Talk:Islamic Golden Age/Archive 1

message: The article is clearly one-sided and anti-Islamic OneGuy 20:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title: I took out an inaccurate part

message: --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)
thread_title:  Hey 

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

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#Fixed grammar, where I spotted it.--Zereshk 23:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  When was the Islamic Golden Age? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is hilarious 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section in Medicine with references to cataract removal contradict [[Cataract_surgery#History]] 

message: -- 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.  [] Just a bit of evidence :)MOI 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Regarding Critisicm 

message: 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)
thread_title: Golden Age dates

message: 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)
thread_title: Mecca as center of learning?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Causes of decline. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commerce - Ending sentences 

message: This article refers to a time period, but only discusses certain aspects of it. Arrow740 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  War and slavery 

message: What is this supposed to mean? Arrow740 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's going to have to be more specific. There was extreme intolerance, see dhimmi etc. Arrow740 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they were persecuting Muslims. Jagged 85 23:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Religious freedom"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ref 93 & 94 for Ibn Nafis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, see my full response at Talk:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  No offence meant but... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fabricated hadith? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More Al-Jāḥiẓ evolution claims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nestorian/Jacobite influence 

message: Here presented only Fatimids and not other islamic states. Qadeer Nil (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why only Fatimids?