Talk:Islamic Golden Age/Archive 2

Denial
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)


 * Using Islamic Inventions? Since when does a "religion" invent things other then religious ones? Were Newton or Galilei Christian Scientists or made inventions in the name of Christianity? Or is it not more the case that they were just scientist who lived in a Christian society? There is only one true Islamic-Sciene and that is Ilm al-Tafsir, and it has nothing to do with physics or mathematics.-- 77.117.11.214 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Science allah carte http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/science_allah_carte --178.115.126.90 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bias
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)


 * I don't think so... the only person I remember accusing me of a "lack of actual knowledge of the sources he quoted" is you. Also, the talk page was archived obviously because the length of the talk page was over 65K. And for the record, I had no part in any of the decisions that were made for this article over the past six months (besides maybe a few minor edits here and there). Jagged 85 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I'm not a scholar in the history of science, many statements advancing the idea that much of Islamic science preceded Western science need an urgent peer-review in this wiki. Anyone willing to request it in the boards? Meanwhile, a major de-wikifying of the article is needed. Lots of blue words should be turned black. Wikification is only pertinent with the first mention of a specific word. Instead, many words are being wikified multiple times in this article. —Cesar Tort 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC) OK, I've requested it already. —Cesar Tort 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Finetooth has commented on this article and yes: we need a lot of cleanup, starting from de-wikifying dozens of words in blue. Please see his comments. —Cesar Tort 05:11, 25 October 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 and Religious Freedom**? Was that supposed to be a joke or something? A systematic destruction of pagan places of worship and persecution of followers of such religions was a key policy for most of the Islamic Rulers. Islamic invasions absolutely routed Buddhism and Zoroastrianism from Iran, Central Asia and South Asia.Islamic Rule in South Asia marked a pinnacle of bigotry and religious suppression in a region that was usually known for religious tolerance and mutual co-poeration among differing ideologies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.154.164 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Syriac (Assyrian) Influence
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"


 * Uh...r-i-g-h-t... You do know there were other ethnicities involved? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.    Talk   Contribs  21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only see question marks instead of your signature. Which software are we missing? —Cesar Tort 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Who, me? It's in Japanese. Can you still click on it? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.    Talk   Contribs  21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes: I can click on it. I guess I don't have the software to see the letters. —Cesar Tort 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * u dont need any software change ur browser encoding to unicode or UTF-8 Supersaiyan474 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Contradiction- Ibn Al Nafis
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]

wrong
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)

Peer-review on this article
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 believe the issue with the article is less its extensive use of links, it is much more the one-sided way in which sources are given, sources whose contents and meaning are clearly not understood by the author, who also shows IMO a lack of motivation looking for contrary scholarly opinions. The tag should be about the unbalanced views given. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, I've tagged it. I'm specifically concerned about what I say in Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1. —Cesar Tort 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?
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 is vandalism? Cheers, LindsayHi 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Slave trade did exist during Islamic Golden age, but it was not a product of this era. Slave trade existed way back before Koran and Islamic societies were in any case not among the worst practitioners of slave trade. How would slave trade be relevant to this article? ZencvLets discuss 13:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, how would it not be relevant? If it existed at the time, if it was a part of the Golden Age, even if it wasn't exactly what it was built on, surely that's relevance.  As for your other point, slavery existed way back before the United States was founded, but that doesn't mean we don't talk about it in any discussion of the first half of the Nineteenth Century in that country.  I guess i'm just failing to see why something that appears to be an effort to make Islam look better isn't what it appears, and i'm hoping someone can help me see that.  Cheers, LindsayHi 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Zencv was wrong to revert it as vandalism and tag it a minor edit on the revert. Wikipedia would be so lucky if that was the quality of "vandalism". As  Zencv doesn't look like they'll self-revert I'll do that. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, one can mention slave trade in islamic golden age within a specific context, but having a specific section on this, completely out of rhythm with the flow of article is not warranted. The Anon IP editor who has added this has done the same on this Islamic_economics_in_the_world though I dont understand the relevanve of slave trade in that article. Sorry, you have not given me a convincing argument that why should we have a separate section on this and how having this section would help an unbiased reader understand Islamic golden age better. As for your opinion on "an effort to make Islam look better", why is it a problem to mention good points of Islam without having to mention all the irrelevant and unimportant negative points? As for comparison see Catholic_church. Neither slave trade, nor paedophilia are mentioned anywhere though they engaged in these practices abundantly. ZencvLets discuss 12:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See the relevant section in the talk. Next time please WP:AGF instead of simply assuming vandalism. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I assumed vandalism for some good reason - the editor tried to add a completely new and irrelevant section for the second time without
 * discussing in the talk page
 * arguing or explaining his rationale for it to be included in the article ZencvLets discuss 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Slave trade
The edit 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)


 * My edit has been reverted because someone doesn't like it and once again tagged as a minor edit. I don't think they understand the process here. The specific context is the economics. It would seem that slaves are essential to the economics of the Islamic Golden age. Would the person please WP:AGF regarding any editor even if they are an IP editor. Also there is no reason to equate this article with the Catholic_church. Each article in Wikipedia is edited according to the topic. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I pointed Catholic church as a good example. Your edits were not reverted because of dislike, but you failed to give any convincing argument to have your section included in this article. Having foolproof grammar and even reliable sources alone doesn't warrant inclusion. What you wanted to be included if it is disputable have to be discussed in the talk page and a concensus have to be built. I am afraid that the onus is on you to do that  ZencvLets discuss 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The role of slavery in the economy can not be ignored. Restore the section and link to Islam and slavery or delete the entire economic section.J8079s (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa. The IGA economics can't include the slave trade as this was strictly Arab. Many in the Golden age were of different ethnicities (Muslims, Christians and Jews etc...) who did not partcipate in the slave trade. Don't confuse religion with IGA please. Obviously it can't be ignored. I would suggest amalagmating it to another section if need be mentioned. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.    Talk   Contribs  21:12, 9 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)
 * What about the Mamluks ?J8079s (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the person who added this section back did not explain
 * * How slavery played a role in IGA and how big a role to warrant a separate section?
 * * How can Islamic slave trade be equivalent of Arab slave trade?
 * * The practice of slavery existed before and after IGA and Christians and Jews were quite important chains in the slave trade. How does it warrant a separate section here? I am deleting it as the questions are unanswered and an NPOV tag stays there like a big thump for no reason ZencvLets discuss 17:45, 3 December 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)

NPOV et al
This article has multiple issues; Please read these sources: Reading wikipedia should make us smater. Please help.J8079s (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Labour in the Medieval Islamic World By Maya Shatzmiller Published by BRILL, 1994 ISBN 9004098968 (see at google books)
 * The Making of Humanity By Robert Briffault Published by G. Allen & Unwin ltd., 1919 Original from the University of California Digitized Oct 18, 2007 371 pages available in its entirety here: http://books.google.com/books?id=usdCAAAAIAAJ please see part II chapter V
 * How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs By De Lacy O'Leary D.D. First published in Great Britain in 1949 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Reprinted three times. This edition first published in 1979 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 39 Store Street, London WC1E7DD, Broadway House, Newtown Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG91EN and 9 Park Street, Boston, Mass. 02108, USA Printed in Great Britain by Caledonian Graphics Cumbernauld, Scotland ISBN 0 7100 1903 3 Assyrian International News Agency Books Online read it here: http://www.aina.org/books/hgsptta.htm#ch13 (O'leary is using "Arab" in the same sense that the article uses "Islam")


 * Why don't you give us an argument? What is the point of reading these sources? I mean the tags are very wide ranging. What specific place in the article does this apply? LOTRrules   Talk   Contribs  22:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you like The Golden Age of Islam, you will love these books. I am going off line for a few days. I will try to help in the new year.J8079s (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has a great deal of one-sidedness and puffery about it. I note the presure to exclude critical features like the basis in slavery. There are also extremely dubious statements such as that islam invented the hospital and the public library! Untrue.  Xan  dar  22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on that, we should clear up those points. We should add a little bit about the nature of slaves, and their roles in the Golden Age. We should also add the role of women during the era  Faro0485 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hash/Soap
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)

Quran
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)
 * shouldn't the quran be added as a reference... No, Wikipedia relies primarly on secondary sources. Please refer to WP:PRIMARY. As for the second part of your post, I must say 'yes, definitely. do you have any figures and information?' --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The following might be something Islamic economics Faro0485 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * scientific method being rather the islamic method Faro0485 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nestorian/Jacobite involvement
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)

Criticism and Islam-Watch.org
The whole Controversy section is supported by one source - islam-watch.org which obviously is a highly biased, extremist, fringe site which would satisfy Reliable_sources. In my opinion, those sections should be removed as they are not supported by mainstream and widespread reliable sources. Any comments?  Z e n c v  Whisper 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All the cites in that section seem to refer back to a single book, apparently (according to its listing on Amazon) published via Felibri.com, which advertises itself as "A Community of Self-Published Authors". There appears to be one reference to a non-self-published work right at the end, but the section just refers to this book as containing "A similar and even more detailed analysis" without actually citing or quoting any specific part of it, which seems to fail the verifiability test's citation standards. I've therefore removed the entire section, as per WP:V/WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if someone was going to clean that up. I do think though that a denial section may not be out of place as a number of "experts" (self proclaimed or otherwise) deny this period's existence or significance.  I'm gonna set up a denial section, just to recognize that these guys do exist, and they make a lot of noise. If you think this is inappropriate, let me know. Maxkbennett (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * By "denial" section, I assume that you meant a section similar to "Criticism of ...". The problem with such a separate section in any article is that it often becomes a placeholder for pseudo academic research or other polemics. But we should incorporate other well sourced and relevant pointing of shortcomings of Golden age in the existing sections wherever appropriate, thus maintaining the flow of the article.  Z e n c v  Whisper  18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I do think it is worth mentioning the pseudo academic elements in the discussion because they have become so prevalent. If you visit a bookstore (in the states anyway) many of the books that deal with this are by deniers.Maxkbennett (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So long as something is well sourced and relevant, alright. As for a separate section, I was just stating a general opinion. In fact, there is no clear guidance in this regard. See Criticism  Z e n c v  Whisper  19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Technology
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)

Top Picture
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)

Claims on life expectancy
I've just tagged the Islamic Golden Age 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)


 * Hi. I've entirely re-written the paragraphs on life expectancy and literacy, based on the reliable sources, while quoting extensively from those sources to make sure what's written in the article is consistent with the cited sources. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and disputed neutrality
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)
 * POV: Generally, the article seems to be a bit too keen to trumpet 'Islamic' achievements, trying to make it appear the earlier and better Western civilization. Obviously, someone has an axe to grind.
 * Presentism and anticipation: modern (Western) terms like "globalization", "age of discovery", "industrial growth", "market economy" are used anachronistically. The same is true of "Islamic democracy", today a rare occurrence, back then as unknown as atomic energy
 * Revolution: supposedly revolutionary aspects are far too much stressed, the evolutionary or stagnant aspects of pre-industrial societies is systematically overlooked or downplayed
 * Disputed material: Much of the material included here has already been shown to be flawed elsewhere and consequently removed or reworded. This clear-up needs to be done here, too. E.g. claim of the earliest 'hospital', 'universities', 'public libraries', but in fact much more.
 * Synthesis: the recent addition which compares life span of Islamic scholars with the average life span in other ancient societies is a point in case. It then hurriedly goes on to put the comparison into perspective, but one is still left wondering why apples and oranges are compared here


 * Your reference to my recent update as "Synthesis" is completely false. Nowhere does the paragraph directly compare the "life span of Islamic scholars with the average life span in other ancient societies" in any way. Neither does my update contradict what's in the cited sources in any way (as you can see from the quotes I've provided). Of all the edits you could have nit-picked, I'm surprised you went for that one, as it can only hurt your case if anything. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, since we both agree that the original sources don't compare the life-spans that way, I wonder why you still juxtaposed them? This is classical synthesis: to take two unconnected sources A and B and to bring them together in close proximity to suggest C which, however, can be found in neither source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't see your point. The conclusion was based on Maya Shatzmiller alone, not on a "synthesis" of two or more sources. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And Shatzmiller, as you write yourself, considers this sample misleading. So why do you include it in the first place? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fatimid Caliphate instead of islamic age?
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)

Islamic golden age is a myth
"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)


 * I have to say that this does not match my own understanding and reading on this subject, where the idea of an "Islamic golden age" is not uncommon (though the dates and exact scope tend to vary from author to author). I don't have the time right now to look at the sources you have listed here, but if they were to be reliable (and not just belonging to a fringe or minority position), then a summary of their position might well belong on Wikipedia, however much I might personally disagree with it.
 * Then again, looking at your other edits here on Wikipedia, it seems extremely unlikely that you have a neutral POV and extremely likely that this material is, as it appears, a fringe or minority position.


 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To those who try to claim, as some here have in their posts, that the Muslim scholars, scientists, philosophers, inventors, etc. of this period that has become known as the Islamic Golden Age were allegedly "oppressed" this is nothing but a lie. There are no examples of this, in fact read the following this shows that no Muslim scholar or scientist was ever "burned at the stake" for their scientific or other academic ideas; this was not the case in the West were the Church often burned "heretics" or at least brought them before the Christian Inquisition for daring to claim things like "the system of Copernicus is true" (i.e. that of the heliocentric system). Just see Galileo Galleli brought before the Catholic Christian Inquisition and censored! There are no example of this from anything in the great history of Islamic science and invention. Countless Muslim scholars like al-Biruni openly stated that the earth was obviously round (and attempted to calculate and measure the earth) just as was done at Bayt al-Hikma (The House of Wisdom) of the great reign of Caliph Harun al-Rashid in Abbasid Baghdad. Again there were no Muslim "Inquisitions" that the Christians had so much of along with Christian "witch" trials and such! --Historylover4 (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recognize all of the linked sources in the first post in this section, but several of them are considered fringe / right-wing / anti-immigration, and none of them look like scholarly works. I would avoid using any material from these pages in this or other wikipedia history articles.


 * I have personally wondered about the title of the article, which seems to me to lean towards POV, as if an article on the roman empire's peak was called 'the Glory of Rome', but there is a large body of reliable scholarship which details technological and scientific advances made by Islamic society during the early Caliphate period, and claims that this progress was a myth don't have traction in reliable scholarly works. Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

End of the Golden Age
It seems that the section End of the Golden Age needs be reorganized.


 * Wars and Invasion: Mongols from east and Colonials from west.
 * Loss of unified leadership. Divisions between Sunni and Shia, Arabs, Turks and Persians.
 * Loss of connection to previous generations of knowledge by losing libraries and single copy books.
 * Intellectual division of clerics and scientists: increasing lack of tolerance of intellectual debate and freedom of thought.
 * Economic lag behind that of the West, lack of monetary support for scientists.

--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)


 * I am not an expert on topic but there are several words and definitions for different kinds of infidels in Islamic world. Kafir used for atheists. Mushrik used for polytheists. Conversion of Muslims to other religions, is also strictly forbidden and is termed Mortad or apostasy. Monker: denialist. Munafik: one who pretends to be Moslem and hiding his infidelity. In most interpretations of Sharia, the penalty for being labeled of infidelity is death. Remember Salman Rushdie? There are other punishments such as forbidding social contacts with infidels, or imprisonment. Under strict application of religious laws it would be impossible to delve into some fundamental debates such as existing of God. The important question is how strictly these laws applied in different era, and how powerful was the clerics. Razi (865–925) wrote three books dealing with religion; they were: The Prophets' Fraudulent Tricks (مخارق الانبياء), The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets (حيل المتنبيين), and On the Refutation of Revealed Religions (نقض الادیان). He offered harsh criticism concerning religions, in particular those religions that claim to have been revealed by prophetic experiences. It would be impossible to write those without relative freedom of expression. Many of the scholars where aware of the power of clerics in their era and balanced self-censorship to adopt to their environment and avoid danger. I am not aware of courage examples like Galileo. Omar Khayyám (1048-1131) criticizes clerics in one poem: O cleric, we are more active than you, even so drunk, we are more attentive than you, You drink the blood of men, we drink the blood of grapes [wine], Be fair, which one of us is more bloodthirsty? Although I have no exact dates, it seems very unlikely to me that scientific freedom of expression would be possible in a society where sharia laws are applied strictly or clerics own the position of power. --Nevit (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for a single example of "lack of tolerance of intellectual debate" off the top of my head, consider the imposition of the miḥna (or inquisition) by al-Ma'mun concerning the doctrine of the created Quʾran. There are plenty more such examples but be aware that I am not claiming that they were more or less important than the other factors you mention, or that they were better or worse than similar problems in the Latin West; but certainly it is clearly wrong to claim that there were no such events in the Islamic civilisations.
 * All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your example is wrong as it preceded the rise of the Islamic civilisation and the bulk of scientific and intellectual contribution occurred after that period. The issue also showed the ruler of the time encouraged rationalism (mutazalites) by opposing non-rational approaches and conclusions. I think recent Ottomanist experts' works need to be included who question the whole nationalist revisionism of the end of the Ottoman empire, which was economically growing and innovating like crazy - the decline appears to have began post-1924 with the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate, division of the middle east, disrupting trade networks, rupturing cultures and civilisations, and forcing new wester political philosophies on the region. Somaya Farooqhi and Donald Quatert amongst others may be relevant citations. Zaf159 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What started the Islamic Golden Age?
What started the Islamic Golden Age? Summary and suggestion for reorganization of foundations paragraph.

--Nevit (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Religious motivation, The Prophet exhorted Muslims to seek knowledge.
 * Unified leadership
 * Money. Increased capital due to conquests, trade and taxes
 * Need for brains: Newly established empire needed brains to manage a territory from southern Spain to India
 * Human capital flight or 'brain gain' to Baghdad, where they had opportunities to prove their capabilities and they where highly regarded and rewarded
 * Brain storming: Scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim, sought to gather at "House of Wisdom" in Baghdad, where they discussed ideas.
 * Expanding written language
 * The art of paper making was obtained from Chinese prisoners taken at the Battle of Talas (751)
 * Usage of pen instead of brush for writing
 * Usage of Arabic as unified and transcultural language
 * Translation Movement: where all major non-Arabic texts in Latin, Persian, Hebrew, Sindhi and Hindu texts was translated to Arabic
 * Large libraries like Library of Baghdad, collected translated and original manuscripts. 70 libraries, the largest of which had 600,000 books.
 * New practices including the first book lending libraries.


 * If you have a reliable source for the origin of lending libraries, please add it. This idea had previously appeared in the article, but the reference only described libraries and made no mention of lending, so I removed the claim. Dialectric (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no reference. I watched BBC science and Islam last week, browsed some relevant articles in wp, and and encountered it in another wikipedia article. --Nevit (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the list provided is a good one, and that we should strive to add those item whenever missing in the text. Only adding the list itself requires a source, but using it as a working list on the talk page when enhancing the article, only requires sources for the individual claims. Regarding WP:SYNTH, I don't think it is undue to use the list as a check list. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Vallely
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)

A Golden age?
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)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me worth of consideration. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 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)


 * Now, why is this topic even discussed in this talk page? Read the text at the top of the page:
 * This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic Golden Age article.
 * If the world around us calls it "the Islamic Golden Age", then the name of the article should be "the Islamic Golden Age", and that's it. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 195.90's question:
 * Is it really called that?
 * I'll make a small survey to see if I can find an answer. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * List of some book sources or academic ones:
 * The golden age of Islam By Maurice Lombard
 * The Abassid Caliphate and the Islamic Golden Age
 * Islam and Islamic History in Arabia and The Middle East: The Golden Age
 * Golden Age of Islam Oswego City School District Regents Exam Prep Center
 * one "think tank":
 * Golden Age of Islam in Science & Technologies: Rising of Golden Age from MetaExistence.org
 * and for fun, our most favourite competitor pedia:
 * Islamic Golden Age in Conservapedia
 * just consider the funny fallacy kind of sentence in the intro:
 * The claims that Islam had a remarkable golden age are often exaggerated, and are not well supported by physical [sic!] evidence.
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's deconstruct the whole encyclopedia. We should also examine the article on athletic shoes. In my opinion, this article should be renamed Shoes worn by athletic wannabes. Better yet, the article on athletic shoes should be discarded. Instead, each model, by each manufacturer, should be discussed in a separate article. There really is no such thing as an athletic shoe, only shoes of various shapes, sizes and purposes, some of which happen to allegedly be used in certain sports activities. And, as everyone knows, shoes can not actually be athletic; they can only move when being worn by humans - unless you count horse shoes. I understand some horses are quite athletic. -Aquib (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yepp, about so! And a cat isn't a cat but just a bunch competing atoms. Deconstructio ad absurdum. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (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)


 * With respect, and in the interest of fairness. I do not think any more articles should be approached in the name of Jag cleanup until the others which have been stubbed or degraded, such as Science in medieval Islam, are reconstructed. I agree work needs to be done, this can be said of many articles in the encyclopedia, but do we have examples of articles which have actually been improved as a result of these Jag efforts? I do not count what happened to Science in medieval Islam as an improvement. From what I can see, the cleanup team simply does not have time to do justice to these articles, and truncation is not an acceptable alternative.
 * Regards, -Aquib (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is well-structured and I would say it qualifies as A-class. I think the current structure is the best and should be kept. When explaining such a phenomenon as a golden age of science or arts, or societal development, an article needs a context explaining why that golden age occurred in the first hand. The article does so, especially I would pinpoint obtaining paper, which is one obvious prerequisit for a sudden exchange of information and ideas. A parallel is the invention of the printing press preluding the Confucian reformation in China and far later the Protestant reformation and next the ascent of science and mechanics in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.


 * Golden age is not WP:POV, but the anti-islam guys nagging about "POV" and "this cannot be real" (I'm a Lutheran Christian myself, so don't presume anything!) should consider some meditation or spiritual exercises to learn how to leave the ego out of fact acquisition, which is a good thing both for oneself and for the relation to the surrounding human cultures. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !)
 * You guys have missed the point. There is what some call a Golden Age of Islam but what we have here is not up to wiki standards. Please use this source The golden age of Islam By Maurice Lombard (of the ones suggested its the one that meets our needs and I assume you have access) to create a new outline. I've got to go back to work but next week I' be able to help.J8079s (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of "first" in this article
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.


 * 1) "According to Bernard Lewis, the Caliphate was the first "truly universal civilization," which brought together for the first time "peoples as diverse as the Chinese, the Indians, the people of the Middle East and North Africa, black Africans, and white Europeans."
 * 2) "Cordoba, al-Andalus also had the first waste containers and waste disposal facilities for litter collection.[14]"
 * 3) "The first universities which issued diplomas were the Bimaristan medical university-hospitals of the medieval Islamic world, where medical diplomas were issued to students of Islamic medicine who were qualified to be practicing doctors of medicine from the 9th century.[18] The Guinness Book of World Records recognizes the University of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco as the oldest degree-granting university in the world with its founding in 859 CE."
 * 4) "Al-Azhar University, founded in Cairo, Egypt in the 975 CE, offered a variety of academic degrees, including postgraduate degrees, and is often considered the first full-fledged university. The origins of the doctorate also dates back to the ijazat attadris wa 'l-ifttd ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") in the medieval Madrasahs which taught Islamic law.[20]" Is it true that Al-Azhar is often considered the first full-fledged university?
 * 5) "Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the "first scientist" for his development of the scientific method,[98] and his pioneering work on the psychology of visual perception[99] is considered a precursor to psychophysics and experimental psychology[100]"
 * 6) "the beginning of astrophysics and celestial mechanics after Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir discovered that the heavenly bodies and celestial spheres were subject to the same physical laws as Earth"
 * 7) "the first elaborate experiments related to astronomical phenomena, the use of exacting empirical observations and experimental techniques,[106]" first elaborate experiments seems a rather vague and sweeping claim
 * 8) "the first non-Ptolemaic models by Ibn al-Haytham and Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi,"
 * 9) "the first empirical observational evidence of the Earth's rotation by Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī and Ali Qushji, and al-Birjandi's early hypothesis on "circular inertia.""
 * 10) "the first refutations of Euclidean geometry and the parallel postulate by Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī, the first attempt at a non-Euclidean geometry by Sadr al-Din" Doesn't seem to be referenced
 * 11) "including the first medical schools[129] and psychiatric hospitals" I've looked at "first psychiatric hospitals" for Medicine in medieval Islam; it seems dubious, although it does depend to some extent whether you define a "psychiatric hospital" as somewhere to make mentally ill people better, or just somewhere to keep them. It's true that the Arabs were unusually enlightened in their treatment of mental patients by European standards."
 * 12) "in which he first demonstrated the application of quantification and mathematics to medicine and pharmacology, such as a mathematical scale to quantify the strength of drugs and the determination in advance of the most critical days of a patient's illness.[131]"
 * 13) "Al-Razi (Rhazes) discovered measles and smallpox, and in his Doubts about Galen, proved Galen's humorism false." It seems to be more correct that he distinguished between measles and smallpox.
 * 14) "Abu al-Qasim (Abulcasis) helped lay the foudations for modern surgery,[132] with his Kitab al-Tasrif, in which he invented numerous surgical instruments,[133][unreliable source?] including the surgical uses of catgut, the ligature, surgical needle, retractor, and surgical rod[citation needed].[115]" I looked at this for the medicine article, I don't believe the claims are supported by the source.
 * 15) "Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) was the earliest known experimental surgeon.[142] In the 12th century, he was responsible for introducing the experimental method into surgery, as he was the first to employ animal testing in order to experiment with surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.[143] He also performed the first dissections and postmortem autopsies on humans as well as animals.[144]"
 * 16) "Ibn al-Nafis laid the foundations for circulatory physiology,[145] as he was the first to describe the pulmonary circulation[146] and coronary circulation,[147][148] which form the basis of the circulatory system, for which he is considered "the greatest physiologist of the Middle Ages."[149] He also described the earliest concept of metabolism,[150] and developed new systems of physiology and psychology to replace the Avicennian and Galenic systems, while discrediting many of their erroneous theories on humorism, pulsation,[151] bones, muscles, intestines, sensory organs, bilious canals, esophagus, stomach, etc.[152]"
 * 17) "Ibn al-Lubudi rejected the theory of humorism, and discovered that the body and its preservation depend exclusively upon blood, women cannot produce sperm, the movement of arteries are not dependent upon the movement of the heart, the heart is the first organ to form in a fetus' body, and the bones forming the skull can grow into tumors.[citation needed]"
 * 18) "Ibn Khatima and Ibn al-Khatib discovered that infectious diseases are caused by microorganisms which enter the human body.[153] Mansur ibn Ilyas drew comprehensive diagrams of the body's structural, nervous and circulatory systems.[3]"
 * 19) "The study of experimental physics began with Ibn al-Haytham,[154] a pioneer of modern optics, who introduced the experimental scientific method and used it to drastically transform the understanding of light and vision in his Book of Optics, which has been[by who?] ranked alongside Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica as one of the most influential books in the history of physics,[155] for initiating a scientific revolution in optics[156] and visual perception.[157]"
 * 20) "The experimental scientific method was soon introduced into mechanics by Biruni,[158] and early precursors to Newton's laws of motion were discovered by several Muslim scientists. The law of inertia, known as Newton's first law of motion, and the concept of momentum were discovered by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)[159][160] and Avicenna.[161][162] The proportionality between force and acceleration, considered "the fundamental law of classical mechanics" and foreshadowing Newton's second law of motion, was discovered by Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi,[163] while the concept of reaction, foreshadowing Newton's third law of motion, was discovered by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace).[164] Theories foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation were developed by Ja'far Muhammad ibn Mūsā ibn Shākir,[165] Ibn al-Haytham,[166] and al-Khazini.[167]"
 * 21) "These translations later inspired Daniel Defoe to write Robinson Crusoe, regarded as the first novel in English"
 * 22) "The story also anticipated Rousseau's Emile: or, On Education in some ways, and is also similar to Mowgli's story in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book as well as Tarzan's story, in that a baby is abandoned but taken care of and fed by a mother wolf.[citation needed]" Looks like original research- there are many earlier stories, e.g. Romulus and Remus
 * 23) A theory on the origins of the Western Solfège musical notation suggests that it may have also had Arabic origins. It has been argued that the Solfège syllables (do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti) may have been derived from the syllables of the Arabic solmization system Durr-i-Mufassal ("Separated Pearls") (dal, ra, mim, fa, sad, lam). This origin theory was first proposed by Meninski in his Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalum (1680) and then by Laborde in his Essai sur la Musique Ancienne et Moderne (1780).[199][200]

--Merlinme (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed claims to invent surgical catgut etc., as I had some understanding of this from earlier work, and also "discovery" of smallpox and measles, as other sources clearly state that what makes the account interesting is the clear description, including distinguishing the two diseases. --Merlinme (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also removed one claim to first psychiatric hospitals as it's not supported by the source. The source actually says that psychiatric hospitals were enlightened in their treatments in comparison to European treatment of the mentally ill. --Merlinme (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that some people feel that this approach runs the risk of not fixing the article, but simply removing the worst errors, perhaps even making people trust the remaining content more. However given that this article is being actively cleaned, and given that it does make pretty strong claims, I think it's appropriate to check the accuracy of the stronger claims. Alternatives I suppose (until there is time to complete a full analysis) would be stubbing or tagging for factual inaccuracy. --Merlinme (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the above list of highly dubious claims, and based on a good faith start to cleaning the 197 Jagged major edits, I'd now recommend stubbing. Nearly all the edits I looked had serious problems. To take a particularly bad example, the entire Music section was referenced to "Farmer 1988", i.e. the reference wasn't given in full. A quick check online couldn't find any support for the advanced theories; the information which I could find, e.g. on the origin of the lute and the do re mi scale, often directly contradicted the theories advanced in the article. --Merlinme (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That the article needs stubbing is evident alone from that it presents a condensed summary from many articles (referred to as "further information") which have already been stubbed for WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. The only question is are we doing it with or without a brief exemplary analysis along the lines of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Be bold. The time for caution is over William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was quite an extensive article before Jagged got involved: . I'd propose returning to that, plus any verified parts of the current article which fit in that structure.
 * As an aside, analysing the diffs does make it clear how big a problem there is. Even when there isn't a problem with sources as such, there are many, many bad edits. For example adding an entire paragraph listing significant figures later in the period, specifically to contest the "Decline" argument. The edit left the section completely unbalanced, and was essentially Original Research, as the only citations were specifically in support of achievements in astronomy; the text went far beyond astronomy to dispute the whole Decline thesis. --Merlinme (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking in a bit more detail at the pre-Jagged article, it's not bad at all. It's not A class, probably not B class, but it has a decent structure and a decent amount of references. I'll save it as the current version now, as I think it has far fewer problems than the current version. I'll look at adding information from the current article afterwards. --Merlinme (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not so optimistic about the quality of the pre-Jaggedized version. The first sentence is already far in OR and NPOV lands: During the Islamic Golden Age, which lasted from the middle of the 7th century to the middle of the 17th century CE. In fact, the most accepted periodization of this Golden Age is from the 8th/9th century (Abbasids, Harun al-Rashid and rise of Baghdad) to the mid-13th century (sack of Baghdad 1258 and end of Abbasids). Instead of simply summarizing material from other articles, I'd like to see the article rather based on monographs which explicitly deal with the period under the heading of Islamic Golden Age. As it stands, the article, neither the current nor the old version, defines this Golden Age in terms of space, time and scope. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:16, 13 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:
 * The modern scientific method was first developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, especially in the works of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century.
 * The difference in attitudes of Byzantine scientists and their medieval Muslim peers was firm. Byzantium added little to no new knowledge of science of medicine to the Greco-Roman scientific tradition, stagnating in awe of their classical predecessors.
 * Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the "first scientist" for his development of the scientific method[10] and some also consider him the founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology,[11] for his pioneering work on the psychology of visual perception.
 * A significant number of inventions were produced by medieval Muslim scientists and engineers, including inventors such as Abbas Ibn Firnas, Taqi al-Din, and especially al-Jazari, who is considered the "father of robotics"[19] and "father of modern day engineering".[20]
 * and so on and so forth. I won't recommend this version. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I did spot some of those myself, and I'll double-check, but I don't think they're Jagged entries. I think they just reflect that although Jagged was the worst and most persistent offender, he certainly wasn't the only one with a bias.
 * Assuming they're not Jagged entries... I'm not denying the article can be improved, but the scope of the project is "Jagged 85 cleanup". It's not "make all Islamic articles B class". If editors can improve it from here, great. But as a quick solution (allowing cleanup resources to be devoted to other articles), going back to the pre-Jagged article seems acceptable to me. Better than any stub I could produce quickly, anyway.
 * I would suggest that from here the article be improved in the normal way. One of the biggest differences between this article and the Jagged article is that it's a far more manageable size. Also we should hopefully be able to have somewhat more faith in the references which currently exist. --Merlinme (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologise- I was too hasty. Jagged started editing the article in 2006, I think I mistook his first edit after a long break with his proper first edit. I'll try again. --Merlinme (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better now. I assume you aware of the WikiBlame tool (Revision history search)? Sometimes useful in finding out when something was introduced into the article, although Revision history statistics is better for determining editors' first edit on a given page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
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)
 * Islamic Golden Age:

Done with my attempt to remove Jagged
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)

Opening quote
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)

Opposing views
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)

This article is rubbish
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)
 * Some more specific details would be needed for any useful discussion to occur. What text in the article is a problem, and why? Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Three (count them, three) 'sources' are in the article: Bernard Lewis, Srdja Trifkovic, and Shoja-e-din Shafa. That's _it_.  All three are intensively problematic; one was an adviser to convicted war criminals in Bosnia (convicted for genocide against Muslims) while the other two are extremely partisan and politically involved as advocates of endless war against Muslims in the present.  Essentially, this article is the equivalent of an article on Jewish culture that only referenced Nazis and their ilk.  Flawed is a kindness.  WHoever has been editing it should be shamed (though perhaps they are too busy defending Breivik right now? ;) LeRoiBatard (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But most of the article is in fact unreferenced. If you look above, or at the edit history, you will see that an earlier and much longer version considerably over-egged the cake in assessing Islamic achievements, misusing sources, and this bleeding stump is the result of a drastic removal of most material, especially that by one Jagged86.  This is a problem across most articles on medieval Islamic science etc. Unfortunately some of the clean-up crew have their own axes to grind. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the article better, then please improve the text, add better sources, and add more balanced sources (if you think the current ones are biased). It's very easy to say this article has problems; so do 90% of articles on Wikipedia. Unless you, personally are prepared to put in the hours to improve this article, I can say with some confidence that it won't happen.
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia; very few actually do, certainly in terms of substantial, sourced, edits, and we don't have unlimited amounts of time and resources to understand and improve articles. You appear to be appealing to a non-existent panel of people who know lots about the subject and have lots of time to improve the article, but are just being a bit lazy.
 * "WHoever has been editing it should be shamed?" To say the least, that's not very constructive. I would suggest conversely that you should be ashamed with yourself for flinging such criticism without making efforts to improve the article yourself.
 * If, as your userpage implies, you are an academic historian, then I would suggest that here is your golden opportunity to create an encyclopedia article on the subject, just the way you want it. None of us are going to stand in your way as long as your edits are sourced and balanced. --Merlinme (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! I'm sick of this "somebody should do something!" bullsh*t. Famousdog (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Trifkovic
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)
 * Could we assume a bit more good faith please? Suggesting that any removal (by two different editors) is censorship or disruptive editing is not a good way to start a debate.
 * I would have thought there's an arguable case both ways, considering Trifković's Phd on the one hand, and his apparent bias on the other. --Merlinme (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for allowing my profound distrust of a single editor who appears to be a POV warrior to taint my comments on the subject in general, and especially while addressing other editors. That was inappropriate and I'll do better moving forward.
 * Speaking to your point about Trifković, I would maintain that his bias is "alleged" by his critics rather than an established academic "fact". His PhD, on the other hand, is definitely an advanced degree in the primary topic at hand - History. To me at least, the latter clearly outweighs the former. Furthermore, he is being cited as a source for criticism of common historical misconceptions; this is a pretty clearly an area of opinion rather than absolute fact. Again, it seems clear that his degree means his opinion can be used for this purpose. Thanks for your patience Merlinme, Doc  Tropics  17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to know what Trifković's Phd is actually in; modern history is very vague. His undergraduate degrees are actually in international relations, which does not obviously qualify you for writing about the history of Islam. It would also be helpful to establish if The Sword of the Prophet is notable. The extended title "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" suggests something more in the nature of a popular polemic than an academic work. And then there is his alleged bias; I realise in the BLP arena this is hard to pin down, but apparently the Canadian authorities found he was a Srebrenica massacre denier. Soundbites such as "Islam ought to be regarded as a violent political ideology rather than just a religious cult" don't give the impression of a dispassionate historical perspective.
 * It might still be worth having in the article, if the controversy itself is notable enough. If you consider, for example, Hitler's War by David Irving, it has a large article despite later discrediting of Irving's research. However I would expect its thesis, that Hitler didn't know about The Holocaust, to get a passing mention, at best, in the article about Hitler. And WP:WEIGHT means that any mention would have to recognise the weight of academic opinion which disagrees with him.
 * So: 1) is the book notable? 2) is the book a good source? 3) If 1 + 2 are affirmative, how has it been received by other good sources? --Merlinme (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These are good points and good questions. Rather than try to whip off a couple of quick diffs and bounce it back to you like a ping pong ball, I'd like to check some of those details about "Sword of the Prophet" and our own notability guidelines. If a detailed article about the book is justified and could be produced in a timely fashion, then I think most of the concerns you raise would be resolved. After that, it's a rather simple matter of which details to abstract into this article while providing a "Main Article" pointer to the book's new page. Does this seem reasonable? I am entirely open to your thoughts on this. Doc  Tropics  18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see a proper review of the book, either academic or in a reputable newspaper. My web search so far has come up with nothing except reviews in favour (along the lines of "this is all great") and reviews against (along the lines of "this is all rubbish.") --Merlinme (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm looking for the same. I have specifically excluded those with obviously biased agendas like the conservative book club, but Paul Eidelburg, with a ".org" address appears much more reliable and independent. Jihadwatch is only reliable in specific and fairly narrow circumstances, but as a general indicator of notability, this page does make note of multiple independent reviews. While the first round of searching seems marginal, it was extremely brief and I'm about out of time for today. Should we try to pursue some of the reviews listed in that last link? At least a couple of those listed were notable individuals. Doc  Tropics  18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * JihadWatch ?! Oh please. Find something better or your content will be removed soon. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the disputed content until Doc Tropics comes with better sources to establish the reliability of his reference. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not "my" content. I did not write or add any of the text in question. I have merely challenged your removal of the content. Following the BRD cycle some of us are now discussing the issue in a productive fashion. You are not included in that number because you have not yet offered a productive comment. I'm willing to work to improve the article, but I have no time to waste on you and your spurious comments. Furthermore, you know it is totally inappropriate to revert back to the disputed content in a BRD discussion. Don't do it again. Doc  Tropics  19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As expressed in my last edit summary. The "B" was your bold move in including content that has already been removed by two editors and likely to be removed by a third one (Merlinme) because until now, you have NOT established it's reliability in anyway. I reverted, and per WP:BRD, you're supposed to discuss rather than revert. Also, your revert was deceptive as it included uncited material tagged since April 2011. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. You edited first, removing content that you didn't like; I Restored it and discussion was ongoing when you verbally assaulted me and vandalized the article. You have failed to add anything useful to what is otherwise a courteous and productive discussion; I will engage with you no further unless you can make an actual contribution Doc  Tropics  01:26, 1 February 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)
 * In an attempt to find a link to a decent review, I had a look at www.amazon.com. The only review given is from Booklist, which is not a great start for a book published in 2003, to be honest. I then had a look at the three star reviews on the basis that they would be relatively balanced, and they all pointed to some pretty major flaws in the work (there are only three reviews if you want to read them): . Given the apparently total failure of the book to make an impact on reliable secondary sources I'm currently leaning towards it not being notable. --Merlinme (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Trifković is a good source to use, but he is far from the only source saying these sort of things. "Golden Ages" are an essentially populist or old-fashioned concept, and all of them attract revisionist criticism from academics, including this one. It is important to include some summary of this in the article. We should try to find better sources making similar arguments in more measured ways - Bernard Lewis perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnbod and Merlinme's points, that the Trifković book appears to be a flawed source unless better reviews are forthcoming, and that there are likely other reliable sources that are critical of the Islamic Golden Age concept and are on firmer academic footing. In the the more narrowly focused Arab Agricultural Revolution article, for example, several academic sources have been found which challenge the core claims. Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who provided useful comments! There seems to be agreement among reliable editors that Trifković's work won't stand alone as a reference in this case, but that other refs from reliable sources should be available which will do so. I especially appreciate Johnbod's point that this is an important issue which should be summarized in the article; I agree with his assessment and think that properly referenced content on this point should be included. Doc  Tropics  13:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources other than Trifković can be found they should be put in to discuss the issue. In that case there is no need to have Trifković. If Trifković's work is unsupported by reliable sources, then it should not be there. Let's rely only on reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is a joke
"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)


 * If you think it's a joke, then do something about it. That's how Wikipedia works you know. I also suggest you look into the history and archived talk pages of this article because there was a sustained period of systematically biased editing by a certain editor that lead the article into the sorry state it is currently. Famousdog (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Some sections attack Islam, sentence by sentence
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&#39;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&#39;sServant (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are of course welcome to make well referenced changes to the article, using reliable sources; the article can undoubtedly be improved. But please don't add commentary like "as far as I could tolerate to read, is quite crap"; personal opinions have no place in an encyclopedia. And please avoid copying large chunks of text from other articles. --Merlinme (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for saying. Another respectful user said that as well. I looked at the article just to see how much golden that golden history is viewed there, and the sections which I read before "steam coming out of my head" was exactly the ones I mentioned above, so it was obviously wrong to say that about the whole article. I didn't think the talk page is really read much, so I placed it there, so everybody that is about to read that would know there is another much more cited article that says Islam had something to do with science in that age.


 * Of course the issues about Islam is perfectly controversial in the present day. The problem is just, it doesn't show both views of "pro"s and "con"s. Not everybody knows it has "strict" critics, unless comes to the talk page.


 * I know a very good source, perhaps the best in the world, as some say, the first book that gathered a notable amount of the vast information for Islamic civilization ever. Islamic Culture and Civilization, written by Dr. Ali Akbar Velayati, who served for (I was a child in that times, your article says 16 years) as foreign minister of Islamic Republic of Iran, and acoording to http://islamfond.ru/en/publishing/34-islamic-culture-and-civilization.html an established scholar. The site says it is translated to Russian. Fars News Agency says a French version is now available in Beirut, and calls it: The four-volume "The Encyclopedia of Islam and Iran: Dynamics of Culture and the Living Civilization" which was compiled by a team of Iranian experts under the supervision of Velayati.


 * The Farsi version of the article about him accuses him for having a hand in the Mykonos restaurant assassinations, and the article for the assassination is full of uncited accusations. I'm sure these are all wrong. There's plenty of work for correcting this encyclopedia.


 * I think everything becomes close to ideal, only after the Semantic Web project, or something in that sense in Wikipedia.--Lord&#39;sServant (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC) (EDITED AGAIN--Lord&#39;sServant (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I can't read Farsi, but I would strongly recommend that you delete what sound like rather implausible and libellous claims in Velayati's Farsi article if you can, as they sound like pretty serious WP:BLP violations.
 * I've not read his book, but at first glance it looks like a good source. If you have access to a copy and can use it to improve the article, please do! That's the way Wikipedia works. We get a better encyclopedia as individual editors use their time and available resources to improve particular articles which they know something about.--Merlinme (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best to find an E-version of the book. I saw a professor offered it in his blog to his students for free!!! This is the way some universities in Iran do with the book they like. I gotta instal PowerPoint to see if it's useful or not.


 * And I made 2 corrections to Velayati's page. First Added an "Accusation of" to the title of the chapter "Accompanying in Mykonos Assassination", since the accusation by Federal Court of Germany was really done. There was also a statement he had made that "If an Iranian is sentenced in this court Germany will pay an expensive compensation", which without referring to the poor innocent guy which was sentenced to 15 years(5 years in solitude!), would make people think he said that about himself. But as I entered it, it might have been inside the citation they had made from a news agency. Is there a problem if it was?


 * I've found a German citation I could use in Mykonos page. Since completely computer translation like Google Translator is not trusty, does this mean I shouldn't bring a Google Translated citation? Or is it trusty to ask a German in a german version of a page to translate it?--Lord&#39;sServant (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For non-English sources, please see: WP:NONENG. To summarise that policy, English sources are preferred; if English sources aren't available, foreign sources with good translations are preferred; if good translations aren't available, a source with a machine translation is probably better than no source at all, but please be careful that the machine translation does not signficantly distort the meaning.
 * And always be aware that the standard of verifiability must be much higher when dealing with the biographies of living people. If you think the accusation in the Farsi page is at all dubious or not properly sourced, you should just delete it. Wikipedia must not be used to make libellous statements. --Merlinme (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Arabic text and transliteration
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:

(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)
 * The second is a spelling mistake. (Arabic: العصر الذهبي للإسلام‎, al-'aṣr adh-dhahabiyy al-islām) is correct.--BelalSaid (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)