Talk:Al-Farabi/Archive 1

Protesting Wikipdia

I am protesting Wikipedia. I won't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. Be happy with persian ignorism. Goodbye.

Arab invasion and Greek heritage

Deleted this bit because it seemed POV:

Baghdad's Greek heritage in philosophy that had survived the Arab invasion

Jorge Stolfi 01:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Turkish or Persian

These terms are not very meaningful for someone born in the 9th century, are they? Trying to label him either way is rather pointless. Any criterion (geographical, political, ethnic, linguistic...) will be arbitrary and will only invite edit wars. IMHO, better just omit the nationality and give all the relevant facts and theories in the Biography (he was born in then-Persia, now-Turkmenistan, probably from Turkic ancestry, etc.). Jorge Stolfi 04:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is not pointless, because being born an Iranian just means that. Turkey was not even a country then, and centuries later, [some] of such Iranian tribes settled into today`s Turkey. The only analogy I can make is; imagine a scientist is born in Italy, and speaks it, he also speaks some dilect since he is from Tuscany. Does that make him anything else but Italian? Even worse, to this date I had thought Al Frarabi was an Arab, since all the Islamic sites claim him as such. They try to claim so many people; it isn`t fair, because they were only to speak and write in Arabic, or face death. It is like all the Greek artists that built Rome, but at least the world knows they were Greeks. Zmmz 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if that's your argument there was no Iran in that era or Persia. The region was known as "Turkiston", Tarkhan Uzlug is a big give away, Arabic names were adopted due to religion as Turkic names wern't religous there was no need for non-Turks to adopt Turkic names. He was born in Turkiston town and was of Turkic heritage. --Johnstevens5 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the scholars and academics of repute are hopeless in establishing his origin, I believe the Wiki-Editors are far from being intellectual enough to solve this problem! Please refer to Muhsin Mahdi's, "Farabi" article in Encyclopaedia Iranica (LINK) for further info. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The other article has been speedily deleted (as being an incorrectly titled duplicate of this article, containing nothing that isn't here), so I've removed the merge template from this article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Or Persian

The terms if used objectively provides information on background and subjects heritage. In this case Farab's name Uzlog indicative of his Turkish/Turkic heritage. mehrdadd 03:20, 06 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The changes to the article have been made with no citation of sources. I know of no reputable book (actually I know of no book at all) that supports your claims. If you do, then please supply the reference. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

-I agree with Mehrdad. Also his name Al-"Tarkhan" is very Turkic. -Ur

It is well known that he was an Uyghur Turk. That's why Uyghur article of Wikipedia links to Farabi; a Turkic nation like Kazakhstan puts his picture on their currency; international encyclopedias (britannica, larousse) tells that he was ethnically Turkish.

It is not well known that he was Turkish (or Persian for that matter). The article is most accurate in its current codition. Leave it alone.--Zereshk 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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. In the case of Farabi, I followed what the Encyclopedia Britannica says (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9364210?query=Farabi%2C%20al-&ct=). Please don't change it following your certain desires. -Ur

Funny how we see the Arabs, Turks, etc doing the exact same thing as well.--Zereshk 07:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

National labels seems to be the single major cause of edits to this article (and to articles of other prominent Islamic figures of the epoch). Sigh. If only a fraction of that energy was spent in improving the real contents of the article, we would have a whole alfarrabio on Al-Farabi by now.
Actually, the heat of the dispute, by itself, is a sign that the question has no correct answer. The fact is that modern national labels are not really meaningful for someone living at that time. If we could ask Al-Farabi whether he was Turkish or Persian, I suspect that he would have answered "What?".
I have a proposal: why don't we just write "Islamic" in the head paragraph, and then explain the facts in the article: that his family was of XXX descent, that he was born in YYY but lived his life in WWW, that he spoke spoke ZZZ, etc.. And just that. Then, any reader who feels that he cannot appreciate the man without a national label will be able to choose that label according to his own criteria. What do you say?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I wrote the sentence in the article: "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins." But some people just cant help it. They have to go around taking up our time with this ridiculous ethnic crap.--Zereshk 08:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think as along as we are doing our best in being objective, that is great. I care about the facts. That is it. If he is Persian so be it. But we have to prove it. If there is data that he could have been from some other ethnicity, then that must be presented. I think your modification is still biased, at least the way it is worded. -Ur

Another Pan-Arian sh** here, what did Persians give to islam but terror and chaos. But at least they forged the bloodiest terrorised nation slaughtering thousands in Azadistan then patroning PKK, ASALA, Hezbollah, Taliban and several others.How can this nation have a child like Farabi, the only persian genious is Hasan Sabbah who is the traditional ancestor of terror in Islam.

Book of Music

I thought it was entitled Kitaab al-Musiqa al-Kabeera (the big book of music). Anyone have any input/sources for this? Though it's just a minor point.

Muslim? Or Muslim like Voltaire was Xian?

Every work I've read, including his own, states he is a Muslim. The Quran itself repeatedly calls on it's readers to ponder and question its own meaning, as well as nature. Farabi had his own perspective, but neither denounced religion nor was branded as a heretic, which was a definite possibility for any philosopher in history. As such, the analogy to Voltaire's Christian credentials (he renounced it) is unreasonable. Farabi's views on predestination etc are not universally condemned as heretical by most Muslims. -- 24.86.203.199 06:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He was Persian and was born in Iran

http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/FARABI.html

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html

http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/farabi/farabi.php

http://www.oqya.5u.com/photo6.html

The article should include his Persian ethnicity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2006.

There are even more (and more authoritative) sources that deny any certainty in the matter; that's why the article says what it does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are more sources that say he was Persian than otherwise. The date and time of his birth is a very relevent argument in this case. That part of Kazakhastan was mostly inhabited by Iranians and Persian peoples at that time. His Father was a part of the Persian Samanid court. I have said this before and I will say it again, His religion is irrelevent. We do not even know if he was a practicing muslim or not therefore refering to him as simply, a "muslim" scientist is very misleading. He was Persian and this must be recognized.Dariush4444 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as do the scholarly sources; there may well be a huge number of Persian/Iranian nationalist sites that call him Persian, but it's not a matter of mere numbers — it's the quality of the sources. Moreover, all the evidence that you mention is consistent with him not having been Persian, and is therefore not conclusive. As for his being Muslim, there's no serious doubt about that; "practising" is a vague and irrelevant term (what is it that you want to know about his practices as opposed to his stated beliefs, and why do they matter here?. You have read his work, haven't you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that no one is denying the possibility that Al-Farabi was Persian. Sources that specify Al-Farabi as belonging to a specific ethnicity were written centuries after his death, and they do not agree with each other. He could be Persian, or he could be Turkic. Many Turkic peoples lived in Central Asia ever since the Kok-Turk Kaganate in 551 AD, and they closely interacted with the Persians, so it is even possible that Al-Farabi was a mixed Persian and Turkic person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.114.255.3 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is, under these circumstances, as clear as possible with regard to Farabi's ethnicity. If someone wishes to conduct scholarly research and convincingly prove that he was either Persian or Turkic - or Nordic for all I care -, please go ahead, maybe he'll see it appear here someday. But I'm seeing too much original research on this talk page... Selfinformation 13:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran: almost %50 percent Turkic was even more before 1071 assimilated and killed lots during Pehlevi's and never had names like Tarkhan which is pretty common among Turks and Tatars so his ancestors was Turkic but somehow he is persian. What a wonderful world full of surprises.

The name "Tarkhan" was not al-Farabi's name (or that of his father), but - according to both Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica - an invention of Ibn Khallekān who was himself a Turk and was desperatly trying to "turkify" al-Farabi. His work is not really a biography of al-Farabi, but only a comment on an older work: that of Ibn Abi Osaybe'a. Ibn Abi Osaybe'a claims that al-Farabi was Persian. It is the oldest known record of Farabi's life and background. It is assumed that Ibn Abi Osaybe'a's is based on even older sources which are lost today. That would mean that the oldest sources supporte(ed) the claim that he was Persian. This is also the oppinion of mainstream scholars, while Turkish scholars and nationalists reject the oldest sources and stick to the biased claims of Ibn Khallekān. Tājik 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Khallekan was of no Turkish ancestry. He was a pure Kurd. There was no reason for him to twist any information relating to al-Farabi. P.S. Persians in the south of Kazakhstan? Doesn't it sound ridiculous? (Onbagan Parsylar betimen ketken!!!)Even in Iran the Farsis populate only a minor part of their country! Anyway, al-Farabi was born within the territory of present-day QAZAQSTAN (melting pot of Turkic, Turano-iranic and Mongolian tribes). Only WE (e.i. QAZAQS) have the full right to call him our ancestor! So you persians better stay tuned and delve into the issue of "rafidite expansion". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.16.12.227 (talk • contribs).

Aristotle's Theology

The italics seemed wrong to me, but I am no expert, so please consider the following:

   Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
   was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.

Shouldn't it be:

   Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
   was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.

Or something even clearer, such as:

   Unfortunately the book Theology, which Farabi thought to have been written by 
   Aristotle and relied upon, was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, 
   a neo-Platonic philosopher.

(or something the like)

Or am I totally off? Selfinformation 13:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, on the whole, the italics are OK here; if they're not placed around "of Aristotle", the sentence would seem to be contradicting itself (first identifying the book as by Aristotle, and then saying that it wasn't) — though that doesn't apply to your second version. As it is, "of Aristotle" is part of the title (like Diary of a Nobody or Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which weren't, of course, by a nobody or by the Elders of Zion). Checking the sources and other texts, "Theology of Aristotle" seems to be a common way of printing the title of the book. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Persian scientists

Should he, or should he not be included on this list? The list of Persian scientists-page states:

  The following is a non-comprehensive list of Iranian scientists and engineers that lived
  from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age.
  
  By "Iranian", all the peoples of historic Persia are meant, i.e. what is today Iran,
  Afghanistan, and all the countries of Central Asia ("common modern definition") that were
  historically part of the Persian empire. In some cases, their exact ancestry is unclear.
  They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but
  nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Iranian" and/or "Persian".

This seems to relate to ethnic identity, which has been established to be uncertain in F.'s case... Selfinformation 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for categories and for lists are often much looser than for other aspects of Wikipedia; in this case al-Farabi's inclusion seems justified by the sentence: "They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other 'Lists of...', but nevertheless [sic] their names and work are somehow linked to the words 'Iranian' and/or 'Persian'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Farabi's ethnicity according to Britannica

Muhammad ibn Tarhan ibn Uzlug el-Farabi, also known as Alpharabius or Avensar in medieval Latin texts, born 878 in Turkistan, died 950, one of the most brilliant and famed of Muslim philosophers; also know as the second teacher, (Aristotle being the first). He was of Turkish origin. Farabi’s father was in the Turkish bodyguard of the caliph, and his life was spent in Baghdad and Aleppo. Farabi, al: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980 edition, Vol.4, p.51.

Another source

Farabi was born in Vasic, a district of Oghuz Karacuk (Farab) city in Turkistan. He received his early education in Bukhara, Turkistan and continued the rest of his education in Baghdad. He led a simple Sufi life in Damascus when he died. He left many works in logic, metaphysics, morality and politics.

Farabi introduced philosophy to Islam, the newly acquired religion of Turks. He found Islam as a religion was of itself not sufficient for the needs of a philosopher. He saw human reason as superior to revelation. Religion provided truth in a symbolic form to non-philosophers, who were not able to apprehend it in more pure forms. The major part of Farabi’s writings was directed to the problem of the correct ordering of the state. He argued that just as God rules the universe, so should the philosopher, as the most perfect kind of man, rule the state; he thus relates the political upheavals of his time to the divorce of the philosopher from the government.

Philosophy in Farabi’s cultural environment faced many obstacles which did not occur in the time of Aristotle and Plato. As a Turkish philosopher, it is necessary to see Farabi’s originality and contributions within this context, as he tried to reconcile philosophy with Islam as a radical monotheistic religion. Farabi successfully utilized the mystic element as one of characteristics of Turkish-Islamic thought while he was resolving this problem. He made rational mysticism a characteristic in the Turkish religious perception and tried to reconcile religion and philosophy as two separate ways leading the truth.

One of Farabi’s views that has an important place in Turkish-Islamic thought is his perception of morality and politics. According to him, happiness is a purpose that everybody desires to have and it is “absolute good” due to its nature. Every action which leads human beings to this purpose and will make them happy is “good” and the action that prevents him from becoming so is “bad” and human beings have the potential to distinguish what is good and what is bad. Since wisdom can comprehend what is good and what is bad, human beings should have a balanced freedom in the field of morality.

Farabi has an irreplaceable place in Turkish-Islamic thought and Sufism, as opposed to Arabic-Islamic thinking, with an influence reaching over eleven hundred centuries.

Reference: “Philosophy among the Early Muslim States”, Prof.Dr. Hanifi Ozcan, The Turks, Vol.2, Yeni Turkiye Yayinlari, Istanbul, 2002.

A great article is here

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=473

Its clearly evident that he was ethnically a Turk, all reliable source's point towards this conclusion aswell as logical points, he was born in Turkestan, the slave guards were Turkic, his name is Tarkhan etc etc etc

I'll add it to the article.

Johnstevens5

There are more sources that call him Persian, some of which have already been listed on this page, but none are conclusive, as the article already states "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins". --ManiF 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

John, this article says, "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins", so why push one ethnic group over the other? (FYI, "Iranian" isn't an ethnic group, it's a nationality) —Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You can find a hundred sources saying he's Persian, I'll show you a hundred saying he's Turkic, now listen, its quality not quantity. The guy was evidently of Turkic heritage, born in Turkiston, his name, him being son of slave guards who at the time were Turkic.

Ultimately, he was a muslim scientist of Turkic heritage, simple.

--Johnstevens5 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

John....

Do you understand that "Iranian" is not an ethnic group? —Khoikhoi 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are not more sources that say he's Persian, that's absolutely utterly riduclous, please source these claims.

Tarkhan and Uzlug are Turkish names.

He was not Iranian, he was a Muslim Turk so cannot be included in "Persian scientists" or "Iranian Scientists" because its not accurate or correct.

Here read this

FARABI

bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.

He died in Damascus, whither he had gone with his patron. His works are very clear in style, though aphoristic rather than systematic in the treatment of subjects. Unfortunately the success of Avicenna seems to have led to the neglect of much of his work. In Europe his compendium of Aristotles Rhetoric was published at Venice, 1484. Two of his smaller works appear in Alpharabii opera omnia (Paris, 1638), and two are translated in F. A. SchmOlders Documenta philosophiae Arabum (Bonn, 1836). More recently Fr. Dieterici has published at Leiden:

Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).

For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.

der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm

Its pretty conclusive, Tarkhan Uzlug Farabi was a Turk, Britannica 1911 is very objective and uses scholorly sources.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Sources are needed to back up the claims that he was "Persian" and not born in Farab.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Farabi's origin according to the (authoritative) Iranica

• "... These present themselves as our most extensive and detailed sources though they date a good three centuries after Fa@ra@b^'s death. Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a's entry, which is the earlier one, consists of a collection and patching together of all the diverse pieces of information that were available to him in Syria at that time. It includes much legendary material, but Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a also quotes Fa@ra@b^ where he can. Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry, by contrast, is a response to that of Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a: the latter had mentioned at the beginning of his entry, and for the first time by any extant biographer, that Fa@ra@b^'s father was of Persian descent; Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry is completely animated by the effort to prove that Fa@ra@b^ was ethnically Turkish. To this end, Ebn K¨alleka@n first gave Fa@ra@b^ an additional nesba, one he never had, al-Tork^. Abu'l-Feda@÷, who copied Ebn K¨alleka@n, corrected this, and changed the word, al-Tork^ "the Turk," which reads like a nesba, to the descriptive statement, wa-ka@na rajolan tork^yan "he was a Turkish man" (Mokòtasáar II, p. 104). Second, at the end of his entry, Ebn K¨alleka@n spent considerable time giving the correct spelling and vocalization of all the names which he says are Turkish and are associated with Fa@ra@b^: the names of his alleged grand- and great-grandfather, T®arkòa@n and Awzalag@ (adding explicitly, wa-homa@ men asma@÷ al-tork, "these are Turkish names"), and the toponymics of his origins, Fa@ra@b, OtÂra@r, Bala@sag@u@n, and Ka@œg@ar (the information on the toponymics is derived from Sam¿a@n^, under the nesba al-Fa@ra@b^, though Sam¿a@n^ does not refer to the philosopher). In between, Ebn K¨alleka@n offers a continuous narrative of Fa@ra@b^'s life as reconstructed by him. ..." -Encyclopaedia Iranica: "Farabi"

As you can see, the claim that he was Turkish is actually the WEAKEST claim among all and was the work of an obvious "nationalist" who - like this johnstevens5 - invented and created false claims just to give his wrong vews some base.

It's funny that this guy has now suddenly discovered the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, because yesterday, he did not accept any information of the Britannica in regard of Ulugh Beg and his origin (Britannica calls him a "Persian scientist").

Tajik 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is not authoritative, its a student project, it is a joke compared to Britannica.

Here is the objective reality.

FARABI

bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.

Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).

For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.

der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm

Using "Iranica" makes you a Nationalist, if I was to use a Turkish Encyclopedia you woulnd't accept it and call it bias.

Its one rule for all, not one rule for some and another for others.

The theory that he was a Persian need's hard sources and references.

The reality is he was a Turk

Uzlug- Tarkhan are Turkish names.

He was born in a Turk area.

If you find this hard to swallow that's your problem.

--Johnstevens5 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How can the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a source for Wikipedia???

the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a credible source?It was first printed in 1931, a time when the Shah was obsessed with nationalism and proving the superiority of Persians, a period in which there was a huge anti-Turkism in Iran.

How can this be considered objective? how can it be allowed in Wikipedia? it should definately not be used as a source.

I'll remove it.

--Johnstevens5 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are extremists removing fully objective and reliable sources?

I am using a Britannica 1911 fully referrenced and accepted source to prove Tarkhan al-Farabi's origins but these are being removed by extermists who don't like it.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that it was written almost 100 years ago! John, not all historians agree that he was 100% Turkic. —Khoikhoi 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica "fully objective and reliable" ... if it were so—thus making it indisputably factually correct—the world would probably be an even scarier place than it already is.

There is no such thing as "fully objective", as complete objectivity is an impossibility; all there are is approximations in the direction of objectivity. —Saposcat 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well how can the "Dehkhoda Dictionary" written in 1930's Nationalist Iran be accepted as a source and not Britannica 1911??? Why not include the "Turkish Dictionary" entry regarding Uzlug Tarkhan Farabi which states he was a Turk and has historical referrences to prove it.

There is no reference or citation given for the story that he was a Persian, I try to give a source for his heritage of being a Turk and you try to delete it.

This isn't a Pan-Persian site, its meant to be objective and not supportive of certain theories just because someone happens to be of that ethnicity.

That's what I'm finding hard to understand, its one rule for some and another for others.

Why if you insist its not clear if he was a Turk or Persian do you allow him to be included in "Persian Scientists" while refusing him to be included in the "Turkic Scientists", this is a definate double standard.

--Johnstevens5 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dehkhoda Dictionary is reliable and verifiable source (I think Dehkhoda was Azeri or Turkic himself), and if you look closer there are half a dozen of other sources on this talk page that refer to Farabi as Persian, infact more sources call him Persian than Turkic. Regardless, both theories should be stated as per NPOV and that's what was in the article before you decided to unilaterally change the compromise-version of the article to suit your POV. --ManiF 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This Pan-Turkist "Johnstevens5" is the biggest hypocrite on Wikipedia. Here, he is crying about the "reliability of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911" while in fact he openly rejects, denies, and deletes the information of the Britannica whenever he dislikes the message! For example in the article Babur where he has deleted the information of the Britannica (current version) and Iranica (article by Mughal- and India expert F. Lehman) only because he does not like the message: [1] In the article Kizilbash, he deleted 2 entire sections that were fully based on the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, because he simply rejects the fact that there were also Kurds and Persians among the "Kizilbash" (whom he wrongly associates with "Turkish nationalists", such as the Gray Wolves): [2]. And in the article Ulugh Beg, he totally denies the information of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, because it states that Ulugh Beg was a "Persian scientist" and not a "Turkish scientist", as this pan-Turkist claims. The fact that he deletes entire sections of well-referenced articles, only because he does not like Persians, Iranians, or Shias should be totally enough to ban this freak from Wikipeda - at least for a few months! Tajik 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, it's you that must be banned. You're the greatest vandal i've ever seen in the histrory of Wikipedia. You've ruined nearly tens of topics in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to show up your Persian chauvinism.--85.100.33.205 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree ^^

Tajik attempts to cleanse anything possible of the word "Turk". He has been proven wrong time and time again with hard sources and fact's and many articles have been salvaged from this vandalism as a result. This can be seen in the Babur article, in Kizilbash, in Tamerlane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnstevens5 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Madhhab

What was his madhhab?--Striver 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian vs Iranian

Does anyone debating here understands the difference between Persian and Iranian? Doesn't seem so. Persian empire ran from West of India to South of former USSR to East of Saudi Arabia. A Persian can be 1-Iranian, 2-Iraqi, 3-Turk, 4-Afghan, 5-Uzbek, 6-Tajik, 7-Turkman, 8-Kazak, 9-Azeri, 10-Kirghez, 11-Chinese, 12-Bosnian, 13-Romanian, 14-Russian ... Does anybody know famous Persian poets Rumi, Iqbal, Ghalib, Amir Khusro ... from Turkey to India? None of them were Irani!!! They were not even Shia. Even Hafiz, Sadi, Jami etc were Sunnies. Sunni legends like Imam Abu Hanifa and Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilan were Persian speaking. Please cool down. Hassanfarooqi 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the terms Iranian (citizens of modern Iran) and Iranian/Iranic (belonging to the Iranic peoples). Besides that, "Iranian" is not a synonym for "Shia". And religion does not define ethnicity, not to mention that usually Sufis cannot be considered "Shia" or "Sunni" in any way in regard of the modern meanings of those terms. (One of the greaest poets of medieval Persia, Omar Khayyam, was a Sufi and is considered by many a Non-Muslim). Tājik 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing Iranians and Iranic people. True Iranic people Parsi do not live in Iran anymore. For past one thousand years they have been living in South Asia, mostly in Bombay, Karachi and other business cities. They practice Zoroastrianism. As for Sufi's not being Sunnies, they were always sunnies until fifty years ago the House of Saud (a group of desert raiders practicing Wahhabism) took over Hejaz and declared themselves Sunnies and the non-wahhabies as non-Sunnies. They have the oil power so the world listens, but the facts remains facts. Omar Khayyam is not the only person declared Kafir by Wahhabies, even big names like ibn-Arabi, ibn-Farid, ibn-Rushd, Bu Seeri etc have been declared Kafir by ibn Abdul Wahhab. What is new? Hassanfarooqi 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Parsi people are NOT the "true Iranic people" ... As I have already said: you are confusing the Persian people with Iranians and Iranic peoples (which also include Pashtuns, Kurds, etc).

As for Sunnis and Sufis: I won't jump into that one because it is not relevant here, but claiming that "Sunnis have always been Sufis" is most certainly wrong. In fact, in the course of history, orthodox Sunnis have been the greaest enemies of Sufism or any other liberal or un-orthodox movement within Islam. Mansūr-e Hallāj, for example, was not tortured and killed by Wahhabis, he was tortued and killed by the normal Sunni ulema. Ghazali - probably the first real Sunni Sufi - was the one who managed to bring these two groups closer to each other. I would also like to point out that Bektashi Sufis of Anatolia and Mesopotamia were among the main victims of the orthodox Ottoman Sunni Empire. The fusion of Bektashi Sufis with Safawī Kizilbash from Persian gave birth to the modern Alavi religion in Turkey.

Of course there were many Sufi mystics who - more or less - belonged to either the Shia or Sunni political branch ("Sunni" and "Shia" are names given to political groups, not religious ones - using "Sunni" or "Shia" synonymous with certain "Madhhabs" of Islam is a new and wrong interpretation), but in its essens, a "Sufi" is neither a Sunni, nor Shia, a Khwarijit, or whatever else.

Tājik 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strauss

Reading Leo Strauss's famous Persecution and the Art of Writing I'm wondering if any discussion of his 'esoteric' exigesis of Farabi should be included. Wilhelm Ritter 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This would probably explode into a series of acrimonious debates - look at how much time was wasted here over Farabi's ethnicity! Some bones of contention that would likely come up are:

• The status of the Falasifa as believing muslims - were they in fact the unbelievers (kafir) that Ghazali said they were?
• The status of Farabi's so-called 'Neoplatonism', especially in the light of his Philosophy of Plato.
• Perhaps most problematic, the mention of Strauss would undoubtedly bring along the culture wars that his legacy is currently embroiled in.

I know this is slightly ridiculous in that the most recent English language books on Farabi have come from 'Straussian' authors: i.e., Christopher A. Colmo and Joshua Parens - but there is no way getting around it. Perhaps a separate page on the Straussian Farabi that links to this page (and the Leo Strauss page) would be a decent compromise? Pomonomo2003 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

al-Farabi and the "theology of aristotle"

According to Deborah Black in an academic article written for the History of Islamic Philosophy (edited by Oliver Leaman and Hossein Nasr), al-Farabi did not treat the theology as an authentic Aristotelian text, and his preference on Neo-Platonic metaphysics is because of real philosophical considerations. Therefore, unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I suggest we remove the following section:

"Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher"

Alexander.Hainy 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Alexander.Hainy 11:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

al-Farabi's philosophy

I've started to add to the section on al-Farabi's philosophical thought, main priorities are his metaphysics/cosmology (done), psychology and practical/political philosophy. If anyone has any suggestions, any comments, please feel free to post them up!

Alexander.Hainy 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added two paragraphs on epistemology, more sources (and possibly more detail) will be added when I get home and have all my books with me. Next up is his theory of the soul and the afterlife! Alexander.Hainy 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on the soul and prophetic knowledge is complete. Everything in the philosophical thought section is referenced as well. Aiming to add sections on practical philosophy and the afterlife this afternoon. Alexander.Hainy 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Practical philosophy done for now, next task will be a small section on his contribution to logic. Does anyone have any other ideas? Alexander.Hainy 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Reason is superior to revelation" - citation needed.

I might be mistaken (and I usually am), but I thought al-Farabi considered philosophy and revelation two different ways of attaining the same truth; one based on the soul's faculty of reason, the other based on it's faculty of imagination.

If there is a good academic citation of this, could someone provide it? Otherwise I'm not sure if this sentence should be there! :-S

Alexander.Hainy 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence amended. Alexander.Hainy 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing compromise

If you read this talk page, you'll see that this page had been subject to many edit-wars over the ethnicity of Al-Farabi, which is why it was agreed to state both POV positions as a compromise, and that's what made the article stable. --Mardavich 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

I suggest we make a 5 sentence Persian and 5 sentence Turkic view. Since primary sources differ about his background and the earliest one has said Persian and another one has said Turkic. --alidoostzadeh 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight to the Persian sources, as overwhelming majority of verifiable sources, per Wikipedia policy, state Al Farabi was Turk. So while all points of view should be reflected, the Turk is paramount over others. Weiszman 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will place the Turkic version first, and remove then the unnecessary "no consensus to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins." unless its placed in the other section as well. Weiszman 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine put the no consensus on both sections. --alidoostzadeh 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe just place it before the two sections, on the last line - "Primary sources have described his ethnicity differently"? Weiszman 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--alidoostzadeh 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment addressed to Rayis: if you run any (verifiable) search on Google Books, JSTOR, etc., most academic sources will call him Turk. The word "most", as opposed to "many", is fully justified, and more precise. The two versions of ethnic origin are not equal - the Turkish one is preferred by majority, whilst the Persian (Tajik) one is shared by the minority. Weiszman 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the weight of the academic sources. Actually Encyclopedia of Islam as far as I know as well as Encyclopedia Iranica are two weighty academic sources. The part about writing most needs to be written from a scholar in the field and google book hits is not sufficient to determine this. For example random sources whose scholars are not necessarily experts in the field does not justify most. I actually believe majority of scholars are not sure. Some sources by the way have written Arabian philosopher which is of course not true. If you have a statement from a scholar that says:most then please put it in, but if not it is considered OR. Google hits/books does not necessarily equate to opinion of most scholars and of course scholars needs to be verified (relevant scholars to the field of Islamic philosophy?). Basing opinion on google hits/books can be considred OR. If something has a majority consensus then it requires a scholar in the field to equivalently state it as such. --alidoostzadeh 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the Encyclopedia of Islam article? It is not cited on the article itself at all, but questions of NPOV were raised in the Talk page about Encyclopaedia Iranica. Its article is written by Muhsin Mahdi, an Iranian, which makes it POV and unreliable. Also all its top editors are Iranian [3]: Yarshater, Ashtiany, Ashraf, Kasheff. Weiszman 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually being Iranian/non-Iranian does not make one unreliable. It has to do with academic credentials. If one is a Full professor in a Western university, then they are sure reliable regardless of their ethnic origin. Also iranica has many western editors and people on its board. Iranica and its authors are cited by mainstream academics. As per the Encyclopedia of Islam, it was written by non-Iranian and I'll cite it soon. There was another guy recently from the republic of Azerbaijan who made a claim about Iranica. But anyways note Nicholas Sim Williams is the top expert in Soghdian and he is on the editorial board. Back to the topic, if a scholar has said something about consensus, then sure put it in. Or else it would be considered OR. The Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam are the most up to date. --alidoostzadeh 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

actually being Iranian/non-Iranian does make one reliable and unreliable. Actually you sir are otherwise contradcting your own words on Amir Khosro page: "Sorry but the author of that article's is Turkish (his first name is Erdogan Mercill) and he is from Turkey. You need a neutral third party source." and "The policy does not allow for nationalistic writing. You need multiple neutral sources to verify a statement. The source by Erdogan Mercil is not neutral." It's clear that an Encyclopedia Iranica with its Iranian editors are partial. Having a few non-Iranians doesn't change much, since the editor in chief and all senior editors are Iranian, and they outnnumber Western editors in both rank and numbers. This is what another guy on the Talk page of Amir raised prevously. Per rest, please re-read Wikipedia policy, there is not a single word about "Full professor in a Western university" and other original thoughts you put forward. Weiszman 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia requires reliable authors as you may know. So I can ask for the credential of the source. Western universities are generally considered reliable by all editors where as Iranian, Turkey and etc. are not. That is general consensus between many editors here. And of course Full Professor at western university is much more reliable position than one in a near-eastern university. And actually the overwhelming majority of articles in Iranica are not written by Iranians. Its editorial board is mixed. The consulting editors are overwhelmingly non-Iranian. [4]. I can question someone from a Turkish university, but it is much harder to question Iranica. And note Iranica is not used here for Farabi's ethnicity and Iranica clearly states there is not enough information given the various contradictory sources. So I am not contradicting myself and I am not quoting an Iranian scholar (Muhsin Mahdi) who does not support any position. Anyways, if you have a statement from a scholar stating a consensus, please state it. Else it is OR. --alidoostzadeh 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

you must be confusing me with someone, as I dind't say there was a concensus, but that overwhelming majority of all reliable sources consider Farabi to be Turk. Hence the word 'most' as opposed to 'many', which some here opposed. The article from Iranica as all senior editors are Iranian, making it less reliable. The names and titles of other non-Iranian contributors are meaningless as they didn't have anything to do with the article or active editing of it. anyhow, what's important here is that majority of sources consider Farabi to be Turk, whilst a minority of sources, of them most being Iranian or citing Iranian sources, consider him Persian, Tajik. Weiszman 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats all OR. You need to bring statement of scholars about majority or minority or etc. You can't make statements on your own about overwhelming majority. You need a scholar to state such a claim. The oldest source on Farabi's ethnicity is actually an Arab source and claims he was Persian. As per Iranica it is quoted by many sources so it is reliable regardless of your opinion. I am not here to discuss Iranica. Rayis has a good point. If you find scholars saying:overwhelming majority then state it from that scholar. Else many is a good compromise although I can even say some given the fact that many scholars do not even state it and put muslim. --alidoostzadeh 23:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

sir I am not making any statements - I've suggested anyone go and verify with Google books or JSTOR or other approrpiate databases. when discussing ethnicity, Farabi was a Turk acording to overwhelming majority of those sources, and a Persian or Tajik according to a minority. Term "many" is not precise, and reflects an imprecise point of view. Weiszman 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making a statement not any scholar. Actually google books has more writers than just scholars. Scholars are people here relevant to the field of Islamic philosophy. And there could exists tons of scholars who are not right now in google books. So unless you have a statement from a scholar about majority or overwhelming.. then it is considered your own OR and not allowed by wikipedia. A scholar needs to read all sources and then decide majority, overwhelming, 90% and the other terms you use. But since you are not a scholar then you can't add such statements unless a scholar has mentioned 90%, overwhelming majority, minority and etc. --alidoostzadeh 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

actually, you are making OR, as you did not calculate whether Google books has more scholars or writers. Please cite your sources. Secondly, there is no requirement of "full professors" or scholars -- as long as its a reputable publishing house, a major source, and is verifiable, it satisfies the requirement. Please cite your objections using Wikipedia rules in case you think I misunderstood Wikipedia rules or missed an additional clause. Thanks. Weiszman 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not making a statement based on google books! You are. So I do not have to calculate anything except mention the fact that not all books in google books are scholarly books! Wikipedia rules forbids original research. So a statement about majority/minority needs to be reported from a verifiable scholar. Since you are not a scholar, then you need to quote a scholar about majority/minority having this viewpoint or that viewpoint. Or else it is OR. --alidoostzadeh 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica says he was Turk, as the #1 encyclopedia it is basing that only on the majority of sources. therefore the word 'most' over 'many' is appropriate. Weiszman 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are making OR again. Britannica does not say Majority or minority. Unless you have a source that says majority or minority, then you can't make your own intrepretations on britannica. Also Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islamic are more reliable than Britannica which does not even have an author right now. And based on those I can say majority do not know and etc. So unless you have a scholar of the field saying majority/minority, then you can not make OR based on your own intrepretation. You need a scholar expilicitly saying:majority believe this and a minority believe ... --alidoostzadeh 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is a primary academic source. It is superior to Britannica, which does not even have a general academic author. There is no need to have this discussion. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Americana, as well as primary academic articles published in academic papers or in special books are authoritative and sperior to any other source. This is not a quiton of quantity, it's a question of quality. Besides that, there are also other academic sources which state that he was not a Turk, for example here.

As correctly mentioned in Iranica, everything we know about Farabi was written 300 years after his death (!!!). And among these vague sources, Ibn Khallikan's is one of the most unreliable, because it is a known fact that he even invented and falsified facts (for example by inventing the nisba "al-Tork" - a nisba al-Farabi never had). He is the first (and the only) one who actually gives names of Farabis alleged ancestors, of course giving them Turkish names. His biography of Farabi was a respone to Ibn Abi Osaybe'a, and it has only one purpose: to declare Farabi a Turk, no matter how. For some unkown reason, his biography has become popular, and that's why many modern biographers of Farabi base their works on Ibn Khallekan's stories.

Taking these weak sources aside, it is very unlikely that in the 9th century a Turk would have become scientist. There were no Turkic scholars at that time, and the first who may be regarded as a Turkic scientist was Mahmud of Kashgar who lived 200 years after Farabi.

I suggest to explain in the article that there is really no consensus in this regard, and that ALL sources about Farabi were written at least 300 years after his death. The oldest known source calls him a Persian, another source - a response to the first source - has only one aim: to declare him Turkish. All other sources, classical and modern, are derived from these two oldest sources. Tājik 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

this is original research. Also, there is no requirement for a specific, single, identifiable author to sign all articles in an encyclopedia or edited collective work. Neither does Wikipedia have such a rule. Britannica is preferred to Iranica in every aspect of non-bias, independent third party stance. it's enough to compare respective editorial boards. Iranica is not a primary academic source - Britannica is. An interesting article on famous Tajiks is here. Most manuscripts that are at modern disposal are from 12 century and later. But this was not the case in 700 years ago, when they had access to older, sometimes original MSS. This's a common problem for most famous individuals of the era. Weiszman 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Iranica is superior. It is written by scholars and specialists in the field and is affiliated with Columbia university. As per producing nationalist history, that is the problem with all muslim USSR countries. Either way you can not make intrepretations and you need a direct statement about majority/minority from a primary source.--alidoostzadeh 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is obviously written by scholars and specialists too, all major articles are signed. They've been around far longer than Iranica, and have a better reputation, untainted by clear bias towards one particular side. They of course make mistakes, hundreds of them according to Nature magazine, yet they are independent. by the way, [http://books.google.com/books?id=U7sMAAAAIAAJ&vid=0XCJA7tZBwBnceQQ8W&dq=persian+turk+farabi&q=definitely+conjecture&pgis=1#search Soheil Muhsin Afnan Published 1964, E.J. Brill, p. 43] says "How much Persian he knew is a matter of pure conjecture". Weiszman 07:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranica seems bias for political oriented people, but that is neither my or wikipedia's problem. As long Iranica has received extremly well reviews by scholars and the scholars quoted are cited by other scholars, that all that counts. And amongst scholars (not ideologists) Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam is superior to Britannica. Also you need to quote the rest of that sentence to see what that author thinks on how much persian Farabi knew. And this other work says mixed descent: [5]. We know unlike Soghdian, Greek, Persian,.. Farabi has not used any Turkish glosses. Also some of your source say: He appears to have been born in a military family of Turkish origin[6].. Appears is not same as assertion which shows even the author is not sure. --alidoostzadeh 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity section copied from the article

Origin

There exist a difference of opinion on the ethnic background of Farabi. According to D. Gutas: Ultimately pointless as the quest for Farabi’s ethnic origins might be, the fact remains that we do not have sufficient evidence to decide the matter.

My comment:

• The second source is not directly related to the statement. Sole Soul (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Response, it does says:"In the same way, the grandfather of Farabi, the famous scholar who is claimed to be both Turkish and Iranian, was called Tarkhan". Also provides valuable etymology. It is also a Turkish author that in my opinion is neutral in the sense that he states both theories.--RustamDastani (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is multiple sources that can back the difference, Britannica is one example. You can add the sentence ""In the same way, the grandfather ..." to the article. To avoid OR we should avoid any interpretations. Sole Soul (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I added 2 refs instead. Sole Soul (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that source is good nevertheless and shows a difference of opinion. If you read it carefully: "the famous scholar who is claimed to be both Turkish and Iranian". It is not speculating about his grandfather. Rather about Farabi, but mentions his grandfather had such a surname. --RustamDastani (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Iranic origin

Medieval Arab historian Ibn Abī Uṣaibiʿa (died in 1269), mentions in his ʿOyūn (final rescension in 1268) that al-Farabi's father was of Persian descent. Al-Shahrazūrī who lived around 1288 A.D. and has written an early biography also has stated that Farabi hailed from a Persian family. Additionally, Farabi has in a number of his works references and glosses in Persian and Sogdian(and even Greek but no Turkish),. Sogdian has been mentioned as his native language and the language of the inhabitants of Farab pointing to an Iranian-speaking Central Asian origin.. A Persian origin is also discussed by Peter J. King and other soruces as well as in a comprehensive source on Islamic Philosophy written in Arabic by the Egyptian scholar Prof. Hanna Fakhuri.

In this regard, Oxford professor C.E. Bosworth notes that "great figures [such] as al-Farabi, al-Biruni, and ibn Sina have been attached by over enthusiastic Turkish scholars to their race".. D. Gutas has criticized Ibn Khallekān's statement, as it is only aimed to ridicule the earlier reports of Ibn Abī Uṣaibiʿa, and seems to have the purpose to document a Turkish origin for Farabi. In this context, he mentions that Ibn Khallekan was also the first to use the additional nisba (surname) "al-Turk" - a nisba Farabi never had.

Comments:

• "and the language of the inhabitants of Farab"

There is an omission, as the source says "Soghdian or maybe a Turkish dialect"

Response. It says: "Islamic world of that time, an area whose inhabitants must have spoken Soghdian or maybe a Turkish dialect". I think the must have is the strong statement. As a compromise, we can put an "an". But we should add the rest of the sentence in the reference or put the maybe in the other section. However must have mean certainty while maybe does not. --RustamDastani (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The criticism to to these primary sources is not emphasized as mentioned by Gutas.
• Only the criticism to Ibn Khallekan is mentioned, although Gutas criticized other sources. On Ibn Abī Oṣaybeʿa he said it "includes much legendary material" Sole Soul (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment, criticism of D. Gutas with regards to other sources should be mentioned in other places of the article as well. But he specifically criticizes Ibn Khalikan and states: "with the purpose of documenting a Turkish ethnic origin for Fārābī". So I agree, we should mention that both Ibn Khalikan and Ibn Abi Osaybea contain much legends (in the biography section when discussing the 12th/13th century sources). With regards to Ibn Khalikan he criticized for origin specifically. However, this we should mention after : "When major Arabic biographers decided to write comprehensive entries on Farabi in the 6th-7th/12th-13th centuries, there was very little specific information on hand; this allowed for their acceptance of invented stories about his life which range from benign extrapolation on the basis of some known details to tendentious reconstructions and legends" the sources (Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi OSaybe and etc.) contain much legends. --RustamDastani (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment 2: "It includes much legendary material, but Ebn Abī Oṣaybeʿa also quotes Fārābī where he can. Ebn Ḵallekān’s entry, by contrast, is a response to that of Ebn Abī Oṣaybeʿa: the latter had mentioned at the beginning of his entry, and for the first time by any extant biographer, that Fārābī’s father was of Persian descent; Ebn Ḵallekān’s entry is completely animated by the effort to prove that Fārābī was ethnically Turkish." I think we should mention that "for the first time by an extant biographer" --RustamDastani (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Sogdian has been mentioned as his native language[8] and the language of the inhabitants of Farab[9] pointing to an Iranian-speaking Central Asian origin".[10]

Cherry-picking: from source 8 that his native language is Sogdian (and leaving "Turkic dialect"

Source no. 10 has no info about publisher. The article only exists in Archive.org and Google documents. Any user can upload anything to both of these sites. I did not find anything about the author even in google web search. Sole Soul (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• On Hanna Fakhuri. He did not endorse any ethnicity, he said : Ibn Abi Osayea narrated that his father was a Persian who married a Turkish woman." He also said that his city was Farab and he knew the Turkish language among others. Sole Soul (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response: 1) On Hanna Fakhuri that is a specific Arabic source. Do you have it or have you seen it? While you are at it, do you know why Muhsin Mahdi has claimed? This article is referenced a lot: "M. Mahdi, “Al-Fārābī,” in C. C. Gillispie, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography IV, New York, 1971, pp. 523-26". He was also a Harvard university professor and Iraqi in origin.

Yes I have it and I think he is may be mistaken to state that Ibn Abi Osayea said his father married a Turkish woman because I looked at Ibn Abi Osayea book and did not find it. I do not understand your other question, which article? Sole Soul (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2) On the Soghdian, there is no cherry picking since you can the same information to Turkic section. Also leaving out "Soghdian" as a Turkic dialect is correct. Soghdian is not a Turkic dialect. You can add Turkic dialect from the same source (without mentinoing Soghdian) in the other section. Also the other source you removed is a near complete translation of an article by the Iranian scholar mohammad javad mashkur (who is RS)(you can google book him under mashkoor or mashkur) with some additional commentary and that author wrote in Persian. Since Mashkur wrote in Persian, that article has the English version of some of his arguments. It could be a translation. I do not see any harm in having there.

However, there are two ways around this. We can: A) remove that whole sentence B) keep it. I do not see any harm in keeping these. But I do not see cherry picking but only a mistake by Paren in calling Soghdian a Turkic dialect. The fact is Farabi did have Soghdian words in his work, but Paren has made a mistake in calling a Turkic dialect. This is a hard situation, but a compromise would be to keep the sentence and use the same sources in the Turkic section that say "Turkic dialect" (without mentioning Soghdian) and the inhabitants "maybe spoke Turkish". This would be better usage of the sources than throwing it out. Also on the arguments of J. Mashkur which was translated in that archive source, I really do not see any harm in keeping it (since I believe Mashkur is RS). --RustamDastani (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is cherry picking, but I can live with your change. Sole Soul (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• As I said in the edit summary Gutas sourced in the article from 2 different works. It is a possibility that a reader would assume that he is quoted from the same source. You don't think that a website is a RS, and I think Iranica is partisan. I don't think saying Britannica is biased in certain areas is a conspiracy theory, much less Iranica. Plus, Iranica is the most cited reference in the origin section. Sole Soul (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay fine. Aas I said, the stuff about Soghdian (the same sources) can be used in the other section. So that is fine in my opinion. On Iranica, ultimately you would be saying D. Gutas is biased. The editor E. Yarshater has absolutely no experience in Islamic philosophy and he didn't write any of that section. At most he would be checking for spelling. But the Cambridge Arabic history does reference Iranica article as others [7]. For me, I have not seen a more detailed article than that of D. Gutas in Iranica. Maybe the article by Muhsin Mahdi could be it. Britannica seems to have no author. They can change their mind anytime. For example in 2009 they had Farabi as a Turkic scholar and now they say they do not know. Brittannica is not really a good source as no one knows who the author and editors for the article are. Anyhow, I am satisfied with the section and I kept your according to Encyclopedia Iranica. I think D. Gutas has shown three things that prove his point 1) the nisba. 2) the clothing "Turkish clothing" according to Ibn khalian as if someone 300 years later can figure out what clothes Farabi wore. 3) the attempt at trying to find etymology for some names.. I hope someone else expands the other section. --RustamDastani (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The most important factor in determining a RS in Wikipedia is the publisher. That's why self-published works is generally unacceptable. The role of Iranica, its editors or any other effect is just speculations. Sole Soul (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. However, in my opinion there is no need to mention the source (as the user can click on it). However it is fine if you insist here. I hope someone improves the other section as well. But I am glad some work was done mutually to satisfy all parties currently involved. --RustamDastani (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Turkic origin

Al-Farabi's imagined face appeared on the currency of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The oldest known reference to a possible Turkic origin is given by the medieval historian Ibn Khallekān (died in 1282), who in his work Wafayāt (completed in 669/1271) claimed that Farabi was born in the small village of Wasij near Farab (in what is today Otrar, Kazakhstan) of Turkic parents, and in the following decades and centuries. Other sources including the Oxford companion to philosophy have mentioned a Turkic origin.

Comment:

• Either we add "claimed" to all primary sources or remove it from them all. Sole Soul (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment: "Henrietta Moore", "Gulnara A. Bakieva", "Bassam Tibi", are not about philosophy or history. Qualifications of authors are unknown for most of the sources. Although they might meed WP:RS, it is good to carefully prune the sources for the top quality ones. --RustamDastani (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

removed. Sole Soul (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But food for thought, do you think ""Henrietta Moore"[8] has studied Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi Osaybea, Al-Shahrazūrī, Farab, Otrar, Arabic and etc.? How many of these authors have really delved in the issue? Of course these sources meet WP:RS in wikipedia.--RustamDastani (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My believe is that nobody really know, so I have my issues with the so called "specialists" also, but we can only apply Wikipedia rules here. Sole Soul (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A great quote from the Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy: "These biographical facts are paltry in the extreme but we must resist the urge to embellish them with fanciful stories, as the medieval biographers did, or engage in idle speculation about al-Farabi’s ethnicity or religious affiliation on the basis of contrived interpretations of his works, as many modern scholars have done." Sole Soul (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be added and I have added it. Thanks. --RustamDastani (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography expanded

I have added many biographical items to the article as well. Specially his stay in Baghdad, Damascus and Egypt.--RustamDastani (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

These were from the certain details of his biography. There should also be a section on legendary biography as detailed by scholars like D. Gutas. For example Ibn Khalikan's claim that: "Later on, in his story about Fārābī at the court of Sayf-al-Dawla (see further below), he has Fārābī say that he knew more than seventy languages." --RustamDastani (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a section on his legendary biography? --RustamDastani (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A thought

As you know Rustam, my first choice is a brief ethnicity section.

The factors that explains why a RS say he was Turkish, Persian or unknown are many, some of the them:

• Which primary source is used.
• His home city: Farab or Faryab.
• Any pro-Turkish or pro-Persian agenda some old or modern historians may have.

I can expand the Turkish section to make it like the Persian section by listing encyclopedias that said he was Turkish and the sources that said he was from Farab and at least one source which talk about pro-Persian bias.

I can, but I did not because that makes me part of the problem of ethnicity in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, expanding the Turkish section is the lesser evil than a completely unbalanced article. I may conduct RFC to ask for consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response (please read carefully up to point 4 and feel free to read the rest): 1) Mentioning which primary source is used is important. That is why Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi OSaybea were brought. So not problem with your point one.

2) His home city has no bearing it, since: a) A good amount of the sources say he was a Persian/Iranian from Central Asia (starting with Ibn Osaybea and also 2ery sources). b) No author has said: "If Farabi was born in Farab, then he must have been Turkish". And no author has said: "If he was Persian, then he was not born in Farab". One cannot take a one line website article which does not make such a statement and make such an extrapolation(WP:OR), since that one line does not exhaust all the possibilities (which are mentioned in the Iranica article in details and again there is no exclusions) nor does it make statement if A was born in Farab, then he must have been Turkish. The third option: Being born in Farab and probably Persian is mentioned by other sources (Iranica) and there is no source that states: Farabi was born in Farab, then he is not Persian. Another fourth option is being born in Faryab in Khorasan and being Turkish. Another fifth option is migration of his parents to Farab [9] who were Persian..and etc. A sixth option is to note that some sources uses Faryab for the Central Asia and Farab for Khorasan [10](Cambridge Compantion: "His familial origins are recorded as alternately in Farab, Khurasan or Faryab, Turkistan"). So simply, you cannot make any WP:OR.

Plus as you can see, I did not bring the fact that Parab/Paryab are Persian words into the Persian section. Obviously, it makes logical sense that if an area originally had a Persian name, then it was not Turkish speaking. That is exactly why Farab became Otrar (Turkish word) when the area was Turkified. This is mentioned by J. Mashkur that the area was Turkified later and its Persian name was changed to Turkish name, but I did not bring it to the section.

3) There is no source that uses the term "agenda". But if there is an agenda or bias that some old or modern historians may have, it must be exclusively restricted to Farabi in the sentence you are quoting and must not be a WP:fringe statement (author admitting that he is going against the "usual"). Else it is WP:synthesis, since one can find modern historians from any country with agenda or bias.

4) Listing the sources that say he was Turkish does not bother me. Any scholar looking for these sources will usually see one line and ultimately it goes back to Ibn Khalikan. I think the D. Gutas article covers it fairly well in detail and that is what a scholar would look at.

Now about things I did not mention:

5) I have made that section as brief as possible. For example, if I wanted to do extrapolation:

Note also I did not mention many things like: "C.E. Bosworth, "The Appearance of the Arabs in Central Asia under the Umayyads and the establishment of Islam", in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by M. S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1998. excerpt from page 23: "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically, still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian languages."

Which fits fell with Soghdian theory.

Or the fact that Ibn Sina, Farabi's best student says: "Since some men have to serve others, such people must be forced to serve the people of the just city. The same applies to people not very capable of acquiring virtue. For these are slaves by nature as, for example, the Turks and Zinjis and in general those who do not grow up in noble climes where the condition for the most part are such that nations of good temperament, innate intelligence and sound minds thrive”(Chris Brown, Terry Nardin, Nicholas J. Rengger, “International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War”, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2002, pg 156-157).". Note according to J. Mashkur, the "just city" (Arabic Midanat al-Fadila) is a term Ibn Sina took directly from Farabi and he would not make such a statement knowing that Ibn Sina was from Central Asia and was the person tha expanded on Farabi's work and probably had the best familiarity with his background (they were one generation apart or so) and had Farabi been a Turk, Ibn Sina who was a closest student would not make such a statement. Now how could Avicenna who was his biggest student make such a statement about Farabi lacking "good temperament, innate intelligence and sound mind"?

Or the fact that Farabi is the earliest example of someone using Soghdian (Iranian alphabet) in Arabic alaphabets and devising letters for sounds in Soghdian that do not exist in Arabic, Persian or Turkish.

So as you can see, there was much more other stuff I can write. However, feel free to expand the Turkish section (about the same length since as you can see there are more), but keep in mind points 1,2,3. Also I do not see anything evil here. I think it is great that classical sources are mentioned.--RustamDastani (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not arguing whether he was Turkish or Persian. I talked in good faith but clearly that is not working . I will stop these discussions. Sole Soul (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith although I do think your criticsm of D. Gutas is a slightly off. I just wanted to mention 1,2,3 and say that there are other arguments. I just basically summarized the Iranian origin section. You can do the same for the Turkish origin section if you wish, but please remember points 1,2,3 above which I mentioned some wikipedia rules about possible WP:OR (extrapolation from a sentence) and WP:synthesis. Thanks. --RustamDastani (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, if I add anything I will use near the exact words as the RS, not more. Sole Soul (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There were other arguments I did not mention , so that the main issue can be about Farabi and his works rather than the silly back and forth. However it is good to have this summary since classical sources differ. Since the issue is inconsequential as far as his work (except possibly his work on music). I have no problem with putting a similar size paragraph in the other section. I just had a problem with extrapolation(WP:OR (point 2)) or synthesis (point 3). --RustamDastani (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So I looked up the list of Turkish scholars/scientists and came up with 1-2 names from middle ages and even those like taqi muhammad ibn ma'ruf is contested between arabs and turks...all the rest are from contemporary times...when will you turks acknowledge that your history is not founded on the pen but the sword —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

observation

So I looked up wikipedia's list of Turkish scholars/scientists and came up with 1-2 names from middle ages and even those like taqi muhammad ibn ma'ruf is contested between arabs and turks because of the ambiguities surrounding their nationalities...all the rest are from contemporary times...when will the turks acknowledge that their history doesn't start with the pen but the sword..

Next time do us a favor, keep your "observation" to yourself, would you?Torebay (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Torebay, dont worry about him, he is a loser with no history .he is jelous becuase his country is fake. dont feed losers

Is it really fake? Or is this Turkish UNESCO site claiming Ibn Sina was a Turk FAKE?

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/mow/nomination_forms/turkey_works_ibn_sina_suleymaniye_manuscript_library.pdf 'Though there is no dispute about where Ibn Sina was born or died, his origin is open to discussion. Yet according to his own words in his famous “Al-Qanun Fi’l Tıbb” (Vol:2) it will not be a far-fetched assumption to accept him as a Turk. Ibn Sina, the eminent scientist, philosopher, pharmacologist, theorist, poet and successful politician of Turkish origin is mostly known as a clinician under his Latin name “Avicenna”.' BY Prof. Dr. Berin U. YURDADOĞ Prof.Dr. Nilüfer TUNCER Prof.Dr. İrfan ÇAKIN

LOL...please find me an Iranian cultural website claiming another country's heritage figure. Iranian scholars have integrity and therefore don't sacrifice their academic honesty and integrity for cheap national-political ends. Besides, the list of Persian scholars, scientists, and poets is too long for them to try to steal or claim others as their own. And when will the TURKS admit to the Armenian genocide? Folks are still in denial

A simple question

Can I ask a simple question? Is there ANY evidence at all that al Farabi was a Muslim. The evidence suggests that his beliefs were strongly Neo-Platonist with a significant leaning to Aristotelian modifications of Platonism. What evidence is there that he had any Muslim beliefs on top of all that. I welcome enlightenment on this point, but please, quotations from his texts only. I don't need religious rants, just facts. Apart from being born into a Muslim culture, was he himself a Muslim? Eluard (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Al-Farabi was a SUNNI, not a Shia

Al-Farabi was clearly a Sunni, as this is a historical fact, and evident throughout his works. Please change this misleading information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than go through all the sources, can you point out two or three that are cited in the article that support the claim? —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article contains a fallacious fabrication. Al-Farabi is a well known Sunni. He did not belong to the "twelver" maddhab! This is a lie [11] [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.3.15 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. The link provided is to the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which states its "objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought." They claim he's Sunni. By contrast, the History of Islamic Philosophy claims he's Shi'a, per the citations made in the article. That work isn't online, so I can't readily validate it. However, it seems we have two contradicting sources here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only scholarly sources I can find that mention this, all come down on the side of al-Fārābī being a Shīʿite:

• Netton, Ian Richard (1992). Al-Fārābī and his School. Richmond: Curzon. p. 4. ISBN 0-7007-1064-7.
• Najjar, Fauzi M. (1961). "Fārābī's Political Philosophy and Shī'ism". Studia Islamica (14): 57–72 [62]. ISSN 0585-5292.

I will edit the article accordingly.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On a more thorough check, I was patently too quick here. The scholarly opinion is divided between his being Shīʿite and the contrary position that he probably wasn't (but without suggesting that he was a Sunni either).

• A good range of references are given in Crone, Patricia (2005). Medieval Islamic Political Thought. Edinburgh University Press. p. 182 n79. ISBN 9780748621941.
• An extensive discussion (contra Walzer in particular) is given in section 4 of Mahdi, Muhsin (December 1990). "Review: Al-Fārābī's Imperfect State". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 110 (4): 691–726. ISSN 0003-0279.

I still cannot find any evidence in the literature for his being Sunni apart from the one comment in www.al-islam.org, but I have no idea of the reliability of that source. For the moment, I've changed the article back to the neutral Muslim, as per an earlier edit. He is still listed in various places here as Shīʿite, which should be sorted out too at some point.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion v. Nationality

Many here need the reminder that there is a difference between religious affiliation and nationality, therefore debates ought to be separate. In this case Al-Farabi was a Persian Muslim, just as President Kennedy was an Irish-American Catholic. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

you do not have any sources to prove that he was persian, please stop copy pasting every turkic hero,writer or artist . i know that iranians are not very famous in the west but stealing other peoples history should be a shameful action. please stop showing turkic people as iranian or persian. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.202.185 (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Block

Can someone ban or block the user who posted 'Persian's Historical Theft' (user: 217.146.218.193 )

He seems to be making changes to Persian/Iranian related articles, and after reading his rant [REMOVED ethnic slur]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk • contribs) 23:20, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? Do you know what a "glass house" is? How about not answering an unruly disruptor with cheap shots. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

how about we block all iranian vandals who try to steal turkic peoples history. even some of you tried to change ottoman empire to an iranian empire on wikipedia! only vandals do this kind of things .please try to be more mature instead of changing everyting turkic to iranian .its getting old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.202.185 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Fârâbî

in Turkish Böri (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Transoxiana

The article itself says Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan although the infobox for some reason only says Turkmenistan. When were these the same place? And the source I saw, Henry Corbin, [13] says "Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Uzalagh al-Farabi was born at Wasij, near Farab in Transoxiana". If the sources disagree, we must make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree that perhaps both Turkmenistan (from the BEA) and Kazakhstan (assuming we're sure about it) should be mentioned. I have also seen "Turkish Transoxiana"[14] being linked to Farabi, and "Turkistan" mentioned in some of the early biographical dictionaries (like Ẓahīr al-dīn al-Bayhaqī's Tatimmat ṣiwān al-ḥikma). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The terms Turkmenistan, Kazakhistan, Uzbekistan and so on were created in 1924 and have no historical value, so they are anachronism terms and could not be used here.--93.56.179.136 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkmenistan was used by the cited source. In any case, I have opted to use the version used by Bayhaqi (Turkestan) and Ibn Nadim (Faryab in Khorasan). Incidentally, at least in the version of his book found on-line, Ibn Nadim does not mention anything about his Persian ancestry (contrary to what this article claims). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The most academically-accepted terminology for the region at the time, is Persia or Transoxiana if you want to be precise. Modern borders and region names are irrelevant. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the wording of reliable sources (most of which agree that he was born in predominantly Turkish regions, regardless of his ethnicity) should be preferred. Also, the primary/secondary sources do not just say Transoxiana/Khorasan, but actually give more details and name places, like Turkestan. The secondary sources also use these more precise terms. We should be more precise and try to reflect the wording/tone used in the cited sources. There is no point in trying to hide that information. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet, just leave it the birthplace as Farab without any other labels, either linking it to [Farab]] or the section that discusses the dispute about where he was actually born, which Farab that is, in order to avoid similar silly disputes. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It still seems there is disagreement in the sources used. Precise terms or otherwise. Which brings things back to Dougweller's comment at the top of this section. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurdo, the only sources we have, and they were well-cited here, are Bayhaqi (Farab, Turkestan) and Ibn Nadim (Faryab, Khorasan). So which primary source mentioned that he was born in Farab, Iran? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Nadim and Persian ancestry

Wiqi55 has placed two n-line dubious tags in front of two quoted verifiable statements supported by academic secondary sources, requesting a quote from the primary source in another language, that the academic secondary sources are quoting.[15][16] This is an outright abuse of dubious tags, as our job as Wikipedias, is not to question secondary sources and request quotes from primary sources instead. This is also borderline WP:OR, as secondary sources are more acceptable in Wikipedia than primary sources anyways, and in this case we have a verifiable quote from a secondary source, being questioned by Wiqi55, based on his own original research. Wiqi55 is in no position to question the research of an academic, and a reliable secondary source and claim that he "didn't find the quote" in the primary source, as if his findings/research or lack thereof, have any bearing on the verifiability or the reliability of the secondary source. This is not how Wikipedia works and that's not what the dubious tag is intended for. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Examining primary sources in a descriptive manner is not considered original research (see WP:PRIMARY). I'm aware that some reliable sources sometimes make mistakes. I'm not sure whether that is true or not in this case, but I thought the issue needs to be discussed. This will eventually help us to determine whether such sources are reliable/specialist or not. If you can find the quote in question, please post it. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted these as an inappropriate use of the tags. I've been this before, an editor saying that we have to verify what appear to be reliable sources before we can use them. Wiqi, take these to WP:RSN and see if people agree with you there. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The RSN is not useful here as this is about a claim made by a source, not necessarily the source itself. The documentation of {{Dubious}} explains why adding this template was appropriate. Start reading from "The purposes of this template are ..." Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 07:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Iranica is a reliable source. Unless you have consensus here that these sources are not reliable, you'll need to appeal elsewhere. This is an RSN issue, what else could it be? Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim under discussion is not made by Iranica. It is cited here based on a book published by "I.B. Tauris in association with The Institute of Ismaili Studies". Doesn't seem very reliable to me. But I'm not questioning the source, as other sources (primary or secondary) might have made the same claim. This is exactly why we have {{Dubious}}, to ask for more sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The first template you added to a statement that you yourself added, "Ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist, and" - I don't understand why you added that and then added a template, but in any case I've reverted it as it would need a source. I'll get back to the other one in a minute but first I want to fix something else that got messed up a while back. Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't need fixing after all. Sorry about my confusion over Iranica. I.B. Tauris looks like a reliable publisher and Institute of Ismaili Studies seems to be a reliable institution from looking at the article and the relationships of the Institute. So I can see no reason not to believe that the book meets our criteria as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me who added that sentence. Regardless of the quality of the source, the claim is still an exceptional claim, not even mentioned in the Iranica article which had an extensive discussion of his ethnicity (and Ibn al-Nadim is more famous than some the names discussed by Iranica). Exceptional claims should be discussed and sourced properly. I'm not sure why do you find that objectionable. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks very much as though you did add it, see [17]. I still think this is a matter for RSN, you are arguing that it is not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was undoing a blanket revert. The intermediate diff that added that sentence can be found here [18]. Also, the documentation of {{Dubious}} is clear and inline with my usage (i.e., asking for more sources). Otherwise, why do you think we have the {{Dubious}} template? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, Wikiblame just showed you adding it. I will say that I think a lot of editors don't agree with the essay you cited, WP:DRNC, which is probably why it never became a guideline. As for the template, it's one of those that has seemed pretty pointless to me unless used on an inactive article with an inactive talk page by someone who is pretty sure it needs work but doesn't have the time or whatever to do it. In this case it's served any purpose it might have here, warned/alerted editors, and it is now time to take it to RSN if you don't think it's accurate or a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at the other sources we have here and none of them mention the Persian claim made by Ibn al-Nadim (although I'm not done yet). If no other source supports this claim and other editors are not willing to concede that it was just an error, then I'd guess we will eventually end up at the RSN. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkic vs Turkish

Our sources say Turkish, thus the article needs to say Turkish. Our article on Turkic peoples says "The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Turkish, Azerbaijani, Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Nogais and as well as past civilizations such as the Kumans, Kipchaks, Avars, Bulgars, Turgeshes, Seljuks, Khazars, Ottoman Turks, Mamluks, Timurids, and possibly the Xiongnu and Huns", and that is not what our sources are suggesting, they are specifically saying Turkish. I don't understand why editors use a word not used in our sources although this appears on the fact of it to be some sort of nationalist thing to avoid using the word Turkish. It may not be that but that is what it looks like to an outsider. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for noticing this. Even in other matters it seems that the Turkish section misrepresents what the sources are saying. For instance, Bosworth was writing about modern Turkish nationalists, not Ibn Khallikan. And Gutas nowhere criticized Ibn Khallikan, he merely noted that Ibn Khallikan intended to refute the claim that Farabi was Persian -- that is not a criticism. The section also misses the views of Abu al-Fida'. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Gutas is saying Ibn Khallikan was keen on proving "a Turkish ethnic origin" and to "this end", he mde a fabrication, changing the name/title "Al-Turki" to a descriptive statement "he was a Turk". Gutas calls Ibn Khallikan's work " completely animated by the effort to prove that Fārābī was ethnically Turkish". If that's not criticism, I'm not sure what is. So there is no misinterpretation here. Pease don't change the wording without a clear WP:CON here first. Kurdo777 (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why you changed 'Turkish' to 'Turkic' - it doesn't appear that the sources use the word Turkic, and you don't seem to have consensus for that change in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, are you addressing me? I did not change "Turkish" to "Turkic", I kept all your changes. So I'm not sure what you mean. I'm actually all for getting consensus for such contested changes. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

First, do you have any secondary sources which claim that Gutas (and "others", as the current paragraph claims) "criticized" Ibn Khallikan? If you don't, then there is no point in imposing your own original research on what Gutas has said. Instead, we should try to report the views of Gutas without using loaded words, like "criticized", and let the readers decide whether it was a criticism or not. Second, you claim that Gutas was one of "others" who also criticized Ibn Khallikan. You'll need to cite sources for those "others", otherwise it is just Gutas. Third, you have also removed the views of Ibn al-Fida' without giving any reason for doing so. Fourth, Bosworth was talking about modern Turkish nationalists. This meaning is not being made clear in a paragraph about historical reports. Should I go ahead and make these changes? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kurdo, thanks for your post to my talk page, but you did change 'Turkish' to 'Turkic' with phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Farabi&action=historysubmit&diff=457968841&oldid=457934109 this edit]. Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see that now. That appears to have an error, as a result of copy/paste job gone wrong. Otherwise, not only I did not intent to change Turkish to Turkic, I actually tried to save those Turkic-oo-Turkish changes you had made, and I did do that for both the headers and two other usages in the same paragraph, but I accidentally missed this one. Sorry about that. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, these things happen, I just couldn't figure out why at the time because there were no other similar changes. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

hes persian

most historians agree that he is persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.244.61 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Farabi's Persian origin

"Ibn Nadim in his al-fihrist, which is the first work to mention Frabi considers him to be of Persian origin, as does Muhammad Shahrazuri in his Ta'rikh al-hukama and Ibn Abi Usaybi'ah in his Tabaqat al-atibba. In contrast, Ibn Khallikan in his Wafayat al-a yan considers him to be of Turkish descent." p.134

S.H.Nasr (2008) An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia vol 1: from zoroaster to umar khayyam New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Al-Farabi's was of Turkic origin

Everyone knows that al-Farabi's origin is Turkic

Clearly not, otherwise why would you need to make the point that he is Turkic?

in the book ārā ahl al-madīna al-fāḍila ("al-Farabi on the Perfect State")(Richard Walzer (1985), Al-Farabi on the Perfect State, Page 3)Richard Walzer thus writes:

Abu Nasr Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tarkhan b. Awzalugh (Uzlugh) al-Farabi was born about A.D. 870 in Turkestan, at Wasij in the district of Fārāb on the Jaxartes. He eventually settled down and spent many years in Baghdad, the seat of the 'Abbasid caliphs. During part of the last ten years of his life he stayed at the court of Sayf al-Dawla, the renowned Hamdanid Amir of Aleppo, whose active symphathies for the Imami variant of the contemporary Shia are well know. He is reported to have died in A.D. 950.

It is agreed that al-Farabi was of Turkic origin. He's father was a qa'id, perhaps not a very high ranking soldier of fortune, who may somehow have belonged to the mercenaries recruited in increasing numbers by the 'Abbasid caliphs just a generation before al-Farabi was born. What was thought about Turks in educated Baghdad society about the middle of the ninth Christian century can be referred from that great Mu'tazilite Arabic prose writer al-Jahiz in his Epistle on the Excellence of the Turks, written for al-Fath b. Khaqan, the Turkish general of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil. The position of the Turks in ninth-century Baghdad as such is irrelevant in the present context; it is enough to pint out that while the Turish soldiers were widely disliked and unpopular, there was no anti-Turkish feeling in a more general sense. A young man of Turkish descent who was not given to soldiering might find it hard to advance in society because he had to start from an unfavourably low social background, but his being a Muslim of Turkish race did not constitute an insuperable obstacle.

al-Farabi's work shows no trace or reminder of his Turkish origin; an influence of Turkish idioms on his style has been rashly suggested by outsiders who are unaware of the special conditions of Islamic life in al-Farabi's day and of the unique position of the Arabic language, both in the formative centuries of Islam and a very long time after. A few Persian, Greek and Sogdian glosses are extant in the writings which have recently been printed - no Turkish gloss has turned up as yet. al-Farabi has none of the racial superiority of the Arabs; he dislikes and disapproves of tribal arrogance in others(see Chapter 18, &8), and certainly betrays none himself. If asked, he would have replied that the only safe and permanent social bond is provided by a religion, as are Judaism and Hiduism-preferably understod in the way of philosophy (cf. Chapter 17).

Abu Nasr Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tarkhan b. Awzalugh (Uzlugh) al-Farabi was born about A.D. 870 in Turkestan, at Wasij in the district of Fārāb on the Jaxartes (Ibn Abi Usaybia, ii, pp.134 ff. al-Qifti) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please kindly read the whole page above, before making any changes! In fact 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, i read, however i ask you don't ignore the facts, it's all known, have respect for others please

Majilis fact 01:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that this article contains references for both Persian and Turkish. You have not shown anything that changes what is stated in the article. You are simply edit-warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact concerned here is not about the references but the place of his origin, everyone at least in Central Asia knows that he is of Central Asian Scholar of Islamic faith, his place of birth, and all the relevant information regarding him and there is still more to approve it, i just wonder why you ignoring very truth and the well-known facts? (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dimitri Gutas among others have argued that Farabi has made a number of references in Persian and Sogdian but not Turkish. Apparently these scholars are not people since according to you 'everyone' i.e., the entire human race except for these academics, 'knows that Farabi was what you claim him to be (incidentally, he is of the same ethnicity as you I presume?)

Remove Dimitri Gutas

I have noticed this obscure name "Dimitri Gutas" in many articles relating to the great philosophers of Islam such as Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi. This person is an ordinary teacher/professor/debater whose ideas are too trivial and unimportant to be added in Wikipedia articles. Even if not agreed so, there are no citations provided on his words, which in turn degrades and undermines the quality and authenticity of these articles. The person "Dimitri Gutas" is neither a well-known philosopher nor a thinker. In fact, he is very little known. Even Wikipedia does not know this so-called "Dimitri Gutas" and the link that refers to his name does not exist and is broken (Check the link for yourselves). As Wikipedia itself says, "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

Therefore, it is for the sake of the factual data and correctness of these articles, to remove ASAP the uncited name and data regarding "Dimitri Gutas" from this and other articles, in order to achieve a more accurate article regarding these great philosophers and stop misleading/misinforming of the worldly public. Otherwise, this article is utterly defective and misleading at this point and is therefore against the term of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InnamoraTi (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

From our German article about this Yale professor:

Dimitri Gutas (* 1945 ) is an American Arabist and Hellenist Greek origin, and professor of Arabic and Arabic reception of Greek texts in the Department of Near Eastern Languages ​​and Civilizations of Yale University , USA .

Gutas studied classical philology , religion, history , Arabic and Islamic studies at Yale University, where he in 1974 for Ph.D. received his doctorate.

His main research interests are the classical Arabic and the intellectual tradition of the Middle Ages in the Islamic culture, especially Avicenna , and the Graeco-Arabica , which is the reception and the tradition of Greek works on medicine , science and philosophy in the Arab-Islamic world (especially from the 8th to the 10th century in Baghdad ). In this special field, he is considered one of the leading experts and is at the editorial project by William W. Fortenbaugh and Robert W. Sharples to the ancient Greek philosopher Theophrastus , and participated together with Gerhard Endress editor of the Greek and Arabic Lexicon . Gutas currently working on a book of translations from the Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Hebrew and Latin from the Hellenistic period to the Renaissance.

Gutas is a member of the scientific advisory board of numerous journals, including the leading journal Arabic Sciences and Philosophy (Cambridge University Press) and co-editor and contributors to the revision of the Ueberweg , a comprehensive history of philosophy, which will now include four volumes of Arabic philosophy.

Looks like he is an expert in his field and should have an article here. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Created his article. See also the book Islamic philosophy, science, culture, and religion; studies in honor of Dimitri Gutas - academics don't edit books in honor of non-notable academics. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Name in the lead

al-Farabi's name (Arabic: ابونصر محمد بن محمد فارابی‎ / Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad Fārābī) is Arabic and should be mentioned as such in the lead. I see no reason why it should be mentioned as Persian, because it was not Persian, Farabi was not (an ethnic) Persian, nor did he write in Persian. He had some knowledge of Persian which he had aquired in the learning centers of Khorasan and Iraq. He spent almost all of his life in Arabic Iraq, all of his works are in Arabic and he relied mostly on Arabic translations of Greek works. It will also neutralize this silly fight between Persian and Turkish nationalists, trying to "Persianize" or "Turkicize" a philosopher who lived more than 1000 years ago and was almost certainly of Iranian Sogdian origin - a people with a unique culture, identity, language, and script living in between the Perso-Arabic world and the Turkic nomadic confederations. --Lysozym (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Al Farabi and Aristotle. Importance of Zimmermann's translation of Al-Farabi's Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's de Interpretatione

−(84.100.243.163 (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)) Even though the IP is probably the author of this as he has identified himself elsewhere on Wikipedia, this is still a copyright violation and I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

copyright vio

Most of the stuff citing "Iranica" [19] is cut and pasted it needs to be summarized in an editors own words J8079s (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Tagged the page all that I checked was cut and paste. from;<ref name="Iranica">{{cite web |first=Dimitri |last=Gutas |title=Farabi |work=Encyclopædia Iranica |accessdate= April 4, 2010 |url= http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/farabi-i }}J8079s (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Not persian, he was really turkish man. Simply, Farab was a Turkish region according to Ibn Ibn Hawkal.

You need to provide a reliable source to support your view.--Chewings72 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Farabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307121111/http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html to http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325171417/http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/hmp/XXIII-TwentyThree.pdf to http://umcc.ais.org/~maftab/ip/hmp/XXIII-TwentyThree.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307121111/http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html to http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Farabi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv9f4%2Fv9f410.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003184408/http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-f1f713a319da41dc97d398057889ff2f-fa.html to http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-f1f713a319da41dc97d398057889ff2f-fa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)