![]() | 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 5 |
He was Persian. Who wrote he was Arab? When did Arabs ever live in Khorasan? This is and always has been Iranian. Just because he did works in the Arabic language did not make him Arab. (Contribution from 154.20.105.198 07:26, 2 July 2005)
And for the same reason his name should be transcribed according to his real name, that is of course Persian and not Arabic, both in the title and wherever it is refered to him in the article (though Arabic alternative is ok to be given). So it should be Kharazmi, though his books were written in Arabic (Arabic was the official language of science at his time) and so the Westerners became familiar with him via Arabic to English translation, probably, so the Arabic name Al-Khwarizmi has entered English. And I think that Al-Khwarizmi should be redirected to Kharazmi, as the ttle of the main article! Nimak 11 September 2005 02:05
The link doesn't work. His name means "the Khwarizmian". He was Persian. --61.24.87.41 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Khawrizm was a major province in Persia that in modern times became part of the Soviet Union as Uzbekistan, and became independent after the fall of Communism. Incidentally, Uzbekistan still retains its Iranian or Persian heritage, as well as obviously its Russian heritage; they speak Farsi with a distinct accent. In fact, many important scientists came from this one time Persian province, including `The Father of Modern Medicine` Avicenna, which is Latin: in his native Persian language he is known as Pur Sina, i.e. his real name. It is mind boggling how Arabs, Turks, and Indians try to claim these Iranian, or Persian giants of history, like Khwarizmi, Avicenna, the poet Rumi, etc., as their own. But, personally, I take it as a compliment that these people think so highly of these Persians, that they want to steal them, and alter history.
What the heck is "Muslim mathematician"? I thought math was a unified subject? If he's a Muslim, or famous for BEING a Muslim, let's say so.
I made a lot of edits downplaying how WONDERFUL this guy was. If he advanced and/or spread algebra, that's nice - and if he invented the concept of the algorithm, that's nice too. But leave out the gushing praise, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:50, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- WHAT IS THIS nonsense discussion about calling Kharazmi a Muslim Scholar or not? Why not?
After all, calling him as such will convey more information about him as he was from Muslim Middle East, not from pre-Islamic Middle East etc.! Calling him a Muslim scholar should not hurt you if you are a true seeker of truth. It is amazing how some people can come up with petty arguments.-Serkan
-Also, I see that some obscure people here downplay the great works of such a scientist. How can you do that if you have a bit of knowledge and conciousness? He was without any exaggeration a great contributor to Mathematics. I see a lot of ignorance and prejudice in these claims. -Serkan
First of all, the proper related word to "Westerners" should be something like "Middle-Easterners", "from the Middle East", ...., and not Muslim. Muslim is the term comes to mind when you are speaking about religion. Sometimes, some extra information about the religion of the scientist can cast some light on what will come in the rest of the article, for example, it can be explained why Einstein had to leave his country behind, ... However, I do not think that such information is relevant when we are talking about Kharazmi. And secondly, I've thought about why many Iranian scholars are more famous of being a muslim rather than an Iranian. One reason is that the Westerners learned about their knowledge via the medium of Arabic for the first time (and a longer time to come). But I've noticed some other explenations on why this has continued to the present time. One is that for Arab people being a muslim comes before their nationality (even being an Arab does so). On the other hand, Iranians are usually very proud of their nationality, so they prefer their scientist to be referred to as Iranian or Persian rather than Muslim, a term that many mistaken that it is limited to Arabs (believe me, I've been asked many times if our official language is Arabic, just because it's the case with most of the countries in the Middle East). However, I think there is more to it than the care or lack of it for the nationality. There is a tendency among the Arabs, maybe just because they think that other nationalities do think the same as they do, to downgrade the nationality issue, especially when it comes to Iranians, or just for the desire of showing themselves as a greater nation. (That I believe it's true to some extent.) Anyway, no matter which of my proposals, or even none of them, is true, it does not make it necessary to mention the word Muslim. Nimak 11 September 2005 03:05
I definitely don't agree with you as to whether to use the word "Muslim" or not. As for 'On the other hand, Iranians are usually very proud of their nationality, so they prefer their scientist to be referred to as Iranian or Persian rather than Muslim, a term that many mistaken that it is limited to Arabs' (Nimak). Yeah, I can see that very well. The problem is that you are taught that all great men of Middle East must be Persian. Are you sure this is nothing to do with arrogance? Also, as I indicated in another relevant article's talk page, I am sick of some people making all the Middle-Eastern scientists, philosophers, rulers etc., "Persian." Man, you guys must suffer from inferiority complex. If the person under discussion speaks Persian you use this as a "proof" that he was Persian. If the he does not speak Persian, then you say: "well, just because he had other native language does not mean he is not Persian." All these scientists, philosophers, poets etc. under the title "Persian ..." could very well have been an Arab, a Turk, a Kurd, or any other Middle-Eastern ethnicity. For Kharizmi, we simple don't know exaclty. I followed how the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355023?query=sci-fi&ct=). Please don't change it.-Ur
--61.24.87.41 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
He supervised the work of 70 geographers to create the first map of the known world. I don't think so. First surviving? First Muslim? First what? Wetman 00:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Content from page redirected here: I may try to merge this.
Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi was born around the year 780 in Baghdad, which is now in Irak and he died around the year 850. We do not know very much about his life, so many guesses have been made based on very little evidence. Probably, Harun al-Rashid was the fifth Caliph of the Abbasid dinasty when Al-Khwarizmi was born. His court was in the capital, Baghdad, and he brought different intellectual disciplines to the Arabic world. He had two sons, al-Amin and al-Mamun. When Harun died, in 809, there was a violent fight between the two brothers. Later on, al-Mamun won the war. On the other hand, al-Amin was killed in 813. Al-Mamun became Calìph. He continued bringing different disciplines to his empire and he founded the House of Wisdom, which was an academy. There, Greek philosophical and scientific works were translated. Moreover, he built up a library, which was the biggest library after the one in Alexandria. He also set up some observatories, where Muslim astronomers studied the stars,... Al-Khwarizmi was one of the scholars at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. He and his colleagues translated Greek scientific works and studied algebra, geometry and astronomy. It is certain that Al-Khwarizmi worked under the reign of Al-Mamun because he dedicated two texts to the Caliph. These texts were his treatise on algebra and his treatise on astronomy. This algebra treatise (Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala) was the most important of all his works. It is the first book to be written on algebra.
Charles Matthews 15:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
The following are histories of pages that have been converted to redirects here. This record of the respective histories may help comprehension of the merged history that will result from the history-merge i am undertaking.
(Specific versions and comparisons between them may still be retrieved from the history page of the merged version, namely that of Al-Khwarizmi
I removed two adjacent sentences, the second quite recent:
Neither of these adds to the article more than does the simple statement
The first expands a standard dictionary etymology into a sentence, as if that represented something more encyclopedic.
The second is poorly written, especially in light of its being written to be slammed up against the first, without any visible effort to establish what relationship brings them together. This is especially unwelcome since the second seems to intend to contradict the first.
There is, by the way, some doubt about the meaning of the second.
In either case, however, nothing about etymology is explicated: perhaps "algorismi" is a Latin inflection, to suit that syntactic role, of some other Latin rendering of his name, but it sure looks like just a transliteration. If that's what it's getting at, we have not been given the means of guessing it.
It is, however, interesting that -ismus is a noun-forming suffix in Latin, giving rise to the noun-forming suffix -ism in English, and the coincidence may have played a role in determining which words derived from it (two nouns) survived. (If somone name Melish contributed to English-speaking culture, we might expect an adjective "melish" more than a noun.)
I have moved this text here rather than discarding it, and tried to clarify it, in the hope that it may later be of some use. The etymological events that would be of some interest here concern the modern contrast between "algorithm" (the familiar general term) and "algorism", a now fairly obscure term WP regards as referring to the decimal notation system. But IMO "algorism" is surely connected to the other by the need, in introducing any positional notation, to explicitly state the algorithms that specify how math operations are done on such numbers. (For instance, the carry and borrow steps are part of algorithms -- that few of our elementary-school teachers used the term "algorithm" in describing.)
At present, we lack the raw material for writing such a discussion: our wretched account of the contents of his work hints not at all at whether he
The terminology stinks of him not having felt a need to distinguish between algorism's algorithms and more general algorithms, and when we have a better article, the etymology will be one tool in describing the staged elaboration of the concepts, which is an encyclopedic topic of history of mathematics (and the sociology and psychology of discovery), and of more than etymological interest.
--Jerzy(t) 09:19, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
Algorism is the original term. Algorithm was dervided by changing the pronounciation to make the word sound more greek. The original Latin is Algorismus. I don't know enough about Latin to be sure about the name of the book cited, but I would think it would be Algorismi. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/algorism and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=algorithm&searchmode=none and the OED entry. (I no longer have access to it, but I remeber there was useful information there.)
Furthermore, while it is Etmologically true that Algorithm comes from Khwarizmi's name, the modern conception of the word is only tangentialy related to his work, so this may confuse readers. 216.15.124.196 03:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Then why not refer to Max-Plank as a Christian scientist and Einstein as a Jewish one? Was Einstein a genious because he was a Jew? Or the other way around? What did his religion have to do with his achievements? Have you ever heard of anybody calling Newton "a great Christian Physicist"? So, why keep callin Khwarazmi a Moslem scientist? Because there are so few of them, scientist from Moslem backgrounds?
Ok, what's with the image dispute? Personally I find the image of the Soviet stamp to be of much greater quality and detail than the image some user keeps on inserting, claiming the stamp is "Arabized", whatever that means. I find the image the user insists on putting in the article to be of low quality. It looks like a sketch drawing. Also, I have serious doubts about the copyright status of the one you keep on inserting. --Revolución (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure why he is mentioned as Persian. As his name suggested, he was from Kharezm (now called Khive or Urgench) in Uzbekistan around the delta of Amu Derya river. As clear from the preface of his book, he is orthodox Muslim. These all show that he has a Turkish origin... Resid Gulerdem 07:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This is correct. Central Asia was largely Persian/Iranian before the large scale invasion of the Mongols/Turks in the 13th century. Almost all the great thinkers and scientists of central asia came before the 13th century. --61.24.87.41 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Khwarazm is in fact what was known as "Iran-vij" by the ancients.--Zereshk 23:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
McTutor [2] shows him as born in Baghdad, about 780 AD, see also more information about him on that page. I find Resid Gulerdem's statement of Al-Khwarizmi's being Turkish no more than guesswork. I don't think it is appropriate to write this in the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not known if Al-Khwarizmi indeed came from Khwarizm. See again McTutor. He may have been Persian, maybe Arab, maybe having some Turkish ancestry. Who knows. But it is surely incorrect to state in the article that he was Turkish, again please give your evidence. Maybe we should follow the example at McTutor and not mention anything about his nationality to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any statements to prove, isn't that clear enough? I said it is not known what the guy's nationality is. On the other hand, you go changing the people's nationality to Turkish without being able to provide evidence. My stand is very simple: if you don't have references for something, then you don't write anything. I am sure you are a smart person and know more than me about history of science. Your deduction about the nationality could as well be right. But Wikipedia allows only information which is verifiable in the existing publications or books, as R.Koot says above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Khwarezmia was "Turkish"? My goodness.
Biruni specifically says:
There is sufficient evidence given in the etymology and early history sections on the Khwarezmia page.--Zereshk 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
One of the sources indicating he was Persian is his name--the other is the Meriam-Webster dictionary. Many scientists at the time traveled to Baghdad, a city built by Persians, located in the land know as Babylon, which were Persians came from before it was occupied by Arabs.
I really don't think it's necessary to have the lower-case title template, since most of the other hundreds of articles beginning with Arabic definite-article al- don't have it -- and Arabic script doesn't have a distinction between capitals and lower-case anyway... AnonMoos
Two things are a big deal to Iranians; one the fact that Zoroaster and the Persian Empire for the first time in history spread the idea of Monotheistic religion, the belief in one God, to humanity, thus single handedly influencing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--and the second is Khwarizmi and his discovery of Algorithm that single handedly allowed science to progress to what it is today. The reason why Persians state that most of Islamic scientists were Persians is because almost 90 percent of that era’s scientists like Razes who discovered alcohol, `The Father of Modern Medicine` Avicenna who by the way also came from the ancient Persian province of Khwarizm, poets like Hafez, Sa`adi, Rumi who created Sufism, and architects like the Persian Jew Mashallah, who built the city of Baghdad, etc., were all Persians. By the way, many scientists at the time traveled to Baghdad, a city built by Persians, located in the land previously known as Babylon, which is where Persians originally came from, and the place where the capital of the first three Persian Empires were, namely Ctesiphon in Babylon. However, centuries later, when Arabs defeated the last great Persian Empire, the Sassanid dynasty, and conquered Persia, this land was occupied by Arabs, and today it is known as Iraq, an Arab country. As far as the literature goes, there is physical proof that Persians have the most extensive and famous literature about Islam, even though as history states over 95 percent of their literature was lost when first Alexander the Great, then Arabs, and finally the Mongols burned their libraries and destroyed most of the Persian literature. Yet, their literature in fact [still] remains the most extensive literature in the history of Middle-East, and even the masterpiece `1001 Nights` is a mere translation of the Persian folktale, `1000 Myths`--you may refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for further reading, or Wikipedia itself. It is noteworthy that the major body of Islamic poetry and tales, were penned by Persian poets such as Rumi, who for fear of persecution fled Iran and immigrate to Konya, a land that is now somewhere in modern Turkey, Attar, Hafez, Sa`adi, and Omar Khayyam wrote the most famous Islamic poetry discovered thus far, with Khayyam even inventing the new Islamic calendar. Persians have even designed the shape of the Mosques as we know them today, painted almost all of Islamic related paintings, etc., and Iranians as such have every right, in fact a moral obligation to defend their scientists and poets who have contributed so much to humanity. The reason why Persians were overwhelmingly responsible for almost all contributions that occurred in the Islamic era is because for almost seven centuries Persia ruled over most of Asia, or at least Middle East, and had empires that stretched from India to Greece. In fact, before the invasion by Alexander the Great, for two centuries Persia was the lone Super Power in the world; hence, as a result they were very well educated, well-fed, and were encouraged to pursue science, literature, etc., because after all, they were in power, they had all the wealth, and the Empire made sure its own people were well taken care of. So, it is not a racist thing, rather it just shows you the important role and the benefit that the environment can play in a particular society. Finally, the works of the Greek mathematicians were completely different when compared to that of Khwarizmi, for that he alone discovered and articulated the use of numbers in mathematics, rather than the Greek methods of solving math problems via Geometry. And, if Greek mathematicians had discovered Algebra, then there would have been a book written by a Greek, not the Iranian or Persian born Khwarizmi. Whether, you like it or not, he is most likely the most important mathematician in history, and one of the most significant scientists of all time. I suggest you honor his work by showing respect to this Ancient Iranian scientist who changed the course of humanity as we know it.
Persian after the advent of Islam was not the lingua franca of the middle east. All literary works under the Caliphate had to be in Arabic, and all religious text had to be in Arabic, so of course if someeone spoke Persian during the time of the Caliphate, it gives a strong indication of them being Persian.
This is a lie, Persian language wasn't exactly dead at that time, either. Actually, historically it was quite the opposite, many people had command of Persian and used it as a second language. The Prophet Muhammad himself is known to have spoken Persian( although he was an illiterate), would you use that argument to say that "it's a strong indication that he's Persian"? Also, this source lists him as an Arab: [3] it references Columbia University Press, very legit, won’t you agree? I’ll add it, since I have definitive evidence. MB 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Saying he's a Muslim born in Persia would suggest that he's Persian, where you don't have any claims to your statements. I have legit sources that state he's an Arab. Also, you re-added the categories that say Khwarizmi was a Persian scientist, geographer, and mathematician. Obviously a lie. Also, please don't delete legit sources, it's considered vandalism. MB 04:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it also references Columbia University Press, don't take it off. MB 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Putting ellipses between letters is very childish. MB 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
MB, it is amusing to me to see that you have tried to change the birthplace of many Persian scientists over the past few weeks (Al Biruni, Avicenna, Al Khwarizmi etc.). Personally I take it as a compliment that so many cultures want to claim these scientists for themselves; like some say the poet Rumi was Turkish, even though he himself wrote he was from Khorasan, Persia. Khorasan is still a state in Iran. And, Khwarizm [was] the upper chunk of that state; it was an ancient state in Iran from which many Persian scientists came from. They had many dialects in Khwarizm; kind of like in the US people from Boston have an accent. However, during the modern era, Peter the Great of Russia invaded Iran, and colonized Khwarizm. Centuries after Al Khwarizmi was born, Khwarizm became part of Russia, and today is the independent country of Uzbekestan. Keep in mind there are ancient literature like a poem by Biruni that actually state, “Inhabitants of Khwarezm are Iranian”. Or, as Encyclopedia Britannica says, “It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD”[4].
As far as Khwarizmi, his fellow Iranian-historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari simply gave him two titles, one was `al-Qutrubbulli`, which meant of Qutrubbull (maybe a title given out of affection, since Khwarizmi may have lived there after emigrating from Persia to Iraq), and the other title was al-Majusi (meaning Zoroastrian).
Al Tabari, and no other historians ever said that Khwarizmi was an Arab--and of course we now know he got the Zoroastrian part partly wrong. Even so, Khwarizmi may have been a Zoroastrian as a child, and most likely either converted or was forced to convert to Islam. Keep in mind, as mentioned before, many scientists came from Khwarizm, Iran--such as, Razi, Avicenna, Biruni, etc, etc. Also keep in mind, at that time Arabs had invaded Iran, and during that time Persians were prohibited, or at best discouraged from participating in their own culture, and as such they were forced to speak and write mostly in Arabic. Finally, many discoveries made by these Iranian scientists found their way into the West through the Arabs via Spain (part of the Arab empire then), and because these scientists wrote in Arabic, the name of many of their discoveries took the Arabic prefix of [Al]. For example, Razi discovered alcohol, which is a word coming from kohl, then added the Arabic prefix Al, and alcohol became its name. And Gorithm is the Latinized name for Khwarizmi, later Al was added, and it became Algorithm. So, although these scientists were under Arab rule, yet we should not do a disservice to them, and forget the fact that they were Persian.Zmmz 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
MB, the Encyclopedia Britannica article that you mention says, “Al-Khwarizmi was born in Khwarizm (now Khiva), Russia” (although, they should mention what is today Khiva, previously a state in Persia)[5]. However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary [6] says, “Function: biographical name
circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”, as well as even Muslimtents.com written by Arab scholars[7], Muslimheritage.com written by Arab historians from Egypt[8], the Department of Islamic studies in University of California [9], Refrence.com [10], Unhas.ac.id, that is an Islamic university in Indonesia, under the section MUSLIM SCIENTISTS that is written by a Muslim, namely Dr. Zahoor,[11], the Oxford dictionary, Scientific Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com, Museum of SJSU[12], etc.etc., all say Khwarizmi was either Persian, or they say he was born in Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia. However, the reason that a minute few fail to mention his correct birthplace is because, since this matter was recently resolved, it will take time for some references to update their info (Columbia Encyclopedia emailed me after I complained, and said they are awaiting their new edition). Yet, as you can see the over-whelming majority of the refrences have updated their info. Zmmz 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Having al-Khwarizmi in his name doesnt mean that you are an ethnic khwarizmi. You can get this name also if you traveled from khwarizm to another place. There are many famous arabs who have names after persian places. One of the famous arabs was Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). So according to the "persian name = persian nationality" theory he must be persian, since al-isfahani indicates he is a persian from isfahan in Iran. Answer is NO. He was an Arab. And not only that!! he was even a descendant of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph!!! He got the "al-isfahani" name when he moved from isfahan to baghdad. This, once and for all, proves that labeling Muhammad Abu Ja'far al-Khwarizmi as persian because of his name, is totally and absoultly invalid!!
Fact is:
These facts should make him an Arab or at least stop him from being falsly labeled perisian. I personally have a family name after a persian place, but im not persian!! Jidan 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Jidan your “It is not certain where al-Khwarizmi was born. al-Tabri (one of the most trusted historians in islamic history) say's he was born in a small town near Baghdad” statement is [false]. Al-Tabri, who himself was a Persian by the way who emigrated from Persia to Iraq, [never] said Khwarizmi was an Arab, nor did he ever mention where Khwarizmi was born; he simply gave him a [title] that was the name of a province that Khwarizmi resided in most likely, after he travelled from Persia to Iraq as well. No historian EVER names Khwarizmi as an Arab, or being born an Arab. In fact, no historian ever mentions where Khwarizmi was born in. Al-Tabri also indicated he was Zoroasterian, and not Muslim. So, which is which? Keep in mind, many Persian scientists and poets came from Khwarizm, like Avicenna, Rumi, Biruni etc. Also, numerous merchants, scientists, and others travelled to Baghdad from Persia, since the city was the center of scientific learning at the time, and since Arab Caliphs commissioned some of these scientists to Baghdad. In al-Khwarizmi`s case he was ordered to draw the map of the globe at the time. And, much like Latin in Europe, at the time Arabic was the language of the day; in fact, Persians were discouraged to participate in their own culture. Furthermore, the scientist and poet Biruni said in his ancient poem, “ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس
"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". ” .
But, most importantly the Britannica source you mentioned is about another scientist, who was an Arab, and had emigrated to Iran, since many scientists were from and lived in Iran. Britannica says ``Khwarzimi was born in Khiva``, then Khwariam, Persia. So, even the numerous Arab Muslim scholars that I mentioned as sources, Britannica etc., say where he was born. And, the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries actually [say] he was [Persian]. So, what are you saying? They aren`t they good enough sources?Zmmz 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
When Arabs invaded Persia, simultaneously the Romans invaded Greece. It is well known that most of scientists, engineers, and artists in Rome were Greek. This analogy is very relevant to Arabs and Persians. In fact, most of that era’s scientists came from Persia, and were commissioned by Arab Caliphs to go to Baghdad. Because this ancient Persian province was made to be a center of scientific knowledge during Sassanid Persia--during the early years of Islamic invasion, this tradition continued. Famous Persian scientists from Khwarezm included, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tusi (Tusi was from the neighboring Khorasan), and Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The state of Iran didn't exist at that time, and Persia itself was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate, Jidan gave good argument to him being Arab, you don't agree. You call your sources definitive while you dismiss our sources, which are just as legit. Until all editors reach a consensus(i.e. not you and your friends only), I'm taking off the ethnicity, and putting where the province truly belonged. Also, are we to expect that you'll demean yourself to senseless, biased edits whenever a dispute occurs? Shows how confident you and your accomplices are that these scholars are Persian, doesn't it? MB 21:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
People agreeing on something is called a consensus, and should not be labeled as ``friendships``. Also, the state of Iran and its people existed starting from 2500 years ago when Cyrus the Great formed the Kingdom of Iran, or as ancient Iran is known to the West; Persia. To this day its people are the same, and like many countries it was an empire and was also invaded at some point in history. Arabs invaded Persia, and at this time most scientists who were from Persia emigrated to Baghdad, which was a city that by the way was built by the Jewish Persian architect named Mushallah who was forced to convert to Islam. But, what does all this talk about the Persian Empire falling to the Arabs has to do with Persian scientists? Look, America has invaded Iraq right now; so if any scientist from Iraq discovers something, he should be known as an American? I don`t get your logic. And, even though numerous Arab Muslim scholars themselves, Britannica, and others say where he was born, that is not good enough? Bottom-line if he was Arab, why the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries [say] he was [Persian]?Zmmz 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
History cannot be rewritten. Khwarizm was part of the older Persian province of Khorasan and Khwarizmi was a Persian. His father was a Magi for God's sake! There were no Arab Magis! --ManiF 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Root, I have already spent a lot of time on this. I don`t have any more time for this. If you and other actually bother to read my 7 refences in the discussion page, and if you go to the actual sites, you will see there is an over-whelming consensus that at least say he was born in Khiva, Russia. So, to be fair, the only agreement I will make about the article is that we must mention he was born in Khiva, Russia and in a paranthesis we write formerly khwarizm, Persia, or vice-versa. Of course, I have also provided multile refrences that say Khwarizm was an ancient province in Iran. I mean by the way, I gave you refrences about the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary that say he was born in Persia. I HAVE the actual Merriam-Webster dictionary in my hand right now as we speak. I don`t think you can get a better source than a recently updated English dictionary. Do you? Yet, I am still willing to comprimise on this, and just say where he was born.Zmmz 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, what do you know, I found a poem by another prominent Persian scientist and poet Al Biruni who he himself was from Khwarezm, and lived about a century or two after Khwarizmi. Now, that is very important because if there was any mixing between Arabs and Persian in Khwarizm, 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). It says, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". Zmmz 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Until you give me sources, then I'll assume that this is apocryphal. MB 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Khwarazmi's ephipet was Al-Majoosi thus clearly establishing his Persian heritage. The Arabs that settled in Khorasan during Ummayat times were wiped out by Abu Moslem Khorasani as told by many sources.
That may have been written by an unverifiable author, or written by an Student Encyclopedia because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). Also, I clicked on the link you provided, it takes you to an empty page, then asks you to download an Adobe file. It may have been written by a student, but that certainly is not of encyclopedic magnitude. That seems to be the [only] source you have, and although hard to label something, but with all due respect that Adobe file could be written by anyone. Don`t you think an important thing about a culture`s race would be written in at least one Encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica or a dictionary? In fact, I searched Encyclopedia Britannica and it says, “Khwarizm Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R”. Note that Arabs invaded it when then Persian Empire fail, yet the Romans invaded Greece at the same time, but still most of scientists and artists in Rome were Greek. Same analogy applies here.Zmmz 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs).
What the...where the hell did you get that?! Islam is a global religion and doesn't impose a ban on Arabs to marry non-Arabs. There's no edict like that in the Holy Qura'an or the Prophet's(PBUH) Sunna. Your extremist, baseless insults to a billion people's religion are against wiki's "No Personal Attacks" policy. Encyclopedia Iranica is a project backed by the Columbia University Press, a reputed encyclopedia. It's an Adobe file, Zmmz, obviously you need to download! The factual accuracy of the article has nothing to do with it being on Adobe or not. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
During those times, the haydays of Islam, they did not want the decendents of prophet Muhamad to mix with non-Arabs. That is a well known fact, and it appears in numerous Arabic and English literature. You need to do more reading and less writting.Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. It's not fact, it's only silly fabrication. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
That encyclopedia is a student encyclopedia, not an authoritative source, and that is the ONLY source you have. Just click on it and you`ll see it is a student written one--go to Encyclopedia Iranica.Zmmz 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
When Arabs invaded Persia, simultaneously the Romans invaded Greece. It is well known that most of scientists, engineers, and artists in Rome were Greek. This analogy is very relevant to Arabs and Persians. In fact, most of that era’s scientists came from Persia, and were commissioned by Arab Caliphs to go to Baghdad. Because this ancient Persian province was made to be a center of scientific knowledge during Sassanid Persia--during the early years of Islamic invasion, this tradition continued. Famous Persian scientists from Khwarezm included, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tusi (Tusi was from the neighboring Khorasan), and Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong here, again. You're trying to get an analogy that doesn't exist.
A invaded B C invaded D B contributed greatly to A So, does that mean that D also contributed greatly to C?
Your logic is flawed again, and your analogy is extremly false. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a math class, the historical facts I mentioned are universally known, and have nothing to do with A, B, Cs. You claim Khwarizmi was as Arab even though historians say Khwarizmian were Persians, but how about all the other scientists that were mentioned that were Iranian and came from Khwarizm as well, and travelled to Baghdad on the request of the invading Arab Caliphs? Are you denying that Avicenna was an Arab too for example?Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
They're only "universally known" in your head, you have done nothing but clim 'historical fact', 'universally known', 'known fact' throughout this discussion. You have offered no tangible evidence, and keep repeating the same arguments. You were trying to make an analogy between the Greeks who contributed greatly to the Roman Empire, even though they got invaded. You were trying to put an analogy to the Persians, claiming that they contributed greatly to the Arabs, because they too got invaded. Obviously your logic is flawed, and I refuted it. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Heja helweda input regarding the massive arab immagration to khwarizm combined with the other points mentioned above are decisive in proofing that al-khawarzmi was actually an arab. Kwarzim was the richest province in the whole islamic caliphate, and this has pushed massive immagration of the ruling arabs from the desert-climate of the arabian pemimsula to Kwarzim. This also explains why the islamization was more rapid there than anywhere else in persia!!! Jidan 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The only problem is you completely disregard sources from encyclopedias, and you yourself have nothing that proves these hypothetical claims. Heja helweda provided a blank web page with an Adobe file. Don`t you think the scholars who investigate cultures and races would have submitted these info into [any] of the major encyclopedias or dictionaries? Even the Persian scientist, historian, and poet Al Biruni who lived two centuries after Al Khwarizmi, and whom you have tried to claim as an Arab as well, which is against all Encyclopedic sources, said in his poem about Khwarezm; "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". You figure 3-4 centuries after Arabs invaded Khwarizm and Khorasan, if there was “massive arab immagration to khwarizm”, this famous historian would have mentioned it.Zmmz 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually you're the one completely disregarding encyclopedias, three so far: Encarta, Columbia University Press, and Encyclopedia Iranica. What are you gaining by keeping mentioning him as Persian, even though you've been proven false by three encyclopedias, and by your own logic? Isn't it our job to make the articles as accurate as possible? Three sources that are reputed encyclopedias, you provided a dictionary. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect there are no three encyclopedias. There is Encyclopedia Iranica that is a student project encyclopedia sponsored by Columbia University Press. Note that Columbia Encyclopedia itself is a different source and actually does not support your claim. The second source you have is MSN or AOL Encarta. However, my sources that say he was born in Persia supersede yours since they are the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries.Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that Columbia Encyclopedia itself is a different source and actually does not support your claim
Actually, it does, it states that al-Khwarizmi is an Arab. You provided sources that he was born in Persia( then a province of the Arab Islamic Caliphate) but, you have zero sources that claim he's a Persian. All these encyclopedias are well known, your attempts to make them negligent are futile. MB 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Persia was under the invading Arabs, that does not prove anything at all. He was still Persian. Where are you refrences by the way?Zmmz 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I already gave the sources, but your extremism is blinding you even to that: 1- al-Khwarizmi 2- al-khwarizmi
Both explicitly state that he's Arab, you have zero sources that say he was Persian, as you claim. MB 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I m not going to go through this again, I provided two top dictionary refrences that he was born on Persia, as well as, numrous articles from Islamic universities, who themselves say he was not an Arab. A poem written by the greatest historians of Islamic era, the Persian born Al Biruni said, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". Zmmz 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
You have no sources to prove al-Biruni(an Arab as well) has said that. You keep quoting it, but have no definitive sources. Until then, I'll assume it's apocryphal. Until you give me sources I'll not discuss this poem. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Amazing that you try to claim all of these universally know Persian scientists as Arabs. Stop filling these discussion pages with propagandist rhetoric, and start providing valid sources.Zmmz 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So, I ask for sources, and you call that propagandist rhetoric? Excuse me, I wasn't the one who wrote he's Persian, though I have no sources. I'm not the one who named him Persian, based on my interpertation that he lived in Persian, so he must be Persian( please refer to WP:NOR). I provided two legitimate sources that state he's an Arab, you provided none that claim he's Persaian. MB 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Since, all of the sudden now Al Biruni are claimed as an Arab too, here is some refrences saying he was Persian; Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, among numerous other sources say, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”[13]. If they say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not all of a sudden, check the article's discussion page, I have proven that he's an Arab: [14] so, not all sources agree. Also, please do tell me what other "numerous sources" you have to provide? Obviously it's a weasel word, you only have one source, same as me. This makes it at the very least disputed. You refuse to see this, and continue calling him Persian to spread your propaganda. MB 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
MB, you have repeatedly tried to claim universally known scientists as Persian, are actually Arabs. Avicenna, Al Biruni, and now Al Khwarizmi. This is a discussion about Al Khwarizmi. I am not going to make it about Al Biruni, but I invite the reader to go to Al Biruni`s discussion page and see for theselves that all the major dictionaries and encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc., all say Al Biruni was Persian. All the links are provided in that page. In the mean time, stop filling this discussion page with unwarranted rhetoric.Zmmz 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe ”[15]. That is good enough for me.Zmmz 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
We currently have only one source saying persian-born, Arabs were in control of Persia at the time, it stand to reason that he was born to a non-Persan family. Also, we have two sources naming him Arab: [16] at Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th edition. And [17] at Encarta. Both of them are good enough for me. MB 16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah and Alexander the Great was from Turkey.Zmmz 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No, he was from Macedonia, al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni and as well as half of the scholars in your "list of Persian scientists" were Arabs. See, you get the nationalities of historical figures all wrong. MB 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, to date you do not have [one] legitimate source like an encyclopedia that supports your claims. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Oxford dictionary and other sources say he was Persian born. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says,“Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe” [18]. More importantly, numerous Encyclopedias say he was born in now Khiva, then Kwarizm. About Kwarizm I proved via quotes and reference from the Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, poems from Islamic, Persian scientist, poet, and historian Al Biruni who lived during the Arab invasion, in fact, in his time the Arabs were in Persia for four centuries already, that Kwarizmia was part of the country of Iran, or Persia. More importantly, the references I provided unanimously say the inhabitants of Kwarizmia are Persian. This is getting to be disruptive at this point. Zmmz 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I gave two, both of which are encyclopedias. Your source says "persian-born". Heja Helwada provided sources that there were a large number of Arabs in Khwarizm. You gave me no sources from Columbia encyclopedia, also, you provided no sources to prove that the alleged poem was written by the Arab scientist al-Biruni. Encyclopedia Iranica states that there were huge immigrations by Arabs to the region, proving that not everyone from Khwarizm was Persian. Please stop disregarding tangible evidence. MB 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to Al Biruni, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian. Encyclopedia Britannica says, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”[19]. In regards to Al Khwarizmi, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian; “Function: biographical name
circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”. If they all say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
....Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of Persia (now Khiva, Uzbekistan) - This is NOT true
Why persia???? It should say: Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan).
Just like today, khwarzim is not part of persia(Iran), back then it was also not part of persia(Iran), rather it was in in the province khursan, which was part of the arab abbasid empire, ruled by the Arabs!!!. Jidan 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Where is your proof? What are you talking about? Too many scientits came from Khwarizm, and the Khorasan province in Persia during the time the Arabs invaded Persia. Scientists like Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Tabari, Al Razi etc. Are you going to say they were Arabs too, even though [all] of the Encyclopedias and dictionaries say they were Iranian? Zmmz 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear ZmmZ, by saying that khwarizm was part of the arab abbasid empire, im not implying that khwarizm is arab! The abbasid empire consisted of many provinces. Here you see how the abbasid empire provinces were divided, http://www.ghazali.org/maps/abasid.JPG . As you see, one of these provinces was called Fars arabic for persia, which had its own ruler. The province were khwarzim is located, was called Ma wara al nahr, arabic for beyond the river. Therefore the entry in al-Khwarzimi article should say: Khwarizm in the Mawaraalnahr province of of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan). Jidan 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don`t see how it would relevant. Anyone who reads the history of tht era, even in this article will discover that at time Arabs had invaded Persia. This deserves no further elaboration since this article is about Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this has no relevant to al-Khwarzimi's nationality. Therefore i wonder why its being constantly changed by you!! Jidan 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, let me say why he wasnt Turkic: 1)Turks had still not migrated to these areas in large numbers. 2)During this period of history, Iranic tribes, such as the Tajiks, lived in these areas and still do. Something like 40% of Uzbekistan today is Tajik, Afghanistan is mostly Iranic, and ofcourse, Tajikistan is Iranic. 3)Iranic peoples have always lived, and still do live in these areas, and have lived there before Turks got there.
Now to the Arab issue: 1)How is it possible that Arabia, which was not even close to a civilised country at the time (as in culture, economy, etc... compared to Egypt, Persia, and other kingdoms) able to create such minds in such a short amount of time? Its impossible. For example, when the Mongols conquered Iran, they still gave the highest positions to Persians (scholars, scientists, governers, philosophers, religous leaders, etc...) because they, having been nomads with no real civilisation, did not know what to do. That is why the Mughal Empire and other Central Asian empires were called Turco-Persian Empires, because the Persians were the administrators, and the Turkic tribes took care of the military aspects. It was the same with the Arabs. 2)The reason Arab population is so high today is because of the Arabisation of North Africa and major parts of the Middle East. This, at the time of the Abbasid Caliphate was not the case. The Arab populations were low, and highly out numbered by the other ethnicities. Iranic peoples outnumbered Arabs by large numbers, therefore, the probability that Khwarizimi was Iranic (Tajik/Persian most likely) is the highest, especially because of the region he lived in, which was almost entirely Iranic at the time. And the monarchy of the empire was Arab, but the administration was still largely Persian based. 3)The attempted Arabisation of Iran by the Arabs required that the Arabs ban the Persian Language, which they did under penalty of death for violaters. This is why Khwarizimi was forced to write in Arabic. Arabic was not the language of science at the time because it was high cultured, it was so because it was forced.
These points that I have made, and which are all true (you can check them if you wish) and sensible, prove that he was not Arabic. And more so, the laughable claim that he was Turkic is also thrown out.
Now hopefully you pan Arabs and pan Turks will just leave Iranian History alone, but I guess your jealousy of our history is too great. -- Iranian Patriot.
No, actually the whole world knows this stuff, besides some people in Arabia who were never taught it perhaps.
In regards to Al Biruni, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian. Encyclopedia Britannica says, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”[20]. In regards to Al Khwarizmi, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian; “Function: biographical name
circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”. If they all say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
--I dont live in Iran, and I wasnt educated in Iran. I was educated in the USA, and I learned even more by reading and studying Iranian History. Dont be jealous of what we have! --Iranian Patriot
-- there is nothing racist in what i said. and again, i live in the USA and have been raised in the USA. the arabs were like the mongols that conquered persia, they were like the germanic tribes that conquered rome. its simple as that. the truth of the matter is that arabic civilisation was like mongol civilisation, it was war based, with little culture and important history. there is nothing racist in that. so i guess im also racist against germans and mongols too right? the fact of the matter is that mongols, arabs, and the germanic tribes were no where near as advanced or as cultured as the empires they bordered, and eventually conquered. nothing racist about that, just the truth. --Iranian Patriot.
--I never said arabs were never capable of creating smart men. infact, there are lost of arab scientists, scholars, etc... dont put words in my mouth. the only reason you arabs think that khwarizmi is arab, is the same reason why you think egyptians were origionally arab. the fact is that khwarizmi was forced to write and speak arabic, he would have been killed otherwise. he was tajik/persian. i bet if ferdowsi wrote in arabic you would be claiming him too, LOL!
by your logic, all the chinese scholars, scientists, etc... were mongolian just because the mongolians conquered china. the fact of the matter is, although the mongolians were the rulers, everything else remained chinese. the historians, geographers, scholars, etc... were all chinese. its the same with with the abbasid caliphate. it was arab ruled, but everything else was persian. --Iranian Patriot
Khwarizm in the Ma wara al-nahr province of of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan). This should be corrected in the main article, and replace: ...from Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of Persia (now Khiva, Uzbekistan).
Jidan 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Tell me please specifically, which of the following statements do you disagree on:
Jidan 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Khwarizm was a state in Iran. You neglected to mention that. Of course, at the time Iran was invaded by Arabs, there is question about that, but that has no relevance to this article. Yet it was already mentioned anyway.Zmmz 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
All those states that say Khwarizm, Khorasan, Pars, Ray etc. This is a map of the Arabic Caliphat Empire and its colonies. I have a map of the Persian Empire that does not show the name Egypt, and simply is a big map saying Persia. That does not mean Egypt as a country did not exist. That does not mean Egyptions as a people did not exist or that those Egyptions were Persian, no they were still Egyption/Arabs yet under the control of Persia. Same thing here. What are you talking about? Zmmz 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That is what I am saying. I was making an analogy based on Emperial colony maps. By the way, there was no Achaemenid Empire. It [Egypt] was under the Persian Empire, ruled by the Achaemenids dynasty of Persia. Same analogy applies to Persia being invaded by and ruled by Arab Caliphates.Zmmz 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that the word Persian comes from only [one] of the states in the country, and it is being used only in the English literature, and the true name of the country [and] its people is Iran? That is like saying in America 51% are southeners, and the rest are Yankess in Boston etc. Did you know 95% in Iran are pure Iranians? Go to, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People[21]Zmmz 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, looking at it this way, one would conclude that the Spanish and Sindhis were Arabs too during the Abbasid Caliphate. We should be careful in using political boundaries of empires to determine ethnicity and nationalities. Empires are not necessarily nations. deeptrivia (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to thank you all for the info you shared regarding Al-Khwarizim ethnicity. Although i disagree with some, i learned alot. Although I am sure that he was an Arab because of the points i listed above, still i see myself (as an arab) not natural enough to judge that. I also hope that my persian and arab friends understand that nationalism and patriotism has no place in an encyclopedia. Jidan 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It has no place at all, but when all the dictionaries say the man was Persian, yet people are submitting all these rhetoric, that is doing a disservice to the man and his heritage. You can admire him and be inspired by him but don`t change his nationality.Zmmz 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If Iran today only has 3 million Arabs, then that means it had far less back then! its not like all the Arabs left Iran after the Abbasid Empire collapsed. There is no way that khwarizmi was Arab. Pan Arabs just need to stop. Again, like pan Turks, you are fighting a losing battle. --Iranian Patriot.
Al-Kharazmi is the father of aljebra, he is one of the most important mathematicians in the world. This doesn't make people to argue about his nationality. Firstly from the beginig of the Persian empires Kheva and Uzbekistan were very imporatant perts of Khorasan rovince. Also after the Islam it was also part of Khorasan province in Persia. This is why it is said to be Persian. Also because of this Persian have an award for science called "Kharazmi award". Also the Kharazmshah Empire was a Persian Empire from Uzbek so this is an evidence to prove that he was Uzbek Persian. Secondly because he worked for the Abbassid caliphate in Baghdad he is said to be Arab and most of the people believe that he is Arab. However this point doesn't mean that he was Arab so if we want to say about his biography we should say he is Iraqi not Arabic because Arabs are in the Arabian Peninsula. By the way why Arab put the prefix "al-" to him. Al- is for Arabs not for Uzbeks or in the old times Persia. Uzbeks also think that he was Uzbek and this is right because he was Uzbek and Kharazm is in Uzbekistan. We should accept this reality and this is the truth. I believe the best way to express his nationality is to say he was Uzbek Persian because Uzbekistan was a part of Persia and also there are lots of Persian Empire that derived from Kharazm. Every country which once was a part of Persia should think that it wasn't just Iranians who made Persia so great but it was all of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Afghans and other countries which made their old land so great that even Greek and Roman Empires could't defeat us and were afraid of us. When we conquered Babylon and Assyria it was the cooporation of all of us that made us create the biggest Empire the ancient world ever seen. I am writing this as an Iranian but I am defending Uzbekistan because I believe it's unfair to hide the truth. I believe Arabs don't have anything to do with this because its not their business to come in the problem between three countries of Iran, Iraq and Uzbekistan.
Written by Maziar Fayaz 19:27 03.03.06
please study your history first. there was no uzbekistan then, and during that time, there were few turks in the area. central asia was mostly iranic tajik at the time before the turkic migrations. khwarizmi was not uzbek nor was he turkic. that is a fact both arabs and iranians and every other historian can agree on. but the fact remains, was he iranic or arab, most of the evidence seems to point to him being iranic, most like tajik which is the same as persian. --Iranian Patriot.
Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Khwarizm was a state in Iran. You neglected to mention that. Of course, at the time Iran was invaded by Arabs, there is question about that, but that has no relevance to this article. Yet it was already mentioned anyway.Zmmz 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
All those states that say Khwarizm, Khorasan, Pars, Ray were and some still are ancient Iranian states. This is a map of the Arabic Caliphat Empire and its colonies. I have a map of the Persian Empire that does not show the name Egypt, and simply is a big map saying Persia. That does not mean Egypt as a country did not exist. That does not mean Egyptions as a people did not exist or that those Egyptions were Persian, no they were still Egyption/Arabs yet under the control of Persia. Same thing here. What are you talking about?Zmmz 21:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What authoritative sources do you have that say the country of Iran never existed? Do you even have one source? Or, are you just filling this page with rhetoric? My guess is the latter.Zmmz 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How long is this article going to be protected? its misleading and wrong and it should be corrected! --Iranian Patriot.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “Function: biographical name
circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe ”[22]. That is good enough for me.Zmmz 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
4 March 2006 (UTC)
It says exactly what it is. We should not interpret it according to our personal opinions. Last time I checked Persian mean Persian.Zmmz 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's look into the Persians' claims, shall we?
Zmmz lists Merriam-Webster with this quote: "Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe".
Notice, it says "Persian-born" in parantheses, and gives Islamic as the nationality. Basically, they defined him by religion and stated his place of birth. He was born in Khwarizm, in the Khorasan province. At the time of his birth, it was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate, now it's part of the Uzbegistan nation-state. Alas, Persians burnt us saying that it's in fact Persian, so let's take it as Persian. Now, according to sources cited by Heja Helwada, Khorasan in general had a huge Arab population. In accordance to that, defining him as Persian simply because he was born in Khorasan, is not only disputed at best, it also constitutes OR(original research) which is against Wiki's policy, see: WP:NOR
A troll showed up lately and claimed that Arabs are fighting a losing battle, I'm not sure we're in a battle-field here, but I got the gist: he thinks we have no sources...poor little guy!
Sources that state he's explicitly an Arab:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlKhowar.html
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761560322___0/Khwarizmi_al-.html
http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992
Who's losing the "battle" now, I wonder? MB 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
you guys are still losing. do you live in the west? it doesnt seem so, so i will enlighten you.
in the west, they use the term islamic to mean the middle east. they dont refer to islam as an ethnicity. in the west, when they talk about people after the islamic era, they refer to them as muslim this, or muslim that. they generalise it. just like in the media, if there is a terrorist, they say islamic terrorists most of the time, instead of saying, palestinian or saudi or whatever. the west generalises us into one category due to religion. so that is why western articles say islamic scientist or muslim scientist. however, them puting Persian in parenthesis is them giving his ethnicity. you have to understand the western psychi before you make your comments.
by the logic you guys bring up, for example, jidan says that because iran was occupied by arabs at the time, the arab caliphate should get the credit. by that logic, because the USA has occupied iraq, anything of significance done by the iraqi's should be attributed to the americans. that just doesnt make any sense does it?
and the province now in modern uzbekistan, was mostly if not completely iranic! turks had not migrated there in large numbers at the time, and according to jidan, only 50,000 (if any) settle in the area. now lets see, jidan also said they were all soldiers, so how could a soldier afford to educated their child to the extent that khwarizmi was educated. jidan also said that they were given land, by this we assume they were going to farm, and by farming they would have kept all their children at home to help. so even jidan's theory has major wholes in it, why the Persian/Tajik theory is relatively sound and solid.
your arguments do not make sense, and are easily disected. he was Tajik/Persian. Iranian Patriot 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't need 'enlightenment' from a Persian extremist(check your username, click your username). I have many Western friends, I lived in London for a few years, and I have an excellent grasp on the English Language. Them putting it in parantheses is to either: signify un-importance, an after-thought, or to simply add extra information to the article. It wasn't a pseudo-psychological reason, where they fear the bogey-man so they put "Persian-born" in parantheses. Also, Muslim is a nationality, it's not an ethnicity.
You shouldn't debate me witb Jidan's logic, you should debate me with my logic. Nice try, though. Al-Khwarizmi's contributions are a pride to all Arabs, because he was one. I have given three extremly legit sources that explicitly state he's an Arab. You failed to give me one source that explicitly names him Persian. Most of your debate was based on an exchange you had with Jidan. Newsflash, I'm not him. I have based my argument on verifiable sources, you presented none, and clung to your own baseless theories. It all comes down to this: Can you prove he's Persian? I have given three sources that explicitly state he's Arab. You presented none. Conclusion: You're still losing. MB 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sources that his father was Magi? He himself was a Sunni Muslim(it's not debated)...weird, no? Actually, your logic says that everyone who wrote in Arabic is under suspicion of being a Persian untill proven otherwise, is self-contradictory. I'm an Arab, is my ethnicity under suspicion because I talk, write, and think in Arabic? Very self-contradictory indeed. Also, what's this about there being no debate about him being Persian? Who are these "informed Islamic scholars"? Their names? Sources where they said that he was Persian? Give me tangible proof...untill then, he's obviously an Arab by the bulk of evidence and sources I gave. MB 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, Al Tabari, the historian, gave him the title of ``Al Majusi``, that nobody can argue with, because it is in the history books. This title means Zoroastrian, which was the religion of Persia before the Arab invasion. So, this indicates that he was probably a Zoroastrian who was forced to convert to Islam. Back then, if any of the Iranian people, specially, scientists spoke Persian they were persecuted by the Arabs.Zmmz 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually this is refuted as well: [23] He was a Muslim, if he was "forced" as you claim, give me sources. You have none. Nothing to prove the farfetch'd claims you're trying to include in the article. There's a verse in the holy Qura'an that says: (Let there be no compulsion in religion) "2:48" Muslims held paramount to these rules and so, nobody was forced to convert. If you claim otherwise(which you do) please supply ample evidence from legit source. Untill then, let's stick to history and veer off propaganda, shall we? MB 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, recently I took a look at Islamic scientists[24], and I deeply respect everyone, but I`ve got to tell you, it is almost mind-boggeling how many of the scientists of Islam were Persian, [and] they were the most important ones (with the exception of Geber). It is almost as amazing to see almost every-single-one of them came from either Khwarizm or Khorasan, Persia. Most did write in Persian too, but the early ones wrote mostly in Arabic, because during those days they were told either write in Arabic, or face the death penalty, wow.Zmmz 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Same logic applies here, if all Persians who spoke Persian were killed, how come you all speak it fluently now? Did you mirraculously escape the horrendous barbaric Arab massacre?! Also, Khwarizm was part of the province of Khorasan, which was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate at the time of al-Khwarizmi's birth. Also, you can't cite an article which might also be POV'd, by a simple look many of those scientists claimed to be Persian were either Arabs or Turks. MB 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Al-Majusi was part of his title makes him Iranian. His father or Grandfather was a Majusi (Zoroastrian) and thus the Arab claims on this this Iranian scientist amount to rubbish. Furthermore Khwarazm was Persian speaking and the so called Arabs of Khorasans were wiped out by the Abu Moslem revolt and the remnants were assimilated. Their main citadel was Merv which was destroyed by the mongols. --Ali doostzadeh 03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
when in 2000 years ago Persian think Persian you were living in small tribes and you didn't have any cities. But now when Persian and central Asians are thinking Globaly you are telling me that you're thinking Arabic. I think it's ridicules. Maybe you are destroying the Arabs or maybe you are too old for debating. Sorry by the way Central Asia and Iran are all Persia even Azerbaijani people like Nezami are Persian so learn because kharizm is in Persia Kharazmi is Persian. So you Arabs should just go back and think about your religion that all of us have problems about its rules, that thinking Arabic. and never call Persian Arabs because we don't want to share our beliefs with your beliefs. i am asking the Iranians and central Asians and especially Uzbeks to be united against Arabs to stop saying these words. if one arab tell me an arab scientist from the arabian peninsula he will make his country to be proud of him.
By, Maziar Fayaz
According to Columbia Encyclopedia: “(khwärz´m) (KEY) or Khorezm (khrz´m) (KEY) , ancient and medieval state of central Asia, situated in and around the basin of the lower Amu Darya River; now a region, NW Uzbekistan. Khwarazm is one of the oldest centers of civilization in central Asia. It was a part of the Achaemenid empire of Cyrus the Great in the 6th cent. B.C. and became independent in the 4th cent. B.C”. Zmmz 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Funny that no authoritative sources like any of the major encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica back-up that hypothesis. That Encyclopedia Iranica you mention, which by the way you are exagerating its results, is a student project encyclopedia; I invite the reader to see for themselves. Finally, hhhmmm, so why Khwarizm that is now Khiva, Uzbekistan, its people still to this date they speak Persian and there is not a trace of any Arabic culture in there? Why don`t they speak Arabic, if they were so “Arabized ”?Zmmz 08:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What?! Excuse me, what I got was from your source itself!
4th century BC Independance of Khwarizm from Persia 7th century AD Conquest of the region by Arabs Simple arithmatic: 1100 years have passed since Khwarizm earned independance from Persian rule.
If you're going to discredit a source you gave just to push away a hole I found in your arguments, then that says a lot doesn't it? Also, I didn't exagerate results, stop trying to attack my integrity, I'm saying it exactly as Iranica put it. MB 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes math and history don`t mix. Why? Because the Persians ruled over Arabia, Egypt, Israel etc., for almost 1200 years; yet, non of these countries became Persians or lost their heritage. The Greeks ruled over Persia for a century, but today Iran is still Iran. Also, how about some simple history lessons? Others still haven`t answered my question yet; if Khwarizm (now Khiva, Uzbekistan, formerly the Soviet Union) was so hugely Arabized as you allege, then how come to this day they still speak Persian, and have a mixed Russian-Persian culture, and there is no hint of them being Arabs? They are actually living proof right there for, so you do not need a math lesson.User:Zmmz|Zmmz]] 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
“Well, they dont speak persian either”? Really? Hhhmm, that is news to me. With all due respect some of us need to do more research. By the way, the other day I was personally speaking to an Uzbek, and he confirmed it. They have their own language, Russian, and Persian too. But no sign of speaking Arabic or any Arabs in Uzbek. So, I wonder..hhmmm.Zmmz 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a poem by another prominent Persian scientist and poet Al Biruni who he himself was from Khwarezm, and lived about a century or two after Khwarizmi. Now, that is very important because if there was any mixing between Arabs and Persian in Khwarizm, 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). It says,
ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس
"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian".Zmmz 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Translated in english this would be: the people of khwarizim...were a branch of persia. There is a difference between were =كانوا and are=هم !!!. Proving that at the life time of Al-Biruni, khwarzimi's were not entierly persians. Jidan 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
..The people of khwarizim...were a branch of persia. Proving that at the life time of Al-Biruni, khwarzimi's were not entierly persians? How in the world did you come to that conclusion? That`s funny though, because that actually confirms that Al Khwarizmi was definitely Persian, since this poem was written 3 centuries after Al Khwarizmi`s death. Secondly, hhmmmm, that is strange that Al Biruni who was the most important Muslem historian, scientist, and poet of his lifetime, whom by the way was Persian as well, never mentioned anything about Arabs in Khwarizm, ever. You figure by his time, which was 4 centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia, if there was any Arab mixing going on, he would have mentioned [something] at least.Zmmz 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Heja Helwada offered cited references that Khorasan had huge immigrations from Arab families. I offered many references that state him to be an Arab. Logically, these are better than a potentially bogus poem you posted.
Three legit sources that al-Khwarizmi was Arab
References that Khorasan had a huge immigration by Arabs.
Nothing but claims that al-Khwarizmi was Persian
You gave us zero references that state him to be explicitly Persian, not only that but you also tried to veer this off to a discussion on the political/historical background of Khwarizm. What do we conclude from your(and other Iranian editors') actions so far? MB 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I rather take the word of Al Biruni who was the most important Muslem historian, scientist, and poet of his lifetime, whom by the way Persian as well, and whom never mentioned anything about Arabs in Khwarizm, ever. In fact, not only he never said anything like that, but instead, 4 centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia, and 3 centurirs after Al Khwarizmi was dead, Al Biruni wrote, :: "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا من دوحه الفرس"
, which means, "the people of khwarizim are Persian". This argument is getting old, and frankly I rather take the word of one of history`s greatest historians and scientist, rather than you or Heja Helweda who have some wierd hypothesis not backed by one encyclopedia or dictionary. Heja Helweda keeps inserting a genetic test experiment about the Kurds that is unverifiable by the world community, into articles about Persians. You are very actively pushing your own agendas, and you don`t have much credibility MB, because you have tried to also claim other Persian scientists as Arabs, for example, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, and perhaps others. People like you only drive away other editors that have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. With all due respect, give it a rest, this is not a chatroom.Zmmz 08:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
1) Merriam Webster calling Khwarizmi Persian [25]
2) Khwarizmi being a Persian name
3) Biruni, who himself was a Persian from Khwarizm, callings the Khwarizmis Persian
4) Khwarizmi's father being a Magi (Notice that all Magis were Persian)
Those are the facts. --ManiF 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
All your "references" need references themselves! Pay attention:
1) Check my comment on this at "Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research" I refuted the claim that Merriam Webster claims he's Persian.
2) Khwarizmi refers to Khwarizm, a province in Khorasan. It was a province of the Arab Islamic Caliphate by itself, not part of Persia at the time. Zmmz her/himself offered references that it was independant since 4th century BC. When I said that this proves the province has been independant from Persia for 1100 years when the Arabs arrived, s/he said that I don't have authoritative sources to prove my "hypothesis". You guys are an extremly interesting bunch, you know that?!
3) No. The poem claimed to be written by him is not sourced, untill then I'll treat it as apocryphal(untill you source the alleged poem) Also, al-Biruni is an Arab, but that's for a different dispute.
4) Notice that you don't have sources that prove the claim his father being a Magi.
There you go, successfully refuted your "references". My references are three extremly legit sources from three very reliable encyclopedias. Obviously you can't refute any of them, on the other hand, I just refuted all of your references(which paradoxically need references themselves). MB 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Biruni quote is not "bogus" as someone claimed above. I can scan a picture of the text from a book where this quote is actually written.--Zereshk 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please, present it. We can discuss it if it exists. And you have to prove it was written by al-Biruni himself not someone else. MB 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have realized that most non-arabs (specially persians) dont understand what it means to be an arab. Being an arab, does not mean that you come from the arabian peninsula. Egyptians, morocians, sudanese,etc, are all considered arabs, and they dont stem from the arabian peninsula. 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, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking people."
"Al-khwarzimi is a person whose language is Arabic, who lived in an Arabic speaking country(baghdad), and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking people."
Therefore ,without regard to his ethnicity, al-khwarzimi is an arab!!
Notice also that most encyclopedias, like brittanica and colomubia, say that he was an arab, while at the same time, describe other islamic scientists like Ibn Sina or Al-biruni, who lived nearly the same time, and wrote in arabic, as persians!!. Jidan 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he fits those categories, but let's hold paramount that al-Khwarizmi was ethnically Arab by three legit sources from very reliable encyclopedias...he was an Arab in ethnicity, not just linguistically. MB 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So, that`s what it is all about huh? Just as I suspected. But, please know, first of all these Persians in a way had no choice but to speak and write in Arabic rather they mother`s language, because otherwise they faced persecution, and second of all you can admire them, and be inspired by them, but that does not mean you have to change their nationality.Zmmz 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Do you have any sources that support your claim? Your friend the Iranian extremist tried to elaborate on your point, his comments got prominently deleted, please keep the discussion off racist, propagandist comments. MB 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if that is true, then we must fix the article Arab, because it defines an Arab almost entirely on an ethnic basis.--Zereshk 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually have the above defination of Arab from the arab article. Jidan 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Listen Al-khwarazmi title was Majoosi since his father was a Zoroastrian. This is clear enough proof of his Iranian origin. Writing Arabic does not mean that a person becomes Arab just like writing in English does not make one a Britian.
--Ali doostzadeh 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The Golden age of Persia by Richard N. Frye, Professor of Iranian, Harvard university Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975
pages 161-162:
The contributions of Iranians to Islamic mathematics is overwhelming. Undoubtedly Iran acted as a middleman for the transmission of a great deal of mathematical knowledge from India, and it is not easy to determine the source of many ideas, but Iranians were active and did contribute much. The centre of scientific activity was, as expected, Baghdad. The caliph al-Ma'mun collected a great number of mathematicians and astronomers at his court, almost all of them from eastern Iran. Perhaps the most famous of the mathematicians was Muhammad b. Musa al-Khwarazmi (d. c. 850) who wrote on algebra, and it is possible that this word comes from his book al-Jabr just as the word algorism, the decimal system of computation, most probably comes from his own name. To record even the names of scientists of Iranian origin who flourished in the time of al-Ma'mun would occupy much space, and their contributions to learning and science were extensive. The Banu Musa, three brothers, were instrumental in translating Greek and Pahlavi manuscripts on scientific subjects into Arabic. Abu Ma'shar of Balkh was more an astrologer than a mathematician but many of his works were translated into Latin and were well known in Europe where he was called Albumasar. The mathematical tradition was continued in Iran by Abu `Abdallah Muhammad al-Mahani (d. c. 884) from the famous shrine town near Kirman, and Abu'l-`Abbas al-Nairizi (d. c. 922) from the town near Perspolis. More famous than these two was Abu'l-Wafa' al-Buzjani (d. 997), from a town in Kuhistan, eastern Iran, who made significant contributions to trigonometry, especially in studies on the tangent ... and the famous `Umar Khaiyam (d. 515/1122) who is better known in the west as a poet. He was, however, a great mathematician and also an astronomer. He reformed the old Persian solar calendar which had continued in use in Iran beside the Muslim lunar calendar. This new calendar, called the Jalili, was more accurate than the Gregorian calendar. The name of Abu Raihan al-Biruni (d. 1048), from Khwarazm, must be mentioned since he was one of the greatest scientists in world history. His encyclopedic knowledge is evident from his many and varied writings which have survived. His works include treatises on geography, geology, mathematics, astronomy and history, which include a great deal of information on philosophy and religion. To describe the contributions of al-Biruni and other Iranians to the body of mathematical knowledge in the Muslim world would far exceed the scope of the present volume.
And just in case you might have thought that they only produced
great mathematicians, read the following quote from the same
book:
page 150:
The famous philosopher of history, Ibn Khaldun, living in the fourteenth century in north Africa, wrote the following:
It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs ... Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of whom were of Persian descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired knowledge of it through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules [of grammar] and made it into a discipline for later generations. Most of the hadith scholars, who preserved traditions of the Prophet for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and breeding because the discipline was widely cultivated in Iraq and regions beyond. Furthermore, all the great jurists were Persians, as is well-known. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most of the Qu'ran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the Prophet becomes apparent, ``If learning were suspended at 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. They were cultivated by arabicized Persians, as was the case with all the crafts, as we stated at the beginning. This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khurasan and Transoxiana, retained their sedantary culture.
--Ali doostzadeh 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
First,I want to thank you for sharing your information with us.
You said: Well that is not necessarily true. There were Zoroastrians with Arabic names, for example Mohammad Daqiqi was a Zoroastrian poet during the Ferdowsi Era so your first argument is disproven by this simple. Furthermore the title "Al-Majoosi" could be a refrence to his ancestor and not necessarily him. Or to the fact that the people of Khawarzm were still mainly Zoroastrian up to that. What is 100% certain is that this title is used by Al-Tabari (which is very early and undeniable source) to refer to Al-Khwarazmi. Tabari himself was Persian as well but a very strict muslim and he would not give such a title to Al-Khwarazmi as a joke since Majoos were considered Semi-Kaffar by Muslims. So even if Al-majoosi refers to his ancestor, it is sufficient proof that he was not Arab.
I say: If we belive al-tabari, then we have to belive everything he said! Not just take the part we "want" and leave the one we dont want. Now, Al-Tabari gave him the title "al-majosi"(Zoroastrian), but he also said that he was born near baghdad. This means he was NOT born in persia and we have to change the article accordingly!! Al-khwarzmi's preface to his book: al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala (الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة) , suggests that he was an orthodox Muslim. This means not him, but his ancestors were Zoroastrian's. So far so good? Now, if a persian went to iraq, married there and had childern. Wont you think that after 2 or 3 generations, his grandchildern are considered iraqians? So basically al-khwarzim is an Arab!!
You said:
Also the definition of the Arab league is not even worth considering since today many people even Lebabon and Egypt consider themselves non-Arabs but معرب (Arabized).
I say: Mostly, its christians that dont consider themselves arabs. And egypt is the MOTHER of all arabs, they are the ones who started the Arab League. Remember Gamal Abdel Nasser, ...exactly he was the one how suggested to change the persian gulf to Arabian gulf. The offical name of Egypt: جمهوريّة مصر العربيّة = Arab Republic of Egypt. And if egyptians are not arabs, then arabs are egyptians.
You said:
And genetic data backs up this fact.
I say: It was done using Iraq's and Iranians, and no difference was noticed.
You say:
Also another point to mention is that Biruni has recorded that the people of Khawarazm spoke Persian. If there was any Arabs from Ummayyat times, they were either wiped out by the Abu-Moslem revolt or were heavily assimilated after that.
I say: Ohhh yes my friend, there were arabs fom Ummayyed times, in khorasan and khwarazm. And the most prominent ones, called themselves the abbasids. khorasan and khwarazm was the base, from which the abbasids started their revolt on the ummayyeds!! Meaning there must have been a huge concentration of arabs there. Notice also that the islamization in khorsan, was more rapid than anywhere else in persia!!
Yes, ibn khaldun and Richard Frye praised the persians. And i praise them too. ;-)
Jidan 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
1) The title Al-Majoosi given to him by the almost contemporary At-Tabari is sufficient that Al-Khwarazmi was not Arab. No Arab would ever have such a title since this means Zoroastrian. So either Al-Khwarazmi was born a Zoroastrian and converted, or his ancestor one generation back was Zoroastrian. '
As i said before, If we believe al-tabari, then we have to believe everything he said! Not just take the part we "want" and leave the one we dont want. Al-Tabari gave him the title "al-majosi"(Zoroastrian), but he also said that he was born near baghdad. This means he was NOT born in persia and we have to change the article accordingly!! Al-khwarzmi's preface to his book: al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala (الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة) , suggests that he was an orthodox Muslim. This means not him, but his ancestors were Zoroastrian's. And after more than 1 generation in baghdad, he is considered an arab!.
His other title "Al-Khwarizmi" denotes a region in Persian Central Asia whose inhabitants considered themselves Persian according to Biruni. Look up Chorasmian language in Encyclopedia Iranica. These two facts are sufficient proof that he was not of Arab origin.
Having al-Khwarizmi in his name doesnt mean that you are an ethnic khwarizmi. You can get this name also if you traveled from khwarizm to another place. There are many famous arabs who have names after persian places. One of the famous arabs was Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). So according to the "persian name = persian nationality" theory he must be persian, since al-isfahani indicates he is a persian from isfahan in Iran. Answer is NO. He was an Arab. And not only that!! he was even a descendant of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph!!! He got the "al-isfahani" name when he moved from isfahan to baghdad. This, once and for all, proves that labeling Muhammad Abu Ja'far al-Khwarizmi as persian because of his name, is totally and absoultly invalid!!
2) Some non-specialized sources consider him Persian, some consider him Arab, some maybe even consider him Uzbek although Uzbeks settled in much later. But the eminent Harvard Professor Richard Frye says clearly that he is Persian and if you can find someone on par with such an excellent scholar of the Mid-east and Central Asia, then there could be a discussion.
Richard Frye is an iranologist!! He considers persia the mother of all civilizations. An egyptologist consider egypt the mother of all civilizations, and a sinologist considers china the mother of all civilizations. Thats normal!. I suggest you read the book History of the Arabs by Philip Khuri Hitti (professor of Princeton University) to know more of the arab history.
3) .... So even if you want to claim that Baghdad was pure Arab speaking back then (which it was not and only Saddam hussein made it so), you can not deny the fact that Al-Khwarazmi's parents came only one generation prior or else there would be no need for such a title as Al-Khwarazmi and Al-Majusi.
see 1)
4) As per genetic data, Iraq is varied as Iran if not more. Iraq was home to non-semitic Sumerians and Hurrians as well. But genetic data suggets that the majority of Iranians are close to the Parsi (Zoroastrian) speakers of India and so they have not been influenced by Arabs as much. Even analysis on Egyptians suggest that they are mainly remnants of pre-Islamic non-Arabs whose language was replaced. But Egypt is an Arab speaking country whereas Iran is not and so the influence of Arabs in Iran was even much smaller. Also Iranians are very dissimilar to the pure Arabs of Arabia and Yemen, and you will not find that type in Khorasan. I might add that a large portion of the inhabitants of historical Khorasan (which some include Uzbekistan and Turkemenistan too) are now Turkic speakers. But there is absolutely no trace of Arabs there (either due to the Abu Moslem anti-Arab revolts and various other Shua'abiya revolutions like Sanbad, Mawqna, Yaqub Layth, Samanids or due to the fact that their number was small and they were rapdily assimilated after couple of generations).
Aryan, semitic, and all that racist crap, is only linguasticly. People through out history have been known to immigrate and intermix, and the middle-east is the biggest mixing pot ever.!! Lets be honest about that!! An iranian walking in baghdad, damaskos, dubai or riyad, will never be recognized as a foreigner from his appearence.
5) About the article by all accounts the title Al-Majoosi given to him by Tabari deserves a mention as well. So does an explanation on the ethnic and historical background of the Iranian region of Khwarazm. In fact the only ancient biography we might have on him might be what Tabari has said and so we must put the whote quotation there. This way his Persian origin by the title "Al-Majusi" is made clear. There is no way an arab would ever have such title and so all efforts to cast Khwarazmi as an Arab is doomed to failure by the only available ancient biography that we have of him...
see 1) And there were arab zorostrians. Persia, specially under khosru II, ruled nearly all arab regions(yemen, iraq, oman, etc), and it was not unusuall to find arab zorostrians. Jidan 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
--Ali doostzadeh 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a relatively trivial dispute, and the article has already been protected for a week. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone transliterate the frontispiece from al-Khwarizmi's Algebra for me. Cheers, —Ruud 19:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The transliteration: Al-kitab al-mokhtasar fee al-Jabr wa al-mokabala, tasneef al-sheikh al-ajal Abi Abdullah Mohammad Bin Mousa al-Khwarizmi.
P.S. R.Koot did your position change on al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity since the protection?(I noticed your mediation page). MB 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, 'tasneef' might mean categorized, but in context it probably means 'written by'. al-sheikh al-ajal is basically an honorific, not really needed in the translation, but if you must add it, then give me some time and I'll get you an adequate translation. In the mediation page you made, there's four sources listing him as an Arab, and just one(I'm not sure which language it was written in) that claims him as Persian. What do you make of that? MB 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
R.Koot, you've been an admin for what, less than five days now? And already you put al-khwarizmi as Persian and protected the page! Then you went on and added Persian Mathematician for a book you asked to be transliterated, very mature. I think making you an admin was a hasty decision, you and your Persian friends ganged-up and are conspiring to put up falsified information, even after I described by reason, and fact why al-Khwarizmi is in fact an Arab. MB 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, that heading, and the language used is not appropriate in Wikipedia; this is not a chatroom. Whoever, R. Koot is, he must`ve had sufficient evidence of an edit war, started by MB and others. An admin has every right to protect a page, in order to prevent wars. Please refrain from personally attacking an admin or others.Zmmz 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from sounding like a neutral party. You're the one who instigated the edit war by putting him as Persian, I have offered three legit sources that he's an Arab, you offered none, and used an argument which was refuted by Jidan, me and Heja Helwada. Obviously there's no consensus that he's a Persian, and we offered tangible proof that he's in fact an Arab. Still you insisted on inserting your POV the moment the page was unprotected, R.Koot joined you by immediately protecting the page after reverting my edit(notice I didn't insert Arab). I didn't personally attack anyone, I simply put up a fact. MB 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
We have provided ample evidence that he's an Arab, we should keep he's an Arab and a Muslim, al-khwarizmi had nothing to do with being Persian. MB 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We have provided enough evidence to you. You were blocked once, so please stop attacking me, or the admins. We decided to keep both Persian and Muslem, and yet you keep reverting to only Muslem.Zmmz 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to all that:
Encyclopedias:
Dictionaries
These facts should make him an Arab.
Jidan 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
No Zoroastrian was ever an Arab. They were all Persians. So when Al Tabari says he was Al Majusi, it does not translate into his ancestors were Persian, as you say, its actual translation is; the Magi, meaning the Zoroastrian priest. Also, by the way the Al Tabari that you mention was a Persian too, and along with Avicenna, Al Razi, Al Biruni, and numerous other Persian scientists who mostly came from Khwarizm as well, were all summoned to Baghdad to perform tasks for Arab Caliphates. They were all told to write and speak in Arabic, or face persecution, which is the same thing the Mongols said to them as well. Also, we provided you links to many dictionaries like the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries that all say he was Persian.Zmmz 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Jidan claims: Having the title "al-khwarizmi" doesnt mean you are an ethnic khwarizmin. See Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412), who was not an iranian from isfahan, although he had the title. Answer: But we know that Al-Khwarazm was not arabized like Isfahan. Either way it denotes Khwarizmian ancestory. We can agree that he or his ancestors were from Al-Khwarazm. Now move on.
Jidan: Khwarizm was part of the arab empire, so its not unusual to find arabs from khwarizm.
Answer: Many Abbassid Caliphs were non-Arabs. Many of their ministers were non-Arabs. Many of their soldiers were Turkic and Daylamites and others. As per the language of Khawarizm, Abu Rayhan Biruni describes it as Persian and not Arabic.
Jidan: He lived his whole life in baghdad(iraq), was tought in baghdad, and died in baghdad (iraq). Unlike ibn sina or al-biruni, how were mostly in khurasan(iran).
Answer: This is given without a source so far that he was born in Baghdad. But Baghdad was a diverse city back then. There were many persians, arabs, bebers, blacks, turks, greeks and etc. So this is false again and does not prove anything. You can not have it both ways, you claim Abu Al-Faraj Al-Isfahani was an arab (which maybe true), although he was from predominantely Persian city, yet you want to claim Baghdad as a pure Arab city, which it is not even today. There are hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomens, Armenians in Baghdad today and during the Abbassid times it was even much more diverse. Even the name of the city is Persian. For example the famous Persian poet Fakhr-ad-din Araghi was from Baghdad according to many sources and yet he was of Persian origin. Even in 1920's there was a lot of Persians in Baghdad. One dramatic example is found in the 1920s when the Iraqi Ministry of Education ordered Husri to appoint Muhammad Al-Jawahiri as a teacher in a Baghdad school. A short excerpt of Husri's interview with the teacher is revealing (see Samir El-Khalil's Republic of Fear, New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, p.153-154): Husri: First, I want to know your nationality. Jawahiri: I am an Iranian. Husri: In that case we cannot appoint you.
Jidan: He wrote all his books in Arabic. Not a single book in persian is known of him.
Answer: This is irrelavent as Arabic was the scientific language of the time. Einsten did not write anything in Hebrew either, but he was Jewish. Many people now only write solely in English.
Jidan: Al-tabari had given him the title "al-majosi", meaning his ancestors must have been persian. Masudi (also known as the Arab Herodotus), who lived the same time as al-tabari, and Ibn Khaldun (one of the forerunners of modern historiography) have critisized al-tabari, stating that al-tabari(an orthodox muslim) wrote more on speculations than facts. Absolutly not a single historian other than al-tabari, had given him the title al-mojosi. Al-tabari also states that he was born in the near of baghdad, meaning he was not persian by birth!
This is where Jidan makes a big mistake and truly shows that he is extremly biased. Tabari lived around 839-923 (A.D) What Masudi is talking about is the pre-Islamic history of Tabari. What Jidan fails to mention is that there is absolutely no earlier refrences to Al-Khwarizmi than Al-Tabari. These two could have possibly even lived at the same time! So to claim that because Tabari makes a mistake about historical records several thousand years before islam does not cut it. Since these two events were contemporary. That is where Jidan loses because Tabari lives in the same age or one generation after Khowarizmi. And he is the earliest and virtually only source we have about Khowarizmi and he is a contemporary of Khowarizmi. For example we know one of the books Khowarizmi was written around 833 AD. So Tabari could was the same as Khowarizmi's son. This is an important proof because Tabari here is reporting contemporary history and not on pre-Islamic Yemen or Persia! Such a shallow claim by Jidan can in no way discount such a strong statement by Tabari. Al-Majusi makes Khawarzmi Persian and there is no way Jidan can deny such title. He also has not shown proof from any other sources that mention this great Mathematician during his own age. So the Tabari statement is indeed the earliest statement we have on this great scientist and it refutes all anti-Iranian claims, by the simple title "Al-Majusi". Combined with the title "Al-Khawarizmi" that is sufficient to make him an Iranian. BTW Masudi talks about big dragons in the Caspian Sea! Each statement needs to be evaluated by case by case basis. There is no reason for Tabari who is contemporary of Khowarizmi or just one generation forward to give him the title Al-Majusi. Since such title by orthodx muslim is considered an insult just like Arabs insult Iranians today by calling them Majoosi! So the title refers to his ancestors who were Zoroastrians and this fact can not be argued.
In addition to all that, there are some very emminent scholars and not random Encyclopedias! and dictionary! that have no authors. For example: Professor Richard Frye (Harvard) Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr(George Washington University) or even internet sources: Algorithm from www.dictionary.com and much more can be found. For example a Professor of Math from utah: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/java/fibonacci/al-Khwarizmi.html The point is to discuss the issue with all available sources and Jidan has absolutely no reason to dismiss that statement from Tabari.
We do not need any judgments from the past or internet sources. We need to look at the facts available and all we have is Tabari who gives the earliest refrence to Khowarizmi al-Majusi. The earlier the title, the more accurate in its veracity and when you have almost two contemporary great scholars like Tabari and Khowarizmi living during the same age, then there is absolutely no reason to deny the Al-Majusi title. Quoting nameless and authorless sources here doesn't cut it, since Jidan can not explain the title of "Al-Majusi" and that is his biggest problem. He wishes this title did not exist and tries to manipulate to get it around it. If he could, he would change every copy of Tabari so that the word Al-Majusi is erased. But he can not disclaim a contemporary source like Al-Tabari and then quote an authorless source like the American heritage dictionary! So the title Al-Majusi combined with Al-Khawarizmi is sufficient to establish the Iranian heritage of Al-Khawarizmi. Furthermore Ibn Khaldun the Arabized Beber Historian mentions that the majority of people that cultivated the sciences during Islamic times were non-Arabs and they were mainly of Persian stock. So Jidan sorry buddy, but Al-Majusi+Al-Khawraizmi combined together makes him Iranian and you can not just cut your way around this source, which has the final say on this matter.
--Ali doostzadeh 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Here i agree 100% with you ! I think we talk alot about the past, because we have no present! ;-)
Al Tabari never said Al Khwarizmi was Persian, but he never said he was an Arab either. The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries among others [say] he was Persian. Al Tabari, a Persian historian himself, said he was an Al Majusi, meaning a Zoroastrian priest. Zoroastrians were exculsively Persians. Numerous encyclopedias say he was born in Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia, then Persia. Many, many, many other Persian scientists came from Khwarizm and Khorasan, Iran as well, who were forced to write only or mosly in Arabic. So--figuring-out his ethnicity should be a no brainer. Oh, he was forced to, or most likely voluntarily did convert to Islam though. Thanks Zmmz 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The following is an extract from two books:
[1]Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990). (Upon this you claim that al-khwarzmi is persian)
"But the historian al-Tabari gives him the additional epithet "al-Qutrubbulli", indicating that he came from Qutrubbull, a district between the Tigris and Euphrates not far from Baghdad, so perhaps his ancestors, rather than he himself, came from Khwarizm ... Another epithet given to him by al-Tabari, "al-Majusi", would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. ... the pious preface to al-Khwarizmi's "Algebra" shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so Al-Tabari's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians."
[2]E Grant (ed.), A source book in medieval science (Cambridge, 1974). Proof that he or his ancestors were NOT persian zorostrians
"... Al-Tabari's words should read: "Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and al-Majusi al-Qutrubbulli ...", (and that there are two people al-Khwarizmi and al-Majusi al-Qutrubbulli): the letter "و" was omitted in the early copy. This would not be worth mentioning if a series of conclusions about al-Khwarizmi's personality, occasionally even the origins of his knowledge, had not been drawn. In his article ([1]) G J Toomer, with naive confidence, constructed an entire fantasy on the error which cannot be denied the merit of making amusing reading. "
I am sorry buddy, but this makes your claim that he is persian equal to zero!! Jidan 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The letter for "and" in arabic is "و" , just one letter!!! So its highly possible that it was mistakenly omitted. Jidan 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم
Short biographie of Roshdi Rashid:
Prof. Roshdi Rashed
A Paris based, internationally renowned historian of science Prof. Rashed has made many significant contributions to the history of mathematics and science. He has been awarded with many honorable degrees and prizes including the Légion d'Honneur (legion of honor) from the president of France for scientific production in 1989, the medal of the International Academy for the History of Sciences (Alexander Koyré Medal) in 1990, then Avicenna Gold Medal from Federico Mayor, General Director of UNESCO in 1999, "for his contribution to recognition of Islamic culture as a part of universal scientific heritage and for promoting the dialog among different cultures." He has occupied various prestigious positions on the level of international scientific organizations.
Jidan 05:24, 9 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] SouthernComfort 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Arab and the next edition says he was Persian. There is a lot of mistakes in Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. For example if they take their information from Dr. Frye's book, then they would have said Persian. But if they took it say from Prof. Hitti, then they might have said Arab. For example check out the 1911 Britannica Article on Avicenna[27]. It claims he was an Arabian philosopher but the new edition of Britannica rightfully mentions he was a Persian philosopher. The problem in the west is the terms Muslim and Arab have been confused to great degree and they have been used by mistake interchangeably, although the fact is that today Arabs are about 15-20% of all Muslims. This is like the word "farang" in the muslim world which refers to all Europeans, but originally it just menas Franks. At one time, the Europeans called all muslims as Turks in their literature. Thankfully old age predujices are in decline. Going back to the issue, I reiterate that all we have are ancient sources and if for example this Professor says this or another says that, does not matter since they have no proof outside of these ancients sources either. I think unless new material from ancient sources are given that prove otherwise, the article should keep the ethnic Persian origin.
Because they are not updated, that is why. The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries are updated and they say he is Persian, or at least Persian born: Of course because he was never allowed to write in Persian, and instead, he was told to write in the language of the conquerors of Persia, Arabic. As such, most of his books are in Arabic, and Latin. So you can see where the slight confusion came from. Zmmz 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, to this day the people of Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia speak Persian, of course Russian, and Uzbeki too. So they have no trace of an Arabic culture or language: Proving that when people say Khwarizm became Arabized, just because it was invaded by Arabs at some point, it certainly is not true. I have provided numerous sources mentioned in the above sections that says he was born in Khwarizm, so that is not just his name. Some of those references are from the same Columbia Encyclopedia that they keep mentioning. Other sources are some Islamic university web sites, Islamic Arabic books and others. So what is the problem? The case is settled. Thanks Zmmz 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Some sources give conflicting information, because they are not updated. For example, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries are updated and they say he is Persian, or at least Persian born. Of course because he was never allowed to write in Persian, and instead, he was told to write in the language of the conquerors of Persia, Arabic. As such, most of his books are in Arabic, and Latin. So you can see where the slight confusion came from. A prime example of this confusion is Encyclopedia Britannica itself that in an older edition mistakenly states Al Khwarizmi was born in Baghdad, Iraq[29], yet, now in a newer edition it states he was born in what is now Khiva, Russia (then, Persia)[30]. Thanks
Zmmz 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Merriam-Webster states he's Islamic(persian-born) not Persian. Actually, he wasn't "told". He wrote the books in Arabic on his own free will. All these encyclopedias are updated, and they all agree that he's an Arab, some of them state he's Muslim. No sources state him to be Persian. MB 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
This is written at the beginning of the article: "According to many sources, he was an ethnic Persian. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]"
The links take you to the references page, but, in the references page we have two sources that state he's an Arab, one calls him Muslim, while the others don't state his ethnicity. Can we get someone to delete the falsifications? MB 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jidan. That is good point. I recall a math book few years back whose first edition says he was Arab and the next edition says he was Persian. There is a lot of mistakes in Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. For example if they take their information from Dr. Frye's book, then they would have said Persian. But if they took it say from Prof. Rashed, then they might have said Arab. For example check out the 1911 Britannica Article on Avicenna[31]. It claims he was an Arabian philosopher but the new edition of Britannica rightfully mentions he was a Persian philosopher. The problem in the west is the terms Muslim and Arab have been confused to great degree and they have been used by mistake interchangeably, although the fact is that today Arabs are about 15-20% of all Muslims. This is like the word "farang" in the muslim world which refers to all Europeans, but originally it just menas Franks. At one time, the Europeans called all muslims as Turks in their literature. Thankfully old age predujices are in decline. Going back to the issue, I reiterate that all we have are ancient sources and if for example this Professor says this or another says that, does not matter since they have no proof outside of these ancients sources either. I think unless new material from ancient sources are given that prove otherwise, the article should keep the ethnic Persian origin although perhaps "most probably of Persian origin", due to the fact that Khawarizmn was a chiefly Persian region.
Ok, first of all I'm not Jidan. Second of all, the claim that he's Persian simply because he was born in Khwarizm was refuted when Heja Helwada offered sources debunking the claim that all people from Khwarizm were Persian. Please, offer tangible truths to prove he's Persian, you don't have any. MB 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I offered three authorative sources stating he's an Arab. The dispute was settled long ago, it's your bias that's keeping you from seeing it. The source you mentioned relies on the argument of his birthplace, Encyclopedia Iranica refuted that claim. MB 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop the propaganda shouldn't you follow your own advice, first? I wasn't spreading propaganda, the source stated he's born in Khwarizm, so he must be Persian. Heja offered sources that state Khwarizm had huge immigrations from Arabs. Also, the claim that al-Tabari called him "al-Majusi" is disputed, the MacTutor reference in the article describes the dispute. The poem alledged to be written by al-Biruni hasn't been sourced yet, untill someone does, a neutral editor would treat it as apocryphal. Where are the sources from Ibn-Nadeem? Who "plowed" through the ancient sources? Who are you? Please sign your comments after logging in, I want to know who I'm adressing. MB 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope Heja offered no sources here about Chorasmia. He provided a source about Merv during Ummayad times and their military garrissons. We are talking about Chorasmia here and not Khorasan. Although most of those military colonies were wiped out by the Shua'biya and Abu Moslem revolts, that has nothing to do with the Chorasmia discussion. So your statement that Heja did this or that doesn't cut, since you don't even know what Heja wrote and can not prove anything about Chorasmia and Heja is no scholar either. Unlike you I mentioned a direct source from Biruni that clearly states the inhabitants of Khawarizm were Persians. How much more clearer do you want? You seem to not know that Merv and Khwarizm are two different areas. There is no poem by Al-Biruni but a statement from Athar-al-Baqqiya that the inhabitants of Khawarizm are of Persian origin. The actual Arabic statement was brought here already. But just in case you do not want to find them, here we go again:
1) Biruni:
The famous scientist Biruni, a Khwarazmian native, in his Athar ul-Baqiyah (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية) (p.47), specifically verifies the Iranian origins of Khwarazmians when he wrote (in Arabic):
"اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا, من دوحه الفرس"
2)
Ibn Nadeem الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم وكان منقطعاً إلى خزانة الحكمة للمأمون وهو من أصحاب علوم الهيئة وكان الناس قبل الرصد وبعده يعولون على زيجيه الأول والثاني ويعرفان بالسند هند وله من الكتب كتاب الزلزيج نسختين أولى
3) Tabari: ومحمد بن موسى الخوارزميّ المجوسيّ القطربّليّ
Now these are all evidences from ancient sources, and are very much clear indicators of the Persian origin of Khawarizmi. If you have no direct ancient sources and quotes to backup your claims, then you should not persist. BTW there is no dispute on the Al-Majoosi part, since there is no copy of Tabari with a "wa" in there and Prof. Rashed with all due respect for his achievements is an ethnic Arab and no other scholar has suggest such a theory and either way it was refured because there is no Al-Majoosi Al-Qurutbuli mentioned in history. Note also that Al-Majoosi is not a name but a title and so is Al-Qurutbuli, so the idea of there being a "wa" is not founded. Besides what Ibn-Nadeem and Biruni say is sufficient and if we add the Al-Majoosi part, then it becomes 100% certain that he was Persian. (Ali Doostzadeh).
I am sorry to disappoinment you all, but picking a random website in the internet is not enough. For finding articles that al-khwarizmi was an arab mathemtician just click this google link: [32]. Funny also that while SouthernComfort tried to prove he is persian with some web links, he also proved at the same time that he is an arab! LOOL
With all respect Ruud, but with voting we can even make isaac newton a persian. LOOL
The best source i have seen in the internet that talks about al-khwarzimi in a detailed and a dedicated way (not just one line like the website you provided) was this: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Khwarizmi.html. And this source is authoritive and neutral, and it uses as a refernce 53 Books!!!...unfortunatly, they didnt say he was persian!
As i said 1001 times, we can't say that al-khwarzmi is persian, just because his name indicates he is from khwarzim, which is persian. Its SIMPLY NOT RIGHT.
Lets take this man:'Abd al-Wahab al-Daylami. From his title we can say that he is from Daylam, a region on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea in Iran. But he is NOT persian!! He is the Ministry of Justice of Yemen. Although he himself admits that his ancestors came from persia, during the occupation of persia to yemen, he is still a yemeni!! Nobody dears to call him persian.
Lets take another man: Omar Khayyam. This man is persian, because he wrote in persian, lived in Nishapur, in Persia. But his name indicates that he stems from a prominent arabian tribe, al-khayyam. See http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume1/Robert_Green.pdf. The fact that tentmaker doesnt mean khayyami in persian, also supports this. But nobody dears to call him arab, beceause he lived in persia, wrote in persian, and was assimilated with the persian culture.
Another man: Abu faraj al-isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). If this man did not write in his book that he was an arab, he would also be labeled falsely as persian!! since al-isfahani means he comes from isfahan, which is in persia and predominatly persian. This man also lived in baghdad
Do you get my point!!!!
It does not matter where your ancestors are from, it ONLY matter where are you NOW! And thats NOT persia!!
Al-khwarzmi ancestors might have been persian from khwarzim and even zorostorian (like al-tabari mentioned), but still, NOW he is not. He did NOT live in persia, he lived in baghdad. He wrote in arabic, he did not NOT write in persian. Ibn al-Nadim didnt mention a single book of him in persian. These are FACTS!!, unlike the speculations about his ethnicity.
Nobody argues about the ethnicity of ibn sina or al-biruni, because unlike al-khwarzmi, they lived in persia.
Since i know that the persians will not agree with all i said (without regard if its right or wrong), I suggest the following natural, open soultion:
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.
Because of his book on the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations, al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala,3 al-Khwarizmi is, together with Diophantus, considered to be the father of algebra.4 The word algebra is derived from al-ğabr,2 one of the two operations used to solve quadratic equations, as described in his book. Algoritmi de numero Indorum, the Latin translation of his other major work, on the Indian numerals, introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world in the 12th century. The words algorism and algorithm stem from Algoritmi, the Latinization of his name.5
This is my last entry regarding this issue, i dont really care anymore. But Keep in mind that if the entry was no put as natural as possible, it would be continuesly changed!!
My regards and thanks to all(specially Ali doostzadeh)
Jidan 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)