Talk:Al-Khwarizmi: Difference between revisions

Khwarizmi was NOT Arab

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)

Logged-in Wikipedians are working to retain this information, in the face of anonymous reverting from User:67.42.116.33. --Wetman 2 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

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

For support for this argument see [1] 69.157.0.3 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. His name means "the Khwarizmian". He was Persian. --61.24.87.41 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi guys.. I am not sure why you think he is Persian. As his name suggested, he was from Kharezm (now called Khive or Urgench) in Uzbekistan around the delta of Amu Derya river. He has Turkish origin... Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 20 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.

Relevance of Islam

Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (780?-845?) was a Muslim mathematician and author whose work was fundamental to the development of the field of mathematics.

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)

Yes, you sure *DID* make a lot of changes. You ask "What the heck is Muslim mathematician?" -- I wonder if you ever asked "what the heck is Western?" You are either ignorant or prejusiced, or as is the case often with people who possess either one of the two attributes, both!

You removed the part that said "Mathematics and the sciences that are expressed in terms of mathematics would not be what they are today without the ground-breaking contributions of Al-Khwarizmi." -- this was no exaggeration at all, since Khwarazmi *IS* the one who defined and fomulated the so-called Arabic Number System (even though he himself was not an Arab). Without his amazing and groundbreaking work, chances are, to this day you would be using the stupid Roman Numerals.

[The two preceding 'graphs are from two edits (the second at 12:43, 2003 Nov 26) by User:67.30.100.98. --Jerzy(t) 07:12, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) ]

[The following 'graph is Jerzy(t)'s response to the IP who criticized Uncle Ed's edit.]

Largely nonsense. Bcz of being in the right time and place, he put finishing touches on a system whose essentials came to him from mathematicians who happened to be Hindus. The West probably got good arithmetic and math sooner bcz Islamic culture was in a vital period then, but the best minds in a sufficiently dynamic culture always transcend their cultures by hunting down the world's best ideas, and we'd be using either base 5, 10, or 20 without him or Islam having ever existed. --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Hello Jerzy. A few points (regarding your above and below comments). Firstly, if you are deeply bothered by the fact that someone added "Muslim" to this article (and I agree with you on this point), it doesn't mean that you should now be unfair and unkind to Al-Khwarazmi for it, he had nothing to do with it. Secondly, your assertion about the so-called "Hundu mathematicians" is bogus. You cannot back it up with facts. It was Khwarazmi who for the first time defined and systematized the number system that we have today, the so-called "arabic number system". His books are still available. The ones who claim this comes from India, mostly do so out of their ignorance and hatered for Islam, because it is too "painful" for them to accept that the very foundation of modern science is a contribution from what they in their little mind perceive as "the Islamic world". If you understood his number system, you would laugh at yourself for talking about binary, octal, hexadecimal and other bases as independent "systems" as they all are well-defined within the same number system. And Khwarazmi is the one who defined this system, not some obscure "Hindu mathematicians" as you claim. Your attempt to trivialize his status and achievements as "being at the right place at the right time" was truly pathetic. Without his contribution, today your number system probably was still this antic: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. .... and lastly, even though I would be the first to agree that emphacizing "Muslim" in this article is wrong, I wonder how many times have you made the same protest about numerous other articles where "Jewish" is emphacized? --K1 23:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by such bizarre inferences as

• my being 'deeply bothered', and
• that my failure to mention the obvious (that Al-Khwarizmi was a mathematical genius comparable to the Greek geometers), or my disagreement with others' equating of greatness and indispensibility, amounts to 'unfair[ness] and unkind[ness]'.

I am concerned that anyone who paraphrases 'mathematicians who happened to be Hindus' (in the context of criticism of the phrase 'Muslim mathematician') into 'so-called "Hundu mathematicians" ' is probably over their head in trying to deal with the nuances of this discussion.

One need look no further than Zero#History for a name of one of the supposedly 'obscure "Hindu mathematicians" ' who gave Al-Khwarizmi giant shoulders to stand on. On the other hand, the inferences about my mathematical background suggest a tunnel-vision understanding of mathematics (perhaps as being started and completed by Al-Khwarizmi); not everyone who knows of his work can be expected to realize that his results follow inevitably (tho not necessarily immediately) from the Indian conceptualization of zero as number, perhaps in India, perhaps in Baghdad, perhaps in Pisa or Warsaw or Königsberg, no matter which of the two accounts at Arabic numerals#History is true.

Perhaps another form of tunnel vision is involved in the complaint about the use of "Jewish" in Wiki-bios. Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian mathematician (or perhaps an Arabized Persian mathematician; i haven't had the need to become versed in the relevant terminology). Charles Steinmetz was a German-American mathematician, because his ethnicity is summarized by the nationalities of the two countries he made his successive homes. Albert Einstein doesn't fit a nice hyphenated pattern because his ethnicity was more complex. He was a German-American Jewish mathematician, or an Americanized German-Jewish mathematician, because being Jewish was part of his ethnicity, no matter what his beliefs were. (He did say "God doesn't play with dice", but quantum physicists don't care whether he was talking about Jahweh or the Trinity. Or joking about the image of a bearded old man that children imagine taking care of things, which is what i've always assumed.) Ethnicity tells you worlds more that is encyclopedic about a person than either their beliefs (even if anyone really knew what anyone else's beliefs are) or what house of worship has their name on a list. It sounds like my colleague might think it unfair that "Jewish" is ambiguous between belief and ethnicity, and "Muslim" isn't, but WP isn't here to make the world fair.

I'm of the opinion that his religion must be stated because it directly contributed to his works and initiatives. However if the majority thinks it must not be stated, so be it. A. 05:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello Hadj. I do not know of any religious books that Khwarazmi ever wrote. Do you know of any? There is no evidence that he was even a religious person. How do we know he was a dedicated muslim? And on what basis are you saying that his religion "directly contributed" to his scientific achievements and scholarship? --K1 07:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[The following 2 'graphs are Jerzy(t)'s response directly to Uncle Ed, and not to the 3 edits (one of them confusingly stating it is in part in response to my comments below!)

The inclusion of the word "Muslim" is an embarassment to Islam, especially when coupled with the claim in a summary about Islam being responsible for his work. A glance at the dates of Islamic technical workers' work of long-term value in fact shows that something besides being a Muslim is crucial to their productivity.

There should be a category tag for this to assist locating Muslim scientists, and an article about Islamic cultures' contributions to hard knowledge, but the number of scientists whose bios deserve mention of their belief systems is very small, and that usually bcz they were persecuted (for their beliefs or by their relgious own authorities) or because they made a mark in a belief-sytstem-oriented thought. (Einstein's pacifism comes to mind, tho it should be in the last few 'graphs of his bio.) --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

BTW, after realizing that "language of Persian science" was misleading at best, and "language of Middle-Eastern science" was probably an anachronism, i realized that even more than any relevant empire, there was a "language of science in the Islamic world" at that time. I assume Uncle Ed and A. will agree with me that this is quite a different case from "Muslim mathematician". --Jerzy(t) 07:12, 2004 Jul 22 (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

---

We don't believe "all great men of the middle east must be Persian", but it is widely accepted that Khwarizmi is Persian. His full name is Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi which means "Mohammed the father of Jafar and the son of Musa, the Khwarizmian" (from the Persian province of Khoresm, south of the Aral Sea, which the Greeks had called Khorasmia).

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."

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.

Anyways our personal opinions are irrelevant. The general scholarly consensus is that he was Persian, and the opinions of a few chauvinistic Arabs who want to claim all muslim contributions equal arab contributions can't change that.

--61.24.87.41 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the language of literature was Persian throughout the major parts of the Middle East. Persian was very common among non-persians such as Turks, Afghans, Indians etc. Any learned non-Persian knew Persian very well. If you look at the literary works of Selchuks, Mughals, and Ottomans you will see that. So this invalidates your conslusion above.

I think it is the "Chauvanistic Persians who want to claim that all Muslim contributions equal Persian contributions." I, for one, say: It belongs to the Islamic Civilization to which Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, etc all contributed. BTW, I personnally, even though disgusted from seeing almost racist "Persians" these days, admire Persian civilization. But one has to understand a great civilization is not forced down peoples throats, it happens naturally via creativity and hardwork. --Ur

Cartography

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)

Personally I have no knowledge of his contributions to the field of cartography, but assuming what the article mentions in that regard is correct, it would not be at all surprising if that was the first map of the then "known world", considering he lived in the 8th-9th century. Why is it surpsing for you?    --K1 01:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It surprises me because it doesn't appear to make sense. "Known world" is not an absolute entity. Known to whom? Maybe al-Khwarizmi supervised construction of a map of the world that was known to his culture, but it certainly wasn't a map of the whole world, and it's certainly true that other cultures had made earlier maps of the parts of the world that they knew about. This would include very limited maps made by cultures for whom the "known world" was very small. So unless there's something I'm missing or I don't understand, it's very difficult to believe that the claim is true, as written. -- Dominus 16:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the claim that he created the "first map of the world" is bogus. I am going to change that. In fact, I am not even sure that he was ever involved in a cartographical project directly, although I do know that he wrote a scientific gerographical book in which he defined the world in terms of lattitudes and longitudes (title of the book: Thorat-al-Ardh or Face of the Earth). I will try to rewrite this article one of these days, I think this article can be improved quite a bit.    --K1 01:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Text for Possible Merging

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)

Pre-Merge Histories

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

Al-Khawarizmi

• 22:53, 2004 Jun 13 Docu m (fix link)
• 03:18, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Giving up & removing comment too: # REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
• 03:17, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Remove text, leaving only comment after redir)
• 03:16, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Single line w/ comment & extra text, trying to fix redirect)
• 03:04, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (# REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
• 02:19, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (# REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
• 09:41, 2004 Mar 18 Charles Matthews m (fx lk)
• 01:17, 2004 Feb 15 Docu m ({{msg:stub}})
• 04:56, 2003 Jul 19 Silver Maple m (stub)

Al-Khwarzimi

• 12:35, 2004 May 12 JASpencer (Redirecting to proper article)
• 12:31, 2004 May 12 JASpencer (Setting this up)

Al-Khwarizmi

• 00:03, 2004 Jul 22 Jerzy (- redundant phrase)
• 00:02, 2004 Jul 22 Jerzy (lessen formality of caption to match the stamp's text; - claim that stamp is based on a millenium-old portrait; status of Arabic)
• 19:48, 2004 Jul 20 Roozbeh
• 14:39, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
• 14:38, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
• 14:37, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
• 06:16, 2004 Jul 20 Sundar (Famous works - spelling Arithmatic => Arithmetic)
• 04:09, 2004 Jul 20 Stevertigo m (adding new category Category:Ancient mathematicians)
• 22:06, 2004 Jul 16 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason m (is:)
• 14:53, 2004 Jul 16 Chris 73 (added image)
• 14:10, 2004 Jul 11 Szajd m (+hu:)
• 21:02, 2004 Jun 20 Lzur
• 05:53, 2004 Jun 19 Ellywa m (nl)
• 15:58, 2004 Jun 4 Jerzy (rv to 21:18, 2004 Jun 3 edit by Roozbeh; see talk)
• 00:00, 2004 Jun 4 Roozbeh m
• 23:48, 2004 Jun 3 Hadj
• 23:48, 2004 Jun 3 Hadj (nuancé)
• 22:50, 2004 Jun 3 Roozbeh m (readded "mulsim", if anyone likes to do a debate, go on. i don't think this is really important.)
• 21:18, 2004 Jun 3 Roozbeh (some formatting, removal of Muslim in the intro line)
• 17:54, 2004 Jun 2 Hadj (because the Islamic culture encouraged people to think (see other scientist during the Chaliphates))
• 03:20, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (fix link)
• 03:00, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Melding of the combined texts)
• 02:42, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Merger of full text of both, reordered)
• 02:14, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (rv to last by Schneelocke, as base for merging Al-Khawarizmi in)
• 02:11, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Tsk. forgot it needed editing, so forgot to preview)
• 02:07, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Overwrite with snapshot of history page of Al-Khawarizmi article, about to be merged.)
• 02:00, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (overwrite with smaller article, to support comparisons between it and merged article)
• 14:34, 2004 May 30 Schneelocke m
• 12:26, 2004 May 16 Henrygb
• 08:33, 2004 Apr 21 199.183.105.198
• 14:07, 2004 Apr 14 Roozbeh (corrected paragraph about native tongue and removed the dispute message (which I had placed there myself))
• 06:51, 2004 Apr 14 130.216.191.183
• 20:40, 2004 Apr 11 80.58.47.42 (es:)
• 18:26, 2004 Apr 2 Michael Hardy m
• 10:05, 2004 Apr 1 Jengod (npov, copy edit, cleanup)
• 01:07, 2004 Mar 24 XJamRastafire m (Correction de:)
• 18:31, 2004 Mar 6 Roozbeh
• 01:49, 2004 Mar 3 K1 (minor editorial adjustment)
• 09:11, 2004 Feb 29 213.233.160.4 (+NPOV)
• 14:38, 2004 Feb 21 Roozbeh m (al-jabr o al-muqabala -> al-jabr "wa" al-muqabala)
• 00:43, 2004 Feb 20 155.198.17.114
• 17:25, 2004 Feb 14 Ayman m (Ibn -> bin (see naming conventions) also fixed Arabic name)
• 15:22, 2004 Feb 14 Ayman m (ar:)
• 14:22, 2004 Feb 12 Roozbeh m (fixed a typo in Arabic name)
• 14:09, 2004 Feb 12 Roozbeh (moving things around, removing double mentions of information, provided Arabic and Persian original names)
• 17:01, 2004 Feb 11 130.88.197.124
• 16:59, 2004 Feb 11 130.88.197.124
• 01:41, 2004 Jan 7 Robbot m (Andre Engels - robot Modifying:de,fr)
• 03:35, 2003 Dec 23 Ellmist (==External links==)
• 02:05, 2003 Dec 11 24.5.138.79
• 02:04, 2003 Dec 11 24.5.138.79 (hahaha)
• 12:58, 2003 Nov 26 Chancemill m (A better rephrasing.)
• 12:44, 2003 Nov 26 67.30.100.98
• 16:46, 2003 Nov 24 Ed Poor ("Muslim mathematician" => "mathematical pioneer", etc. - basically toning down praise)
• 18:37, 2003 Nov 2 Adam Bishop m (fr:Al-Khwarizmi)
• 16:09, 2003 Nov 2 Mats Halldin m (+sv:)
• 20:09, 2003 Oct 8 Dominus m (wikified dates)
• 01:15, 2003 Oct 6 Olivier m
• 02:23, 2003 Aug 29 XJamRastafire m (+sl:)
• 00:08, 2002 Oct 5 Isis m
• 20:36, 2002 Sep 16 63.205.228.14
• 00:35, 2002 Sep 15 63.205.228.14
• 00:33, 2002 Sep 15 63.205.228.14
• 15:18, 2002 Sep 13 Andre Engels m (disambiguation)
• 02:02, 2002 Aug 25 Brion VIBBER m (linked arabic numerals)
• 02:00, 2002 Aug 25 Brion VIBBER m (lang links: +de,eo)
• 09:36, 2002 Jun 14 Stepnwolf m
• 15:43, 2002 Feb 25 Conversion script m (Automated conversion)

Etymology

I removed two adjacent sentences, the second quite recent:

1. The word algorithm is a corruption of early English algorisme, which came from Latin algorismus, which in turn came from the name of al-Khowarizmi.
2. Other scholars citing his work in Latin language used the expression "dixit algorismi" ("as said Al-Khowarizmi"), which is believed to have coined the expression.

Neither of these adds to the article more than does the simple statement

The words "algorithm" and "algorism" derive ultimately from his name.

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.

• Standing alone, i would take it to be a garbled version of something close to
  • When other mathematical scholars, in their own works in Latin, cited his Arabic work, they would precede an assertion with "dixit algorismi", Latin for "(as) Al-Khowarizmi said". And that's where "algorithm" comes from.
• A colleague, in an edit summarized "rewording to remove ambiguity", rewords, to mistakenly attribute the use of Latin to him (tho we know he wrote in Arabic), apparently in order to permit hinting at some kind of relationship with the first sentence, by making the "Other [mathematical] scholars" into "other etymologists":
  • Other scholars cite his work in Latin language where he has used the expression “dixit algorismi” (“as said Al-Khowarizmi”), which is believed to be the precursor to the expression.
    • I'm sorry to have misunderstood the intended meaning of the previous sentence and to have reworded it into a factually wrong sentence. -- Sundar 09:53, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

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

• used a term to mean "algorithm" (if he paid no attention to the question of guaranteed finite completion, i'd argue he laid a foundation for the concept, but didn't arrive at it),
• stated any algorithms where a formal proof of computability needs to go beyond "inspection" ("Look, stupid, you've got a finite number of digits N; you multiply them pairwise, with no more than N²/4 pairs, and each pair takes no more than M steps; of course you have to run out of pairs, and any fool can see you're done then!")
• stated any algorithms beyond those of elementary-school arithmetic.

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)

Moslem Scientist?

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?

No, because that was his religion and that is relevant to his life. --Revolución (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, we call him Muslim because we are not talking about modern days where people are identified more easily ethinically and geographically. People from Middle East in those times were not exactly as keen on their ethnicity as we are today. As a result in most cases we don't even know their exact ethnicity with full confidence. Hence calling them "Muslim." Another factor is the fact that historically (for better or worse) these things were written mostly for western readers, and they referred to Middle Easterners as "Muslims." -Ur

Image dispute

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)

It is copyrighted indeed. It's from the Mac Tutor bio page of Khwarazmi linked at the bottom of the article.--Zereshk 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi has Turkish Origin.

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)

Are you sure Khwarezm didn't lie in Peria? —Ruud 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A did a really quick check. Khwarezm did became Turkish until the 11th century. Al-Khwarizmi lived in the 8th century. Cheers, —Ruud 13:44, 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)

Khwarezmi did live in 9th century. And Turkish control is in 11th century. But there was large amount of Turkish population there, even before the Turkish control. El-Biruni is another one lived in 11th century. They both have Turkish origin. During the 13th century Turks were already deep in Europe. Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Turks are everywhere in Iran today as well. What does that prove? Khamenei is even a Turk. The Safavids, Qajarids, and even Pahlavis were Turk or had Turkic origin. So does that make Iran a "Turk" country?--Zereshk 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what you mean... It looks your arguments supports what I am saying. Iran is not a Turkic country, but there are many Turks there... Al Khwarezmi one of those at the time of Persian State (Empire). He is orthodox Muslim. He was in Beyt-ul Hikmeh for a long time which is an institution established by the khalifeh El-Memun ~(813-837). In fact there is a Turkic state in the history with the same name: State of Khwaresm. These are all suggesting that he is a Turk. Resid Gulerdem 06:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything what is written in Wikipedia must be veribiable. Please cite your sources, or else this is original research. —Ruud 09:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right... So what is your evidence that he is Persian? Is what you are doing an original research? The fact is that there is not much known about him. I say he is Turkish because of some evidence: His name suggest he is from Khwarezm. It was a Turkish State in the history, not a persian. He wrote in arabic. He is an Orthodox Muslim. There is nothing to do with Persian at all... Were all the people living in the Ottoman Empire Turkish? Of course not! Resid Gulerdem 09:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to prove he is Persian, all the authorative sources state he is. Either prvides a few reliable sources yourself or stop reverting. This will only get you RfCed. —Ruud 18:34, 31 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)

In the link you provided, or anywhere else, is there an evidence (not claims only as you did here) that support his being a Persian? So, why you try to keep it?

I am not guessing. I am proposing some arguments:

• He was an Orhodox Muslim (which is a strong evidence that he was not Shia)
• He is from Khwarism (It is a place where Turks were living all along the history. There is even a Turkish State with the same name in the history).
• He wrote in Arabic (not even Persian)

I would like to see the authorities and evidences that he is Persian! Can Ruud help me with that, what sources you are refering to?

No one can say he is this or tahat for sure. But what can we say is: the highest possibility is 'he is Turkish', the lowest possibiility is 'he is a Persian'.

I wont revert this time, up untill you come up with your reliable sources with some evidence which show that he is Persian. Resid Gulerdem 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, MacTutor, the sources listed by MacTUtor, Encyclopaedia Britannica. The burder of proof is one you here. Just provided even one source and we have something to disucus about. —Ruud 07:02, 1 February 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)

Mr. Ruud, I checked again the sources you refered to, but there is no single evidence of his being Persian. Could you please copy paste the paragraphs you are refering to..

Dear Oleg, I do not know how much you know about history of science? I am working on philosophy of science and related to history of science a little bit. I know Arabic too. Let me give you a quick hint: The name Al-Khwarizmi mean literally 'a person from Khwarism' which is a historically Turkish state and region. Persian controlled the place for some time but local people there were Turks all along the history. I checked again McTutor, as I did couple of times before. And I am aware of the references they are quoting from. It doesnt show that he is Persian at all.

As I said his name itself suggest that he is from Khwarizm. We cannot call Gandhi an English just becase England occupied India for some time, right? Please note the explanation about the claim of his being from Bagdad in McTutor.

What I am saying is closer to what Oleg suggesting. There is no evidence of him being Persian at all. If nationality is specified, it should be Turkish: the most strong possibility (please see my previous note). His being Persian is incredibly weak statement coming from nowhere...

The last thing is this: Unfortunately, some people -most likely Persian- just naming Turkish or sometimes some Arabic scientists as being Persian. They are even calling Rumi as Persian too, although it is clear that he is Turkish. It is simple not acceptible. I realized the same mistake in Biruni article too. He is also from Khwarism, and Turkish. It is stated otherwise in the article. I do not know if 'calling some famous scientists from different nationality as Persian' bring any honor to these people...

The last thing is, if it is somehow not acceptible to call him with his true nationality, we should just call him a Muslim scientist, and leave the rest to the curiosity of the reader. Resid Gulerdem 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to know much Arabic to figure out what Al-Khwarizmi means. All I am saying is that his name is not enough evidence that he is from Khwarizm. May have been his ancestors rather than himself. Anyway, to put it frankly, it appears to me that you are having a prior agenda here, and it was inappropriate for you to modify this article to call him Turkish, since that is based only on your own loose guesswork. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I find this an acceptable compromise, although I have removed his name in Turkish, as I fail to see the relevance of it. —Ruud 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of funny that Oleg is calling my arguments as loose guesswork without trying to prove any of his statements. All those sources you are referring to are doing nothing but a guesswork. If I write a book then you will probably refer to my guesswork as a strong evidence from a source. I would recommend you read the history of science rather than reading my intensions: I have a prior agenda?!... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly this his how Wikipedia works: no original research. If this matter so much to you, maybe you should write a book? —Ruud 04:00, 2 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:

اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس

"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian"

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.

Lower-case title warning message necessary?

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

I put it there because when Wikipedia will become case-sensitive Real Soon Now, I will suspect that pages with this template will be renamed automatically. Also sheep-arguments (because the rest doesn't) don't tend to convice me :) Cheers, —Ruud 20:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi: Persian Genius

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.

I think al-K was a pretty cool guy as well. —Ruud 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Persian again, huh?

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)

The article currently says he's Muslim and born in Persia. Let's just keep it at that Ok? The he was Persian, no he was Arabian, no he was Turkish arguments start to get tiring. —Ruud 04:11, 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)

It's absolutly certain the he was born in Persia, I can't help it if people interpret this as him being a Persian. Also note that neither Encyclopedia Britannica nor MacTutor mention anything about him being Arabic. The categories are only used to make information easier to find, sicne we now have both sources saying he's Persian and sources sating he's Arabic it is likely people will try to look for him under the category Persian mathematicians as well as Arabic mathematicains, so let's categorize him under both. Also I do not remember removing any references, to which reference are you refering? —Ruud 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

MB, your source is a mirror of wikipedia. In any case, his name carries the proof of his ethnicity. deeptrivia (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it also references Columbia University Press, don't take it off. MB 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see that more clearly now. Sorry about that. deeptrivia (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, since you see it now, can we refer to him as an Arab, and take off all Persian categories related to him? After all, this is an encyclopedia, if we want people to take Wiki seriously, we have to strive to make sure we only add pertinent data. Him being Persian is not sourced, but him being Arab is, are we agreed? Can we take off all references to him being Persian? MB 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.... two letters... N... O... —Ruud 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to Persian nationalistic extremists, obviously you're too blind to see the truth. The fact that you were born in a certain geographic location doesn't make you a national of the land. Many Arabs are born Brazil, that doesn't make them Brazilians, I know many people who were born in Canada or the USA, then went back to their original countries. It doesn't make them American and non-Arabs. Your logic is flawed, and you failed to present one source to prove he's Persian. I'm putting his Arabian nationality back, because I presented legit sources, until you do the same, any changes will be reported as deliberate vandalisms.

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)

Why al-Khwarizmi is not Perisan

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:

• 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.

• Khwarizm was a province of the arab empire (therefore arab passport and nationality)

• He lived his whole life in baghdad, and died there(capital city of the arab empire)

• He wrote all his books in Arabic. Not a single book in persian is known of him.

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)

I would've said that your place of birth doesn't designate your ethnicity, but you put it much more nicely, Jidan. MB 20:46, 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)

Zmmz, what's with the obvious biased edits?

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)

Proof: Poem about Khwarezm by Al Biruni

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)

Persian or Arab

I would like to provide some info. about the early Arab population and settlements in the old Khorasan region, in the early Islamic period, which included Khwarizm as well. You may find these info. useful since Al-Khwarizmi lived around the same period(9th century). Durinng Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The special circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214). The towns of Hamadan, Qazvin, Qom were predominantly Arab by the 9th century CE.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.215).Heja Helweda 03:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place for original research. You have to have a legitimate source that says he was an Arab otherwise we can not change his ethnicity just because we suspect there were interracial marriages between Arabs and Persians at the time of his birth!!

Gol 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Original research? A source was cited, obviously the conclusion wasn't built on nothing! One of the core arguments you're defending is that all people from Khwarizm were Persian, Heja Helweda just refuted your argument successfully. Instead of admitting that your reasoning is flawed, you accused her of performing original research...your blind bias will get you nowhere, your logic was just refuted. The source mentions huge settlement of Arabs in the region, which put a huge question mark on your insistence to put him as Persian, this is what bothers you, right? That unlike what you were taught, he wasn't a Persian afterall, right? MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is a well-known scholarly source in Iranian history/culture and language. Try to be more neutral, specially when the evidence is against your POV.Heja Helweda 23:25, 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)

No it is not. When evidence is against your POV try to learn the subject and modify your opinion accordingly.Heja Helweda 23:25, 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)

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 ”[15]. That is good enough for me.Zmmz 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be the end of this really. There is no dispute, just Anti-Iranian reverts. --Kash 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

An Arab

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 was part of the arab abbasid empire

....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)

Not Turkic, Not arab, but Persian/Tajik

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.

This is what they teach you in Iran. You will be surprised to know that there is another truth, a one which they dont tell you in Iran. Jidan 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

These sources should be enough to put an end to this dispute. --Kash 22:57, 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

@Iran Patriot, the text you wrote contains massive racist statements. For example: 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 Iran its ok to say such racist things. But in the civilized world (and wikipedia) its NOT. Alone for this statement you should get banned. Jidan 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

-- 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.

The germans and the japanese started as uncivilised tribes and they are now the second and third most powerfull econimocal countries in the globe. From mohammad (the prophet) tell Al-khwarzimi, 200 years has passed. So why do you think that the arabs are not able to create smart men like al-khwarzmi?? Jidan 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

--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

Did you know that only 51% of the Iranian population are persians? ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People ) Jidan 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizm in the Mawaraalnahr province of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan)

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).

File:Abbasid Provinces during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid.JPG

Abbasid provinces during the caliphate of Harun

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:

• Khwarizm was in the Ma wara al-nahr province
• Ma wara al-nahr was one of the provinces of the abbasid empire

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)

Show me please, where in the map above do you see Iran(in arabice fars)?Jidan 00:28, 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)

You are wrong. Egypt was a province under Achaemenid Empire and under the abbasids (misr). Jidan 00:45, 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 only 51% of the Iranian population are persians? ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People ) Jidan 05:01, 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, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html#People[21]Zmmz 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Age of Caliphs.gif

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)

First, the map you showed right is that of ummayed and not the abbasid caliphate . Second, spain(al-andulas) was never part of the abbasid caliphate. Third, spain(al-andlaus) and sind(pakistan) were always provinces in their own. Fourth, if you actually read what i wrote, you will understand that i never claimed the all those provinces are arab. I only said that the province Iran(fars) didnt include khwarizm. Have a good look at the map above.. Jidan 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, replace Abbasid by Ummayid in my statement above, if that helps. Take it easy. deeptrivia (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizim - NO to nationalism and patriotism

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)

Iran today has only 3 million Arabs!

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.

We should stop debating

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.

@Iranian Patriot: You are claiming that Uzbekistan didnt exist, which is true, but did you know also that Iran didnt exist? The only state which existed at that time was the arab abbasid caliphate. Al-khwarzmi lived his whole live in their capitel (baghdad), read there books, and his salary was from them. The abbasid state (which was arab) should be credited for this. Jidan 21:07, 3 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 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 are you talking about jidan???? Iran has always existed, the arab force was an occupation force that was overthrown eventually! by your logic, all the greek philosphers during roman occupation were roman! that doesnt make sense. and like i said before, the monarchy was arabic, but everything else was still iranian, and the arabs were highly outnumbered by the tens of millions of iranians living in iran. and like i said before, arabs forced their language onto others. khwarizmi was FORCED to speak arabic, or otherwise you arabs would have killed him. i believe ferdowsi also lived during the arab occupation, was he arab too? LOL, you are not making any logical sense at all. do you even think before you write?

let me guess, you probably aslo believe that all the chinese greats during the mongol occupation were mongol. you probably also believe that einstein was american. your logic doesnt make sense! LOL you cannot win this argument, you have no proof of your claims! he wasnt turkic, he wasnt arab, he was PERSIAN! --Iranian Patriot.

Iran(persia) is a political entity not a racial/ethnic entity, that didnt exist at al-khwarzmi's time. If you look today at the nationality in the travel passport of an arab from khusaztan, turk from khursan, or kurd from kurdistan. You will find one thing common, they are all Iranians !!!! Jidan 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

your logic does not makes sense...!! can you not understand that? LOL LMAO! --Iranian Patriot.

Do you consider the people i listed above Iranians? Jidan 22:15, 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)

Yes Jidan, they are iranian arabs, iranian turks, etc... just like khwarizmi was an iranian persian. --Iranian Patriot.

Isnt being iranian and being persian the same?? Jidan 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi to all, what's going on here? Is there any question on Al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity?

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992

Diyako Talk + 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there were was never a question. Just try to convince our Iraninan friends.Jidan 01:26, 4 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)

It say's only that he was born in persia. If he was persian it whould have been persian mathematician, just like it says in britannica Arab mathematician. Jidan 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It says Persian born, not born in Persia! LOL, you keep trying to spin things around. you are losing, just give up, its you versus a countless number of valid sources. --Iranian Patriot.

We may disagre on many things, but please let us not disagree on simple elementry english. Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician means he was only born in persia. persian mathematician means that he was persian. Jidan 01:51,

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)

Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia

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? 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)