![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The footnotes are misnumbered, and the links between them don't work. It's confusing enough that I'm not going to try to fix them, but someone with experience with the article should try to sort it out. -- jacobolus (t) 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This man was not famous for his ethnicity, he was famous for his amazing accomplishments throughout his life. I suggest we just remove both and replace it with something like "Middle Eastern". This article has seen too many edit wars over something very trivial. — Khoikhoi 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
When we say that he was an Arab, we aren't stressing ethnicity but rather the fact he was one of the great scientists in the dominating Arab culture of that time. To call him a Persian is as wrong as calling Dwight D. Eisenhower a German just because of his origin as was pointed out by the famous German orientalist Sigrid Hunke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sultanio ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2006.
So by this logic we would have to edit the first line in Eisenhower's article to "Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was a German soldier and politician.". But clearly no sane person would do that. Sultanio 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with that even though the fact that he wrote all the books he is famous for in Arabic and under the service of the Caliph should be sufficient to also consider him an Arab. Sultanio 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
So what is the result of Arabization if not becoming an Arab? After all that's why people living in countries like Egypt, Marocco, Algeria, Sudan etc. are called Arabs. Besides, Karl Marx was also of Jewish origins, but will anyone complain if we call him a German economist? I don't think so. Sultanio 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. His name does by no means prove that he was a Persian, but rather that originally his family came from a certain region that belonged to the fallen Persian empire. At the time of Al-Khwarizmi the Persian empire was already history. There was no such thing as Persia anymore. In fact, that's the reason why he was not called Al-Farsi (the Persian) like Salman Al-Farsi. But let me try to give you another more current example. The father of the Islamic scholar Muhammad Nasir ud deen al-Albaanee was given that name Al-Albani when he emigrated from Albania to Syria. His son inherited the name and was henceforth also known as Al-Albani just like the whole family. Still today his children who have nothing to do with Albania bear this name. Therefore the Arabic name itself is not sufficient to declare a person a non-Arab. The only thing that we can notice from his name is that it is completely Arabic. And furthermore the only thing that can not be denied is the fact that he wrote all of his famous books in Arabic and in Bagdad and under the service of the Caliph and in the time when the Persian empire had become history.
Let me go even further and ask what justifies him calling a Persian mathematician at all? Is it because that region of today's Uzbekistan - the alleged birthplace of Al-Chwarizmi - once belonged to the historical Persian empire? But then at the time of Al-Chwarizmi, this Persian empire had ceased to exist and the whole region became part of the new Islamic empire ruled by the Arabs. So even this alleged birthplace (for which there is no proof) fell under the "Arabic empire". So why is it ok to call all the people of that region that at some time belonged to the Persian empire Persians, even if they don't belong to same race and even if this empire has long fallen under Arabic leadership? Sultanio 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you haven't read my argument carefully. The point is that the name Al-Khwarizmi can only be taken as a proof that originally his family came from a region in today's Uzbekistan and that's it. It is completely irrelevant of what ethnic group people are who live in that region simply because all we know about Al-Khwarizmi is that he lived in Bagdad under the service of the Caliph. Anything that goes beyond that is mere speculation. In fact even his birthplace is subject to dispute.
As for Iranians having Arabic names, then this is only partially true. All Iranians I know have Iranian surnames, at least Ahmadineschad, Khameini, Khomeini, Tabatabai, Rafsanjani are all non-Arabic names. So what is the Persian name of Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khawarzimi?
Now as far as Ibn Nadeem's quote is concerned, then unfortunately you haven't translated it correctly. What he said was that "Al-Khwarizmi whose name is Muhammad bin Musa is originally from Khawarizm", just like Al-Albani and his children are orginally from Albania and Eisenhower is orginally from Germany. It is by far not sufficient in order to turn him into a Persian.
As for Al-Biruni, then his full quote actually goes against you. In the same paragraph he goes on to list a few names of famous people from that region and not a single name sounds Arabic in complete contrast to Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khwarzimi. This proves that while the people that lived there had their own names, those who emmigrated had long been Arabized and considered themselves Arabs. So clealy, we have to make a difference between people who remained there and those who emmigrated just as we do with Europeans who remained in Europe and those who emmigrated to America. Finally, the word Al-Khwarizmi is simply the name for that region. The Arabs didn't invent a new word for it. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here.
As for Eisenhower, then his example is very much relevant here regardless of national ID cards. The American pioneers didn't have national ID cards either, still they are called Americans and not Germans or Britons.
Anyway, as a compromise I would agree on "Muslim scientist". Sultanio 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your comment, that we are not scholars, then of course this is true. But I don't know what makes you think that those who wrote the articles using "Arab mathematician" in other encyclopedias were not scholars. Also the only specialized scholar I know who specifically dealt with this question is the above mentioned orientalist Sigrid Hunke who argued that it is right to call all these people Arabs. Sultanio 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are chosing not to read my comments. Anyway, so let me summarize your main points.
1. You're strongest proof seems to be his title "Al-Chwarzimi". I already made it clear that this title only proves that originally he came from a certain region in Uzbekistan. In fact you yourself argued that having the title "Al-Majusi" for instance does not make him a Zoroastrian: "Khawarazmi was not Zoroastrian but had Zoroastrian ancestors." So why is it so hard to understand that the same applies to "Al-Chwarizmi"? It's not more than the name of the region his ancestors came from. Now please tell me, would you also call his children Persians if they had been born and were raised in Bagdad just because they probably bear the same title "Al-Chwarizmi"?
2. You also argue that having his origins in some country prevents him from becoming an Arab. Why should it be forbidden to call someone who lived his life among the Arabs under the service of an Arabic ruler, wrote all of the books that made him famous in Arabic, had an Arabic name, an Arab? Not to forget that it is even unknwon whether he was born in Chwarizm to begin with.
3. Concerning Arabic names you say Al-Chwarizmi is not Arabic. First, thank you for pointing out that Khomeini refers to his city. Still his name Ruhullah is uncommon to Arabs. In fact, it is not hard to distinguish Iranians and Arabs from their names.
4. You say Baghdad was not Arabic. This is like saying NY is not American because people of different origins live there. In fact it is worse, because in Bagdad all the people talked in Arabic and this by definition makes them Arabs.
5. You claim that specialists on this field have settled the issue already. I'm not sure whom you are talking about. Anyway, I advise you to read "Allahs Sonne ueber dem Abendland" by Sigrid Hunke.
6. You say he used the Persian calendar. Well, if this is a proof for him being a Persian then how do you consider him writing all of his books in Arabic? Many Arabs today use the Georgian calendar, does this turn them into Jalab?
7. You say he served under the Khazars. Well, even if we believed that single source which claims he was once sent to them, it doesn't prove that he really spent a significant amount of time there. Going on a temporary business trip to another country is different from living most of your life in Bagdad...
Nevertheless, I again repeat my offer to agree on calling him a "Muslim scholar" as a compromise since he was a scholar of the Islamic empire. Sultanio 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see my article on al-Khwarizmi mentioned so often in the discussion section of the Wicopedia article on al-Khwarizmi! I'm writing to you now to help in two directons: (1) to give you an account of my background and more recent work, and (2) to steer you and others toward reliable sources on Islamic/Arabic mathematics.
(1) I began studying medieval mathematics in 1999, having studied Roman history for many years before. It is true that my article "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?" relied heavily on secondary sources, but I can tell you, after several years of deep immersion in the field, that they are reliable sources. At the time I was just beginning to read Arabic---I have the good luck to have Haitham Alkhateeb, a native Arabic speaker, as a colleague. I continue to pester him with questions, though less and less as the years pass. Now I am finishing up writing my 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles on Arabic algebra. See my web page for a description of the first two:
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Oaks.htm
I can send you pdf versions if you like.
(2) For good sources on various aspects of medieval Islamic mathematics, see my online bibliography:
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Biblio/Intro.htm
Over 2,500 books and articles are arranged by topic. Many books & articles are for the general public, which I label "Introductory". Let me know if you want any guidance here.
Regarding the ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi: he was a Persian who wrote in Arabic and who worked in Baghdad. Most scholars in Baghdad at the time were Persians, and many were still Zoroastrian (though al-Kh was apparently a Muslim). This is not to slight the Arabs: the great (perhaps greatest?) Islamic philosopher, al-Kindi, was an Arab. The predominance of Persians in intellectual fields was due to cultural trends. Persia had an old tradition of learning, which had been supported by the vast Sasanian state and earlier Persian dynasties. The Arabs, up to the time of the prophet, had been traders and herdsmen, with little motive to study science (though they had a rich tradition of folk poetry). But of course, once the Muslims had conquered the Persian empire, things changed. As the decades passed, the Persian element faded. By, say, the 12th c., a scholar in the Muslim world could have just about any ethnic or cultural background.
I must add that it is a pity that just saying "Persian astronomer/mathematician" should raise so many objections! The word "Persian" to me places al-Khwarizmi geographically, and tells me something of his cultural background. Iranians can feel proud of this label if they like, while Arabs can point out in return that the man wrote in Arabic.
By the way, a couple days ago I did insert a few comments in the "discussion" section of the sub-article on his work in algebra.
Best wishes,
Jeff Oaks
-- Jeffrey A. Oaks, Associate Professor & chair Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Indianapolis 1400 E. Hanna Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46227
Would anyone have a problem with referring to him as "Middle Eastern" and delay the discussion on his etnicity and religion to the biography section? This endless discussion is rather non-productive. — Ruud 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This argument does not belong here. You are not suppose to do any research. Here at Wikipedia we only put what reliable sources says. If it says he is an Arab, we put that. If it does not agree on that, then we put both point of views. The policy is very clear on that. -- Islamic 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The guy was Arab, put this in your head! He was an Arab! I changed it BTW. User: Koolboy
Saying that Khwarizmi was arab is like saying Ghandi was English.
Last time I checked, Ghandi's name is NOT English, he DID NOT do his work serving the Queen of England, and he DID NOT live his productive life in London, how did you come up with that phrase?... I have no clue. As for the discussion, if a man lives in Iraq/Baghdad, speaks arabic, writes books in arabic, and his name is arabic,then it is truly mere foolishness to say he wasn't an Arab... if he was not an Arab then most of people in Iraq today are not Arabs by the same definition. And saying he is a Persian just because his FAMILY NAME hints he or one of his ancestors originally came from somewhere that was once (before his birth probably) UNDER persian control (not even Iran itself), is just like saying Ghandi was English... I suggest whoever isn't familiar with the way surnames/family names are given specifically in Iraq, to go do some research. --SandHawk 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue has essentially been going on since...forever! Is there any way we can resolve this once and for all? Khoi khoi 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Khwarizmi's name is not arabic. Khwarizm is a region to the east of Iran and west of Afgahnistan. He lived in Baghdad because in those days, Baghdad was a scholarly center and he wrote in arabic because the language of science was arabic. Just as a German scientist that lives in New York and writes in English remains German, Khwarizmi remains persian.
Saying that Ghandi was arab is like saying Gandhi was English -- User: Bozorg
It is clear that your name cannot change your race and birthplace.I am a persian with complete arabic name.this is common in all islamic countries if your father named you mohammad. Kharazm is a persian state in old days.
Baghdad is a persian name means: Gift of God. Tehran is an Arabic name! Besides at those days there were very little arab people outside Arabia.Baghdad was an anceint persian city those days. Syria was Roman state too.We cannot talk about about ancient arab nation as we talk about modern-arabs: epyptian<>ancient-Arab but today epytians are modern arabs. Toaday Kharazmia is a part of Uzbakistan.But at the old-ages it was a persian state with persian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to unprotect. However, I don't think I should, given that the edit war is just going to start right back up again. I've noticed that the version that says he is arab only references encyclopedia articles, which are unacceptable. The version that says he's persian has no footnotes; refs should be added, citing "there's a lot of discussion in the talk page" is not going to be enough to stop the edit war.
May I ask the community on this page to consider keeping the current edit?- that is, removing mention of his ethnicity from the lead. Or is that unacceptable? Borisblue 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the problem will stop if we applied Wikipedia's policy on these issues: Both referenced point of views need to be mentioned in the article. -- Islamic 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. And since we find sources that say he was arab AND was perisan, we include BOTH. Anybody who has a problem with that, should first of all, change the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule, which BTW I didn't make Jidan 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
era. But he was not an Arab. -- alidoostzadeh 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't recieved any emails yet from the professors, maybe someone else can try contacting them. The article as it is now, states that A-Khwarizmi is persian as if it's an undeniable,and absolut fact, i.e. as if someone traveled with a time machine back to 9th century, sat with him for a cup of tea and asked him if he is persian or not. The introduction of this article should clearly state that his ethnicity is not clear. Jidan 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have a problem with Ali's explanation. There is no evidence beyond reasonable dought that he was persian, race was not a big issue back then in the middle east. If the origins are from eastern iran that means nothing! you ask why? Because Arab settlers headed there at the beggining of the arab invasion. Ahmad bin hanbal was from khorasan, although he was ethnically arab. Then he left for baghdad. Second, Arab is not about an ethnicity. Instead it is about culture and language especially the muslim understanding of it. There is no verifable evidence, thus I think it should just be mentioned that he lived in baghdad and was orriginally from uzbekistan. As for the example that the barkhimids were persian, that is simply not true. Their grandmother was persian, but after that it was arab lineage. Well anyways this is kind of stupid, this is like reffering to some native american cheif as being a new-englander or such, RACE WAS NOT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR BACK THEN. People were not catorgized based on it. Namrasit 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting that beside the word Persian in the sentence: "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī ( Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, astrologer and geographer.", we should add the term ( Tājīk) in brackets to specify him being from Central Asia rather than the modern day country of Iran. Persians and native-Persian speakers living East of modern day Iran are referred to as Tajiks today, and also in the past. We can still keep the word Persian and/or native-Persian-speaker, since ofcoarse he was an ethnic Persian, but to specify he was from Central Asia the term Tajik should be also be added. Parsiwan 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
All of Alkhawarezmi books were written in Arabic and he studied and lived in
Baghdad, Iraq under the
Abbasid empire (which is Arab empire) therefore Alkhawarezmi was Arab.Despite his place of birth.
Persian or Arab I do not really care, but this website says that he was born in Baghdad [12]
Tajik??? Are you kidding me? Khwarezm have never had Tajik population. If you want to specify that he was from Central Asia just say "Central Asian" or "Khwarezmian". People who have no clue were Khwarezm is do not normally have an idea who Tajiks are.
It is importent to specify a correct name for an importent man like Kharazmi...But Afghan or Tajik or Iranian are modern names for persians.... be carefull not to change persians great history and glory.Greater China has the same point.India too.... In the birth days of Kharazmi in Bokhara and Kharam persian people lived who forced to live in southern places after mongols-conquer.
I think because his birth place was Kharazm and Kharazm's mother-language before mongols was Persian so the best name Is :Persian Moslem Scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the article states that Latin translation of Khwarizmi's algebra "introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world".
This a statemente is obviously false, or rather nonsensical, in the part that concerns number zero!
Of course, no one ever introduced "number zero" in the Western world (or any other world). The concept of number zero (although not the Arabic-origined name we call it today) is a quite natural concept, that probably all civilization on earth have always been familiar with. After you eat all the apples contained in a basket of apples, you are left with a basken containing no more (or zero) apples. That's as simple. In any case, the concept of number zero, and even specific a symbol for it, certainly existed in the mathematics of classical Greece.
What Khwarizmi's work actually brought to the West was the concept of digit zero, i.e. a special symbol acting as a placeholder for empty position in a positional number system. But changin "number zero" to "digit zero" above wouldn't work, as digit zero is a key feature of any positional number system, so if we already said that someone brought the positional number system somewhere, it is redundand and misleading to add that he also brought digit zero.
I think that we should simply remove the words "and the number zero" from the introduction. Any other ideas?
85.42.220.213 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The concept of zero is a psychology kinda of thing. Cats have a concept of zero. If a cat has a litter of seven kittens and one is missing, it knows something is up. 12.44.67.78 ( talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the era of state-Abbasiya
the People of Bukhara Samarkand Neyshabur Khorasan was Speaking Arabic and they was Persians and Arabs too who consider themselves arabs, and they was Muslims Sunnah
I should recommend this dear friend to first learn English; then try to study valuable history books in international language (English) and not just from Arabic books or recent "Arab-donated" English history books!! If you earn so much money these days from your crude oil, doesn't just mean that all the world history should be rewritten from viewpoint of Musim Sunnies in Hejaz!!
al-Khwārizmī full name says that he is the son of Moses? ( Is that not a jewish lineage according to the name Moses). User_talk:CltFn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!
I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!
A repetitive edit claims that Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Shi'a Muslim. As a source the web page http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/nahjulbalaga/lifelineage.htm has been suggested. It may be useful to note that this web page refers to one "Muhammad ibn al-'Abbas al-Khwarizmi (d. 383/993)". This is not the same person as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (d. ~850), but another Muhammad (not an uncommon name), who apparently also stemmed from Khwarizm, but lived more than a century later. -- Lambiam 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Historians don't have much more to say about him than is already in the Biography section. Likely a Muslim, possibly from a Zoroastrian family. They don't give anything more exact then that. — Ruud 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this revert is so drastic, going back all the way to the revision as of 18:39, November 19, 2007 (UTC)? Are really none of the intermediate edits worth being kept? -- Lambiam 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not directly say that he belonged to Islam, do we have source that he did? 76.16.187.218 ( talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently changed the gentleman's entry at Timeline of mathematics with commentary. Could someone more expert in that make the year 750 entry more appropriate to Wikipedia? Thanks.
Since his name is Muhammad it's obvious that at least he was known as muslim. Moreover,Persia in that time have been converted to Islam by the muslims and arabic has become the official language and the dialogue as well.
(John User:Jwy talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Arabic script in the first line visible when editing, but not when looking at the page itself? Badagnani ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any authenticated reference that states Al-khawarizmi was German as it is stated in the text? I think all the arguments about his nationality revolve around three axis: Turkish or Persian or Arab. If any one can support the article's argument, I would be glad to hear his analysis. Best Ahmedettaf ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Persian different from Iranian? ( 129.217.230.35 ( talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Algorithm on this very topic. I think it might benefit from the input of those who have already discussed related issues here. silly rabbit ( talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to visit our research about Al-Khwarizmi numerals at: [13] Thank you. Roberto Lyra ( talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
he was not Persian see this source from Encarta encyclopedia [14] -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
listen to me in that time when citizen of kingdom of islam (caliphate) talk arabic as native language so they were arabs exactly the same with sassanid empire all of them talk persian so they where persian and so on... -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
you said that his native language was Khwarezmian do you have source please? and to be clear the Arabizm is culture not orign Bayrak ( talk) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
you saying now he is iranian?!! -- Bayrak ( talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Not all iranin are persians but all persians are iranian so if we claim he was iranian that does not mean he was persian -- Bayrak ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India.
rewrite the history..! no way -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
also britannica see here
[18] --
Bayrak (
talk)
19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dont delete the sources please.. -- Bayrak ( talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Sina111 delete the sources??? -- Bayrak ( talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
""Further, the chapters interchangeably use terms such as "Arab" scholars, "Arab-Islamic" Scholars, or simply "Islamic/Muslim" scholars. While in some sense the distictions may be appropirate, our reference throughout is to the Islamic (or Muslim) scholars, whether Arab, Iranian or Persian, who wrote their discourses in the early Islamic civilization.""
""Moslem philosophy (of which the most notable exponents were men of non-Arab descent, Persians, Spaniards, etc. ...""
if some new sources claimes that he was persian that doesnt make the case be an abosolute truth -- Bayrak ( talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
the Ethnic is language and culture not origin because there is no nation Offspring from one person , and who knows maybe al-khwarizmi was turkish who moved to persians and Convert to Zoroastrians maybe before that he was from russian origin moved to the turks and so on...
therefor when i write he was arabic i mean he was arabic native maybe from Foreign origin -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy ( talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Khwārizmī →
Al-Khwārizmī — see discussions —
El
on
ka
07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.according to most encyclopedias they used to use al- instead of Khwārizmī see this [21] [22] Bayrak ( talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry for that.. the correct spelling is Al-Khwārizmī and about (AL) yes it is as you said but in this case its part of his name (ARABIC: الخوزارزمي) you can see these examples Al-Mansur Al-Mahdi Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir -- Bayrak ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i dont know why they do that but you can use google to see the others encyclpedias how do they spiling his name -- Bayrak ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding or removing Al- is not important. Iranians have been having Arabic-origin names anyway. Actually "khw" or "xv / xw" is another letter in Perso-Arabic script (not in Arabic alphabet), still being used in some Persian dialects and varieties. It is not pronounced the same in standard Persian, but is written, e.g.: خواهر/xwahar, خواهش/xwâheš, خواندن/xwândan, نشخوار/nošxwar and many more. It has been used in Avestan and Middle Persian and in use in some extant Persian dialects. "Khw" in "Khwarizm" is very Iranian and it is one letter, not two.
About Khwarizmi being Iranian, the archives are clear that this problem was discussed and opinions from Professors of mathematics were sought and this is the final outcome. Plus Bayrak's link [23] clearly states:
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.
So either way, it claims he or his ancestors were Zoroastrians. Even this source states the same fact, yet some keeps pushing the same POV. Biruni is clear that the people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree and Biruni himself was a native Khwarizmian. When he is Khwarizmian and says he is Persian, he actually refers to his nationality (I don't mean the modern meaning of nationality).-- Raayen ( talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
after all of that do you want to change his name?? -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
so why you dont try to change this Algebra to gebra by removing (al) -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I meant that (AL) is part of his name the same case here algebra -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
you can see how he write his name ALKHWARIMI in this page -- Bayrak ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
i propose to add "foremost" before "mathematician" in the first paragraph. i do think that this is generally accepted and observed by noting that his most remarkable work is in algebra. i do not know whether such a thing needs citation.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 04:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
also in the book 4000 Jahre Algebra he is named as Persian.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article has been put through a process of arabization. A consensus must be found in the process of the de arabization of this article. It appears to me that certain editors are reinforcing a process of Cultural genocide, and attempting to use Wikipedia as a means of doing so. The Scythian 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
In the text, "-razm" is given as زم, but the initial "r" seems to be missing (this is "zm"). Badagnani ( talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I second this complaint as it has not yet been taken care of. ( Soleado ( talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
If Algoritmi is a Latinized form of this man's name, why isn't it given right at the start? Even better would be an Anglicized form. It seems a shame not to have a convenient, easy name by which to discuss this person among speakers of English. Unfree ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just like the Emperor Hadrian is described as a *Roman*, and fighting over whether he is Croatian, Italian or Spanish doesn't make any sense (though he shared ancestry in lands that are now under these *modern* states).
His Persian descent and his Arab culture can be then described in the text, as many suggest here. The Arab--Iranian dispute is quite silly and politicised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerniagigante ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
According his name and his country many historian think he was Zoroasterian . the article is quite good, source [5] states, he was likely Zoroasterian (see also the first few sources here). There is no reason to believe that he was Muslim. Xashaiar ( talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make any personal attacks. Al-Khwarizmi's religion is unclear (Al-Majusi vs. the introduction of his Algebra praising Allah). Any discussion and sources belong in the "Life" section. This shouldn't be stated, without any qualifications, in an infobox. — Ruud 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources claim that he was Zoroastrian himself. Some like Toomer say that the epithet "al-Majusi" may refer to his family background, and some like Rashed say that he didn't have such epithet and it's just the result of misreading Tabari's text. The debate about his epithet is not related to his own religion. Even Toomer has no doubt that he was Muslim (based on Khwarazmi's own writings). Alefbe ( talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a fact that himself reveals very little personal information in his writing. So "based on Xarazmi's own writing" is baseless. Indeed based on "what he did" he could not be a muslim but only for conventional reason he might have chosen to be silent. Xashaiar ( talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is almost 100% percent certain that he was a Muslim, or at the very least claimed to be in his later years. The introduction to the compendium contains a flourish of praise for God for his greatness and for sending his prophet Mohammad, etc, etc. I quote but a small excerpt of this from the Rosen translation
Praised be God our Lord! and may his glory increase, and may all his names be hallowed--besides whom there is no God; and may his benediction rest on Mohammed the Prophet and on his descendants!
Now, maybe this extensive preface is simply an elaborate potboiler added by later authors to copies of the text. But unless you can prove that, I would take it at face value. The introduction also mentions the then ruling Caliph as having encouraged the production of the text, which I presume means he commissioned it in some fashion, and I hardly think the Caliph was handing out research grants for unconverted academics to write popular textbooks.
So, perhaps he was initially raised as a Zoroastrian. But I rather doubt he was still one when he wrote the Compendium. ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If you call al-Khwārizmī Persian than you can call Jews and Assyrians as Arabs,Hebrew being closer to Arabic than Kharezmian is to Persian.
al-Khwārizmī is more Pashtun than Persian.
But besides all,he wrote in Arabic language using Arabic alphabet and was connected to the Arabic culture and civilisation not the Persian one.
Also Persians when entered middle-east in the 8 th BC took semite akakdian and aramean as official language and alphabets and many other semite cultural items as noruz(from semite akitu),assyrian bull,griffin and babylonian lion.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
From the body of the article it seems clear that, although lots of sources call him Persian, nevertheless there isn't actually much evidence for this. All we know about him for definite is that he worked in Baghdad and that his name is linked to an area which is now in Uzbekistan. I'm changing the lead to delete the word Persian. Readers can read on to see the details of his life if they are really interested. filceolaire ( talk) 11:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
Hmm. These references are a mess. Toomer and Hogendijk are referenced elsewhere but Oaks is only referenced here. I've read the Oaks reference and could not find any reference to Al Kwarizmi' nationality so deleting it from here isn't a problem. It does have a lot of interesting stuff though so I will post the details here incase they might be useful elsewhere in this article. Oaks, Jeffrey A. "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?". University of Indianapolis. Retrieved 2008-05-30. filceolaire ( talk) 12:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make changes until you have read the archives and have waited for the input of others. The Persian is based on the fact that was mediation in this article by neutral admin and the opinions of Professors of Islamic mathematics were sought. As per Oaks, here is the reference [24]. You have missed the portion: "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. ". As per this article, this is not about the history of the area. You can see Khwarezm and Khwarezmian language for that as well as Central Asia. You might not be aware of the region's history on the Afrighids in Khwarezm and again the article does not have prove, but just quote Professor of Islamic Mathematics like Oaks who have the final say on this specialized matter.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The footnotes are misnumbered, and the links between them don't work. It's confusing enough that I'm not going to try to fix them, but someone with experience with the article should try to sort it out. -- jacobolus (t) 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This man was not famous for his ethnicity, he was famous for his amazing accomplishments throughout his life. I suggest we just remove both and replace it with something like "Middle Eastern". This article has seen too many edit wars over something very trivial. — Khoikhoi 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
When we say that he was an Arab, we aren't stressing ethnicity but rather the fact he was one of the great scientists in the dominating Arab culture of that time. To call him a Persian is as wrong as calling Dwight D. Eisenhower a German just because of his origin as was pointed out by the famous German orientalist Sigrid Hunke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sultanio ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2006.
So by this logic we would have to edit the first line in Eisenhower's article to "Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was a German soldier and politician.". But clearly no sane person would do that. Sultanio 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with that even though the fact that he wrote all the books he is famous for in Arabic and under the service of the Caliph should be sufficient to also consider him an Arab. Sultanio 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
So what is the result of Arabization if not becoming an Arab? After all that's why people living in countries like Egypt, Marocco, Algeria, Sudan etc. are called Arabs. Besides, Karl Marx was also of Jewish origins, but will anyone complain if we call him a German economist? I don't think so. Sultanio 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. His name does by no means prove that he was a Persian, but rather that originally his family came from a certain region that belonged to the fallen Persian empire. At the time of Al-Khwarizmi the Persian empire was already history. There was no such thing as Persia anymore. In fact, that's the reason why he was not called Al-Farsi (the Persian) like Salman Al-Farsi. But let me try to give you another more current example. The father of the Islamic scholar Muhammad Nasir ud deen al-Albaanee was given that name Al-Albani when he emigrated from Albania to Syria. His son inherited the name and was henceforth also known as Al-Albani just like the whole family. Still today his children who have nothing to do with Albania bear this name. Therefore the Arabic name itself is not sufficient to declare a person a non-Arab. The only thing that we can notice from his name is that it is completely Arabic. And furthermore the only thing that can not be denied is the fact that he wrote all of his famous books in Arabic and in Bagdad and under the service of the Caliph and in the time when the Persian empire had become history.
Let me go even further and ask what justifies him calling a Persian mathematician at all? Is it because that region of today's Uzbekistan - the alleged birthplace of Al-Chwarizmi - once belonged to the historical Persian empire? But then at the time of Al-Chwarizmi, this Persian empire had ceased to exist and the whole region became part of the new Islamic empire ruled by the Arabs. So even this alleged birthplace (for which there is no proof) fell under the "Arabic empire". So why is it ok to call all the people of that region that at some time belonged to the Persian empire Persians, even if they don't belong to same race and even if this empire has long fallen under Arabic leadership? Sultanio 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you haven't read my argument carefully. The point is that the name Al-Khwarizmi can only be taken as a proof that originally his family came from a region in today's Uzbekistan and that's it. It is completely irrelevant of what ethnic group people are who live in that region simply because all we know about Al-Khwarizmi is that he lived in Bagdad under the service of the Caliph. Anything that goes beyond that is mere speculation. In fact even his birthplace is subject to dispute.
As for Iranians having Arabic names, then this is only partially true. All Iranians I know have Iranian surnames, at least Ahmadineschad, Khameini, Khomeini, Tabatabai, Rafsanjani are all non-Arabic names. So what is the Persian name of Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khawarzimi?
Now as far as Ibn Nadeem's quote is concerned, then unfortunately you haven't translated it correctly. What he said was that "Al-Khwarizmi whose name is Muhammad bin Musa is originally from Khawarizm", just like Al-Albani and his children are orginally from Albania and Eisenhower is orginally from Germany. It is by far not sufficient in order to turn him into a Persian.
As for Al-Biruni, then his full quote actually goes against you. In the same paragraph he goes on to list a few names of famous people from that region and not a single name sounds Arabic in complete contrast to Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khwarzimi. This proves that while the people that lived there had their own names, those who emmigrated had long been Arabized and considered themselves Arabs. So clealy, we have to make a difference between people who remained there and those who emmigrated just as we do with Europeans who remained in Europe and those who emmigrated to America. Finally, the word Al-Khwarizmi is simply the name for that region. The Arabs didn't invent a new word for it. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here.
As for Eisenhower, then his example is very much relevant here regardless of national ID cards. The American pioneers didn't have national ID cards either, still they are called Americans and not Germans or Britons.
Anyway, as a compromise I would agree on "Muslim scientist". Sultanio 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your comment, that we are not scholars, then of course this is true. But I don't know what makes you think that those who wrote the articles using "Arab mathematician" in other encyclopedias were not scholars. Also the only specialized scholar I know who specifically dealt with this question is the above mentioned orientalist Sigrid Hunke who argued that it is right to call all these people Arabs. Sultanio 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are chosing not to read my comments. Anyway, so let me summarize your main points.
1. You're strongest proof seems to be his title "Al-Chwarzimi". I already made it clear that this title only proves that originally he came from a certain region in Uzbekistan. In fact you yourself argued that having the title "Al-Majusi" for instance does not make him a Zoroastrian: "Khawarazmi was not Zoroastrian but had Zoroastrian ancestors." So why is it so hard to understand that the same applies to "Al-Chwarizmi"? It's not more than the name of the region his ancestors came from. Now please tell me, would you also call his children Persians if they had been born and were raised in Bagdad just because they probably bear the same title "Al-Chwarizmi"?
2. You also argue that having his origins in some country prevents him from becoming an Arab. Why should it be forbidden to call someone who lived his life among the Arabs under the service of an Arabic ruler, wrote all of the books that made him famous in Arabic, had an Arabic name, an Arab? Not to forget that it is even unknwon whether he was born in Chwarizm to begin with.
3. Concerning Arabic names you say Al-Chwarizmi is not Arabic. First, thank you for pointing out that Khomeini refers to his city. Still his name Ruhullah is uncommon to Arabs. In fact, it is not hard to distinguish Iranians and Arabs from their names.
4. You say Baghdad was not Arabic. This is like saying NY is not American because people of different origins live there. In fact it is worse, because in Bagdad all the people talked in Arabic and this by definition makes them Arabs.
5. You claim that specialists on this field have settled the issue already. I'm not sure whom you are talking about. Anyway, I advise you to read "Allahs Sonne ueber dem Abendland" by Sigrid Hunke.
6. You say he used the Persian calendar. Well, if this is a proof for him being a Persian then how do you consider him writing all of his books in Arabic? Many Arabs today use the Georgian calendar, does this turn them into Jalab?
7. You say he served under the Khazars. Well, even if we believed that single source which claims he was once sent to them, it doesn't prove that he really spent a significant amount of time there. Going on a temporary business trip to another country is different from living most of your life in Bagdad...
Nevertheless, I again repeat my offer to agree on calling him a "Muslim scholar" as a compromise since he was a scholar of the Islamic empire. Sultanio 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I was quite surprised to see my article on al-Khwarizmi mentioned so often in the discussion section of the Wicopedia article on al-Khwarizmi! I'm writing to you now to help in two directons: (1) to give you an account of my background and more recent work, and (2) to steer you and others toward reliable sources on Islamic/Arabic mathematics.
(1) I began studying medieval mathematics in 1999, having studied Roman history for many years before. It is true that my article "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?" relied heavily on secondary sources, but I can tell you, after several years of deep immersion in the field, that they are reliable sources. At the time I was just beginning to read Arabic---I have the good luck to have Haitham Alkhateeb, a native Arabic speaker, as a colleague. I continue to pester him with questions, though less and less as the years pass. Now I am finishing up writing my 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles on Arabic algebra. See my web page for a description of the first two:
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Oaks.htm
I can send you pdf versions if you like.
(2) For good sources on various aspects of medieval Islamic mathematics, see my online bibliography:
http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Biblio/Intro.htm
Over 2,500 books and articles are arranged by topic. Many books & articles are for the general public, which I label "Introductory". Let me know if you want any guidance here.
Regarding the ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi: he was a Persian who wrote in Arabic and who worked in Baghdad. Most scholars in Baghdad at the time were Persians, and many were still Zoroastrian (though al-Kh was apparently a Muslim). This is not to slight the Arabs: the great (perhaps greatest?) Islamic philosopher, al-Kindi, was an Arab. The predominance of Persians in intellectual fields was due to cultural trends. Persia had an old tradition of learning, which had been supported by the vast Sasanian state and earlier Persian dynasties. The Arabs, up to the time of the prophet, had been traders and herdsmen, with little motive to study science (though they had a rich tradition of folk poetry). But of course, once the Muslims had conquered the Persian empire, things changed. As the decades passed, the Persian element faded. By, say, the 12th c., a scholar in the Muslim world could have just about any ethnic or cultural background.
I must add that it is a pity that just saying "Persian astronomer/mathematician" should raise so many objections! The word "Persian" to me places al-Khwarizmi geographically, and tells me something of his cultural background. Iranians can feel proud of this label if they like, while Arabs can point out in return that the man wrote in Arabic.
By the way, a couple days ago I did insert a few comments in the "discussion" section of the sub-article on his work in algebra.
Best wishes,
Jeff Oaks
-- Jeffrey A. Oaks, Associate Professor & chair Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Indianapolis 1400 E. Hanna Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46227
Would anyone have a problem with referring to him as "Middle Eastern" and delay the discussion on his etnicity and religion to the biography section? This endless discussion is rather non-productive. — Ruud 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This argument does not belong here. You are not suppose to do any research. Here at Wikipedia we only put what reliable sources says. If it says he is an Arab, we put that. If it does not agree on that, then we put both point of views. The policy is very clear on that. -- Islamic 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The guy was Arab, put this in your head! He was an Arab! I changed it BTW. User: Koolboy
Saying that Khwarizmi was arab is like saying Ghandi was English.
Last time I checked, Ghandi's name is NOT English, he DID NOT do his work serving the Queen of England, and he DID NOT live his productive life in London, how did you come up with that phrase?... I have no clue. As for the discussion, if a man lives in Iraq/Baghdad, speaks arabic, writes books in arabic, and his name is arabic,then it is truly mere foolishness to say he wasn't an Arab... if he was not an Arab then most of people in Iraq today are not Arabs by the same definition. And saying he is a Persian just because his FAMILY NAME hints he or one of his ancestors originally came from somewhere that was once (before his birth probably) UNDER persian control (not even Iran itself), is just like saying Ghandi was English... I suggest whoever isn't familiar with the way surnames/family names are given specifically in Iraq, to go do some research. --SandHawk 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue has essentially been going on since...forever! Is there any way we can resolve this once and for all? Khoi khoi 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Khwarizmi's name is not arabic. Khwarizm is a region to the east of Iran and west of Afgahnistan. He lived in Baghdad because in those days, Baghdad was a scholarly center and he wrote in arabic because the language of science was arabic. Just as a German scientist that lives in New York and writes in English remains German, Khwarizmi remains persian.
Saying that Ghandi was arab is like saying Gandhi was English -- User: Bozorg
It is clear that your name cannot change your race and birthplace.I am a persian with complete arabic name.this is common in all islamic countries if your father named you mohammad. Kharazm is a persian state in old days.
Baghdad is a persian name means: Gift of God. Tehran is an Arabic name! Besides at those days there were very little arab people outside Arabia.Baghdad was an anceint persian city those days. Syria was Roman state too.We cannot talk about about ancient arab nation as we talk about modern-arabs: epyptian<>ancient-Arab but today epytians are modern arabs. Toaday Kharazmia is a part of Uzbakistan.But at the old-ages it was a persian state with persian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to unprotect. However, I don't think I should, given that the edit war is just going to start right back up again. I've noticed that the version that says he is arab only references encyclopedia articles, which are unacceptable. The version that says he's persian has no footnotes; refs should be added, citing "there's a lot of discussion in the talk page" is not going to be enough to stop the edit war.
May I ask the community on this page to consider keeping the current edit?- that is, removing mention of his ethnicity from the lead. Or is that unacceptable? Borisblue 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the problem will stop if we applied Wikipedia's policy on these issues: Both referenced point of views need to be mentioned in the article. -- Islamic 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. And since we find sources that say he was arab AND was perisan, we include BOTH. Anybody who has a problem with that, should first of all, change the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule, which BTW I didn't make Jidan 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
era. But he was not an Arab. -- alidoostzadeh 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't recieved any emails yet from the professors, maybe someone else can try contacting them. The article as it is now, states that A-Khwarizmi is persian as if it's an undeniable,and absolut fact, i.e. as if someone traveled with a time machine back to 9th century, sat with him for a cup of tea and asked him if he is persian or not. The introduction of this article should clearly state that his ethnicity is not clear. Jidan 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have a problem with Ali's explanation. There is no evidence beyond reasonable dought that he was persian, race was not a big issue back then in the middle east. If the origins are from eastern iran that means nothing! you ask why? Because Arab settlers headed there at the beggining of the arab invasion. Ahmad bin hanbal was from khorasan, although he was ethnically arab. Then he left for baghdad. Second, Arab is not about an ethnicity. Instead it is about culture and language especially the muslim understanding of it. There is no verifable evidence, thus I think it should just be mentioned that he lived in baghdad and was orriginally from uzbekistan. As for the example that the barkhimids were persian, that is simply not true. Their grandmother was persian, but after that it was arab lineage. Well anyways this is kind of stupid, this is like reffering to some native american cheif as being a new-englander or such, RACE WAS NOT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR BACK THEN. People were not catorgized based on it. Namrasit 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting that beside the word Persian in the sentence: "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī ( Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, astrologer and geographer.", we should add the term ( Tājīk) in brackets to specify him being from Central Asia rather than the modern day country of Iran. Persians and native-Persian speakers living East of modern day Iran are referred to as Tajiks today, and also in the past. We can still keep the word Persian and/or native-Persian-speaker, since ofcoarse he was an ethnic Persian, but to specify he was from Central Asia the term Tajik should be also be added. Parsiwan 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
All of Alkhawarezmi books were written in Arabic and he studied and lived in
Baghdad, Iraq under the
Abbasid empire (which is Arab empire) therefore Alkhawarezmi was Arab.Despite his place of birth.
Persian or Arab I do not really care, but this website says that he was born in Baghdad [12]
Tajik??? Are you kidding me? Khwarezm have never had Tajik population. If you want to specify that he was from Central Asia just say "Central Asian" or "Khwarezmian". People who have no clue were Khwarezm is do not normally have an idea who Tajiks are.
It is importent to specify a correct name for an importent man like Kharazmi...But Afghan or Tajik or Iranian are modern names for persians.... be carefull not to change persians great history and glory.Greater China has the same point.India too.... In the birth days of Kharazmi in Bokhara and Kharam persian people lived who forced to live in southern places after mongols-conquer.
I think because his birth place was Kharazm and Kharazm's mother-language before mongols was Persian so the best name Is :Persian Moslem Scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 ( talk) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the article states that Latin translation of Khwarizmi's algebra "introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world".
This a statemente is obviously false, or rather nonsensical, in the part that concerns number zero!
Of course, no one ever introduced "number zero" in the Western world (or any other world). The concept of number zero (although not the Arabic-origined name we call it today) is a quite natural concept, that probably all civilization on earth have always been familiar with. After you eat all the apples contained in a basket of apples, you are left with a basken containing no more (or zero) apples. That's as simple. In any case, the concept of number zero, and even specific a symbol for it, certainly existed in the mathematics of classical Greece.
What Khwarizmi's work actually brought to the West was the concept of digit zero, i.e. a special symbol acting as a placeholder for empty position in a positional number system. But changin "number zero" to "digit zero" above wouldn't work, as digit zero is a key feature of any positional number system, so if we already said that someone brought the positional number system somewhere, it is redundand and misleading to add that he also brought digit zero.
I think that we should simply remove the words "and the number zero" from the introduction. Any other ideas?
85.42.220.213 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The concept of zero is a psychology kinda of thing. Cats have a concept of zero. If a cat has a litter of seven kittens and one is missing, it knows something is up. 12.44.67.78 ( talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the era of state-Abbasiya
the People of Bukhara Samarkand Neyshabur Khorasan was Speaking Arabic and they was Persians and Arabs too who consider themselves arabs, and they was Muslims Sunnah
I should recommend this dear friend to first learn English; then try to study valuable history books in international language (English) and not just from Arabic books or recent "Arab-donated" English history books!! If you earn so much money these days from your crude oil, doesn't just mean that all the world history should be rewritten from viewpoint of Musim Sunnies in Hejaz!!
al-Khwārizmī full name says that he is the son of Moses? ( Is that not a jewish lineage according to the name Moses). User_talk:CltFn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!
I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!
A repetitive edit claims that Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Shi'a Muslim. As a source the web page http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/nahjulbalaga/lifelineage.htm has been suggested. It may be useful to note that this web page refers to one "Muhammad ibn al-'Abbas al-Khwarizmi (d. 383/993)". This is not the same person as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (d. ~850), but another Muhammad (not an uncommon name), who apparently also stemmed from Khwarizm, but lived more than a century later. -- Lambiam 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Historians don't have much more to say about him than is already in the Biography section. Likely a Muslim, possibly from a Zoroastrian family. They don't give anything more exact then that. — Ruud 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this revert is so drastic, going back all the way to the revision as of 18:39, November 19, 2007 (UTC)? Are really none of the intermediate edits worth being kept? -- Lambiam 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not directly say that he belonged to Islam, do we have source that he did? 76.16.187.218 ( talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently changed the gentleman's entry at Timeline of mathematics with commentary. Could someone more expert in that make the year 750 entry more appropriate to Wikipedia? Thanks.
Since his name is Muhammad it's obvious that at least he was known as muslim. Moreover,Persia in that time have been converted to Islam by the muslims and arabic has become the official language and the dialogue as well.
(John User:Jwy talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Arabic script in the first line visible when editing, but not when looking at the page itself? Badagnani ( talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any authenticated reference that states Al-khawarizmi was German as it is stated in the text? I think all the arguments about his nationality revolve around three axis: Turkish or Persian or Arab. If any one can support the article's argument, I would be glad to hear his analysis. Best Ahmedettaf ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Persian different from Iranian? ( 129.217.230.35 ( talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC))
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Algorithm on this very topic. I think it might benefit from the input of those who have already discussed related issues here. silly rabbit ( talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to visit our research about Al-Khwarizmi numerals at: [13] Thank you. Roberto Lyra ( talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
he was not Persian see this source from Encarta encyclopedia [14] -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
listen to me in that time when citizen of kingdom of islam (caliphate) talk arabic as native language so they were arabs exactly the same with sassanid empire all of them talk persian so they where persian and so on... -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
you said that his native language was Khwarezmian do you have source please? and to be clear the Arabizm is culture not orign Bayrak ( talk) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
you saying now he is iranian?!! -- Bayrak ( talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Not all iranin are persians but all persians are iranian so if we claim he was iranian that does not mean he was persian -- Bayrak ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India.
rewrite the history..! no way -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
also britannica see here
[18] --
Bayrak (
talk)
19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Dont delete the sources please.. -- Bayrak ( talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Sina111 delete the sources??? -- Bayrak ( talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
""Further, the chapters interchangeably use terms such as "Arab" scholars, "Arab-Islamic" Scholars, or simply "Islamic/Muslim" scholars. While in some sense the distictions may be appropirate, our reference throughout is to the Islamic (or Muslim) scholars, whether Arab, Iranian or Persian, who wrote their discourses in the early Islamic civilization.""
""Moslem philosophy (of which the most notable exponents were men of non-Arab descent, Persians, Spaniards, etc. ...""
if some new sources claimes that he was persian that doesnt make the case be an abosolute truth -- Bayrak ( talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
the Ethnic is language and culture not origin because there is no nation Offspring from one person , and who knows maybe al-khwarizmi was turkish who moved to persians and Convert to Zoroastrians maybe before that he was from russian origin moved to the turks and so on...
therefor when i write he was arabic i mean he was arabic native maybe from Foreign origin -- Bayrak ( talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy ( talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Khwārizmī →
Al-Khwārizmī — see discussions —
El
on
ka
07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.according to most encyclopedias they used to use al- instead of Khwārizmī see this [21] [22] Bayrak ( talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry for that.. the correct spelling is Al-Khwārizmī and about (AL) yes it is as you said but in this case its part of his name (ARABIC: الخوزارزمي) you can see these examples Al-Mansur Al-Mahdi Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir -- Bayrak ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
i dont know why they do that but you can use google to see the others encyclpedias how do they spiling his name -- Bayrak ( talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Adding or removing Al- is not important. Iranians have been having Arabic-origin names anyway. Actually "khw" or "xv / xw" is another letter in Perso-Arabic script (not in Arabic alphabet), still being used in some Persian dialects and varieties. It is not pronounced the same in standard Persian, but is written, e.g.: خواهر/xwahar, خواهش/xwâheš, خواندن/xwândan, نشخوار/nošxwar and many more. It has been used in Avestan and Middle Persian and in use in some extant Persian dialects. "Khw" in "Khwarizm" is very Iranian and it is one letter, not two.
About Khwarizmi being Iranian, the archives are clear that this problem was discussed and opinions from Professors of mathematics were sought and this is the final outcome. Plus Bayrak's link [23] clearly states:
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.
So either way, it claims he or his ancestors were Zoroastrians. Even this source states the same fact, yet some keeps pushing the same POV. Biruni is clear that the people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree and Biruni himself was a native Khwarizmian. When he is Khwarizmian and says he is Persian, he actually refers to his nationality (I don't mean the modern meaning of nationality).-- Raayen ( talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
after all of that do you want to change his name?? -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
so why you dont try to change this Algebra to gebra by removing (al) -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I meant that (AL) is part of his name the same case here algebra -- Bayrak ( talk) 07:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
you can see how he write his name ALKHWARIMI in this page -- Bayrak ( talk) 10:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
i propose to add "foremost" before "mathematician" in the first paragraph. i do think that this is generally accepted and observed by noting that his most remarkable work is in algebra. i do not know whether such a thing needs citation.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 04:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
also in the book 4000 Jahre Algebra he is named as Persian.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article has been put through a process of arabization. A consensus must be found in the process of the de arabization of this article. It appears to me that certain editors are reinforcing a process of Cultural genocide, and attempting to use Wikipedia as a means of doing so. The Scythian 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
In the text, "-razm" is given as زم, but the initial "r" seems to be missing (this is "zm"). Badagnani ( talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I second this complaint as it has not yet been taken care of. ( Soleado ( talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
If Algoritmi is a Latinized form of this man's name, why isn't it given right at the start? Even better would be an Anglicized form. It seems a shame not to have a convenient, easy name by which to discuss this person among speakers of English. Unfree ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just like the Emperor Hadrian is described as a *Roman*, and fighting over whether he is Croatian, Italian or Spanish doesn't make any sense (though he shared ancestry in lands that are now under these *modern* states).
His Persian descent and his Arab culture can be then described in the text, as many suggest here. The Arab--Iranian dispute is quite silly and politicised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerniagigante ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
According his name and his country many historian think he was Zoroasterian . the article is quite good, source [5] states, he was likely Zoroasterian (see also the first few sources here). There is no reason to believe that he was Muslim. Xashaiar ( talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make any personal attacks. Al-Khwarizmi's religion is unclear (Al-Majusi vs. the introduction of his Algebra praising Allah). Any discussion and sources belong in the "Life" section. This shouldn't be stated, without any qualifications, in an infobox. — Ruud 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources claim that he was Zoroastrian himself. Some like Toomer say that the epithet "al-Majusi" may refer to his family background, and some like Rashed say that he didn't have such epithet and it's just the result of misreading Tabari's text. The debate about his epithet is not related to his own religion. Even Toomer has no doubt that he was Muslim (based on Khwarazmi's own writings). Alefbe ( talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a fact that himself reveals very little personal information in his writing. So "based on Xarazmi's own writing" is baseless. Indeed based on "what he did" he could not be a muslim but only for conventional reason he might have chosen to be silent. Xashaiar ( talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is almost 100% percent certain that he was a Muslim, or at the very least claimed to be in his later years. The introduction to the compendium contains a flourish of praise for God for his greatness and for sending his prophet Mohammad, etc, etc. I quote but a small excerpt of this from the Rosen translation
Praised be God our Lord! and may his glory increase, and may all his names be hallowed--besides whom there is no God; and may his benediction rest on Mohammed the Prophet and on his descendants!
Now, maybe this extensive preface is simply an elaborate potboiler added by later authors to copies of the text. But unless you can prove that, I would take it at face value. The introduction also mentions the then ruling Caliph as having encouraged the production of the text, which I presume means he commissioned it in some fashion, and I hardly think the Caliph was handing out research grants for unconverted academics to write popular textbooks.
So, perhaps he was initially raised as a Zoroastrian. But I rather doubt he was still one when he wrote the Compendium. ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If you call al-Khwārizmī Persian than you can call Jews and Assyrians as Arabs,Hebrew being closer to Arabic than Kharezmian is to Persian.
al-Khwārizmī is more Pashtun than Persian.
But besides all,he wrote in Arabic language using Arabic alphabet and was connected to the Arabic culture and civilisation not the Persian one.
Also Persians when entered middle-east in the 8 th BC took semite akakdian and aramean as official language and alphabets and many other semite cultural items as noruz(from semite akitu),assyrian bull,griffin and babylonian lion.
Humanbyrace ( talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
From the body of the article it seems clear that, although lots of sources call him Persian, nevertheless there isn't actually much evidence for this. All we know about him for definite is that he worked in Baghdad and that his name is linked to an area which is now in Uzbekistan. I'm changing the lead to delete the word Persian. Readers can read on to see the details of his life if they are really interested. filceolaire ( talk) 11:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
Hmm. These references are a mess. Toomer and Hogendijk are referenced elsewhere but Oaks is only referenced here. I've read the Oaks reference and could not find any reference to Al Kwarizmi' nationality so deleting it from here isn't a problem. It does have a lot of interesting stuff though so I will post the details here incase they might be useful elsewhere in this article. Oaks, Jeffrey A. "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?". University of Indianapolis. Retrieved 2008-05-30. filceolaire ( talk) 12:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not make changes until you have read the archives and have waited for the input of others. The Persian is based on the fact that was mediation in this article by neutral admin and the opinions of Professors of Islamic mathematics were sought. As per Oaks, here is the reference [24]. You have missed the portion: "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. ". As per this article, this is not about the history of the area. You can see Khwarezm and Khwarezmian language for that as well as Central Asia. You might not be aware of the region's history on the Afrighids in Khwarezm and again the article does not have prove, but just quote Professor of Islamic Mathematics like Oaks who have the final say on this specialized matter.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)