The Renaissance scholars were much interested in reviving the classical era of Greek and Roman culture. These areas of culture were revived in the visual arts and in architecture. The humanists of the Renaissance studied Greek and Roman writings, focused on the "humanities" such as philosophy and history. (Today we also call such studies the "liberal arts.")
The Renaissance happened across Europe, but was sparked by affluent city-states in Italy. These city-states were wealthy from products they made and some became very rich through trade and commerce. Wealthy persons in the Italian cities were sponsors of art and architecture and liberal studies, thus promoting the culture of the Renaissance. Much of this wealth came from trading with the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire, so there was an indirect role of Muslims in the support of the Renaissance. The Medici family were granted permission from the pope for exclusive rights to alum trade with the Ottomans, thus enriching and empowering the Medici. When the Ottomans took over sections of the old Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantine scholars fled to Italy, which also spurred the Renaissance movement in Italy. Another way Muslims were in the background of Renaissance thought was how Muslim scholarship in math and science filtered over into European scholarship.
John Green, in Crash Course, argues against the "Renaissance" as a thing because the art and learning was only experienced at the top of society. The vast majority of Europeans still lived on farms and were not well educated. Most Europeans didn't encounter the Renaissance's pattern of thought during that time. We remember it because of the ideas that came from it that are important to us now. The Renaissance is more of a construct we have made out of various things that happened over a span of centuries.
As to whether or not you agree with Green's argument, that's up to you.
