This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am no authority on this subject, but after some cruising around, it seems to me that there is a fairly strong current of people who deny the existence or significance of the Islamic golden age. I am not agreeing with those folks, but I wonder if it would not be wise to place a subsection that addresses this trend. (not to be macabre, but a bit like the page on the Holocaust provides links to holocaust denial)
FYI, this trend seems to largely be spearheaded by Robert Spencer. Thoughts? -Maxkbennett
actually that is an important point as Europe though all ages, ancient to modern (particularly the Christian theocracies and monarchies), covered up Islamic advance, with most in Europe assuming that Islamic states were backwards primitive people despite using many Islamic inventions in everyday life. Hypo Mix ( talk) 05:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably every theory and mainstream view is denied by someone. Unless someone can point to this being a well established view I don't think this has any potential. -- 85.145.56.218 ( talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was the "neutrality is disputed" tag removed and the whole discussion moved to the archive, although more than half a dozen (!) contributors have complained over time about both the main authors lack of actual knowledge of the sources he quoted and its overall tendentious treatment? Is this how things are done when nobody is looking for a moment? The article still is biased. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis
Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm
Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677
Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A Bigger Picture —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.215.86.123 (
talk) 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see that this article has taken many people by surprise, causing disputes and even pushing some to religious comparison. I would like to point out that this article is about the Islamic civilization and empire, not religion. I would also like to add that this Islamic golden age lasted for a period no less than 500 hundred years and extended from Spain in the west, to India in the East. The empire included peoples from every almost every race on the eastern side of the Atlantic. It is only natural that a nation holding the sole super power status for half a millenium would go through ever-changing phases. No doubt that at certain, historically documented times, oppresive rulers took hold of power. Some promoted religious intolerance and others opression of the sciences. But it is also important to note that during the majority of the age of this empire; expansion, development and innovation were the main themes in a multi-ethnic, religiously tolerant environment. Numerous scientists, artists and philosophers achieved milestones in their fields. Such fields include documented works on medicine, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, literature and more. Scientists were mostly muslim; as was the majority of the population. However, several prominent Jewish and Christian scientists flourished in the empire.
I am compelled to add a very brief outline on the rise of the Islamic empire, Geography:starts in Mecca with the birth of the prophet, expanding to the inter-continental borders within 80 years. Academia: a belief in the divinity of knowledge led to the pursuit and translation of academic texts from Greece, Egypt, India and other ancient civiliations, followed by an explosive growth in scientific research and experimentation.
I have not written this article, but I found that aside from some exaggerated facts and boldly stated misconceptions, most the information within is correct.
Do excuse me if my reply was short or overly general. I would be glad to discuss any of the topics mentioned above in finer detail, do not hesitate to initiate contact.
H.AB
i agree with Gun Powder Ma, there isnt enough detail, and for me about the advances brought on by East Syrians (members of the Church of the East) during the Sassanian period where they were the driving force in the translation of Greek philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. from Greek to Syriacs ... these translations were predomenatly found in School of Edessa (before it was close) then in School of Nisibis, and from there in many other schools. It was after the Islamic invasion of Mesopotamia that once again these Greek texts were translated from Syriac to Arabic by Assyrians themselves. This is the reason why the "Islamic Golden Age" began. Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" I think there needs to be a seperate section just on the Assyrian (Nestorian, East Syrian, Syriac etc.)contribution to the Islamic Golden Age. I advize you to research on this topic, and if you want me to I am able to make this section for you. Malik Danno ( talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" | ” |
Yes but by far the Assyrians were the most influential players in the Early Islamic Golden Age, yet there is no mention of them whatsoever. Malik Danno ( talk) 10:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a very interesting question. Was, what now is usually refered to as the "Islamic Golden Age", just the last breath of a much older tradition and "Golden Age"? The region had been under Persian and Hellenistic influence for a long time and that has to have had a great impact on science and culture in the early Islamic world. Joe hill ( talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If so, you need to site a source which supports this analysis. If you want to improve the article, get to work, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. Maxkbennett ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How can Ibn al-Nafis be the same person in the two views???
Traditionalist Muslims at the time, including the polymath Ibn al-Nafis, believed that the Crusades and Mongol invasions may have been a divine punishment from God against Muslims deviating from the Sunnah. As a result, the falsafa, some of whom held ideas incompatible with the Sunnah, became targets of criticism from many traditionalist Muslims, though other traditionalists such as Ibn al-Nafis made attempts at reconciling reason with revelation and blur the line between the two.[205]
Why is this a part of wiki iran even though islam originates from mecca (which is a part of KSA"SAUDI ARABIA") why is there written about rice and mango coming from india actually pakistani rice and mangoes are famous it means a over-proud indian or irani wrote this page !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark dragon474 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Arabwiki ( talk) 11:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
To the poster above who wrote the section "wrong", I'm an ethnic arab and never been to iran or india or any of the countries you whine about. I would like to say to you stop. Stop these sad arguments. What are we now? all of us in the islamic world, what is our status as a nation? Iran and Turkey are two major pillars of the Islamic world. Iranians and Turkish scholars have contributed tremendously to the Islamic world. The land of Arabs - or Arabia (I will not call it the new name that a family of thieves gave to it) is where some of the finest muslims come from. But just because our great prophet comes from there doesn't mean that you or me as arabs have any special status. Mohammed came to all humanity and Allah himself said that no one is better than the other except by faith (Taqua). Persians and Turks in the days of our greatness were shining muslims. So this is to all of us, all the major races in islam that contributed to what was once the leading nation of the whole world, to them I say lets at least unite in our past. To have an appreciation of what we used to be as an integrated nation.
So let them call it part of WikiIran or WikiIraq or WikiWhatever.
I must say that mention of persian scholars is a little too much compared to others, but it is not biased as you put it.
May Allah bless you all my brothers.
60.53.52.1 ( talk) 09:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The first comments on this article are already coming. Please see here and also here. Thank you.
— Cesar Tort 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added an {overlinked} tag at the top of the article per peer-review. — Cesar Tort 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious. I have this page on my watchlist somehow, must have made a minor edit one day i don't remember, and have noticed several times information being added, and then reverted as vandalism, about slavery. Why is this vandalism? Were there actually no slaves in the Islamic Golden Age? Is the information, including references, made up? If there were slaves, surely that deserves a mention, which it doesn't get in the non-vandalised version, if for no other reason than completeness? As i say, i'm curious; just not enough to go trailing through archives (though i did have a quick look) and the History of the page in order to find out. Can someone tell me why this edit [1] is vandalism? Cheers, Lindsay Hi 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit [2] was reverted as vandalism. This is wrong. I have reinstated it because it is relevant to the economy at the time and it is well cited (well nothing glaring jumped out and said blog). Argue in this section why the slave trade can' be mentioned. Ttiotsw ( talk) 07:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the institution of slavery played some sort of role within the economy of Muslim states, just as it did throughout the rest of the world. Does it have anything to do with the Golden Age as such? This connection must be verified by the reliable sources, else making the connection ourselves is original research. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree Zenv. We should delete it. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 21:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You should include it. The main takeaway of this generally interesting article is that Mecca, as the "center" of civiliaztion at a more-or-less peaceful time was the central clearinghouse for commerce (in both goods and ideas) from around the world. Not that IGA invented these things in a vaccuum. You can't speak blithely about Arabian-African trade without acknowledging who was being traded. (Unless you're writing ad copy, in which case you'll need to bring it all back to beaches, bars, and interesting boutiques.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.53 ( talk) 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues; {{POV}} {{Disputed}} {{Self-published}} {{citecheck}} {{Primarysources}} Please read these sources:
Reading wikipedia should make us smater. Please help. J8079s ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Under technology it says they invented "soap bar", which, along with being a bar of soap, is a slang term in the UK for low-grade hash. Now, these guys did invent hash, or at least the word hashish, but which does the mean. If the article is referring to "a bar of soap" hadn't we better put it that way? And if we mean hash, hadn't we better put it that way? Didshe ( talk)
There are only two mentionings of the qur'an on this article.
As far as the arabic literature wiki goes, shouldn't the quran be added as a reference. Perhaps number of copies made over time, styles developed during the era? Also shouldn't their be something about literacy rates, since literacy and language would have been a precursor to any civil development? Faro0485 ( talk) 10:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
as I stated above, the 'Islamic Renaissance' would not have existed without the translation of Greek/Latin works to Syriac and finally to Arabic. The fact is that ancient works were translated by Nestorian and Jacobite monks (initially) then were taught throughout schools in Mesopotamia (school of Edessa) and when the Arabs conquered Mesopotamia it was these people who translated the works to Arabic. That link is missing in this page ... there is mention of Greek/Latin works used for the flourishing of Islamic Renaissance, however no mention of Nestorian/Jacobite involvement in that matter. Malik Danno ( talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole Controversy section is supported by one source - islam-watch.org which obviously is a highly biased, extremist, fringe site which would satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. In my opinion, those sections should be removed as they are not supported by mainstream and widespread reliable sources. Any comments? Zencv Whisper 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the inventions listed under technology need greater specificity. I am referring to primarily crystallization, purification, oxidation, and evaporation. Except for purification these are natural processes, not inventions. The links either go to either an article on the natural process or a disambiguation page, so its very difficult to determine just what invention the article is talking about. Most of the inventions listed are clear and specific enough. It is really just the few that I previously mentioned that are unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlenthe ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states that the Golden Age lasted from the 9th-13th centuries (or, at latest, the 15th century) CE. The Taj Mahal was built in the mid-17th century. Does this make sense? I'm sure that we could find a more suitable illustration. 99.23.131.154 ( talk) 06:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Islamic Golden Age lasted longer than the 13th century, this is nothing more than people trying to diminish Islams great history and signifficance to the world. It ran until at least the 15th century, some people try to push that the Islamic Golden age is a myth and that it never existed, none of this is factual but people trying to strangle Islam and it's powerful impact on our society, a shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.62.236 ( talk) 01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just tagged the Islamic Golden Age#Urbanization section, in particular the section on life expectancy, with almost every tag in the book.
The basic claim that life expectancy was higher in this civilisation is supported only by WP:SYNTH, by taking figures to suit the argument from various sources. No source used here actually makes this claim.
In particular no source makes the leading claim that any increase was due to improved medical care; in fact the sources contradict the claims made there. For example the citation of Conrad (2006), The Western Medical Tradition to support the claim for the average life expectancy in the Caliphate actually says that Arab-Islamic physicians "could do little, for example, to change the facts that life expectancy was not much above 35 years" (p. 137). Elsewhere in the same book we find the statement about "the well-being of the general population, with which the early caliphate was not particularly concerned" (p. 102).
Add to this that the studies quoted from Shatzmiller (1994), Labour in the medieval Islamic world, are described by her as "a misleading sample" (p. 66).
Also some of the sources cited are of very poor quality (TV program summaries, a University 'thought for the day' page, etc.).
If no-one can find some decent sources to support this, I will delete it.
All the best. — Syncategoremata ( talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I tagged the article since the issues are numerous.
In sum, what the article urgently needs is editing work which shows a willingness to adapt the article to historical reality, not one which tries by misinterpretation to adapt the cited sources to a pre-conceived, rose-coloured view. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You dont have British calling the industrial revolution a 'Darwinian age', nor do you have Americans calling technological advances a 'Christian age'
So why should it be called the Islamic age? Why not the Ayyubid dynasty? 78.149.198.245 ( talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree...
The reason lies in the religious zeal expressed by many Muslims, who have a vested interest in arguing that everything positive that happened was due to their religion and holy book, while in the same breath applying a clear double standard by vehemently arguing against including slavery and other negative aspects under the same religious label.
Another reason is a policy of appeasement by some Western scholars who know full well that this kind of labeling will be received favorably by Muslims increasing their own stature in the process.
In reality, though, this is a highly offensive label given the non-Muslim religious affiliation of many of those who are posthumously included as parts of a so called "Islamic Golden Age". It's abuse of history at its worst, serving contemporary religious and political purposes, the third sentence of the article says it all really:
"Muslim artists and scientists, princes and laborers together made a unique culture that has directly and indirectly influenced societies on every continent".
I guess all these people were posthumously converted to Islam thanks to which we all can marvel at the "Islamic" accomplishments? Labels such as Islamic Physics are even more absurd, though they are merely a logical derivative of this initial wrong label.
Abvgd ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis
Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm
Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677
Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698
The architectural design of mosques, for example, long a source of pride among Muslims, was copied from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches… The seventh-century Dome of the Rock, considered today to have been first great mosque, was not only copied from Byzantine models, but was built by Byzantine craftsmen… The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. Avicenna (980-1037), Averroes (1128-1198), and the other Muslim philosophers built on the work of the pagan Greek Aristotle. And Aristotle’s work was preserved from the ravages of the Dark Ages not first by Muslims, but by Christians such as the fifth-century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. The Christian Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873) translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac, from which they were translated into Arabic by his son. The Jacobite Christian Yahya ibn ‘Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote his own; his treatise The Reformation of Morals has occasionally been erroneously attributed to various of his Muslim contemporaries. His student, another Christian named Abu ‘Ali ‘Isa ibn Zur’a (943-1008), also made Arabic translations of Aristotle and other Greek writers from Syriac. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital, another source of pride among Muslims and often a prominent feature of Islamic accomplishment lists, was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate by a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians. The world’s first university may not have been the Muslims’ Al-Azhar in Cairo, as is often claimed, but the Assyrian School of Nisibis. source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006014.php
Islam's much-vaunted "golden age" was in reality the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed. The brief cultural blossoming during the first centuries of Islamic rule owed its existence almost entirely to the pre-Islamic heritage in a region that was still, for a while, majority non-Muslim… Jihad piracy and slavery remained a serious threat to Europeans for more than a thousand years. As historian Ibn Khaldun proudly proclaimed about the early Middle Ages: "The Christian could no longer float a plank upon the sea." The reason why the West for centuries didn't have easy access to the Classical learning of the Byzantine Empire was because endemic Muslim raids made the Mediterranean unsafe for regular travel. It has to be the height of absurdity to block access to something and then take credit for transmitting it, yet that is precisely what Muslims do. source: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3017/print
Islam’s Golden Age: An Archaeological Nonentity, by John J. O’Neill: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/islams-golden-age-archaeological.html#readfurther
The Nostalgia of Islamic Golden Age vs. the History of Science, by Syed Kamran Mirza: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Nostalgia-of-Islamic-Golden-Age.htm
Quinacrine ( talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the section End of the Golden Age needs be reorganized.
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nevit you make some good points, except I would challenge you to show concrete examples of alleged "lack of tolerance of intellectual debate". There are no real strong examples of this occurring in any sizable manner, unlike the Christian "West" with Galileo vs. the Catholic Church, the witch hunts, the Christian Inquisitions, etc. The main reasons for the wane in the power of certain Islamic Empires were due mostly to the Mongols pillaging and destruction of the Islamic heartland and most importantly the Mongol siege and utter destruction of the once mighty Abbasid capitol city of Baghdad in 1258 C.E. The Crusaders from Western Europe also did much damage to the Islamic Empires for a time. The Islamic world became fragmented and lacked communication for a while after these events (again Mongol invasions and Crusades). It took a time for the next great Islamic Empire the Ottomans to build up to the world power they were to become in their age.-- Historylover4 ( talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
What started the Islamic Golden Age? Summary and suggestion for reorganization of foundations paragraph.
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that the
Paul Vallely article used on this page, cites
www.1001inventions.com, and that is just another FTSC site, as per MuslimHeritage.com. I would guess that it has the same "unreliable source" problem.
All the best. –
Syncategoremata (
talk) 22:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This period of Abbasid rule in my opinion can not be classified as a golden age , since it was limited to the rule and lifetime of one or two abbasid caliphs (probably Al-Ma'mun who is known in shia islam for his order to exile Ali ar-Ridha); and the so called golden age had no societal and popular background. It is a case of exaggeration and overstatement.
92.42.52.23 ( talk) 06:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)goshtasp
Maybe it is the concept of golden age itself that is problematic. 195.90.104.27 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
Giving it some further thought, I believe that the main source of problems with this article is indeed the concept of the golden age. What does the concept signify? How is it defined? Who claims an age to be golden, and why? In my opinion, an article on the Islamic Golden Age, if seeking to be scientific or encyclopedic, should not try to describe this age in a directly historical manner, that is chronologically or otherwise listing its "golden" elements. Rather it should primarily adress the concept of the Golden Age in relation to the times and places it commonly refers to in a meta-historical manner. I would like to know: When was the idea of an Islamic Golden Age first conceived? Who first mentioned it as such? In what context was it mentioned? What notable scholars, historians, theologists, politicians, or orientalists, have debated the subject? Which are the main points of argument? What is the status of this debate today? On a side note - but not an unimportant one - any article on a particular golden age should probably use the same approach. 195.90.104.27 ( talk) 09:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, here are some other articles on various Golden Ages: Dutch Golden Age, Spanish Golden Age, Golden Age of Elizabeth (redirected to Elizabethan Era), Polish Golden Age (short), Irish Golden Age (redirects to History of Ireland). Those were all the articles I could find on Golden Ages of nations or empires. Then there are tons of others on various cultural phenomena ( Golden age of baseball for instance). Nejtan ( talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets be serious. The page is still a dump for the jagged or lets come up with a new outline. This source looks like a good one The golden age of Islam By Maurice Lombard. "Golden ages" are POV by definition but if we limit ourselves to reliable sources we could still have a good article J8079s ( talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Jagged's edits are particularly prone to claiming that an Islamic person was the first to do something. I am not saying that all claims to be first in this article are necessarily incorrect. It's entirely possible that many or even all of them are valid. However it's a very simple exercise and might highlight problematic areas, so I've done a quick word search for "first" in this article and come up with the following examples. Some seem more plausible to me than others, but I've not really attempted to exhaustively verify any of them. The intention is that editors with more knowledge of the subject and sources might be able to check and confirm or correct them.
-- Merlinme ( talk) 09:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: Are you sure this version hasn't already received the touch of Jagged? Because these tidbits from the 2007 version sound exactly like him:
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup2. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the current article is about as far as I can take it. I've looked at versions up to about 2008. After this point the article is essentially all Jagged. I don't trust the sources cited after this point, and I don't have time to chase down every Jagged claim. I'm certain the article could be further expanded and improved from here, but it will have to be by editors who understand the sources better than I do. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The opening quote on the page is wrong
The quote mentioned on the page was...
the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece, of Persia and of India. They added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from (present-day) Pakistan.
Whereas the real quote is
the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece and of Persia. They added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India.
Reference this this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.171.233 ( talk) 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
After the article has been cleaned of questionable "pro Islam" sources and claims, the opposing views sections needs to be fixed as well. At first glance this looks like "anti islam" faction did a questionable job here similar to what the "pro islam" faction originally did to the rest of the article. Some claims are unsourced and others seem to stem from sources hardly being reputable or at best academic fringe.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoever has been doing most of the editing appears to be a deeply partisan and anti-Muslim ideologue. The whole article relies almost entirely on 'sources' that are written by 'scholars' notorious for their blatant biases and hostility to Muslims. (though on second thought, a great many of the wikipedia articles related to Islamic subjects tend to rely on such propagandists). LeRoiBatard ( talk) 01:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since Srđa Trifković has a PhD in History, attempts to reject his comments in an historical article are entirely baseless. The fact that his degree is not specialized in Islamic Studies is irrelevant. The man has an advanced degree in History and is absolutely a RS for his own opinions on historical subjects. I'm going to restore the content that has been inappropriately deleted from the "Opposing Views" section. Further attempts at censorship will be reported as disruptive editing. Doc Tropics 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved except to note that the most important part of Bold, Revert, Discuss is Discuss, ideally while keeping things civil. I've removed the POV tag, because I believe it applied to text which is not currently in the article. Currently I'm reserving judgement on the notability of Sword of the Prophet until I've seen a review from a reliable source. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"This article has been shortened from a longer article which misused sources."
There were no misused sources. Infact having misused sources is better than having no sources at all! There is only ONE SOURCE for this WHOLE PAGE concerning a very vast subject. Also, what has the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain got to do with this subject at all?
Your basing a wikipedia article on one book? Donald R. Hill, Islamic Science And Engineering, Edinburgh University Press (1993), ISBN 0748604553.
The whole article is based on writers OPINIONS. It's an absolute utter joke we want the old page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.41.65 ( talk) 11:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Some sentences in some sections together serve for attacking to Islam.
The "Foundations" section, tries to say the science of Islamic civilization was not achieved inside, but just gathered from the ones before and around. This is incorrect because the most important ones were achieved centuries after Islam. They were a result of Islam's encouragement to science and preparing their bodies and minds for science.
The "Philosophy" section, inspires that the philosophies of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina were not the way Islam liked. This is wrong because they are and were considered of the greatest Islamic philosophers.
The "Causes of decline" section, obviously attacks certain aspects of Islam like "imitation", by expressions like "the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation)".
Let me explain. ijtihad is independent reasoning in every aspect of the religion, which an Ayatollah does for decades (some from youth to oldness (EDIT: and after that decades of study and reasoning they become an Ayatollah -- Lord'sServant ( talk) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)). Islam encourages everybody to do that.
(I think sunni people have "Imam" (leader) for asking him what they want to know, and don't imitate. Of course Imam means leader and Shia people have it too.) "Imitation" is accepting someone's reasoning capability, and trusting his judgement. Shia Islam says: When it's hard for everyone to have ijtihad in every aspect, if they believe someone to have complete knowledge over ijtihad, they can imitate him, or even if they believe someone to have complete knowledge over an aspect of ijtihad, they can imitate him in that aspect.
This excludes imitation in one aspect from different people, because the judgements that everybody did is with precise accordance with his other judgements in that aspect. Of course, one can choose to have the judgements of different people in an aspect, but only by reasoning, (i.e. he is doing ijtihad himself) so won't be imitation. Although everybody can have ijtihad for himself, people that do it for other people, are considered an "owner of ijtihad" only when they study it's science, and (some) other "owners of ijtihad" accept him as enough knowledgeable for it.
Opposing views like the "Foundations" section, which consider the golden age to have happened not because of Islam, is in accordance with the text in the "Opposing Views" section, and should be placed there. -- Lord'sServant ( talk) 02:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The transliteration of "Islamic Golden Age" gets endlessly changed by IP addresses, without explanation. The current version is:
(Arabic: العصر الذهبي للإسلام, al-'aṣr adh-dhahabiyy al-islām)
The previous version was:
al-'aṣr an-nahbī al-Islām)
We've also had a different version of the Arabic characters:
( Arabic: العصر الذهبي للإلام, al-'aṣr an-nahbī al-Islām)
Can someone who reads Arabic explain what's going on, please? Are these just different styles of transliteration? If so, is there a "preferred" version? Similarly is there a preferred version of the Arabic characters? -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am no authority on this subject, but after some cruising around, it seems to me that there is a fairly strong current of people who deny the existence or significance of the Islamic golden age. I am not agreeing with those folks, but I wonder if it would not be wise to place a subsection that addresses this trend. (not to be macabre, but a bit like the page on the Holocaust provides links to holocaust denial)
FYI, this trend seems to largely be spearheaded by Robert Spencer. Thoughts? -Maxkbennett
actually that is an important point as Europe though all ages, ancient to modern (particularly the Christian theocracies and monarchies), covered up Islamic advance, with most in Europe assuming that Islamic states were backwards primitive people despite using many Islamic inventions in everyday life. Hypo Mix ( talk) 05:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably every theory and mainstream view is denied by someone. Unless someone can point to this being a well established view I don't think this has any potential. -- 85.145.56.218 ( talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Why was the "neutrality is disputed" tag removed and the whole discussion moved to the archive, although more than half a dozen (!) contributors have complained over time about both the main authors lack of actual knowledge of the sources he quoted and its overall tendentious treatment? Is this how things are done when nobody is looking for a moment? The article still is biased. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis
Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm
Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677
Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A Bigger Picture —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.215.86.123 (
talk) 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see that this article has taken many people by surprise, causing disputes and even pushing some to religious comparison. I would like to point out that this article is about the Islamic civilization and empire, not religion. I would also like to add that this Islamic golden age lasted for a period no less than 500 hundred years and extended from Spain in the west, to India in the East. The empire included peoples from every almost every race on the eastern side of the Atlantic. It is only natural that a nation holding the sole super power status for half a millenium would go through ever-changing phases. No doubt that at certain, historically documented times, oppresive rulers took hold of power. Some promoted religious intolerance and others opression of the sciences. But it is also important to note that during the majority of the age of this empire; expansion, development and innovation were the main themes in a multi-ethnic, religiously tolerant environment. Numerous scientists, artists and philosophers achieved milestones in their fields. Such fields include documented works on medicine, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, literature and more. Scientists were mostly muslim; as was the majority of the population. However, several prominent Jewish and Christian scientists flourished in the empire.
I am compelled to add a very brief outline on the rise of the Islamic empire, Geography:starts in Mecca with the birth of the prophet, expanding to the inter-continental borders within 80 years. Academia: a belief in the divinity of knowledge led to the pursuit and translation of academic texts from Greece, Egypt, India and other ancient civiliations, followed by an explosive growth in scientific research and experimentation.
I have not written this article, but I found that aside from some exaggerated facts and boldly stated misconceptions, most the information within is correct.
Do excuse me if my reply was short or overly general. I would be glad to discuss any of the topics mentioned above in finer detail, do not hesitate to initiate contact.
H.AB
i agree with Gun Powder Ma, there isnt enough detail, and for me about the advances brought on by East Syrians (members of the Church of the East) during the Sassanian period where they were the driving force in the translation of Greek philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. from Greek to Syriacs ... these translations were predomenatly found in School of Edessa (before it was close) then in School of Nisibis, and from there in many other schools. It was after the Islamic invasion of Mesopotamia that once again these Greek texts were translated from Syriac to Arabic by Assyrians themselves. This is the reason why the "Islamic Golden Age" began. Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" I think there needs to be a seperate section just on the Assyrian (Nestorian, East Syrian, Syriac etc.)contribution to the Islamic Golden Age. I advize you to research on this topic, and if you want me to I am able to make this section for you. Malik Danno ( talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Without the contribution of the Assyrians and the fact that they translated countless Greek texts to Syriac and later to Arabic there wouldnt have been an "Islamic Golden Age" | ” |
Yes but by far the Assyrians were the most influential players in the Early Islamic Golden Age, yet there is no mention of them whatsoever. Malik Danno ( talk) 10:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a very interesting question. Was, what now is usually refered to as the "Islamic Golden Age", just the last breath of a much older tradition and "Golden Age"? The region had been under Persian and Hellenistic influence for a long time and that has to have had a great impact on science and culture in the early Islamic world. Joe hill ( talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If so, you need to site a source which supports this analysis. If you want to improve the article, get to work, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. Maxkbennett ( talk) 23:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
How can Ibn al-Nafis be the same person in the two views???
Traditionalist Muslims at the time, including the polymath Ibn al-Nafis, believed that the Crusades and Mongol invasions may have been a divine punishment from God against Muslims deviating from the Sunnah. As a result, the falsafa, some of whom held ideas incompatible with the Sunnah, became targets of criticism from many traditionalist Muslims, though other traditionalists such as Ibn al-Nafis made attempts at reconciling reason with revelation and blur the line between the two.[205]
Why is this a part of wiki iran even though islam originates from mecca (which is a part of KSA"SAUDI ARABIA") why is there written about rice and mango coming from india actually pakistani rice and mangoes are famous it means a over-proud indian or irani wrote this page !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark dragon474 ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Arabwiki ( talk) 11:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
To the poster above who wrote the section "wrong", I'm an ethnic arab and never been to iran or india or any of the countries you whine about. I would like to say to you stop. Stop these sad arguments. What are we now? all of us in the islamic world, what is our status as a nation? Iran and Turkey are two major pillars of the Islamic world. Iranians and Turkish scholars have contributed tremendously to the Islamic world. The land of Arabs - or Arabia (I will not call it the new name that a family of thieves gave to it) is where some of the finest muslims come from. But just because our great prophet comes from there doesn't mean that you or me as arabs have any special status. Mohammed came to all humanity and Allah himself said that no one is better than the other except by faith (Taqua). Persians and Turks in the days of our greatness were shining muslims. So this is to all of us, all the major races in islam that contributed to what was once the leading nation of the whole world, to them I say lets at least unite in our past. To have an appreciation of what we used to be as an integrated nation.
So let them call it part of WikiIran or WikiIraq or WikiWhatever.
I must say that mention of persian scholars is a little too much compared to others, but it is not biased as you put it.
May Allah bless you all my brothers.
60.53.52.1 ( talk) 09:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The first comments on this article are already coming. Please see here and also here. Thank you.
— Cesar Tort 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added an {overlinked} tag at the top of the article per peer-review. — Cesar Tort 01:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious. I have this page on my watchlist somehow, must have made a minor edit one day i don't remember, and have noticed several times information being added, and then reverted as vandalism, about slavery. Why is this vandalism? Were there actually no slaves in the Islamic Golden Age? Is the information, including references, made up? If there were slaves, surely that deserves a mention, which it doesn't get in the non-vandalised version, if for no other reason than completeness? As i say, i'm curious; just not enough to go trailing through archives (though i did have a quick look) and the History of the page in order to find out. Can someone tell me why this edit [1] is vandalism? Cheers, Lindsay Hi 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit [2] was reverted as vandalism. This is wrong. I have reinstated it because it is relevant to the economy at the time and it is well cited (well nothing glaring jumped out and said blog). Argue in this section why the slave trade can' be mentioned. Ttiotsw ( talk) 07:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the institution of slavery played some sort of role within the economy of Muslim states, just as it did throughout the rest of the world. Does it have anything to do with the Golden Age as such? This connection must be verified by the reliable sources, else making the connection ourselves is original research. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree Zenv. We should delete it. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 21:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You should include it. The main takeaway of this generally interesting article is that Mecca, as the "center" of civiliaztion at a more-or-less peaceful time was the central clearinghouse for commerce (in both goods and ideas) from around the world. Not that IGA invented these things in a vaccuum. You can't speak blithely about Arabian-African trade without acknowledging who was being traded. (Unless you're writing ad copy, in which case you'll need to bring it all back to beaches, bars, and interesting boutiques.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.53 ( talk) 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues; {{POV}} {{Disputed}} {{Self-published}} {{citecheck}} {{Primarysources}} Please read these sources:
Reading wikipedia should make us smater. Please help. J8079s ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Under technology it says they invented "soap bar", which, along with being a bar of soap, is a slang term in the UK for low-grade hash. Now, these guys did invent hash, or at least the word hashish, but which does the mean. If the article is referring to "a bar of soap" hadn't we better put it that way? And if we mean hash, hadn't we better put it that way? Didshe ( talk)
There are only two mentionings of the qur'an on this article.
As far as the arabic literature wiki goes, shouldn't the quran be added as a reference. Perhaps number of copies made over time, styles developed during the era? Also shouldn't their be something about literacy rates, since literacy and language would have been a precursor to any civil development? Faro0485 ( talk) 10:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
as I stated above, the 'Islamic Renaissance' would not have existed without the translation of Greek/Latin works to Syriac and finally to Arabic. The fact is that ancient works were translated by Nestorian and Jacobite monks (initially) then were taught throughout schools in Mesopotamia (school of Edessa) and when the Arabs conquered Mesopotamia it was these people who translated the works to Arabic. That link is missing in this page ... there is mention of Greek/Latin works used for the flourishing of Islamic Renaissance, however no mention of Nestorian/Jacobite involvement in that matter. Malik Danno ( talk) 23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole Controversy section is supported by one source - islam-watch.org which obviously is a highly biased, extremist, fringe site which would satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources. In my opinion, those sections should be removed as they are not supported by mainstream and widespread reliable sources. Any comments? Zencv Whisper 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the inventions listed under technology need greater specificity. I am referring to primarily crystallization, purification, oxidation, and evaporation. Except for purification these are natural processes, not inventions. The links either go to either an article on the natural process or a disambiguation page, so its very difficult to determine just what invention the article is talking about. Most of the inventions listed are clear and specific enough. It is really just the few that I previously mentioned that are unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlenthe ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states that the Golden Age lasted from the 9th-13th centuries (or, at latest, the 15th century) CE. The Taj Mahal was built in the mid-17th century. Does this make sense? I'm sure that we could find a more suitable illustration. 99.23.131.154 ( talk) 06:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Islamic Golden Age lasted longer than the 13th century, this is nothing more than people trying to diminish Islams great history and signifficance to the world. It ran until at least the 15th century, some people try to push that the Islamic Golden age is a myth and that it never existed, none of this is factual but people trying to strangle Islam and it's powerful impact on our society, a shame really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.62.236 ( talk) 01:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just tagged the Islamic Golden Age#Urbanization section, in particular the section on life expectancy, with almost every tag in the book.
The basic claim that life expectancy was higher in this civilisation is supported only by WP:SYNTH, by taking figures to suit the argument from various sources. No source used here actually makes this claim.
In particular no source makes the leading claim that any increase was due to improved medical care; in fact the sources contradict the claims made there. For example the citation of Conrad (2006), The Western Medical Tradition to support the claim for the average life expectancy in the Caliphate actually says that Arab-Islamic physicians "could do little, for example, to change the facts that life expectancy was not much above 35 years" (p. 137). Elsewhere in the same book we find the statement about "the well-being of the general population, with which the early caliphate was not particularly concerned" (p. 102).
Add to this that the studies quoted from Shatzmiller (1994), Labour in the medieval Islamic world, are described by her as "a misleading sample" (p. 66).
Also some of the sources cited are of very poor quality (TV program summaries, a University 'thought for the day' page, etc.).
If no-one can find some decent sources to support this, I will delete it.
All the best. — Syncategoremata ( talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I tagged the article since the issues are numerous.
In sum, what the article urgently needs is editing work which shows a willingness to adapt the article to historical reality, not one which tries by misinterpretation to adapt the cited sources to a pre-conceived, rose-coloured view. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You dont have British calling the industrial revolution a 'Darwinian age', nor do you have Americans calling technological advances a 'Christian age'
So why should it be called the Islamic age? Why not the Ayyubid dynasty? 78.149.198.245 ( talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree...
The reason lies in the religious zeal expressed by many Muslims, who have a vested interest in arguing that everything positive that happened was due to their religion and holy book, while in the same breath applying a clear double standard by vehemently arguing against including slavery and other negative aspects under the same religious label.
Another reason is a policy of appeasement by some Western scholars who know full well that this kind of labeling will be received favorably by Muslims increasing their own stature in the process.
In reality, though, this is a highly offensive label given the non-Muslim religious affiliation of many of those who are posthumously included as parts of a so called "Islamic Golden Age". It's abuse of history at its worst, serving contemporary religious and political purposes, the third sentence of the article says it all really:
"Muslim artists and scientists, princes and laborers together made a unique culture that has directly and indirectly influenced societies on every continent".
I guess all these people were posthumously converted to Islam thanks to which we all can marvel at the "Islamic" accomplishments? Labels such as Islamic Physics are even more absurd, though they are merely a logical derivative of this initial wrong label.
Abvgd ( talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians." - Bernard Lewis
Most of the scientists, poets and philosophers in Islam’s golden age (the time of the Abassid Caliphate) were Jews, Christians or Muslims who were suspected of apostasy or blasphemy. Many suffered harassment and even death. Thus if science did flourish during this golden age, it was in spite of Islam and not because of it. source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus/islam_failed_muslims.htm
Muslims claim many, many accomplishments we know they had nothing to do with. Arabic numerals? From India. The concept of zero? From Babylonia. Parabolic arches? From Assyria. The much ballyhooed claim of translating the Greek corpus of knowledge into Arabic? It was the Christian Assyrians, who first translated to Syriac, then to Arabic. The first University? Not Al-Azhar in Cairo (988 A.D.), but the School of Nisibis of the Church of the East (350 A.D.), which had three departments: Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. Al-Azhar only teaches Theology. Speaking of medicine, Muslims will claim that medicine during the Golden Age of Islam, the Abbasid period, was the most advanced in the world. That is correct. But what they don't say is that the medical practitioners were exclusively Christians. The most famous medical family, the Bakhtishu family, Assyrians of the Church of the East, produced seven generations of doctors, who were the official physicians to the Caliphs of Baghdad for nearly 200 years… In his book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, O'Leary lists 22 scholars and translators during the Golden Age of Islam; 20 were Christians, 1 was a Persian, and 1 was a Muslim. This covers about a 250 year period… It was al-Ghazali… who denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah… Christianity asks the believer to think and analyze, to interpret and deduce. Islam asks the believer to obey blindly and without question. source: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4D818187-782D-4AA9-BEFA-64C5A00D9677
Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, the Arab world's initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of "Islam" but of Aramaeans and Christian Arabs, a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Moorish Spain… Bayt al-Hikma, or the House of Wisdom, said to be created by the Abassids in the ninth century, was limited to the study of Koranic science, rather than philosophy, physics or mathematics, as understood in the speculative context of Greek thought. source: http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12398698
The architectural design of mosques, for example, long a source of pride among Muslims, was copied from the shape and structure of Byzantine churches… The seventh-century Dome of the Rock, considered today to have been first great mosque, was not only copied from Byzantine models, but was built by Byzantine craftsmen… The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. Avicenna (980-1037), Averroes (1128-1198), and the other Muslim philosophers built on the work of the pagan Greek Aristotle. And Aristotle’s work was preserved from the ravages of the Dark Ages not first by Muslims, but by Christians such as the fifth-century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. The Christian Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873) translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac, from which they were translated into Arabic by his son. The Jacobite Christian Yahya ibn ‘Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote his own; his treatise The Reformation of Morals has occasionally been erroneously attributed to various of his Muslim contemporaries. His student, another Christian named Abu ‘Ali ‘Isa ibn Zur’a (943-1008), also made Arabic translations of Aristotle and other Greek writers from Syriac. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital, another source of pride among Muslims and often a prominent feature of Islamic accomplishment lists, was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate by a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians. The world’s first university may not have been the Muslims’ Al-Azhar in Cairo, as is often claimed, but the Assyrian School of Nisibis. source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006014.php
Islam's much-vaunted "golden age" was in reality the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures, an echo of times passed. The brief cultural blossoming during the first centuries of Islamic rule owed its existence almost entirely to the pre-Islamic heritage in a region that was still, for a while, majority non-Muslim… Jihad piracy and slavery remained a serious threat to Europeans for more than a thousand years. As historian Ibn Khaldun proudly proclaimed about the early Middle Ages: "The Christian could no longer float a plank upon the sea." The reason why the West for centuries didn't have easy access to the Classical learning of the Byzantine Empire was because endemic Muslim raids made the Mediterranean unsafe for regular travel. It has to be the height of absurdity to block access to something and then take credit for transmitting it, yet that is precisely what Muslims do. source: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3017/print
Islam’s Golden Age: An Archaeological Nonentity, by John J. O’Neill: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/islams-golden-age-archaeological.html#readfurther
The Nostalgia of Islamic Golden Age vs. the History of Science, by Syed Kamran Mirza: http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Nostalgia-of-Islamic-Golden-Age.htm
Quinacrine ( talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the section End of the Golden Age needs be reorganized.
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Nevit you make some good points, except I would challenge you to show concrete examples of alleged "lack of tolerance of intellectual debate". There are no real strong examples of this occurring in any sizable manner, unlike the Christian "West" with Galileo vs. the Catholic Church, the witch hunts, the Christian Inquisitions, etc. The main reasons for the wane in the power of certain Islamic Empires were due mostly to the Mongols pillaging and destruction of the Islamic heartland and most importantly the Mongol siege and utter destruction of the once mighty Abbasid capitol city of Baghdad in 1258 C.E. The Crusaders from Western Europe also did much damage to the Islamic Empires for a time. The Islamic world became fragmented and lacked communication for a while after these events (again Mongol invasions and Crusades). It took a time for the next great Islamic Empire the Ottomans to build up to the world power they were to become in their age.-- Historylover4 ( talk) 07:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
What started the Islamic Golden Age? Summary and suggestion for reorganization of foundations paragraph.
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that the
Paul Vallely article used on this page, cites
www.1001inventions.com, and that is just another FTSC site, as per MuslimHeritage.com. I would guess that it has the same "unreliable source" problem.
All the best. –
Syncategoremata (
talk) 22:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
This period of Abbasid rule in my opinion can not be classified as a golden age , since it was limited to the rule and lifetime of one or two abbasid caliphs (probably Al-Ma'mun who is known in shia islam for his order to exile Ali ar-Ridha); and the so called golden age had no societal and popular background. It is a case of exaggeration and overstatement.
92.42.52.23 ( talk) 06:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)goshtasp
Maybe it is the concept of golden age itself that is problematic. 195.90.104.27 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC).
Giving it some further thought, I believe that the main source of problems with this article is indeed the concept of the golden age. What does the concept signify? How is it defined? Who claims an age to be golden, and why? In my opinion, an article on the Islamic Golden Age, if seeking to be scientific or encyclopedic, should not try to describe this age in a directly historical manner, that is chronologically or otherwise listing its "golden" elements. Rather it should primarily adress the concept of the Golden Age in relation to the times and places it commonly refers to in a meta-historical manner. I would like to know: When was the idea of an Islamic Golden Age first conceived? Who first mentioned it as such? In what context was it mentioned? What notable scholars, historians, theologists, politicians, or orientalists, have debated the subject? Which are the main points of argument? What is the status of this debate today? On a side note - but not an unimportant one - any article on a particular golden age should probably use the same approach. 195.90.104.27 ( talk) 09:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, here are some other articles on various Golden Ages: Dutch Golden Age, Spanish Golden Age, Golden Age of Elizabeth (redirected to Elizabethan Era), Polish Golden Age (short), Irish Golden Age (redirects to History of Ireland). Those were all the articles I could find on Golden Ages of nations or empires. Then there are tons of others on various cultural phenomena ( Golden age of baseball for instance). Nejtan ( talk) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets be serious. The page is still a dump for the jagged or lets come up with a new outline. This source looks like a good one The golden age of Islam By Maurice Lombard. "Golden ages" are POV by definition but if we limit ourselves to reliable sources we could still have a good article J8079s ( talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Jagged's edits are particularly prone to claiming that an Islamic person was the first to do something. I am not saying that all claims to be first in this article are necessarily incorrect. It's entirely possible that many or even all of them are valid. However it's a very simple exercise and might highlight problematic areas, so I've done a quick word search for "first" in this article and come up with the following examples. Some seem more plausible to me than others, but I've not really attempted to exhaustively verify any of them. The intention is that editors with more knowledge of the subject and sources might be able to check and confirm or correct them.
-- Merlinme ( talk) 09:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: Are you sure this version hasn't already received the touch of Jagged? Because these tidbits from the 2007 version sound exactly like him:
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at cleanup2. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.
A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.
Johnuniq ( talk) 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the current article is about as far as I can take it. I've looked at versions up to about 2008. After this point the article is essentially all Jagged. I don't trust the sources cited after this point, and I don't have time to chase down every Jagged claim. I'm certain the article could be further expanded and improved from here, but it will have to be by editors who understand the sources better than I do. -- Merlinme ( talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The opening quote on the page is wrong
The quote mentioned on the page was...
the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece, of Persia and of India. They added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from (present-day) Pakistan.
Whereas the real quote is
the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle East, of Greece and of Persia. They added new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India.
Reference this this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.171.233 ( talk) 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
After the article has been cleaned of questionable "pro Islam" sources and claims, the opposing views sections needs to be fixed as well. At first glance this looks like "anti islam" faction did a questionable job here similar to what the "pro islam" faction originally did to the rest of the article. Some claims are unsourced and others seem to stem from sources hardly being reputable or at best academic fringe.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoever has been doing most of the editing appears to be a deeply partisan and anti-Muslim ideologue. The whole article relies almost entirely on 'sources' that are written by 'scholars' notorious for their blatant biases and hostility to Muslims. (though on second thought, a great many of the wikipedia articles related to Islamic subjects tend to rely on such propagandists). LeRoiBatard ( talk) 01:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since Srđa Trifković has a PhD in History, attempts to reject his comments in an historical article are entirely baseless. The fact that his degree is not specialized in Islamic Studies is irrelevant. The man has an advanced degree in History and is absolutely a RS for his own opinions on historical subjects. I'm going to restore the content that has been inappropriately deleted from the "Opposing Views" section. Further attempts at censorship will be reported as disruptive editing. Doc Tropics 15:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved except to note that the most important part of Bold, Revert, Discuss is Discuss, ideally while keeping things civil. I've removed the POV tag, because I believe it applied to text which is not currently in the article. Currently I'm reserving judgement on the notability of Sword of the Prophet until I've seen a review from a reliable source. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"This article has been shortened from a longer article which misused sources."
There were no misused sources. Infact having misused sources is better than having no sources at all! There is only ONE SOURCE for this WHOLE PAGE concerning a very vast subject. Also, what has the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain got to do with this subject at all?
Your basing a wikipedia article on one book? Donald R. Hill, Islamic Science And Engineering, Edinburgh University Press (1993), ISBN 0748604553.
The whole article is based on writers OPINIONS. It's an absolute utter joke we want the old page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.41.65 ( talk) 11:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Some sentences in some sections together serve for attacking to Islam.
The "Foundations" section, tries to say the science of Islamic civilization was not achieved inside, but just gathered from the ones before and around. This is incorrect because the most important ones were achieved centuries after Islam. They were a result of Islam's encouragement to science and preparing their bodies and minds for science.
The "Philosophy" section, inspires that the philosophies of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina were not the way Islam liked. This is wrong because they are and were considered of the greatest Islamic philosophers.
The "Causes of decline" section, obviously attacks certain aspects of Islam like "imitation", by expressions like "the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalised taqleed (imitation)".
Let me explain. ijtihad is independent reasoning in every aspect of the religion, which an Ayatollah does for decades (some from youth to oldness (EDIT: and after that decades of study and reasoning they become an Ayatollah -- Lord'sServant ( talk) 23:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)). Islam encourages everybody to do that.
(I think sunni people have "Imam" (leader) for asking him what they want to know, and don't imitate. Of course Imam means leader and Shia people have it too.) "Imitation" is accepting someone's reasoning capability, and trusting his judgement. Shia Islam says: When it's hard for everyone to have ijtihad in every aspect, if they believe someone to have complete knowledge over ijtihad, they can imitate him, or even if they believe someone to have complete knowledge over an aspect of ijtihad, they can imitate him in that aspect.
This excludes imitation in one aspect from different people, because the judgements that everybody did is with precise accordance with his other judgements in that aspect. Of course, one can choose to have the judgements of different people in an aspect, but only by reasoning, (i.e. he is doing ijtihad himself) so won't be imitation. Although everybody can have ijtihad for himself, people that do it for other people, are considered an "owner of ijtihad" only when they study it's science, and (some) other "owners of ijtihad" accept him as enough knowledgeable for it.
Opposing views like the "Foundations" section, which consider the golden age to have happened not because of Islam, is in accordance with the text in the "Opposing Views" section, and should be placed there. -- Lord'sServant ( talk) 02:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The transliteration of "Islamic Golden Age" gets endlessly changed by IP addresses, without explanation. The current version is:
(Arabic: العصر الذهبي للإسلام, al-'aṣr adh-dhahabiyy al-islām)
The previous version was:
al-'aṣr an-nahbī al-Islām)
We've also had a different version of the Arabic characters:
( Arabic: العصر الذهبي للإلام, al-'aṣr an-nahbī al-Islām)
Can someone who reads Arabic explain what's going on, please? Are these just different styles of transliteration? If so, is there a "preferred" version? Similarly is there a preferred version of the Arabic characters? -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |