How accurate is the idea of an Islamic Golden Age?

Hi! To preface this, I currently cannot give you accurate sources because I'm not at home, maybe I will be able to later on (or someone else would be so kind to do so) but anyway here is my view on the matter as a comparative religion student. The first two paragraphs deal with nuancing this question, which you may or may not be interested in. If you'd like a more straight-forward answer, skip to the third paragraph.

First, no one will be able to give you a wholly conclusive answer since the topic is still much debated. As you rightly noted, politics has a large influence in shaping history. Even "neutral" scholars tend to overemphasise one point of view, consciously or not. This overemphasis is not necessarily the result of politics but more so because someone usually reacts or comments on another scholar. For example, Toby Huff wrote a quite influential book called Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective wherein he addresses the so-called Islamic Golden Age but interprets it as a somewhat unsuccessful and ultimately lacking in scientific and cultural advancements. Reactions to his book (which are plentiful) went therefore often too far in their defence of the non-Western scientific contributions. Understandable, yet not accurate. And as you can imagine, current scholars in the Middle East do at times tend to overestimate the importance of the Arab world in technological, cultural and scientific advancements.

Second, as for that period itself, it remains difficult to define what constitutes a Golden Age. I always hated going to much into definitions as a student because I thought it avoided the real questions yet in the end we cannot escape the importance of definition. Because what merits an accurate title "Golden Age" of a civilization. Is it a Golden Age relative to another age, or is it relative to another culture, or are there some characteristics that are necessary for us to call a period of time of a certain civilization a Golden Age? It is important for us as scholars because if we call this period of time the Islamic Golden Age, people are going to attribute all sorts of things to this period of time because we compare it to other "Golden Ages" we're familiar with. A comparison does however reveal a certain picture, and in the end I suppose it is up to the scholar in question to call this a Golden Age or not. In the next paragraph I shall first list a couple reasons why one could speak of a Golden Age and afterwards a couple reasons why one could be against such a title. Lastly I shall give my personal contribution on the matter, should you be interested. (I have written a paper on it a year ago so that's why I like to tell you)

Reasons why one could (objectively and accurately) call the 8th-13th century an Islamic Golden Age:

Baghdad was definitely one of main centres of science and trade, it attracted scholars from all over the known world. --
Scholars from the Islamic world, such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and al-Tusi among others were read and followed by scholars from Europe and well into the renaissance. Many works from Aristotle were only available in Europe through Arabic translations.
Their works often show a certain scepticism of ancient sources, akin to scholars of the european enlightenment-era.
Astronomical findings of the Maragheh observatory (such as al-Tusi's so-called "Tusi-couple") are said to have been used by Copernicus in works. More importantly, this shows an interest in empirical evidence, which is essential to critical scientific thinking.
Culturally, they made major advancements in calligraphy, poetry (look for the Poets of Shiraz for example) and religion of course. Islamic law and culture crystallised in this period. Whether you like it or not, it made major advancements during this period.
Their military conquest and trading networkds were undeniably strong. They got quite far into mainland Europe and looking at Andalusia in Spain (for example, the Alhambra), you can easily see the architectural ingenuity and especially the wealth of these empires.

However: Reasons why one could be hesitant to call this a Golden Age:

Their advancements were many, but not as groundbreaking as some suggest. Nearly all their scholarly works relied heavily on the Greeks or the Indians. In this sense it should not be equated to the European scientific revolution.
Medieval Europe was not nearly as backwards, helpless or unsophisticated as some seem to believe. Charles Haskins for example, convincingly argued for a (European) 12th century renaissance. He argues that in this period in Europe there were many advancements as well in fields as varied as literature, science, law religion and architecture.
There was much contact between West and East, and since they both relied on similar sources and shared many cultural values it might also not be accurate to call it a Islamic Golden Age considering it is not necessarily Islam which caused their cultural and military superiority over the rest of the known world. (though their newfound religion was surely a potent tool in conquering and/or convincing the world)

To make a very, very, very long story short (sorry, I'm just passionate about the subject) I would consider it accurate to call the proposed period a Islamic Golden Age provided the scholar or student who does is aware of the limitations of this title. By which I mean, one should not equate this period to other so-called Golden Ages because such a term tends to have certain connotations. Although one can objectively see that Islamic culture had more of an influence and reached further in this period than say the Christian one, it does not mean the rest of the world stood still. Furthermore, military conquests are an obvious sign of a successful society, but Mongols for example had many conquests even in the Arab world within this time-period. In other worlds, it will never be a clear-cut picture.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading, hope it helps and please respond if you have questions, comments, or remarks.