Jump to content
 







Main menu
    


Navigation  


●Main page
 ●Contents
 ●Current events
 ●Random article
 ●About Wikipedia
 ●Contact us
 ●Donate
  



Contribute  


●Help
 ●Learn to edit
 ●Community portal
 ●Recent changes
 ●Upload file
  







Search  

































●Create account

●Log in
 









●Create account
 ● Log in
  



Pages for logged out editors learn more  


●Contributions
 ●Talk
  


















Contents

   



(Top)
  


1 On the claim of Turkish origin of Biruni as claimed by Sayinli Website vs Western Secondary sources and Tertiary sources (Frye, Mackenzie, Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam)  
 17 comments  


1.1  Different theories on the statement of Biruni with regards to "branch of Persians"  


1.1.1  On policy  








2 File:Laleh park jonub.jpg Nominated for Deletion  
 1 comment  




3 Conversant in Turkish?  
 1 comment  




4 Orphaned remark  
 1 comment  













Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive 3




Page contents not supported in other languages.  








●Article
 ●Talk
  
















●Read
 ●Edit
 ●View history
  







Tools
    


Actions  


●Read
 ●Edit
 ●View history
  



General  


●What links here
 ●Related changes
 ●Upload file
 ●Special pages
 ●Permanent link
 ●Page information
 ●Get shortened URL
 ●Download QR code
  



Print/export  


●Download as PDF
 ●Printable version
  















Appearance
    

 





From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
< Talk:Al-Biruni
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

On the claim of Turkish origin of Biruni as claimed by Sayinli Website vs Western Secondary sources and Tertiary sources (Frye, Mackenzie, Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam)

There is at least one reliable source which suggests that he was Turkish (or at least not Persian). Furthermore, the currently cited sources do not explicitly deal with his ethnicity/nationality, but only refer to him as being born in Persia, i.e., Persian by birth not by ethnicity. So we need better sources for the Persian people claim (similar to what we did a few months ago at Avicenna). Some details:

According to Turkish historian Aydın Sayılı, Biruni himself "solemnly stated that he was neither an Arab nor Persian". Sayılı suggests that Biruni "was very likely Turkish". Reference: Sayılı, Aydın (2009). Ord. Prof. Dr. Aydın Sayılı külliyatı. Vol. 1. Atatürk Kültür Merkezi. p. 43. ISBN 9789751621061. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

An abridged version of another work by Sayılı gives more details:

Al-Bîrûnî, for example, tells us that his mother tongue was neither Arabic nor Persian. He adds, moreover, that it is impossible to write scientific books in his maternal language. He asserts that Arabic is the language appropriate for writing books of science and learning and that Persian is suitable for eulogies and evening stories, adding, however, that he himself would prefer criticism in Arabic to being praised in Persian.

Al-Bîrûnî is seen to have known Turkish from occasional references he makes to words in that language. Apparently he knew Turkish already in his very tender ages. For at least on two occasions he speaks of somewhat detailed childhood memories concerning aged Turks who brought medicines made of herbs to his native town, one of them being to the palace of Khwarazm. Moreover, Al-Bîrûnî's Turkish was, according to Zeki Velidi Togan, that of the Turks of his native country. And it is very unlikely that Al-Bîrûnî's acquaintance with Turkish was a result of his formal or private education.

We may conclude that Al-Bîrûnî was most certainly not Persian and was very likely Turkish.

The above quote is from an abridged version of Sayılı, Aydın (1986). Turkish contributions to scientific work in Islam. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. which is also available online. Assuming that we do not find other sources dealing explicitly with his ethnicity/nationality, I think the above arguement by Sayılı deserves to be mentioned in this article. Any thoughts? Wiqi(55) 14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Original Arabic و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس Translation: And the people of Khwarizm, they are a branch of the Persian tree. [3]

and pg 80 with regards to months in Turkish: "he has the order of the old-turkic (old uighur, which he calls toquz-oghuz) month names, which are just ordinals (readily recognizable in any variety) jumbled and adds a note that he doesn't know the correct order and doesn't know the origin and meanings of the names."[[5]]

[[6]] "The earliest examples have been left by the great Chorasmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī."(D. N. MacKenzie, "Chorasmian language" in Encycylopaedia of Iran). "The earliest examples have been left by the great Chorasmian scholar Abu Rayhan Biruni. In his works on chronology and astronomy (ca. 390-418/1000-28) he recorded such calendrical and astronomical terms as some of the tradi­tional names of days, months, feasts, and signs of the zodiac." And as to why we do not use nationalist historians in Wikipedia, here is Clifford Edmond Bosworth with regardss to his criticsm of Togan:

You misunderstood my reference to Avicenna. In his case, it is reasonable to use Persian people for two reasons. First, his native language was Persian. Second, some sources claim he was "ethnically Persian" (although other editors have questioned the quality of those sources, but I'm not concerned with this now). On the other hand, this is not the case with Biruni; his native language was not Persian, and his ethnicity is not known (at least not by any of the cited sources). Consequently, using the same language here and on Avicenna (despite not having information about Biruni's ethnicity, and despite knowing that his native language was not Persian) is rather misleading or needs better sources.
Now, none of your sources deals specifically with his ethnicity/nationality. The Bosworth quote was new to me, but it just calls Togan "over enthusiastic" and nowhere deals with arguments raised by Togan concerning Biruni or, more importantly, those raised by Aydın Sayılı. The rest of your points are based on original research. For example, you quote Biruni saying he did not know how the Turkish months correspond to months of other calendars. Then you concluded "He actually did not know any Turkish". That is not very convincing. So I don't agree with your interpretations of medieval texts, and this is why we need to cite reliable sources, which is what I'm after.
That said, I have yet to see any reliable source linking him to Persian people (i.e., he is not a native speaker of the Persian language, and was never linked to any Persian tribe or family, etc). Thus calling him Khawarizmian, Persian-born, or Persian (without "people", and strictly in the geographical sense) would be more accurate. Wiqi(55) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

misleading. Sayinli: "Al-Bîrûnî, for example, tells us that his mother tongue was neither Arabic nor Persian. He adds, moreover, that it is impossible to write scientific books in his maternal language."

The only statement Biruni makes is that his native language is the Iranian Chorasmian language. This statement by Biruni which is not mentioned by Sayinli, obviously establishes he is a Chorasmian Iranian.

regards to Turkish months he actually states: "adds a note that he doesn't know the correct order and doesn't know the origin and meanings of the names."" Note pg 77 of the .pdf file in the intro Biruni says:"And the months of other nations including those of India, China, Tibet, Turks, Khazars, Ethiopians and Zangs. Although I know the name of some these months, but I am looking for further time in order to completely understand them. Because with the approach that I have taken so far, it is not correct for me to mix doubt and certainties and what I understand with what I do not understand " [8] and pg 80 with regards to months in Turkish: "he has the order of the old-turkic (old uighur, which he calls toquz-oghuz) month names, which are just ordinals (readily recognizable in any variety) jumbled and adds a note that he doesn't know the correct order and doesn't know the origin and meanings of the names."[[9]]

All these sources are clear here was Iranian. His native language was Chorasmian (Iranian language) (the portion cut off by Sayinli) and he was from the region of Khwarazm :

Sayinli's claim is an exceptional (false) claim and you need exceptional sources published outside of Turkey by very high caliber authors. The fact that he fails to mention to his readers the full quote of Biruni (where Biruni explicitly and clearly states his native language as Chorasmian Iranian) is a clear example of such distortion. The current academic sources (based on Biruni's own declaration and many words in Chorasmian) state that he was an Iranian Chorasmian speaker, but Western sources use Iranian and Persian interchangeably. Wikipedia follows the common scholarly Western sources and Encyclopaedia of Islam is amongst the top ones. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And several more source which discuss Chorasmia and menton its Iranian character before its Turkicizations:

Biruni was not even fluent in type of Turkish language. Note pg 77 of the .pdf file in the intro Biruni says:"And the months of other nations including those of India, China, Tibet, Turks, Khazars, Ethiopians and Zangs. Although I know the name of some these months, but I am looking for further time in order to completely understand them. Because with the approach that I have taken so far, it is not correct for me to mix doubt and certainties and what I understand with what I do not understand " [12] and pg 80 with regards to months in Turkish: "he has the order of the old-turkic (old uighur, which he calls toquz-oghuz) month names, which are just ordinals (readily recognizable in any variety) jumbled and adds a note that he doesn't know the correct order and doesn't know the origin and meanings of the names."[[13]]

And with regards to Biruni being a native Iranian (Persian) Chorasmian speaker (note it is not the same as Modern Persian but it is still Iranian:

Gotthard Strohmaier, "Biruni" in Josef W. Meri, Jere L. Bacharach, Medieval Islamic Civilization: A-K, index: Vol. 1 of Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Taylor & Francis, 2006. excerpt from page 112: "Although his native Khwarezmian was also an Iranian language, he rejected the emerging neo-Persian literature of his time (Firdawsi), preferring Arabic instead as the only adequate medium of science.";

Iapologize for the long post, bt I had to show the errors (and the distortions) in Sayinli's work (false claim that Biruni mentions his mother tongue is not Arabic or Persian..etc.). Its better to use unbiased sources such as Britannica, Encyclopaedia of Islam and Iranica, Mackenzie, Bosworth and etc. are objective soures. The fact of the matter is that the native background of Biruni is 100% clear.. he was a native Iranian Khwarezmian language speakeras mentoned in the specialized articles about him such as in Encyclopaedia of Islam.

So in all these sources Persian, Iranian and Chorasmian have been used interchangeably. The fact is that Biruni is an ethnic Iranic (Iranian) and his native language was Iranian Khwarezmian language. His native language was not modern Persian bt the deceased Iranian Khwarezmian language (Biruni being the earliest Islamic era source on this ntive language of Khwarezmia). In Wikipedia we quote 3rd pary WP:RS sources on matters of dispute and not books from certain countries (say Iran or Turkey on disputed matter). Encyclopaedia of Islam has a detailed article on Biruni and there is no doubt about his background. Similarly so does Iranica. And so do many sources (Britannica). If we want to be precise, we can use Iranic Khwarizmian, but Persian is seen more often in the sources (since Persian and Iranian are used interchangebly). One can say Persian (Iranic Khwarizmian) to be more precise. I agree Iranic Khwarezmian is more precise but however most sources use Persian. If we use Iranian, some might confuse with modern citizen of Iran, whereas the reference is to Iranian peoples. Anyhow, his native language is mentioned in the footnotes and I am fine with the followings based on the popular usages: A) Persian B) Persian Khwarizmian C) Iranic Chorasmian.. Mainstream Western sources wer brought to support all three. .--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Khodabandeh14. In general I agree with your conclusion. But I'm more concerned with linking to Persian people, which seem to denote certain ethnic and linguistic characteristics that do not apply to Biruni (like his native tongue, which is not Persian). Also, Iranian people is not the same as Persian people, not here on Wikipedia anyway, so we shouldn't confuse the two. If it is more accurate to call him Khawarizmian, Persian, or use Persian Khawarizmian as you suggest, then the "Persian" part should not be linked to Persian people. In any case, arguments for him belonging to a Turkish minority living in Khawarizm are worthy of being summarized (assuming that we find better sources). The current Aydın Sayılı source was first brought up by IP editors, which I felt was worthy of being discussed and somewhat "recorded" in the talk page. Wiqi(55) 00:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there was no Turkish minority in Chorasmia, as Biruni explicitly states: "The people of Chorasmia are branch of the Persian tree" and secondary sources mention that the language was Chorasmian and the first Turks moved into the area during the Ghaznavid era (after Biruni). Also he is clear he does not know even the meaning of the Turkish months. As I mentioned, the ethnicity of Biruni is probably one of the few that any respectable and scholalry Western source does not dispute, because we have an explicit statement from Biruni which mentions:"And if it is true that in all nations one likes to adorn oneself by using the language to which one has remained loyal, having become accustomed to using it with friends and companions according to need, I must judge for myself that in my native Chorasmian, science has as much as chance of becoming perpetuated as a camel has of facing Kaaba."(L. Massignon, "Al-Biruni et la valuer internationale de la science arabe" in Al-Biruni Commemoration Volume, (Calcutta, 1951). pp 217-219.) There is no more explicit statement thenthis, and Biruni's glosses in this Khwarezmian language shows he was a native speaker of it. Anyhow, exceptional claims require exceptional and strong sources (neutral 3rd party Professor level sources not associated with any author from modern countries which are cursed with stupid nationalism). But on the issue of Persian: Biruni (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 22 April 2007; Persian scholar

A Persian by birth, a rationalist in disposition, this contemporary of Avicenna and Alhazen not only studied history, philosophy, and geography in depth, but wrote one of the most comprehensive of Muslim astronomical treatises, the Qanun Al-Masu'di."

The issue is that Persian people or what the Arabs called Al-Fors was equivalent to Iranian. The modern term "Persian people" for just speakers of one Iranian language is a new anachronism. In terms of the 10th century, this anachronism did not exist and the tems Prsian/Iranian were taen as equivalent. All of this is explained in the article on Persian peoples. Persian people, the variety of definitions and usage of these terms are mentioned, and it is mentioned that many scholars use these two terms (Iranian and Persians) as synonomous. Technically, both modern Persian and Chorasmian are Iranian languages, just like Egyptian Arabic and Yemenese Arabic, and classical Hejaz Arabic are all Arabic. To disect the Iranian/Persian continuum is a modern 20th century phenomenon not supported by classical sources. Anyhow, I added Persian-Chorasmian where Persian is the general term used in the wide definition. One can substitu Persian for Iranian peoples, but I believe we need to reflect most Western sources. Since Chorasmian (his native laguage) is now mentione, I think it is clear that by Persian, we mean Al-Fors in Arabic or Persian in the more classical sense (pre-20th century definition which fits Biruni). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which state that Biruni was conversant in Turkish, including an article published by Britannica reproduced here. His books also contain words and examples in Turkish. So your assertion that "he did not know any Turkish" isn't true. The Turks were everywhere in central Asia (including Khurasan); not just as nomadic tribes but also as mercenaries and slaves. Even as early as the 8th century, the power and presence of the Turks can be seen through the Turgesh-Ummayyad wars in which the Turks and Sogdians fought on the same side. We are also certain that they were Turks who lived in the outskirts of Khawarizm. Here is a quote from『Khwārazm』in the Encyclopedia of Islam: "It is likely that, as at all times in its known pre-modern history, Khwārazm's borders were under pressure from the pastoralist nomads of the surrounding steppes, probably by peoples like the Massagetes and Sakas in early times, and certainly by Turkish tribes like the Oghuz, Ḳipčaḳ, ... etc. in Islamic times. Biruni speaks in his Āthār, 236, tr. 224, of annual expeditions led by the Khwārazm-Shāhs against the Oghuz, ...". Other scholars, such as Aydın Sayılı and Richard Frye, suggest that they were indigenous Turkish populations in Khorasan even before the slave/mercenaries of the 7th-8th centuries (this view is contested by Bosworth as "hard to prove" but he considers it "moderate and balanced"). It is also worth noting that Jahiz (in the 9th century) considered the Turks and Khorasanians to be members of the same race (see Bosworth papers cited above, p.3). To conclude, there is plenty of material attesting that by the time of Biruni there were Turkish elements in the population in Khorasan, both as nomadic tribes and mercenaries/slaves. Some scholars suggest that they were Turks even earlier than the 7th century, and were part of the indigenous population of that region.
In short, Biruni was fluent in Turkish. The influence of Turks in his region is well-known. His Turkishness rests on the arguments raised by Sayılı and the theory of Sayılı and Frye. From what I read about the region, it is also wrong to consider him "Persian" in the sense of Persian people, that would be historically and linguistically false. He was a Khawarizmian, an Eastern Iranian, whereas the Persian people are Western Iranians. Scholars call the "rulers of Biruni" (i.e., the Afrighids) "Chorasmian" or "Chorasmian Iranians". In case anyone is interested, that would be the correct and non-geographic term to use for Biruni. Wiqi(55) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
We have indications that Turkish tribes settled in Khawarizm sometimes before the 8th century, mostly in the Khawarizmian province of Kerder. According to Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, their presence among the Khwarizmians led to the development of a hybrid language that was "neither Turkish nor Khwarizmian".[23]. In 728 AD, the people of Kerder also attempted a revolt with help from neighboring Turkish tribes (see Tabari at 110AH).[24] In addition to these Turkish settlements, Oghuz farmers used to attend Khwarizmian markets in large numbers during peace times. (Oshanin et al.) Furthermore, Khawarizm had a sophisticated system of slavery as early as the 3rd century AD [25], and like the Samanids in the 10th century, Khwarizmians also captured and employed Turkish slaves (although not as guards)[26] This confirms a strong presence of Turkish elements in pre-Ghaznavid Khwarizm.
As for Biruni not knowing Turkish, I find this hard to believe, for he worked for Turkish rulers most of his life. The sentence that you and Gursey refer to (above the Turkish and Turkuman table) is only found over the "Turkuman" table in my version (C. Eduard Sachau, 1878, p.70). We need to clear this up first. And Biruni's work is based on written sources, not his own linguistic intuitions. He ignored calendering systems lacking sources or when it did not differ much from those discussed. The typos he made are not specific to Turkish months, as his list of Khawarizmian months also contain similar typos, which are probably just copyists' mistakes.[27]
It is worth mentioning that Togan (who thinks Biruni was Turkish?) is also a notable scholar of the Khwarizmian language and cited many times in EI2. There are also other arguments to consider like his name (Biruni == "outsider"), which for some early Arabic biographers suggested that his origins may have been from the outskirts or countryside. Wiqi(55)

My friend, I am not sure if we are having a WP:FORUM discussion, but what you are doing is a variety of WP:synthesis.

If copyists made some mistake about Chorasmian, he makes no comments on it himself as he has clearly stated that his native language is Khwarizmian. Also Chorasmian was a dead language two centuries after Biruni, and furthermore, it has special characters in the modified Chorasmian-Perso-Arabic alphabet (three extra symbols not in modern Persian or Arabic), which would be unfamiliar to any copyist who did not speak Sogdian or Chorasmian. However, it is WP:OR to claim that the mistakes he made on the writing of Turkish months is due to copyist mistake, because he himself clearly states: "I do no know the order, the meaning ..." of those Turkish months.

Scholars use "Persian" or "Iranian" in the geographical sense (similar to how sometimes they call every Islamic scholar "Arab"). The sources you keep bringing up do not engage with previous scholarship on the subject, and do not show any evidence for such claim. I prefer leaving out his ethnicity altogether (i.e., just Khwarizmian). But since you insist on having it, then we must present all sides. So far, only Sayılı/Togan has devoted any efforts to the subject. Regardless of their motivation, they are reliable by wiki standards, and their arguments should be summarized. I would've done it myself but I have no access to their works.
And none of your claims about Khwarizm turned out true (maybe you should cite sources next time). Travelers in the 10th century agree that the pre-Ghaznavid Khwarizm was one of the most diverse cities in the Islamic world, with peoples of multiple tongues, Khazars, Arabs, etc. The presence of Turkish slaves is uncontested, as Khwarizm used to "import" from the steppes many things, but "above all,"Turkish and ṢaḲlabī slaves" (see EI2, and also Estakhri, as they were numerous even before Biruni was born). If Biruni was born in Kath, then this could support the Turkish claim, becuase Kath was an Eastern Khwarizmian city, closer to the nomadic Turks. In the 10th century, one traveler described Kath as "the emporium of the Turks, Turkestan, Transoxania, and the Khazars". ("Khwarizm" in EI2)
Concerning the origins of the Khwarizmian people, their own legends speak of them as having Turkish mothers. (see Al-Muqaddasi) Furthermore, early travelers observed that looks and habits of the Khwarizmians resemble those of the Turks. Some of these remarks have also been confirmed by recent Russian scholarship. (see Oshanin et al. linked above) None of your sources actually deals with any of this, hence they are clueless or too old to be useful.
Eduard Sachau published a critical edition of Biruni's al-Āthāar. His edition has the "note" you mention but only above the "Turkuman" table (per the other MS) and NOT the Turkish table. Moreover, the names of Turkish months in Sanchu's version are different than the names in your PDF. This clearly suggests that whatever typos we find we won't be able to distinguish those made by Biruni and those made by copyists (since we have two sets or more of typos). Also according to Biruni's al-Qānūn al-Masʿūdī, only the Persian, Arabic, Syriac calendering systems were in use in his time. Also, the same paragraph you refer to (the one that explains why he omitted the dates of other nations) is also found in al-Qānūn but now referring to the Khwarizmian months, which he actually omitted and for the same reason he omitted the Turkish months. By your logic, he does not know Khwarizmian either! Wiqi(55) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1) Lets read Encycloapedia of Islam on Khwarizm:

So a summary of Encyclopaedia of Islam clearly shows that the area had an Iranian character. It was a place that trade came through, but there is no mention of Khwarizm being a diverse place. It simply mentions Khwarizm as part of the Iranian world, and its people speaking the Chorasmian language. This was also the native language of Biruni which he has attested to himself. So he is an Iranian Chorasmian ethnically. Anyone that speaks Chorasmian language as their native language is Iranian by definition of speaking an Iranian language.

2) As per legends of Khwarizmian people, you did not provide a source. But that is easily explained (if what you claim), since it is not Turkish but Turanian, and that is due to the legendary Syavash marrying a Turanian, who an Iranian tribe later conflact with Turks due to geographical reasons., Here is what Biruni states about the people of Khwarizmia:『He says that the land was first colonised 980 years before Alexander the Great, sc. before the Seleucid era, i.e. in 1292 B.C., when the hero of Iranian epic Siyāvus̲h̲ came to Ḵh̲wārazm, and his son Kay Ḵh̲usraw was established on the throne 92 years later, in 1200 B.C. He starts giving names only with the Afrīg̲h̲id line of Ḵh̲wārazm-S̲h̲āhs, having placed the ascension of Afrīg̲h̲ in 616 of the Seleucid era, i.e. in 305 A.D. 』(Encyclopaedia of Islam, KHwarizm). Note Syavash and KayKhusraw are both Iranians.

Also Biruni is much more reliable than Muqqadessi when it comes to Khwarizm and he clearly states:The Khwarizmians (Arabic Ahlul Khwarizm or people of Chorasmia), although a branch of the great tree of the Persian nation, imitated the SOghdians as to the beginning of the year and the place whey they add Epagomenae"(Sachau , pg 57).

"Al-Biruni, the great scholar of the Ghaznavid period, was proud of Iranian antiquities, but he praised the Arabic language" (R.N. Frye, "The Golden age of Persia", 2000, Phoenix Press. pg 46).


3)

the names of some of them, to mention them here, posponing it till a time when we shall know them all, as it does not agree with the method which we have followed hitherto, to connect that which is doubtful and unknown with that which is certain and known"(Sachu's edition, pg 81 of the PDF edition).


4) Your OShahin source says nothing about Khwarizmians being Turks. It simply says: "The lattter (Muqaddasi) reports that in the tenth century the Khwarizmian people came to resemble very closely the type of Turki who led a nomadic life on the periphery of the KHiva oasis" .. SO again actually clearly distinguishing between Khwarizmians and Turks. By the way, the Khwarizmians were sedentary and urban, and the Oshahin source is not that up to date (relative to Encyclopaedia of Islam or Iranica).

5)

Different theories on the statement of Biruni with regards to "branch of Persians"

Here is an answer to your most important argument for now, i.e., the "branch of Persians", with reference to your last point.

You claim: "By the time of Biruni the number of Zoroastrians was reduced significantly in this area"

My response: I agree. Biruni also confirms it.

You claim: The "Khwarizmian calendar" is not the same as the "calendar of Zoroastrians in Khwarizm and Sogdiana".

My response: Actually, there is no such a thing as "Khwarizmian calendar". The only calendar ever discussed by Biruni is the "calendar of Zoroastrians in Khwarizm and Sogdiana". This is the source of your confusion.

Here is what Biruni states just before discussing the so-called "Khwarizmian months":

ثم أذكر شهور مجوس ما وراء النهر وهم أهل خوارزم والسغد وشهورهم كشهور الفرس (from Fliescher, p.45)

Translation: "Then I discuss the months of the Zoroastrians of Transoxania who are the people of Khwarizm and Sogdiana, and their months are the same as those of the Persians."

He clearly mentions the Zoroastrians, and only as a single group. If he was speaking of two distinct people (i.e., Khwarizmians and Sogdians) he would have of used "people" twice to be grammatically correct. One "people" for one group, i.e., "Zoroastrians of Transoxania".

In fact, Biruni stated that the Khwarizmian people abandoned their old calendars for a Hijra calendar that is written in an Islamic script. He mentions the Khwarizmians while discussing other abandoned calendars, namely those of pre-Islamic Arabia and Ancient Persians. (p. 35-36) He also gave a name of one person who still knew the Khwarizmian script (perhaps suggesting the Khwarizmian language itself is no longer a written language or dying).

وأنتقل التاريخ إلى الهجرة على رسم المسلمين (p. 36)

Translation: The Date have changed to Hijra using an Islamic writing system.

Let's go back to your now famous phrase:

وأما أهل خوارزم وإن كانوا غصنا من دوحة الفرس ونبعة من سرحتهم فقد كانوا مقتدين بأهل السغد .... في شهورهم.

We know that the Khwarizmian people did not adopt this calendar, instead they have abandoned all their previous calendars to an Islamic calendar. And we know that he restricted his discussion to Zoroastrians. Thus he is not talking here of the Khwarizmian people at large (which makes little sense if he does, since they abandoned this and other calendars entirely), but, per his starting paragraph, only the Zoroastrians among the people of Khawarizm (and Sogdiana).

We also know from above that the Zoroastrians are a small minority in Khwarizm. If we try to re-understand this sentence, but now taking into account the part you missed, i.e., Zoroastrians, we'll have:

أما [مجوس] أهل خوارزم وإن كانوا غصنا من دوحة الفرس ونبعة من سرحتهم فقد كانوا مقتدين بأهل السغد .... في شهورهم.

Now the use of "branch" perfectly makes sense. You also called the Khwarizmian Zoroastrians a "branch" of the Persian Zoroastrians. This also avoids making an exceptional claim that no scholar contemporary to Biruni have made. There are other arguments of course, as this change solves other problems too. But pending any feedback/refutation, I find this theory more plausible. Also note the Fliescher is reliable, and his edition is cited in EI2. And before you keep repeating policies, know that content policies do not apply to talk pages, and I'm only answering your questions. Wiqi(55) 20:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that is a creative but I believe you missed several other points, and your theory does not reconcile what Biruni says in the Qanun with what he says in the Athar. Also it violates WP:OR (in the talkpage say..) due to the fact that you inserted the word "Majus" where Biruni several other time mentions the people of Khwarizm, and is not mentioning Zoroastrians. On Zoroastrians being minority, I believe this may be correct but I am not 100% sure, but it doesn't make a difference in the argument.

Second what he elaborates on Khwarizmian and SOgdian Zoroastrian calendar is still very detailed, relative to Khazars (none), Chinese/Turks (just a list with no commentary except he does not know the order and meaning with regards to Turks), and etc.

and who studied their sciences. In consesquence these things are involved in so much obscurity, that it is impossible to obtain an accurate knowledge of the history of the country since the time of Islam" (Sachau, "The Chronology", London, 1879, pg 42)

history several times, and is not referencing "Zoroastrianism". For example he mentions Iranian myths (KayKhusraw, Syavash and even the [[Turan]ian if they are mentioned are still actually Iranian).

the lost records. Also the calendar could have been in disuse obviously or hardly used. Still the detail he provides about these calendars shows much more knowledge than Chinese, Turk, Khazars, Blacks etc. So I see no contradiction in my original claim except that his knowledge of Chorasmian calendar was not 100% complete due to the events that he describes himself and which gives the reason for it not being complete.

I agree with some of your point (especially the one about the Khwarizmian vs Arabic script). However, the one about burning books seems to support my view that Biruni used "branch" in the sense of a religious sect or group. Notice that starting from the branch sentence and up to the one about burning books, the same pronoun (hum) is being used (referring to the same noun). This means that the "burning of their books" should be understood as referring to the same group mentioned in the branch sentence (i.e., Ahl Khwarizm). If we follow your interpretation, then you're suggesting that Biruni wrote that many or all the books of the Khwarizmian people were burned, and all the Khwarizmians became illiterate. If that so, then there should be some other sources mentioning this major event, no? I've tried to find some sources, but the only event I've seen is Qutayba burning the idols (and perhaps other stuff) found only in Zoroastrian holy places (this was actually part of his deal with the Khwarizmians -- see al-Dhahabi). If it's true that this event was confined to Zoroastrian holy places, then this suggests that Biruni was writing about a small group of Zoroastrian holy men (for both claims - the branch and the burning of books). So assuming we don't find any reference to burning all the books of all the Khwarizmians, then I find the "branch" being just a religious sect and confined to Zoroastrian holy men to be more plausible. That said, I'm using the original Fliescher/Sachau book, not the English translation (which doesn't seem reliable), full ref:
Bīrūnī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (1878). Chronologie orientalischer Völker: von Albêrûnî. Gedruckt auf Kosten der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, In Commission bei F.A. Brockhaus. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Wiqi(55) 01:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

On policy

The policy of Wikipedia states we do not use it as a WP:FORUM, but simply a place to make improvements to the article. Anyhow all this discussions yielded that Iranian-Chorasmian is preferable per another user's input. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Laleh park jonub.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Laleh park jonub.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Laleh park jonub.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversant in Turkish?

In the lead paragraph, it is written that Biruni was conversant in Turkish. What is the source for this claim? BrokenMirror2 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned remark

WOW !!! How was the Samanid Empire related to Persia (Iran) (since there is a link to persia next to samanid) ÉÉÉ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.3.65 (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_3&oldid=1049994039"




●This page was last edited on 15 October 2021, at 04:09 (UTC).
●Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.


●Privacy policy
●About Wikipedia
●Disclaimers
●Contact Wikipedia
●Code of Conduct
●Developers
●Statistics
●Cookie statement
●Mobile view


Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki