![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is not vote! Just a way to reach a consensus.
User:SouthernComfort has found http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm, the authorative, neutral and well sourced refrence I was asking everybody to provide (see User:Ruud Koot/al-Khwarizmi for what, mostly tertiary sources, have to say about it). This articles, written by an Associate Professor in Mathematics at the University of Indianapolis, who specializes in Arabic/Islamic mathematics clearly states al-Khwarizmi was Persian, not Arabic. I would kindly request everybody to thoroughly read it. Based on this I propose the following introduction for the articles. Could everybody say if they support or oppose it, so we can finally settle this dispute? Cheers, —Ruud 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[1] (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian[2] mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either KhwarizmorBagdad, and died around 850. Few details of his life are known.
With all respect Ruud, but with voting we can even make Isaac Newton a persian. LOOL Jidan 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a second attempt by me. This introduction clearly establish that al-Khwarizmi was of Persian ancestry (which we all agree on) and that he lived under Abbasid caliphate (which I think we also all agree on.
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[3][4] (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either KhwarizmorBagdad, and died around 850. Al-Khwarizmi was or Persian ancestry, however by the middle of the 8th century Pesia was under the rule of the Abbasid caliphate and al-Khwarizmi published his works in Arabic. Few details about his life are known.
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c.780 - 850) (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي, Persian موسى خوارزمى) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer.
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī[5][6][7][8] (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either KhwarizmorBaghdad, and died around 850.
Instead of adopting one of the three theories as to his ethnicity, we can present all three and let readers decide. That's NPOV. I rewrote the article to say that his ethnicity is a controversial topic and that there are three theories. Proponents of each theory should make sure that each entry gives the best possible case for their theory. OK? yes? Zora 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If there's a conflict, and all sides are notable, then we give all sides, we don't just pick one. Look down the page, don't just look at the first para. Zora 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Zmmz edited the latest version, claiming that AK wrote in Latin (he didn't - he was translated into Latin) and inserting "Persian" before Khorasan. The ethnicity of Khorasan is debateable. I think we should refrain from making any claims as to its ethnic composition, and just give the political history, about which we know more. If Khorasan isn't indisputably Persian, then listing other scholars from Khorasan doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there was a link between Khorasan and the Abbasids, which we know from history.
I did leave the point re writing in Arabic not proving anything, which is a good one. Arabic in those times was the equivalent of Latin in European scholarship -- it was the lingua franca of the elite, and allowed people with many different mother tongues to communicate. Zora 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Zmmz, how do you know that he spoke Greek and Latin? He may well have known Greek, since the House of Wisdom was translating Greek texts. But there's nothing to PROVE that he knew Greek. There's no support whatsoever for Latin.
Zora just after the dispute was finally being settled, and just after everyone voted, you took it upon yourself to practically rewrite the entire article. You can`t keep doing things like this, unless you come to an agreement with the majority of the editors, specially, if it is a drastic changes like this. Even so, I still asked others not to complain and revert, and I only added two more lines to the whole article, which are by the way very relevant to the Biography section. Finally, a simple error was corrected, and it now says he [read] and spoke Latin, and Greek. From now on, please refrain from going against a consensus, even if it was not an over-whelming one. Zmmz 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think that his NAME is Persian? What about Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa is Persian? All those seem like good Arabic names to me.
Let`s not pretend Al Khwarizmi does not point to him being from Khwarizm. I wrote that may be an indication.Zmmz 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, you've restored the edits claiming that Khorasan was Persian and that a great many scholars came from Khorasan. This is not surprising, since the Khorasanis had put the Abbasids in power and many had moved to Baghdad. They were the elite, with the money and leisure for scholarship. But it's not relevant to AK's ethnicity. We don't know whether the Khorasani Islamic community was Arabic, or Persian, or Arabo-Persian. Have you considered the possibility that AK was of mixed blood? Zora 02:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". To this day Khwarizmians, now Uzbeks, they still speak Persian and are part of the Greater Iran. There are no signs of them being mixed with Arabs, nor do the speak Arabic. Khwarizm, which was part of Khorasan, was the center of learning, poetry and education during the Sassanid Persia era. The great empire took most of his resources and concentrated it around those areas. The Empire also set-up learning universities, and hospitals as well; the first in the East, and what would later be copied by the Romans. ThanksZmmz 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, three centuries later, the inhabitants of Khorasan might have spoken Persian. The Abbasid empire was breaking up and the Persian language was reasserting itself. But that doesn't really say anything about Khorasan three centuries earlier, or, crucially, about the household in which AK grew up. He could have grown up in an Arabo-Persian household in which the daily language was Arabic. (Just as a Syrian immigrant family living in New Jersey might be raising children whose first language is Levantine Arabic.) Zora 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Al Biruni said "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian", not that now they are mixed Arab-Persians breaking up or whatever. Not this historian, nor any other historian did ever, or do, say there was mixing going-on.Zmmz 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said the Academy of Gundishapur was in Khwarizm. The name Gundishapur should indicate it was in the region of Khuzestan. I did say, these learning centers were among other schools, mostly concentrated around [Khwarizm]. The Sassanids, as you can tell from the Academy of Gundishapur, emphasized on a good, well-rounded education. The revolutionized education in Persia. That is [why] almost 90 percent of scientists and poets of the Islamic era were Persian. With all due respect, if your allegations are true, then how come almost every scientist out of Khwarizm was Persian, and not Arab? Your disregard for the voting process, and the fact that you rewrote that article without asking others, reverted relevant citations added, and initiated another edit war is not the best way to deal with others here, and is getting tiresome. I have now erased two more lines from the [one] sentence addition I made to the Biography section. I am not going to engage in [yet] another lengthy back and forth discussion with someone who has tried to change the identity of other well-known Persian scientists, and someone who complaint why we feel it is necessary to write the poet Rumi was Persian, and let`s just call him Muslem. Thank youZmmz 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, if that is your disagreement, then why do you erase all the other relevant evidence added by us? But, I`ll erase that part too.Zmmz 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The Iranian editors seem to prefer wording that turns the Arabs into nasty oppressors who didn't let the Persians use their own language. That is not the case. This was an issue in the earliest days of the Islamic empire -- one Umayyad governor of Persia was a notorious badass :) and he cracked down hard on what he saw as sedition -- which included Persian scribes using Persian for government documents. Only Arabic must be used! But that applied to government business, not to daily life. There is no evidence whatsoever that Persian merchants were punished for keeping their accounts in Persian, or that anyone was punished JUST for speaking Persian. You have also restored the boast that many Islamic scholars were from Khorasan and therefore Persian -- which is both irrelevant, and not demonstrable from the facts. Zora 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This reference from Columbia Encyclopedia makes me think that[1]. Furthermore, because, just like Alexander the Great, the invading Arabs burnt most of the Persian literature. It has been written in literatures like the `Epic of Kings` by Ferdowsi, who almost single-handedly revived the Persian culture, that helped to drive out the invading Islamic Caliphates, that Arabs did in fact persecute Iranians for writting in their native tongue. Such patriotic writtings inspired by the Sassanid, the Samanid dynasties, and others, in turn influenced Iranians to take back their culture. Also, all other Persian scientists wrote mostly in Arabic, so that should be another indication. If they were allowed to write in their mother language, Persian, then things would have been different.Zmmz 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If they were allowed, or encouraged to, why not write in their mother language, Persian?
Exactly! There you go, Zmmz. If there wasn't proof that Persians were prosecuted, and all these scientists decided to write in Arabic, what is that an indication of? That they're Arabs of course! This argument is silly, and I have no idea how you managed to perpetuate till now, also, I see an edit war looming...very sad on your part, especially when all evidence are pointing against you. MB 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If they were allowed, or encouraged to, why not write in their mother language, Persian? When did I ever say that? I said, they were [not] allowed to, or [dis]couraged from writting in Persian. The word [dis]couraged here really is a polite word for saying prohibited.Zmmz 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, don`t worry I rephrased it to avoid any confusion. I didn`t say what you thought I said. I meant to say, If they were allowed to write in their mother language, Persian, then things would have been different. Columbia Encyclopedia supports this view.[2] Zmmz 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don’t think anyone really claimed that speaking Persian was punished by death and even if they did it was an exaggeration. However the official language was Arabic, language of government and schools. This means language is being forced on people doesn’t it? The minorities in Iran today are complaining of the very same thing, they can speak their language if they want but school has to be in Persian, and you personally seem to be very protective and supportive of their issues. What is the difference here? Kurdish and Arab merchants of Iran are also allowed to keep their accounts in Kurdish or Arabic aren't they?
Gol 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's what it says in the WP Khwaremia article:
The article also claims that Khwarezmi is Persian, but doesn't give any sources.
Four centuries of being ruled by Avars and the area is still "Persian"?
It might have been heavily-influenced by Persian culture -- we don't know. We'd have to look at the archaeological results. I can google, but I doubt that I'll come up with anything I can read; most of the sources are probably Russian, if there are any. Zora 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, first and foremost that is inaccurate, since an strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs from marrying non-Arabs. I have a reference that is actually from an article written by you Zora, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”.[3] .Zmmz 09:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedias all say Khwarizm was part of Persia for 1200 years. Even after the Arabs and Mongols invaded Persia they stayed Persian, much like when the Egyptians were under Persia for centuries, they still stayed--and to this date stay--Arab-Egyptians; no mixing was done, nothing. Again, Al Biruni, the Muslim historian, four centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia said, Khwarizmians are Persians: To this date, Khwarizmians, now Uzbeks speak Persian, and not Arabic, or Mongolian. You were already provided this information numerous times in the above sections, yet you keep bringing them up, and insert new headings to make it seem controversial. At this point, after writing incredibly lengthy texts in the discussion pages, you need to be aware that this non-stop flooding of these discussion pages [may] be considered some sort of vandalism. You are abusing your editing privileges.Zmmz 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Intimidation does not work in Wikipedia nor should it be used. I am not intimidating you; please do not attack me and assume good faith; moreover, please refrain from playing the role of the victim, or the minority, which you do every time your argument fizzles. However, within the past few hours, you single-handedly rewrote the entire article without discussing it with the other editors, disregarded the mediation efforts and the fact that a poll was set up and votes were being counted, inserted many headlines one after another into this discussion page in an attempt to stampede the voice of others or prove your point, flooded the discussion page with repetitive claims that were already addressed numerous times, and erased others` citations without any discussions. I am just telling you that there are rules here. You can’t keep doing this in all time. You keep doing this on other articles too, like Khwarizm, Islamic conquest of Persia, and others.Zmmz 06:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is ample evidence besides the fact that Khwarizmians, who are modern Uzbeks still to this date speak Persian, not Arabic, that indicates no mixing between Persians and Arabs took place, because strict Islamic laws prohibited Arabs to marry non-Arabs: They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. [Fred Donner. The Early Islamic Conquests]. Princeton Univ Press, 1981, beg with pg. 251.Zmmz 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the third time you make a personal attack; just be aware of that. This kind of attitude will not lend further credibility to your claims. What does lend credibility is providing valid sources. Upon realising that the first source was actually a mirror page of a Wikipedia article, which turned-out to be written by you of all people (in that article too, you had inserted your controversial views to without discussing it first with the other editors) a new, more authoritative source written by a respected scholar was provided. Thank youZmmz 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I provided a new source now. But it seems you are contradicting yourself. If the first reference was actually an article that was written by you, then, you yourself were the one who wrote, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”?Zmmz 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
So you KNEW the truth; yet, tried feverishly to state otherwise in these articles so these Persian scientists can be portrayed as Arabs huh? Maybe to push an agenda. Nothing is greater than the truth. That is called hypocracy. But, as it turns-out, you ended-up providing sources that actually prove you yourself wrong. Great job Zora. ThanksZmmz 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only your allegations are not backed-up by one single major encyclopedia, but what is as important is that just by chance you were caught red-handed, writing something that goes against every [single] claim you are making here, yet, you still keep going. You contradicted yourself. I personally recall stating that there was such an Islamic law, and you yourself said that there never [was] such a law: Don’t be baffled please, that was from an article written by you. You have tangled yourself beyond the point from which you could get yourself out of. With all due respect, you have zero credibility at this point.Zmmz 09:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Guys -- if there's a dispute, we step back and give the evidence for all sides. You've gone back to playing revert war, trying to annihilate the other side. That violates NPOV. Zora 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources that there were arabs in khorasan:
Jidan 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I just thought it would be intresting to share with you that I found a source that proves strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs from marrying non-Arabs. This in an article written by the user Zora herself, who now claims Persians were mixed with Arabs, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”.[4] .Zmmz 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This was posted earlier by a user:
Durinng Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The special circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214). The towns of Hamadan, Qazvin, Qom were predominantly Arab by the 9th century CE.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.215).
Jidan 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the same student project Encyclopaedia Iranica that when you click on a link takes you to an empty site and asks you to download an Adobe file. Although, there is nothing wrong with an Adobe file, but you do realize that this is a junior Encyclopaedia right? That is the [only] source that you have, and it keeps being posted repetitively, and keeps being disregarded repetiively. Please put in some new information, like the fact that an article written by the user Zora herself completely contradicts the junior source you mentioned. If this indeed took place, then it would have been reported by one major encylopedia, like Britannica for example. There is a reason why it is not there.Zmmz 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Replay to Ali
1) The title Al-Majoosi(the Zoroastrian) mentioned by Tabari indicates Zoroastrian ancestary. Thus clearly indicating Persian roots of Al-Khawarizmi. Furthermore Tabari lived at the same time as Al-Khawarizmi which is very significant
Invalid. read this: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Khwarizmi.html
2) The region of Chorasmia is referred to as Persian by the native Persian Chorasmian, Abu Rayhan Biruni. This is again a significant statement since Biruni was only 100 years after Al-Khawarizmi and he was a native of the same region. In fact we have much evidence on the Iranian language spoken by Chorasmians.
Read the Sources above about the arabs in khorasan.
3) Ibn Nadeem mentions that his origin is from Chorasmia.
Ibn Nadeem lived 150 years later, and he was just a book seller!! He just assumed this from his name!!
Lets agree to disagree!!
With that I mean, lets accept the version of Zora. I also dont like it, but its the most natural!! You can then describe all the three points in the article, so whats the problem? Jidan 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I should have thought to do this earlier -- I checked my copy of The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, by Hugh Kennedy. On page 125, he says:
On page 133 he talks about the Khorasanis who led the Abbasid revolution:
So, we really can't tell from his name whether or not AK was Persian or Arab. He could have been Arab, or Persian, or Arabo-Persian.
A trawl through my history of Persian literature (Aryanpur) found no mention of speaking Persian being punished. Instead, it gave me the name of Abu Nuwas, whose father was Arab, whose mother was Persian, and who was said to have used Persian loan words in his Arabic poems. More evidence for mixing. Zora 10:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Zora, with all due respect, how desperate are you to try and flood these discussion pages with excessive rhetoric, and try to prove something that you do not have a legitimate reference for? What were thinking, and how can you write this if you yourself stated in one your articles that Islamic law prohibited Arabs from marring non-Arabs? Editors like you who have a political agenda, just end-up driving away other editors in disgust, who have something productive to contribute to these articles. Here is proof that contradicts what you said above in [your] own words, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”.[6]. ThanksZmmz 02:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Friends, In th Al-Ta'rif Tabaghat Al-omam there is direct refrence to the Al-Khawarizmi using persian days and calendar.. Unless anyone has anything against this source, then Persian is final: 1) Chorasmians spoke a Persian language(A-biruni) 2) title Majusi by Tabari 3) Ibn Nadeem refers to his asl (roots, origins) as Chorasmian 4) Ghazi Sa'ed Al-Andalusi (about 1000 A.D) mentions him using Persian days and calendar. --Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)(Ali Doostzadeh).
Well, dear friend what you have is written in Persian, give me an Arabic or English version so I could understand what he's saying. About your sources:
1)At the time of his birth, Khwarizms spoke predominately Arabic, you yourselves say that it was the language of science at the time, did you decide it's best to contradict yourselves?
2)al-Tabari calling him Majusi is disputed in the Mactutor reference of the article, we refuted the claims many times over, please don't ignore facts.
3)sources?
4)We need it to be verified by a translation.
Three very legitimate sources that state him to be Arab:
1)http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlKhowar.html
2)http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761560322___0/Khwarizmi_al-.html
3)http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992
These are all from major encyclopedias, this along with the fact that he wrote mostly in Arabic, and that he was born in a region with a huge Arab population are all sufficient enough to show he's an Arab. MB 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But I have proven this issue from ancient sources.
To the Turkish guy. The discussion here is not about Biruni. But Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. in his list of turkic month names (which are merely ordinals), he adds "I don't know what they mean and I don't know the (exact) order". So that is sufficient proof that he was not in anyway connected to Turks. He also has listed the Khawrezmian and Soghdian months and days and they are all Persian. The word Khawarazm is also Persian as Turkish has no "wa", but Pahlavi, Afghani Persian and most Iranian languages do. He also clearly mentions that the inhabitants of Khawarazm are Persians. I think the above case point is sufficient that Biruni was not Turkic.
--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Friends, somebody is deleting or vandalizing the discussions here. I urge them to stop.
--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Zora's version was neither discussed here nor approved by anyone. User:R. Koot's version was put to a vote here and the majority reached a consensus on that version. Zora's version is full of speculations and unsubstantiated claims with no references. For examples, the user is speculating about Khwarizmi possibly being a Turk when there were no Turks or Turkic tribes in Khwarizm back in 700-800. Such speculations only confuse the readers and are not encyclopedic. Lets keep the version which was approved by a majority vote, at least for now, until a new version is proposed and approved/voted by a majority consensus here on talk. --ManiF 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
User:R.Koot himself though, put(in bold letters, too) that the proposition is not a vote, look at it again. MB 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Friends, I will soon have on a website scanned materials from Biruni that mentions the people of Khawarizm are a branch of Persians. Also the quote about Persian dates and calendar used by Al-Khawarazmi will be put up from the Arabic original of Tabaghat-Al-Umam (Andalusi). This is important since the chances of an Arab being familiar with Persian dates and calendar during Abbassid times is very very low! Because Arabic was the international language used by many different ethnic groups whereas Persian dialects were for the Persians! Also both Tabari and Ibn_nadeems original quote will be put up. I am in the process now of looking into other books and if anyone has materials from ancient books about Khawarzmi, they can help. Also the antagonistic friends need to provide sources for their very weak argument:
1) For example they need to show at least one arab colonoy in Khawarizm since the Iranica article is about Dinwar, Holwan (these two are Kurdish areas ), Esfahan, Qazvin, Merv, Neyshapur. Per their information many of the arab supporters of Ummayads were cleared out by the Abu Moslem revolution and the rest were assimilated since they were small relative to the native population. Also we must add that Iraq was 1000-1200 years under Persian rule and so many Arabs from there had Persian roots and the argument could go back and forth. But right now none of them showed any example of even one arab colony in Khawarizm. This is an important fact. Furthemore none of them can counter the statement of Biruni that the people of Khawarizm are a branch of Fars. An arab colony in Merv (which is turkomen speaking today) does not cut it, since the majority of people of merv were ever Persians and we are discussing Khawarizm and not Merv. Also Biruni is from the area! And the logic is simple. Since Biruni mentions the people of Al-Khawarizm are a branch of Fars and since Ib-Nadeem mentions that Khawarazmi's asl(origin, root, background) is from Khawarizm, then Khawarazmi is Persian. 2) Ibn Nadeem clearly mentions that Khawarzmi's Asl (roots, origin, base) is from Khawarazm (Chorasmia). Considering the fact that the area was predominatetly Iranian, then deceny would dictate that Khawarzmi was Persian. Rare cases do not apply here since there is no mention of even a tiny arab colony in Chorasmia. 3) The Al-Majoosi title has not been disputed by any scholar outside of Professor Rashed who is an Arab scholar. These people need to actually show an old manuscript of Tabari to validate their claim. Furthermore they need to show that a separate person by the name of Al-qurutabli Al-Majoosi existed in history whereas so far no book or article has ever mentioned such a person. But the rest of the people mentioned next to Al-Khawarazmi by Tabari have been mentioned in many many refrence books. So the title Al-Majoosi is very strong. (Ali Doostzadeh- Will write more soon).
Dear Ali, I must say you have good reasons to believe that he is persian, unlike your other iranian friends that know nothing about that, but still think he is persian. But with all respect you have two facts or "thorns in the eye":
All your evidences can be refuted, as we have done before. But you cannot refute these two facts (excluding other evidences I provided). You see, you can refute me if I tell you that this women is beutifull, but you cant refute if I tell you that the sun exists. Jidan 21:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is beautiful word in English, and that is serendipity. It was coined by Horace Wallope who took it from a Persian folktale called, `The Three Princes of Serendip`. The tale is about three Persian princes, who are commissioned by a king to go on a journey, however, along the way the [discover] things not relating to the reason why they went on this expedition to begin with; they found amazing things. So, basically it kind of relates to my discovery last night. For a very long time the user Zora, then supported by users Heja Helweda, MB, and Jidal have repetitively inserted some comments about the fact that it is possible the Arabs were hugely mixed with Persians in the Persians provinces of Khwarizm and Khorasan. And, maybe, just maybe, it is remotely possible that some mixing had occured, and that Al Khwarizmi [may] have been a mixed Persian-Arab. Such allegations then force all the other editors to come in and defend the views of the consensus. We have proved many times that it would have been nearly impossible for any mixing to occur. We stated that one of main reasons for that is because strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs marrying non-Arabs. I then searched for and found a reference that would prove that, and submitted that source. In a bazaar accident, as it turns out, the article from which the source was provided was actually written by guess who? Non other than the same user who vehemently has denied that such a law [ever] existed; that would be user Zora; now [that] is serendipity. This proves our point, but it also clearly shows editor Zora preferrs to hide the truth, perhaps so that it can serve her purpose here, even though it was written in her own article. As such, at this point we are not accepting any reversions by Zora, and we will vote on a version written by the admin, R. Koot. To provide proof why any mention of mixing between Arabs and Khwarizmians or people in Khorasan should be omitted, we are submitting the following reasons,
ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "The inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". He, nor any other historian ever mentioned anything about Khwarizmians being mixed with Arabs.
As a result of these facts, we must insist that any mention of `The Mixing Theory` be omitted. And, in light of the fact that user Zora has been discredited to such an extent, as well as the fact that she seems to have some controversial edits in many other articles too, like Khwarizm, Islamic conquest of Persia, we are not in any way supporting her version of the article, which she chose to rewrite without discussing it with anyone first. Please submit your votes if you agree Zora`s version should be disallowed.
Let me summerize what you wrote in 100000 lines into 4 words: al-khwarzimi was an arab. 80.19.30.10 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me summerize how much credibility you have in this discussion page into one word; zero. You have failed to offer [one] proof that shows any of the above evidences are not factual. Not using your username, and instead, staying anonomous while using an IP address, does not help your credibility either. ThanksZmmz 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
We stated that one of main reasons for that is because strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs marrying non-Arabs
False fabrication. Do you have proof for these farfetch'd claims?
we will vote on a version written by the admin
Now, that is very important because if there was any mixing between Arabs and PersianinKhwarizm, he would have mentioned it. It is written in Arabic because it was the language of the invading Arabs who required their subjects to speak it (Persians were discouraged from participating in their own culture).
I find it very amusing that once an Iranian user(I don't consider him an editor yet) in a fit of anger(not much unlike a childish tantrum) that Persians wrote books in Arabic not because it was the language of science but, because they were forced, it caught on faster than a fire in June! It's very disturbing actually, that you would claim farfetch'd, unsourced, offensive claims that Arabs enforced anything on Persians. Didn't you in the same breath claim that: "Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature" and went out of your way to discredict Heja and offer sources to these claims. How could Arabs force anything if they weren't involved in the province's people? Please, you're contradicting yourself, and confusing us. What are you arguing exactly? MB 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
MB, once you were the first one in line to say there was never, ever, a law saying, ...strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs marrying non-Arabs . As you can see an article written by one of your own editors; states otherwise, as well as articles written by many scholars on Islamic law. So, there goes that argument. Secondly, I, myself was the one who told you Wikipedia is not a democracy, and only facts are allowed; that`s exactly why hypothesis such as yours or user Zora`s should not be put in an encyclopedia, since they seems promote a political agenda. Finally, for the thousandth time, we have provide you with enormous amount of refrences that point towards the Persian ancestry of Al Khwarizmi; there seems to be no doubt thst he was an ethnic Persian; yet, unreasonable users such as yourself not only try to change this scientists` heritage, but you yourself have tried numerous of times to change the ethnicity of other Persian scientists like Avicenna, even Al Biruni, and God knows how many else. You trying to change these historical figures` Persian origins into Arabic does not change the facts, no matter how feverishly you keep at it, and it also does not make you the most credible editor around. Anyway, good luck. Zmmz 23:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let's get things straight here: 1) Wikipedia is not a democracy is a policy not something you say. 2) Zora isn't my editor...where the hell did you get that from? 3) I wasn't trying to change anybody's ethnicity, I'm correcting falsified information put through to promote a political agenda. Please stop trying to echo the accusations pointed at you. It was you after all who designated the ethnicities without any references at all and are pushing weak arguments( He was born there, he used a Persian calendar...etc.) to keep calling al-Khwarizmi Persian, even if surmounting evidence proves him to be Arab. I'm already gathering info. to prove for a fact that al-Biruni along with dozens of Arab scientists you put in your little list of Persian scientists are all in fact Arabs. In fact there was no such law, I was simply showing the self-contradiction your friend Ali presented in his little "proof" thst al-Khwarizmi is Persian(refuted many times ovcer in this talk page, just check the archives). MB 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I see..hhmm...even after I provided a direct quote that says Arabs had a law that said Arabs were not to marry non-Arabs, which was written by a foremost scholar from Stanford University, and the editor Zora whose history links show 98 percent of her edits in Wikipedia are pro-Islamic ones, you still deny it huh. And NOW you are saying other Persian scientists like Avicenna, Al Razi, Al Tusi, Al Farsi, Al Tabari, Al Farabi, and even Al Biruni were Arabs too? Wow, now you have gone from being unreasonable to just...totally non-credible, and now that I know you have this type of unrealistic mentality, I wont be wasting my precious time to reply to editors like you. I guess Wikipedia has got them all huh. Zmmz 10:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Very long, tedious read. But from the little I read of it, let me tell you that me and Jidan strongly support and have proven by various evidence from his life and sourced many encyclopedias, that he was in fact an Arab. Strictly an Arab, no "mixing of Persians" in him. He was ethnically Arab, and we have many proofs for that. Also, please realize that all major encyclopedias: Britannica, Encyclopedia Columbia, and Encarta all agree that al-Khwarizmi is strictly an Arab. Finally, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I suspect that what you did here is copy/paste all the arguments the Persian editors' put forth, which were all refuted by me and Jidan. Do you expect us to copy/paste the refutations here, as well??? MB 21:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, hhmm, so what happened to your stead-fast argument that said Khwarizmians were mixed with Arabs? Too much evidence above that says otherwise huh? By the way, I was the one who told you Wikipedia is not a democracy, only facts are allowed. So, please stop breakig so many of the Wikipedia`s rules here just to prove your hypothesis. You just broke the 3rr again, for the third time.Zmmz 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that was Heja's argument. Let me explain my argument(it's not that complicated actually) al-Khwarizmi is ethnically an Arab. I have provided three sources all from major encyclopedias, Heja's source states that there were huge immigration of Arab families in the region, al-Khwarizmi was born to one of these immigrating families, after he was born, they soon returned to Arab lands in Baghdad. Simple, actually, do you have any confusion? I'm not Heja. Seriously, just check my sig! Also, it was Tony, an admin, who posted that, not you. I broke 3RR twice only, you broke it a myriad of times, what you're doing is considered slander, please learn to be civil when arguingMB 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay so he wrote on the jewish calendar. But he uses the Persian days and calendar according to Al-Andalusi! That is a big difference!
Okay, friend, buddy, my amigo, you're not making any sense! He used the jewish calendar and the persian calendar...is he jewish? Your argument was based on this: He uses the Persian calendar and so he's Persian. Jidan refuted you by pointing out that he used the jewish calendar as well, by your logic this means he's jewish as well. Is he? No? Then, I guess your argument is refuted.
If you don't get it, let me recap.
Your logic: al-K uses P calendar=He's a P by same logic al-K also uses J calendar=He's a J
Is it true? Then I guess Jidan successfully refuted that argument of yours. MB 21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
اهل خوارزم، و ان کانوا غصنا من دوحۀ الفارس
َ:: Ibn Nadeem mentions that Al-Khawarazmis asl (origin) is from Khawarizm. Unless anyone has a legitimate proof from ancient sources to counter these, (also add the al-majoosi by Tabari and the use of Persian days and celandar by Al-andalusi), then there is no further argument. All we have are ancients source to make judgements about his ethnicity. Else if we want to tamper with every ancient source, then then ethnic doubt can be cast on a host of Arab or English or many other groups of scientists. Also I hope Jidan knows that I am not one of those Iranians that bashes Arabs and infact I give credit where credit is due. I have a good deal of Arab friends and that is why I did not act emotional on this subject. I have full respect for him here, but his arguments are lacking and there is not even one indicator to claim him as anything else but Persian. At the same time, the Kurdish guy from Turkey (which is weired because anyone that is an Iranian is also a pride of Kurds as well just like every Iranian is proud of any accomplished Kurd) and Nora hate Iranians and so even if Al-Khawarizmi wakes up from his grave and tells them he is Iranian, they would not budge. Either way , the available evidences point to a Persian root. One can not take the statement of Biruni lightly since he was born in the same area and his many statements have been always considered authoritative. In the end, I wanted to say that of course both Arabs and Persians were responsible for the great Islamic civilization, which is a common heritage of both of these groups. So for example Ibn-Arabi belongs as much as to the Iranian world as Avicenna belongs to the Arabic world although one comes from an Arab region and the other from an Iranian region. But I feel personally that it is wrong with this much evidence to rob Al-Khawarizmi of his Khawarzmian roots.
11 March 2006 (UTC) (Ali Doostzadeh)
You can`t deny a man`s ethnicity just because you admire him, or the fact that he was forced to write in Arabic.Zmmz 06:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Lets make an analogy. If a person from Iran goes to NewYork(baghdad back then was NY of its time), lives his whole life in NY and writes his all his books there and all in english. Wouldnt you say that this man is "American with persain ancestory"?
You see, thats why I want to call Al-khwarizimi "arab mathematican with persian ancestory". Jidan 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No, he would be called Iranian living in NY.Zmmz 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the word "persian", the word "arab" is loosely defined. It can mean an egyptian, lebanon, sudan, yemen, etc. In fact, "arab" is not anymore an ethnic description!!. Jidan 07:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Really, hhmm, that`s news to me, because I have the lates edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary in front of me, and it says, Persian born...hhmmm.Zmmz 10:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That is fine, but it has nothing to do with Al Khwarizmi being Persian.Zmmz 07:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Advice to all: Whatever you put in the article, immediately cite it! Experience shows that your text will otherwise be challenged, changed, and deleted by some user later on, no matter how factual or obvious it is.--Zereshk 08:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm protecting this article for a few hours because things are getting a little heated. Please use the time to cool off and discuss how best to describe thinking on Al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity by reference to reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Due to constant re-editing, manipulation of words and deletions by different users, I have put up the strong evidence of Khawarazmi's Persian origin here: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/wikipedia/khawarazmi.htm [10]
If the other side has proof (and not just hypothetical argument) from ancient sources to counter the claims of the above mentioned article, they should bring it forth. Else, I believe the constant revision of the page should stop.
--Ali doostzadeh 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, great work R. Koot to find the research done by Jeff Oaks of University of Indianapolis that shows once and for all Al Khwarizmi was Persian. ThanksZmmz 04:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
University of Colorado: http://autocww.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/Mathematics-Algebra,etc./algebra.htm
IMPORTANT: Exam paper on History of Mathematics: http://public.csusm.edu/aitken_html/m330/guide3.pdf
Encyclopedias:
I am preparing a website to disprove all Ali doostzadeh evidences. I am not doing this for wikipedia, but for the sake of challenging my friend Ali. ;-) hahahaJidan 08:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 16:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
خزانة أمير المؤمنين مع إنه يقول حدثني سلام المترجم أن الواثق بالله لما رأى في المنام كأن السد الذي بناه ذو القرنين بيننا وبين ياجوج وماجوج مفتوح وجهني وقال لي عاينه وجئني بخبره، وكان الواثق وجه محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي المنجم إلى طرخان ملك الخزر وضم إلي خمسين رجلاً ووصلني بخمسين ألف دينار وأعطاني ديتي عشرة آلاف درهم وأمر بإعطاء كل واحد من الخمسين ألف درهم ورزق سنة وأعطاني مائتي بغل تحمل الزاد والماء
--Ali doostzadeh 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm still reading Svat Soucek's History of Inner Asia, but I'm becoming increasingly sceptical of the Persian editors' insistence on Khwarizmi "Persianness". The Chorasmians apparently spoke a dialect related to Sogdian, an Indo-European language, and lived mainly on the Turkic side of the Oxus river (now the Amu Darya). They were not subject to the Sassanids; the Oxus was the usual border of the Persian province of Khorasan. After the Islamic conquest of Khorasan, the Islamic forces pushed into Transoxania, into historically non-Sassanid territory, and after much hard fighting, managed to subdue the Chorasmians. Al-Khwarizmi may have been descended from the conquered peoples, or the conquerors, or both, IF he came from that area rather than the village close to Baghdad -- but even if he were descended from the Chorasmians, it's not clear that this constitutes Persianness. There seems to be some movement afoot, in articles like Iranian nations and Greater Iran, to claim any group speaking a language related to Persian as Persian or Iranian. If no further qualifications are added, Iranian as "language group" is conflated with Iranian as "citizen of Iran" and a covert case for irredentism is made. I object to politically-motivated sloppy use of language. Zora 01:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you have, but to you choose to turn a blind eye. I understand if it those literature are of no use to you, because they don`t serve your purpose. Good LuckZmmz 04:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What now Zora? Why after being proved that you have controversial political views that are mostly some sort of weird pro-Islamic propaganda, you are still here flooding these discussion pages with rhetoric? When was the last time you saw a culture who spoke a certain language for the past 2500 years, who to this date still speak it, and still keeps certain traditions related to that language alive, as being not related to the language and traditions in question in any way? The language and tradition of Persians are still being kept alive by ancient Khwarizmians, who are modern day Uzbeks. So, what happened to the wild claims that they are mixed Arabs? Any author can write a book and state his or her opinions, but where are your legitimate sources like a major encyclopedia? Do we have to spend more of our time to bring a case against you in front of the Arbitration Committee for inserting political views into an article?Zmmz 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Every single source that I have seen on the internet states that he was of Persian descent.
* New York is an American city. Therefore New Yorkers are Americans, no matter where there ancestors come from. * Baghdad is an Arab city. Therefore Baghdadi’s are Arabs, no matter where there ancestors come from. ** Al-Khwarizmi was a citizen of Baghdad. Therefore he is an Arab, no matter where his ancestors come from. IT'S THAT SIMPEL!!
You Iranians are really wasting your time. If you want to be proud of yourselves, then you should instead look for scientists that:
It's that simple! Being an arab is not a race term but a culture term or something like that.
On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
.
This should be the end of this useless discussion about his ethnicity.
Jidan 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
None of those reasons point to the ethnicity of someone who was born in a country that was under an invading Arab empire. It has nothing to do with origins. Ninty percent of Islamic era scientists like Avicenna came from Khwarizm, and Khorasan, Persia, and were Persian.Zmmz 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
to Jidan
First of all you are being very rude. Please be a little more considerate. Would you like me to say you have no business being proud of and Iraqi Arab from Baghdad since the city has a Persian name? your logic is similar to that.
Just because he wrote in Arabic does not mean he was an Arab. AVICENNA, who you yourself agreed was a Persian, also wrote in Arabic. For years the Egyptians had to obey the Turkish rulers of Ottoman. Do you like me to question their being Arab? You might be able to question him being Persian, if there is not enough evidence, but you can not label him as Arab just because he wrote Arabic or lived in Baghdad. I live in American and I speak English but I am not American.
If you want to have credibility as an editor stop getting all emotional and saying things that I believe even you yourself know is not accurate. All the Kurds of Iraq are living in an Arab country. Dare and tell them that they are Arab!!
Gol 07:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
@Gol, im really sorry if I seemed rude.
Baghdad is a persian name, but Tehran is an arab name! Kurds are not Arabs. The Kurds region is in the north of Iraq and not in baghdad. To be an Arab you dont need to have the DNA of an Arab. Jidan 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
So, so far you can cross out your reasoning that he wrote in Arabic, therefore, let`s consider him an Arab, since all these Persian scientists you mentioned above had to write i Arabic too. But, while you`re at it, why don`t you go and cross out your above rational too, since all these Persian scientists you mention above at one point lived in Baghdad too, since the invading Arab Caliphate commissioned them for research, just like they commissioned---guess who? The Persian Al Khwarizmi. Take-careZmmz 07:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don’t know what you mean by Kurds don’t live in Baghdad!! What I meant was that there are people who live in an Arab country but are not Arabs such as Kurds so your argument that Kharazmi was an Arab because he lived in an Arab country is not credible. Not every citizen of an Arab country or every subject of and Arab ruler is an Arab. Just as not every subject of Persian empire was Persian. You can question him being Persians but these reason you mentioned are not enough to name him Arab and I think you personally know it. And who talked of DNA? I think I was the first person who argue against it!! your frined Zora was Passionately arguing about possible mixing in Chorassan!
Also
“Baghdad is a Persian name, but so is Tehran!” ?????
I hope you understand what you mean here! if you do then please tell me!
Gol 07:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant ofcourse: Baghdad is a persian name, but Tehran is an arab name! Jidan 07:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? I have never heard of that, what does it mean? Do you know? I am actually really interested to know!
Back to the issue at hand, What is your objection to the rest of my message? Are you arguing that any citizen of an Arab country is an Arab or every subject of an Arab ruler is an Arab? Do you consider Kurds of Iraq and Syria to be Arab? Does that go for the other ethnicities as well? You consider the Egyptians under the ottoman rules to be Turks? Again you might not be able to call him Persian but these reasons are not enough to call him Arab either.
Gol 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
@Gol, if you want to understand what I mean then do the following: 1) find an Arab from khusztan or a turk from Tabriz, or an azri from azerbyjan 2) Tell me what is written in the front page of their passport?
I guess .....it should be Iran, although they are ethnicaly not Iranians(Aryans). Being arab is just like being iranian(aryan), its not a race term but a culture term or something like that.
ahaa you didn't know about the arabic origin of tehran? Tehran was actually spelled like this: طهران which meaned clean. Becasue of anti-arab racist feelings your governement changed it to تهران. Just like they changed many other places which sounded arabic.And just like you whant to change the ethnicity of Al-khwarzmi. Jidan 08:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Tehran is an arab name! Kurds are not Arabs..hhhmmm? Zmmz 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but that still has little to with Baghdad, and is not even comparable to it. This is because for 1200 years before Arabs invaded Persia, Iraq used to be Babylon, and it was the adminstrative capital of the first Persian dynasty, then it became the actual capital of the next two dynasties, like the Parthians. Even Elamites who were one of ancestors of Iranians were from Babylon. Later on Arabs invaded Persia and Arabs moved in the area, hence, the modern country of Iraq. Also, Baghdad was built by a Persian architect named Mushallah. Of course the name Baghdad is Persian too, as well as even ironically the Faroud square, which was the site that was shown all over the news in which a man beat up the statue of Saddam with his shoe, is named after the poet who single handedly revived Persian culture, and caused the Arabs to be driven out; that would be Ferdowsi. But that`s just icing on the cake. So, as you can see this is not just a naming issue. Did Arabs build Tehran? ThanksZmmz 08:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all stop the bad language please. Do not label anyone as racist it is very insulting.
I disagree with your trying to describe "Arab" as an nationality since it is not the case. it is an ethnicity. not related to DNA as I said before but related to culture and native language. sorry but while I am not convinced that Kharazmi was Persian, I am not convinced that he was Arab either. How do you know he practiced Arab culture and not Persian or Turkish? How do you know he spoke Arabic as the first language and not Persian or Turkish? You are doing now what you were complaining about a few days ago, people simply putting their POV without accepting legitimate criticism. I wonder if Zora who was so upset about both sides not being presented properly will come here and argue with you as passionately as she did with Iranian editors!
This is not really relevant but since you brought the example of Iran I wanted to clarify this.
The term Iran has two meanings, one is racial (Aryan) the other one is national (citizen of Iran) Arabs of Khuzestan or other non Aryans are considered to be Iranian (citizens of country Iran) but not Aryan. The same goes for many other countries. German is not only the name of the nationality but name of a race too. Black people of Germany are citizens of Germany and therefore German but they are not Germanic people. these days most when you hear the term Iranian, it is a reference to Citizens of Iran and rarely it is a reference to Iranian people ( speakers of Iranian languages) same goes for German.
and thanks for the Tehran info! the meaning of the word "Tehran" was something I was always confused about! I dont know how accurate it is since I had heard something different but your version sounds equally possible.
Gol 10:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
@Gol
On it's formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
.Jidan 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is something that is so relevant to the discussion about Al Kwarizmi, and the ancient Persian city of Khwarizm (Transoxiana, modern Khiva, Uzbekistan). It says a lot about the Persian Scientists in Islam, like Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tabari, Al Tusi, Sibawayh, al-Farisi, Al-Hamadani, Al-Karaji, Al-Ghazali and others. As a historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) who was an Arab is ranked among the best in history; truly one of the most respected scholars produced by the Arabs. To understand why Arab nationalists, or pan-Arabists feel uncomfortable with Ibn Khaldun, one has to read a direct quote from his work, The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91):
"…It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs…thus the founders of grammar were Sibawayh and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the propher becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' …The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture". [The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91)][13]Zmmz 08:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats why every muslim scientist is automatically persian until otherwise proven.
Its a good sign that you have admitted that Ibn Khaldun is Arab!! Jidan 13:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Ibn Khaldun was one of the very few scholars in the Islamic era that was actually an Arab, and not Persian.Zmmz 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
* New York is an American city. Therefore New Yorkers are Americans, no matter where there ancestors come from. * Baghdad is an Arab city. Therefore Baghdadi’s are Arabs, no matter where there ancestors come from. ** Al-Khwarizmi was a citizen of Baghdad. Therefore he is an Arab, no matter where his ancestors come from. IT'S THAT SIMPEL!!
Being an arab is not an ethnic term, its a culture term. It may have been 1400 years ago an ethnic term, but now its NOT.
The Iranians are really wasting thier time. If they want to be proud of themselves, then they should instead look for scientists that:
It's that simple! We can speculate about everything,e.g. was alexander the great Iranian? or arab? greek? turk? But who cares??? (maybe the Iranians do) Alexander is affiliated to the greeks, he is greek. Its that simple.
The problem is that Iranians want to start a "ethnic" war on every muslim scientist(e.g. Geber, Alhazen, Al-Farabi, etc). Most Arabs and Turks have agreed not to use ethnics, but instead to use just "Muslim" on all muslim scientists, but ofcourse the Iranians say: NOOOOOOOO, ....how dare you!!!. A scientific name for that behaviour is "inferior complex" .
Now, here we go AGAIN with another ethnic editing war....Thank you very much guys!!
Jidan 16:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Uumm, I am not sure why would you even mention those scientists you did as Arabs too? Geber certainly may have been an Arab but, Alhazen, and Al-Farabi were all either Persian or Turks. At any rate, actually, no--I don`t know of anyone who has tried to claim the few Arab scientists as Persians. Ibn Khaldun for examle was an Arab historian; that is the only one I can think of right now. Furthermore, one just has to look at the history pages and links of these articles to see how many editors like you have tried to initiate changes in the origin of most of the Persian scientists, and on the other hand they will find no one has tried to claim Arab scientists asPersian. There is no need, those guys were Arabs, and unlike some editors, most users here actually do understand reason, and will never start meaningless wars about scientists who were from another country. There is no use to try to claim scientists from other countries; it`s really sad actually. But, just because it is sad, that does not mean you can go ahead and claim Persian scientists as Arab. It looks desperate. Just be proud of the Arab scholars you mentioned.Zmmz 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Jidan stop the bad language it is very annoying and childish. Second those scientists whose ethnicity are unclear are mentioned as just Muslim but those who are clear are mentioned by their ethnicity. Such as Biruni and Avicenna even by Britannic and I don’t think you want to claim you know more.( and don’t tell me some of the Arab editors including your good friend did not try to change that although we had backup from the most legitimate sources! Not all the problems are from the Persian side and you know it) also, definition of Arab in the Arab page is very ambiguous and wrong. Not every citizen of an Arab land is an Arab. People who speak Arabic as their native language and practice Arab culture and consider themselves to be Arab are Arabs and we have no source that claims Kharazmi was such. We have no source against it either which is why we can not mention any ethnicity at the moment. thank you for changing it to just Muslim.
Gol 17:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Al-Farabi was definitely not an Arab. He was either a Turk or a Persian and both should be mentioned in his biography. Again, Jidan your definiton does not hold any ground. I live in NY and I consider myself Iranian and not American. Many people all over the world even in the mideast, China and India now write in English and some even solely in English. So there goes your first definition. The second definition is also false, since Baghdad was not an Arab city back then, but it was a major multi-cultural city with Arabs, Turks, Berbers, Zangs, Persians, Greeks and you name it. The third definition is also baseless, because the Vazirs of the Abbassid had more power and for the most of the Abbassid dynasty, it was the Iranian Daylamites and then the Seljuqid Turks that had the real power. Note who put the Abbassids in power, an Iranian by the name of Abu Moslem Khorasani. Note how according to all sources the Abbassids adopted a Sassanian model of ruling and did not follow the traditions of Ummayads. Note how many of the Abbassids had foreign mothers (probably the majority of them). The very fact that Al-Khawarazmi comes from Khawarazm (Ibn Nadeem), he used Persian dates, calendar and formulation, he was involved in astronomy/astrology (and astrology is definitely not an Arab or even Islamic orthodox tradition but it is a Zoroastrian tradition) is sufficient to make him a Persian. The chances of an Arab being familiar with Zoroastrian astrology, dates and calendar is zero. And chances of an Arab having an ephipet of Al-Majoosi is zero. The changes of an Arab being native of KHawarazm is also zero, since there has not been any evidence of even a single Arab colony in the region! Note how the other colleagues of Al-Khawarazmi, like Nawbakht were also Persian. The al-Majoosi part btw makes perfect sense if we consider the fact that he practiced the art of astrology, since this was a Zoroastrian practice. BTW the name Tehran is relatively new (probably at most from the Safavid dynasty and most likely from Qajar dynasty) and the old name is Ray (old Persian Ragha) and the people from there are called "raazi" like Zakariya raazi and Fakhruddin raazi. As per the spelling both تهران and طهران were used in Persian and since in Persian both T/t are pronounced the same, the government adopted just one convention. As per de-Iranianizing, you can see that all over the Arab world with the fake name of Arabian Gulf and the fact that Saddam kicked out 500,000 Iranians and massacared many Kurds who are also Iranians. BTW can you prove that Ibn-Khaldun considered himself an Arab? Ibn Khaldun is a Tunisian, he had very rough words for Arabs and he differentiates throughout his text between "mo'arrab"(arabized) and an "arab" (Arab-Bedouin). Again writing in Arabic does not make a Person Arab. Plus Al-Khawarazmi at least wrote some Persian (use of Persian days, calendar and formulation) for his astronomical/astrological observations. I am sorry, but Iranians and Turks do not consider themselves Arabs and perhaps Arabs were able to spread or impose their language in the Arab "world", but Al-Khawarazmi's Chorasmian(Iranian) legacy is of utmost important in the article. Specially since the world Algorism is a corruption of the word Al-Khawarazmi and people should know where Khawarazm was and what language they spoke.
--Ali doostzadeh 16:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am also sorry. But as long as you don't have a clear evidence that he is persian, you can't claim him persian. Ibn khaldun for example is Arab, because he wrote in his bioghraphy that he was an Arab! This is where we can be sure of an ethnicity. Jidan 17:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The Arabic name and the Arabic text already implies that he was an Arab to the uniformed reader. That's why leaving it as "Muslim" is not a viable solution and almost the same as saying he was an Arab when overwhelming evidence suggest otherwise. Persian origin should be mentioned. --ManiF 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The user ManiF has been caught changing the ethnicitys of many arabs to muslims, and arabs to persians. Some extrem examples are Ibn Khaldun who wrote that he was an arab and even traced his famly back to Adam!! Geber, the father of chemistry, from a prominent arab tribe, Alhazen, etc. Its really a shame that some people work so hard to make this encyclopedia reliable and usefull, and others use it for their nationalistic propaganda's. This mentioned user has ZERO credibility. Jidan 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm
http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AL/AL-/Al-Khwarizmi
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/al-khwarizmi
I can post hundreds of links that prove Khwarizmi was of Persian origin. His ethnic origin must be included in the article.
I'm still reading the Svat Soucek book on the history of inner Asia -- however, there was some info in there that contradicted stuff I brought up previously. Soucek says that the Arab settlers settled primarily in Khorasan, that is, the territories that had been under the control of the Sassanids. It was only later that the settlers pushed past the Oxus/Amu Darya and conquered lands that had been independent, including Khwarasm. Souckek says that there was almost no Arab settlement in Khwarasm. That reduces the chances that AK was of Arab descent IF we assume that he was from Khwarasm. It still leaves open the question of an origin near Baghdad -- it's possible that he could have been born to a man, or a family from Khwarasm, that settled near Baghdad.
Given the acrimony and the attacks, it's hard to say that I was wrong, but I have to follow truth where it leads me.
However, I do have increasing doubts about the claims that he was PERSIAN. Given that Khwarasm had been independent of the Sassanids and that they did not speak Middle Persian but a language related to Sogdian, I'm wondering in what sense the word Persian is being used. It seems to be related to irredentist claims to Greater Iran -- that is, nationalist claims that every area where a language from the Iranian branch of Indo-European is spoken should be part of a Greater Iran. I've noticed that many of the editors who are claiming AK as "Persian" are involved in other Iran-related articles where they feel that they are battling "Pan-Turks" and "Pan-Arabs". If there's something wrong with Turkish irredentism, why is Iranian irredentism better? Instead of trying to stamp Ak with the title "Persian", it seems to me that it would be better to be exact -- say that he was possibly a Mesopotamian native, and possibly an immigrant, or descendant of immigrants, from Khwarazm, a recently conquered Central Asian state that spoke a language related to Middle and Modern Persian. Zora 23:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying "he was Persian" evokes images of someone from Fars, not of a former "barbarian" from lands outside Sassanid control. That's why I'm suggesting that being more precise would help. Zora 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
He was Persian: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Al-Khwarizmi.html Dariush4444 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying "he was Persian" evokes images of someone from Fars, not of a former "barbarian" from lands outside Sassanid control. That's why I'm suggesting that being more precise would help. Zora 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's extremely confusing that you try feverishly to confuse the reader about the ethnicities of Persians Zora. Being Persian means being one who is Iranian by blood, or by birth, period. Through out its history, the Persian Empire allowed everybody else to speak their own languages and keep their culture, Iranians themselves, however, were and are always referred to those born and raised in Persia or in the Iranian states like Khwarizm, Khorasan, Mazandaran and others that to this day remain either part of Iran, or in the case of Khwarizm that became part of Russia after they invaded Persia in 1878, and now is Uzbekistan, still speak Persian, are mostly made up of Persians and keep the Persian culture alive. All one needs to do is type the word Uzbekistan in any major encyclopedia. Thank youZmmz 03:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 02:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've tracked down the following article: [14] (for a machine-translation from Dutch to English see [15]). It was written By Prof. Jan P. Hogendijk (homepage publications background on Islamic mathematics) a professor in the history of mathematics at Utrecht University (where I study, he substituted at three or four of the classes which I followed). I agree that a number of people who have been active here are POV pushers, but we now have two sources by professors in the history of mathematics who specialize in Islamic/Arabic mathematics who state the he was Persian. —Ruud 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Math professors are not necessarily experts on Central Asia, or social science. When they pronounce on ethnicity, they are going outside their area of expertise. Zora 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, not really, Math professors are most times qualified to prove another mathematician`s origins, because they read the math books who talk about these mathematicians` in the biography sections. But, at any rate, all these other proofs aside, a famous Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) who was an Arab and is ranked among the best in history; actually is the best proof of them all. He said, ...the truth of the statement of the propher becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' …The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture". [The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91)][16]. ThanksZmmz 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
History of mathematics covers an enormous area and is focussed on mathematics, not ethnicity. The math professors are just slapping on a convenient ethnic label and focussing on what's important: sine curves! Zora 01:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 03:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so AL-K was aslo an astrologist. And since zorostrians were famous for that, Al-tabari(an orthodox muslim scholar) give him the title "al-majosi", although it is certain that Al-K was a muslim. This fitts very well with al-Tabari when he called him by the name: Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khawarazmi Al-Majoosi Al-Qutrubbulil. You have said yourself that Al-tabari testement is very important because he lived a genretion away from Al-K.In another words he could have gone to his son and asked him about his father. Well, then we would have also to take Al-Qutrubbulil serious. Qutrubbulil was a suburb of baghdad. This proves that Al-K was NOT born in Persia, although his ancestors may have been persians. Actually Ali, you have just proven that: Al-Khwarizmi is an Arab Mathematicain with persian ancestory. His ancestors may have been persian, but he was born in baghdad, lived his whole live in baghdad, wrote in the languaguage of baghdad. He was a citizen of Bahgdad and NOT persia.. And just like New yorkers are Americans without regard to their ancestors, baghdadi's are Arabs without regard to their ancestors. Jidan 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought for those who think Al Khwarizmi was in Baghdad all of his life, it`ll be intresting to note that he did go back to his native country, Persia many times. Encyclopedia Britannica says,
Al-Hamadhani, often known as Badi' az-Zaman (“Wonder of the Age”), achieved an early success through a public debate with Abu Bakr al-Khwarizmi, a leading savant, in Nishapur. He subsequently traveled throughout the area occupied today by Iran and…[18].Zmmz 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
On 8 June, A.D. 632, the Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Prayers be upon Him) died, having accomplished the marvelous task of uniting the tribes of Arabia into a homogeneous and powerful nation. ...In the interval, Persia, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, the whole North Africa, Gibraltar and Spain had been submitted to the Islamic State, and a new civilization had been established. The Arabs quickly assimilated the culture and knowledge of the peoples they ruled, while the latter in turn - Persians, Syrians, Copts, Berbers, and others - adopted the Arabic language. The nationality of the Muslim thus became submerged, and the term Arab acquired a linguistic sense rather than a strictly ethnological one. As soon as Islamic state had been established, the Arabs began to encourage learning of all kinds. Schools, colleges, libraries, observatories and hospitals were built throughout the whole Islamic state, and were adequately staffed and endowed...In the same time, scholars were invited to Damascus and Baghdad without distinction of nationality or creed...The old learning was thus infused with a new vigor, and the intellectual freedom of men of the desert stimulated the search for knowledge and science...
byGeorge Sarton - (was a seminal Belgian-American polymath and historian of science)
Al-Khwarizmi was an Arab, who lived in baghdad the "Arabian Dream". Compare this to the persian Ferdowsi, how totally hated it and rejected it. Jidan 20:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
YOU:Baghdad was far from an Arab city
Baghdad was and STILL is an Arab city.
YOU: the Abbassid Caliphs were either lame ducks of Turks or Iranians or were of mixed descendant like Mamun and Mot'asem.
One reason why the abbasid caliphate was weakend rapidly.
YOU:The Vazirs of Harun Rashid (Yahha ibn Barmak) or Mamun (Fazl ibn Sahl), who are responsible for the "The golden age" of Abbassid and ran the affairs of the empire and were the main power brokers, were Iranians and not Arabs.
Did you know that the Barmaiks were NOT zorostorians and NOT persians at all!!! Harun al-rashid and before him Al-mansur were THE initors of the "goladen age" of the islamic civilazition and the middle-east.
YOU: As per Jabir Ibn Hayyan....
As i said you can go ahead and claim him as persian.
YOU:The fact of the matter is virtually none of the great Islamic scientists came from the Arabian peninsula, they either came from Persian, Iraq, Andalusia, Egypt, Syria and etc.. Places that were predominately non-Arab and some of them became Arabized (not Persian of course).
Arabs immagrated to these areas, before(e.g. akkad, babylon) and after the islamic conquest. Most of the Islamic scientists came from place's that were RULED by the arabs.
Im sorry that my words are harsh, but after you humilated the arabs I had no other choice. I have One question to you, what does this have to do with Al-Khwarizmi? Jidan 22:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not here to have heated conversation without proof. You claim that the Barmakids were not Persians? But you are wrong. Their Iranian background is a well know fact, see Encyclopedia Iranic [20] Britannica entery. I know enough Arabic to know that the word Barmak is not Arabic btw. I also already mentioned Fazl ibn Sahl who was Persian and was the Vazir of Mamun.[21].
I can pull all the necessary sources to show the Barmakids were not Arabs. And btw if Baghdad was solely an Arab city, then we would not have so much rememberence of Persians, Turks, Zanjis, Greeks, Berbers in the city, would we? Even before the era of pan-Arabist nationalism, a large portion of Baghdad was Persian speaking. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Fa'li Kurds were expelled from Baghdad in the last 100 years but still Baghdad is not a monolithic city.
As per what you have not heared, this is due to your own bias. Persian rulers that encouraged sciences, besides the Barkamid Vazirs, Sahl ibn Fazl, Mamun (half Persian), . you might want to remember the Samanids after Islam who gave patronage and full support to Abu Ali Sina and Abu Rayhan Biruni, two of the greatest names of Islamic history. In fact if we were to take the most famous Muslim scientist in the Western World, it would be without a doubt the celebrated Avicenna who was patronized under the Samanids. Note the Samanids were not in any way under the control of the Abbassids and at that time the Abbassids came under the rulership of the Persian Daylamites and by the way the Persian daylamites did encourage the sciences and I can bring a long list of scholars from their rule as well. Before Islam, we can mention the famous school of Jundi-Shapur. In fact there many scholars that were produced in the Samanid era. As per Cyrus the Great, his name really outshines.
And here is quote from Qazi Sa'ed Al-Andalusi who was not a Persian: The magnificient quality of the Persian kings, for which they became famous, is their superior political and administrative ability. This is specially true in the case of the Kings of Banu Sassan (Sassanids). Among them there were kings that surpassed all others in their nobility and their conduct, their ability to govern and exercise authority as well as their widely recognized fame Note you will never find a Persian ruler like Hajjaj or Saddam or King Fahd (whose family frequent gambling houses in France) and the Amir of Kuwait (who donates 10 million dollar to the Zoo of London while millions of Muslims are starving), but I am not going to throw cheap shots here. All I am saying is that you should research on Samanids, Daylamites, Sassanids and Achaemenids and etc if you want to see patronage of the sciences and the arts. Many of the great ancient Greek scientists btw came from the Achaemenid empire. So lets stay focused on the topic here. The Bayt Al-Hukama and GundiShapur both had a strong Persian presence. In fact you know very well that the Vazirs sometimes were even more powerful, than the Caliphs and either way one can not deny the Persianness of Fazl ibn Sahl and the Barmakids . Ahmad Ibn Yaqubi mentions that the Barmakids were the ones really running the affair of the empire (under Harun Rashid). Masudi mentions that Harun entrusted them with all the affairs of the empire. And as per the half Persian Mamun, his Vazir was Persian and he married a Persian wife named Pooran. So one can not deny the very strong Persian influence here and claim everything under Arabs. The Sassanids were Persians and the Ummayyads were Arabs, but the early Abbassids and their Vazirs are not just solely Arabs or Persians specially when you take into account their foreign mothers and their foreign vazirs and then the Iranian Daylamite and Turkic Seljuq control. BTW I can ask you the question why the sciences did not flourish under Ummayyad rule of middle east? And further I have lots of evidence from Masudi, Ibn Khaldun and etc. that the Barmakids were in full control of the empire. So the cooperation of both Arabs and Persians was responsible for flourishing of science under Harun and Mamun.
BTW I did not claim Jabbir ibn Hayyan as Persian! or Arab or Greek or Sabian. I just mentioned that different sources have given Al-Tusi, Al-Tartusi (could be Greek), Al-Harrani, Al-Kufi and etc and have given different names. (I have so far not seen any al-Azdi in any ancient source). Just refer to the page and I have already told my Iranian friends that there is no clear evidence on his ethnic background. As per Al-Khawarazmi, there is enough evidence to distinguish his Persian background since Khawarazm was Persian speaking land and he engaged in Astrology besides using Persian calendar, dates and having the title of Al-Majoosi. I personally believe the truth to be the most important. --Ali doostzadeh 00:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I read the RfC posted on this article which refers to the issue of whether al-Khwarizmi was Arab or Persian. I have no prior knowledge of this person, except that he is best known for his contributions to mathematics. As such, my opinion represents that of a casual reader.
This issue appears to be a moot point. Not much is known about his origins, and most of the evidence recently presented in the talk page is original research. Which means, of course, that if you were to come to a consensus one way or the other, you would inevitably have to cite an invalid set of sources.
Furthermore, al-Khwarizmi is best known for his contributions to mathematics. Mathematics transcends time and space. Regardless of your nationality, the language of mathematics is universal. If al-Khwarizmi were instead, for instance, an army general, then his nationality becomes vital knowledge. Seeing as how he was a mathematician, though, affirming his nationality one way or another is not particularly necessary.
In light of the above, I think the article should not, explicitly or implicitly, attempt to state his nationality. If you have any further comments, please leave a note on my talk page.
Thank you,
Cdcon 21:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to get my bearings here -- we're dealing with Irredentism, the claim to Greater Iran, to be composed of all people speaking languages related to modern-day Persian. This claim is in head-on collision, in various articles, with Pan-Turkism and Arab nationalism, not to mention the claims of smaller groups like the Kurds and the Azeris. The proponents of Iranian irredentism are concerned to smear out any differences between languages, or between language, descent, and culture. It's all "Persian", and can then be claimed as part of Greater Iran. Claiming the glories of the past is important too, which explains disputes on various articles in which famous historical figures are declared to be ethnically "Persian".
Instead of using the term Persian, which erases all differences, I specified that Khawarizm was part of the old Transoxania, which was outside Sassanid control, that the inhabitants spoke a language related to Middle Persian, and that they were influenced by Persian culture. I could add that they were also influenced by China, India, and Greece, but that would be beyond the scope of this article. If other editors remove all that careful specification and replace it with just "Persian", they're destroying information. Zora 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh well Zora, I remember in the Rumi article, you got very offended that I added the word Persian next to Muslim, and you said let`s just call him Muslim, this is not a sports game where we can pick sides, it doesn`t matter if he was Persian, he belngs to all of us. It seems you tirelessly question the meaning of the term Persian, and somehow make it seem into some sort of wishy-washy, undefinable word, or at best one that has many alternative usages. I think, to my shock, most notably you even mentioned it here[22], and also you keep mentioning it in the Persian people, and Iran articles. Nevertheless, [yet again], in good faith, I provide you with a very clear definition of the word: here is a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary that defines the word as, Persian; Function: noun 1 : one of the people of Persia : as a : one of the ancient Iranians who under Cyrus and his successors founded an empire in southwest Asia b : a member of one of the peoples forming the modern Iranian nationality 2 a : any of several Iranian languages dominant in Persia at different periods b : the modern language of Iran and western Afghanistan -- see INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.[23] ThanksZmmz 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, the Chorasmians weren't ancient Iranians, since they were living much much later, they aren't Iranians now (they're Uzbeks), they didn't speak a language dominant in Persia, and they didn't speak the modern language of Iran and Western Afghanistan. OK, guess they weren't Persians :) Zora 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Dang right. Some are more slippery than others. Chinese is a good example. Are the Uighurs Chinese? What about the Tibetans? What about the Miao? They don't speak Chinese and they form somewhat separate populations, genetically. They don't even necessarily want to be part of China. So, are they Chinese? Old empires, messy boundaries. Zora 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the problem is you`re playing tune-def, but here it is again for the 1000th time,
"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian".
--Ali doostzadeh 06:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, for me I am endlessly fascinated that the incredibly respected, and immensely famous Arab historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) who is ranked among the best in history; actually gives a lot of information about Khwarizmia in Transoxiana, and the role of Persian scientists during those times. He said, ...the truth of the statement of the propher becomes apparent, 'If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it' …The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture". [The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R. N. Frye (p.91)]. ThanksZmmz 05:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians. [26] It would be appreciated that whoever changed the wording to "Central Asian" to please refrain from doing so. Ridiculous. SouthernComfort 15:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No, Irishpunktom you did fine. Zmmz 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&dq=jabir++corbin&lpg=PA46&pg=PA44&sig=cIhkKYzppMd4ms9_upsOTSh9k6k quote: Muhammad ibn Musa Khawarizmi (died 847), the "father of arab algebra", who brought this science to Baghdad, was a Persian whose native Khwarizm (khiva today) is very far from Arabia. He calculated his astronomical tables using the Yazdgard calenda(632). It was not unt the year 1000 that maslma al-Majriti converted them into Hejira years. Khawarazmi also bore the surna Majusi, indicating a Mazdean(Zoroastrian) origin. --Ali doostzadeh 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Zidan mentioned an article about Khawarazmi by Prof. Len Berggren: http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/html/id.phtml?id=15655
I emailed Professor Len Berggren last week and he finally responded. His email address is: berggren@sfu.ca and this is his webpage: http://www.math.sfu.ca/~berggren/main.html
Here is his email after I enquired about this mistake and told him that AL-Khwarizmi is Persian..
Dear Ali Doostzadeh, Thank you for your letter. You are, of course, right and I make the same point myself in a book I published (with Springer-Verlag) in 1986, titled Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam. I write, on p. 6, speaking of the early period of Islamic science, that "the Central Asian scholar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi came from the old and high civilization that had grown up in the region of Khwarizm . . . near the delta of the Amu Dar'ya (Oxus) River on the Aral Sea." (This book has been translated into Farsi, by the way, and is available in Iran.) The article you wrote to me was one I wrote at a time when I was not as aware of the wide ethnic differences within medieval Islam as I was when I came to write my book. Anyway, happy "Nau Rooz" and I wish you success in your researches. I was very impressed with the sources you have gathered and I look forward, when I have finished teaching this term, to having the leisure to read them carefully. Yours sincerely, Len Berggren''
I can forward this email to anyone that is interested (send me an email here alidoostzadeh@yahoo.com) or they may contact the Professor himself to verify it, if they wish. So Professor Len Berggren has totally recounted his oversight since at least 1986. This should also be a good general lesson that googling an article does not necessarily mean that the writer of that article has not corrected any errors.
--Ali doostzadeh 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
For the longest time , some editors have been trying to Islamize or Arabize this article , making claims that he was an Arab or a Muslim . He was neither , he was Persian and a Zoroastrian. it is intellectually dishonest to keep trying to claim otherwise. --CltFn 15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
CltFn, explain to us, won't you, why a Zoroastrian would be called Muhammad, and why his son would be called the Slave of Allah? --Irishpunktom\talk 00:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It is forbidden in the Qu'ran to practice Astrology. --CltFn 18:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you pronounce this Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Kwārizmī? Where is the guide for pronounciation of ū, ā, ī? As far as I know major Encyclopaedias use the term Al-Khwarizimi, plain and simple as in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Moreover, it isnot Kwa at the beginning, rather Khwa with Kh being pronounced as ch in German Achtung. Heja Helweda 05:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the article will be at Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi in the near future,
--Francis Schonken 22:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I find all these heated discussions over Al-Khwarizmi's Persian background a bit misleading. The Persian article on Al-Khwarizmi, does not mention his ethnic origin,
Persian Text from Persian Wikipedia:
از زندگی خوارزمی چندان ا طلاع قابل اعتمادی در دست نیست الا اینکه وی در حدود سال 780 میلادی در منطقه خوارزم آسیای میانه زاده شد شهرت علمی وی مربوط به کارهایی است که در ریاضیات مخصوصاٌ در رشته جبر انجام داده به طوری که هیچیک از ریاضیدانان قرون وسطی مانند وی در فکر ریاضی تاثیر نداشتهاند اجداد خوارزمی احتمالاٌ اهل خوارزم بودند ولی خودش احتمالاٌ از قطر بولی ناحیهای نزدیک بغداد بود
Translation:
There is not much reliable information about the Al-Khwarizmi's life, except that he was born around 780 CE in the Khwarizm region in Central Asia. His scientific fame is due to his works in Mathematics and in particular Algebra and none of the medieval mathematicians had the same impact as his on the mathematical thought. His ancestors were probably from Khwarizm, but he himself was likely from Qutr bulli, a region near Baghdad.
I suggest to include these info. in the English version as well. There is no mention of him being from a specific ethnic group in the Persian article.Heja Helweda 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Wasnt his mother from tabarestan?--Zereshk 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please allow me to bring your attention to the vicious attempts of a certain R.Koot to delete the whole article about a very historically significant book without a slightest trace of discussion or votes for deletion. Mukadderat 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Adam Bishop moved this page to the accent-free spelling it has now from Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī with the comment “moved Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī to Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi: give me a break, please use regular English letters for titles of articles)”. I disagree. Other names are located in at their full spelling. For example, it's Paul Erdős not Paul Erdos and Kurt Gödel not Kurt Godel. —Ben FrantzDale 23:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[[Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi|Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī]]
. It seems undesirable to require that every link to this page look like that. Having a redirect from the accent-free version to this page is useful for someone searching but if people agree that Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī is the most-correct spelling, then I don't see why that shouldn't be the title of this page as well as the text in pages that link here. —Ben FrantzDale 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Please allow me to disagree with some arguments:
This is not the purpose of the title. The purpose of the title as far as I undertand is to quickly identify/recognize the subject you are looking for. Once you have found the subject, you don't have to "derive" anything: the "original Arabic" is right here, in the article. Now, recalling that this is an English language encyclopedia, we must use rule number one: most common title of the subject. Also, please don't forget that on many computers many these non-English characters are unrecongnizable boxes and the name is virtually unreadable. So I am afraid, the insistence to write in a "most correct" way is driven not by the convenience of readers, but rather a national pride. Now, you may say "you can have a redirect from English spelling". And I can say two things back: (1) in categories you see the main title and (2) there are quite a few "pipe warriors", who run around and replace redrects in texts with "corect" titles. Mukadderat 16:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
We should use the most common and recognizable spelling, not the "linguistically most correct". The Britannica uses Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi,[31] so should we. The fashion in transliteration systems may change next week. Septentrionalis 19:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because the "fashion in transliteration systems may change next week" doesn't mean we should stick to the oldest, inaccurate transliteration. Just because something's been done a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way. Also, the Coup d'état article has the accent even though most English writers would probably write it without one. Why? Because it's the correct way. --LakeHMM 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
_ _ The link [[Islamic mathematics|Islamic mathematician]] is very bad, for a superficial reason and a very deep and misleading one.
_ _ The words iSLaM and muSLiM are much more closely related that non-Semites are likely to appreciate, bcz the three consonants mark them as inflections of a common root (S*L*M), all revolving around the concept of submission. In Arabic, "Islam" literally means "submission" and "Muslim" means "one who submits". Thus Islam, Islamic, and Islamist are all focused on the religion and the associated culture and beliefs. A Muslim is an individual person adhering to Islam.
_ _ The term "Islamic mathematics" refers to a body of scholarship (drawing especially on and advancing beyond pre-Islamic Indian math and ancient Greek math), that was at one time the most advanced math in the world, and which is one of the important layers underlying virtually all of modern math. The term should be used in the article, bcz (whether or not he adhered to Islam), he participated in, and advanced, Islamic mathematics; when i finish this, i'm going to try and find a pretty good way to use it, even if it takes a lot of colleagues to settle on a more carefully refined way of doing so.
_ _ One of the things at issue about this article is whether the subject of the bio was a Muslim or not. If it were clear that he was, and if it becomes clear, it might be appropriate to describe him in the lead 'graph as a "Muslim mathematician", meaning a Muslim who advanced mathematics (tho i personally doubt it). "Islamic mathematician" doesn't mean that, nor does it mean "participant in Islamic mathematics" (as the piped lk suggests). It's just a bad phrase that has no good usages (and i guess we're lucky for the fact that unless (i suppose) someone has a special role in Islam (an Islamic official, an Islamic scholar whose pronouncements convince Muslims about what Islam requires), Islamic is not an adjective that describes you).
_ _ The deeper issue i referred to is that the relationship between his beliefs and this mathematics is highly PoV. My own PoV is that Islamic mathematics is historically important bcz like any monotheism, Islam can be used for consolidating existing societies, welding otherwise diverse societies together, and motivating warriors, which tends to create levels of wealth and power that provide the means and motivation for advances in the arts and sciences; mathematics was ripe for Islamic culture to make its mark in that field, and he was the bright guy, or towering genius, who was there at the right time. Another PoV was expressed, IIRC on this talk page, some time ago: his being a Muslim made him capable of becoming the mathematician he was. I doubt either that PoV or my own can be verified, and i doubt this article is going to calm down until more editors admit that their PoV's can't be verified.
_ _ There's plenty of room in the article for describing the existence of differing PoVs, which clearly exist, about his ethnicity and his personal or public adherance to various belief systems. There just isn't room in the lead 'graph for that; and saying "Isalmic mathematician", and thus confusing participation in the mathematical life of a dominant culture with personal belief in the dominant belief system (let alone with that producing personal excellence in math) is a serious error, in the lead or elsewhere.
--Jerzy•t 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Just like we use either the name of modern day countrys or their ancient regional names when speaking of events and persons. Persians are an Iranian people related to other Iranians such as Parthians, Bactrians, and so forth. Now unless someone can show that khwarizmi's ancestors actually migrated from Persia proper (Persia is a very very different concept than Persian empire), into Khwarizm, I suggest that we keep the reference of his nationality as Sogdian. Both Persian and Sogdian are occidental references afterall. To say that Persia included a vast region including Bactria, Sogdia is absolutely irrelevant. Because than we might as well consider other closely related dynasties/peoples like Medes, Bactrians, Parthians, scythians, sarmaians as persian as well. Neither does speaking a langauge mean much. Elseways Avicenna might as well be considered Arab (and many occidental texts do faultfully call him an Arab because of his works in arabic) and the Mughal (mongol) emperor of south asia as persian.
This is for the sake of integrity of information. omerlivesOmerlives 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Koot. I doubt that I would find much sources referring to him as Sogdian. The region his parents migrated from Was Sogdia, but I guess we could still use Chorasmian the english rendering of Khwarizm if not Sogdian to describe his origin. Alternatively, search in google scholar would abundantly refer to him as an Arab given the fact his works were in Arabic.
In any event, we have no reason to believ he was Persian. The region he was from in central asia was home to eastern iranian languages like bactrian, saka, sogdian and so forth. Modern day dialects spoken in the region which desended from middle pahlavi namely dari and tajiki (which ae mutually intelligible from modern persian) made its way into the region much much later under the sassanians. That is the reason many witers calous of historical accuracies would call him Persian, just like for arabs europe was synonymous with Al-room (Rome). Besides If speaking a language makes one part of another nationality than this criteria makes him an arab since the definition of arab DOES mean that; where as for one to be a persian familial descent is also important.
He was for Khwarizm not Persia. He spoke a dialect of middle pahlavi mutually intelligible from persian because persian had made inroads into the region. He was not ethnic persian. I would prefer the intro as something like " Alkhwarizmi was a muslim mathematician and philosopher from Chorasmia a region centered around modern day Uzbekistan..." OR
"...AK was a Sogdian muslim math. in modern day uzbekistan.." OR simply
"AK was a Chorasmian muslim math. and phil."
TYhanks omerlivesOmerlives 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Koot. I see what you're saying, however, Baghdad is not Persia any ways. I mean mesopotamia/Iraq/babylon et al was not persian seat of rule only a vital province anywyas (cept under Sassanids. Majority of the population element was mixed but largely non persian such as Medes (possibly ancestral to Kurds), assyrians, Chaldeans, jews, babylonians (aramaic speakers) etc..until the peninsular Arabs conquered it and Arabic became the lingua Franca. Besides the Abbasids (Caliphs of baghdad) were still sunni Arabs. And look at Khwarizmi's last name it is a good indication from whence the name came unless we want to beleive his family was one of arab traders who settled in central asia and then migrated back. Such things were not uncommon and many arab s Jilanis, Wastis etc..did venture forth mostly as traders or refugees then back. But that is speculation. But saying he was persian is as inaccurate and insensitive as saying Avicenna was Arab. I think it is not unreasonable to have the intro state that "AK was a Chorosmian muslim math. and phil." omerlivesOmerlives
But wiki claims to be an encylcopedia and that implies a policy of fact sifting and scholarship for empirical accuracy. If he criteria is arbitrarythen we might as well refer to him as an Arab, what bars us from doing that? and even so, why not refer to him as Chorasmian which in the absence of data does sound accurate than either Persian or Arab. If you want I can cite numerous articles that call AK a Chorasmian. We have followed this pattern throughout wikipedia have not we? If need be I can can give you many examples of that as wel. Why refer to someone as that when it is wrong to do that? By calling him Persian the picture of his ancestry is not one from central asia but someone from persia or someone who emigrated from Persia. omerlivesOmerlives 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Then I suggest we remove the Persian reference altogether and simply refer to him as a muslim philosopher where he was purpotedly born and where his last name emanates from just like many other articles. I dont have objection on people like Alrazi and omar khayyam for example who are well documented persians. But calling others such as AK as Persian is as inaccurate as calling Zoroaster Persian or present day "persian" speaking (but actually dari and tajiki dialect) peoples of central asia as persians because they dont refer to themselves as such. If the policy is to reflect accuracy vis a vis academic knowledge (or the lack of it), then the reference to ethnicity should be removed. And you are quite right both Brittanica, Encarta, American heritage dictionary etc. refer to him as Arab. Encyclopediae Americana, Columbia, World History and Islam are silent and only refer to him as muslim and place of origin (not birth) as Khwarizm. omerlivesOmerlives 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
He was muslim by force? That is interesting but irrelevant. I beleive he was born into a muslim household. And I beleive we have a strong case to not to include any particular ethnicity in light of what we have. This is not an exclusive case. There are others like this as well in wikipedia. If people insist than that is more out of national pride, ethnocentrism and phobia (especialy of iranian nationalists towards anything arab) than scholarship I beleive. One can claim that early european christians (including statesmen, architects etc..) were pagans and only forced by Constantine to become christian but that assertion is hollow, irrelevant not to mention totally POV. I have not come across any historical text refering to AK as a zoroastarian. Arabs refered to peoples with titles such as marya al qubti (marya the coptic-- a muslim woman of high social stature) did not mean she was a coptic orthodox or south asian origin like ganga al hindi or syed ridha al-hindi or mohammad al hindi mean that persons were hindu.....neither does the epithet majusi as in Ali ibn Abbas al majusi or Abu-Lu'lu'ah al majoosi or mullah Baqir majoosi mean these folks are/were zoroastarians. I say this because you probably allude to the purported al majoosi in Al khwarizmis extended name as indication that he was zoroastarian. He was not. The best thing in light of this controversy the best option is the obvious : Chorasmian physician and let the reader read the entry about Chorasmia and its historicity and do further research on his/her own. This is in adition to the fact that most sources place his birth (in addition to origin) in CHorasmia. And a disclaimer: I am not an arab or persian either. omerlivesOmerlives 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as you add a citation, I will not prevent you from changing Persian into Muslim. If someone else decided to challange your change do not expect me to defend it though. Arguing this, arguably minor detail (al-Khwarizmi was mainly a mathematician, his etnicity/religion only help the reader to get a general idea of the time and place where he lived, in my opinion), has cost me too much time already in the past few months. Time better spent on writing the interesting part of his biography. —Ruud 01:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but such is the natue of things. I have read a few posts prior in this discussion. It may seem fickle to you, but for many however this does seem to be an important detail, just like the debate whether Alexander was slavic, Illyrian, greek etc...People object to him being called Arab, and I beleive it is a valid objection, but neiher was he Persian. If his ethnicity is in question we go with the right one. omerlivesOmerlives 01:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Those maps indicate South America? Not only 15th century Florence, but also 9th century Baghdad had detailed knowledge of the coast of South America? Does the insanity of this even need to be pointed out? Adam Bishop 23:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)