• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Islamic Golden Age - Origins and Influences

From a Western perspective is the so called Islamic Golden Age overrated or understated?


  • Total voters
    22

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The Islamic Golden Age witnessed outstanding levels of scientific, cultural, and economic developments during the 8th to 14th centuries. The House of Wisdom was established in Baghdad, a city that was to become a great centre of learning, arguably unrivalled by other civilisations during this period. The translation of Greek literature into Arabic, the development of many established branches of knowledge, and an openness to new perspectives and ideas. Many historians argue the influence of Islamic civilisation was amongst the most important factors to ignite the European Renaissance.

So what were the influences of the Islamic Golden Age and how significant was the Quran in encouraging the pursuit of knowledge?

How overrated or understated is this period of history from a Western perspective and why?

To what extent did the Islamic Golden Age really stimulate Europe to move beyond the Middle Ages?

What lead to the demise of an Empire once so vast, illustrious and open to new knowledge?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
To what extent did the Islamic Golden Age really stimulate Europe to move beyond the Middle Ages?
?
You confuse the Arabic-Berber culture with religion.
It's like I said that the greatness of the British Empire was due to Anglicanism;)

1)The first university in the world was that of Fès in Morocco...and it developed the teaching of math, science, geography, philosophy.

2) Palermo, the city of 300 mosques. Considered the center of trades, geography and literature. That is why Frederick II made it his capital.

3) Cordoba, famous for its library, of 400,000 books, and for its university.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It is hard for me to say anything with any certainty about the Islaamic Golden Age except that it is no reason whatsoever to lend credibility to the Qur'an or to Islaam itself.

After all, Islaam's conquests have very consistently been of a military (and arguably political) nature, as opposed to a religious or cultural nature. Nor is there any significant doubt that the Qur'an as we know it now is very faithful to that of previous times, and therefore its value can safely be judged on its own merits, now as then.

Most telling of all IMO, the surviving Islaamic culture is colossal in size yet most unimpressive in knowledge or even in respect towards knowledge, being in truth intellectually bankrupt and more than a little bit confused. That alone casts a huge shadow of doubt towards the actual merits of the so-called Golden Age. Can it really have forgotten so much in so few generations, even while it took such pains to preserve its scriptural tradition?

It is entirely possible that Islaamic culture attained a lot of significant realizations during that time. It is also rather unimpressive, all things considered. It amounted to the use of political power to enforce centralized scholarship and use of the Arabic language. It is entirely conceivable, perhaps probable, that its absence would only open the way for an even greater period of academic progress, more likely than not one significantly less hindered by dogmaticism.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
I think there are multiple "Western" perspectives on the IGA. The first ones I heard were enthusiastic, perhaps overly so (in primary school). On the internet I think there are more ones that are overly dismissive. Lots of the golden age had to do with uniting knowledge of several areas, bringing Greek, Roman, Persian, Egyptian... learning together. It was like an establishment of a new internationalist core of scholarship, within the caliphate areas.
 
There is a great Neil de Grasse Tyson video about this...I think this is it...

NDT is terrible at history, as was Cosmos.

Al-Ghazali had nothing to do with the decline of the Golden Age, he didn't say maths is the work of the devil and science and philosophy continued in good health long after his death.

Just more ideological rubbish based on the conflict thesis myth.

Religion, In particular the Abbasid Caliphate and the Mongol invasion and restrictions imposed on science, maths and education.

Why are the Mongol invasions religion?

What would you consider to be the evidence in favour of the view that religion was the cause of the end of the Golden Age? How do you 'restrict maths'?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a great Neil de Grasse Tyson video about this...I think this is it...


I've seen this video before. Its a good example of a man who has excelled in science stepping outside of his sphere of expertise. I'm not an American but I suspect because this guy is somewhat of an American icon, it gives credence to the views for those who think a particularly way about Islam.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
, it gives credence to the views for those who think a particularly way about Islam.

with all due respect: why do you give merits to religion, since it was the culture that favored this renewal?
It's like I said that Humanism and Renaissance were due to the Catholicism (totally the opposite, indeed)

Adrian...the Arab-Berber civilization developed itself independently from religion.
The most beautiful example of Arab-Berber architecture can be found in Morocco, Andalusia, Sicily.


 
Last edited:
The Islamic Golden Age witnessed outstanding levels of scientific, cultural, and economic developments during the 8th to 14th centuries. The House of Wisdom was established in Baghdad, a city that was to become a great centre of learning, arguably unrivalled by other civilisations during this period. The translation of Greek literature into Arabic, the development of many established branches of knowledge, and an openness to new perspectives and ideas. Many historians argue the influence of Islamic civilisation was amongst the most important factors to ignite the European Renaissance.

Perhaps better termed the Arabic Golden age (as in the lingua franca Arabic language).

The translations were almost all done by Syriac speaking Christians, and Christians and Jews also made other significant contributions.

So what were the influences of the Islamic Golden Age and how significant was the Quran in encouraging the pursuit of knowledge?

One of these things that's hard to tell/open to interpretation.

Some of it was fuelled by competition was the Byzantines to demonstrate the superiority of Islamic situation, and science was seen as a method of understanding 'God's creation' and a supplement to theology.

How overrated or understated is this period of history from a Western perspective and why?

Generally under appreciated (as is Western science from the "Dark Ages") as the Western perspective generally goes Greeks - 1500 years of religious nonsense - Renaissance - Enlightenment - Modernity.

To what extent did the Islamic Golden Age really stimulate Europe to move beyond the Middle Ages?

The move beyond the Middle Ages is mostly a literary creation, as is the misleading term Renaissance.

Europe was becoming increasingly wealthy through trade, and money has always been a key driver of scientific progress. You also had the growth of education and the university system appearing which contributed significantly.

But there was an influx of knowledge from translated Greek works (aided by an influx of Greeks fleeing the sack of Constantinople), and Arabic works (a lot via the Spanish Church).

Scientific advancement is a chain with many important links, and 'Islamic' science was certainly one of these links. It more helped contribute to later advances than it 'caused' the Renaissance though.

What lead to the demise of an Empire once so vast, illustrious and open to new knowledge?

The centre of power moved to the Ottoman Empire, which led to a decline in wealth in the Middle East. Advances were still being made by the Ottomans though.

The Golden Age was helped by great wealth, the impact of a new technology (paper), an influx of new knowledge, common language uniting Greek-Persian spheres, stability, etc.

Most of these factors declined over time, as did the power of the Islamic World vis a vis Europe. History is cyclical after all.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
It is hard for me to say anything with any certainty about the Islaamic Golden Age except that it is no reason whatsoever to lend credibility to the Qur'an or to Islaam itself.

How about the extent to which the Quran and Hadiths emphasised the acquisition of knowledge?

Then you might consider the extent to which some of its outstanding scientists were capable in both Quranic theology as well as science. For example the great physician and thinker Avicenna exemplified both spiritual and intellectual attribrutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

Then consider how the Empire itself patronized scholars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Religious_influence

After all, Islaam's conquests have very consistently been of a military (and arguably political) nature, as opposed to a religious or cultural nature. Nor is there any significant doubt that the Qur'an as we know it now is very faithful to that of previous times, and therefore its value can safely be judged on its own merits, now as then.

Many great empires in history have distinguished themselves by military conquests and been political, have they not? The Babylonians, Persians, Greek and Romans? How about the European colonial powers who controlled much of the world before WWI?

Most telling of all IMO, the surviving Islaamic culture is colossal in size yet most unimpressive in knowledge or even in respect towards knowledge, being in truth intellectually bankrupt and more than a little bit confused. That alone casts a huge shadow of doubt towards the actual merits of the so-called Golden Age. Can it really have forgotten so much in so few generations, even while it took such pains to preserve its scriptural tradition?

So we can judge the Roman and Persian empires by the state of their empires now? I don't think so.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
with all due respect: why do you give merits to religion, since it was the culture that favored this renewal?
It's like I said that Humanism and Renaissance were due to the Catholicism (totally the opposite, indeed)

I'm asking questions as to the influences. These factors are often complex and multifaceted. I agree that Catholicism didn't play a major role in the renaissance. To the contrary it often supressed it. The churches resistance to Galileo is a well known example. The period of upheavel in Europe as Christianity underwent a schism was a bloody and brutal time. It was also characterised by intellectual developments that could no longer be restrained.

The developmental and flowering of intellectual and cultural pursuits in Islam soon after the establishment of the Abbasids is a different story. One of several key ingredients that stimulated intellectual developments was the Quran itself.

The acquisition of knowledge, the independant investigation of reality, humility, the capacity to consider what we learn or discover judiciously and wisely are not just intellectual attributes but spiritual ones to.

Lets consiser this in more depth:


One of the purposes of our being created is that we may discern and know God:

“And Allâh has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and intellects that you might give thanks"
Surah 16:78


Reading and recitation are as keys to knowledge:

“Read! In the Name of your Lord Who has created all that exists.
He has created man from a clinging substance.
Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.
Who has taught by the pen.
He has taught man that which he knew not”
Surah 96:1-5


Muhammad teaches that first we should have knowledge and warns against acting without knowledge:

“And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned”
Surah17:36


Muhammad asks we have knowledge and fear of God

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allâh”
Surah 35:28


Muhammad says being both learned and believer occupies a noble status:

“Allâh will exalt in degree those of you who believe, and those who have been granted knowledge”
Surah 58:11


Because of the importance of knowledge, Muhammad has asked we seek more of it:

“and say: ‘My Lord! Increase me in knowledge’”
Surah 20:114


The learned are exalted:

“Say: ‘Are those who know equal to those who know not?’ It is only men of understanding who will remember ”
Surah 39:9


Those who have knowledge may be the amongst those who readily understand the truth from God and believe in it:

“And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord, so that they may believe therein, and their hearts may submit to it with humility”
Surah 22:54


Through God's Teachings our hearts can become purified and we can attain to wisdom,

Certainly did Allah confer [great] favor upon the believers when He sent among them a Messenger from themselves, reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom, although they had been before in manifest error.
Surah 3:164

There is no goodness in knowledge which is not confirmed by action, or words which are not adorned by deeds:

“O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do?
Most hateful it is with Allâh that you say that which you do not do”
Surah 61:2-3


In regards knowledge, we are asked to consider even the celestial realm as this too is God's Creation:

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding.
Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.

Surah 3:190-191

My hope in posting these verses is to provide a sense of the importance Muhammad placed on knowledge and learning, but also the attitudes towards its acquisition and practice.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
NDT is terrible at history, as was Cosmos.

Al-Ghazali had nothing to do with the decline of the Golden Age, he didn't say maths is the work of the devil and science and philosophy continued in good health long after his death.

Just more ideological rubbish based on the conflict thesis myth.



Why are the Mongol invasions religion?

What would you consider to be the evidence in favour of the view that religion was the cause of the end of the Golden Age? How do you 'restrict maths'?
OK, so why did Islamic science/knowledge/etc. decline ?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
How about the extent to which the Quran and Hadiths emphasised the acquisition of knowledge?

Personally, I find it unremarkable. It is not all that surprising that ambitious people and doctrines realize that learning is important.

Then you might consider the extent to which some of its outstanding scientists were capable in both Quranic theology as well as science. For example the great physician and thinker Avicenna exemplified both spiritual and intellectual attribrutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

Then consider how the Empire itself patronized scholars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Religious_influence

Again, I am just not seeing anything remarkable there.

Of course a system that patronizes scholarship will find a few theologists. They do, after all, arise spontaneously.

Nor can an ambitious doctrine with goals of spreading and controlling the political leadership of all lands that it can manage to fail to pursue legitimacy - most of all towards itself - by way of sponsorship of sages. It is a shame that is spends so much effort convincing itself that it is something worth doing, come to think of it.

Many great empires in history have distinguished themselves by military conquests and been political, have they not? The Babylonians, Persians, Greek and Romans? How about the European colonial powers who controlled much of the world before WWI?


So we can judge the Roman and Persian empires by the state of their empires now? I don't think so.
You don't?

It seems to me that it is exactly what we do.

At the very least, we do not use their past reach as evidence for the validity of their beliefs. It has been attempted with the Roman Empire on occasion, but that seems to have fallen out of favor, and with good reason.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
OK, so why did Islamic science/knowledge/etc. decline ?

Yasir Qadhi is an American Muslim Scholar of Pakistani descent. He provides informed, balanced and easy to understand commentary on the rise and fall of the Muslim Ummah (community).

 
OK, so why did Islamic science/knowledge/etc. decline ?

The idea that there was some precipitous drop is not really accurate, they were making advances in maths, medicine, astronomy etc for centuries after al-Ghazali.

Similar to the conflict thesis myth in Europe that was rejected half a century ago as historians discovered new sources, one problem was simply that people in the West had not translated/read works from the Islamic world.

As to why there was a 'changing of the guard':

The centre of power moved to the Ottoman Empire, which led to a decline in wealth in the Middle East. Advances were still being made by the Ottomans though.

The Golden Age was helped by great wealth, the impact of a new technology (paper), an influx of new knowledge, common language uniting Greek-Persian spheres, stability, etc.

Most of these factors declined over time, as did the power of the Islamic World vis a vis Europe. History is cyclical after all.

Can add that the Ottomans also invested increasing amounts of resources in developing practical technologies, especially military. A bit like America these days, the military budget takes resources from other sectors of the economy.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The Islamic Golden Age witnessed outstanding levels of scientific, cultural, and economic developments during the 8th to 14th centuries. The House of Wisdom was established in Baghdad, a city that was to become a great centre of learning, arguably unrivalled by other civilisations during this period. The translation of Greek literature into Arabic, the development of many established branches of knowledge, and an openness to new perspectives and ideas. Many historians argue the influence of Islamic civilisation was amongst the most important factors to ignite the European Renaissance.

So what were the influences of the Islamic Golden Age and how significant was the Quran in encouraging the pursuit of knowledge?

How overrated or understated is this period of history from a Western perspective and why?

To what extent did the Islamic Golden Age really stimulate Europe to move beyond the Middle Ages?

What lead to the demise of an Empire once so vast, illustrious and open to new knowledge?

Complex questions all. It is clear that there were great advances in mathematics made in the Arabic world between, say, 800AD and 1100AD (and it is possible to argue 1400AD ).

Trigonometry (specifically spherical trigonometry) developed well past the level found in the Greek world. In part, this was stimulated by the question of how to find the qibla (direction to Mecca).

Decimal numbers were adopted from Indian sources, but calculations were elaborated and simplified. These were adopted in Europe in the 13th century.

Algebra made huge leaps, going from almost pure geometric reasoning to something that would be recognizable as algebra (although still not symbolic). This includes a great deal of combinatorics and questions relating to solutions (and definitions!) of polynomial equations. Again, European mathematicians directly used Arabic sources for much of their work in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Many people are not aware that the concept of the number line was an Arabic invention. The mere notion would have been paradoxical to the Greeks prior to this.

Attempts were made to measure the size of the Earth. The answers obtained were much smaller than the answer obtained by Eratosthenes (which was remarkably accurate). This may have influenced Columbus' belief that China wasn't too far west to attempt an Atlantic crossing.

Ptolemaic astronomy was elaborated and made to 'fit appearances'. This brought to the fore the issues in that model. The Tusi couple (produced after the Mongol invasions, by the way) is a calculational device that was later used by Copernicus (although the direct link hasn't been established from what I know).

Investigations into light and optics were the most significant since Ptolemy and prior to Newton. Al Haytham studied refraction in detail and used his results to understand th working of the eye. This also influenced later European investigators, including Newton.

-------
It is far easier to point to the Greek and Indian influences on Arabic scholars and their subsequent influence on European scholars. Certainly the translations of texts into Latin stimulated European thought for centuries after. The specific impact of the Quran is more difficult. Certainly, it encouraged the study of spherical geometry and decimal calculations. It is less clear what its influence was on optics or astronomy, for example.

The demise of Arabic science is harder to pinpoint. Some point to Al-Ghazali (not just Tyson---Toby Huff does the same with more seriousness). Some point to the lack of institutional support for studies outside of the madrassas. Some point to the Mongol invasion and sacking of Baghdad (clearly an influence). But the greatest observatory prior to Tycho Brahe's was built by Mongol rulers Ulug Beg)! Science definitely declined under the Ottomans and the political shifts may have something to do with it.
 
I agree that Catholicism didn't play a major role in the renaissance. To the contrary it often supressed it.

The church was the biggest funder of the sciences, and was instrumental in translating Greek and Arabic sources. It created the university system, and installed greek and natural philosophy in the curricula.

It also funded schools and provided access to education to people not part of the traditional elite. Monks and clerics are among the biggest contributors to science in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

This doesn't seem like suppression to me.

The churches resistance to Galileo is a well known example.

It's just about the only one though, and more complex than is traditionally told.

One of the issues was that there was disagreement from scientists regarding his theories. The Church tended to change its position once the science was settled, and in this case it wasn't (even though Galileo was later shown to be right). As with most things, different people within the church were on both sides of the issue.

Also, The Church was really The Churches with localised power. It's certainly true that, at times, they did things which were hostile to science, but did far more good than harm overall.

Many great empires in history have distinguished themselves by military conquests and been political, have they not?

Also worth noting that there have been a multitude of Islamic empires, it only really stayed united for a few centuries

 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The church was the biggest funder of the sciences, and was instrumental in translating Greek and Arabic sources. It created the university system, and installed greek and natural philosophy in the curricula.

It also funded schools and provided access to education to people not part of the traditional elite. Monks and clerics are among the biggest contributors to science in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

This doesn't seem like suppression to me.

I want to second this. The translations that stimulated later thought were almost exclusively done by monks. Much of the debate about the nature of inertia, questions involving mathematics, the use of the astrolabe (another Arabic development), how to understand astronomy, etc were done by clerics and monks until the late 15th century at least. One good example was Oresme, a monk in Paris who studied, essentially, rational exponents and speculated about irrational exponents. This was far beyond anything done previously with this notion. A good deal of questioning of Aristotelian physics happened within the Church (Thomas Bradwardine, for example). If it wasn't for the foundation laid by monks in the 13th and 14th centuries, the work of Galileo would never have happened. Don't forget that Copernicus was a monk also.

It's just about the only one though, and more complex than is traditionally told.

One of the issues was that there was disagreement from scientists regarding his theories. The Church tended to change its position once the science was settled, and in this case it wasn't (even though Galileo was later shown to be right). As with most things, different people within the church were on both sides of the issue.

Yes, the Galileo story is more complicated than typically admitted. Remember that this was also during the backlash to the Protestant movement, so there was more concern about heretical ideas in 1600 than there were in 1400. Galileo was, from all sources, an incredibly unpleasant man. He found great joy in poking fun of those who would have helped him.

And, as you say, the issues surrounding the heliiocentric universe were certainly not resolved in the early 1600's. Galileo's observations were crucial, but not yet conclusive. Kepler's contributions also contributed greatly.

Also, The Church was really The Churches with localised power. It's certainly true that, at times, they did things which were hostile to science, but did far more good than harm overall.

Also worth noting that there have been a multitude of Islamic empires, it only really stayed united for a few centuries


Indeed.
 
Top