Talk:Al-Khwarizmi: Difference between revisions

Archives: 1

Proposed introductions

This is not vote! Just a way to reach a consensus.

Proposed introduction by User:R. Koot

User:SouthernComfort has found http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm, the authorative, neutral and well sourced refrence I was asking everybody to provide (see User:R. Koot/al-Khwarizmi for what, mostly tertiary sources, have to say about it). This articles, written by an Associate Professor in Mathematics at the University of Indianapolis, who specializes in Arabic/Islamic mathematics clearly states al-Khwarizmi was Persian, not Arabic. I would kindly request everybody to thoroughly read it. Based on this I propose the following introduction for the articles. Could everybody say if they support or oppose it, so we can finally settle this dispute? Cheers, —Ruud 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The professor knows more about mathematics than he does about Middle Eastern history. The mathematics is OK, but the history is clearly a mishmash of secondary sources. Not to be considered authoritative on anything except math. Zora 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either Khwarizm or Bagdad, and died around 850. Few details of his life are known.

• Support. —Ruud 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We have three authorative sources stating he's an Arab, let's try not be selective in sources, shall we? MB 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support SouthernComfort 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. — As demonstrated newer addition encyclopedias and dictionaries say he was born in Persia, or khwarizm.Zmmz 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• I support it. But any proposed introuction should be based on the information of Tabari, Biruni and Ibn-Nadeem and any other ancient sources. Since we have to make statements based on all the available statements from ancient times. Although the ethnicity of many people in the ancient world might not be certain, but the available evidences all suggest and point to Persian/Iranian origin (Ali Doostzadeh).
  • I think it would be better to discuss the information of Tabari et al. in the body of the article. The introduction should be kept concise and I don't think it should be tucked away in a footnote. —Ruud 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay I Support. The information from Tabari is just the full name, which mentions Al-Majoosi. The information from Ibn-Nadeem mentions that he was originally from Khawarizm. And the information of Biruni mentions that the people of Khawarizm are of Persian stock. So these three lines should be mentioned and they are sufficient indicators of Persian origin. Ali-Doostzadeh
      • How many times will you support Ali? You only have one vote. MB 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Bidabadi 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - As per Ali Doostzadeh. --ManiF 06:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

With all respect Ruud, but with voting we can even make Isaac Newton a persian. LOOL Jidan 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some how I doubt that. But really, have your read http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm yet? It's not just some arbitrary website but written by by an associate professor in the history of mathematics with a specialization in the history of arabic/islamic mathematics. —Ruud 22:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This vote will show us howmany persians use wikipedia! LOL Jidan 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed introduction by User:R. Koot (2)

Ok, a second attempt by me. This introduction clearly establish that al-Khwarizmi was of Persian ancestry (which we all agree on) and that he lived under Abbasid caliphate (which I think we also all agree on.

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either Khwarizm or Bagdad, and died around 850. Al-Khwarizmi was or Persian ancestry, however by the middle of the 8th century Pesia was under the rule of the Abbasid caliphate and al-Khwarizmi published his works in Arabic. Few details about his life are known.

• Support this one as well. —Ruud 00:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• I really feel the evidence is over-whelmingly on the side of the Persians, nevertheless, in the intrest of compromise I reluctantly agree to this intro. Great job R. Koot.Zmmz 00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed introduction by User:Jidan

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c.780 - 850) (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي, Persian موسى خوارزمى) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer.

I disagree. The link provided by the Math Historian is very strong final case. There is absolutely no evidence of Al-Khwarizmi being Arab, but there is sufficient evidence to indicate he was persian. 1) Al-Majoosi title. 2) He was from Khwarizm which is predominately Persian region. Ibn-Nadeem mentions clearly that his asl (roots) are in Khwarizm and not in some Arab tribe or Arab country. I am not sure how you can overlook this? 3) Abu-Rayhan Biruni and many others have already indicated that the people of Chorasmia is Persian. Against this evidence, there is absolutely nothing to indicate he was Arab (and don't quote random sites again). The region of Chorasmia simply was not Arab speaking region and this is where Al-Khwarizmi was from (asl). So he was not Arab. If he was from Yemen, we can also argue that there was Sassanid colonies in Yemen and so he may have been persian, but the chances are that a Yemenese is an Arab. The same holds here. So I would add a Persian Muslim. I do not think it is far to rob Al-Khwarizmi from his Iranian Chorasmian background. Also we had already discussed the Baghdad issue and Baghdad at that time was robust multi-ethnic city and to an extent today even there are Assyrians, Kurds, Turkomens, Armenians...(Ali Doostzadeh).

Proposed introduction by User:Zora

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. He was born around 780, in either Khwarizm or Baghdad, and died around 850.

Step back

Instead of adopting one of the three theories as to his ethnicity, we can present all three and let readers decide. That's NPOV. I rewrote the article to say that his ethnicity is a controversial topic and that there are three theories. Proponents of each theory should make sure that each entry gives the best possible case for their theory. OK? yes? Zora 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already left a comment at your talk page, but what you proposed is the version which started this dispute (people changing Muslim to Persian/Arab/Turk all the time). —Ruud 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If there's a conflict, and all sides are notable, then we give all sides, we don't just pick one. Look down the page, don't just look at the first para. Zora 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the exact same introduction as you a while ago with exactly the same argument (let the reader decide) and see what happened... but if you are willing to keep an eye on this article that would help. —Ruud 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi didn't write in Latin

Zmmz edited the latest version, claiming that AK wrote in Latin (he didn't - he was translated into Latin) and inserting "Persian" before Khorasan. The ethnicity of Khorasan is debateable. I think we should refrain from making any claims as to its ethnic composition, and just give the political history, about which we know more. If Khorasan isn't indisputably Persian, then listing other scholars from Khorasan doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that there was a link between Khorasan and the Abbasids, which we know from history.

I did leave the point re writing in Arabic not proving anything, which is a good one. Arabic in those times was the equivalent of Latin in European scholarship -- it was the lingua franca of the elite, and allowed people with many different mother tongues to communicate. Zora 02:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoke Greek and Latin?

Zmmz, how do you know that he spoke Greek and Latin? He may well have known Greek, since the House of Wisdom was translating Greek texts. But there's nothing to PROVE that he knew Greek. There's no support whatsoever for Latin.

Zora just after the dispute was finally being settled, and just after everyone voted, you took it upon yourself to practically rewrite the entire article. You can`t keep doing things like this, unless you come to an agreement with the majority of the editors, specially, if it is a drastic changes like this. Even so, I still asked others not to complain and revert, and I only added two more lines to the whole article, which are by the way very relevant to the Biography section. Finally, a simple error was corrected, and it now says he [read] and spoke Latin, and Greek. From now on, please refrain from going against a consensus, even if it was not an over-whelming one. Zmmz 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that his NAME is Persian? What about Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa is Persian? All those seem like good Arabic names to me.

Let`s not pretend Al Khwarizmi does not point to him being from Khwarizm. I wrote that may be an indication.Zmmz 02:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you've restored the edits claiming that Khorasan was Persian and that a great many scholars came from Khorasan. This is not surprising, since the Khorasanis had put the Abbasids in power and many had moved to Baghdad. They were the elite, with the money and leisure for scholarship. But it's not relevant to AK's ethnicity. We don't know whether the Khorasani Islamic community was Arabic, or Persian, or Arabo-Persian. Have you considered the possibility that AK was of mixed blood? Zora 02:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, actually those are some rather biased allegations. Please do more research first. Also, the `Mixing Population Theory` claimed by you and user Heja Helweda is an old argument, in the sense that it was already discussed and responded to many times in the above section. The only proof provided was the student encylopedia, Encyclopedia Iranica, written by Columbia University students.

Zmmz, you can't bring yourself to believe that Arabs and Persians ever intermarried (despite being in contact and under the same rulers for five hundred years) and routinely denigrate any sources that might challenge that strongly held belief. I do not automatically believe everything that the Encyclopedia Iranica publishes (it's inevitably biased towards an Iranian viewpoint) BUT it is a reputable scholarly source. Written by respected scholars and researchers, not by students. Zora 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was mixed as you allege, then it would have been mentioned in at least one major encyclopedia. Again, three centuries after Al Khwarizmi` death, and four centuries into the Arab invasion, the genuis scientist and historian Al Biruni wrote, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس

"the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". To this day Khwarizmians, now Uzbeks, they still speak Persian and are part of the Greater Iran. There are no signs of them being mixed with Arabs, nor do the speak Arabic. Khwarizm, which was part of Khorasan, was the center of learning, poetry and education during the Sassanid Persia era. The great empire took most of his resources and concentrated it around those areas. The Empire also set-up learning universities, and hospitals as well; the first in the East, and what would later be copied by the Romans. ThanksZmmz 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, three centuries later, the inhabitants of Khorasan might have spoken Persian. The Abbasid empire was breaking up and the Persian language was reasserting itself. But that doesn't really say anything about Khorasan three centuries earlier, or, crucially, about the household in which AK grew up. He could have grown up in an Arabo-Persian household in which the daily language was Arabic. (Just as a Syrian immigrant family living in New Jersey might be raising children whose first language is Levantine Arabic.) Zora 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Al Biruni said "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian", not that now they are mixed Arab-Persians breaking up or whatever. Not this historian, nor any other historian did ever, or do, say there was mixing going-on.Zmmz 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong again, there. The center of Sassanid learning was in Khuzestan. See Academy of Gundishapur. Zereshk and I fought that one to a draw and I think it's fairly accurate now. The institute where AK worked is believed to have been modeled on the Sassanid academy. Zora 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said the Academy of Gundishapur was in Khwarizm. The name Gundishapur should indicate it was in the region of Khuzestan. I did say, these learning centers were among other schools, mostly concentrated around [Khwarizm]. The Sassanids, as you can tell from the Academy of Gundishapur, emphasized on a good, well-rounded education. The revolutionized education in Persia. That is [why] almost 90 percent of scientists and poets of the Islamic era were Persian. With all due respect, if your allegations are true, then how come almost every scientist out of Khwarizm was Persian, and not Arab? Your disregard for the voting process, and the fact that you rewrote that article without asking others, reverted relevant citations added, and initiated another edit war is not the best way to deal with others here, and is getting tiresome. I have now erased two more lines from the [one] sentence addition I made to the Biography section. I am not going to engage in [yet] another lengthy back and forth discussion with someone who has tried to change the identity of other well-known Persian scientists, and someone who complaint why we feel it is necessary to write the poet Rumi was Persian, and let`s just call him Muslem. Thank youZmmz 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was well known he translated many Greek books on math. Ask others first for references.

No, it isn't known. The House of Learning was translating Greek mathematics texts, including Euclid. There is a great deal of argument about how much of the Greek deductive model AK incorporated, and argument as to whether or not he had read Euclid. If he had, he could easily have done so in an Arabic translation made much earlier. There is nothing in AK's works that proves that he read Greek, or made any translations. Zora 03:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if that is your disagreement, then why do you erase all the other relevant evidence added by us? But, I`ll erase that part too.Zmmz 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that writing in Persian wasn't allowed?

The Iranian editors seem to prefer wording that turns the Arabs into nasty oppressors who didn't let the Persians use their own language. That is not the case. This was an issue in the earliest days of the Islamic empire -- one Umayyad governor of Persia was a notorious badass :) and he cracked down hard on what he saw as sedition -- which included Persian scribes using Persian for government documents. Only Arabic must be used! But that applied to government business, not to daily life. There is no evidence whatsoever that Persian merchants were punished for keeping their accounts in Persian, or that anyone was punished JUST for speaking Persian. You have also restored the boast that many Islamic scholars were from Khorasan and therefore Persian -- which is both irrelevant, and not demonstrable from the facts. Zora 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This reference from Columbia Encyclopedia makes me think that[1]. Furthermore, because, just like Alexander the Great, the invading Arabs burnt most of the Persian literature. It has been written in literatures like the `Epic of Kings` by Ferdowsi, who almost single-handedly revived the Persian culture, that helped to drive out the invading Islamic Caliphates, that Arabs did in fact persecute Iranians for writting in their native tongue. Such patriotic writtings inspired by the Sassanid, the Samanid dynasties, and others, in turn influenced Iranians to take back their culture. Also, all other Persian scientists wrote mostly in Arabic, so that should be another indication. If they were allowed to write in their mother language, Persian, then things would have been different.Zmmz 04:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If they were allowed, or encouraged to, why not write in their mother language, Persian? Exactly! There you go, Zmmz. If there wasn't proof that Persians were prosecuted, and all these scientists decided to write in Arabic, what is that an indication of? That they're Arabs of course! This argument is silly, and I have no idea how you managed to perpetuate till now, also, I see an edit war looming...very sad on your part, especially when all evidence are pointing against you. MB 07:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If they were allowed, or encouraged to, why not write in their mother language, Persian? When did I ever say that? I said, they were [not] allowed to, or [dis]couraged from writting in Persian. The word [dis]couraged here really is a polite word for saying prohibited.Zmmz 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, don`t worry I rephrased it to avoid any confusion. I didn`t say what you thought I said. I meant to say, If they were allowed to write in their mother language, Persian, then things would have been different. Columbia Encyclopedia supports this view.[2] Zmmz 08:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone really claimed that speaking Persian was punished by death and even if they did it was an exaggeration. However the official language was Arabic, language of government and schools. This means language is being forced on people doesn’t it? The minorities in Iran today are complaining of the very same thing, they can speak their language if they want but school has to be in Persian, and you personally seem to be very protective and supportive of their issues. What is the difference here? Kurdish and Arab merchants of Iran are also allowed to keep their accounts in Kurdish or Arabic aren't they?

Gol 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizm as Persian?

Here's what it says in the WP Khwaremia article:

According to Biruni the area was ruled by the Afrigid dynasty from the 4th century to the 8th century CE. The resurgent kingdom was established around Khiva in 410 by Avar tribes possibly under Hephthalites influence. The inhabitants were called Khwalis or Kaliz by the Magyars after the eastern-most Kabars of Hungary, who dwelt in Carpathian Galicia. They were also called Khalisioi in Greek, Khvalis (and often associated with Khazars) in Russian, and Huālázǐmó (花剌子模) or perhaps Guali or Helisimijia in Chinese. The etymology of the name is unknown but may pertain to a kingdom of the Aral Sea or the Hua people.

The article also claims that Khwarezmi is Persian, but doesn't give any sources.

I have Birunis book, and none of the above information about Avas and Hephtalites are there. And the area could not have been ruled from 4th century to 8th century by the Afrigid dynasty since the Arabs took it was prior to that.

In the late 7th century, Khwarezmia was conquered by the Arab Abbasids and was the birthplace of the great Persian mathematician of the Abbasid period, al-Khwarezmi.

Four centuries of being ruled by Avars and the area is still "Persian"?

Avars were not in this area. Plus we have shown Biruni directly mention that the inhabitants of Chorasmia were Persian (Athar Al-Baghiya) and we brought the exact quote. You need to bring exact quote or else keep quite.

It might have been heavily-influenced by Persian culture -- we don't know. We'd have to look at the archaeological results. I can google, but I doubt that I'll come up with anything I can read; most of the sources are probably Russian, if there are any. Zora 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost that is inaccurate, since an strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs from marrying non-Arabs. I have a reference that is actually from an article written by you Zora, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”.[3] .Zmmz 09:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Go read the Iranica article on Chorasmia which is sufficient and complete. --Ali doostzadeh 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias all say Khwarizm was part of Persia for 1200 years. Even after the Arabs and Mongols invaded Persia they stayed Persian, much like when the Egyptians were under Persia for centuries, they still stayed--and to this date stay--Arab-Egyptians; no mixing was done, nothing. Again, Al Biruni, the Muslim historian, four centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia said, Khwarizmians are Persians: To this date, Khwarizmians, now Uzbeks speak Persian, and not Arabic, or Mongolian. You were already provided this information numerous times in the above sections, yet you keep bringing them up, and insert new headings to make it seem controversial. At this point, after writing incredibly lengthy texts in the discussion pages, you need to be aware that this non-stop flooding of these discussion pages [may] be considered some sort of vandalism. You are abusing your editing privileges.Zmmz 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you can't accuse people who argue with you of being vandals and abusers. You're trying to intimidate people. I'm not easily intimidated. Zora 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Intimidation does not work in Wikipedia nor should it be used. I am not intimidating you; please do not attack me and assume good faith; moreover, please refrain from playing the role of the victim, or the minority, which you do every time your argument fizzles. However, within the past few hours, you single-handedly rewrote the entire article without discussing it with the other editors, disregarded the mediation efforts and the fact that a poll was set up and votes were being counted, inserted many headlines one after another into this discussion page in an attempt to stampede the voice of others or prove your point, flooded the discussion page with repetitive claims that were already addressed numerous times, and erased others` citations without any discussions. I am just telling you that there are rules here. You can’t keep doing this in all time. You keep doing this on other articles too, like Khwarizm, Islamic conquest of Persia, and others.Zmmz 06:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence besides the fact that Khwarizmians, who are modern Uzbeks still to this date speak Persian, not Arabic, that indicates no mixing between Persians and Arabs took place, because strict Islamic laws prohibited Arabs to marry non-Arabs: They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature. [Fred Donner. The Early Islamic Conquests]. Princeton Univ Press, 1981, beg with pg. 251.Zmmz 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Zmmz ... that's copied from the Wikipedia article, which I wrote. It's also true only of the time of Umar and Uthman. Ali moved the capital to Kufa -- out of Arabia -- Muawiya then moved it to Damascus, and the melding of the Arabs and their clients went ahead at full speed. Zora 07:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, that's sad. You went back and edited your note to erase the sourcing to answers.com and instead gave the source I got it from. Zora 07:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the third time you make a personal attack; just be aware of that. This kind of attitude will not lend further credibility to your claims. What does lend credibility is providing valid sources. Upon realising that the first source was actually a mirror page of a Wikipedia article, which turned-out to be written by you of all people (in that article too, you had inserted your controversial views to without discussing it first with the other editors) a new, more authoritative source written by a respected scholar was provided. Thank youZmmz 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That source was provided by me. I own the book. I've read it. Have you? Zora 07:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I provided a new source now. But it seems you are contradicting yourself. If the first reference was actually an article that was written by you, then, you yourself were the one who wrote, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”?Zmmz 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So you KNEW the truth; yet, tried feverishly to state otherwise in these articles so these Persian scientists can be portrayed as Arabs huh? Maybe to push an agenda. Nothing is greater than the truth. That is called hypocracy. But, as it turns-out, you ended-up providing sources that actually prove you yourself wrong. Great job Zora. ThanksZmmz 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That was the early policy and it failed. The Arab conquerors were to live in garrison towns, such as the ones established in Kufa, Basra, Cairo, and Khorasan. They were to remain soldiers, not sedentary landowners. That didn't last long. It is supposed that one of the reasons that there was so much discontent with Uthman (leading to his assassination) is that the Arab tribesmen wanted to split up the conquered lands and settle down as nobles. Just because a government has a policy for a few decades doesn't mean that the policy endures forever! Zora 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only your allegations are not backed-up by one single major encyclopedia, but what is as important is that just by chance you were caught red-handed, writing something that goes against every [single] claim you are making here, yet, you still keep going. You contradicted yourself. I personally recall stating that there was such an Islamic law, and you yourself said that there never [was] such a law: Don’t be baffled please, that was from an article written by you. You have tangled yourself beyond the point that you could get out of. With all due respect, you have zero credibility at this point.Zmmz 09:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

WP way to is give all sides

Guys -- if there's a dispute, we step back and give the evidence for all sides. You've gone back to playing revert war, trying to annihilate the other side. That violates NPOV. Zora 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources that there were arabs in khorasan:

• The Caliphate Its Rise, Decline, and Fall - By William Muir (revised edition by T. H. WEIR, M.A., D.D.):
  • The Arab tribal feuds in Khorasan
  • Abbasids in Khorasan

Jidan 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just thought it would be intresting to share with you that I found a source that proves strict Islamic law prohibited Arabs from marrying non-Arabs. This in an article written by the user Zora herself, who now claims Persians were mixed with Arabs, “Under Umar and his immediate successors, the Arab conquerors attempted to maintain their political and cultural cohesion despite the attractions of the civilizations they had conquered. The Arabs were to settle in the garrison towns rather than on scattered estates. They were not to marry non-Arabs, or learn their language, or read their literature”.[4] .Zmmz 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This was posted earlier by a user:

Durinng Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province. This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The special circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214). The towns of Hamadan, Qazvin, Qom were predominantly Arab by the 9th century CE.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab tribes of Iran, p.215).

Jidan 09:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the same student project Encyclopaedia Iranica that when you click on a link takes you to an empty site and asks you to download an Adobe file. Although, there is nothing wrong with an Adobe file, but you do realize that this is a junior Encyclopaedia right? That is the [only] source that you have, and it keeps being posted repetitively, and keeps being disregarded repetiively. Please put in some new information, like the fact that an article written by the user Zora herself completely contradicts the junior source you mentioned. If this indeed took place, then it would have been reported by one major encylopedia, like Britannica for example. There is a reason why it is not there.Zmmz 09:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

TO Zora: I am not sure if you are the right person to arbitrate, since you were refuted in the Aryan discussion in the other Persian thread. I think you have a major anti-Iranian grudge. For example you claimed that the term Aryan is not used in academia where as many articles proved you wrong [5]. Now can we expect you to have honesty about this issue. Here are some facts about him being Iranian. 1) The title Al-Majoosi(the Zoroastrian) mentioned by Tabari indicates Zoroastrian ancestary. Thus clearly indicating Persian roots of Al-Khawarizmi. Furthermore Tabari lived at the same time as Al-Khawarizmi which is very significant 2) The region of Chorasmia is referred to as Persian by the native Persian Chorasmian, Abu Rayhan Biruni. This is again a significant statement since Biruni was only 100 years after Al-Khawarizmi and he was a native of the same region. In fact we have much evidence on the Iranian language spoken by Chorasmians. 3) Ibn Nadeem mentions that his origin is from Chorasmia. Note all these evidences point to a most likely Iranian ethnic identity. One can not just brush off the statements of Biruni about the native language of Chorasmia and the statement of Tabari about the title al-Majoosi. These are basically all the information we have available about his ethnicity and thus pointing to probable Iranian ethnicity. I challenge anyone (for the sake of increasement of knowledge as well resovling of this quarrel) to provide alternative facts from ancient sources on the language of Chorasmia and other mentioning of Al-Khawarizmi in historical texts from 1000 years ago. --Ali doostzadeh 08:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jidan. Ahlan wa Sahlan. Thanks for the link. But we are talking about Chorasmia (Khawarizm) and not Khorasan. There were also tons of Persians and Iranians in Iraq. But the fact is that there was no influx of Arabs after the removal of Ummayads and many of these Arabs were removed by the Abu-Moslem/Abbassid revolution because of their pro-Ummayad stance. Also we should try not to use an anti-islamic website since we want to bring materials only from non-poltical sources. This tatement is also there from that article The Arabs of Khorasan were almost more Persian than Arab. Their fathers had married Persian wives, and the sons spoke Persian rather than Arabic, drank wine, wore trousers, and kept the Persian holidays. So case in point, they were culturally Persians. Also I must add that many of the Arab tribes who were pro-Ummayads were removed after the bloody battles of Khorasan and Abu-Moslems revolt. And the Abbassids did not continue the imperial policy of sending Arabs in the region since Persians had major power in their courts and the office of Vizir sometimes was more powerful than Caliph --Ali doostzadeh 08:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Replay to Ali

1) The title Al-Majoosi(the Zoroastrian) mentioned by Tabari indicates Zoroastrian ancestary. Thus clearly indicating Persian roots of Al-Khawarizmi. Furthermore Tabari lived at the same time as Al-Khawarizmi which is very significant

Invalid. read this: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Khwarizmi.html

Nopte that is not invalid. THat is just Mr. Rashed's(an arab persons) opinion that a copyst made a mistake! He has shown no proof of it and furthermore if we insert "wa", no person by such a name has ever been mentioned in history books.

2) The region of Chorasmia is referred to as Persian by the native Persian Chorasmian, Abu Rayhan Biruni. This is again a significant statement since Biruni was only 100 years after Al-Khawarizmi and he was a native of the same region. In fact we have much evidence on the Iranian language spoken by Chorasmians.

Read the Sources above about the arabs in khorasan.

We are talking about Chorasmia during Abbassid times. Yes Arabic tribes for military reasons came to Khorasan during Ummayad times, but many of them were removed after the Abu-Moslem revolution.

3) Ibn Nadeem mentions that his origin is from Chorasmia.

Ibn Nadeem lived 150 years later, and he was just a book seller!! He just assumed this from his name!!

Such mere speculations are not an scholarly approach. If we have just these couple of sources, then honesty dictates that we must accept them. I am not sure how you become a psychic and tell me what Ibn-Nadeem was thinking 1000 years! Did Ibn Nadeem say "I assumed by his name"? Nope he didn't. So we can not make such speculations. There was a Turkish minister recently that claimed Prophet Muhammad(PBUH&HP) was Turkish! I am sure if he played the role of a time psychic he might be able to prove his point.

            Lets agree to disagree!! 

With that I mean, lets accept the version of Zora. I also dont like it, but its the most natural!! You can then describe all the three points in the article, so whats the problem? Jidan 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Intermarriage between Arabs and Persians, use of Persian language

I should have thought to do this earlier -- I checked my copy of The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, by Hugh Kennedy. On page 125, he says:

More Arabs settled in this area than in any other part of Iran during Umayyad times, and the settlement of large numbers of Muslims seem to have encouraged conversions among the local people.

In Khurasan there was considerable integration between Arab and non-Arab, many of the leaders of the Abbasid movement were of Arab origin but spoke Persian, and had intermarried with the local people ...

On page 133 he talks about the Khorasanis who led the Abbasid revolution:

While many of their leaders seem to have been of Arab descent, and no doubt spoke Arabic, a large proportion of the rank and file were Iranian Muslims and Persian was widely spoken.

So, we really can't tell from his name whether or not AK was Persian or Arab. He could have been Arab, or Persian, or Arabo-Persian.

A trawl through my history of Persian literature (Aryanpur) found no mention of speaking Persian being punished. Instead, it gave me the name of Abu Nuwas, whose father was Arab, whose mother was Persian, and who was said to have used Persian loan words in his Arabic poems. More evidence for mixing. Zora 10:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence's agree with the the sources i listed above. Jidan 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghazi Andalusi and Al-Khawarizmi - Very Important

Dear Friends, In my persian translation of Al-Ta'rif Tabaghat Al-omam there is direct refrence to the Persian origin of Al-Khawarizmi.

قاضی صاعد اندلسی که در قرن چهارم وپنجم می زیست نیزدر کتاب التعرف بطبقات الامم در بخش علم نزد فارس به کرات از او ، پدر و برادرانش یاد کرده است یعنی انان را ایرانی خوانده است ( به عنوان نمونه ص 225و 226 ) « التعریف بطبقات الامم ، تصحیح غلامرضا جمشید نژاد اول ، تهران : هجرت ، 1376 )

Ghazi Sa'ed Al-Andalusi mentions him in the section "Knowledge amongst the Persians" and mentions his father, and brother. The above is from the Persian translation of the work. Now it is up to Jidan and other friends to prove the following quote wrong! I will go to the library soon and will try to extract the exact Arab sources. In the section علم عند الفارس

Khawarizmi is mentioned along with his father and his brother under the section "Knowledge amongst the Fars(Persians)". This is very important ancient source on the subject and has the final say. Since the Ghazi al-Andalusi lived in the 4th century Hijra. Unless anyone has anything against this source, then Persian is final: 1) Chorasmians spoke a Persian language(A-biruni) 2) title Majusi by Tabari 3) Ibn Nadeem refers to his asl (roots, origins) as Chorasmian 4) Ghazi Sa'ed Al-Andalusi (about 1000 A.D) mentions him, his father and his brother in his book under the section "knowledge amongst the Persians". (This book has been translated into English: Science in the medieval world : book of the Categories of nations / by Sāid al-Andalusī ; translated and edited by Sema'an I. Salem and Alok Kumar.)

--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)(Ali Doostzadeh).

Well, dear friend what you have is written in Persian, give me an Arabic or English version so I could understand what he's saying. About your sources:

I have translated it into English. If you disagree with the source, you need to disprove it.

1)At the time of his birth, Khwarizms spoke predominately Arabic, you yourselves say that it was the language of science at the time, did you decide it's best to contradict yourselves?

Nope Khawarizm spoke Persian as Biruni has mentioned the language. Do not put words in my mouth.

2)al-Tabari calling him Majusi is disputed in the Mactutor reference of the article, we refuted the claims many times over, please don't ignore facts.

It is not disputed by Mactutor, but by Prof Rashed who is an Arab. And the burden of proof is on him. Because no such scholar after the "wa" exists.

3)sources?

See above.

4)We need it to be verified by a translation.

Who is "we". You need to disapprove it if you disagree.

Three very legitimate sources that state him to be Arab:

1)http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlKhowar.html

2)http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761560322___0/Khwarizmi_al-.html

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

DO not bring these petty internet sources as there are tons of them that refer to him as Persian. I have proved from Ghazi Al-Andalusi that he is Persian. You want me to do a google search again and bring about all the sources that claim him as Persian. This sort of argument is not necessary as it has been done before.

These are all from major encyclopedias, this along with the fact that he wrote mostly in Arabic, and that he was born in a region with a huge Arab population are all sufficient enough to show he's an Arab. MB 16:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope Chorasm did not have huge arab population. You are talking about Khorasan which was an Ummayad military bastion as well. But most of those military bastions were wiped out by Abu-Moslem Khorasani. Roman sources and other sources clearly mention many Arab supports of Ummayads being cleared off. Secondly there are many major books and encyclopedias that claim him as Persian. You are not here to discuss the issue, and reiterating that old encyclopedia issue is not worth it. For example this source is much stronger than any of the sources you mentioned: http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm

But I have proven this issue from ancient sources.

You didn't show anything. I have shown sources from four ancient books. Modern encyclopedias can say variety of thing. The link from the Math historian Professor though is much more valuable. Plus the Ghazi- Al-Andalusi that I mentioned is the finishing point.

To the Turkish guy. The discussion here is not about Biruni. But Biruni was a (iranian) Khawrezmian and spoke no turkic. in his list of turkic month names (which are merely ordinals), he adds "I don't know what they mean and I don't know the (exact) order". So that is sufficient proof that he was not in anyway connected to Turks. He also has listed the Khawrezmian and Soghdian months and days and they are all Persian. The word Khawarazm is also Persian as Turkish has no "wa", but Pahlavi, Afghani Persian and most Iranian languages do. He also clearly mentions that the inhabitants of Khawarazm are Persians. I think the above case point is sufficient that Biruni was not Turkic.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Friends, somebody is deleting or vandalizing the discussions here. I urge them to stop.

--Ali doostzadeh 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora's version

Zora's version was neither discussed here nor approved by anyone. User:R. Koot's version was put to a vote here and the majority reached a consensus on that version. Zora's version is full of speculations and unsubstantiated claims with no references. For examples, the user is speculating about Khwarizmi possibly being a Turk when there were no Turks or Turkic tribes in Khwarizm back in 700-800. Such speculations only confuse the readers and are not encyclopedic. Lets keep the version which was approved by a majority vote, at least for now, until a new version is proposed and approved/voted by a majority consensus here on talk. --ManiF 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:R.Koot himself though, put(in bold letters, too) that the proposition is not a vote, look at it again. MB 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, all I see is a vote where the majority agreed with the proposal. --ManiF 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that voting is not considered an acceptable method of finding consensus, nor can it be considered binding. --InShaneee 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)