This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic Golden Age article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Islamic Golden Age received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 June 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biggundog.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abel0008, Limabean27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the section detailing the decline of the Islamic Golden Age this wiki article says: "Muslims in lands subject to the Mongols now faced northeast, toward the land routes to China, rather than toward Mecca." There is no citation and it is ambiguous. What is this referring to? Prayer? General political alignment? Why did they face northeast? By decree? By choice? I'm utterly baffled. 2601:45:4000:CE8C:89D2:B4A1:AF39:49D1 ( talk) 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to have an approximate time period at the start of the article. It is difficult to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What does this paragraph have to do with the "cause" of the Islamic Golden Age?
1. Islam was not a state, it is a religion.
2. What does invading hordes have to do with the Islamic Golden Age?
3. This entire paragraph, including other added paragraphs are completely unsourced.--
Kansas Bear (
talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm new here, excuse me if I am not following the correct procedures...
But...
I truly believe, as do many Muslim scholars, that one of the causes to the Islamic golden age, was to solve problems regarding fulfilling the commandments of God. The astrolabe is a brilliant example. I forgot that yesterday, and also I have some changes in the text, following your comments.
Hello again
I have been told to discuss things in here before posting. So let's start with the comparison by Edward Said (Islamic Golden Age=High Renaissance in Italy. What is wrong with that?
The Said quote is not a source for an encyclopedia. Even if his scholarly work is acceptable, that doesn't mean everything he wrote can be used. A phrase like "anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with ..." is a dead giveaway that we're not dealing with scholarship. It's an appeal to "of course!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 ( talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
J J Karim ( talk) 13:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Happy for your kind help. I can "almost" see your point with (2), but thought that it was a well established fact that the high renaissance in Italy was an extremely creative period in human cultural history, and since the Islamic period was as brilliant, I thought my statement could stand closer scrutiny. Still do actually, but be that as it may.
I have one more question: Since I can't quote the pdf file and I only have the book in Danish (I am a Dane). can I quote books that are not in English?
J J Karim ( talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Have just read manual of style/words to watch. Helped a lot. Thanks!
J J Karim ( talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If covered most of the time of the Abbasid Caliphate. So why not call it Abbasid Golden Age? It would certainly remove a lot of the controversy surrounding it, especially in Europe among certain eurocentric historians. -- 90.149.188.205 ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This era include Fatimid period of 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. In the era a lot of work done in the field of art, culture and science. The details were included earlier which got deleted on wrong pretext, being added again.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the Islamic philosophical articles lacks the status of Featured Article or Good Article. At least make this article a Good Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.198.198 ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This is undue weight for one dynasty. Additionally, there is too many weasel words, such as "The history of the Fatimids, from this point of view, is in fact the history of knowledge, literature and philosophy. It is the history of sacred freedom - freedom of expression" that do not belong in an encyclopedia. That is cited to imamerza.net, which I don't think will be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Sodicadl ( talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead para start with "The Islamic Golden Age is an Abbasid historical period beginning in the mid 8th century lasting until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.." and further describe only Abbasid.This era include Fatimid period 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. My aim is not to give preference to any particular dynasty but to get included information regarding contribution they provided in education,artichecture etc. If we have objection to have this information in single para highlighting Fatimid we may include these information at relevant subjects.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are no references given to justify the use of this term. Is it a genuine academic term? Given that it was hardly a "golden age" for those being invaded, occupied, enslaved, and massacred in the name of Islam, is this a phrase used by anyone except nostalgic Islamists? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
154.123.14.83 ( talk) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Mortran
The golden ages covers time that the Abbasids lost de facto control over much of the Muslim world and they were losing power.
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield yes it is an academic term.Just read at the sources for this article.You will find sources from QUALIFIED HISTORIANS. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
monochrome_monitor what authorative sources that says most of it were merely Persians,Hindus or Greeks and what are the examples? Plus the Muslims in the Golden Age both invent their own things and upgraded inventions upgraded the inventions of the other civilizations
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield no reference my ass.There were literally a section named "history of the term" being the very first topic. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Gary Dargan in the Biology section with the source Conway Zirkle, who noted in his 1941 article "Natural Selection before the Origin of Species" (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84) that al-Jahiz discussed the struggle for existence in the 9th century. This seems interesting and unobjectionable. Sodicadl has however put Dargan back in. The Dargan quote seems to be rather straining; the Zirkle article lists more than twenty writers who discussed ideas which were eventually unified by Darwin. I don't think any of them would be described as having "made observations that described evolution". Dargan seems to be implying that al-Jahiz got there nearly a thousand years before Darwin, and I haven't seen anything to support that at all. So if Dargan is making an exceptional claim, in what way is he an exceptional source? Who is he, exactly? He's described as a Muslim and paleontologist, but I know nothing more about him than that. If one of the most important things about him is that he's a Muslim, than the suspicion must be that he's not unbiased when ascribing ideas to medieval Muslims. If the other interesting thing about him is that he's a paleontologist, then without evidence to the contrary he's neither a historian of science nor a biologist, so to be honest I don't see why he's being quoted in this section. I do not consider Dargan a Reliable Source for what is an implied assertion that al-Jahiz was exceptional in his views on one of the ideas that led to the theory of evolution. I'm happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if we can't gain consensus here.
I also think it's worth considering the previous debate here:
Talk:Al-Jahiz/Archive 1#Al-Jahiz_and_Evolution; e.g. "Al-Jahith is a historic scholar & scientist that I am proud of, but as stated elsewhere, I am fluent in Arabic, have access to electronic copies of Book of Animals, and I believe that Al-Jahith never even remotely mentioned anything that has to do with natural selection, speciation, or evolution. Al-Jahith only touched on the struggle of existence, no more nor less, and without even using those exact words or terms! I would welcome a challenge from someone who can show me any references in his original Arabic book to such evolutionist concepts.Wisdawn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)". --
Merlinme (
talk) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
re this (there were multiple caliphates (at times even simultaneously) not single), Khestwol, could you please at least read the introduction to the caliphate article?
Why the scare quotes? Because this is not what is meant by the term originally, and not here. Of course the Muslim world was never really united, because the sectarian split occurred before they really got going, it was still mostly united under the caliphate, by its nature singular, and this is the very reason why the period is called a "golden age".
The concept as it is now mostly used (yes mostly, I took the trouble to cite some literature, as opposed to how the article stood before, with random unreferenced and unchallenged claims) basically covers the Abbasid caliphate, late 8th to early 13th century or so, but of course the "golden age" of cultural achievement also covers areas not controlled by Abbasid caliphs, notably Andalusia. I am happy for the lead to state as much, and details on divergent definitions can go to the section on this question which I have just introduced.
There are still some authors who would have the period end in the 12th, 11th or even 10th century, but these are a clear minority. There seems to be some kind of former (pre-1950) usage of the term, which is rather rare, using the term not for this period at all but for the Rashidun period, 632-661 or even just 632-644, which was "golden" not in terms of cultural achievement but of military success; this is a distinct, non-overlapping meaning of the term which can be disambiguated, and it does not now seem to be in use. -- dab (𒁳) 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What do Arabic scholars call the Golden Age? Can this be included in the article? 203.1.252.5 ( talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, this is not a prominent concept outside of academic circles. Even within academic circles, the notion of a cultural "golden age" followed by a subsequent "decline" is facing increased skepticism, with many scholars overturning the previous consensus on a decline beginning roughly with al-Ghazali. The article should probably reflect this 92.232.168.195 ( talk) 19:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Merlinme replaced the "politically united" part in the lead which was added by Dbachmann. Perhaps, the sourcing may be discussed as the edit summary left by Merlinme is OR. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
> the old Islamic caliphate (as well as Kievan Rus)
What? Seriously? And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus ?
the comment removed clearly tries to discredit Greek scientific advancement ranging from 1200 years before this period. Archimedes for example is a true scientist with a load of professional titles under his belt, and that is Archimedes alone (287 BC)
Alhazen for example has two titles under his belt (polymath and philosopher) none of which technically classify as "scientific method" via experiment + result.
I guess "thinking" is the best way to travel... but it sure doesn't beat going there thru practical experiment in trial and error?
Need I even mention the Antikythera mechanism? yes the world got this device from thinking about earth, air, water and fire... @@
I am led to deduce that "true science" didn't exist for Jim Al-Khalili personally before Alhazen... what else is one to conclude?
Jim Al-Khalili's logic is obviously flawed, and biased.
Conclusion #2
I have come to decide that there never really was an "islamic golden age" if one can consider an age of conquest and barbarity and religious zeal "Golden" at all?
Everything Islam has ever known, they came into possession of it via conquest and thus the knowledge and supposed contributions to humanity was just "war booty"
This methodology doesn't classify as "golden" at all, it was fundamentalism just as it is still this very day.
I also find it quite ironic that what the Western World considers "the Dark Ages" is Islam's supposed golden age... maybe we should call it Islam's Blood Red Age? because anyone with 2 bits of common sense or interest would fathom and maybe even research if there happens to be a connection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.214 ( talk) 11:44, February 12, 2015
---
RE; My apologies, but sheesh what is becoming of Wiki? you can't get any correct information from here anymore, everything is falsified and fantasy history!
You Mr/Ms editor need to do your job and start adding "Historical Fact" which is unbiased. Not everyone in the world is a professional wiki editor wizard you know?
Wiki's so called "verifiable sources" are nothing but controversial conspiracy theorists being quoted half the time and the other time is it biased and not "factual"
We want truth, not conjecture...
Meet Aristotle the inventor of the scientific method, http://www.marshallfarrier.com/aristotle/work_method.htm
I am not sure how reliable is he, for such a strong claim as invention of scientific method.From what I see he is not historian of science. I think we need more reliable sources. Ravik1988 ( talk) 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, not historian of science. Moreover his research has been criticized by historians of science such as Sonja Brentjes in Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas, p133. It's available on google books you can check it. I think that a claim that Alhacen was significant in history of scientific method sourced by Schramm should certainly stay, but claims by Al-khalili should go. Ravik1988 ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Fauzan, nowhere does it say in that article that he is "first scientist" and moreover you can't use other Wikipedia article as a source.Not to mention that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Al-khalili is certainly not an exceptional source.Regards. Ravik1988 ( talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Chemistry is not mentioned (or alchemy as a proto chemistry). I am not qualified to add anything myself but maybe someone who knows the subject could add a line or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.116.170 ( talk) 09:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering how both those groups are attempting to start or restart caliphates while carefully re-enacting and restoring as much of these ancient teachings and practices as possible, some well-sourced comparison may be appropriate. It's also worth noting how much people hate this once it's put right in front of them and they no longer have the luxury of revising their history from a distance. This subject matter is indefensible and should not be celebrated. This is an appropriate conclusion when approached from a NPOV, and I readily admit that is the whole point of asking that these comparisons be made. 2601:244:4E00:7CB8:500E:878C:8292:8E24 ( talk) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Under Commerce and Travel, it says "Tolerance was extended to non-Sunni Muslims such as Christians, Shias, and Jews,[73] who occupied high levels in government based on ability." Reference 73 simply says "Goldschmidt 84-86" and is the only reference mentioning Goldschmidt in the entire References section. Nor is Goldschmidt mentioned in the article itself or anywhere in the talk section. Someone who knows what book this refers to please include the full reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoukittenme ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am troubled by the section Islamic_Golden_Age#Role_of_Christians
Note the comparison to Eastern_Christianity#Role_of_Christians_in_the_Islamic_culture
And to Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Role_of_Christians
And to Christian_influences_in_Islam#Role_of_Christian_in_science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
And to History_of_the_Assyrian_people#Islamic_empires
There are provision for the copying of material within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I believe all were added by the same editor.
@
Moonriddengirl:@
Diannaa:
I am pinging a couple copyright experts, to help discuss what should be the next steps. Is it as simple as identifying the first addition, then adding null edits along with edit summaries to provide proper attribution?--
S Philbrick
(Talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Attribution: Content in this section was copied here from [[Speed (1994 film) ]] on July 10, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution.
Notify the involved editor using template uw-copying. For example, {{subst:uw-copying|Speed (1994 film) |to=Annie Porter (character)}} If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. ~~~~
—
Diannaa (
talk) 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The only entry for "Geology" is a reference to Al-Biruni's 11th Century calculation of Earth's size. "Al-Biruni (973-1048) estimated the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.[59]" I see two problems with that entry. First, it has nothing to do with geology (it would be geodesy or geography). Second, the fact that several Greek scholars obtained such values or better values beginning a thousand years earlier makes that statement misleading at best. Islam did not produce the first or most accurate estimates of Earth's size. Third, the single source cited is just a vague reference to another source, that is, it is just a claim based on yet another reference. It doesn't explain at all how al-Biruni achieved his result or how it compared to other work at the time. An encyclopedia ought, above all else, put specific works into the context of the broader world of knowledge. Pooua ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Pooua:. Figures quoted for the radius by the Greeks and al-Buruni (6339.6 km) are useless, unless we also include the error in the results. The accuracy in al-Buruni is misleading; it suggests an error in the order of 10 meter (highly unlikely) but the error might be 10 km or even 100 km, that is not clear. The Nasa Earth Fact Sheet gives the following values: Equatorial radius (km): 6378.137, Polar radius (km): 6356.752, Volumetric mean radius (km): 6371.008
I wonder where we can find the earliest manuscript that can reliably be attributed to al-Buruni, which is the start of all later interpretations of his work - I would like to see a scholarly evaluation. I did a quick search with al biruni earth radius manuscript jpg, but didn't get much wiser - I do not read Arabic. -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The figure for the radius of the earth, which al-Buruni arrived at, is quoted in Ref. [76] in section Geodesy (as per 14/08/2017): http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Al-Biruni.html. There it says: ′Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by al-Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century (see [50])′. This reference '[50]' is the article: K Norhudzaev, al-Biruni and the science of geodesy (Uzbek), in Collection dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the birth of al-Biruni (Tashkent, 1973), 145-158.
I cannot find 'K Norhudzaev' on the internet, let alone the article. So I suggest another source. Is it good practice to quote web pages? Usually they have a high entertainment value - but no scholar will publish serious work this way.
The radius quoted is 6339.6 km, but the (kilo) meter didn't exist in al-Burundi's time. So the conversion from old units to km was done after 1800, may be even quite recently. Who did it and how and if he/she pimped the result a bit - totally unclear. The old units and thus the conversion factor are unknown. They might even change from one region to the other. Then there is the matter of accuracy: unknown. Summarizing I conclude that the figure of R=6339.6 km is devoid of scientific meaning.
′a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.′. Obtained by whom? And which value was arrived at, expressed in which length units? -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 13:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Section Health care/Hospitals states ′The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid′, quoting an article by DAVID TSCHANZ in AramcoWorld March/April 2017 (Ref. [69] in the article). This is the familiar position, which virtually no one questions or dares(!) questioning. Almost no one asks the very obvious question: How were the sick and wounded in the army and civil society cared for in other cultures, in the centuries before Islam? How did medical care change? Was there any change at all? Without clarification on this point, talk of 'firsts' is just empty bragging. Archeological finds can help us, just as searching for the earliest written accounts of reliable authenticity.
It is not difficult to find papers on this subject (e.g. using search strings like roman hospital excavation), which discuss the results of archaeological field work. E.g. [1] by historian and archaeologist Dr. Patty Baker, focuses on Roman medical tools that date from the first to fourth centuries AD, and examines the structures that are thought to be a valetudinarium, the Roman military hospital. The instruments she and others found, bear a striking resemblence to the medical equipment depicted in documents, often of very dubious authenticity, that purport to demonstrate the superiority of early islamic surgery. Either early islam reinvented these tools, or, what is equally probable, they 'took over' the equipment they encountered in the conquered zones of the Middle-East and ibero-gothic-roman Spain. In that case, there is no sudden explosion of innovative practices but just continuity.
According to Peregrine Horden in [2], ′For a relatively brief period, the Romans occasionally built hospitals (valetudinaria) for slaves and soldiers - the two categories of laborers who mattered most to the functioning of the empire.′ (p. 372). The first known public hospital was erected by Leontius of Antioch, bishop from 344 to 358. The year 350 is a round date accepted for the emergence of xenodocheia or xenones, hospitals for strangers or migrants.
By the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, this medical innovation had rapidly diffused around the Mediterranean,—areas in contact with Byzantium. It is the existence of numerous Christian charitable foundations active within the land of Islam after the conquests and the plurality of medical centers, that probably served as inspiration for Islamic foundations. ′Christian hospitals [thus] formed a background continuum. But no late Sassanian or early Islamic rulers (or other benefactors) seem to have founded any hospitals between the mid-sixth and the late eighth or early ninth century. No Umayyad or early Abbasid hospitals are in evidence until the Barmakid hospital in ninthcentury Baghdad, the first Islamic hospital.′ (p. 370)
On the subject of medical excellence, Horden warns: ′But the medicine of these hospitals was, to judge by surviving manuscripts, simple, atheoretical, and little concerned with etiology or prognosis (...) Even the much-vaunted medicine of the Islamic bimaristan may not have been so superior as was once thought, if the casebooks of Razi, a ninth-century medical writer and hospital physician, are any indication. Although physicians often attended inmates at several of the earliest hospitals, they had no professional qualifications—none was to be had—probably rendering them not much different in competence from nurses and other attendants.′ (p. 389)
Finally a note on the sources that the editor(s) of this section (Health care/Hospitals) employ: they seem to be more intent on promoting Islam than caring for objective knowledge of the history of Medicine. This is better left to specialists like Patricia Baker and Peregrine Horden.
Ref.
[1] Dr. Patty Baker, Archaeological remains as a source of evidence for Roman Medicine, University of kent
[2] Peregrine Horden, The Earliest Hospitals in Byzantium, Western Europe, and Islam, Journal of Interdisciplinary History Volume 35, Number 3, Winter 2005.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
′A significant feature of the Fatimid era were the freedoms given to the people and liberties given to the mind and reason.′ May be this was the case in the Fatimid Caliphate, but outside it, there was not much freedom ′to the mind and reason′. The terrible fate of the 9-th century mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj proves this; he was punished for his spiritual teachings and executed in Baghdad in 922 AD.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
So we have an immense list of scientific 'firsts' by the Islamic world from which two of the most important, electricity and magnetism, are missing. Science that never led to important and rather obvious industrial relevant applications. It as if we are watching a technologically advanced train which halts just before reaching its destination, leaving the passengers stranded.
It is important to look for material remains and for independent reports by travellers from outside the Muslim world. They could tell us more about the state of Islamic technology and society.
[1] Friedel, Robert D., A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millenium (2007)
[2] Lynn White, Jr, Medieval Technology & Social Change (1962)-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You're not following Wikipedia's No synthesis and No Original Research policies. CaliphoShah ( talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The information in this section smacks of religious propaganda posing as a regular wikipedia lemma. It also shoots itself in the foot: ′The importance of learning drew on the authority of a hadith attributed to Muhammad, instructing the faithful to "seek knowledge, even in China".′ How could Muhammad have known about China and its culture when he never left the Arabian Peninsula and couldn't read?
So he was clair-voyant ( Clairvoyance). Given that he was a holy person receiving revelations by the angel Gabriël no less, that isn't too far-fetched. But what is the point of remaining illiterate when you are clair voyant and able to gather information over any time and distance? The whole idea of his illiteracy was to insure not be suspected of having studied the books of the ancestors, in particular the Bible ( Quran, section History/Prophetic era).
He might as well have told his companions all that was to be known about Chinese technology, which would have saved the muslims the trouble of the journey to China.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Invasions
Article: ′The destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom by Hulagu Khan in 1258 has been seen by some as the end of the Islamic Golden Age.′ However, in section Education it says: ′Madrasas soon multiplied throughout the Islamic world, which helped to spread Islamic learning beyond urban centers and to unite diverse Islamic communities in a shared cultural project.′ If that is the case, how can the disappearance of one city, be responsible for the demise of the whole Islamic Common Wealth?
Either: Learning was widespread, but then the destruction of one city would only have ment only a (temporary) set back. Or: with Baghdad all science disappeared, but that would mean that learning was a very local affair, the pet project of a wealthy potentate, say, and had little to do with Islam as such.
One counter example (there are many): Japan in WWII. After Tokyo and other cities in Japan were put to the torch by the Allies, Hiroshima - a city of both industrial and military significance - was vaporized by the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. It didn't prevent Japan becoming a technological power house rather soon after the war, e.g. taking over the European camera and electronics market.
Economics
Culture
′Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher Al Ghazali (1058–1111) "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science", as his works contributed to rising mysticism and occasionalism in the Islamic world.′ Can it really be possible that one man changed the fate of the whole Islamic commonwealth? How robust is a scientific tradition when it can be blown away like a puff of cigarette smoke by an outsider to rational science??
His works had to be spread over a huge area, from the Atlantic Coast to deep into Asia and all muslims then would have complied in virtually the same manner - very doubtful. This would have taken a long time and many intellectuals would have protested loudly - not unlike modern day scientists/scholars raising their voice in public over a real or perceived threat to fincancial support and/or academic freedom. Thousands of pages must have been written by Islamic scholars, lamenting the demise of learning in the Islamic world. It is worthwhile to look for these manucsripts.
Other
Several other mechanism have been proposed:
Why did the Islamic Commonwealth never recover from disasters like other vital civilizations did (including Byzantium after its own Dark Age in the seventh century - see Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty)? The Mongols and Crusaders were defeated, the plague disappeared eventually and Al-Ghazali has long gone. And according to the Muslims themselves their religion is very vital (′fastest growing religion in the world′). Well then .... where is the science? -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's good that you're showing what you're agenda here. You're not here to abide by Wikipedia's policy you're here to argue about religion and to push for a political or religious viewpoint. Wikipedia is about neutral point of view. The tone of your last line says a lot. Furthermore the Talk page is not a forum. And if edits were to be implemented by what you're saying, those edits would be breaking Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. CaliphoShah ( talk) 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A great number of scholars, scientists, philosophers and poets in this period were of Persian origin if I am not mistaken. I believe Ibn Khaldun even notes so much in one of his books. I am not suggesting that a separate section or long discussion be created, but I think somewhere in the article, a brief reference to one of Iran's wikipedia articles (e.g., /info/en/?search=List_of_pre-modern_Iranian_scientists_and_scholars) should be made, so the reader can read more about the topic if s/he is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.53.75 ( talk) 00:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
why often or always link the discovery of Muslims with Greece, Indian, chinese etc ? you have to prove in detail not only such claims. we need a quality encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatree ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Islamic nations invented the term Golden Age to glorify Islamism and have invested billions of USD o rewrite the entire Wikipedia to glorify Islamism. This is a fabrications of an age of oppression, destruction, major blood shed and burning of libraries. There is nothing mentioned in the Quran or Hadith about art, science, culture, architecture, literature other than claims such as that the sun sets in a muddy spring at the edge of the flat earth. Islam is about Jihad, to concur by sword, to oppress and subdued, and thus totally unrelated to the achievements mentioned. Those few individuals who are mentioned were not muslims but Arabs and Persians who were forced to call themselves muslims in order not to be beheaded. There were no scientific, philosophical or mathematical achievements, only translations of Greek, Persian and Hindi texts and traditions, and again those translators were forced to call themselves muslems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.221.2 ( talk) 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Kaun ho aap? ChandlerMinh ( talk) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
A history written by sources, not money. You are trying to rewrite a history to satisfy your ideological tendencies. What library have Muslims burned? Does Alexandria mean that it is just a myth? The offices of the House of Wisdom contained millions of books written by Muslim translators and no one forced them to do so, even your country India. The only thing that distinguishes it is a Mughal Islamic architecture such as Taj Mahal and Agra Castle, of course Muslim tolerance encouraged Hindu scholars, Christians Buddhists and Jews from the arrival and participation in the Islamic golden age Jubair8z0z ( talk) 22:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The reference section of this article has gotten intermingled with the main body, is there anything we can do about it from our side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.91.43 ( talk) 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I kindly request for the following to be added to the diverse contributions section at the end just right before the existing Ibn Khaldun quote:
Ibn Khaldun claimed that the culture found in the pre-Islamic Iranian universities during the Sassanian rule has been continuous since the Achaemenid Empire. In his Muqaddimah, [1] he stated the following:
Among the Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persian dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to the Greeks from the Persians, (at the time) when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians.
M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 09:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Apaugasma. However, it seems that Ibn Khaldun's original work (translated) is indeed cited in this article. It is precisely the same reference I used, I just used a different quote from the one in the article. Am I missing something? Also, the passage that reads as follows: "Science, medicine, philosophy and technology in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire." It doesn't seem to have any reference that backs it up. The German reference is for next sentence about the post-islamic activity alone. So, I thought I would introduce Ibn Khaldun's quote to back it up. This is causing a bit of confusion for me to be honest. M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I have been trying to learn more about the activities related to the 'intellectual sciences,' as Ibn Khaldun puts it, in Pre-Islam Iran. So, this is why I have read through this article. I always see on Wikipedia what I want to learn more about, but I don't seem to be able to get more specific information. For example, the link to Iranian Universities takes you to the Academy of Gondishapur. This is one institution only (and it is clearly influenced by the east). I am not sure why it says Iranian Universitie(s) in this article and not Academy of Gondishapur? Perhaps I should read through the works you mentioned to learn more about the other universities. Thanks again for your time, Apaugasma. M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)
An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature
Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ? :File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?
Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative?
One copyeditor user Dakinijones points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:
Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to [6] their point is architecture, music, art, thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided.
Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/ art/ thought created by Muslims.'
Please see below given table.
Muslim | Islam | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
Muslim dietary laws | This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ? | ||
Apostasy in Islam | Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share? | ||
Islamic culture | Needs to be Muslim culture? | ||
Islamic literature | Needs to be Muslim literature? | ||
Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ? | |||
Women in Islam | Need to be Muslim women? | ||
Islamophobia | Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment? |
I am very well aware of grammar related points of Maproom & Louis P. Boog maintained by them and others @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. Bookku ( talk) 11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have found no source that supports the following claim in the article:
"Science, medicine, philosophy and technology in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire."
I believe a citation needed sign has to be included, at least, unless someone can provide a source for this. It is not difficult to find Iranian scholars in the Islamic period. On the other hand, this seems impossible to prove.
Also, the following link is provided in the article, Iranian sccholars, but the article mentions nothing in the whole article about the equivalent Arab contribution which can be found in a similar Wikipedia list containing as the article puts it hundreds of Arab scholars. It can't be that one link is included while the other isn't given that they are both on Wikipedia. In fact, it is relevant to directly state that the school of Edessa was founded by the Arab Abgar dynasty which is what is written on its Wikipedia page unless it is wrong obviously. This is a clear indication that the Arabs were no strangers to the schools mentioned in this article all the way up to the Golden age of Islam although Arabic was not the lingua franca before Islam. Hiesen2 ( talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear FictiousLibrarian,
First of all, I sympathize with your intentions with regard to emphasizing the historical importance of the Islamic Golden Age, but they may not be the right ones for editing Wikipedia: it is not our place to right great wrongs, and it is of the utmost importance that we try to remain as neutral as possible towards what the sources tell us. If you have strong feelings about some topic, it might be better to avoid editing about that topic here on Wikipedia.
As for
your edits, they include some information (e.g., that would influence generations to come
) that is unsourced and therefore
unverifiable, a lot of information that is sourced to
unreliable sources (listed below), and some information that refers to reliable sources but does not include a page number (enabling other editors to
verify the information).
Unreliable:
Reliable:
If you have any questions as to why these sources are considered unreliable, please feel free to ask, so we can discuss. Generally I would advise to make smaller edits, adding only a small amount of information but including a full citation (with page number), so we can easily verify and discuss each addition you make. Thanks very much! ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden ( talk) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put "Peace be upon him" and "Prophet Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wasalam" pls. 142.115.35.185 ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This is just continuation of Persian works of arts and science. What did Islam contribute to it? Atleast, we need to include this quote Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun seems to remark:
Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent… they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar … great jurists were Persians … only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' … The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them … as was the case with all crafts … This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana [=modern Central Asia], retained their sedentary culture.
Muqaddimah, Translated by Franz Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye. p. 91 2406:3400:313:B310:F894:F80:D088:B1BC ( talk) 23:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"Many classic works of antiquity that might otherwise have been lost were translated from Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian, and Sanskrit into Syriac and Arabic, some of which were later in turn translated into other languages like Hebrew and Latin."
Translating sources from Syriac to Syriac does not make sense. Also, it's highly doubtful that translations into Syriac will have continued for long after the Islamic conquest of Syria and Mesopotamia. It is more likely that the author of the article wanted to say:
"... were translated from Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian, and Sanskrit into Farsi and Arabic, some of which ..." 2001:9E8:14AE:8100:8C9F:F6F7:7873:A621 ( talk) 00:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
In the Causes section, we have the following text: "The House of Wisdom was a library established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq by Caliph al-Mansur in 825"; but, according to the linked page for Caliph al-Mansur, he died in 775; and if we follow the line of succession from there, we see it was al-Ma'mun who was caliph in 825. Is the date wrong, or the name of the presiding caliph? 159.39.101.2 ( talk) 18:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention 5.32.243.4 ( talk) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm considering adding an additional sub-section to Natural Sciences dealing with the developments on hydrology and water systems. (i.e. emergence of water rights, expansion upon existing Roman systems, & the work of inventers such as Ismail al-Jazari.) I wanted to start this thread in case anyone had any objections or thought on the topic before I launched into more in-depth research. Kermitdawormit ( talk) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flightless Burd ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Khladky ( talk) 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic Golden Age article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Islamic Golden Age received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 17 June 2013 for a period of one week. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biggundog.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abel0008, Limabean27.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the section detailing the decline of the Islamic Golden Age this wiki article says: "Muslims in lands subject to the Mongols now faced northeast, toward the land routes to China, rather than toward Mecca." There is no citation and it is ambiguous. What is this referring to? Prayer? General political alignment? Why did they face northeast? By decree? By choice? I'm utterly baffled. 2601:45:4000:CE8C:89D2:B4A1:AF39:49D1 ( talk) 21:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to have an approximate time period at the start of the article. It is difficult to figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
What does this paragraph have to do with the "cause" of the Islamic Golden Age?
1. Islam was not a state, it is a religion.
2. What does invading hordes have to do with the Islamic Golden Age?
3. This entire paragraph, including other added paragraphs are completely unsourced.--
Kansas Bear (
talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm new here, excuse me if I am not following the correct procedures...
But...
I truly believe, as do many Muslim scholars, that one of the causes to the Islamic golden age, was to solve problems regarding fulfilling the commandments of God. The astrolabe is a brilliant example. I forgot that yesterday, and also I have some changes in the text, following your comments.
Hello again
I have been told to discuss things in here before posting. So let's start with the comparison by Edward Said (Islamic Golden Age=High Renaissance in Italy. What is wrong with that?
The Said quote is not a source for an encyclopedia. Even if his scholarly work is acceptable, that doesn't mean everything he wrote can be used. A phrase like "anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with ..." is a dead giveaway that we're not dealing with scholarship. It's an appeal to "of course!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 ( talk) 18:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
J J Karim ( talk) 13:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Happy for your kind help. I can "almost" see your point with (2), but thought that it was a well established fact that the high renaissance in Italy was an extremely creative period in human cultural history, and since the Islamic period was as brilliant, I thought my statement could stand closer scrutiny. Still do actually, but be that as it may.
I have one more question: Since I can't quote the pdf file and I only have the book in Danish (I am a Dane). can I quote books that are not in English?
J J Karim ( talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Have just read manual of style/words to watch. Helped a lot. Thanks!
J J Karim ( talk) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If covered most of the time of the Abbasid Caliphate. So why not call it Abbasid Golden Age? It would certainly remove a lot of the controversy surrounding it, especially in Europe among certain eurocentric historians. -- 90.149.188.205 ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This era include Fatimid period of 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. In the era a lot of work done in the field of art, culture and science. The details were included earlier which got deleted on wrong pretext, being added again.-- Md iet ( talk) 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the Islamic philosophical articles lacks the status of Featured Article or Good Article. At least make this article a Good Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.198.198 ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This is undue weight for one dynasty. Additionally, there is too many weasel words, such as "The history of the Fatimids, from this point of view, is in fact the history of knowledge, literature and philosophy. It is the history of sacred freedom - freedom of expression" that do not belong in an encyclopedia. That is cited to imamerza.net, which I don't think will be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Sodicadl ( talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The lead para start with "The Islamic Golden Age is an Abbasid historical period beginning in the mid 8th century lasting until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.." and further describe only Abbasid.This era include Fatimid period 10th to 11th century which also part of Islamic golden age. My aim is not to give preference to any particular dynasty but to get included information regarding contribution they provided in education,artichecture etc. If we have objection to have this information in single para highlighting Fatimid we may include these information at relevant subjects.-- Md iet ( talk) 11:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There are no references given to justify the use of this term. Is it a genuine academic term? Given that it was hardly a "golden age" for those being invaded, occupied, enslaved, and massacred in the name of Islam, is this a phrase used by anyone except nostalgic Islamists? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
154.123.14.83 ( talk) 14:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Mortran
The golden ages covers time that the Abbasids lost de facto control over much of the Muslim world and they were losing power.
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield yes it is an academic term.Just read at the sources for this article.You will find sources from QUALIFIED HISTORIANS. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
monochrome_monitor what authorative sources that says most of it were merely Persians,Hindus or Greeks and what are the examples? Plus the Muslims in the Golden Age both invent their own things and upgraded inventions upgraded the inventions of the other civilizations
GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield no reference my ass.There were literally a section named "history of the term" being the very first topic. GrandSultanMaeltheGreat ( talk) 07:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Gary Dargan in the Biology section with the source Conway Zirkle, who noted in his 1941 article "Natural Selection before the Origin of Species" (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 84) that al-Jahiz discussed the struggle for existence in the 9th century. This seems interesting and unobjectionable. Sodicadl has however put Dargan back in. The Dargan quote seems to be rather straining; the Zirkle article lists more than twenty writers who discussed ideas which were eventually unified by Darwin. I don't think any of them would be described as having "made observations that described evolution". Dargan seems to be implying that al-Jahiz got there nearly a thousand years before Darwin, and I haven't seen anything to support that at all. So if Dargan is making an exceptional claim, in what way is he an exceptional source? Who is he, exactly? He's described as a Muslim and paleontologist, but I know nothing more about him than that. If one of the most important things about him is that he's a Muslim, than the suspicion must be that he's not unbiased when ascribing ideas to medieval Muslims. If the other interesting thing about him is that he's a paleontologist, then without evidence to the contrary he's neither a historian of science nor a biologist, so to be honest I don't see why he's being quoted in this section. I do not consider Dargan a Reliable Source for what is an implied assertion that al-Jahiz was exceptional in his views on one of the ideas that led to the theory of evolution. I'm happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if we can't gain consensus here.
I also think it's worth considering the previous debate here:
Talk:Al-Jahiz/Archive 1#Al-Jahiz_and_Evolution; e.g. "Al-Jahith is a historic scholar & scientist that I am proud of, but as stated elsewhere, I am fluent in Arabic, have access to electronic copies of Book of Animals, and I believe that Al-Jahith never even remotely mentioned anything that has to do with natural selection, speciation, or evolution. Al-Jahith only touched on the struggle of existence, no more nor less, and without even using those exact words or terms! I would welcome a challenge from someone who can show me any references in his original Arabic book to such evolutionist concepts.Wisdawn (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)". --
Merlinme (
talk) 08:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
re this (there were multiple caliphates (at times even simultaneously) not single), Khestwol, could you please at least read the introduction to the caliphate article?
Why the scare quotes? Because this is not what is meant by the term originally, and not here. Of course the Muslim world was never really united, because the sectarian split occurred before they really got going, it was still mostly united under the caliphate, by its nature singular, and this is the very reason why the period is called a "golden age".
The concept as it is now mostly used (yes mostly, I took the trouble to cite some literature, as opposed to how the article stood before, with random unreferenced and unchallenged claims) basically covers the Abbasid caliphate, late 8th to early 13th century or so, but of course the "golden age" of cultural achievement also covers areas not controlled by Abbasid caliphs, notably Andalusia. I am happy for the lead to state as much, and details on divergent definitions can go to the section on this question which I have just introduced.
There are still some authors who would have the period end in the 12th, 11th or even 10th century, but these are a clear minority. There seems to be some kind of former (pre-1950) usage of the term, which is rather rare, using the term not for this period at all but for the Rashidun period, 632-661 or even just 632-644, which was "golden" not in terms of cultural achievement but of military success; this is a distinct, non-overlapping meaning of the term which can be disambiguated, and it does not now seem to be in use. -- dab (𒁳) 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What do Arabic scholars call the Golden Age? Can this be included in the article? 203.1.252.5 ( talk) 03:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, this is not a prominent concept outside of academic circles. Even within academic circles, the notion of a cultural "golden age" followed by a subsequent "decline" is facing increased skepticism, with many scholars overturning the previous consensus on a decline beginning roughly with al-Ghazali. The article should probably reflect this 92.232.168.195 ( talk) 19:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Merlinme replaced the "politically united" part in the lead which was added by Dbachmann. Perhaps, the sourcing may be discussed as the edit summary left by Merlinme is OR. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
> the old Islamic caliphate (as well as Kievan Rus)
What? Seriously? And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus ?
the comment removed clearly tries to discredit Greek scientific advancement ranging from 1200 years before this period. Archimedes for example is a true scientist with a load of professional titles under his belt, and that is Archimedes alone (287 BC)
Alhazen for example has two titles under his belt (polymath and philosopher) none of which technically classify as "scientific method" via experiment + result.
I guess "thinking" is the best way to travel... but it sure doesn't beat going there thru practical experiment in trial and error?
Need I even mention the Antikythera mechanism? yes the world got this device from thinking about earth, air, water and fire... @@
I am led to deduce that "true science" didn't exist for Jim Al-Khalili personally before Alhazen... what else is one to conclude?
Jim Al-Khalili's logic is obviously flawed, and biased.
Conclusion #2
I have come to decide that there never really was an "islamic golden age" if one can consider an age of conquest and barbarity and religious zeal "Golden" at all?
Everything Islam has ever known, they came into possession of it via conquest and thus the knowledge and supposed contributions to humanity was just "war booty"
This methodology doesn't classify as "golden" at all, it was fundamentalism just as it is still this very day.
I also find it quite ironic that what the Western World considers "the Dark Ages" is Islam's supposed golden age... maybe we should call it Islam's Blood Red Age? because anyone with 2 bits of common sense or interest would fathom and maybe even research if there happens to be a connection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.214 ( talk) 11:44, February 12, 2015
---
RE; My apologies, but sheesh what is becoming of Wiki? you can't get any correct information from here anymore, everything is falsified and fantasy history!
You Mr/Ms editor need to do your job and start adding "Historical Fact" which is unbiased. Not everyone in the world is a professional wiki editor wizard you know?
Wiki's so called "verifiable sources" are nothing but controversial conspiracy theorists being quoted half the time and the other time is it biased and not "factual"
We want truth, not conjecture...
Meet Aristotle the inventor of the scientific method, http://www.marshallfarrier.com/aristotle/work_method.htm
I am not sure how reliable is he, for such a strong claim as invention of scientific method.From what I see he is not historian of science. I think we need more reliable sources. Ravik1988 ( talk) 01:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, not historian of science. Moreover his research has been criticized by historians of science such as Sonja Brentjes in Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture, and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas, p133. It's available on google books you can check it. I think that a claim that Alhacen was significant in history of scientific method sourced by Schramm should certainly stay, but claims by Al-khalili should go. Ravik1988 ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Fauzan, nowhere does it say in that article that he is "first scientist" and moreover you can't use other Wikipedia article as a source.Not to mention that exceptional claims require exceptional sources and Al-khalili is certainly not an exceptional source.Regards. Ravik1988 ( talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Chemistry is not mentioned (or alchemy as a proto chemistry). I am not qualified to add anything myself but maybe someone who knows the subject could add a line or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.116.170 ( talk) 09:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering how both those groups are attempting to start or restart caliphates while carefully re-enacting and restoring as much of these ancient teachings and practices as possible, some well-sourced comparison may be appropriate. It's also worth noting how much people hate this once it's put right in front of them and they no longer have the luxury of revising their history from a distance. This subject matter is indefensible and should not be celebrated. This is an appropriate conclusion when approached from a NPOV, and I readily admit that is the whole point of asking that these comparisons be made. 2601:244:4E00:7CB8:500E:878C:8292:8E24 ( talk) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Under Commerce and Travel, it says "Tolerance was extended to non-Sunni Muslims such as Christians, Shias, and Jews,[73] who occupied high levels in government based on ability." Reference 73 simply says "Goldschmidt 84-86" and is the only reference mentioning Goldschmidt in the entire References section. Nor is Goldschmidt mentioned in the article itself or anywhere in the talk section. Someone who knows what book this refers to please include the full reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoukittenme ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am troubled by the section Islamic_Golden_Age#Role_of_Christians
Note the comparison to Eastern_Christianity#Role_of_Christians_in_the_Islamic_culture
And to Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Role_of_Christians
And to Christian_influences_in_Islam#Role_of_Christian_in_science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
And to History_of_the_Assyrian_people#Islamic_empires
There are provision for the copying of material within Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I believe all were added by the same editor.
@
Moonriddengirl:@
Diannaa:
I am pinging a couple copyright experts, to help discuss what should be the next steps. Is it as simple as identifying the first addition, then adding null edits along with edit summaries to provide proper attribution?--
S Philbrick
(Talk) 17:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Attribution: Content in this section was copied here from [[Speed (1994 film) ]] on July 10, 2016. Please see the history of that page for attribution.
Notify the involved editor using template uw-copying. For example, {{subst:uw-copying|Speed (1994 film) |to=Annie Porter (character)}} If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. ~~~~
—
Diannaa (
talk) 19:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The only entry for "Geology" is a reference to Al-Biruni's 11th Century calculation of Earth's size. "Al-Biruni (973-1048) estimated the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.[59]" I see two problems with that entry. First, it has nothing to do with geology (it would be geodesy or geography). Second, the fact that several Greek scholars obtained such values or better values beginning a thousand years earlier makes that statement misleading at best. Islam did not produce the first or most accurate estimates of Earth's size. Third, the single source cited is just a vague reference to another source, that is, it is just a claim based on yet another reference. It doesn't explain at all how al-Biruni achieved his result or how it compared to other work at the time. An encyclopedia ought, above all else, put specific works into the context of the broader world of knowledge. Pooua ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Pooua:. Figures quoted for the radius by the Greeks and al-Buruni (6339.6 km) are useless, unless we also include the error in the results. The accuracy in al-Buruni is misleading; it suggests an error in the order of 10 meter (highly unlikely) but the error might be 10 km or even 100 km, that is not clear. The Nasa Earth Fact Sheet gives the following values: Equatorial radius (km): 6378.137, Polar radius (km): 6356.752, Volumetric mean radius (km): 6371.008
I wonder where we can find the earliest manuscript that can reliably be attributed to al-Buruni, which is the start of all later interpretations of his work - I would like to see a scholarly evaluation. I did a quick search with al biruni earth radius manuscript jpg, but didn't get much wiser - I do not read Arabic. -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 18:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The figure for the radius of the earth, which al-Buruni arrived at, is quoted in Ref. [76] in section Geodesy (as per 14/08/2017): http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Al-Biruni.html. There it says: ′Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by al-Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century (see [50])′. This reference '[50]' is the article: K Norhudzaev, al-Biruni and the science of geodesy (Uzbek), in Collection dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the birth of al-Biruni (Tashkent, 1973), 145-158.
I cannot find 'K Norhudzaev' on the internet, let alone the article. So I suggest another source. Is it good practice to quote web pages? Usually they have a high entertainment value - but no scholar will publish serious work this way.
The radius quoted is 6339.6 km, but the (kilo) meter didn't exist in al-Burundi's time. So the conversion from old units to km was done after 1800, may be even quite recently. Who did it and how and if he/she pimped the result a bit - totally unclear. The old units and thus the conversion factor are unknown. They might even change from one region to the other. Then there is the matter of accuracy: unknown. Summarizing I conclude that the figure of R=6339.6 km is devoid of scientific meaning.
′a value that was not obtained in the West until the 16th century.′. Obtained by whom? And which value was arrived at, expressed in which length units? -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 13:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Section Health care/Hospitals states ′The earliest general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad by Harun Al-Rashid′, quoting an article by DAVID TSCHANZ in AramcoWorld March/April 2017 (Ref. [69] in the article). This is the familiar position, which virtually no one questions or dares(!) questioning. Almost no one asks the very obvious question: How were the sick and wounded in the army and civil society cared for in other cultures, in the centuries before Islam? How did medical care change? Was there any change at all? Without clarification on this point, talk of 'firsts' is just empty bragging. Archeological finds can help us, just as searching for the earliest written accounts of reliable authenticity.
It is not difficult to find papers on this subject (e.g. using search strings like roman hospital excavation), which discuss the results of archaeological field work. E.g. [1] by historian and archaeologist Dr. Patty Baker, focuses on Roman medical tools that date from the first to fourth centuries AD, and examines the structures that are thought to be a valetudinarium, the Roman military hospital. The instruments she and others found, bear a striking resemblence to the medical equipment depicted in documents, often of very dubious authenticity, that purport to demonstrate the superiority of early islamic surgery. Either early islam reinvented these tools, or, what is equally probable, they 'took over' the equipment they encountered in the conquered zones of the Middle-East and ibero-gothic-roman Spain. In that case, there is no sudden explosion of innovative practices but just continuity.
According to Peregrine Horden in [2], ′For a relatively brief period, the Romans occasionally built hospitals (valetudinaria) for slaves and soldiers - the two categories of laborers who mattered most to the functioning of the empire.′ (p. 372). The first known public hospital was erected by Leontius of Antioch, bishop from 344 to 358. The year 350 is a round date accepted for the emergence of xenodocheia or xenones, hospitals for strangers or migrants.
By the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, this medical innovation had rapidly diffused around the Mediterranean,—areas in contact with Byzantium. It is the existence of numerous Christian charitable foundations active within the land of Islam after the conquests and the plurality of medical centers, that probably served as inspiration for Islamic foundations. ′Christian hospitals [thus] formed a background continuum. But no late Sassanian or early Islamic rulers (or other benefactors) seem to have founded any hospitals between the mid-sixth and the late eighth or early ninth century. No Umayyad or early Abbasid hospitals are in evidence until the Barmakid hospital in ninthcentury Baghdad, the first Islamic hospital.′ (p. 370)
On the subject of medical excellence, Horden warns: ′But the medicine of these hospitals was, to judge by surviving manuscripts, simple, atheoretical, and little concerned with etiology or prognosis (...) Even the much-vaunted medicine of the Islamic bimaristan may not have been so superior as was once thought, if the casebooks of Razi, a ninth-century medical writer and hospital physician, are any indication. Although physicians often attended inmates at several of the earliest hospitals, they had no professional qualifications—none was to be had—probably rendering them not much different in competence from nurses and other attendants.′ (p. 389)
Finally a note on the sources that the editor(s) of this section (Health care/Hospitals) employ: they seem to be more intent on promoting Islam than caring for objective knowledge of the history of Medicine. This is better left to specialists like Patricia Baker and Peregrine Horden.
Ref.
[1] Dr. Patty Baker, Archaeological remains as a source of evidence for Roman Medicine, University of kent
[2] Peregrine Horden, The Earliest Hospitals in Byzantium, Western Europe, and Islam, Journal of Interdisciplinary History Volume 35, Number 3, Winter 2005.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
′A significant feature of the Fatimid era were the freedoms given to the people and liberties given to the mind and reason.′ May be this was the case in the Fatimid Caliphate, but outside it, there was not much freedom ′to the mind and reason′. The terrible fate of the 9-th century mystic Mansur Al-Hallaj proves this; he was punished for his spiritual teachings and executed in Baghdad in 922 AD.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
So we have an immense list of scientific 'firsts' by the Islamic world from which two of the most important, electricity and magnetism, are missing. Science that never led to important and rather obvious industrial relevant applications. It as if we are watching a technologically advanced train which halts just before reaching its destination, leaving the passengers stranded.
It is important to look for material remains and for independent reports by travellers from outside the Muslim world. They could tell us more about the state of Islamic technology and society.
[1] Friedel, Robert D., A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millenium (2007)
[2] Lynn White, Jr, Medieval Technology & Social Change (1962)-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You're not following Wikipedia's No synthesis and No Original Research policies. CaliphoShah ( talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The information in this section smacks of religious propaganda posing as a regular wikipedia lemma. It also shoots itself in the foot: ′The importance of learning drew on the authority of a hadith attributed to Muhammad, instructing the faithful to "seek knowledge, even in China".′ How could Muhammad have known about China and its culture when he never left the Arabian Peninsula and couldn't read?
So he was clair-voyant ( Clairvoyance). Given that he was a holy person receiving revelations by the angel Gabriël no less, that isn't too far-fetched. But what is the point of remaining illiterate when you are clair voyant and able to gather information over any time and distance? The whole idea of his illiteracy was to insure not be suspected of having studied the books of the ancestors, in particular the Bible ( Quran, section History/Prophetic era).
He might as well have told his companions all that was to be known about Chinese technology, which would have saved the muslims the trouble of the journey to China.-- Gerard1453 ( talk) 17:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Invasions
Article: ′The destruction of Baghdad and the House of Wisdom by Hulagu Khan in 1258 has been seen by some as the end of the Islamic Golden Age.′ However, in section Education it says: ′Madrasas soon multiplied throughout the Islamic world, which helped to spread Islamic learning beyond urban centers and to unite diverse Islamic communities in a shared cultural project.′ If that is the case, how can the disappearance of one city, be responsible for the demise of the whole Islamic Common Wealth?
Either: Learning was widespread, but then the destruction of one city would only have ment only a (temporary) set back. Or: with Baghdad all science disappeared, but that would mean that learning was a very local affair, the pet project of a wealthy potentate, say, and had little to do with Islam as such.
One counter example (there are many): Japan in WWII. After Tokyo and other cities in Japan were put to the torch by the Allies, Hiroshima - a city of both industrial and military significance - was vaporized by the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. It didn't prevent Japan becoming a technological power house rather soon after the war, e.g. taking over the European camera and electronics market.
Economics
Culture
′Economic historian Joel Mokyr has argued that Islamic philosopher Al Ghazali (1058–1111) "was a key figure in the decline in Islamic science", as his works contributed to rising mysticism and occasionalism in the Islamic world.′ Can it really be possible that one man changed the fate of the whole Islamic commonwealth? How robust is a scientific tradition when it can be blown away like a puff of cigarette smoke by an outsider to rational science??
His works had to be spread over a huge area, from the Atlantic Coast to deep into Asia and all muslims then would have complied in virtually the same manner - very doubtful. This would have taken a long time and many intellectuals would have protested loudly - not unlike modern day scientists/scholars raising their voice in public over a real or perceived threat to fincancial support and/or academic freedom. Thousands of pages must have been written by Islamic scholars, lamenting the demise of learning in the Islamic world. It is worthwhile to look for these manucsripts.
Other
Several other mechanism have been proposed:
Why did the Islamic Commonwealth never recover from disasters like other vital civilizations did (including Byzantium after its own Dark Age in the seventh century - see Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty)? The Mongols and Crusaders were defeated, the plague disappeared eventually and Al-Ghazali has long gone. And according to the Muslims themselves their religion is very vital (′fastest growing religion in the world′). Well then .... where is the science? -- Gerard1453 ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's good that you're showing what you're agenda here. You're not here to abide by Wikipedia's policy you're here to argue about religion and to push for a political or religious viewpoint. Wikipedia is about neutral point of view. The tone of your last line says a lot. Furthermore the Talk page is not a forum. And if edits were to be implemented by what you're saying, those edits would be breaking Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. CaliphoShah ( talk) 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic Golden Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
A great number of scholars, scientists, philosophers and poets in this period were of Persian origin if I am not mistaken. I believe Ibn Khaldun even notes so much in one of his books. I am not suggesting that a separate section or long discussion be created, but I think somewhere in the article, a brief reference to one of Iran's wikipedia articles (e.g., /info/en/?search=List_of_pre-modern_Iranian_scientists_and_scholars) should be made, so the reader can read more about the topic if s/he is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.53.75 ( talk) 00:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
why often or always link the discovery of Muslims with Greece, Indian, chinese etc ? you have to prove in detail not only such claims. we need a quality encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatree ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Islamic nations invented the term Golden Age to glorify Islamism and have invested billions of USD o rewrite the entire Wikipedia to glorify Islamism. This is a fabrications of an age of oppression, destruction, major blood shed and burning of libraries. There is nothing mentioned in the Quran or Hadith about art, science, culture, architecture, literature other than claims such as that the sun sets in a muddy spring at the edge of the flat earth. Islam is about Jihad, to concur by sword, to oppress and subdued, and thus totally unrelated to the achievements mentioned. Those few individuals who are mentioned were not muslims but Arabs and Persians who were forced to call themselves muslims in order not to be beheaded. There were no scientific, philosophical or mathematical achievements, only translations of Greek, Persian and Hindi texts and traditions, and again those translators were forced to call themselves muslems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.221.2 ( talk) 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Kaun ho aap? ChandlerMinh ( talk) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
A history written by sources, not money. You are trying to rewrite a history to satisfy your ideological tendencies. What library have Muslims burned? Does Alexandria mean that it is just a myth? The offices of the House of Wisdom contained millions of books written by Muslim translators and no one forced them to do so, even your country India. The only thing that distinguishes it is a Mughal Islamic architecture such as Taj Mahal and Agra Castle, of course Muslim tolerance encouraged Hindu scholars, Christians Buddhists and Jews from the arrival and participation in the Islamic golden age Jubair8z0z ( talk) 22:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The reference section of this article has gotten intermingled with the main body, is there anything we can do about it from our side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.91.43 ( talk) 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I kindly request for the following to be added to the diverse contributions section at the end just right before the existing Ibn Khaldun quote:
Ibn Khaldun claimed that the culture found in the pre-Islamic Iranian universities during the Sassanian rule has been continuous since the Achaemenid Empire. In his Muqaddimah, [1] he stated the following:
Among the Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persian dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to the Greeks from the Persians, (at the time) when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians.
M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 09:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Apaugasma. However, it seems that Ibn Khaldun's original work (translated) is indeed cited in this article. It is precisely the same reference I used, I just used a different quote from the one in the article. Am I missing something? Also, the passage that reads as follows: "Science, medicine, philosophy and technology in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire." It doesn't seem to have any reference that backs it up. The German reference is for next sentence about the post-islamic activity alone. So, I thought I would introduce Ibn Khaldun's quote to back it up. This is causing a bit of confusion for me to be honest. M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 12:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I have been trying to learn more about the activities related to the 'intellectual sciences,' as Ibn Khaldun puts it, in Pre-Islam Iran. So, this is why I have read through this article. I always see on Wikipedia what I want to learn more about, but I don't seem to be able to get more specific information. For example, the link to Iranian Universities takes you to the Academy of Gondishapur. This is one institution only (and it is clearly influenced by the east). I am not sure why it says Iranian Universitie(s) in this article and not Academy of Gondishapur? Perhaps I should read through the works you mentioned to learn more about the other universities. Thanks again for your time, Apaugasma. M.Mohamad9 ( talk) 17:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Greetings,
This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)
An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature
Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ? :File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?
Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative?
One copyeditor user Dakinijones points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:
Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to [6] their point is architecture, music, art, thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided.
Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/ art/ thought created by Muslims.'
Please see below given table.
Muslim | Islam | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|
Muslim dietary laws | This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ? | ||
Apostasy in Islam | Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share? | ||
Islamic culture | Needs to be Muslim culture? | ||
Islamic literature | Needs to be Muslim literature? | ||
Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ? | |||
Women in Islam | Need to be Muslim women? | ||
Islamophobia | Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment? |
I am very well aware of grammar related points of Maproom & Louis P. Boog maintained by them and others @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. Bookku ( talk) 11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have found no source that supports the following claim in the article:
"Science, medicine, philosophy and technology in the newly Islamized Iranian society was influenced by and based on the scientific model of the major pre-Islamic Iranian universities in the Sassanian Empire."
I believe a citation needed sign has to be included, at least, unless someone can provide a source for this. It is not difficult to find Iranian scholars in the Islamic period. On the other hand, this seems impossible to prove.
Also, the following link is provided in the article, Iranian sccholars, but the article mentions nothing in the whole article about the equivalent Arab contribution which can be found in a similar Wikipedia list containing as the article puts it hundreds of Arab scholars. It can't be that one link is included while the other isn't given that they are both on Wikipedia. In fact, it is relevant to directly state that the school of Edessa was founded by the Arab Abgar dynasty which is what is written on its Wikipedia page unless it is wrong obviously. This is a clear indication that the Arabs were no strangers to the schools mentioned in this article all the way up to the Golden age of Islam although Arabic was not the lingua franca before Islam. Hiesen2 ( talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear FictiousLibrarian,
First of all, I sympathize with your intentions with regard to emphasizing the historical importance of the Islamic Golden Age, but they may not be the right ones for editing Wikipedia: it is not our place to right great wrongs, and it is of the utmost importance that we try to remain as neutral as possible towards what the sources tell us. If you have strong feelings about some topic, it might be better to avoid editing about that topic here on Wikipedia.
As for
your edits, they include some information (e.g., that would influence generations to come
) that is unsourced and therefore
unverifiable, a lot of information that is sourced to
unreliable sources (listed below), and some information that refers to reliable sources but does not include a page number (enabling other editors to
verify the information).
Unreliable:
Reliable:
If you have any questions as to why these sources are considered unreliable, please feel free to ask, so we can discuss. Generally I would advise to make smaller edits, adding only a small amount of information but including a full citation (with page number), so we can easily verify and discuss each addition you make. Thanks very much! ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden ( talk) 15:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put "Peace be upon him" and "Prophet Muhammad Sallahu Alaihi Wasalam" pls. 142.115.35.185 ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This is just continuation of Persian works of arts and science. What did Islam contribute to it? Atleast, we need to include this quote Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun seems to remark:
Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent… they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar … great jurists were Persians … only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' … The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them … as was the case with all crafts … This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana [=modern Central Asia], retained their sedentary culture.
Muqaddimah, Translated by Franz Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye. p. 91 2406:3400:313:B310:F894:F80:D088:B1BC ( talk) 23:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
"Many classic works of antiquity that might otherwise have been lost were translated from Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian, and Sanskrit into Syriac and Arabic, some of which were later in turn translated into other languages like Hebrew and Latin."
Translating sources from Syriac to Syriac does not make sense. Also, it's highly doubtful that translations into Syriac will have continued for long after the Islamic conquest of Syria and Mesopotamia. It is more likely that the author of the article wanted to say:
"... were translated from Greek, Syriac, Middle Persian, and Sanskrit into Farsi and Arabic, some of which ..." 2001:9E8:14AE:8100:8C9F:F6F7:7873:A621 ( talk) 00:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
In the Causes section, we have the following text: "The House of Wisdom was a library established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq by Caliph al-Mansur in 825"; but, according to the linked page for Caliph al-Mansur, he died in 775; and if we follow the line of succession from there, we see it was al-Ma'mun who was caliph in 825. Is the date wrong, or the name of the presiding caliph? 159.39.101.2 ( talk) 18:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention 5.32.243.4 ( talk) 09:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm considering adding an additional sub-section to Natural Sciences dealing with the developments on hydrology and water systems. (i.e. emergence of water rights, expansion upon existing Roman systems, & the work of inventers such as Ismail al-Jazari.) I wanted to start this thread in case anyone had any objections or thought on the topic before I launched into more in-depth research. Kermitdawormit ( talk) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flightless Burd ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Khladky ( talk) 19:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)