Talk:Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe/Archive 1

Islamic or Arab?
Should this article use "Islamic" or "Arab" as a qualifier? As far as I know, "Arab" refers to an ethnicity, and does not encompass Muslim culture as a whole (northern Africa is not "Arab", neither is Iran, nor Turkey). On the contrary "Islamic" refers to the Muslim realm as a whole. I think "Islamic civilization" is an expression which is extensively used. Does anybody have comments? PHG (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arab would be too narrow, since there were plenty of Persians, Turks, and Africans involved. But isn't this covered in other articles already? Islamic science? Islamic Golden Age? Etc... Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Islamic" is the most commonly used term to refer to the medieval Arabic/Persian/Turkish/Moorish civilization in academic literature. Since the consensus among everyone who has commented here agrees with the term "Islamic" being used rather than "Arab", I think I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV tag. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Systemic bias
Hello. There is reason to assume that user Jagged 85 does not actually reads what he writes and cites, but rather relies on a method of creating articles by copy and paste tidbits from all over WP and elsewhere. This combined with his consistent one-sidedness creates controversial contents. His Islamic Golden Age has also been critically regarded by other users. Before posting the same things twice, I would like to point at Islamic Golden Age for further discussion.

I have to stress that the problem of Jagged 85's articles cannot be fixed by punctual improvements. It is created by his C&P method, with which he creates more rapidly controversial contents which knowledgeable users can counter-check with the claimed sources. So please do not remove the neutrality tag. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not the creator of this article, but did contribute to more than half of the article. I do of course use copy-and-paste quite often, but I only copy information from other articles which have been reliably-sourced and not under dispute. It would be more helpful if you could be more specific about what looks unreliable in the article (rather than commenting on the editor). I know you don't trust me, but that alone is not a good enough reason to condemn the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And for your information, I do read the sources I cite. Most of the information I copy-and-paste between different articles are information which I myself added to Wikipedia in the first place. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The article seems biased to me because it assumes that Europe would not have retained the documents and knowledge of classical Greece and Rome without Arab help. That is false. It must be remembered that the Eastern Roman Empire did not fall and did not lose any of the knowledge of classical Greece and Rome. Indeed, the Eastern Empire was the source of Arab knowledge. The Eastern Empire ultimately fell to Arab armies and we are "indebted" to the Arabs for whatever they saved from that collapse. But, that indebtedness is akin to being thankful to a man who saved one painting from your house after putting the house on fire. The article just does not seem neutral to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.235.82 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't flame editors and make personel attacks. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)   Talk   Contribs  14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute
Are there still outstanding issues with this article? Or can we remove the tags? If anyone has concerns, could you please provide details? Thanks, Elonka 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still problems. One is the loose use of 'Islam' where 'Islamic civilization' would be better (e.g., in "Islam was not just a retransmitter" -- I hope I've cited that correctly; clear contradiction, such as "in Islamic Spain, particularly in Toledo (with Gerard of Cremone, 1114-1187, following the conquest of the city by the Spanish Christians in 1085)" -- since it had been conquered and assimilated into Castile, it was no longer "Islamic" Spain (which, in any case, is better referred to as Al-Andalus). Just two examples from a skim read. One of the authors cited (Hunayn ibn Ishaq) was a Christian -- and one of the most important of all translators into Arabic. From that point of view, 'Arabic civilization' may have something going for it, since it does not demean the efforts of Jews and Christians within a society dominated by Muslims.Hostiensis (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, using the term "Arabic contributions" may not be representative of the Persians, Berbers, Turks, Jews and other non-Arabs who contributed to the Islamic civilization. "Muslim contributions" could be used, but again, that may not be representative of the Christian and Jewish minorities. Another interesting term used by a few authors is "Islamicate", although this term is not widely used by scholars. In my opinion, I think the term "Islamic world" might be more representative. Or we could just leave it as "Islamic", which has been explained by Bernard Lewis quite well in the article's lead. Jagged 85 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute (balance)
The jury system was Nordic Anglo-Saxon:

"The legal traditions of the Danes were also different. It was they who evolved the 12-man jury system. This was soon borrowed by the English, who exported it to the rest of the world..." (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/conquest/wessex_kings/anglosaxon_law_02.shtml

So basically, the article lies - it says that the Normans introduced the jury system into England, which is rubbish, and that the Normans got this from the Arabs, which is also Islamist drivel.

The article paints a very one-sided picture, and has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam. Europeans in the Middle Ages, had superior ship building and armour technology (to the Arabs), crossed the Atlantic at the end of the Middle Ages(before the Arabs) invented and developed the art and science of writing Music, and the Bible was PRINTED in Europe, centuries before the first Koran in the east. The banking system of the Crusaders was way in advance to that used by the Arabs. A Knight could deposit money in Scotland and withdraw the cash in Jerusalem - the Arabs had nothing like that. When the Turks finally took Constantinople, they marvelled at its riches and fantastic architecture, which was superior to that found in their own Empire ... Constantinople was a CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN city. The Christian cathederal there, then became the finest "mosque" in the Muslim world - built and designed, of course, by "Barbaric" European Christians of the Middle Ages. I admit that none of this is actually denied in the article, but neither is it mentioned. It should be clearly stated that in many ways parts of Medieval Europe were more advanced than Arabia.

Finally, the Arabian / Islamic societies had a love for autocratic regimes that seems to linger to this day, whilst in much of Europe the Feudal system (which was by no means Utopia) at least limited the abslote power of a ruler - eg - the Magna Carta, and within the European Feudal system everybody had their civil rights relative to their social position, whilst in Islamic kingdoms, civil rights rarely exsisted outside the whims of the current ruler. The article paints the picture of a debased backward Medieval Europe reliant upon the light of Islam for guidance - HA! Oh well, politically correct Wikipedia strikes again. TB --121.218.100.212 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Please don't make assumptions about the religion or motivations of editors. In the first place, you're likely wrong; in the second place, it's insulting.
 * 2) Please cite sources for your claims. If you can show historians that have spoken on your issue, do cite them. It's impossible to verify or contradict a summary from memory like the one you give above.
 * 3) No article can cover everything; the various roots of the jury system are discussed in Jury, with dates (which the BBC "popular summary" lacks); the fact that this article doesn't speak on areas where Europe influenced the Islamic world is just how things have to be in a million-article encyclopedia.
 * In summary: Calm down. Don't insult. Cite sources. Thanks! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do spot a few fibs in what the IP has said. Again I too would like to say that whatever you say you would like to put in, back it up with evidence and sources. This is a discussion to improve the article not flame the religion, editor or history itself. If you're angry about a religion, really no one cares if you are, go do it on a forum not on Wikipedia. In addition to this Wikipedia is not a profiteering organisation, so how can Wikipedia be PC if it's written by people?
 * Furthermore if this "has obviously been written by a Muslim with an agenda to promote Islam" do you mean to say the sources are wrong? It seems well referenced to me. Again please don't flame. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)   Talk   Contribs  14:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources..... I mean really, everything I stated is just common accepted history ... but fair enough, here it is:

JURY SYSTEM

Encyclopedia Britannica ... (6/660 15th edition) "Historical details of the jury's inception are unknown, but it may have originated in England." Encyclopedia Britannica says nothing about the Arabs as far as the jury system goes - but they do mention the Saxons & Ancient Greeks, who I seem to remember were not Muslims (-:. Winston Churchill, in his much valued History of The English Speaking Peoples, also says that the Anglo Saxons introduced the Jury System. So there you have it: Encyclopedia Britannica, Winston Churchill & The BBC - good enough?

So, your -quote- "well-referenced and POV free" article (see below) in fact, is telling us lies. And they want to promote this to GA?

Now can I ask for a source please.....

We often hear how the Muslims "invented manned flight" - the story goes that a Muslim strapped wings to himself, in the manner of a bird, in Spain, jumped off a cliff .... fell, and killed himself. No technical drawings of this "glider" were ever available (which is a good job, because it obviously didn't work). This is not my POV by the way - this is the story as Muslims tell it. No Muslims in the Middle Ages ever tried it again - least of all those who actually saw the would-be aviator fall to his death.

Now, how on earth did this obscure, tragicomic and little documented event influence later European glider experiments???? Of course it didn't! I have given my sources, now let me ask for theirs! Prove the link!

I am insulting nobody, but a fact's a fact: this article was obviously written to promote Islam. But alas, it is only a "fool" that points out that the emperor has no clothes.

TB --124.176.66.35 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WRT jury: Have you checked the source that's given in the article?
 * WRT flight - please check the sources on Abbas Ibn Firnas. None of the sources say that he was killed - he did hurt his back. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all give me a link. And your argument still makes no sense. What do the above arguments have anything to do with promoting Islam? You have reached not a plausable conclusion and you provide unsourced information with exaggeration. Are you going to say that the renaissance was written to promote it? Wikipedia writes solid facts and is POV free. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)   Talk   Contribs  16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotion
Do you think we can possibly promote the article to GA? It seems both well referenced and POV free. I shall nominate the article on the GA page and if it has any issues then we'll sort them out. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)  Talk   Contribs  14:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would urge you not to proceed. The chief problem with this article is that it finds all the mentions scholars have made suggesting some route of Islamic influence into Europe and lumps them together, giving the appearance that Islam has had fundamental influence on almost every aspect of European culture. I do not deny Islamic influence, but a scholar who disagrees with the extent of it implied by this page will not write about the lack of influence, he simply won't write about the influence. It is very hard to provide references for negative assertions. A lot of this article consists of sentences that basically say, "the Muslims did something like this before the Europeans". This is hardly convincing, even if some scholars, quite possibly with axes to grind or agendas to promote or just plain biased, suggest that it might imply a causal connexion. To suggest that Gothic architecture is Islamic-influenced is, in my opinion, to go beyond what our current knowledge can allow. So the Muslims had pointed arches? Is that where Suger got the idea? Was the writer of that assertion aware that Gothic architecture did not catch on in Italy until the 13th century, and barely so in the south? It just seems like a bizarre claim, with or without a source. The section on legal systems seems equally hard to believe. It's not that Islam made no important contributions to medieval Europe, but that many things arose in medieval Europe without an Islamic basis and many "Islamic" influences were really other influences mediated by Islam. This article is just not a nuanced look at the subject but a collection of sourced assertions about various "contributions" made by "Islam" to medieval Europe. Let it be and don't try to promote to GA. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree and the sources seem to be good. It is not a case that religion had anything to do with it but that you have to remember that Islam was a civilisation once and a powerhouse for knowledge and co-existance. We are not talking about religion but the sources are reliable. If the truth seems to shock you then thats really has nothing to do with the article. I think it is fairly balanced and what's more is the renaissance article seems to include info on the subject. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)   Talk   Contribs  16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of the claims are not backed up. For example, the claim that Alhazen's Book of Optics is mentioned in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, is untrue. In fact Rhazes, Averroes and Avicenna are mentioned by Chaucer in the Prologue. Avicenna is mentioned twice, in the Prologue and The Pardoner's Tale. But Alhazen and his book are not, to my knowledge and research, in Chaucer's Tales or Prologue. IAC-62 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not talking about religion at all... I have not forgotten tha Islam was a civilzation "once", nor that she was ("once") a "powerhouse for knowledge and co-existance" (whatever that means). Italicising "are" does not make the sources reliable, but none of this shocks me (nor did I say that it did). You assert that you disagree with me, that the sources are reliable, and that it is fairly balanced (is that enough?), but these assertions are unconvincing. I only suggest that you not drag this article through the mud of a GA nomination. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've checked most of the sources and they do check out. I cannot see anything wrong with them. LOTRrules (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article for the first time and it seems to me that a lot of it is just plain wrong. From a common sense approach, if the Arabs/Muslims/Islamic Civilization invented algebra, then the Roman built their aqueducts without the use of algebra, and similar engineering feats by the Egyptians and Greeks were performed without the use of any advanced mathematics. Likewise, the jury system is known to predate Islam and not be of Arabic origin: to quote Wikipedia's Jury article, "The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes". Wikipedia's University article says that the University of Constantinople was founded by Theodosius II in 425 with 31 chairs -- again antedating Islam. The detail in the section on Education is unnecessary. It would be sufficient to note that some ideas were borrowed from the universities in Islamic lands and incorporated into European universities, rather than implying that there was no educational system at all in Europe until the Muslims came along. Economics: COME ON. It's been the goal of men to get rich since the idea of value was first imagined. The roots of the ideas of capitalism, partnership, credit, profit and suchlike concepts are lost in antiquity. There was nothing unique about the Arab/Muslim/Islamic Civilization monetary system. The concepts mentioned in the article can all be found in the Old Testament, to give one source. Absurdly, the picture implies that they invented coin weights -- the ignorant Vikings never thought of such a thing! The Point of View appears to me to be intentionally skewed by using citations from Islamic writers instead of European authorities. In short, I think this article has SEVERE problems. It approaches the level of propaganda. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Eric

"Islamic" vs Middle Eastern culture/technology
Hey, first, let me say that I think this is a great article - good topic, well defined and well written. However, given the possible problems around the term "Islamic" in this context I think the article should clarify somewhere in the intro that:


 * 1) "Islamic" culture to a large extent borrowed from previous non-Islamic cultures/knowledge in the region, and

I don't think we should change the existing text of the article, only point out these things somewhere in the intro to the article. The fact that no culture is an island is hinted at in the first section today, but I think it could be expanded/clarified with (at least) the examples I give above.Erikarver (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) during the Middle Ages a very substantial share of the population of the Middle East was still Christian (or Zoroastrian or other culture systems). Thus, incfluences on Crusaders are likely to have also come from Christians in the Middle East.


 * However point 1 & 2 is original research (WP:OR). I'm sorry but what you say is not true, the サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.    Talk   Contribs  16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Arabs were a small minority/military elite in the lands they conquered and as such largely assimilated their cultures. Even the term "Islamic empire" is a misnomer given that after the first Umma was broken there was no coherent/centralized "empire" in the modern sense of the word. However, I'll find the sources to prove what I claim above. All the bestErikarver (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. Read the article on the Islamic Golden Age. You should know there are links there to support my argument that Muslims were of course the majority. It would be original research otherwise. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.    Talk   Contribs  16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but I didn't find it in that article. Could you please point me to the source.Erikarver (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've finally found an online version of Ira Marvin Lapidus' A History of Islamic Societies. It is considered one of the key books on Islamic / Middle Eastern history. She makes it quite clear that there was a great deal of continuum between the pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. Regarding Christian populations in the Middle East, on pages 200-201 she writes: "...the mass of Middle Eastern peoples were not soon or easily converted. Only with the breakdown of the social and religious structures of non-muslim communities in the tenth to twelfth centuries did the weakening of churches, the awakening omf Muslim hostility to non-Muslims, sporadic and localized persecution, and the destruction of the landed gentry of Iraq and Iran destroy the communal organization of non-Muslim peoples... Large parts of Egypt and Iran were probably converted in the tenth and eleventh centuries. In northern Syria, however, Christian majorities survived through the twelfth century, until - compromised by their sympathies with and assistance to the Crusaders - they were put under severe pressure. Most converted in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but substantial Christian minorities remained. Similarly, most of the remaining Christian population of Egypt adopted Islam in the fourteenth century." I would also suggest the sections on Persian and Hellenistic influences (p. 76-77). With regard to the Persian and Hellenistic/Greek influence Lapidus writes (p. 76): "With political advice came technical and scientific knowledge. Iran was an important transmitter of Indian and Hellenistic medical, mathematical and astronomical ideas... Thus, elements of the Persian heritage became an integral part of Islamic civilization." On Hellenist influces (p. 77-78) she writes "Alexandrian Hellenistic thought also came into the mainstream of the emerging Islamic culture. The Alexandrian school was moved to Antioch in Syria and then to Marw in Khurasan and Harran in Mesopotamia. Some of the scholars were Nestorian Christians, but others, at Harran, were pagans... Thus Greek thought survived under church and royal patronage and was transferred to Abbasid Baghdad." So, to me the term "Islamic culture" is about as complicated and intertwined with previous and other cultural influces as "Christian culture" of the time was. Any comments on the above? The above views are supported by William Dalrymple, author of several books on the Middle East and religion. In this interview with Australian national radio he says: "And it's interesting that the Middle East was still a majority Christian area when the Crusades began, it was the bitterness brought by the Crusaders into the Middle East that led to the Middle East becoming a largely Muslim area. It's a very, very important fact that right up to the 11th century, the Middle East was still majority Christian." I would also urge you to read How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs by De Lacy O'Leary.Erikarver (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Muslims were in the majority is different to suggesting that Arabs were (all Arabs - as an ethnic group - were expected to be Muslims, but, with the rise of the Abbasids, not all Muslims needed to be Arabs). But whatever ethnic origin they came from, they were Arabized -- they adopted Arabic as their language without necessarily adopting any Islamic practices or beliefs (cp. the liturgy of the Melkite church, which rapidly adopted Arabic after the conquest). Yet the idea that Muslims formed a majority is also open to question. I have not met anyone anymore who takes seriously Bulliet's idea of a rapidly increasing conversion based on use of 'Islamic' names. Rather, some areas in Muslim dominated territories would have had no Christians or Jews in them (they had become depopulated, either because of unbearable taxation or warfare); others with few or no Muslims (they just carried on as before); and many places in the middle. Most of the time it's difficult to know; large cities were probably majority Muslim -- although with very powerful minorities from the other faiths -- the countryside probably varied. Dalrymple is talking through his hat though: the Crusades didn't register all that much at the time; the demonization of the Crusades and crusading is more the product of nineteenth century reaction to European intervention than anything similar at the time. Hostiensis (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence of Islamic coinage on Europe
Feel free to add the following info to the article PHG (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC): {{quotation|

Influence of Islamic coinage
Islamic coins did have some influence on early European coinage. The 8th century English king Offa of Mercia minted copies of Abbasid dinars struck in 774 by Caliph Al-Mansur with "Offa Rex" centered on the reverse. The moneyer visibly had no understanding of Arabic as the Arabic text contains many errors. Such coins may have been produced in order to trade with Islamic Spain.

In Sicily, Malta and South Italy from about 913 tarì gold coins of Islamic origin were minted in great number by the Normans, Hohenstaufens and the early Angevins rulers. When the Normans invaded Sicily in the 12th century, they issued tarì coins bearing legends in Arabic and Latin. The tarìs were so widespread that imitations were made in southern Italy (Amalfi and Salerno) which only used illegible "pseudo-Kufic" imitations of Arabic.

According to Janet Abu-Lughod: "The preferred specie for international transactions before the thirteenth century, in Europe as well as the Middle East and even India, were the gold coins struck by Byzantium and then Egypt. It was not until after the thirtheenth century that some Italian cities (Florence and Genoa) began to mint their own gold coins, but these were used to supplement rather than supplant the Middle Eastern coins already in circulation." }}


 * This was ✅. Thanks! Phg (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Western imitations of Arabic script
Feel free to add the following to the article. PHG (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC) {{quotation|

Western imitations of Arabic script
The Arabic Kufic script was often imitated in the West during the Middle-Ages and the Renaissance, to produce what is known as pseudo-Kufic: "Imitations of Arabic in European art are often described as pseudo-Kufic, borrowing the term for an Arabic script that emphasizes straight and angular strokes, and is most commonly used in Islamic architectural decoration". Numerous cases of pseudo-Kufic are known from European art from around the 10th to the 15th century. Pseudo-Kufic would be used as writing or as decorative elements in textiles, religious halos or frames. Many are visible in the paintings of Giotto. The exact reason for the incorporation of pseudo-Kufic in early Renaissance painting is unclear. It seems that Westerners mistakenly associated 13-14th century Middle-Eastern scripts as being identical with the scripts current during Jesus's time, and thus found natural to represent early Christians in association with them: "In Renaissance art, pseudo-Kufic script was used to decorate the costumes of Old Testament heroes like David". Another reason might be that artist wished to express a cultural universality for the Christian faith, by blending together various written languages, at a time when the church had strong international ambitions.

Christian and Muslim playing ouds
Image of Christian and Muslim playing lute (ouds), miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X. Feel free to insert this image into the article. Phg (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic carpets in European painting
Feel free to insert the following paragraph into the article. Phg (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC) {{quotation|

Islamic carpets in European painting
Islamic carpets of Middle-Eastern origin, either from the Ottoman Empire, the Levant or the Mamluk state of Egypt or Northern Africa, were used as important decorative features in paintings from the 13th century onwards, starting from the Medieval period and continuing into the Renaissance period. Such carpets were often integrated into Christian imagery as symbols of luxury and status of Middle-Eastern origin, and together with Pseudo-Kufic script offer an interesting example of the integration of Eastern elements into European painting.}}

Acknowledgements
Here's an extract of Obama's Cairo speech, regarding Islamic contributions to civilization and Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment, possibly an interesting quote regarding the modern acknowledgement of these contributions:

Phg (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometry
 Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Westerner and Arab practicing geometry together. 15th century manuscript.

Medieval archaeology (London)
Some elements from the Museum of London and the British Museum:  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Syria-made medicinal jars circa 1300, excavated in Fenchurch Street, London.
 * Syrian or Egyptian pieces of glass with Arabic inscriptions, excavated in London.
 * Early-1500s Andalusian dish with pseudo-Arabic script around the edge, excavated in London.
 * British coin weights introduced from the Arabs through the Vikings, 9th 10th century CE.

Designs
 Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Islamic-inspired Albarello with head of a Turk, Faenza, 1550.
 * Plate with head of a Turk, Faenza, 1540-50.

aristotle contribution ?
we don't need to make assumptions that aristotle text was lost and then muslim scientist found it and use it....moslem scientists achievement were nothing related with aristotle text, maybe too little, and we know that aristotle was a philosopher not a scientist, philosopher not use scientific methode, maybe only a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatree (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Appalling. Aristotle was indeed a scientist.  Wikipedia says: "His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology."  In the second place, your comment leaves me in doubt as to what you are trying to say. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Eric

Two meanings of Islam?
The rationale for this article's title and scope rests on the premise that "Islam is used in the meaning of a civilization and not that of a religion", a premise, which, however, is simply asserted but not supported by sources. So what is the difference and how are these two notions kept apart in the article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)