Talk:Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jagged 85 cleanup

Hi, not sure if you're aware of the User:Jagged 85 cleanup project? Full details are here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Jagged was particularly prone to claiming everything was invented in the Islamic world and then using a hard to verify source to back this claim up. Sometimes it's difficult or even impossible to identify the source properly; sometimes it's a source which can't easily be checked (e..g it needs a subscription). When the source can be checked, a large amount of the time Jagged has either gone significantly further than the source did (e.g. removing doubt which exists in the source), sometimes he's used an unreliable or fringe source (and other sources disagree), and sometimes the source doesn't provide any backing at all for the statement he's chosen to make.

This article is one of the articles which he contributed most heavily to. I've had a very quick look at the article already and while it doesn't seem as bad as some of the articles I've looked at, there are definitely still some issues.

As a first step, I'm going to do a quick word search for "first", "pioneer", and "father", as he was particularly prone to using those terms without good sources. You may wish to start checking some of the references cited yourself. I will be making edits as I have time. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Merlinme (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent science deletions

I've deleted some material where I believe it is broadly correct that Islamic scientists and mathematicians influenced Europeans, however I don't believe this happened in the medieval period (which is usually taken to end about 1500). These entries were added from a Jagged edit with the comment "copied text from Islamic science" (see diff 2 above), so it is perhaps unsurprising with such copy and paste tactics that he didn't carefully examine whether the material was suitable for this article.
If someone can come up with a reference showing that medieval Europeans were influenced by these Muslim scholars then the material could go back in. --Merlinme (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

An alternative approach I suppose would be to rename the article to something like "Medieval Arab and Muslim influences on later European thinkers", however that's outside of the scope of the cleanup; with the title as it is, Jagged shouldn't have copied and pasted that material. --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Copying material is useful, but it needs to go in the right articles. -Aquib (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of "first" etc.

I'm not implying all (or even most) of these are wrong, however I think they deserve closer scrutiny.

1. "Most early algebra works in Europe in fact recognized that the first algebra works in that continent were translations of the work of al-Khwärizmï and other Islamic authors."
2. "Fibonacci presented the first complete European account of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system from Arabic sources in his Liber Abaci (1202)."
3. "Al-Jayyani's The book of unknown arcs of a sphere, the first treatise on spherical trigonometry, had a "strong influence on European mathematics", and his "definition of ratios as numbers" and "method of solving a spherical triangle when all sides are unknown" are likely to have influenced Regiomontanus.[17]"
4. The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the Crusade between 1254–1260.[22]
5. Ibn al-Nafis' Commentary on Compound Drugs was translated into Latin by Andrea Alpago (d. 1522), who may or may not have also translated (with out publication) Ibn al-Nafis' Commentary on Anatomy in the Canon of Avicenna, which first described pulmonary circulation and which might have had an influence on Michael Servetus and Realdo Colombo if they saw it.[26]
6. 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).[78][79]
7. The madrasah was the earliest example of a college, mainly teaching Islamic law and theology, usually affiliated with a mosque, and funded by Waqf, which were the basis for the charitable trusts that later funded the first European colleges.
8. Madrasahs were also the first law schools, and it is likely that the "law schools known as Inns of Court in England" may have been derived from the madrasahs which taught Islamic law and jurisprudence.[104]
9. a university is assumed to mean an institution of higher education and research which issues academic degrees at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, then the Jami'ah which appeared from the 9th century were the first examples of such an institution.[103][105]
10. The first colleges and universities in Europe were nevertheless influenced in many ways by the madrasahs in Islamic Spain and the Emirate of Sicily at the time, and in the Middle East during the Crusades.[105]
11. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[109]
12. This epic has been influential in the West since it was translated in the 18th century, first by Antoine Galland.[129]
13. He wrote the first Arabic novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan (Philosophus Autodidactus), which told the story of Hayy, an autodidactic feral child, living in seclusion on a desert island, being the earliest example of a desert island story.[133][134]
14. A Latin translation of Ibn Tufail's Hayy ibn Yaqdhan first appeared in 1671, prepared by Edward Pococke the Younger, followed by an English translation by Simon Ockley in 1708, as well as German and Dutch translations.
15. These translations later inspired Daniel Defoe to write Robinson Crusoe, regarded as the first novel in English.[135][136][137][138]
16. According to Margaret Smith, "There can be no doubt that Ghazali’s works would be among the first to attract the attention of these European scholars" and "The greatest of these Christian writers who was influenced by Al-Ghazali was St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who made a study of the Islamic writers and admitted his indebtedness to them. He studied at the University of Naples where the influence of Islamic literature and culture was predominant at the time."[147]
17. One of the most important scientific works to be translated was Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics (1021), which initiated a revolution in optics[27] and visual perception,[28] and introduced the earliest experimental scientific method,[29] for which Ibn al-Haytham is considered the "father of modern optics"[30] and founder of experimental physics.[31][32]
18. Ibn Tufail (Abubacer) was a pioneer of the philosophical novel.

There's quite a lot there which I know to be either wrong or (at best) a fringe theory. --Merlinme (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Number 1 -- "Most early algebra works in Europe in fact recognized that the first algebra works in that continent were translations of the work of al-Khwärizmï and other Islamic authors." is certainly false. The works of Diophantus, for instance, are either incorporated into the Arabic works or were known by learned people before Islam started. Also, you have to define "early" -- is 1463 early enough? 24.27.31.170 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

A fringe theory at best ?! and you're working on correcting biases ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well- a lot of the worst examples have been taken out, but to take a couple of examples I looked into, this website:[1] described the suggestion that English common law was influenced by Islamic law as "stimulating and provocative", and quotes Makisi: "one cannot forget the opportunity (my italics) for the transplant of these mechanisms from Islam through Sicily to Norman England in the twelfth century." Certainly the jury system existed in Anglo-Saxon England, and very few people argue it was influenced by Islam. Similarly, "Historical facts for the Arabian musical influence" By Henry George Farmer, considers the do re mi musical scale, and argues what Farmer acknowledges to be the the dominant, Italian thesis, concluding "The Arabian claim also lacks documentary proof, but it certainly looks quite as real as the hymn theory". This is from a book first published in 1930; as far as I'm aware, Farmer's theories have not gained ground. So I think it's reasonable to suggest that they are "Fringe".

Perhaps I did speak too hastily, but I have looked at a lot of this stuff in other articles, and the omens are not great. --Merlinme (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What about claim #5 of your list, that Ibn al-Nafis is credited with the discovery of pulmonary circulation. This claim is confirmed in numerous sources. This cannot be considered a "fringe theory at best". Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not fringe, but completely irrelevant here. Ibn al-Nafis's theory had no impact on Christian medicine and was even neglected by Muslim physicians. In fact, the mansuscript describing the discovery was only discovered in the 1920s. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't, please read what I actually wrote: "I'm not implying all (or even most) of these are wrong..."; "There's quite a lot there (i.e. not all) which I know to be either wrong or (at best) a fringe theory." I don't doubt that Islamic science and culture made signficiant contributions to medieval Europe, what I do doubt is that it did so every single time Jagged claimed it did. --Merlinme (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• 4 can go; according to our article, the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris was over 500 years old by that point - founded in 651, which even jagged might concede is a little early for Islamic influence in Paris. The ones on universities ignore the Buddhist colleges in India like Nalanda - much older & awarding various degrees, as Tibetan ones still do. I find the legal system claims unconvincing - medieval Europe either continued Roman law, or used Germanic common law. Waqf adds little or nothing to the well-developed concepts of church property in the pre-Islamic Christian, and earlier pagan, world, on which it was no doubt very largely based. How much Roman/Byzantine influence was there on the practice of Islamic law one might ask, without much hope of a useful answer. In general we should ask for specific examples of "influence" - just saying there was influence is too vague, inviting WP:UNDUE. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

4th century - Christ as a teacher - influenced by Islam?

You can probably add "According to Professor George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, some of the terms and concepts now used in modern universities which have Islamic origins include "the fact that we still talk of professors holding the 'Chair' of their subject" being based on the "traditional Islamic pattern of teaching where the professor sits on a chair and the students sit around him", the term 'academic circles' being derived from the way in which Islamic students "sat in a circle around their professor",..." since there exist many depictions from Late Antiquity showing teachers of philosophy & their students in just this arrangement. Makdisi was evidently a great cheerleader for all kinds of Islamic influence, but he was a scholar of Islamic studies, not any period of European history. I should add that the text here follows what should be an RS correctly - I'm just dubious about how much the professors' account is specialized or critical, here. Goddard just follows & quotes Makdisi; neither are historians of medieval Europe that I can see. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've personally found these claims some of the hardest to deal with, as while it's not unusual for Wikipedians to give one source (or one side of the argument) undue weight, unless you have a detailed knowledge of the subject (and sources) it's difficult to disagree with what is a decent source, accurately quoted. To give correct weight to each of these sources which Jagged has used, perhaps in an area I don't know a great deal about, perhaps which is not easy to quickly research, is extremely difficult. Given that he's done this in dozens of articles, it's a rather mammoth task to resolve. --Merlinme (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - I think we are going to have to be a bit bold. I've found this on very ancient Indian trust law, and this on Roman and English trust law. No. 11 is probably OK - Fred II was ruler of Sicily and a fan of Islamic ways. I'll remove 7-10 now. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Makdisi is a first-rate scholar, but unfortunately I found him also to be a complete Janus face on the question of the origin of the college and university and its relation to the madrasa. In fact, he has presented two directly contradictory positions! See Ijazah#Hypothesis on origins of doctorate for a quick comparison. At any rate , "Madrasa" in the Encyclopedia of Islam draws no connections whatsover between the Christian and Muslim, so that should be the final word of mainstream scholarship. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I to understand you are removing a claim supported by Makdisi based on your own interpretation of his other material, and a contradictory claim in the Encyclopedia of Islam? -Aquib (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on this material. The claim is still mentioned indirectly as one of his "18 points", & is in any case pretty trivial, probably not desrving specific mention even if correct. But it seems a complete howler to me, as for example medieval representations of Christ among the doctors consistently show just this arrangement from well before Islam. If there was specialist support discovered it could be reconsidered, but AFAIK he is mostly regarded as having "claimed too much" in general (while some of his claims have merit), as this guy puts it. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What sense is meant by "contribution"?

The assertion that Cordoba (Cordova) was the first place to have litter collection seems to have rather slim support. A web search just turns up 1001 inventions (which is basically the original source) or Wikipedia. I've ordered a copy of the "The Mind of the Middle Ages" as it looks like quite an interesting book, but the other source I'd consider unverified. It's debatable whether referencing an 800 page work without giving a page number should count as a reference anyway, but after quite a lot of trawling through the pdf version of the out of copyright "History of the Moorish People" I found "The streets, adapted to the scorching climate, were narrow, but solidly paved, perfectly drained, and, subject to constant supervision, were kept in a state of cleanliness unknown to the best regulated municipalities of modern Europe." (p. 619) So as far as I can tell, waste collection isn't even mentioned. It sounds like we're talking about effective street cleaners, which isn't the same thing at all. So I don't think this claim is supported by the Scot reference.

However, even if the claim is supported by the Mind of the Middle Ages, there's an additional problem in that I think including this as an Islamic contribution to Medieval Europe is dubious, although it does depend somewhat on your definition of "contribution". I take it to mean a way in which the Islamic world contributed to developments in Medieval Europe. But as far as I can tell, there was basically no litter collection in Christian medieval Europe, and there wasn't till the 19th century, so I don't really see how Medieval Europe can have been influenced by the Cordoba example (assuming the Cordoba example existed). Cordoba was an advanced city, certainly, but that doesn't mean it gave litter collection to Europe. The lead says "Europe absorbed knowledge from the Islamic civilization". There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that Europe absorbed litter collection from Cordoba. I am therefore going to remove this from the list in Technology. I might well have a look at some other Jagged entries in this light, he was rather prone to adding lists of information which may have been correct but were certainly not relevant. Please say here if you object to this approach.

In general one of Jagged's worst tendencies was to suggest that because Islamic civilization had a type of X, and later European civilization had a similar type of X, the European version must have come from the Islamic version. He never allows for the possibility that the European version came from a different source, or that both versions came from a common source (and the Europeans didn't know about the Islamic version), or that X was invented independently in very similar forms in the Islamic and later European worlds. --Merlinme (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I never mentioned Qantara in this discussion (Partners). May be it can help you in sorting out this concern about the title. --Anneyh (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at those links did not clarify the question for me. I agree with Merlinme: the article claimed that "waste containers" were a contribution from one group to another, and that absurd suggestion casts huge doubt on the veracity of the entire article as it shows that contributors were happy to add anything without thought. The fact that the claim is referenced merely shows that either the contributor has misrepresented the source, or that the source fails WP:RS. From experience in discussions elsewhere, I had better add that it is equally obvious that, as the lead says, "Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe were numerous"—it's just that lots of people both inside and outside Wikipedia have over-egged the pudding. Thanks Merlinme for taking the time to cleanup these articles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Islam section of transmission knowledge and I'm afraid I'm not a great deal the wiser, Anney. If the suggestion is that knowledge was transmitted via books and teaching in madrasahs and hospitals, fine, but actually I would probably consider that too restrictive. I don't have a problem with less formal transmission of knowledge, e.g. artistic styles in music or literature, more efficient farming methods, etc., if- and it's a very big if- there is reliable evidence that knowledge was transmitted. Jagged tended to uncritically heap dozens of "impressive achievements of medieval Islamic culture" in together, implying that they were the source of all later knowledge, often when there was no evidence for it, or even when there was a lot of evidence that other sources were far more important. Something I find particularly difficult to deal with is (arguably) undue weight given to good scholars like the two Makdisi (and Watson, I guess), who have tended to promote all evidence of an Islamic origin, and ignore evidence of a non-Islamic origin. As far as possible I've attempted to spell out their assumptions and make it clear that it's one scholar's view. I personally find the connection between Islamic law and English juries to be, frankly, a load of old tosh. Again, no possibility is allowed that a similar solution could have been found to a similar problem, via a different tradition, and without any direct connection whatsoever. Similarly the suggestion that classical Latin was preferred to medieval Latin because classical Arabic was preferred to medieval Arabic rather ignores the possibility that that they were both preferring the highly esteemed and highly accomplished language of what was seen as a Golden Age. Some of what is suggested is on the other hand quite persuasive, e.g. why it was called the art of dictation in Italy, the borrowing of Islamic trust law. Some of the links between people like Aquinas and Dante and Islamic knowledge are fascinating. But what is particularly irritating is that the uncritical promotion of a biased viewpoint detracts from the genuine influences. I can try to give due weight to these sources as I go through them, but that leaves something like 80% of the article which has to considered a bit dubious at the moment. --Merlinme (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary of the unfortunate situation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, take it out. Ancient & medieval societies had little "litter", but a large range of commercial recycling collections & operations for everything from shit up. Fortunately for archaeologists, about the only things they couldn't re-use were old leather and broken pottery. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As conduit for East Asian developments

While we are at, this article really needs a section on the role of the Islamic world in passing Chinese, Indian & maybe other East Asian developments to Europe - the zero, paper and so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Technology section

I find this whole section quite difficult to deal with. I'm therefore going to go through item by item here, to explain my thinking and get some feedback.

• These included various crops; OK for some crops, certainly (Watson et al)
• Greek inventions such as the astrolabe; I believe this is correct
• and a variety of original Muslim inventions, including astronomical instruments such as the quadrant (including the Quadrans Vetus, a universal horary quadrant which could be used for any latitude, I believe this is correct
• and the Quadrans Novus, an astrolabic quadrant) Probably not ok; www.astrolabes.org says it was the French Jewish astronomer Jacob ben Machir ibn Tibbon. I've deleted.
• and sextant, a universal astrolabe invented by Abū Ishāq Ibrāhīm al-Zarqālī known as the Saphaea in Europe probably ok, although it was popularised by Gemma Frisius in the 16th century
• the "observation tube" (without lens) which influenced the development of the telescope,needs checking
• cobwork (tabya) deleted, as I can't find any evidence of Christian medieval examples being influenced by Islamic examples
• street lamps, deleted, as I can't find any evidence of Christian medieval examples being influenced by Islamic examples
• weight-driven mechanical clocks with escapement mechanisms I think this was actually contradicted by one source, anyway I've consolidated to "advanced automata".
• segmental gears[82] ("a piece for receiving or communicating reciprocating motion from or to a cogwheel, consisting of a sector of a circular gear, or ring, having cogs on the periphery, or face") consolidated to "advanced automata". Even if true, this level of detail is not needed or helpful.
• distilled alcohol (ethanol) described by Muslim chemists Rather exaggerated, distillation has been known for thousands of years, although it was rediscovered in medieval Europe through the Arabs. I've revised.
• over 200 surgical instruments described in Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi's Al-Tasrif Albucasis himself was certainly very influential, but which tools he invented, which he developed, and which he just described the tools is unclear, and in any case this belongs better in Medicine, so I've moved and expanded this in that section.
• explosive compositions of gunpowder, checked; on reflection, needed such heavy qualification and may not even be correct, considering nearly simultaneous writings e.g. by Roger Bacon, that I've decided to remove
• the baculus used for nautical astronomy removed, couldn't find anything outside Wikipedia on this

--Merlinme (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want comments interspersed or together? It's not my area, but:

street lamps - not a technological innovation, but a social/political one. Cordoba actually had 4-8 of these, attached to walls, I think in one square, yet they invariably crop up in accounts of the age of "Merrie Islam". To me they are a function of the city being treated as all the property of the ruler, and the main square as an extension of his palace, as opposed to Western cities which already had local authorities who were too mean to pay for such fripperies. A sign of differences rather than a "contribution". Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now deleted street lamps and cobwork. Islamic achievements, possibly, but I've yet to see any evidence that it was Islamic influence which led to their adoption in medieval Europe.

In general (yet another) of Jagged's practices which are problematic are his use of "shock and awe" lists, where you barely know where to start with the claims which need verification. Lists in general aren't great, let alone lists which contain dubious entries. But I guess we'll get there in the end. --Merlinme (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As the list gets whittled down I'm beginning to think it could be usefully got rid of altogether, and replaced with narrative on the broad areas where Europeans were influenced, e.g. astronomical instruments, possibly medical instruments, distillation, the Agricultural Revolution thesis. As I said in my previous post, I'm not sure a list is the best way to present this information. --Merlinme (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the list into a form which I think is helpful, which concentrates on the important transfers which can be supported. I'll add in "various surgical instruments, both original and refinements on older forms" with reference to Albucasis. --Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that looks a lot better to me. Only one Technology paragraph to go!

• The industrial production of sugar,[79] Deleted industrial, expanded sugar with verified reference
• clocks, Changed to water clocks.
• pulp and paper, Yes but needs qualification, especially the mill part
• perfume, Need to check
• silk, Need to check
• and the mining of minerals such as sulfur and ammonia, were transferred from the Islamic world to medieval Europe. Need to check
• Factory installations No, this is very misleading, the normal translation is "workshop"
• and a variety of industrial mills (including fulling mills, Again, industrial is not helpful. Need to check fulling.
• gristmills, Need to check
• hullers, and Need to check
• sugar mills Need to check
• may have also been transmitted to medieval Europe,[81] May is a rather big word in this context!
• along with the suction pump (which also incorporated a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism) invented by al-Jazari,[82][83] Need to check
• noria Need to check
• and chain pumps for irrigation purposes. Need to check
• These innovations made it possible for some industrial operations that were previously served by manual labour or draught animals to be driven by machinery in medieval Europe.[84] Need to check

Ok, that's done. I'm sure it could be improved but I've hopefully eliminated the most dubious claims of Islamic inventions, and also to inventions with no clear influence on medieval Europe. --Merlinme (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

whole scale deletions

I am going to take out the sections Law, Education, and Economics they are discussed elsewhere. They are not supported by reliable sources. I'll look for the links to post them here. J8079s (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Also institutions J8079s (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly one way of getting rid of some of the dubious material. Could we have the links please, as although I think you're broadly correct (if nothing else, in terms of undue weight given to particular sources), I'd still like to see that other Wikipedians who have looked at it have agreed they are bad sources. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow User:Jayzames did a lot of work in this area see talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayzames I'll try to get more organized. I think your doing a great job but based on the RFC when in doubt throw it out.Be Bold J8079s (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Having had a look at Jayzames talk and Sharia, I'm not a great deal the wiser on why we've lost (say) the influence of Islamic trust law, which I thought was reasonably well supported. However, the vast majority of it could go, and I agree there's a lot of Jagged to clear up, so I'll leave this for the time being. Might return to it, if/ when I finish cleaning up the rest of the article. --Merlinme (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the issue with claims related to trust law was that they ignored the possible influence of Roman trust law, (Fideicommissum) and relied on a few fringe scholars to push the POV that Islamic trust law was a major influence. Dialectric (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)