, Fatma A.; Dening, T. R. (1996), "Evidence for the existence of schizophrenia in medieval Islamic society", History of Psychiatry 7 (25): 55–62, (56f.)

This sounds as if it is today scientifically proven that neuropsychiatric disorders are located in the middle part of the brain and that Avicenna anticipated modern science here. However, no such conclusion can be derived from Youssef's choice of words:

He considered all madness as disorders of reason, with their origin in the middle part of the brain.

Social psychology

Cause of concern, no. 3

Al-Farabi's Social Psychology and Model City were the earliest treatises to deal with social psychology.

The source cited was:

Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 (363)

However, Haque simply says:

He wrote his treatise on Social Psychology, most renowned of which is his Model City.

Copyright problems

I noticed that, beyond the usual issues with OR, SYN and OR, large chunks of text were simply copied and pasted with little or no change to the exact wording. This is particulary true for Psychology in medieval Islam#Other philosophical theories of the mind and Psychology in medieval Islam#Clinical and medical approach, but occurs throughout the article. For example, one passage reads:

One such example involved a prince of Persia who had melancholia and suffered from the delusion that he was a cow. He would low like a cow, crying "Kill me so that a good stew may be made of my flesh," and would not eat anything. Avicenna was persuaded to undertake the case, and sent a message to the patient, asking him to be happy, as the butcher was coming to slaughter him, and the sick man rejoiced. When Avicenna approached the prince with a knife in his hand, he asked, "Where is the cow so I may kill it." The patient then lowed like a cow to indicate where he was. By order of Avicenna in his role as the butcher, the patient was also laid on the ground for slaughter. When Avicenna approached the patient, pretending to slaughter him, he said, "The cow is too lean and not ready to be killed. He must be fed properly and I will kill it when it becomes healthy and fat." The patient was then offered food, which he ate eagerly and gradually "gained strength, got rid of his delusion, and was completely cured."

Now compare with the cited source (Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists", Journal of Religion and Health 43 (4): 357–377 (2004), p. 376, footnote 15):

A prince from Persia had melancholia and suffered from the delusion that he is a cow…he would low like a cow…crying ‘‘Kill me so that a good stew may be made of my flesh,’ finally, …he would eat nothing. Ibn Sina was persuaded to the case…first of all he sent the message to the patient asking him to be happy as the butcher was coming to slaughter him… and the sick man rejoiced. When Ibn Sina approached the prince with a knife in his hand he asked where is the cow so I may kill it. The patient lowed like a cow to indicate where he was. By order of the butcher, the patient was also laid on the ground for slaughter. When Ibn Sina approached the patient pretending to slaughter him, he said, the cow is too lean and not ready to be killed. He must be fed properly and I will kill it when it becomes healthy and fat. The patient was offered food which he ate eagerly and gradually gained strength, got rid of his delusion, and was completely cured.

Conclusion

These issues, deficiencies and misrepresentation fully correspond to the causes of concern pointed out by many users one year ago. Since the edit history shows contents to come overwhelmingly from Jagged85's pen, with contributions of other users being minimal, collateral damage resulting from stubbing will be minimal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Support stubbing. Probably one of the most egregious examples of "Jaggedism" (sorry, I can't come up with a better term) out there. Athenean (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • every one knows that lunacy is caused by the moon stubJ8079s (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support stubbing. In addition to the various concerns pointed out above, there are several sections, including that on Sufi psychology that appear to have nothing to do with psychology and should be categorized as religious philosophy // Metaphysics instead. Dialectric (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: On second thought, I wonder whether the article does not outright qualify for AfD. Was there psychology before Freud? Loose psychological observations to be found here and there, certainly, and the odd vague intuitive theory, probably, but did psychology as a rigid science exist? We know that philosophy, theology, history and chemistry, if you like, are veritable disciplines with a long history, but also psychology and, for that matter, sociology? And if we grant an article to Muslim psychology, where to draw a line in history? Was there psychology among the ancient Greeks, the Babylonians, the Maya, too, do they have a right for their own article too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD?[edit]

I'm with GPM above: this article is retrofitting the term "psychology" to a situation where it didn't really exist. It should probably just go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Early Muslim scholars used the term 'ilm al-nafs (science of the soul/mind) to refer to psychology, some have treatises by that title, so yes it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that is very dubious. They uzsed a term, but what did they use it to refer to? To a concept not invented until centuries later? That is unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
'Ilm al-Nafs = Psychology, this is how it has been translated. Saying that this concept did not exist because it was "invented" later (or rather established as a separate discipline) is like saying a country did not exist before its flag was designed or its borders defined. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It is referred to as psychology by at least some scholars. It must therefore be included. -Aquib (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Islam or the Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science are authoritative sources to see what 'ilm al-nafs exactly means and how it has to be understood. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatever are the specifics of 'ilm al-nafs, the fact that early scientists have referred to it as a separate science means it deserves its own article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There are many authoritative sources, but none is definitive in this regard. The concept is widely accepted among academics, and as such, deserves an article. -Aquib (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This is worrisome. These issues seem fairly basic and straightforward. -Aquib (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "ilm al-nafs" translates to "science of self or psyche" - as does "psychology". It has been argued that, if this article be "granted", then will ancient Greeks have to have such an article? Well, of course, they do. This is an argument about the best TITLE of the piece - and not an informed one either - and means nothing in terms of the article's content. Redheylin (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This material belongs in History of psychology#Early psychological thought or perhaps the Philosophy of mind article and this article needs deleted. It is, frankly, religio-politically motivated. Famousdog (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've PROD'd it. Almost without a doubt that will fail, and we'll go through the tedium of AFD 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As expected; so I've put it up for AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD[edit]

Support - Article (in current or earlier forms) should not have existed and is a great example of presentism. Anachronistic use of the term "psychology" applied to earlier philosophical musings on the nature of mind/soul/spirit/self. Famousdog (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - as has been stated above, the term is used in current literature. If it is used in current literature, it is notable. As per Al-Andalusi directly above in the section AFD: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article with the following title: "Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind". -Aquib (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As this deletion was already opposed directly above, this article is not a candidate for PROD. Why was this done? -Aquib (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

foolishness[edit]

This foolishness has drawn attention even from outside wikipedia:

Some authors have argued that the medieval scientist [[Alhazen]] should be considered the founder of [[psychophysics]], and by definition, of [[experimental psychology]].<ref name=Khaleefa>{{cite journal |author=Omar Khaleefa |year=1999 |title=Who Is the Founder of Psychophysics and Experimental Psychology? |journal=American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences |volume=16 |issue=2}}</ref> However, there is no evidence that he used quantitative psychophysical techniques and many of his psychological speculations had been remarked upon previously by other [[polymaths]] of the ancient world such as [[Aristotle]], [[Ptolemy]], [[Lucretius]] and [[Euclid]].<ref name=AaenStockdale>{{cite journal |author=Aaen-Stockdale, C.R. |year=2008 |title=Ibn al-Haytham and psychophysics |journal=Perception |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=636–638 |doi=10.1068/p5940 |pmid=18546671}}</ref> To apply the term "psychology" to the works of [[Alhazen]] is [[presentist]], [[anachronism|anachronistic]] and it has been argued that to do so is [[boosterism|boosterist]].<ref name=AaenStockdale/>

J8079s (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

content forking[edit]

Wedding and Haque document attempts to "Islamicate" psychology This is not a bad thing It could anchor a content fork see WP:Content fork Wedding, Danny (2004-07-29). The Handbook of International Psychology[5] is a great place to start. Haque, Amber (2004), "Psychology from Islamic Perspective: Contributions of Early Muslim Scholars and Challenges to Contemporary Muslim Psychologists" is a fine source in this context however the paper should not be taken as a source of historical fact to do so is to 1) miss the point of his work and 2) create a WP:POVFORK. I am concerned that users are quoting the paper out of context elsewhere on wikipedia.J8079s (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

USELESS!!![edit]

How is this thing even here? It offers NO information at all. There is more info in the links and references than in the so-called article itself. Why has this been allowed as an article when larger and more complete works have been denied. --- Wiki is all crooked and warped, made so by inconsistent censors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.98.65.194 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Work Needed[edit]

The term "psychology" as in the title may be used improperly here based on previous versions of the page. It is not practical to represent philosophy of mind, neurobiology, and psychology from the medieval period on one page. Perhaps in the future, many different pages will be needed. Bruce526 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)