Objectively, it's not a "Global golden age", it's a "Islamic golden age". That's very different. This guy does some heavy time travelling in order to justify h

Objectively, it's not a "Global golden age", it's a "Islamic golden age". That's very different. This guy does some heavy time travelling in order to justify his revisionism. He moves from circa 900-1200 AD (Golden age of Islam), to 1800-2000 AD (Nobel Prize counting). After losing to the Mongols and being razed to the ground, then came the Ottomans, and then the Triple Entente backstabbed them with the Sykes-Picot agreement after World War I. They never came back from losing to the Mongols. His point is so nonsensical, that is equivalent to saying that the Roman empire was weak because Italy did not win the World War 2, or that Ancient Greece is not worthy of recognition because modern Greece doesn't win Nobel prizes. He is comparing different millenia. Then he changes subjects to the militaristic side of things. He mentions how they invaded Europe many times. However European nations constantly invaded each other all the time anyways. And that trend only ended in the early 20th century when Americans ended wars of aggression through NATO and the UN. Follow better authors.