Mythification of "the Golden Age"

     Nostalgia it would seem is a universal human sentiment - we fear the new and long for the old. Over-exaggerating ages of relative prosperity and strength also seems like a natural recourse when the contemporary situation is grim. Being of Muslim upbringing, I was raised with one perceived golden age that stands out as particularly over-glorified. It's what we call "the Islamic Golden Age." Once I became a student of history however, I saw that this era is not what it was made out to be, its greatness in certain aspects notwithstanding, and certainly should not be taken as a model for the modern world. 

This is obviously not a history paper I'm writing, but rather an invitation to critically re-evaluate certain perceptions.



The traditional "golden age" is usually dated at 750, obviously when the Umayyads were defeated by the Abbasids, a dating I personally disagree with. This period was certainly not without greatness. Significant advancements were made in numerous scientific fields. But what strikes me is that certain social policies are deemed praiseworthy in our day and age. I'll focus on two in particular, the standing of women and religious groups.

I often heard about how women were well treated in that era. Barring the sex slave trade in the region, that operates till this day, which primarily affected women, "free women" were not that well treated either, by modern standards. Now it is true that women in the "Islamic world" had certain rights and legal standing that women in other polities lacked even well into the 18th century (though we should keep in mind that whether these theoretical rights were observed in practice is questionable), though that is hardly novel and revolutionary because other polities had similar rights long before Islam, not to mention matriarchal societies which had women in power. It cannot be denied however that women were never treated as equals. For purposes of certain testimonies for instance, they counted as half a man (if allowed to bear witness in the first place as women were barred to witness in certain cases), something that is still in place and that we cannot discard because it's in the Qu'ran. Women inherited less then men based on a stipulation in the Qu'ran, with the assumption that her male siblings will take care of her, something that still exists till this day because we all know that women can't take care of themselves like any other male adult.

Let us look at what Muhammad said during his last sermon with regards to women:
"You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to hit them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things they have a right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons. You have taken them only as a trust from God and you have the enjoyment of their persons by the word of God, so understand my words" 
 - Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, translated by A. Guillaume, (Oxford, 1955), p.651. 

This passage, to me, is misogynistic and with double standards.  Now there is no doubt in my mind that what Muhammad did, overall, improved the status of women in the region in his time. But there is no use in pretending he was a feminist well ahead of his time, it's quite understandable that he is not, he is after all a human bound by the context and time in which he lived. However as a feminist myself, I find his policies with regards to gender and this passage, to be unacceptable, irrational and unpragmatic if they are to be applied in the modern age. It perpetuates a patriarchal system, even if it makes it seemingly kinder, that we must now discard.

The presence of such policies and their longevity is not surprising. The first time the traditional patriarchal order was seriously put in question was in the contemporary age, when women proved capable of operating an industrial economy while the men were killing each other in WW1. What I find surprising is that the Islamic middle ages is often seen as an example when it comes to gender relations, and that vestiges of it remain unquestioned till this very day.


But it's especially the tolerance of other religions that is very much praised and held as an example. People point out to the "Western world" of the time and their practices, to emphasize how great the "Islamic world" was. With the exception of polities like Norman Sicily, it's true that European kingdoms were not well-known for their tolerance of other religions, but that's precisely why claiming superiority over them is not saying much. Ahl al Dhimma ("the protected people") were allowed freedom of religion and private worship, were exempted from the military, had certain communal autonomy, were occasionally appointed to high positions, all at the cost of the Jizya tax in addition to the other taxes they needed to pay. But they were far from being treated as equal citizens and were systematically discriminated against, and occasionally persecuted. Non-Muslims were allowed to keep their places of worship but were not allowed to build new ones  (with very very few exceptions), were forbidden to practice their religion publicly, and were forced to abide by discriminatory practices like wear distinctive clothing and be unmounted in the presence of Muslims, and marriage between Muslims (especially women) and people of other religions was a complicated if not virtually impossible mess. This was better than what was in Europe at the time, but certainly not as good and ideal as the myth of perfect Islamic tolerance makes it out to be. And mind you, here I'm talking about the treatment of religious groups. Being openly atheist on the other hand is a different and more severe matter.


And to hold such a state of affairs as a model to this day and age is not a sentiment I can sympathize with or accept. Islamic tolerance, that had always claimed superiority over the other faiths, is not an alternative to acceptance of other faiths as equally valid. It is a system that is inherently discriminatory, even if it hadn't committed any persecutions (even though persecution is almost inevitable if you discriminate), as it categorizes people in different groups and treats them differently based on faith. In the Islamic state of affairs, civil laws with regards to family and personal status laws, would be non-existent. While it's understandable to have such a system in the middle-ages, it is simply no longer acceptable or pragmatic to hold such a system today. The problem was not in the execution only, but rather the entire concept of dividing a people based on religion and treating them differently is fundamentally flawed and not conducive to modern citizenry that can be united and equal, while remaining diverse.


These two examples strike me as the most commonly used arguments to praise the "Islamic golden age." There are a lot of things worthy of praise. The treatment of women and religious groups are not one of those things. They were a lesser of two evils, but that does not change the fact that these groups were not treated as equals like they ought to be, because of a fundamentally flawed system and culture albeit understandably so if put in historical context. This mistreatment, coupled with the massive political, institutional and social failures that plagued the entirety of Islamic history even during the prophet's time, is a big reason as to why I feel this "golden age" is being excessively praised. But what I find more troubling is that it's used for contemporary political agendas and is being held as an example today. If not in its details, then in its "spirit" and conceptualization of the world, both of which I find unappealing but more importantly fundamentally flawed and adverse to building a modern, efficient, all-inclusive, fully pluralistic, egalitarian state.