# Talk:Science in the medieval Islamic world

Shouldn't the beginning have citations?
Riverblade (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia articles normally do not cite the lead section, as it is purely a summary of the fully-cited text that follows, i.e. any citations would only repeat those given further down. By the same token, it is a mistake to introduce "new" material or citations into the lead. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap,
I agree that it would be ideal if each section would be a concise summary of the main article for each subject, but the problem in this case is that
(1) the current section is a piece of misinformation: the belief that substances comprised mixtures of the four Aristotelian elements in different proportions was shared by all medieval Aristotelian philosophers (which is to say, practically all medieval philosophers; if anything, medieval alchemists often had diverging ideas on the subject, and the first serious challenge to it came from alchemists such as Paracelsus and Jan Baptist van Helmont, whose views on the subject may be traced back to medieval alchemy); the elixir as fifth element is an idea first formulated as such in the 14th century by John of Rupescissa (though it has much older roots); nitric acid and other mineral acids were discovered in the 13th century by anonymous Latin alchemists such as pseudo-Albertus Magnus and pseudo-Geber; all alchemists described laboratory techniques and experimental methods (in the sense of systematic empirical observation and testing as a basis for knowledge; that the experimental method in the sense of controlled experiment would have been developed by medieval alchemists is a common misconception); processes such as sublimation and distillation have a much older history, and the alembic was developed by Greco-Egyptian alchemists. (for references and more information, see some of the articles I linked)
(2) the current section does not in fact summarize our article on alchemy and chemistry in the medieval Islamic world as it stands now. Perhaps some of the misinformation in the current section was at one point also present in that article, but it is not at this moment.
On the other hand, some of the content in the section I propose to add is actually present in the main article (the sulfur-mercury theory metals here, the systematic classification of chemical substances and the chemical synthesis of ammonium chloride here), although of course that article is still in need of much expansion and improvement.
I do believe that the proposed section does summarize some of the most important innovations in medieval Islamic alchemy and chemistry, at least from the perspective of their further development in Western Europe (which is perhaps a bit Eurocentric, but common enough). If you believe it to be too technical, or otherwise not fit in well with the flow and style of the rest of the article, please feel free to copy-edit it. However, it is sourced to expert authors on the subject,  and its basic content should be retained.
Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done that; FYI the rule is that a section with a "Main" link summarizes the main article; if that article is in a disastrous state of flux (no jokes about transition metals please) then that is of course difficult. The text doesn't say what the alchemists were trying to do, if it wasn't making gold (and indeed transforming their souls), so perhaps the section is now deficient or indeed misleading in that regard. The term "chemistry" does seem anachronistic, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-edit; I've tweaked it some more, but it does look better this way.
What most alchemists were trying to do has been captured well by William R. Newman's expression "perfecting nature" (see his 2004 monograph cited in the article): to transform substances so they would be more useful, valuable, better in line with the divine purpose of all things. This did indeed include transforming base metals into gold, and to a lesser degree transforming souls (though this psychological aspect is often tainted by ahistorical Jungian interpretations), but it would be quite wrong (as is commonly done in fiction and popular culture) to reduce alchemy to these two activities. In fact, alchemists were experimenting with all kinds of materials, and what they were seeking was a universal knowledge of the constitution of bodies, since only that would allow them to change the essence of anything in God's creation which they should find in need of some improvement. In a way, they were truly looking for the "Secret of Creation", in order to be able to further God's work, as it were.
But apart from this often religiously oriented teleology, the emphasis lay very much on gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge, as in any true 'philosophy'. Gold itself was eventually produced artificially through the 20th-century development of nuclear physics, even though nuclear physics not only or even primarily serves to create gold. Thus too, many alchemists (e.g., the Jabirians) pursued knowledge for its own sake, with the practical improvement, 'perfecting' or 'healing' of substances serving more as a demonstration of divine knowledge than as a goal in and of itself. Practical chemical knowledge (metallurgy, glass making, cosmetics) actually predates the advent of alchemy by many centuries, and what distinguishes alchemy is precisely the fundamentally philosophical and theoretical approach. From the very beginning, the alchemical enterprise was modeled upon that of the Dogmatic school of medicine, which sought a knowledge of the hidden causes of disease, i.e., the elements or principles of which our bodies are composed. Rather than just human bodies, alchemists sought to 'cure' all kinds of bodies with their 'elixirs' or 'medicines', but this could only be done through an intimate knowledge of the hidden structure and composition of these bodies.
Just like premodern medicine, the theoretical framework upon which alchemy or premodern chemistry was based was deeply flawed, but what both shared with their modern counterparts was the very ambition to approach their subject from a theoretical point of view. To call the sulfur-mercury theory of metals-informed attempts at transmuting base metals 'chemistry' is not any more or less anachronistic than calling the humoural theory-informed attempts to heal human bodies through blood-letting 'medicine'. It's all just a question of adopting a properly historical perspective, and of dropping the presentist lenses. I'm glad to say that this is precisely the direction in which scholarship has been moving during the past thirty years, even though some tension still remains (perhaps exemplified by the trend to speak of 'chymistry' rather than of 'alchemy' or 'chemistry'). In any case, I think it's safe to say that, on the whole, what alchemists were trying to do was largely similar to what modern chemists are trying to do, albeit in their own and very different historical, intellectual, and technological contexts. If you want to know more, I strongly advise you to read Principe, Lawrence M. (2013). The Secrets of Alchemy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, which presents the new historiography in a highly accessible and informative way. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a very fishy source & edit in the article. 
{{cite book |last= Jan |first= Abid Ullah |author-link= Abid Ullah Jan |title= After Fascism: Muslims and the Struggle for Self-determination |pages= 123-133 |work= Islam, the West, and the Question of Dominance |publisher= Pragmatic Publishing |location= Ottawa |year= 2006 |isbn= 978-0-9733687-5-8 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=XRQSvoLKtFYC&pg=PA123 |access-date= 25 April 2021}}</ref>

Notability: self-published book by author with no apparent academic vita to recommend him as an authority on this topic, who writes elsewhere in this book about the "staged terror attacks of 9/11" blaming them on a Western conspiracy against Muslims. It's far beyond the pale.
We have: "Saliba (source X) and Hobson (source Y) hold that a Muslim scientific revolution occurred during the Middle Ages.(source Z = book by Mr Jan)" This means that the book by Mr Jan is offered as the source for the fact that Saliba, Hobson, or both "hold that...", which makes no sense: what Saliba & Hobson say must be supported by sorces X and Y, otherwise why would they be there, just to confirm the spelling of the names? The edit was made here, by Jagged 85, who stopped editing 9 years ago. 19 Oct 2007 is over 13 years ago, editing was different back then, but once we clarify what sources X & Y are saying, Mr Jan's book must be removed as it cannot be considered RS. Arminden (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Removed. But problem not fully solved: Salima only supports claim of "revolution" in, or based on, astronomy, and Hobson p. 178 is not accessible online. Claim remains insufficiently supported once Jan is out. Arminden (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The problem is now solved by my removal (see below) of the paragraph in which these undue claims appeared. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Islamic sciences currently redirects to this page. Islamic science is a subject which is still studied. It may have been developed in medieval times, but most sciences were developed in historic times. Islamic science also includes discussion on new technologies and new scientific discoveries in relation to Islam. This current page name and the redirect label Islamic science as a thing of the past. When Islamic scholars talk to us about how the internet and social networking is effecting our behaviours and beliefs as Muslims, that is an example of Islamic science applied to new technologies. The page on Physics covers modern physics too, so the page on Islamic sciences be relegated to the past? There are contemporary Islamic discussions on scientific developments which will not be included in this page because of it's page name, for example, 'are the Covid-19 vaccines halal?'. Because of the redirect on 'Islamic sciences' they will also not be included there, nor will the achievements of contemporary Islamic scientists.Amirah talk 11:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This page deals not with science itself, but with the history of science. The medieval Islamic world plays a major role in that history (see also the problematically similar page Islamic Golden Age), and this is the reason why we have an article about it. Islamic sciences should indeed not redirect to this page, because it can also refer to contemporary Muslim scholarship (ʿulūm al-dīn). I have therefore changed the target of the redirect to Muslim scholarship, a disambiguation page pointing to, a.o., Islamic studies, Ulama, and several lists of Muslims scholars. Since 'Islamic sciences' also sometimes refers to medieval science, I have also added a link to this page to the disambiguation page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Apaugasma I believe that is a step in the right direction. I have also added the maintenance category 'Redirects with possibilities' is it may later be converted to a seperate an article. Please also see discussions on Islamic Studies - Talk - Umbrella term and Move request List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam. Amirah talk 12:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The dichotomy in the first paragraph of the 'Significance' section (and repeated in the lead) between a so-called 'traditionalist' view and a 'revisionist' view appears to be based on original research, and does not at all reflect the mainstream view among current historians of science. In reality, the 'traditionalist' view (the 19th-century view that the Islamic world mainly 'preserved' knowledge, but contributed very little or nothing to it) is all but completely abandoned, and should only still be mentioned in the context of a history of the history of science. What is here called the 'revisionist' view (that a Muslim scientific revolution occurred during the Middle Ages), on the other hand, is a tiny minority or even a fringe view, held only by a very small amount of historians such as Ahmad Y. al-Hassan (whose scholarship is of a rather questionable quality; see, e.g., the review by Sonja Brentjes here, or the one by Gabriele Ferrario here).
The actual mainstream view is the one reported by McClellan & Dorn in the third paragraph and by Will Durant and Bernard Lewis in the last sentence of the second paragraph: medieval Islamic science not only preserved but built upon Hellenistic and Indo-Persian achievements, making steady and often important contributions throughout the centuries, but was never marked by a paradigm shift as revolutionary as the one which would later occur in 17th-century Europe.
I propose to remove the first paragraph of the 'Significance' section as both original research and putting undue weight on outdated or fringe views, and to remove the first part of the second paragraph (all except the last sentence) as putting undue weight on minority views. We can just keep the rest, which gives a short but accurate overview, although I would remove the references to Fielding H. Garrison (who lived 1870–1935 and is thus quite out of date) and to Seyyed Hossein Nasr (who belongs to the pro-fringe Traditionalist School).
The last paragraph of the lead can for now simply be replaced by During the Middle Ages, Islamic science flourished across a wide area around the Mediterranean Sea and further afield, for several centuries, in a wide range of institutions.
Since I suspect this proposal may be controversial, I'm putting it up for discussion on the talk page first. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there has not been a reply in three days, I have gone on and implemented the proposed change. Of course, the section should be expanded again with material that does represent the mainstream view. I'm somewhat unhappy with the current last sentence, It did not lead to a scientific revolution like that in Early modern Europe, but such external comparisons are probably to be rejected as imposing "chronologically and culturally alien standards" on a successful medieval culture: precisely because comparisons with the scientific revolution of the 17th century are so inapt, it feels jarring to introduce this issue in this way at the very end of the article. But I trust this will be solved by a future rewrite of the section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is going for a GAR - what a shabby article! TrangaBellam (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

TabulaRogeriana upside-down.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There is not really such thing as religious science.
It is basically a contradictio in terminis.
There are attempts to approach religion in a scientific way, but there is no such thing as a religious approach to science that does not render it unscientific.
This article is clearly not NPOV, but islamic propaganda, and it should therefore be deleted in its entirety. 
(Science done by a religious person, does not make the science religious.)83.82.219.126 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Science in the medieval Islamic world". Have you been confused by the redirect? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Quote:
Medieval Islamic science had practical purposes as well as the goal of understanding.
During the Middle Ages, Islamic science flourished across a wide area around the Mediterranean Sea and further afield, for several centuries, in a wide range of institutions.
Astronomy became a major discipline within Islamic science.
Islamic mathematics reached its apogee in the Eastern part of the Islamic world between the tenth and twelfth centuries.
And another link to more pollution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_influence_on_Islamic_science 83.82.219.126 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The word 'Islamic' is often used by scholars and among the general public not as referring to something connected or adhering to the religious doctrines of Islam, but as referring to anything that originated within the cultural and political boundaries of (mostly medieval and early modern) Islamic dominion. On Wikipedia, we mainly summarize scholars (see WP:NPOV), which generally means that we also use their terminology.
Nevertheless, the concern that the use of the word 'Islamic' for non-religious phenomena may be misleading also exists among scholars, who have recently tended to switch to the word 'Islamicate' for the meaning outlined above. They would speak, for example, about the 'Islamicate world' rather than the 'Islamic world'. Note the incongruence of the concept of a 'world' that is 'Islamic' in the strictly religious sense ('Islamic world' in this sense offers a perhaps insightful analogue to 'Islamic science'). Yet 'Islamic world' is a readily understood expression, much more so than 'Islamicate world' (which is still generally regarded as jargon), for which reason Wikipedia editors have not yet chosen to follow suit (cf., e.g., [2] vs [3]).
We are conservative in that way, because an encyclopedia needs to represent existing knowledge and the status quo much more than to trailblaze new usages and perspectives. Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That is just total nonsense, and further whitewashing of using manipulative language.
The term islamicate implies exactly the same as islamic.
For a proper search result for an encyclopedia on the term islamic science, check the britannica search result on the term.(Can't post the url here.)
There is absolutely nothing NPOV in associating science with any religion, there is nothing scientific about any religion.
A religion can be studied in a scientific way, but a science can't be studied in a religious way.
Yes scientists can be religious, but this doesn't make their science religious.
This is the only proper wikipedia article on islamic science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sciences 83.82.219.126 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The word 'Islamicate' (click for the Wiktionary entry) means associated with regions in which Muslims are culturally dominant, but not specifically with the religion of Islam.
Apart from that, you misunderstand WP:NPOV according to a rather common misunderstanding of the word 'neutral' as used in that policy. Please see the essays Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and Wikipedia:Neutral and proportionate point of view for some explanation on that. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)