Talk:Islamic Golden Age/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The article is clearly one-sided and anti-Islamic OneGuy 20:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) Agreed, Islamic Golden age?, in my history book it's called the ottoman empireErlyrisa (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


  • yes — unfortunately, I lack the time and the knowledge to fix it. Would you like to try? m.e. 12:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) OK, I've rearranged the page to reduce the bias, but it still needs lots of help. 12:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I took out an inaccurate part

Specifically the statements:

However critics have claimed that most of this scholarship was in fact conducted by non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews,... hello everyone

Please provide citation for that. I have sources that state otherwise. e.g. "Golden Age of Persia" by Richard Frye. I see enough mathematicians here to invalidate such a claim: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Arabs.html

The value of these intellectual achievements have also been questioned. There was a lot of speculation and very little application, whether in technology or politics.

That is highly opinionated. An entire book has been written contradicting this:

http://ebs.allbookstores.com/book/074860457X

Futhermore, science IS the foundation of technology. Therefore to say that: "There was a lot of speculation and very little application in technology" is quite an erroneous statement. Without trigonometry, for example, optical technology could never have progressed.--Zereshk 12:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey

--As far as i have seen, this is the most cooperative group regarding anything Islam related that I have come upon in Wikipedia. Everything is pretty factual, and people respect other's opinions. Pretty soon this will become a featured article!!MOI 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note on nationalities

Moses Maimonides was Spanish and not Egyptian as stated in the previous version of the article.--Vonaurum 07:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page is clearly one-sided favoring Islam. Specifically:

  • a period when the Islamic world was more tolerant and learned than its neighbours, more liberal and tolerant world of Islam
  • many societies embraced Islam
  • merchants did not convert the Chinese to Islam on even a small scale
  • islams attitudes towards race has been consistently colourblind- this is actually anti-Islamic
  • and one should wonder, about the possibilities of an industrial revolution- if it was in the 19th century why would someone wonder about an event that never occured?
  • From Spain the Arabic philosophic literature was translated into Hebrew and Latin- what about Ladino?
  • Sections concerning Medicine, Commerce and Urban Life, Architecture and Engineering, The Agricultural Revolution and Mongolian invasion and gradual decline dont even have any content

In addition the entire page is badly written and is full of grammatical errors. freestylefrappe 21:41, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I started editing it, but I see Zereshk is making appropriate changes also so I'll hold off until she is done. I might make some changes at 8pm. freestylefrappe 23:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm done. Heres what I did:

  1. I'm taking out that inaccurate opening sentence and replacing it: The Golden Age was not about tolerancy at all, because many people were persecuted at that time because of their beliefs. The Golden Age was more about scientific achievement.
  2. I inserted sections for medicine and commerce from the sources that I have. I see that User:Warlockgruffles has been adding stuff as well. I will not check his stuff, because he's currently working on it.
  3. Fixed grammar, where I spotted it.--Zereshk 23:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live as protected minorities, which Christians did not allow then.
  • Arabs, Berbers, Romans (Spanish and Sicilian), Turks and Indians all embraced Islam — that's many societies.
  • the Hui minority in China are Muslim; how were they converted?
  • Ladino is surely an irrelevance; the point is that the West was able to read Aristotle because of Latin translations via Arabic.
  • yes it still needs more work.

More generally, if the facts are correct, the article should stand. That doesn't make it one-sided. Anyway, there is a criticism section at the end. m.e. 11:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ladino was not irrelevant. It was the key link between maintaining Sephardic culture after being expelled. Ladino is still an important language to Jews in Argentina, Brazil, and Costa Rica. While it is not necessarily important to the article as a whole it was just as important as translations to or from Hebrew. freestylefrappe 22:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

i hope im inserting this answer correctly as its my first time commenting here. Points are only "relevant" or "irrelevant" in a given context, and the point seems to be that no matter how relevant the Ladino language/dialect may be/have been to intra Jewish communication then or now, it remains irrelevant to the passing on into Western Europe of Greek texts through Latin translations.Talmidh2006 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

-- There are also the Han Muslims in China. According to beleif a delegation led by Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was sent to china, and the emporer let them preach in his kingdom, upon being impressed by their great knowledge.MOI 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

-- This whole article reads like a giant, biased Islamic pride parade. One section reads, "Another reason the Islamic world flourished during this period was an early emphasis on freedom of speech", but a later section reads: "harsh punishment and prosecution awaiting alleged heretics and Zendiqs, no sane scientist or intellectual would dare express his/her true faith and religious thoughts." Many of the accomplishments contain a grain of truth, but are quickly exaggerated. I have a feeling these are the kinds of things Muslim children are told in Middle Eastern countries to instill pride in their heritage and build confidence in their religion, but it's essentially just an exaggerated list of "Islamic" accomplishments mixed with downplaying anyone else's contributions. Can anyone take seriously sections like: "Muslim polymaths ... had a wide breadth of knowledge in many different fields of religious and secular learning, comparable to the later "Renaissance Men", such as Leonardo da Vinci, of the European Renaissance period. Polymath scholars were so common during the Islamic Golden Age that it was rare to find a scholar who specialized in any single field at the time" -- as if the "Islamic Golden Age" had hundreds if not thousands of Leonardo da Vinci's.

June 3rd cleanup

I think my cleanup needs some explanation. I removed the See also section and relocated the links to the introduction and the "Science" section. In addition, I relocated Philosophy-specific information that was under the Science section to Philosophy. freestylefrappe 02:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)


When was the Islamic Golden Age?

The article givest the dates 750-1500 CE for the Islamic Golden Age. Where do these dates come from? These numbers are way off the mark. Please see the consult the following academic source: [[1]] (this is a power-point presentation, please refer to slide 7 of 7). Academic historians believe that the Islamic Golden Age began after 700 CE and ended after 1000 CE, after which the Islamic empire went into a 200 year decine until the Mongol invasions that caused the fall of the Islamic Empire, the loss of the Caliphate, and the destruction of Baghdad on February 10, 1258 CE. It's obviously false that the Islamic Golden Age survived the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in the year 1258 CE, so the dates 750-1500 CE are definitely wrong. 750 CE seems to coincide with the year in which the Ummayad dynasty was replaced by the Abbasid dynasty - this is not a very accurate point of reference for when the Islamic Golden Age began, it actually began somewhat earlier. Now I have no idea where the editors of the article got th year 1500 CE from, but it's wrong and seems more like a nice round number that someone pull out of thin air. --Zeno of Elea 04:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I'll look at my Encyclopedia of Islam and ponder a bit. Zora 06:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


I think that the peak of the Islamic Golden Age was somewhere around 800-1050 CE, but the Golden Age itself did not die out completely with the Mongol invasion. It only declined in prominence. Some of the more spectacular architecture from Islam occurs after the Mongol invasion. Same for some of Islam's greatest scientific centers like the Samarkand observatory where Ulugh Beg, Kashi, Qazi Zadeh etc worked. Not to mention that Andalusia was not affected by the invasions at all. As I recall, the Islamic Golden Age is thought to have died out with the fall of Granada in 1492 to Ferdinand and Isabel.--Zereshk 13:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It's as vague a concept as the Islamic Empire or whatever, and generally stems from an attempt to fit the entire corpus of Muslim history under a singular banner. It is more an attempt to classify the time period when Muslim lands were the First world nations. In Andulasia it ran from about 800 through 1000 under the Umayyads. In the Middle east, some beleive Harun Al Rashid and Some al-Mamun was the height of it's expansion again around 800 to 1050, then again quite a few include the early Seljuk time period until the death of Malik Shah and fragmentation just prior to the First Crusade, ofcourse the Fatimids based off Cairo followed a slightly altered time period, and the flourishing of Central Asia only started under Mahmud of Ghazni at about 1000 until the Mongol Invasions and the Black death. The Ottomans and the Turko-Mongol central asian realms are usually seen as post golden era revivals more of culture and political power than science. So you see the golden age is by definition an amorphous collection of time periods and shifting centers, however it extended under a singular cultural entity likely peaking at about 950-1050 when all center were operational. Note that this timeframe works semi-independently of the political decline or rise of dynasties. The feuding of the Taifa's and the Reconquista in Andalusia was still a gradual decline on the edges and had been compensated for with the rise of the central asian centers but the Mongol Invasion and the black death were precipitative as it impacted the heartland and the seats of learning--Tigeroo 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Black seed

Someone added a sentence to the medicine section, which stated that Muhammad had discovered the virtues of Nigella sativa, which cures everything except death. A little googling established that Muslim doctors had made much use of "black seed" or "black cumin", due to a hadith, or oral tradition, that Muhammad had recommended it. There are many Islamic websites touting the virtues of Nigella and listing various "scientific" studies made of the seed, usually by Muslim scientists.

I deleted the sentence. It might find a place in an Islamic medicine article (is there such a thing?) but it seems out of place in this one. Even non-Muslim historians of medicine agree that superstitions aside (use of Nigella, drinking water made from ink rinsed from prayers and Quranic inscriptions, Hand of Fatima, etc. etc.) Muslim medicine was generally much less drastic and much more successful than European medicine of the time.

There should probably be a link to Academy of Gundishapur in there. A lot of what the Muslims did was built on previous Persian achievements. Zora 09:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Germen, you re-added the black see material and added extra evidence of "superstition". One, it's wrong to credit this to LATER scholars, since superstition and empirically-established cures existed side by side, and were practiced by one and the same physicians, I believe. Two, your polemic intent is clear and not helpful. Zora 10:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think about placing it somewhere else, than it should be here Early Muslim medicine. Cheers -- Svest 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I think we can start a new article on Prophetic herbal medicine , that can include nigella , honey , olive oil , halal meat , abstainence from alcohol/pork e.t.c.
About superstition , I think for a lot of people , every alternative medicine is a superstition . Almost all Indians believe in Kundlini Shakti & practice some form of Yoga , another one billion chinese believe in chi & practice taichi/chi gong . Homeopathic drugs contain almost no drug molecules in higher dilutions . Crystal therapy , magnet therapy , reiki , color therapy .........man...homo sapian is such a superstitious species . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c
Hi UTC,

I was trying to clean it up based on the original note that you had written up in responce to the quote from "OneGuy" The clean up was done based on the historical studies and keep in line the essence of Wiki's neutrality factor.

--this is funny. Most of these things are just cultural beleifs. For example, there was this beleif about how keeping your nails long was a virtue, and it came from god knows what source.MOI 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics section

An anon added a long and erudite section on mathematics, which seems to have been cribbed from [2]. I removed it. Zora 06:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) hjk

This article is hilarious

Since when has Wikipedia allowed such celebrations of revisionism? I suppose anyone with an official-sounding source may come in here and correct it all, though. 209.7.59.172 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Section in Medicine with references to cataract removal contradict Cataract_surgery#History

I read the last sentence of the last paragraph of Islamic_Golden_Age#Medicine - and then read Cataract_surgery#History. These two articles are at odds with each other. I vote the last sentence of the last paragraph which states that "Indeed, Muslim doctors were removing cataracts with hollow needles over 1000 years before Westerners dared attempt such a task." is removed unless evidence is available to the contrary. Ttiotsw 20:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the opposing views section

The entire section is uncited and it's mostly just anti-Islamic nonsense. To my knowledge, there is no scholarly dispute that the Islamic Golden Age never existed. And if there is, it should be cited. The section mentions the book, Rebirth by Shoja-e-din Shafa. I find this citation to be dubious, as a simple Google search show that the man used to work for Shah Pahlavi and has consistently written controversial works attacking Islam. I've come across disputes over the Islamic Golden Age in the past. Two professors at my college -- one of history and one of philosophy -- told me previously that there is no scholarly dispute over the Golden Age of Islam, one main reason being because of the abundance of Arabic terms which made their way into the English language. In the absence of extraordinary contribution to science, there's no real justification for how so many scholarly terms are of Arabic origin. Robocracy 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is terribly biased - I am so sick of hearing people mention "Islamic Golden Age" - the truth is that most of these "Muslims" got their ideas from the non-Muslim societies they conquered and forced into conversion (not necessarily by violent means) ie. through the Jizya tax which had to be paid by non-Muslims. This whole idea of Muslims translating Greek and Roman texts into Arabic - THOSE WERE NOT MUSLIM TRANSLATORS - THEY WERE ASSYRIANS.
Excuse me but please restrain yourself from saying such things that can create confusion in historical facts without evidence. The article is not biased since there are reference from not only website but from various books as well. Please refer to the References section for details. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it( words by George Santayana,philosopher, in his book: The Life of Reason, Volume 1:1905). RiZius 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The individual posting that rubbish in the paragraph above this is a complete fool. The majority of the advances in all fields made within the Islamic empire are thanks to Islam. Information revealed in the Quran and the Hadeeth were what sparked the study of proper science among the arabs (by proper I mean not clouded in supernatural belief). Even advances made by peoples from societies 'conquered' by Islam were only made by people from those societies who themselves became Muslim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Since you guys seem to be having problems with this, i thought you should look at this from a rather non biased point of view. [3]

AND READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE!!!MOI 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Question Regarding Critisicm

-- As the Critisicm suggests, the empires that were mainly Christian didnt attribute their learning to the Christian Religion. Then again, the Islamic Empire's learning was based upon not only the teachings of scholars of old, but upon Islamic and Quranic teachings as well. For example Ibn Riza, explained that smallpox and measles were different, and how a fever is the bodies way of fighting disease, while the Europeans had beleived that it was because the body had too much blood. Ibn Rushd wrote a medical encyclopedia, in the year 1150. Ibn Sina, born 980 wrote the Canons of Medicine, which had been used in European universities for 500 years. He learned what he knew, from studying hard and visiting the sick. The main similarity between all these is that even though many scholors were from maybe the Ummayud or Abbasid dynasty, they were all connected by the Islamic Empire. Because of the encouragement of learning in Islam, this Empire funded large sums of money towards Learning institutions. [[4]] Just a bit of evidence :)MOI 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden Age dates

Who dates the "Golden Age" to 622, the date of the Hijra? No scientific or artistic advances date from this period, or to that of the Rashidun. Indeed, the achievements mentioned in this article do not begin until after the fall of the Umayyads. A better title might be, "Persia Recovers."Proabivouac 04:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mecca as center of learning?

The article currently states, "Much of this learning and development can be linked to geography. Even prior to Islam's presence, the city of Mecca served as a center of trade in Arabia and the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a merchant." I'd be curious to learn who said this. It's quite ridiculous, as Mecca has never been a center of scientific innovation.Proabivouac 06:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arab vs. Muslim

This article does not properly differenciate between Arabs and Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.158.97 (talk) 19:37, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Causes of decline.

This section doesnt even consider the European interventions (such as the reconquista, the crusades], European renaissance or the discovery of new sea routes through Africa which caused trade through the middle east to decline. Factors such as these should atleast be considered dont you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.204.55 (talk) 17:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Imam Hamid al-Ghazali's (1058-1111) claim that mathematics was the work of the devil played a role. To quote the section on Al-Ghazali: "one of his major works, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, changed the course of Islamic thought, shifting it away from the influence of ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy, and towards cause-and-effect that were determined by Allah or intermediate angels.". He advocated "the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God."

I would argue tha there was no decline prior to 1924 - economic life by all quantative measures was on the rise, industrialisation was happening at a repid pace, political thought was complex and sophisticated, sciences were being adopted at an increasing pace. I think "decline theory" is part of revisioninst history - the real decline occured with dismemberment of the Ottoman Caliphate into natinal states, destroying trade networks, ripping the fabric of society apart, appointment of new and inexperienced rulers in new states that implemented misguided policies for decades. Worth considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.129.18 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Commerce - Ending sentences

Near the end of the section commerce there are the sentences

These were Jewish, not Muslim, innovations, as can be seen by the reference above to a synagogue. In particular it was the Radhanite Jews, important merchants from the 8th century to the 11th century, who laid the foundations for the modern economic system (see Radhanites, Radhanite Jews).

To me this sounds like an insertion by someone who would like to make his views heard, not like a neutral description of a dispute. Additionally, there are no references cited to show that a dispute exists. I think the sentences should be removed or, if there is real dispute about the source of the innovations, reworded into a more neutral way.

194.37.73.215 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

War and slavery

This article refers to a time period, but only discusses certain aspects of it. Arrow740 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article is topical as well as timebound, focusing on advancements in technological or intellectual spheres . Empire and politics tends to be in the background but not the topics covered by the header Golden Age. Naturally slavery grew out of the global economy as one commodity, and while it has historically parallel timelines is not a topic covered under "Golden Age (metaphor)".--Tigeroo 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Religious freedom"

What is this supposed to mean? Arrow740 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The cited source said "Religious freedom, although limited". I think the word religious tolerance might describe it better though. Jagged 85 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's going to have to be more specific. There was extreme intolerance, see dhimmi etc. Arrow740 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
True, relgious freedom is relative, its intolerant by todays standards but was very tolerant by contemporary and pre-existing standards. I think we can leave the characterization to the context the source uses it in, as in the existing standards of religious freedom contributed to it the formation of cross-cultural intellectual networks here rather than elsewhere.--Tigeroo 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not tolerant by pre-existing standards. There was no religious persecution in pre-Islamic Arabia, for example. Arrow740 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
There was religious persecution in both pre-Islamic Arabia and comtemporary Christian kingdoms at the time, hence why the Jews fled Christian lands to seek refuge in Islamic lands. Jagged 85 02:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you referring to, exactly? I wouldn't deny that Christians weren't tolerant. There isn't an equivalent of dhimmi, though. Arrow740 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just saying that the Islamic Golden Age was relatively tolerant in comparison to its Christian contemporaries (who persecuted Jews) and Arab precursors (who persecuted Muslims). Jagged 85 11:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The Quraysh persecuted the Muslims because Muhammad told them that their ancestors were burning in Hell, their religion was evil, and that their main source of income should be removed. In fact the pagan Arabs were quite tolerant of Judaism and Christianity (members of which religions didn't show intolerance to them). Arrow740 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were persecuting Muslims. Jagged 85 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Map

Western Roman Empire

It would be great if you had a map showing where the Muslim world was during this age. --Mattisse 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I've just added a map in the article showing the extent of the Arab Empire in the 8th century. Jagged 85 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

'Religiocentristic' article

The whole article springs in the face with its religiocentrism (for the lack of a better word). The obsession to attribute the title 'father of xyz' is only the most conspicuous feature. Much worse is that the article is abuzz with 'creative quoting' and cleverly interpreting sources. Is there on Wikipedia a tag to identify systematically biased articles as such? High time. This article cannot remain here, in its present form and intention it flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I don't know much about the topic, I can see that it needs work. Just comparing the wording of the intro paragraph with that of the Renaissance page show the kind of subjective value judgments that riddle the article. I hope we can work to improve the page and bring it up to standards. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you could point out what specific things need to be improved in the article, I'll see what I can do about them. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed a few of the "father of" statements and referenced or re-worded the others somewhat more neutrally. Since I am not yet aware what other specific concerns you may have with the article's neutrality, I am removing the NPOV tag for the mean time. Feel free to add it again if you can point out any other specific things that need to be neutralized. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
For a start, why are you systematically misusing sources? I know it, because some of the sources you quote were actually brought by me to Wikipedia in other articles. One example out of many: Why do you quote Adam Robert Lucas (2005), "Industrial Milling in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: A Survey of the Evidence for an Industrial Revolution in Medieval Europe", Technology and Culture 46 (1), p. 1-30 to back up your statement "...The transfer of these technologies to medieval Europe later laid the foundations for the Industrial Revolution in 18th century Europe"? He did not say such a thing. You also misquoted him on the invention of many types of sources, the tag should be reintroduced. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The actual sources he uses are often quite problematic as well. Arrow740 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I do not remember borrowing any of your sources from Wikipedia. I know it, because I found the Adam Robert Lucas source on Google Scholar, not Wikipedia. You're right to say that he did not directly make the claim that the "transfer of these technologies to medieval Europe later laid the foundations for the Industrial Revolution", but this can be deduced from the discussion on medieval Europe laying the foundations for the Industrial Revolution and the discussion on medieval Europe borrowing much of its technology from the Islamic world, both of which are discussed by Lucas. You're also right to say that he did not directly say they were invented by medieval Muslims, but he does not mention those same mills anywhere else in the article, nor do the Wikipedia articles on those mills mention them being used any earlier either. If you still think this is a problem, then it's not too difficult to simply re-word the statements to "known to have existed".
I've already re-worded many of those "the father of xyz" statements to stating that some consider them to be "a father of xyz" instead. If the article does not claim that they are the one and only father of xyz and only states that some consider them as such, then there shouldn't be any controversy. Although, I think it might also be a good idea to name other people who also share those titles, like Hippocrates, Sushruta or Ambroise. As for the capitalism and globalization stuff, that can also be remedied by simply replacing words like "the first" or "the earliest" with words like "early" instead, or just stating that some consider it so. All it takes is some re-wording. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SYN. Looks like some responsible editor is going to have to check each claim you've made. Arrow740 (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma it'd be appreciated if, instead of presenting hypothetical cases you presented us with actual ones. You said 'Why don't you start to improve the article by also giving room to scholars who do not acknowledge that the "The modern scientific method was first developed in the Muslim world"'. Are there such scholars? If yes, then who? If there aren't any, then this is simply a hypothetical case that we don't have to worry about.Bless sins (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for example see this source Jagged is using, which states "Arab science produced no surpassing genius and no transcending discovery ... it was derived from extraneous sources." Arrow740 (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Briffault did indeed state that the Arabs did not contribute many individual scientific discoveries (which was a fairly common view in the early 20th century) but this is not relevant to the scientific method. As far as the scientific method is concerned, he stated:

"The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories; science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The ancient world was, as we saw, pre-scientific."

"What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs."

Another source I cited, Rosanna Gorini, states:

"According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method."

As far as I know, there are only a minority of modern scholars who disagree with the scientific method being developed in the medieval Muslim world.

As for WP:SYN, it says that using two or more different sources to advance a particular position is original research. I was using the same single source (in this case, Adam Lucas).

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree certain aspects of the page are worded in a POV way. However, I disagree with some of the assessments made here. The purpose of every Wikipedia page is not to POV-mine and neutralize any statement that you find controversial with a POV text. Whether or not you like it, many of these things did happen. However, certain terms (as already mentioned, "father of..") are very over-the-top phrases that should be avoided. Certain things (e.g. capitalism) are a little bit misleading. It would be fair to say a proto-capitalistic system was cultivated by the Muslims, but the capitalistic systems that are used today do not owe their origins to Islam, but rather, to the guilds of Europe. That doesn't mean these systems of economy shouldn't be mentioned, it just means they shouldn't be given undue weight. As for WP:SYN, I do not think that applies here. It is acceptable to use multiple sources in order to gather information about the Islamic Golden Age. He is not using it to advance a distinctly unique position. The Islamic Golden Age is not someone's personal OR; it is a well documented event in history. Similarly, Mazdak created an ultra-communalistic religion that showed many parallels to communism; that does not, however, mean Mazdak was the direct influence over communism as we know it today. The Mazdak article does a very good job at explaining how the Mazdak system was still distinctly different; perhaps this article could do the same with respect to capitalism, as an example. I disagree with some of these assessments that we need certain different points of view in this article; I think we should be more concerned with what Muslims actually did during this time period, rather than worrying about what someone has to say about it. Informative articles are ideal; critique articles are not, particularly because they have a tendency to be biased. Let's focus on the elucidating the facts. While it would be acceptable to call this an "Islamic" Golden Age, I do not think labelling specific individuals as "Muslim" scholars is necessarily fair. It would be nonsense to label Galileo, for example, as a "Christian" scientist, even if he was Christian. Avicenna, for example, disagreed with the concept of resurrection. Al-Razi and Omar Khayyam were both opposed to organized religions. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I find your suggestions to be very helpful (compared to some other users who just complain without offering any useful suggestions). I think I'll rename "capitalist" to "proto-capitalist" like you suggested, and also probably remove the "father of" statements, which might be better suited for articles on individual topics and biographies instead of generalized articles like this one. This should hopefully make the article more balanced. By the way, Avicenna did not actually reject resurrection (which has already been clarified in Avicenna and Avicennism). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Since I've already neutralized most of the issues mentioned here, I'll be removing the NPOV tags in a few days time. Before I do so, I'd like to know what else might need to be neutralized in the article? Jagged 85 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the amendments, but I think my three points of contention remain as strong as before.
1. It remains unclear in what relationship Islam (Islamic Golden Age) actually is with these progresses and inventions? Why are they attributed to Islam? Personallyy I do not know a single overview article at WP which attributes in such a wholesale manner progresses to religion. Is there an article on "Buddhist", "Christian", or "Confucian" science? Does your method warrant that we now can start articles along the line "telephone, telescope, Internet, human rights, freedom of speech, modern democracy, comics with speech balloons and the pintle-and-gugdeon rudder as Christian inventions"?
2. Lack of balance. The article as a whole remains one-sided. The object seems less to provide an objective account of knowledge then, but rather to show how advanced the Muslims were. That is hardly in accordance with sine ira et studio.
3. Incorrect quoting, exaggerated claims.
I agree with [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740] that the article is in need of professional assistance for each claim, but I find it hard to believe that other editors will devote their time to rectify what was originally devised and written in a one-sided way. The article is simply too long for that and makes too many claims.
I am trying to spare some time to add differing opinions from time to time, but mainly to prove my point that the whole article as such is perhaps beyond remedy. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the questions you've raised:

  1. The Islamic Golden Age#Criticism of Ascribing the Golden Age to Islam section already covers this question and explains what exactly the term "Islam" is supposed to mean in this context.
  2. We could simply expand the "Criticism of Ascribing the Golden Age to Islam" section to balance out the rest of the article.
  3. I don't quite understand what you mean by "incorrect quoting", but in retrospect, I can understand how some of the claims might seem somewhat exaggerated. However, most of them are attributed to reliable sources (like peer-reviewed journals and university presses). I think it's only some of the claims which do not have reliable sources that should be edited (or re-sourced).

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. According to which criteria do you classify views as "traditional/conventional" and "revised"? In the case of the medical peer review you actually denoted the older view (2002) as revised and the more recent source (2007) as conventional. Why? I also do not think that the view that modern science originated in Europe is in any need or danger of being revised.

PS: I checked Ahmad Y Hassan and Donald Routledge Hill (1986), Islamic Technology: An Illustrated History, p. 282, Cambridge University Press. It is clearly quoted out of context. Both authors do not maintain at all that Muslims sparked the Scientific Revolution as we know it. They just want to say that Islam was the driving force behind the "Muslim Scientific revolution" - which is not to be confused with modern science. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The medical peer review is actually different to the scientific peer review process, and I've just clarified this in the article. The problem with Lach's view is that he argues that modern science originated from Greek learning, not European learning. The modern Scientific Revolution occured after European scientists discredited the Greek theories, not because of Greek knowledge itself. Jagged 85 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article already stated that the "Muslim scientific revolution" should not be confused with the early modern "Scientific Revolution". Jagged 85 (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref 93 & 94 for Ibn Nafis

The reference for this article comes from a weak source, describing some highly dubious practices, and the reference to Ibn-Nafis purportedly radical challenge to Galen in the article is scanty and unreferenced to his writings. This reference may be better: S. A. Al-Dabbagh (1978). "Ibn Al-Nafis and the pulmonary circulation", The Lancet 1, p. 1148, though I have not yet been able to access it.

Reference 94 which may be found here [5], refers to Ibn Nafis' critique of Ibn Sina's views on the porosity of the intraventricular septum (per Galen), but again lacks detail and looks revisionist in character - it would be helpful to have a better direct reference to Ibn Nafis actual writing in Sharh Tashrih Al Qanun. Ebed-melech (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've just updated the references for Ibn al-Nafis regarding the pulmonary and coronary circulations. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence meant but...

This article reads too much like a laundry list of Islamic accomplishments. The blockquotes don't help that much either. As for the sources used (since NPOV concerns have been raised by more competent editors than I), I can't personally weigh in since I'm not qualified enough but there have been cases where the main contributor to this article has grossly misused or misinterpreted sources in other articles, attributing imagined conclusions to them (that's not an attack of sorts, rather a call to accurate representation of the sources).

In any case, since this article is being edited so heavily, something perhaps could be done regarding the first two concerns (lists, blockquotes) before its further expansion, where it'll be even harder to bring it to a more readable state. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit I did make a few misinterpretations in the past, but I've already fixed many of them. I've also just removed the remaining block quotes in the article, assuming you were referring to the ones in the Foundation section. By the way, what's wrong with having a list of accomplishments? Isn't that one of the main points of any Golden Age or Renaissance article? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, 3rdAlcove. I urge the user Jagged 85 to refrain from creating articles by copy and pasting tidbits from all over WP, which he has not verified himself. Please base instead base your articles on your own research. And please stop removing the neutrality tag. The whole article suffers from the fact that you did not read the sources you quote. As your other systemic bias article Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. This is now getting serious. You misuse WP in my opinion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't create the other article, though I did copy and paste information from here, but only reliably-sourced information of course, and only the information which I myself added to Wikipedia in the first place. Besides a few things here and there, both articles look generally neutral in my opinion. Nevertheless, I'll leave the tag until the dispute has been resolved. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, see my full response at Talk:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there are problems here and across a numer of pages. See-also Talk:Islamic_science#still_waiting and SMC's thoughtfull comments (and J's reasonable reply). There are loads of things to quibble on this page. "environmental impact assessments" is one; the over-enthusiastic tech section is another William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Critisicm section

I deleted from the article because

  • first part was totally unreferenced
  • contained some OR such as "The issue of Islamic Civilization being a misnomer has been raised by a number of recent scholars.."
  • Second section by B.Lewis actually supports using the term - not a valid critisicm

I can understand the hysteria that some people may have if legitimate contributions from Islamic soceities are acknowledged. But teh critisicm section was really pathetic.

Suigeneris (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Accidentally, I suppose there were at least two scholarly works cited in this regards by Shoja -e- din Shafa, namely "Rebirth" and "After 1400 Years". There are yet many more that support the point that Islamic Civilization is a misnomer coined by people who give too much credit to religion.
  • The paraghraph from Bernard Lewis was an attempt to refute the whole criticism. But the average reader clearly understands that trying to legitimize the use of so-called "Islamic Civilization" by another arbitrarily coined term such as "Christian Civilization" has no base in logics.
  • I strongly urge you to refrain from attaching offensive attributes (i.e. hysterical) to people whom you do not understand or whose motives are not clear to you.
  • I do not beleive that you would be very delighted if someone had omitted an entire section of your contribution preemptively and without prior discussion or warning, calling it pathetic in the end!
  • This whole article is a flaunting piece that goes on praising and confiscating humble contributions of individuals who had happenned to live during the Islamic era and did not necessarily adhere to the general beliefs of their surrounding environment. You are advised to tolerate a piece of criticism as a civilized courtesy and in case you find something irrelevant, you may discuss relocation or deletion following a consensus, if nothing else.

Ctesiphon7 (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"There are yet many more that support the point that Islamic Civilization is a misnomer coined by people who give too much credit to religion."
Then they can go in with appropriate citations, just like any other articles.
"The paraghraph from Bernard Lewis was an attempt to refute the whole criticism. But the average reader clearly understands that trying to legitimize the use of so-called "Islamic Civilization" by another arbitrarily coined term such as "Christian Civilization" has no base in logics."
Yes, indeed. But it was not placed under the category "Response to critisicm" or not even in a way that makes the point of B.Lewis clear.
"I do not beleive that you would be very delighted if someone had omitted an entire section of your contribution preemptively and without prior discussion or warning, calling it pathetic in the end!"
Not at all, but it happens all too often especially if something positive about Islam is mentioned, even with references - sad but true.
"This whole article is a flaunting piece that goes on praising and confiscating humble contributions of individuals who had happenned to live during the Islamic era and did not necessarily adhere to the general beliefs of their surrounding environment."
This can be said of the achievements of any civilizations including western civilization. We will never by able to know for sure whether Shakespeare or Voltaire were truly a product of western civilization or they were just revolting against the very civilization that they were born into. As Islam consists of extensive social and legal framework that influences the actions of individuals living in an Islam dominated society, religion can be given most of the credit for the society's achievement, just the same way religion(or Islam) is blamed if things are going wrong(ie, social stagnation etc.) in such societies. The point of B. Lewis was also more or less the same.
" You are advised to tolerate a piece of criticism as a civilized courtesy and in case you find something irrelevant, you may discuss relocation or deletion following a consensus, if nothing else."
I am in principle not against a critisism section, but were against the OR and POV that were pushed in. Also the whole section consisted of works by an obscure Iranian scholar, that too without proper citation. If you try to put something similar to articles criticizing some other religions and I can guarantee that they won't survive 5 minutes. Suigeneris (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008

(UTC)kimberly bussey said 'this is a rubbish article anyway so i dont see the point!!

"(UTC)kimberly bussey said 'this is a rubbish article anyway so i dont see the point!!"
yeah whatever, who care about losers. Suigeneris (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was all about scientific and historical facts and not about losing and winning! and did not expect more offending comments, either. At any rate, A more comprehensive criticism will be added in due time with crisp citations. And last but not least, Shoja-edin-Shafa is not an obscure Iranian scholar. He will definitely be cited more thoroughly. Until then, this article more than deserves to be ornated by that POV tag. Ctesiphon7 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed all about scientific and historical facts. Its funny when one cannot accept what is quoted with proper citations(ie, the article) and then wonder why factless POVs(ie, criticism) were deleted! I was just pointing out hypocrisy from some corners - I dont care about winning. Reading your comments about the Iranian scholar, can I have a legitimate doubt whether you yourself is just into winning while accusing others? Selective reading of "offensive comments", ignoring the unconstructive comments by previous user that this is a "rubbish article" will not improve anyones credibility? NPOV tag was already there, even before critisicm section was deleted(though I wonder its purpose), so no threat needed. Suigeneris (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A scholar/researcher who believes that religious and ideological notions have anything to do with science and technology, cannot have a purely scientific understanding about the state of matters and we are talking about religions and ideologies in general and not Islam in particular.
  • The legal and social framework of Islamic societies -as you call it - could not have been derived from inferior cultures of herders of the desert. No offense intended, but invaders from nomadic societies have always been faced with the dichotomy to either adpot an enormous amount of the administrative and legal procedures from the magnificent civilizations they had conquered, or to relinquish their annexed territories and retreat to their homelands. History has proven this point time and again. Persian bureaucrats, scribes and viziers administered courts and divans of Umayayd and Abbasid Caliphs in Pahlavi language and script before Arabic had the capacity to actually run the vast kingdom that they had carved out of Persia, and that was not realized without a great deal of loaned words and concepts from the adopted system. So tell me, what has Islam got to do with all that? Should we arrogantly call the new-fangled system an Islamic one?
  • Comments of Shafa and other scholars such as Mirfetrous and Abbas Milani are uttered with utmost respect. One should search within self for signs of possible partiality or worse, zealotry, in case of arousal and bitterness.
  • With proper research in historical trends and psychosocial analysis of individuals, today we know that a multitude of prominent scholars/artists/intellectuals from antiquity to modern times and from Eastern Asia to Western Europe have been standing up against or at times shattering the social and religious norms of their time, in one way or another. Rhazes, Naser Khosro, Al-Ma`arri, Voltaire, Giordano Bruno and Galileo are only a few. Naming an entire civilization and its distinguished achievers by the faith that they were forced to practice as a state-religion has only roots in religious fanaticism. It is neither the article nor its citation that are deviated, it's the complacent designation of "Islamic Golden Age" that is misleading the average reader to think that it was Islam that brought about that splendor. If it was given a more neutral name such as Umayyad Golden Age, Abbasid Golden Age or Caliphate Golden Age, it would not get such harsh criticism and that POV tag.
  • It is good to know that before their defeat and despite their chaotic political situation during the last decade of their reign, Sassanid Persians were experiencing a golden age in terms of culture, arts and science and technology. So it is obvious that some of the modern scholars conclude that the so-called Islamic golden age has only been an extension to that of the Sassanids, owing its sources of culture, political and social system to it.
  • As throughout its evolution, Islam like any other religion has undergone and experienced a variety of denominations and factions - each with their own distinct way of interacting with the outside world - attributing any civilized achievements to Islam, in its entirety, becomes even more dubious. As we know today, more liberal schools of thought within Islam, such as the mutazilite movement, esp when backed by the contemporary Caliph and Grand Viziers, were responsible for the thriving of the society in their time and their suppression and takeover by the more aggressive rival Sunni factions, was one of the factors that lead to evanescence of that flourishing era.
  • In time, these points will be added to this and related articles to give the reader a better understanding of the origins and sources, influencial factors and personalities that caused the rise and decline of this golden age.

Ctesiphon7 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that you dont have a proper understanding about what the article is about. The article is about Islamic renaissance/Islamic golden age. Science is science - it cannot be Islamic or Jewish - but a religion can inspire its people to achieve certain things and think from a point of view, which they may not have been capable of otherwise, and that is the argument for the term here. It is clear that Islam as a religion inspired its subjects to achieve great many things in science, arts and medicine fields. This is validated by world renowned scholars like Bernard Lewis who are neither Muslims, nor have any particular sympathy to Islam(refer the classic by Lewis "What went wrong"). Maybe you think that your Iranian scholar is the cleverest scholar to walk on earth, but the rest of the world is not obliged to believe that unless he can claim some notoriety and recognition based on his scholarly works(like B.Lewis or Edward Syed).
Islamic renaissance had borrowed from other civilizations including Indian and classical Greek civilizations - but that is a different subject. Every succesful civilization will have to do this and only really ignorant people will think that their civilization was a completely self sufficient black box.
Your comments about "inferior cultures" etc. do not deserve serious scholarly reply. If you are really angry, there are many blogs/websites where you can relieve those resentments and you may also find many supporters. Whether a critisicm section will survive here purely depends upon the quality of the arguments and sources provided in such a section - not because someone doesn't like what is mentioned in the article. Suigeneris (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am reciprocally afraid that it is you who has a false perception regarding religion and its influence in mankind's history, clinging to B.Lewis as a source of revelation to satisfy your faith-pivoted POV. Hopefully, it satisfies you more to know that clever scholars like George Sarton have taken a bold step further, attributing this golden age to Quranic scripture! Now, if any of these clever scholars express a phrase to the detriment of Islam, they will lose their status immediately transforming into hysteria-afflicted pseudo-scientists. There are a swarm of like-minded scholars out there that attach advancements of civilizations to religions. Just like Lewis and Sarton. There are even scholars who attribute achievements of the Persian Empire to Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrian schools of thought, valuing worldly life and human prosperity above all else, which is in the same ballpark. Interestingly, Christians and Jews of Persia contributed both to Persian Emire and Islamic world, no matter what sort of religious thought governed them. Of course, you have the right to ask for citations of my claims, and I shall provide you with the same.
  • Bytheway, since you humbly claimed that science is not pertinent to religion, kindly bother yourself and skim through the article for ridiculous terms such as "Islamic Medicine", "Islamic Astronomy" and the like. I am not a saboteur to mercilessly erase people's contributions, though.
  • Maybe you find labeling cultures of pre-Islamic Arabia as inferior, not worth scholarly attention and even affronting, but you readily forget that during the so-called Jahilia society of those days, mass illiteracy (only a handful of people were able to read and write) was not only a fact but also a social norm that was reveled in (according to Tabari, Baladhuri and many others).
  • Ultimately, I have access to reference literature that proves culture of nascent Islamic Arabia as inferior compared to its neighboring kingdoms in many areas, but can you possibly cite any proper scholarly work that proves pro-science historians are hysterical only because they are separating the realm of science from that of religion except those claimed by religious fanatics? Apologetically, you seem by far more deserving of releiving yourself through a blog, and I gaurantee you that your applauders shall be a million-fold superior in numbers.

Ctesiphon7 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that there can be "Islamic Astronomy" or for that matter "Islamic nuclear physics" - so I agree with you in this respect. I don't have enough scholarly materials to repudiate the argument. Also so long as there are neutral citations in support of those articles, you have to live with that even if you disagree. You have the choice to mention the criticisms against those arguments if you can produce sources. Nevertheless, I don't want to buy the argument that religion never inspires people to achieve things which they may not have otherwise been capable of - religion can inspire just the way that it can cause intellectual retardation.
In case of Arab nomadic culture - your comment was hopelessly lopsided and ignorant. Very few mainstream cultures that exist today(western, islamic, indian, east Asian etc.) have remained the same thoughout the history. Civilizations progress and decline constantly. If one has to go backward, one must have been reaosnably advanced at one time. The classic argument against this is that they were just translators who did massive "altavista" job of translating Indian, Greek and Persian works. Even though they may have borrowed from other cultures, we cannot deny the original contributions that they may have made. In case of Arab culture, there was a remarkable progress from Jahiliya, which then gradually declined. Suigeneris (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Problem with this and similar articles is that they naively treat Islam and other religions in their bulk and are so superficial that hardly bother to go into detail about their various denominations and factions and their evolutionary/devolutionary trends. Granted that religion - bestowing a certain world view to the community - can be a factor at times, and this matter should be appreciated duly, however, naming an entire civilization or worse their accomplishments by religion, is nothing but confiscating their variegated people with their personal and secular motives and affiliations. It is quite unbecoming and discrediting of a professor of history of science such as Sarton to blindly comment that whatever achievement the Islamic Civilization has had should be sought within Quran! It is clear that he did not give this matter adequate thought that how is it that this scientific progress wanted following 5th century A.H. and today the majority of the Islamic countries -with the very same Quran - are part of the 3rd world? I strongly believe (according to scholarly works of (Frye, Zarrinkoub, etc.) that a number of relatively more rational and liberal religious -and let's not forget political - reformist movements such as Mutazilite and Mazdakite factions have played largely important roles in trigerring golden ages, and in contrast there are many others such as Manichaeism, Sufism and Shiism that have exerted negative influences throughout the history of the Middle East and Northern Africa. While Bernard Lewis himself in other places makes a distinction between Arabic and Persian Islam (each with their own creeds and internal variants), it becomes rather confusing as to which one of these Islams has brought upon a golden age? (http://www.tau.ac.il/dayancenter/mel/lewis.html)
  • When I referred to Arab nomadic culture as inferior or better to say backwarded, I explicitly pointed to the juncture of Islamic Conquest of Persia and its subsequent two centuries. There are an overwhelming deal of facts reported in histories of Tabari, Tha'alibi, Dinawari and others that corroborate this point. I assume a few examples might shed some light on this matter:
  1. Arab nomads garissoned within Persian cities who did not know the difference between salt and camphre or at times gold and silver! (Tabari), Masudi
  2. Introduction of slavery into Persia which had remained an exceptionally "free-soil state" for the past 1200 years before that. Prisoners of war/slaves freed from Romans and Turks were granted citizenship in a Persian city chosen by Shahanshah. (refer to freedom of Jews from Babylonian Captivity in Cyrus Cylinder and construction of New-Antioch for Roman soldiers in http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/fryehst.html for instances of such practice).
  3. Translators/scholars/poets such as Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa and Bashar ibn Burd were accused of inserting non-Islamic beliefs into mainstream Islam and executed in the most grusome manner. In pre-Islamic Persia all alleged heretics such as mazdakites and manichaeists were given a chance to repent and were not juged by their past expression of beliefs. In general the ruling Arab elite was more intolerant towards the slightest non-complying ideas.
  4. Repeated massacre and burning of revolting Persian cities during the first two centuries of their conquest. (Kamil by Ali ibn al-Athir, Baladhuri, Majmal al-tawarikh, Farsnameh by Ibn Balkhi) Unfortunately, in different instances Arab warlords and generals committed book burning in cities such as Ctesiphon and vast areas of Khwarezmia. (Ibn Khaldoun in Kitabu l-ibar and Biruni in From The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries).
  5. All these and other instances show that nomadic Arabs were raised with a crude desert culture that could not appreciate finer aspects of civilization.

If I am partial and uninformed in this respect, then a host of medieval along with a myriad of contemporary historians are so, since I am merely reflecting their comments verbatim. Ctesiphon7 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fabricated hadith?

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

More Al-Jāḥiẓ evolution claims

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

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

Nestorian/Jacobite influence

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

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

Why only Fatimids?

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

I would imagine because a Wikipedia editor was interested in the Fatimids and added a large chunk of information about them. Wikipedia tends to reflect the interests of the people who edit it. If you can add good quality information about other Islamic states I'm sure we would be very grateful. --Merlinme (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_Golden_Age/Archive_1&oldid=1136827199"