Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan/Archive 1

His place of birth is uncertain

The very few sources that say he was born in Khorasan also say he was Arab. And none of the "ancient" sources says that he was born there. If his ethnicity is unclear, then by the same standard his place of birth is unclear. Therefore, it is uncertain that he is Iranian.--Inahet 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read all of Ali Doustzadeh's comments and review his evidence on this page. Geber's place of birth is not uncertain, but his ethnicity is unclear. We can't brand him as an "Arab Chemist" or "Arab Mathematician" when it's unclear if he was an Arab, therefore the Arab categories are confusing and contradictory to the fact that his ethnicity is unclear. --ManiF 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have not been reading the discussions because there has not been any proof presented to verify your claims.--Inahet 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Settling the Issue

The last revision made by ManiF doesn't comply with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. As I understand, verifiability is key and if you can't verify a claim then it doesn't belong here in Wikipedia. Although ignored, my earlier concessions are invalid, because I wasn't following the Wikipedia rule of verifiability. Compromising and conceding are not my job, or anyone else's. If we were following Wikipedia's policies as we should, Geber would be described as an Arab (definite) Shia (possibly), Muslim (definite) ... These claims are verifiable by the availability of abundant sources. In fact, I will list the sources that verifies the given characterization or claim

Jabir is Persian:

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova (Page 286)
• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181)
• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014)
• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200)

I removed this source Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014). It does not say he was Persian as I proved, read the discussions. [1]--Inahet 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Iranian:

• The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy by Henry Corbin
• "The Window" Philosophy Magazine - Questionable Credibality: it states unviersally NON-Iranian scientists such as Al-Kindi, Ibn Khaldun, Thabit Ibn Qurra as Iranian!!!
• The Chemical Heritage Foundation Factbook
• Science, Technology and Islam by Kenneth Humphreys

Jabir was born in Khorestan, Iran:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• The Chemical Heritage Foundation Factbook
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Arab:

• Encarta
• Britannica
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography
• Simon & Shuster New Millenium Encyclopedia
• Author of Alchemy E.J. Holmyard
• Author of Technology and Alchemical debate in The Late Middle Ages, William Newman
• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.
• Chemical Heritage Foundation
• Wolfram Research

more to come

The following lacks sources

Jabir's ethnicity is unclear

This is our own educated conclusion based on contradictory sources regarding Geber' ethnicity. For your information, "Iranian" does not necessarily mean a nationality and can also be used ethnically to refer to Persians and Kurds. --ManiF 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And for your information, your own educated conclusion isn't good enough to use as a reference.

It's a logical conclusion based on on the contradictory evidence presented by both sides. Furthermore, many references, some of which have been cited on this page, explicitly state that most aspects of Gaber's life are unknown. Many of the Encyclopedias avoid discussing Geber's ethnicty for the very reason that Gaber's ethnicity is unclear. --ManiF 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabir was born in Tarsus, Turkey:

• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.

Jabir is Shia:

• Author E.J. Holmyard

And if it is necessary, I will have to consult the help of an administrator who is well-versed in Wikipedia's guidelines and polices. ~

Ok, I've added several sources to your list for now, more sources will be coming up. As you can see, there is nothing definite about Geber's ethnicity and many reputable sources refer to him as an Iranian which can be interpreted as Persian or Kurd. --ManiF 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I dispute the Iranian claim? No I didn't, although there is a conflict regarding his birth of place, check the sources. And Iranian can also include Arabs, Armenians, etc. And the word Iran wasn't even used at the time Geber lived, so there is reason to dispute this claim as well. --Inahet 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Back in 721, there was no modern Iranian state. So when Gaber is referred to as Iranian by many authoritative sources, most than likely, they are talking about his ethnicity being of Iranian stock ( Persians, Kurd or Lur). Regardless, when there are so many contradictory sources regarding Geber's ethnicity, without any historic evidence {ie Gaber calling himself an Arab or a Persian), we can not say for sure that he's definitely an Arab, an Iranian or anything else. --ManiF 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Kash 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the name Iran is pre-Islamic. And good job ManiF in assembling allt hese sources in one spot. I think Jabirs ethnicity is definitely unclear. His place of birth also is not hundred percent definite. In fact lots of works attributed to him are not definite and even his existence as a person has been questioned although I disagree, since Ibn-Nadeem mentions him. I think it is based to let the wikipedia article display all these ambigitious that have existed with Jabir. --Ali doostzadeh 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan, a province in the arab Umayyad Caliphate

A user has found the idea POV, that Khorasan was a province in the Arab Umayyad Caliphate. He certainly needs to explain why that is.

a source needed

unfortunately i do not have access to my father's library anymore so i would like to ask: is there any source that states anything more than the fact that he was an arabic writer? being arabic writer has been common in iran due to easily justified reasons, however being arab and born in khorasan that's quite strange for me.

Persian Gulf round 2? Sour much?

The Arabs tried to say that the Persian Gulf was not called the Persian Gulf, and they lost due to the fact they are LIEING. Now they want to make a Persian inventor look like an Arab, are they sour after losing the last match?

This guy was Persian. You guys need to take your idea that he was Arab and throw it into the abyss of nothingness along with your non-existant "arabian gulf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.199.234 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2006

He was Persian

Every single Encylopedia that I have seen supports my claim, therefore I will be making the appropriate edits. --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Talk:Geber

About a Year ago I moved the "Geber" article to "Pseudo-Geber" since its contents was about the latter. Then I started an article on the real Geber, which has grown to the present article. However that move also created a redirect from "Talk:Geber" to "Talk:Pseudo-Geber", which I did not notice in time. As a result, many comments about "Geber" ended up in "Talk:Pseudo-Geber". I am copying those comments to this page. Unfortunately, the edit history will be messed up, but since the comments on the two topics are all mixed up, that seems unavoidable. Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Botched edit

On the Geber Article: [this] Geber edit seems to be a translation into french, such an article doesn't exists in the french wikipedia, yet the markup it totally botched - maybe somene can transplant it there? 134.76.62.145 13:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not Persian

There seems to be a tendency for editors to keep associating this guy with Iranians and the category of Iranian scientists. While he was indeed born in Iran, he was born to an Arab family and lived most of his life in Iraq. I am not the anonmyous user that removed the categories but I do in fact agree with him.Yuber 23:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if we set aside Jaber's Iranian-ness by birth, consider the following:

:In Baghdad, Jaber lived amongst Persians. He was trained, schooled, and cultured by Persians. His patron was none other than Khaled Barmaki, the Persian vizier, as was almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran. (see "Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye, Harvard University, p162, 165, for corroboration.)

In fact, the Baghdad of Jaber's time was an Iranian city. It was planned and designed by a Persian Jew and Zoroastrian, based on the Persian Firouzabad, on the ruins of the Persian Ctesiphon, populated by people from Jundishapur and Khorasan. Even the caliph al-Ma'mun, who established the House of Wisdom, himself was half Persian.

Conclusion: Jaber is both affiliated to Arabs and Iranians. This is an accepted fact. And I think it is fair to say he was both.--Zereshk 01:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how you use the label Iranian interchangeably with the label of Persian. Are Arab-Iranians also Persians? Geber should belong in a list of Iraqi scientists or Arab scientists, not Iranian scientists. As for now, I will let it stay as long as he is clearly identified as an Arab of Yemeni origins in both this article and in the List of Iranian scientists. Also, please try to see where the anonmyous user is coming from on this article. At the beginning this article described Geber as a Persian and had no mention of him being Muslim. It is a source of great pride for many Arabs that the "Father of Chemistry" is in fact an Aboriginal Arab from the peninsula. Regards, Yuber 01:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jaber is also of great pride for Persians. And Iraq did not exist in the 8th century. Ctesiphon, capital of Persia, was in what today is Iraq. (therefore Iranians have just as much claim to Jaber as Arabs do). Nevertheless...

Let's agree that he was both Arab and Persian. I think that is perfectly reasonable and fair, and avoids an ugly war of racism from starting here.--Zereshk 01:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful to say there was no "Iraq", as in fact there was no "Iran" either. Iraq and Iran are political entities only formed fairly recently. Iraqi history today deals with the illustrious history of the region throughout time including the Persian parts of it as well. That is why I find it strange how you can associate this guy as an "Iranian" scientist. Perhaps the list should be "Persian" scientists, and not include Arabs. I doubt the Arabs of Khuzestan would want Geber to be associated as an Iranian. However, I agree that this should not be made into an ugly edit war. And just a warning, as the Arab editors on English Wikipedia increase, you might find that issues about who is Arab and who is not to be very divisive.

Also, one more thing, is there some sort of trend to secularize articles about Islamic scientists (no mention of this guy being Muslim was here originally) and "Iranize" them?Yuber 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how many Arabs live in Khuzestan but I have many Arab friends from Ahvaz who share the same pride of being Iranian as I do. I don't buy into this separatist crap because I'm sure that the 'Iranian nationalists' far outnumber the separatists. And you should know that prior to 1935 ;) Persia's inhabtants referred to their country as Iran, even if the rest of the world didn't, so Iran did in fact "exist" at the time of Geber. Alireza Hashemi 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The List of Iranian scientists and List of Persian scientists in fact goes to the same page. We can change the name to the latter, if you are so troubled by it. I dont think anybody would mind.
2. What relevance is there to Khuzestan??? Geber was not in Khuzestan.
3. I repeat, for now, Iranians are saying it is only fair (and accurate the least) to say that scientists like Geber were both Persian and Arab. If the Arab editors want a racist edit war, they can (and will) have it.--Zereshk 19:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still have not made it clear how someone can both be Arab and Persian. According to your very article on this site a Persian is someone descended from the Aryans. Also, in your demographics of Iran article, Persians and Arabs are separate people. It is ludicrous to say someone is both Persian and Arab.Yuber 22:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Persia is the official name of the country of Iran before 1923. Therefore, if you lived before 1923, you could be Arab, and be a Persian. Nowadays, you can be Arab, and be Iranian. That simple.--Zereshk 23:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe you should revise the Persian article because Arabs aren't Indo-Europeans. Also, many of the Arabs of Iran want a separate state (I'm sure you know of this).Yuber 23:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well good for them.--Zereshk 03:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the article on hydrochloric acid was featured on the main page, I noticed that the description of Jabir Ibn Hayyan went back and forth between Islamic, Persian, Arab, etc., because of that exposure. It seems to have settled on "Arab-Yemeni (Iranian-born)", so that's what I've been changing it to in the other articles that link to him. Hope that doesn't ruffle any feathers – I did it for the sake of consistency, not to grind any ethnic or religious axes (aside from the fact that in general it seems that one's religion is irrelevant when talking chemistry.) -- Kbh3rd 02:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Kufah/Kufa

The first paragraph calls the city Kufah but the second paragraph spells it Kufa. I do not know which spelling might be preferred, but we should be consistent. Can a knowledgeable editor supply the appropriate spelling? --Blainster 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kufa.--Zereshk 20:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nationality edit wars

Many Famous Arab Scientist and Thinkers are being falsely claimed persians!! If not stopped or at least hindered, the credibility of Wikipedia will heavelly suffer!! And this is not good neither for the arabs nor for the persians. Since both of them use this Free Encyclopedia for the promotion of their great cultures.

Wikipedia would be a lot better if no one used it to promote anything. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not -- Jibal 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And you have a tendancy to shoot your mouth off, back up your claim that is, name the scientists other than Geber and Alhazen who you believe were not Persian and state why you believe we are wrong! Alireza Hashemi 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk's definition of what the term Persian can apply to is very vague and from what I've read on this site untrue. I think ideally a list of Iraqi scientists should be developed and Geber will be moved to there.Yuber 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a list of Arab Scientists should be developed without regard to Nationality. In that way:

1) List will be bigger 2) No ugly Editing Wars between Arabs. For example Scienario 1: Mr X: Jaber is Iraqi, Mr Y: no he was Yemeni, Mr X: Why? he lived his whole life in Iraq, Mr Y: So what? If a chinese lived his whole life in Iraq will that make him Iraqi? and he was not even born in Iraq. etc... Modern Time Scientists can be then Catogrised into Nationalities. When I find the time, and I hope I will, I will start this Project.

---

Yuber,

Youre making a mistake. Not all Islamic era scientists were Persian. Ibn qurra, Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Arabi, are some big name examples.

I think youve felt unhappy after seeing that huge list I have been working on during the past 4 months.

But I am sure that if you sit down and compile a similar list of Arab medieval scientists, I think it will be just as long, if not longer. Heck, I can even help you with it, since I have some good sources. I can work on the classical era list (after I finish with the Persian list). You can work on the modern.

There are hundreds of scientists that lived west of the Euphrates (and were not hence Persian). (Misr) Egypt, (shaam) Syria, (Andalusia) Moorish Spain, (Antakiyah) Turkey, all have had numerous prominent Arab scientists.

Now once in a while we run into a fellow that has an overlapping background, like Geber. We can easily work it out by saying he was both Arab and Persian. Simple as that. Because that's how it really was. 8th century Baghdad was where Persian and Arabic cultures mixed in together in a very productive way. You had the deep Persian background and heritage mixing in with the fluency of the Arabic language and scientific ideology of Islam coming from Arabia. A very powerful mix. For example, Ibn Rushd was both Arab and Spanish. That's how cultures flourish. By overlapping into eachother. An it's a good thing.

The Persian scientist list will not seem so surprising to you if you realize that Medieval Persia was a very large place; technically from the Euphrates all the way up to Tajikestan and the Central Asian Republics. It's only therefore natural to have so many people show up as Persian on the list. The same can be said about the Arab list.

Im sure we can construct an Arab scientist list just as long that will make you feel proud as an Arab. cool?--Zereshk 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My main point was that Geber was classified as a Persian with no mention of the fact that he was an Arab by birth, language, and every other qualifier until just recently. But other than that, I am not one to start huge edit wars over a scientist's origins. A list of arab scientists would be great :).Yuber 01:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll help you out with the arab list of scientists, starting next week, after I finsh the current Persian one. I'll contact you when I do.--Zereshk 16:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, can we keep these fights about national labels out of Wikipedia? (BTW, the great flourishing of sciences in the Islamic World in the time of Jabir was surely due to the fact that Muslims from spain to central asia could interact and move around, effectively as citizens of a single country. So trying to label people of that age by nationalities is worse than pointless, it obscures that important fact.) Thanks, and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic alchemical theories

An honest question – are the theories here called "Islamic alchemical theories" indeed tied to the religious teachings/beliefs of Islam? We would not call Newton's theory of gravity and motion "Christian theories", nor would we expect to see Einstein's theories called "Jewish". If the only relation to Islam is the religion of those who held these theories, should they be called "Islamic"? -- Kbh3rd 00:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's only a meant as a chronological tag. i.e. "from the Islamic era".--Zereshk 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, more precisely the Islamic world (as opposed to Europe). Those were two intellectual universes, each with a relatively uniform culture, partially separated by religion, politics, and language (Latin vs. Arabic). For example, it took some 400 years for Geber's works to be translated into Latin, but then in another 100 years they were known all over Europe. So it makes sense to mention that division when talking about history of science and philosophy. Unfortunately "Islamic" is ambiguous, but there seems to be no better name. Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jabir/Geber not one person

I moved this from the article itself, as in this form it obviously does not belong there:

I have removed the text that I wrote here for my own reasons. I will try to follow the suggestions Sterio has offered when I have time. Thanks. Jabot the Scrob (talk · contribs)

(Moved by Sterio 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Well can please give me a pointer on what exactly I didn't do right. I am making a factual claim that I think belongs in the article. I have provided a citation. Moving it here effectively takes it out of the article. I can understand that it's not up to par stylistically, it also needs to be integrated into the article, but that will take time to do right and I wanted to make sure I was in accord with anyone else who cares about this page. Thanks Jabot the Scrob

Well, I don't know anything about the subject itself, so I can't say anything about weather that's true or not, but what you wrote was like a comment from you, not an encyclopedic entry. Reword it, and don't have the signature. Also, don't put at the top in the introduction, put it in the article as a special section (for example by putting ==Jabir not one person== at the top of it). Anyway, I'm not the best person to tell, as I don't know anything about the matter, it's just that the text was written as if it were a part of a discussion, not an encyclopedic article and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Sterio 23:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Algebra from Jabir?

I removed the following line:

Algebra( Arabic for the equality) was named for Jabir how made major progress in the mathematical field of algebra.

From what I know, "algebra" does not come from Jabir but from the title of a treatise by Al-Khowarizmi, al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala. If that is not true, we need a reliable reference. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with the Iranians transforming all Arab scientists into Persian?

In Baghdad, Jaber lived amongst Persians. He was trained, schooled, and cultured by Persians.

So, if I'm a reputable Arab scholar today, and my teacher was an Iranian then, my contributions would count to the Persian civilization, instead of the Arab's? Also, Harun al-Rashid the Arab Caliph, had Persian scholars teach his children, does that make them Persian, too?

His patron was none other than Khaled Barmaki, the Persian vizier, as was almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran. (see "Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye, Harvard University, p162, 165, for corroboration.)

Many European artists had various patrons from countries different than theirs, yet the Spanish artist is called Spanish, the French artist is called French...etc. I'm not sure his patrons were Persian, even if they were, that doesn't make him one.

In fact, the Baghdad of Jaber's time was an Iranian city.

Yes, and the Arab World itself is Persian, in fact Arabs are widely accepted as Persian slaves!!!!! Please stop your distortions, Baghdad was an Arab city built by the Arab Caliph Abu-Jaffar al-Mansour.

It was planned and designed by a Persian Jew and Zoroastrian, based on the Persian Firouzabad, on the ruins of the Persian Ctesiphon, populated by people from Jundishapur and Khorasan. Even the caliph al-Ma'mun, who established the House of Wisdom, himself was half Persian.

What has al-Ma'mun to do with Jaber al-Hayan? His mother was Persian, Arabs trace their lineage exculsively through the father, so he was an Arab, too. What's the point of naming him anyway?

Conclusion: Jaber is both affiliated to Arabs and Iranians. This is an accepted fact. And I think it is fair to say he was both

"I'm both an apple and an orange"! Seriously, al-Azdi is an obvious name to an Arabian family, not Persian. Jaber was nothing but an Arab, and the article should mention it as such.

Please again, let's stop this bickering

PLEASE folks, this pointless Arab/Persian bickering has been wasting everyone's time for nothing.

We know in which city Jabir was born, and where that city is located now. We know his family's name, where he worked, the languages he wrote or speak. We know that he was a citizen of the Islamic Caliphate. Those are facts, and as such belong in the article. He being Arab or Persian or Iranian or Hawaiian is not, I repeat not a fact: it is an arbitrary interpretation of those facts, that each reader has the right to make as he or she likes. Some readers obviously like to think he was Arab, some like to think he was Persian, some may like to think something else; all that is fine, but it is not Wikipedia's role to push one arbitrary interpretation onto its readers, so neither of these interpretations belong to the article.

Surely you can find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia. There are plenty of articles on Islamic/Persian/Arab/Whatever scientists that need to written or completed. (I find it somewhat bizarre that articles about great Islamic scientists and Islamic alchemy are being written by a Brazilian, who can't read Arabic and who had never heard of those guys until a year ago...) Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. My own interpretation is that he was an African, since his family came from Africa some 100,000 years ago. I am very proud of being his relative and compatriot, and I get very annoyed when people try to deny me that honor. And this is not a joke. Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

More on Persian vs Arab

The Persians started this whole debacle, check all the Muslim scholars' articles, if you're denying Jabir's ethnicity, then you should do the same to all the Muslim scholars. Persians distort facts, and equate all Muslim scholars to Persian, unless you want to go to each thread and change it(where I guess one Persian or another would revert it back, call you propagandist, and scream "Persian, Persian, Persian!" throughout the talk page) look at this talk page for instance. They haven't left any loophole to make everybody with any mentionable contributions to Islam a Persian! Until these acts seize and desist, Jabir's Arabian nationality stays. MB 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not understand. His nationality was certainly neither "Persian" not "Arabian", because those nations did not exist at that time. Jabir was a citizen of the Caliphate, which in English is commonnly called "The Islamic Empire"; therefore, the word that best describes his nationality is "Islamic".

His "ethnicity" is not a fact, it is an opinion; if nothing else because everybody defines "ethnicity" in a different way. Having Arabian parents does not make someone an "ethnic Arab" (if that were true, then everybody would be "ethnic African"!!); just as being born in Persia does not make on an "ethnic Persian", and living in Iraq does not make one an "ethnic Iraqui". Unless someone comes up with clear evidence that Jabir considered himself an "ethnic X", it is inappropriate to claim that he was anyting more specific than "Islamic". Just as Diocletian, for example, can only be labeled as a citizen of the Roman Empire; it would be quite silly to claim he was a Croat, or an Italian, or anything else.

Again, please understand that tagging him as "Arabian" will not get anywhere, it will only prolong this futile persian/Arabian edit war; and neither side is correct. Please colaborate. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. As for some editors tagging everybody "Persian", it is no more annoying than other editors tagging everyone "Arabian", or "Turkmen", or whatever. I have better things to do than checking all Islamic people's articles and cleaning up their mess. I fix those mis-edits in the articles that I currently monitor, and hope that other people will do the same in other articles. Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

al-Azd tribe is a reputable Arab tribe, they did exist, as an encyclopedia, can we add data to the origins of his tribe? It sounds liogical, and will refute all Persian claims, agreed? His tribal name shows he's an Arab, though. What's the basis of your refusal? MB 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It already says that the Adz is an Arabian tribe in the "biography" section, just below the Table of Contents. What else would you add? Jorge Stolfi 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If Azd is an Arabian tribe and he's an Azdi, what does that make him? Jorge, please embrace the logic of this and let's put him as an Arab, like he truly is. It would make everything a lot clearer, and the article will seize being ambiguos about his ethnicity. Again, I won't add anything until I fully understand your POV, you don't seem like a blind Persian extremist, so what's the basis of your refusal? MB 16:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Your logic is perfect — just as the logic of the guys who claim that he was Persian because he was born in Persia! Once more, this "logical conclusion" is not a fact, it is an interpretation; it wholly depends on the assumption that the son of a X has the same ethnicity as the father, (except of course when it is convenient to assume otherwise, since if we carried this logic too far everybody would be ethnic African, and the ethnicicty game would not be fun anymore). And "ethnicity", of course, must defined as it best suits the person making the argument: so, for example, you seem to think that "Adzi" is too narrow to be an ethnicity, "Islamic" is too broad, but "Arab" is just right. Apart from the Wikipedia policy against POV, if you put in your interpretation, then the other guys will of course want to put theirs, and this edit war will never end. Jorge Stolfi 12:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim that the logic of Persians who claim Jabir was Persian just because he was born there perfect? I'm an Arab, if my parents went to Brazil and my Mom had me there, would that make me Brazilian? Would that change my whole ethnicity just because I was born at a different place? Al-Azdi saw themselves as an Arabian tribe not an ethnicity on their own...making Jabir clearly an Arab. It's not POV to state his ethnicity. It's not an interpertation, all people place their ethnicity on their parents', they don't go back to the beginning of the Human race and claim their ethnicity as Africans! If we don't add that he's an Arab, we have a lacking article, it needs to be stated. Persian logic makes no sense, and we need to state his true ethnicity. MB 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh again. He is "ethnic Arab" only by YOUR definition of what "ethnic" means. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, can't you accept that? For example, Brazilian law, if you are born in Brazil you by default are a Brazilian national, unless your parents take specific steps to reject that nationality (I do not even know what those steps are). Ditto if you are born in the USA. Thus I am Brazilian, even though my parents were Italian; Rudolph Giuliani is American, and Geraldo Alkmin is Brazilian, even though their ancestors a few generations back had other nationalities.

Also, can't you see that the rule "the son has the same ethnicity as the father" imples "everybody is ethnic African"? Thus if the latter is absurd, the former is absurd too!

The article already says that his father was from the Adz tribe, an Arabian tribe, and he was born in Persia. So the article already is not "lacking", on the contrary: that is more informative, more meaninful, and more accurate than saying "Jabir was an Arab". Please... Jorge Stolfi 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, everybody is African? The Anglo-Saxons, Arabs, Chinese, Mongolian, Aryans...etc All of them were Arfrican? Nobody has any ethnicity? Do you have references to claim he's African? Britannica calls him "Father of Arab chemistry" Encarta names him an Arab. It's not an interpertation, it's a fact. Calling him Persian is the (false)interpertation, there are no sources that back it up, because it's not true. Please...stop trying to veer this off-topic, and let's add his ethnicity. MB 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is African according to your logic. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The father of chemistry

We despartly need more info about jabir. I have added some info about jaber, regarding:

• Innovations and new ideas
• Quotes from jabir: alot of info is still missing
• What others say about Jabir: alot of info is still missing

This guy was a genius!! He was the father, no, the godfather of chemisty. He is very famous in the islamic countries, but in the rest of the world he is unknown. Any info regarding this guy is wanted. Jidan 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for the enthusiasm, but the section "Innovations" that you added was mostly a (mangled) copy of the section "Contributions to chemistry" (which I wrote last year). The few items that were not copied from that section are dubious or need more details to make sense:

• He identified that elements combine at a microscopic level to form new compounds without losing their own characterstic.

This is hardly his discovery, it must have been known since the time of the Egyptians. This assumption is basic to the very idea of alchemy. What Jabir did contribute was the observation that substances combine in definite proportions. This was the basic fact that led Dalton to his atomic theory, but I have seen no evidence that Jabir took that last step. Anyway this contribution was already listed there.

• Constructed a scale capable of weighing objects as low as 0,1 gramms

This seems interesting, but where did you get this info?

• He identified combustion as the release of the latent energy of the combustible material when combined with oxygen at the proper temperature.

This is hardly true as stated I have seen no claims that he had discovered oxygen or had the concept of energy. What did your source say, exactly?

• He invented... noncombustible paper

This sounds interesting too. Again, what is the reference?

• acids from Arabic "Azait", meaning oil ... elixir of life (from "al-ikser") ... Alkali "al-qaly"
• We may have a list words that were introduced to Arabic and/or English through his books. provided he was indeed the person who first used those names (and provided the etymologies are correct).
• Jabir ... distilled alcohol ... Later, Al-Kindi (801-873) also unambiguously described the distillation of wine.

Apparently Jabir noticed the flammable vapor from boiling wine (as was said already in the article), but did not think of condensing it. The bit about Al-Kindi is interesting, but since Al-Razi is credited with the discovery of ethanol, too, we need to find out who exactly did what and when.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I am quite disappointed with the quality of the contributions to this article so far. Very little substantial contents has been added since I first gathered some information from the net a year ago; and all the material, old and new, seems to be drawn from third- or fourth- or twentieth-hand sources, mostly Western ones, that now I suspect are of rather poor quality. Unfortunately the Iranian Chemistry Journal site, which seemed to be the only serious source of the lot, is presently unavailable.

The last item that was just added to the "External links", for example, is an article at Al Shindagah that was pasted together from some of the same random sources I used last year, and from this same Wikipedia article. (It was quite a funny experience seeing my very own words on Geber -- like "this discovery would fuel the dreams and despair of alchemists for the next thousand years" -- being reproduced by an article on an *Arab* site. Should I now put on my vitae that I am the foremost Arab authority on Arab alchemy? 8-))

Also, many of the recent additions to Geber's biography section were contradictory and confusing, and at odds with other net sources. I tried to remove the most obvious errors, but I am not sure about the rest. And yet this man is supposed to be the greatest Islamic alchemist ever!

Sigh... Jorge Stolfi 03:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hello, Jorge. Yes, you are right, this man deserves more!!. I have sources(and pictures) in german and arabic, including the one in arabic wikipedia, which i think are relativly reliable. I dont have much time now, but i will translate them some time the following week. Now about the Innovations and new ideas section, which you deleted. I know that most of it are redundant, but I added them so that viewers may have a quick summerized glimpse of what this guy achieved. I dont think this will harm anybody, also not the quality of the article itself.

..Should I now put on my vitae that I am the foremost Arab authority on Arab alchemy? 8-))

Im not surprised!! ;-) If we were able to complete the holes in this article, it will be a first!! and everybody will link to this article, since the internet has not much to offer about this guy. Im looking forward to working with you and Jabir definetly appreciates your help! ;-). Jidan 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tomasz Prochownik 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)am sorry to inform everyone here but as far as reliable sources go geber is not widely referred to as the father of chemistry, he's most often referred as an alchemist, at least by reliable sources, and sites on islam are not objective webistes soooooooo.Tomasz Prochownik 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment on recent revisions

Where did this new editor get the idea that Jabir is of a Persian descent? Jorge, about your interesting logic, do you claim that Arabs, Anglo-Saxons, Aryans, Chinese...etc. are all ethnic Africans? Please let's be sensible and put his real ethnicity. Check list of Persian scientists Go tell them to change all the ethnicities to African since 100,000 years ago, everybody was African! MB 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than Geber, the only one scientist which you can argue that is not Persian and on that list is Alhazen. That said there are many important Arab scientists who are not on that list. + You are arguing here that Geber is Arabic because of his Arabian roots (e.g. father being from Yemen) and I hope I’m not the only one seeing the discrepancy here. Alireza Hashemi 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what discrepancy? Do you have proof that Geber had Persian ancestry? Please present them, until then let's keep it to facts given so far, shall we? MB 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've come to the conclusion that Jabir ibn Hayyan was in fact an Arab. I really don't think that the Iranian contributors have any intention of over glorifying Persians, it's just that there’s some confusion about being Iranian or Persian, for very obvious reasons. I’m an Iranian but only really half Persian, the other half of me is Azeri. There’s this beautiful Persian expression, I believe it has been taken from one of Saadi’s poems: “Giram keh pedareh to bood fazel, Az fazleh pedar to ra cheh hasel”. It’s something in the lines of suppose your father was a scholar, of your father’s knowledge what have you gained? And this is somewhat reminiscent of Iranian society today.

I apologize for my speculative revert. But Arabs and Turks have also unrightfully accused Persians/Iranians of “Persianizing” Islamic scientists. This is not true. Many great Islamic scientists were undeniably Persian, like Biruni, Khwarizmi, Rhazes and Avicenna, so I have to add that I found your comment very offensive. The other reason I found them offensive is despite the fact that you think I am new here, I made the first significant contributions to some of these articles with the intention to promote familiarity and understanding of Persian culture. Either way, I believe that all cultures are equal and what we see as being glorifying is only who made the most contributions to Western life and knowledge, something trivial when compared to the diverse outlooks and lifestyles of all peoples of the world. This may sound strange, but no culture is inferior or superior to another. In terms of technological development Persians and others are indebted to Islamic and Arabic culture, and I only hope we can all learn to get along in wiki. :) Alireza Hashemi 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you came to the conclusion early. But I disagree with you, there's in fact an intention to overglorify Persian contributions to civilization, and marginalize Arab contibutions to Islam and civilization in general, making it seem we're barbarians who had no contribution whatsoever to the world. I mean you might not realize it, but your speculative reverts have been written many time throughout this article's histoy...and Jabir's tribe is a reputable, and one of the most famous Arab tribes! Sadly, many Islamic scientists are continuosly called Persian/Iranian with weak arguments{he was born there, or there's "definitive evidence" he understood/talked it in day X at year Y, or his teachers were Persian, or that he used the Persian calender, or he worked for a Persian vizier...etc.

Something about the last point, I find it funny, since it shows Arab tolerance and acceptance of Persians, whereas many Persian editors keep attacking us for destroying and banning the Persian language/culture in 7th AD, which is again used as further proof that talking Arabic, writing exclusively in Arabic is not evidence enough, but understanding Persian is extremely sufficient!!

Pesonally, I don't think one culture is superior or inferior to another, most cultures and civilizations contributed something to human knowledge and advancement. We just need to be more careful when designating ethnicities, hopefully we'll learn to be more civil to each other, and rely on facts not our thoughts/speculation. For instance I stopped reverting the Ibn Sina article, I did research and found he wasn't ethnic Arab, I only hope other Iranian editors will do the same and stop reverting pages when it's established that many Islamic scientists are in fact Arab. MB 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if he was born as an Arab in Iran he should be in the list of Iranian scientists as an Arab Iranian and not a Persian. Biruni, Khwarazmi and Avicenna are Iranian and Persian because they were from the regions of Khwarezm and Khorasan, and I'm afraid no one can argue against that! Alireza Hashemi 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NM what I said before, after reviewing some of your most recent posts I've come to the realization that you're only a racist vandal who wants to Arabize all of wikipedia, most of the edits you make are questionable to say the least. If the scholar or scientist was born in Baghdad or Basrah then you would have a point but your edits on prominent Persian scientists from Kharmathein or Khorasan are just ridiculous and only serve to indicate your resentment towards Persian culture. Sadly there are many among us, both Arabs and Persians who are like that! Alireza Hashemi 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabirs roots according to various sources - His background is unclear

Ibn Nadeem mentions:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات ...

So there is nothing on his background and I do not see any information on him being from the Al-Azdi tribe. Ibn Nadem just mentions that he is a Shia Muslim and his ethnic background is not clear, since Kufa and its surrounding area was an ethnic mix. For example Fazl Ibn Sahl a Zoroastrian Persian who later converted to Islam and became the Vazir of Mamum (actually brought him to power) was from the area. --Ali doostzadeh 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources? You need to supply name of book, and number of page or else they can't be considered sources. MB 14:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Haji Khalifa Kashf ul-Zonoon:

كتاب القمر في الصنعة من جملة مائة واثني عشر كتاباً تأليف الشيخ أبي موسى جابر بن حيان الطوسي المتوفى سنة 160 ستين ومائة ولابن وحشية لعله أسرار الشمس والقمر ذكره داود في تذكرته.

His name here is given Abu Musa Jaber Ibn Hayyan Al-Tusi.

An internet source puts his last name as Al-Tartusi (meaning he could even have been of Greek/Roman descent).

So I have for now just put the information of Ibn Nadeem. --Ali doostzadeh 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(From Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctorines, pg 14)

Certain Western scholars like Julius Ruska have doubted the very existence of Jabir because some of the writings attributed to him have been shown to have been written during later centuries. White it must be admitted that much of the Jabirian corpus was not written by Jabir himself, due to the tendency in traditional sciences to identify the various manifestations of a school with its founder, one cannot simply deny the existence of Jabir with such arguments. Moreover, from a certain point of view the figure of a Jabir or a Pythagoras as conceived by their followers is more important for the understanding of the spiritual and intellectual forces dominant in a particular epoch than a picture which is the result of historical anlysis based on only the written evidence which has survived the decaying infleunce of time.

I am not sure with such variety and scanty information, one can even be sure if Jabir was Al-Tusi (Probably Persian), or Al-Kufi (Probably Arab or Persian) or Al-Harrani (maybe of Sabian origin) or Al-Azdi (Probably Arab, I haven't seen any ancient source for this Al-Azdi name so far) or Al-Tartusi (maybe of Greek or Roman origin or perhaps Arab). So I propose that his ethnicity should not be mentioned. Although virtually all sources I have checked listed him as shia muslim, which may be mentioned since he also spent time under Imam Ja'far Sadiq (AS).

Also More work needs to be done to list his various works that can be gauranteed to be written by him. --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a very good website here, but its in arabic: http://www.geocities.com/aujami/index.htm One of the sources mentioned is the muqadema of ibn khaldun. And there ibn khaldun (unlike Ibn nadim) lists his resources.Jidan 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Ibn Nadeem since is closer to the time of Jabir, so is probably more reliable. Either way here is what I found from Muqadema Ibn Khaldun, under all mentioning of Jabir and I do not see Al-Azdi: pg 338: وتحقيق الأمر في ذلك أن الكيمياء إن صح وجودها كما تزعم الحكماء المتكلمون فيها، مثل جابر بن حيان ومسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي وأمثالهم، فليست من باب الصنائع الطبيعية، pg 335: كتأليف جابر بن حيان في رسائله السبعين، ومسلمة المجريطي في كتابه رتبة الحكيم، والطغرائي والمغيربي في قصائده العريقة في إجادة النظم وأمثالها، ولا يحلون من بعد هذا كله بطائل منها.

pg 332:

ويكنون عن ذلك الإكسير إذا ألغزوا اصطلاحاتهم بالروح، وعن الجسم الذي يلقى عليه بالجسد. فشرح هذه الاصطلاحات وصورة هذا العمل الصناعي الذي يقلب هذه الأجساد المستعدة إلى صورة الذهب والفضة هو علم الكيمياء. وما زال الناس يؤلقون فيها قديماً وحديثاً. وربما يعزى الكلام فيها إلى من ليس من أهلها. وإمام المدونين فيها جابر بن حيان حتى إنهم يخصونها به فيسمونها: علم جابر، وله فيها سبعون رسالة كلها شبيهة بالألغاز.

pg 303:

. ثم ظهر بالمشرق جابر بن حيان كبير السحرة في هذه الملة، فتصفح كتب القوم واستخرج الصناعة، وغاص في زبدتها واستخرجها ووضع فيها عدة من التآليف. وأكثر الكلام فيها وفي صناعة السيمياء، لأنها من توابعها، ولأن إحالة الأجسام النوعية من صورة إلى أخرى إنما تكون بالقوة النفسية لا بالصناعة العملية فهو من قبيل السحر كما نذكره في موضعه. ثم جاء مسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي إمام أهل الأندلس في التعاليم والسحريات، فلخص جميع تلك الكتب وهذبها، وجمع طرقها في كتابه الذي سماه غاية الحكيم، ولم يكتب أحد في هذا العلم بعده.

pg 292:

ووقفت الشهرة في هذا المنتحل على جابر بن حيان من أهل المشرق وعلى مسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي، من أهل الأندلس وتلميذه. ودخل على الملة من هذه العلوم وأهلها داخلة، واستهوت الكثير من الناس بما جنحوا إليها وقلدوا آراءها، والذنب في ذلك لمن ارتكبه. ولو شاء ربك ما فعلوه.

So Ibn Khaldun just mentions Jabbir ibn Hayyan. For what it is worth, Ibn Khalikhan also mentions Al-Tartusi. I am sort of inclined towards Tus because it was a strong Shi'ite bastion (for example Ferdowsi and Nasir ad-Din Tusi were both Shi'i), but for now I have no information on Jabbir. I think we should just mention Muslim, since the epiphets Al-Tusi, Al-Tartusi, Al-Harrani, (Al-Azadi (I haven't seen it yet)), have all been mentioned.

--Ali doostzadeh 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Khalikhan

وفيات الأعيان ابن خلكان

جعفر الصادق أبو عبد اللله جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي زين العابدين بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب، رضي الله عنهم أجمعين؛ أحد الأئمة الاثني عشر على مذهب الإمامية، وكان من سادات أهل البيت ولقب بالصادق لصدقه في مقالته وفضله أشهر من أن يذكر، وله كلام في صنعة الكيمياء والزجر والفأل، وكان تلميذه أبو موسى جابر بن حيان الصوفي الطرسوسي قد ألف كتاباً يشتمل على ألف ورقة تتضمن رسائل جعفر الصادق وهي خمسمائة رسالة.

So according to Ibn Khalikhan his name is: Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan Al-Sufi Al-Tartusi. I am not sure if the Sufi here had to do with Sufism (which probably wasn't developed back then) or with the greek word Sophia. Also Tartusi used to be an importn Greco-Roman colony. So my suggestion is that the three names given by: Ibn Khalikhan (Al-Tartusi), Ibn Nadeem(al-Kufi) and Haji Khalifa (Al-Tusi) be mentioned and he should just be mentioned as Muslim.

--Ali doostzadeh 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ali, not everybody has a library with ancient books nearby like you do. Every encyclopedia or article says that he was an arab and give him the title Al-Azdi. They must have had an ancient source or they wouldn't have said that. Jidan 11:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I only saw wikipedia links and one link written by an Arab Professor named Hamid. So I am going to leave the information of Ibn Nadeem until somebody brings up actual sources. If other people do not have acess to old books, then they should also go their library or buy some of them. It is about keeping wikipedia as accurate as possible with all relavent information. So far I have not seen any ancient source that mentions Al-Azdi and unless people have proof of it, (with page number, print publication and etc.) the information of Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikhan, Haji Khalifa, and Ibn Khaldun should stay.

--Ali doostzadeh 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said his last name is al-Kufi?

All sources agree that he's an Azdi, please don't vandalise and falsify pages 194.170.173.50 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen one source yet mention Azdi. Also Ibn Nadeem (1000+ years) said Al-Kufi. I have checked Ibn Nadeem (Al-Kufi), Ibn Khalikhan (Al-Tartusi), Haji Khalifa (Al-Tusi), Ibn Khaldun (no ephiphet) and none of them mention Azdi. So we can't just pick and choose and all sources must be mentioned. (I haven't seen Azdi so far). I have facts here and you should brings facts instead of mentioning just some random google site. In fact if he was Al-Tusi then he would be most likely Persian since no source has mentioned Al-Azdi (so far) and none of them have mentioned Al-Azdi and Al-Tusi at the same time. If he was Al-Tartusi he could very well have been Greek. His connections with Pythagorias and his knowledge of Greek might be an indicator of this as well. I have also heared of Al-Harrani (Sabian) as well. The only thing the sources mention is that he was Shia Muslim. So please stop vandalizing the article until you have proof from ancient sources (and not just some random google site) that he was azdi as well and let the ancient sources speak for themselves. Also with all the various different information from ancient sources, the users should be aware of all the various different origins and biographies.

--Ali doostzadeh 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ali, a source is something you refer to in an article to show where you got your info, tying out two lines in Arabic doesn't constitute a source! As I said, I need the name of book, and number of page where you got the quote, also both Encarta and Britannica(both well-known encyclopedias) state him as an Arab, please unless you give me a refutation or a source of equal reliability(not some random webpage) then, his ethnicity is clear, right? Give me sources that he's Shia, and I'll agree that it should be added to the article, but please without deleting already verified, pertinent info. MB 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you can comprehend Arabic are not? My level of Arabic is sufficient to understand the passages. These are standard Arabic sources much more valuable than some random Encyclopedia without a source. These are actually the SOURCES availabe on Geber and I have given the author and title of the books. Instead of criticizing these standard source, I would first ask if you can comprehend them? Encarta and Britannica does not mean much when they talk about his ethnicity, since they do not state any of their sources and to tell you the truth I have pretty much access to all the sources mention Geber. So those two sources are not sources really unless you show me the references from ancient sources. Someone here mentioned Al-Azdi, but gave absolutely no proof and that wasn't in the Encyclopedia either, but yet you claimed: All sources agree that he's an Azdi, when even the Britannica and Encarta didn't say he was Azdi! So you are here just adamantly trying to prove something.

Secondly the reasons exactly these passages are taken from the Arabic works themselves is because people might not have access to the same the editions I have. The Al-Fehrest of Ibn Nadeem is available in most Arabic book-stores. Here is one edition of Ibn Nadeem translated also in Persian: الفهرست،محمدبن اسحاق این ندیم،ترجمه ی م.رضا تجدد.تهران،ابن سینا،1343،. (see the notes on Jabbir Ibn Hayyan which is very brief) As per the Muqaddama of Ibn Khaldun, it has been published and translated into Persian by Mohammad Parvin Gunabadi.

As per Ibn khalikhan and Jabir: شخصيتهاي شيعه از ديدگاه ابن‌خلکان در وفيات الاعيان (نقد و بررسي), / مهدي رجبي؛ به راهنمايي: علي دواني.

Now I was kind enough to actually provide the Arabic quotes and sources, exactly and Jidan can verify the quote I brought from Ibn Nadeem. So that you may not be confused with different publications, I have put the exact Arabic which are readily available. Same with the other book. If you do not have the books available that is not my problem. Jidan has Ibn Nadeem available and he can verify the direct quote I brought for example. As per the fact that he is Shia, that is well known and is mentioned by Hajji Khalifa and Ibn Nadeem (plus your Britannica: Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect). So I hope we can agree on his sect, because the old sources I brought also mention this.

As per him being Persian, this is very plausible since he was very anti-Umammyad, his patronage were the Barkamids and he was born in Tus (the same place that Ferdowsi came from). Yet there are other evidences he was born in Tartus, Kufa (which could still mean he was Persian) and etc. A source mentioned him as Harrani (Sabian). His biography is not clear and scanty. So that is why I have not list his ethnicity and unless you have clear proof he was Arab from ancient sources (and there is no way to prove it with all these various sources), and not just some Encyclopedia which has been correct many times and used to classify many other Iranian, Turkish Muslim scientists as Arabs, I would leave his ethnicity unchecked or put (of Arab or Persian or Greek-Roman or Sabian) origin. But that would be too long. Note even your two sources did not claim Azdi, which previously you were so adamant about it. So we are here trying to assess his ethnicity from all available sources without any bias. If he was Tartusi, Kufi, Tusi, Harrani, then his ethnicity may have well been Greek, Persian or Sabian and not Arab. I would recommend you to go to your university library (preferably a good university) and pick up a copy of Ibn Nadeem. It doesn't mention anything about him being Arab, nor does it mention al-Azdi. This is one of the oldest biographies of Geber available. Hajji Khalifa, Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Khaldun also do not mention anything about his ethnicity and neither do they mention an Azdi tribe. Now even if you do find an old source that mentions, "Azdi", there is absolutely no reason why these 4 sources should be ignored. So his ethnicity as I have proven here is unclear. Note if I was just being nationalistic, I would have said Persian, but the evidences on his background are just scanty and this means that both Arabs and Iranians, do not (and will never have) enough material to convincingly prove his background. So I propose we put of (Arab or Persian) origin or leaving it unchecked.

BTW here is the full text from Britannica. Note except for the parts in quotes, which was given to him by westerners (just like they used to call Avicenna who had a Zoroastrian mother and Persian father as Arabian prince of medicine), there is nothing to indicate he was arabic. These terms like "Arabian prince of medicine" for Aviecenna and other terms have been out-dated by centuries and have to do with more popular myth than actual facts.

born c. 721, , Tus, Iran died c. 815, , Kufah, Iraq

alchemist known as the “father of Arab chemistry.”

Shortly after Jabir was born, his father was beheaded for the part he played in a plot by the 'Abbasids to depose the Umayyad dynasty. Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect. Apparently, he studied most branches of learning, including medicine. After the 'Abbasids defeated the Umayyads, Jabir became a court physician to the 'Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid. Jabir was a close friend of the sixth Shi'ite imam, Ja'far ibn Muhammad, whom he gave credit for many of his scientific ideas.

More than 2,000 works are attributed to Jabir. The Muslim Isma'iliyah sect published a large body of alchemical and mystical works under his name. In the 14th century a Spanish alchemist placed the name Geber (the Latinized form of Jabir) on his own manuscripts, possibly to attribute them to Jabir and thus gain greater authority.

From Jabir's own works, there is no evidence of any achievements that might justify the extraordinary esteem in which he was held by later alchemists. His reputation appears to rest mainly on the appeal of his metaphysical philosophy of nature and perhaps his unique style, emphasis, and development of the theory of matter. Jabir revised the ancient Greek belief that everything is composed of fire, earth, water, and air. He believed that these four elements combined to form mercury and sulfur and that all metals are formed from these two substances when combined in various proportions. Jabir was aware that when mercury and sulfur are combined, the red compound cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) is produced; but he felt that, if the ideal proportion could be found, gold would be the product. This theory was widely adopted; altered and spread, it had a great influence on early chemistry and eventually led to the belief in phlogiston.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me just show how your arguments are false: If he was Al-Tartusi he could very well have been Greek. His connections with Pythagorias and his knowledge of Greek might be an indicator of this as well.

I have knowledge of English, is that a strong indication I'm British?

Nope you don't seem to get it. If he is from Tartus, then he is most likely not Arab specially at that time where the city was not Arabized.

As per him being Persian, this is very plausible since he was very anti-Umammyad

The Abbasids were very anti-ummayad too, so much that they destroyed their dynasty, does that make them Persian? Your place of birth doesn't designate your ethnicity, even still, Kufa is an Arab city, not Persian.

Kufa was a mixed city of Persians and Arabs at that time. Tus was mainly Persian.

So that is why I have not list his ethnicity and unless you have clear proof he was Arab from ancient sources (and there is no way to prove it with all these various sources), and not just some Encyclopedia which has been correct many times and used to classify many other Iranian, Turkish Muslim scientists as Arabs

Actually, these encyclopedias are verified, I see that a favorite tactic of yours is ignore, mock, and marginalize sources that your opponents give, just check your comments on all the articles you had. Please, don't use sleazy tactics to get your way in editing. Also, Encarta specifically states him to be Arab.

Nope you didn't give me one source. Encarta does not mean anything when you can't show me an ancient source that says he was Arab. Note Britannica even stayed away from discussing his ethnicity. There are literally hundreds of mistake in both Encyclopedias as well as the fact that manya articles for the same entery could even contradict each other. I need ancient sources. You claimed that all sources mention as al-Azdi and when I asked you for one ancient source, you stayed sliet.

I'm an Arab, are you telling me I can't comprehend my own language?! I asked for the name of book, year of publication, and the number of pages from which the quote was taken. Do you understand English?

Well then read it. I gave you the publications above. Ibn Nadeem, Tehran, 1342 (1963) (look in the index for Jabir). Al-Muqadaama Ibn Khaldun, translated by Mohammad Parvin Gonabadi, Tehran, 1360 (look in the index for Jabir).

I have sources that state him to be Arab. He spoke, wrote and lived in the Arab world, please stop trying to falsify articles for your own views. MB 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is not a source relative to the sources I brought. 1911 Britannica also mistakenly called Avicenna as an "Arab" and now it has been corrected. I have brought four sources: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Nadeem and Haji Khalifa. I have brought the exact Arabic quotes. Now both Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikhan .. mention the he was a Shia and so does Britannica. Why do you delete that portion at least? This is a well know fact. Do you agree that he was a Shia or not? I am not saying all Shias are Iranians, but historically Shi'ism has been very strong in Iran specially in Tus Khorasan where the inhabitants are Persians and never have been Arabs (Unless you claim otherwisfe). Many of the so called "Arab" shi'ites of Iraq have Persian origin as well. Even the current leadership of the Howza is Ayatollah Sistani who is Persian. Now I am not claiming 100% Geber was born in Tus, because Kufa and Tartus are also mentioned. But if he was born in Tus, most likely he was Persian. Yet I have no definite proof, since I can not discout the other two Kufa, Tartus and etc. Again I ask you to prove your claims that he was an Arab from ancient sources and if you can't, then you should not persist in just repeating the same Encarta argument. Encarta is the one that has no sources. Over here I brought four of the most reliable and ancient sources ever. So fact of the matter is that his ethnicity is unknown. Even some people question his existence, but his existence is known by Ibn Nadeem and others and so his biography should be put from there. BTW you claimed all sources mention him al-azdi and even Britannica, Encarta didn't. Neither did the more authentic and ancient sources like Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khalikan and Haji Khalifa.

--Ali doostzadeh 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali doostzadeh's comment, just because Geber wrote in Arabic does not mean that he was an Arab. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that he was a member of Al-Azad tribe as you claim. Also, please avoid personal attacks and stay civil. --ManiF 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are many sources that state him to be Arab, I already gave the sources, please don't delete verifiable info from the article. 213.42.2.28 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I share the concern of those who think Geber is being labeled Arab by Britannica just because he was Muslim. It is true that mistakes were made about Biruni and Avicenna and a few other Muslim figures. However we should keep in mind that Britannica updated itself, Biruni and Avicenna are referred to as Persians, and in cases where there were uncertainty, like Kharazmi, ethnicity was not mentioned. This gives me a reason to accept the current version. However it is likely that it will change in the future. That said, the same Britannica calls him a Shia and I don’t know why people keep deleting that. MB why do you delete Shia when you want to add Arab? Is there a law against being an Arab and Shia at the same time? I am putting shia back in.

Thank you.

Gol 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

jabir ibn hayyan al-azdi

From Alchemy by E.J. Holmyard

His biography:

Al-Azdi, Al-Kufi,Al-Tusi,Al-Sufi..."These various designations. confusing as they seem at first sight, were in fact clues that did much to clear up uncertainties ab out Jabir's life"

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=de&vid=ISBN0486262987&id=svvrC-5-G8UC&dq=jabir+al-azdi&lpg=PA69&pg=PA68&sig=xWsGOMJ9LWZHRi6MlWnhrtXv6Kc

The matter is settled.

Jidan 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you quote only the parts you like. The book does not help in any way to clarify Jabirs ethnicity since the author clearly states: "Much is still conjectural, but the following account is probably authentic in main". Note the ethnicity of Jabir again is uncertain and the author uses probably and conjectural. If it was certain, he would not have used probably and conjectural. Note that virtually no manuscript of Jabir Ibn Hayyan has been authenticated as from him, so the attribution of any manuscript to him with a name "azdi" is unreliable. See the note I mentioned above. Again I ask what early Islamic biographer has put Al-Azdi as his tribal designation? I am waiting for one Islamic biographer at least. Also why do you guys delete the Shia Muslim part which is in every single biography (even the ? This hardly makes the matter settled. Jabirs ethnic identity is uncertain like I stated because the words Tusi and Azdi do not appear in the same places. The only thing biographers agree upon is that he was Shia muslim. The author for example also claims Jabir had something to do with Sufism, but sufism was not developed back then and the title Al-Sufi to be interpreted within sufism does not make sense. The fact is any guess on Jabirs ethnicity is conjectural and probable. I can also quote the following books from the site on alchemy and claim he was Persian:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0226577120&id=M1mYByGE1P4C&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=8QQU97iZ5TMYcZ14BrAh49Hqo6s

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0738703109&id=WVoWXSd9owIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=EgD7iGAFPxstg0u3gv6hII10V_k

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0801856647&id=ZXFJMLWx7UgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=um5FHyADmwxImkDHF0zifqAtQ7o

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0973899204&id=X-s2xn-r_kwC&pg=PA2014&lpg=PA2014&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=YJ3YGWW8q8i1tmUgx1cpBFFPBT8

I am still waiting to see which ancient biographer has given him a title "Al-Azdi". So far there is no clear evidence and I only hear of certain manuscripts, whereas many of these manuscripts are not authentically authored by Jabir.

--Ali doostzadeh 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry Ali, but 3 out of 4 links you posted don't work, and one link doesn't say anything about his ethnicity. Jidan 22:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He was Arab

Most notable encyclopedias including Britannica and Encarta states that Geber was an Arab. Please stop this racist edit war, Geber and Alhazen are both non-Persians, and none of you have the evidence to prove otherwise. Bring your evidence. Any information from an Iranian- or Persian-nationalist web site will not be accepted.--Inahet 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali doostzadeh's comments on this page. --ManiF 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he Azd you ask?

E.J. Holmyard, a notable scholar in the field of Alchemy, author of Makers of Chemistry and The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan says that Jabir was from the Al-Azd tribe, one of the many Southern Arab tribes that settled in --Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Kufa.[2] and [3] I'm sure that Holmyard had done a lot of research using, of course, "ancient" sources. What other sources do you think he used? --Inahet 09:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And who is ibn Nadeem? I don't think he is notable in Islamic history, maybe in Shia history. But because you, doostzadeh, didn't find any information on Jabir's ethnic background in the very few books you read, doesn't mean that information is nonexistant. Many notable sources including the Columbia Encyclopedia and The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography says that he is Arab. None say that his "ethnicity is unknown". Wikipedia is not a place for inadequate and exclusive research or for nationalistic wars, it is to reflect the accepted opinion, and that opinion is Jabir is an Arab. --Inahet 09:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the history page, there are many notable sources that states that Jabir was Arab. No notable source was brought to prove that he was Shia, or that his ethnicity was unknown. Even the proof that Doostzadeh brought, which some of you rely on to make your arguement, is not at all inclusive. I think a scholar in the field of alchemy like Holmyard has done a lot more comprehensive research in older texts than Doostzadeh has ever did, and therefore Wikipedia should include the opinion of the former. Before some of you decide to revert, please cite your source. The source should be notable. Inahet 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you just changed your name from MB to Inahet. And if you even had done minute amount of research, you would know who Ibn Nadeem is. I am not here to give you an education in order to remove your complete ignorance of this situation. Ibn Nadeem is one of the foremost ancient sources on many of the scholars of the Islamic world. Do a google search on Ibn Nadim or Ibn Nadeem or on Al-Fihrist. First of his Shia identity is identified by Ibn Nadeem, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ibn Khalikan and even the sources you brought. The second thing is I gave some sources above that his ethnicity is Persian. If he was born in Tus, he could definitely be claimed as an Iranian (by territory) and even perhaps by ethnicity. There is no notable source that says he is an Arab. Because all the ancient sources on him: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikan, Haji Khalifa have not put him as al-Azdi. And no actual manuscript has been authneticated that clearly should belong to him. Besides they have given different birth accounts. But all of them are unanimous on him being a shia. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic wars, and there is no accepted opinion on Jabirs ethnicity as I showed a good amount of sources (from above) that he was Persian. So I have left his ethnic identity unchecked. For example thee Encyclopedia Britannica on Geber which was silent but mentioned he was a Shia.

Here are some sources that mention him as Persian:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0226577120&id=M1mYByGE1P4C&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=8QQU97iZ5TMYcZ14BrAh49Hqo6s

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0738703109&id=WVoWXSd9owIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=EgD7iGAFPxstg0u3gv6hII10V_k

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0801856647&id=ZXFJMLWx7UgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=um5FHyADmwxImkDHF0zifqAtQ7o

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0973899204&id=X-s2xn-r_kwC&pg=PA2014&lpg=PA2014&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=YJ3YGWW8q8i1tmUgx1cpBFFPBT8

I am still waiting to see which ancient biographer has given him a title "Al-Azdi". I can also claim these as "notable" sources, so please do not spew ignorance here. What is important is what the ancient sources have wrote. So far Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Nadeem and Haji Khalifa have not done so. Ibn Nadeem mentions that he is from Khorasan and does not mention the title al-azdi. He is the earliest source on Jabirs biography and clearly states that he was Shia (see the above).

Here is the exact quote from Ibn Nadeem (see the refrence above for publication): هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات ...

Note it clearly states he was a shia. So does Ibn Khalikan. Now I am not making any claims on his ethnicity although Persians historically have been strong supporters of Shi'ism and being born in Tus means that he was born in a prevalently Persian city. But this is not the only biography on Geber that is available. So I have left his ethnicity unchecked, bought his religious sect is very certain.

--Ali doostzadeh 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I and Mb are not the same person, I understand this is a tactic you use to undermine the credibility of your "opponents." It's very sleazy, and I would never have went that low no matter what the situation was. And, I suggest that you write your arguments without a belligerent tone, because we can turn this into a petty fight, or we can healthily debate the issue at hand. The ball is in your court. I will, however, check the sources and get back to you. Inahet 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a Google account, is there any way you can quote the actual text? --Inahet 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I already did a google search on Ibn Nadim; very little information was given about this person. He's not mentioned in the most comprehensive Islamic web sites like Islamonline.net and he has no entries in the most popular encyclopedias, which is an indicator of his notableness.

I asked someone for a translation of the Ibn Nadeem quote you provided, because I'm not sure your translation is accurate. Here is my translation:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه:::::: من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات

He is Abdullah Jabir bin (son of) Hayyan bin Abdullah Al Koufi, well-known among the Sufis, and different from the people of his time, For it was said by the Shias that he was from from the greatest of them, one of the (al-Abwab), they allege that he was a friend of Ja'fir Al-Sadiq (radhee Allah 'anhu) and he was from the people of al Kaufa, and a people of philosophique allege that he was from them and he was in the rational and ranked philosophers.

Furthermore, the only source that I cited that claims that he was a Shia also claims that he is from the south Arabian tribe al-Azd, you cannot be selective.Inahet 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I am not knowlegable on Arabic but the translation above seems a little wrong. Either way there is no al-Azdi here and Ibn-Nadeem is one of the oldest and most reliable sources on.

I also brought a quote from Ibn Khalikan about him being Shia: فيات الأعيان ابن خلكان

جعفر الصادق أبو عبد اللله جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي زين العابدين بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب، رضي الله عنهم أجمعين؛ أحد الأئمة الاثني عشر على مذهب الإمامية، وكان من سادات أهل البيت ولقب بالصادق لصدقه في مقالته وفضله أشهر من أن يذكر، وله كلام في صنعة الكيمياء والزجر والفأل، وكان تلميذه أبو موسى جابر بن حيان الصوفي الطرسوسي قد ألف كتاباً يشتمل على ألف ورقة تتضمن رسائل جعفر الصادق وهي خمسمائة رسالة

As you can see, neither Ibn Nadeem, nor Ibn Khaldun, Nor Haji Khalifa, nor Ibn Khalikan have mentioned al-Azdi. Also for example the Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention al-Azdi, but mentions: "Shortly after Jabir was born, his father was beheaded for the part he played in a plot by the 'Abbasids to depose the Umayyad dynasty. Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect. ". Furthermore three different birth places have been mentioned: Tus, Tartus, Kufa. And as you can see there is no 100% certain biography on him or 100% certainty on his ethnicity. But him being Shia Muslim is mentioned in a good amount of sources. The other by Ibn Khalikan is helpful. And all sources mention that he was disciple of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (AS). --69.86.16.239 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (Ali Doostzadeh).

I have asked two others to translate the Ibn Nadeem quote, as my Arabic is also not that good. I made a Google account, and checked the links you provided. The first three do not work. The last doesn't claim that he was Persian, this is the actual text: "The earliest reference to sulfuric acid goes back to sometime in the 8th century when Jabir ibn Hayyan spoke of distilling niter with green vitriol. A Persian alchemist in the 10th century is credited with its discovery..." --Inahet 07:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three links work and I am not sure why you are saying they do not work. Get a google account and check it out.

For example on the first link, the book is "Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest for the perfect nature", pg 181: "The corpus acribed to the putative eight-century Persian sage, Jabir ibn Hayyan, sometimes called "parascelsus of the Arabs", (By Europeans), compromises almost three thousand works", and the third link says: "Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan(8th century);". So as you can see his ethnicity is not known and both Arabic and Persian can be claimed. Also check out this link on shi'ism which has an opposite take on my opinion: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=jabir+hayyan+shiite&sig=F4VWYaemaFTrMaIC-_O5X7SmyIw Another major factor is the work of Jabir ibn Hayyan, "the father of Arab alchemy"(European middle ages term), who was born in Tus(Khorasan) and brought his science to Baghdad and to Kufa. Research begun by Ruska into the person and work of Jabir, resulted in a monumental work by our late regretted colleague Paul Kraus. Tradition has Jabir as disciple of the sixth Shiite Imam,Ja'far al-Sadiq, who initiated him into alchemy and other esoteric sciences. Research has undoubtly established that this is an historical impossibility, and has gone to conclude that Arab alchemy from the oldest texts of the Jabirian corpus must have originated in the scientific culture of northeastern Iran. This thesis is supported by Pahlavi(middle-Persian) and Persian (modern Persian) terms used in the technical vocabulary"

And as per the title "al-Azdi" (which so far I have not seen any ancient sources and biographies on Jabir, the french author says: The nisba al-azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Jabir seems to have been a client (mawla) of the Azd tribe established in Kufa.

Now as you can see the information on his background is extremly diverse and various theories and counter-theories on his origin, place of birth, sect, ethnicity and even existence has been proposed. Although his shi'ism is still supported by most sources, even if he did not meet Imam Jaf'far Saddiq(AS). Because both Kufa and Tus were major shi'ite strongholds. And Kufa had a lot of Iranians, for example Mukhtar who lead a revolt against the ummayad had mainly Iranian soldiers and mawalis from Kufa in his army. So much so that the minority Arabs in his army complained about his more favorable view on Persians than Arabs. So there is no way to claim him as 100% Arab and as there is no way to claim him as 100% Persian. Even the title "al-Azdi" (which I have not seen any ancient source as of yet), could simply mean he was a client of the Azd tribe. So I propose both ethnicity should be mentioned and instead of Shia, we just leave it as muslim.

--Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other sources

To resolve this dispute, please also see the following academic sources that have discussed Geber in detail (and are referenced by the NIH):

• Syed Nomanul Haq, Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir ibn Ḥayyān and his Kitab al-Ahjar (Book of Stones) [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 158] (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994)
• Manfred Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung I, Ergänzungsband VI, Abschnitt 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 198-207
• Donald R. Hill, 'The Literature of Arabic Alchemy' in Religon, Learning and Science in the 'Abbasid Period, ed. by M.J.L. Young, J.D. Latham, and R.B. Serjeant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) pp. 328-341, esp. pp. 333-5.
• William Newman, 'New Light on the Identity of "Geber"', Sudhoffs Archiv, 1985, vol. 69, pp. 76-90.

Thanx.--Zereshk 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of writings. I don't have access to any of these sources, so I guess I will rely on the others to obtain any relevant information. Doing a Google search on these books is fruitless. However, I found an article written by William Newman published in 1989, in which he refers to Jabir as an Arab: "I have recently shown that Paul of Taranto, a thirteenth-century Franciscan, was the probable author of a famous alchemical text, the Summa perfectionis, spuriously attributed to the Arab Jãbir ibn Hayyãn" [4] I wouldn't be surprised if he claimed that Jabir is an Arab in his other (earlier) publication that Zereshk mentioned, but I admit I'm speculating.--Inahet 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen some recent books name Rhazes an "Arab" too. That's why we have to go a bit deeper and investigate the sources. Many authors use "muslim" and "Arab" (especially during the Golden Age of Islam) interchangeably. As User:Jidan stressed to us, an Arab is defined by many people as someone who speaks Arabic. Hence the source of confusion.--Zereshk 09:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits wars

What's with all these edits wars here? Can we just call him an Arab Shia Muslim? You guys need to discuss these in the talk. Aucaman^Talk 10:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the discussions on this page. It's not clear if Geber was an Arab by ethnicity, some sources refer to him as "Persian" or "Iranian" by ethnicity. --ManiF 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the sources that claim he was Persian or Iranian, because so far I have not seen one.--Inahet 16:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly philosophy magazine calling Gaber an Iranian. [5] --ManiF 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they do mention that he is Persian, but, that is not a scholarly philosophy magazine. They claim that their web site is "Europe's largest battery solutions provider producing over 500,000 batteries every month." We don't know from where they derived their information. --Inahet 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Iranian the same thing as Persian? There are Iranian Kurds, Iranian Arabs, Iranian Armenians, etc. --Inahet 17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali Doustzadeh's comments on this page, there is no historic evidence that Geber was an Arab or a Persian. He could have been an Arab or Persian. The only thing we know for sure is that he was a Shia Sufi born in Iran's Khorasan. --ManiF 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is no historic evidence until you have some notable secondary sources that say that there is no historic evidence of his ethnicity being Arab or Persian. But most sources say that he was Arab (with no hesitation) and even far less sources say that he was Persian, actually one so far, but they said he was Iranian. I'm still waiting for the translation on the Ibn Nadeem quote.--Inahet 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, I don't think your recent edit is fair, but I don't want to engage in an edit war. How about we keep Shia and the Iranian scientists catergory, but add back the Arab scientists catergory, and remove the portion in the introduction that says "Persian has been claimed" because thus far we have not seen one notable source that refers to him as being Persian. What do you think? Inahet 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I will make the changes that I proposed, and then you decide whether you agree with it or not. --Inahet 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three links work and I am not sure why you are saying they do not work. Get a google account and check it out.

For example on the first link, the book is "Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest for the perfect nature", pg 181: "The corpus acribed to the putative eight-century Persian sage, Jabir ibn Hayyan, sometimes called "parascelsus of the Arabs", (By Europeans), compromises almost three thousand works", and the third link says: "Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan(8th century);". So as you can see his ethnicity is not known and both Arabic and Persian can be claimed. Also check out this link on shi'ism which has an opposite take on my opinion: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=jabir+hayyan+shiite&sig=F4VWYaemaFTrMaIC-_O5X7SmyIw Another major factor is the work of Jabir ibn Hayyan, "the father of Arab alchemy"(European middle ages term), who was born in Tus(Khorasan) and brought his science to Baghdad and to Kufa. Research begun by Ruska into the person and work of Jabir, resulted in a monumental work by our late regretted colleague Paul Kraus. Tradition has Jabir as disciple of the sixth Shiite Imam,Ja'far al-Sadiq, who initiated him into alchemy and other esoteric sciences. Research has undoubtly established that this is an historical impossibility, and has gone to conclude that Arab alchemy from the oldest texts of the Jabirian corpus must have originated in the scientific culture of northeastern Iran. This thesis is supported by Pahlavi(middle-Persian) and Persian (modern Persian) terms used in the technical vocabulary"

And as per the title "al-Azdi" (which so far I have not seen any ancient sources and biographies on Jabir) the french author says: The nisba al-azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Jabir seems to have been a client (mawla) of the Azd tribe established in Kufa.

Now as you can see the information on his background is extremly diverse and various theories and counter-theories on his origin, place of birth, sect, ethnicity and even existence (some scholars even have questioned if he was a real person!) has been proposed. Although his shi'ism is still supported by most sources, even if he did not meet Imam Jaf'far Saddiq(AS). Because both Kufa and Tus were major shi'ite strongholds. And Kufa had a lot of Iranians, for example Mukhtar who lead a revolt against the ummayad had mainly Iranian soldiers and mawalis from Kufa in his army. So much so that the minority Arabs in his army complained about his more favorable view on Persians than Arabs. So there is no way to claim him as 100% Arab and as there is no way to claim him as 100% Persian. Even the title "al-Azdi" (which I have not seen any ancient source as of yet), could simply mean he was a client of the Azd tribe. So I propose both ethnic backgrounds should be mentioned. We can leave the Shia part, but even that is not 100% certain although very very probable.

--Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan

He was born in Khorasan which was home to a sizable Arab population during the Middle Ages (and there still remains a Khorasani Arab population there). Just my two cents. SouthernComfort 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

THere is no Khorasani Arab population. And we have gone through this argument already. Most of the Arabs that came to Khorasan, were assimilated quickly and the majority of them came to Merv. There is absolutely no source that mentions that Tus had an Arab population. Also the number of Iranians in Iraq was much greater than the number of Arabs in Khorasan and many Iraqis claim Iranian ancestory.

--69.86.16.239 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken - there is indeed a Khorasani Arab population. A very small one in this day and age, but they do exist. See this link [6] for example as well as Britannica [7]. SouthernComfort 07:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a minority Arab population in Khorasan, but the chances of him being Persian are probably higher than being Arab since the majority in Khorasan were Persian. Regardless, for now we have no historic evidence that proves Geber was an Arab or a Persian beyond any doubts. --ManiF 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

His place of birth is uncertain

The very few sources that say he was born in Khorasan also say he was Arab. And none of the "ancient" sources says that he was born there. If his ethnicity is unclear, then by the same standard his place of birth is unclear. Therefore, it is uncertain that he is Iranian.--Inahet 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read all of Ali Doustzadeh's comments and review his evidence on this page. Geber's place of birth is not uncertain, but his ethnicity is unclear. We can't brand him as an "Arab Chemist" or "Arab Mathematician" when it's unclear if he was an Arab, therefore the Arab categories are confusing and contradictory to the fact that his ethnicity is unclear. --ManiF 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have not been reading the discussions because there has not been any proof presented to verify your claims.--Inahet 19:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Settling the Issue

The last revision made by ManiF doesn't comply with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. As I understand, verifiability is key and if you can't verify a claim then it doesn't belong here in Wikipedia. Although ignored, my earlier concessions are invalid, because I wasn't following the Wikipedia rule of verifiability. Compromising and conceding are not my job, or anyone else's. If we were following Wikipedia's policies as we should, Geber would be described as an Arab (definite) Shia (possibly), Muslim (definite) ... These claims are verifiable by the availability of abundant sources. In fact, I will list the sources that verifies the given characterization or claim

Jabir is Persian:

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova (Page 286)
• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181)
• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014)
• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200)

I removed this source Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014). It does not say he was Persian as I proved, read the discussions. [8]--Inahet 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Iranian:

• The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy by Henry Corbin
• "The Window" Philosophy Magazine - Questionable Credibality: it states unviersally NON-Iranian scientists such as Al-Kindi, Ibn Khaldun, Thabit Ibn Qurra as Iranian!!!
• The Chemical Heritage Foundation Factbook
• Science, Technology and Islam by Kenneth Humphreys

Jabir was born in Khorestan, Iran:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• The Chemical Heritage Foundation Factbook
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Arab:

• Encarta
• Britannica
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography
• Simon & Shuster New Millenium Encyclopedia
• Author of Alchemy E.J. Holmyard
• Author of Technology and Alchemical debate in The Late Middle Ages, William Newman
• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.
• Chemical Heritage Foundation
• Wolfram Research

more to come

The following lacks sources

Jabir's ethnicity is unclear

This is our own educated conclusion based on contradictory sources regarding Geber' ethnicity. For your information, "Iranian" does not necessarily mean a nationality and can also be used ethnically to refer to Persians and Kurds. --ManiF 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And for your information, your own educated conclusion isn't good enough to use as a reference.

It's a logical conclusion based on on the contradictory evidence presented by both sides. Furthermore, many references, some of which have been cited on this page, explicitly state that most aspects of Gaber's life are unknown. Many of the Encyclopedias avoid discussing Geber's ethnicty for the very reason that Gaber's ethnicity is unclear. --ManiF 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabir was born in Tarsus, Turkey:

• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.

Jabir is Shia:

• Author E.J. Holmyard

And if it is necessary, I will have to consult the help of an administrator who is well-versed in Wikipedia's guidelines and polices. ~

Ok, I've added several sources to your list for now, more sources will be coming up. As you can see, there is nothing definite about Geber's ethnicity and many reputable sources refer to him as an Iranian which can be interpreted as Persian or Kurd. --ManiF 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I dispute the Iranian claim? No I didn't, although there is a conflict regarding his birth of place, check the sources. And Iranian can also include Arabs, Armenians, etc. And the word Iran wasn't even used at the time Geber lived, so there is reason to dispute this claim as well. --Inahet 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Back in 721, there was no modern Iranian state. So when Gaber is referred to as Iranian by many authoritative sources, most than likely, they are talking about his ethnicity being of Iranian stock ( Persians, Kurd or Lur). Regardless, when there are so many contradictory sources regarding Geber's ethnicity, without any historic evidence {ie Gaber calling himself an Arab or a Persian), we can not say for sure that he's definitely an Arab, an Iranian or anything else. --ManiF 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree --Kash 23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the name Iran is pre-Islamic. And good job ManiF in assembling allt hese sources in one spot. I think Jabirs ethnicity is definitely unclear. His place of birth also is not hundred percent definite. In fact lots of works attributed to him are not definite and even his existence as a person has been questioned although I disagree, since Ibn-Nadeem mentions him. I think it is based to let the wikipedia article display all these ambigitious that have existed with Jabir. --Ali doostzadeh 05:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I Have given up

ManiF You don't want to follow the rules, you think your revision is more valid than mine even though you cite far less sources that are mostly unverifiable. I doubt you even read a section from the books you cited, and you won't allow the more verifiable revision remain until more proof is provided because you have to have it your way. I have given up, I'm requesting help from an admin. --Inahet 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read my last comment in the above section. You requested sources and it was given to you in abundance and yet you don't acknowledge them. We can not label someone an Arab when there are contradictory sources referring to the same person as an Iranian. The best solution is to leave the ethnicity part out of the article in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. --ManiF 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's far from the best solution. I can't pretend to know everything about this issue, but I can offer best practices. Until the more rigorous sources posted in an above section can be checked and/or better can be found, it seems clear sources differ on his ethnicity and nationality. So instead of leaving an important fact out or claiming it is unkown, simply report the sources differ. Differentiate his ethnic background and his place of birth as much as possible. The best source would be a peer reviewed on the speaks to the specific issue and has not been significantly questioned. Lacking that, report the facts: the sources differ. List the significant claims and cite the best sources to each. Only state it is unknown if a source makes that clear. - Taxman ^Talk 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you read Ali Doustzadeh's comment on this page, he has cited several historic quotes that explicitly state that many details about Gaber's life, including his background, are unknown. That's why we reported the fact that the sources differ on his ethnicity by saying "His ethnicity is unclear, though some sources identify him as an Arab and others as Persian". --ManiF 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

The name Geber, a Latinized form of Jabir, was adopted because of the great reputation of the 8th-century Arab alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan. A number of Arabic scientific works credited to Jabir were translated into Latin during the 11th to 13th centuries. [9] Britannica also identifies him as an "unknown author." SouthernComfort 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

totally trivial is the following: western sources refer to arabic writers as arab. hence no way to accept britanica. i will come up later, now i have write my own stuff. kalash7oct2006.

There is a paper entitled New Light on the Identity of "Geber" by William Newman that may shed some additional light on who Geber was. However, even then I think this paper identifies him as an Arab, as do Columbia and Britannica. I believe he should be identified as an Arab in this article, but one may wish to also state that his identity was "unknown" or "unclear" or some such wording. SouthernComfort 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Geber's ethnicity

Sources

Okay guys, drop all the different sources here. Don't give any explanations unless necessary. Let's see what we're dealing with. If it's a website just drop the link. If the source is offline just put the quote. In any case don't include any arguments. Aucaman^Talk 14:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Different sources have already been listed under "Settling the Issue". --ManiF 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bark orders at others. It is considered rude and incivil. SouthernComfort 03:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

==More about Ibn Nadeem==--69.86.16.239 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Inahet said above that Ibn Nadeem is not "notable in Islamic history" as a source.

Two things I can say in response:

• "The al-fihrist is the oldest and best existing source of our knowledge on these matters [history of medicine]." Edward Granville Browne, Islamic Medicine, 2002, ISBN 8187570, p.15
• The al-fihrist is available in English at a good library near you:

The Fihrist of al-Nadim; a tenth-century survey of Muslim culture. Bayard Dodge, editor and translator. PUBLISHED: New York, Columbia University Press, 1970. ISBN 023102925X [10]

Thanks.--Zereshk 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that was a dumb thing for me to say. Anyway, according to the "Kitab al-Fihrist" (I'm assuming it is the same one you're referring to) Geber was born in Tarsus, Turkey, thus he isn't Iranian, not by ethnicity nor by the region he was born in. Here is the article I got this information from:

Also known as: Dschabir Ben Hayyan, Abou Moussah Djafar al Sofi

Birth: ? in Tarsus, Turkey

Death: c. 776 A.D.

Nationality: Arabian

Occupation: alchemist

Source: Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biographical Essay

Further Readings

Source Citation

BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Arabian alchemist whose real name has been variously stated as Dschabir Ben Hayyan or Abou Moussah Djafar al Sofi. According to the tenth-century Kitab-al-Fihrist, Geber was born at Tarsus and lived at Damascus and Kufa. Very little is known of his early life. He undertook wide experiments in metallurgy and chemistry with the object of discovering the constituent elements of metals, in the course of which he stumbled upon nitric acid and red oxide of mercury. It is upon such actual discoveries that his reputation is based, not upon the many spurious treatises that have been attributed to him and embrace the entire gamut of eighth-century science.

His alleged extant works, which are in Latin, are regarded with suspicion, especially since several other medieval writers adopted his name. It is believed, however, that the library at Leyden and the Imperial Library at Paris contain Arabic manuscripts that might have been written by him. His books Sum of Perfection and Investigation into the Perfection of Metals are his most important works. Complete editions were published at Dantzic in 1682 and are included in the Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa of Mangetus, published at Cologne in 1702.

Sum of Perfection professes to draw its inspiration from alchemical authors who lived before Geber, but because alchemy was not advanced at that time the derivation is an unlikely one. The book states that success in the great art is only to be achieved by rigid adherence to natural law. A spirit of great strength and a dry water are spoken of as the elements of the natural principle. The philosophical furnace and its arrangement are dealt with in detail, as is the ``philosopher's vessel, a glass vase with several intricate details.

"Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC END OF ARTICLE

I would appreciate it if you would note this in the article and remove the Iranian scientist category since it is disputed. Thanks in advance.Inahet 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have the al-Firhist and in no where I see Geber being mentioned from al-Tartus. BTW Tartus is not in Turkey, but is in the Syrian coast of the mediterranean river which at the time of Geber was mainly Greek Christians.

Also provide the quote exactly in Arabic. The auhor above mixed up his sources and Ibn Nadeem no where claims Geber from being Tartus but is very clear on Geber being from Khorasan.

As per your other claim, here is another source that has shown his ethnicity is unknown. This is a very reliable source produced by the University of Cambridge. http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521200938&id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&dq=The+works+of+Jabir+deal+not+only+with+alchemy+but+also&lpg=PA413&pg=PA413&sig=8KtOG5B81EF4T1pgqNrSGPwbqXg

Here is the whole quote from Ibn Nadeem:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات وزعم أهل صناعة الذهب والفضة أن الرياسة انتهت إليه في عصره وأن أمره كان مكتوماً وزعموا أهه كان يتنقل في البلدان لا يستقر به بلد خوفاً من السلطان على نفسه وقيل أنه كان في جملة البرامكة ومنقطعاً إليها ومتحققاً بجعفر بن يحيى فمن زعم هذا قال أنه عني بسيده جعفر هو البرمكي وقالت الشيعة إنما عني جعفر الصادق وحدثني بعض الثقات ممن تعاطى الصنعة أنه كان ينزل في شارع باب الشام في درب يعرف بدرب الذهب وقال لي هذا الرجل أن جابراً كان أكثر مقامه بالكوفة وبها كان يدبر الأكسير لصحة هوائها ولما أصيب بالكوفة الازج الذي وجد فيه هوان ذهب فيه نحو مائتي رطل ذكر هذا الرجل أن الموضع الذي أصيب ذلك فيه كان دار جابر بن حيان فإنه لم يصب في ذلك الأزج غير الهاون فقط وموضع قد بني للحل والعقد هذا في أيام عز الدولة بن معز الدولة وقال لي أبو اسبكتكين دستاردار أنه هو الذي خرج ليتسلم ذلك وقال جماعة من أهل العلم وأكابر الوراقين أن هذا الرجل يعني جابراً لا أصل له ولا حقيقة وبعضهم قال أنه ما صنف وإن كان له حقيقة إلا كتاب الرحمة وأن هذه المصنفات صنفها الناس ونحلوه إياها وأنا أقول أن رجلاً فاضلاً يجلس ويتعب فيصنف كتاباً يحتوي على ألفي ورقة يتعب قريحته وفكره بإخراجه ويتعب يده وجسمه بنسخه ثم ينحله لغيره إما موجوداً أو معدوماً ضرب من الجهل وإن ذلك لا يستمر على أحد ولا يدخل تحته من تحلى ساعة واحدة بالعلم وأي فائدة في هذا وأي عائدة والرجل له حقيقة وأمره أظهر وأشهر وتصنيفاته أعظم وأكثر ولهذا الرجل كتب في مذاهب الشيعة أنا أوردها في مواضعها وكتب في معان شتى من العلوم قد ذكرتها في مواضعها من الكتاب وقد قيل أن أصله من خراسان والرازي يقول في كتبه المؤلفة في الصنعة قال أستاذنا أبو موسى جابر بن حيان.

Note it mentions both Shi'ism and his Asl(root) being from Khorasan. أن أصله من خراسان

There is nothing about him being from Tartus from Ibn Nadeem.

I propose the information from the following book be put in the Wikipedia article since by now we have established many reliable sources that say either he was Persian or his ethnicity is unknown:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521200938&id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&dq=The+works+of+Jabir+deal+not+only+with+alchemy+but+also&lpg=PA413&pg=PA413&sig=8KtOG5B81EF4T1pgqNrSGPwbqXg

--Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough Arabic to understand the Ibn Nadeem quote, so I can't confirm or deny what you said regarding Ibn Nadeem's quote. And as you said, you're not very knowledgeable in Arabic either. So if we can get our hands on the English translation as Zereshk suggested then it would be much easier. And to be accurate, Ibn Nadeem doesn't directly say that Jabir is Sh'ia, he says that Sh'ias claim he is one of the Sh'ia (actually, one of leaders of the Shias). There is a big difference between the two. For example, saying that "Phillip the Arab was a Christian" is not the same as "Early Christians allege that Phillip the Arab was a Christian."

Actually, this is the exact translation that I had requested from a fellow Wikipedian: the Shiaa called him one of their leaders and one of their Ba'bs (head of the school in philosophic meaning of a religion) and they claimed that he was the follower of Ja'far Al-Sadegh (the 6th Imam of Shiaa).... Anyway, I just wanted that to be clear for others who do not understand Arabic. Also, English sources are preferable to non-English sources as according to Wikipedia verifiability policy.

Also, I have problems with ManiF's sources. What he did was he simply listed the sources that you had posted previously without bothering to look them up or reading what I had to say in response to these sources. For example, as I told you before, Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie doesn't say that he is Persian.[11]

Also, I couldn't check the other three sources from the Google links you provided because the pages constantly refreshes without displaying the contents of the pages. I see that Jidan also had the same problem. And I doubt that the pages worked for ManiF. The one that did work didn't say he was Persian (Louie's book), you had made a mistake. You might have made a mistake with the others. Could you quote them exactly? In the meantime, it is safe to say that there is still a lack of sources that claim he was Persian. Are you willing to agree with this?

Anyway I'll read the Cambridge source, I will try to write an entire section on his ethnicity and I will see whether I can incorporate the different perspectives including E.J. Holmyard's perspective as well the Cambridge perspective that you have provided. Inahet 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ali, the problem with the Cambridge source is that an important part is cut-off and there is no access to that page through Google. I want to be able to quote the author or write his perspective which I will attribute to him, but I'm not sure as to what he exactly said; is there a way you can obtain the book? Inahet 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have access to that Cambridge book and will bring about soon probably by this Friday. Most of it is there, and that first line basically shows that modern scholars are unclear about his ethnicity, which is the case I am arguing here as well and have brought about some sources to show this. As per arabic, I know enough to get the section of Ibn Nadeem and there is no mention of Tartus. Also Ibn Nadeem clearly says Jabir is from Khorasan. Asl (root) and Khorasan. But I will wait for someone more knowledegable to translate the whole thing exactly. Per now I think that the information from the Cambridge source should be put on the web-site and although half it is there, I will get the other half soon. But I can assure you that Tartus and Jabir do not go together since I have Ibn Nadeem on CD and did an extensive search. Either way, I'll try to bring the rest of the Cambridge source soon.

--Ali doostzadeh 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my rough draft that I said I would write. The last revision of the Wiki Geber article was contradictory, in the first paragraph it stated that Jabir's ethnicity is unknown, but in the biography section it is stated that he is the son of the Hayyan, an Arab. So I think my draft corrects this contradiction.

Also, another problem with the Cambridge source is that it is not a book on Jabir ibn Hayyan or on Alchemy and alchemists, but it is a book on the history of Iran. But for the sake of compromise I wrote their perspective into the section. E.J. Holmyard, in my view, has much more authority on the subject. And unlike many scholars, he doesn't refer to every Muslim scientist as an Arab. In fact, E.J. Holmyard states that "Avicenna...described as the Aristotle of the Arabians...was not in fact an Arab but a Persian."(Makers Of Chemistry, pg 69) Also, Holmyard uses Ibn Nadeem's Kitab al Fihrist as a source as proved in page 52 in the entry of Jabir Ibn Hayyan: "His (Jabir's) own list of writings, which has come down to us at second hand in the Kitab al-Fihrist of ibn al Nadim (about A.D. 1000)..."

Tell me what are your thoughts on my draft. --Inahet 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Cambridge source is written by serious historians and ethno-logist whereas any book on Alchemy is focused on Alchemy and not History. Part of History is actually studying the ethnicity of a certain person whereas this is secondary in a book about Alchemy. In fact a primary aspect of studying history is about ethnology.

I can also make strong arguments for the Cambridge source. Specially the fact that each of those scholars has hundreds of publications and many books with regards to the Islamic Middle East. It is edited by many scholars (and not just one author like the source you mentioned), it is from one of the most prestigious universities and so on and so forth.... The thing is that one can not choose a preferred source when there is so much uncertainty. I shall extract the statement from the Cambridge source soon (pg 412) and then everyone can be the judge. The problem is that again the Biography on Jabir is too scanty and nothing can be certain about him. So as a whole here, the opinion of one author here is no better than another author. BTW I rechecked all of Ibn Nadeem and there is nothing that says Jabir was from Tartus. Let me get the rest of the Cambridge source soon and then I'll get back to you. all the best --Ali doostzadeh 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is what the Cambridge source says. In fact one of the references in the back is Homyard source (1957). Note the Cambridge source is written about 30 years after, so it is more updated. And I will quote from pg 412:

Mystery still shrouds the identity and personality of the founder of Islamic alchemy, Jabir b. Hayyan. Some have even doubted his exitence, while others like Kraus have cast doubt upon the authenticity of the works attributed to him. But when all the evidence is examined, it is hardly possible do doubt that such a person existed, that he was an alchemist and that he also belonged to the circle of the sixth Shi'i Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. it is also clear that some of the works in the Jabirean corpus are later accretions of Isma'ili inspiration. There is a link between Jabirean alchemy and Ismai'ism in such works as the Kitab al-Majid (The Book of the Glorious), and also many links with the general tradition of Sufism in such questions as the symbolism of letters.

Jabir is entitled in traditional sources as al-'Azdi, Al-Kufi, Al-Tusi, Al-Sufi. There is also a debate as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khurasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian (I guess the author means Assyrian? or Greek?) origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq. What remains certain is that he and his family lived much of their life in Tus in Khurasan, that he spent a good part of his life, which streches over the 2nd/8th century, in Kufa and at the court of Harun al-Rashid in baghdad, that he was a Sufi, and that he was also a circle of Imam Ja'far. Recently some have claimed to have discovered his tomb in western Persia. He was both the founder of Islamic alchemy and the prototype of the Muslim aclhemist in later centuries.

So there is no unanimous viewpoint on Jabirs background. I think the information of Corbin is good as well. So I think in the article the information above should be written and there should not be one-sidedness.

--Ali doostzadeh 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should have special consideration for the Cambridge opinion, especially the fact that it is a minority opinion and that the information isn't extensive. As far as Jabir’s life goes, Holmyard’s perspective holds more weight, since he had studied Jabir’s life extensively and more closely. He has also wrote about him in at least two books and had translated his works. And many writers on Geber look to E.J. Holmyard's books for information, including, as you pointed out, the Cambridge collection. I would, however, add the Cambridge perspective to supplement the other prevalent opinions like E.J. Holmyard's and even the more recent perspectives, such as these sources:

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study (London: World of Islam Festival Publishing, 1976).

Gaw, Harold P., Geber: His Life and Works [12]

Also, it is important to reflect the proportions of the claims of Jabir's ethnicity, because as far as numbers go, the claim that Ibn Hayyan is Arab is far more than the claims that he was Persian, and is verfiable. Right now, I'm quite busy, but I'll do more research and see if I can get any more books on Geber. Also, I want to note that even an Iranian writer Fouad Kazem recognizes Geber's Arab ethnicity. Maybe this is not relevant, but I find it quite interesting. --Inahet 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Cambridge source quotes Holmyard's book and is more recent. So the information on Holmyard's book about Gebers life becomes out-dated relative to the Cambridge source which is the work of many scholars in the field. HolmYard's book is written in 1957 which is 50 years ago. One can not quote outdated sources here and more recent research has been done on Geber which is reflected in the Cambridge source, And that is not special consideration since already 4-5 reputable sources have not recognized Geber as an Arab. What concerns us here is the most recent source. The fact is that 100 years ago, even Avicenna was written as an Arab in western Books because to them Muslims and Arabs became equivalent. This bias still holds true even amongst many scholars tdoay, but it has been slowly chipped away at. It is becoming clear for Westerners that the majority of Muslim scientists were not Arabs. There is no such thing here as a minority viewpoint when the amount of uncertaintity on Gebers life is extremly high. One viewpoint is as good as other because it depends on the material a person chooses to right a biography. The most important fact is indeed that Gebers background and life is UNCERTAIN. So you can't claim to use one scholar against another and give more weight to one than the other. This is actually the majority viewpoint on Geber that his life and times and biography and event to some his existence is uncertain. Once this is recognized than both theories on his ethnicity. Also the Syrian theory needs to be added in as well. Add in the factor that in the West Muslim and Arabs have been used interchangeably in the wrong way, and then you will understand why all three theories need to be mentioned. For example you can quote Holmyards source and I will quote the Cambridge source, and in the end ther users will decide. So the idea to claim that his ethnicity is certain does not hold any ground. --Ali doostzadeh 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I was looking at Dehkhoda Dictionary today and noticed a huge section in it on Geber's biography. He thoroughly discusses reports by al-Qifti, ibn Nadeem, al-Jaldaki, ibn Khaldun, al-Majriti, and Europeans as well. He concludes that constructing a truly objective biography of Geber is impossible due to the sheer volume of inaccuraices and fabrications introduced into his biography and works. One historian for example claims he had 828 books, which is practically unrealistic! Others even claim that no such person existed.

However Dehkhoda says that, what we can be certain about him is that:

• Geber was Iranian by "asl" and Arab by "Nesbat". (I'll leave interpreting that up to you guys).
• He was most probably a follower of the Barmakids. (the "Jafar" mentioned in his biography is thus probably Jafar ibn Yahya Barmaki, not Jafar al-Sadiq)
• He was the master of Rhazes at some point.
• He remained largely in hiding until the pro and half Persian al-Mamun became caliph.

I think we cant say he was an Arab or Persian for sure. We have to somehow compromise on both.

But that is just my opinion. I'll leave the course of action to yall erudites.--Zereshk 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

E.J. Holmyard mentions both Ja'far ibn Sadiq and Ja'far ibn Yahya as acquaintances of Jabir. And as according to the Ibn Nadeem quote that Ali provided, Shi'as claim that he was a friend of Ja'far al-Sadiq.

Also, what is nesbat? --Inahet 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Arab

Geber is definitive arab:

• Columbia Encyclopedia
• Ancients & Alchemists
• Britannica Encyclopedia
• Encarta Encyclopedia

128.131.220.102 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The two great arab chemists

• Ahmed H. Zewail - 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on femtochemistry

• Jabir ibn Hayyan - the father of chemistry.

Jidan 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan: He was an Arab

Regarding the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan.

According to:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

• Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The following reliable sources prove the fact, that the 8th century Islamic Alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan was most probably arab:

• Makers of Chemistry by E.J. Holmyard
• Encarta
• Chemical Heritage Foundation
• Britannica
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• brockhaus encyclopedia - Brockhaus, a german well-known encyclopedia
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography
• Simon & Shuster New Millenium Encyclopedia
• Author of Alchemy E.J. Holmyard
• Author of Technology and Alchemical debate in The Late Middle Ages, William Newman
• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.
• Wolfram Research

Therefore, accordingly his arab ethnicity will be mentioned in his article and all related articles.

jidan 00:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Jabir's ethnicity has been discussed before under Talk:Geber#Settling_the_Issue and it was decided that there are contradictory sources on this issue, many reliable and published sources listed below refer to Jabir as Persian and/or Iranian, both views should be stated as per WP:NPOV.

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Persian:

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova (Page 286)
• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181)
• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014)
• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200)

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Iranian:

• The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy by Henry Corbin
• Science, Technology and Islam by Kenneth Humphreys

--ManiF 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to verfiy the sources listed by ManiF, and this is what I came to:

• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014): It doesnt say ANYTHING about jabir being persian. [13].This makes the crediablity of ManiF highly questionable.
  • Well, he was close: "The earliest reference to sulfuric acid goes back to sometime in the 8th century when Jabir ibn Hayyan spoke of distilling niter with green vitriol. A Persian alchemist in the 10th century is credited with its discovery." (p. 2014)--Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova: is a memoir of a guy,not a histroy or science book as you can see from the contents of the book [14]
  • But this is from the notes in the back of the book: "37. Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan (8th century)" on p. 286, – this book doesn't take sides --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181): unreachable to me.
  • "Summa Perfectionis, traditionally ascribed to Geber, the Latinized form of Jabir ibn Hayyan, one of the most famous names in Arabic alchemy..." (p. 72) – This is about the Spanish pseudo-Geber, not Jabir. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200): is a book about Magic!!! LOOL [15]
  • This is the most interesting one: "Among the most influential Arabic practitioners of the alchemical art was the Persian Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815 CE) who wrote more than 2000 alchemical works and was known as 'the father of Arabic chemistry'." It seems that some of the authors conflate the two backgrounds. Perhaps we can compromise and just give him a middle Eastern background so everyone can be happy. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can easly add more sources with jabir being mentioned as an arab. Only I think the sources I listed above are authoritive enough to prove that jabir was an arab. jidan 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, ManiF's research was fine, but his interpretation was just as biased as yours. Let's be clear about the sources. Your second source, the Chemical Heritage Foundation says he was born in Iran to parents of Arabic descent. That qualifies him as both Arabic and Persian. The crucial page 69 of the Holmdale book is restricted, so we can't tell from it, except that he was evidently Shi'a (p. 70-71). Your statement above says that you have "proved the fact" that he was "most probably Arab". That juxtaposition of two conflicting phrases indicates your own doubts, and I agree. It is not possible so say that he was only Arabic, or only Persian. We can not know for certain, so we can decide to continue edit warring over the differing sources, or we can compromise and say something like: some sources indicate he was born in Persia to Arabic parents, , or he may have been born in Persia to Arabic parents, but sources differ, with ref cited. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you mean by "only my sources are authoritive enough". Several users on this page have provided a dozen reliable and published sources that refer to Jabir as Persian and/or Iranian such as this one, when there are contradictory or contrary academic views, both views should be stated as per WP:NPOV. --ManiF 03:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is on the page right now is fine and clear, and not inconsistant with everybody's sources. Karol 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the majority of acadamic sources and all encyclopedia's label him as arab, he is then an arab. But since there are also sources that label him otherwise as persian (some serious historians say also that the egyptian pyramids were built by aliens), I think the following is a good compromise: He was most probably of Arab origin, but there are also few sources that describe him as Persian. jidan 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's proposed wording is more appropriate in accordance with WP:NPOV: "His ethnic background is not clear, although most sources state he was Arab, there are also many that describe him as Persian." --ManiF 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ALL encyclopdia's, Britannica, Brockhaus, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and all that I know of, label jabir as Arab. Going against all major encyclopedia's is considered original research, and this is not allowed in wiki, as per Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. My compromise is very generous and may not even be accepted by other arab editors. Trust me on this! jidan 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If one scrolls through this talk page, one can see that many Iranian editors also accept the fact the jabir is arab. jidan 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What original research? There are over a dozen references that have been cited in regard to conflicting views on Jabir's ethnicity. As another user already stated, don't repress dissenting view points. --ManiF 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he was both Arab and Persian/Iranian. I don't see any mention here of the context, the Islamic conquest of Persia, that Persia at the time had recently been conquered and settled by Arab invaders. It is therefore very reasonable that an Arab at the time could be born in Persia, or modern-day Iran, as the Chemical Heritage Foundation source suggests. This Arab vs. Iranian discussion is (IMHO) rather like debating whether Henry I of England is English or Norman - he was a Norman of English birth, and I suspect he would have described himself as both English and Norman. What determines someone's ethnicity, their place of birth or their parents? At what point do immigrants from Germany to America cease to be German and become American? These are difficult questions. I think we should state something like, "Geber was born in Persia of Arab descent" or "Geber was an Arab born in Persia" as long as we have documentation of those facts. The current wording seems to imply that Geber couldn't have been both Arab and Persian, this is misleading IMHO. Perhaps sources listed at "Translated work of Jabir" those may help resolve the issue. Walkerma 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello to all,

I received a request to take a look at the ethnicity debate as an observer, not involved in the dispute. I have read through the debate and looked at several sources. Right now, I don't believe there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion about his ethnicity. There are more sources that call him an Arab, but some of them are not reliable (such as Encarta). I am just here as another editor trying to help. I do not have an official role. My suggestions:

• Do not mention his ethnicity at all. Say something like, "He was born in Persia and wrote in Arabic."
• If the above solution is not acceptable, say that sources call him either Persian or Arabic, and leave it at that.

I wish I could be more helpful. This is a very difficult subject to debate. There is a similar debate whether Nicolaus Copernicus is Polish or German. Maybe the arguments there will help decide how to handle Geber's ethnicity. Maestlin 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A portion of Jabir's biography from E. J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inahet/Holmyard --Inahet 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've tried to make the article clearer, and to remove repeition, but more work needs doing (it read originally as though two articles, very similar but not identical, had been shuffled together). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing The talk page is very long. It might be time to archive older discussions. Maestlin 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A test

His ethnic background is not clear; although most sources state he was an Arab (which he was by Jus sanguinis), some claim he was Persian (which he was by Jus soli).--Stone 09:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Although, it must be said that Tous in khorasan(present Iran) was at that time a province of the arab Umayyad Caliphate. So lawfully, he is by Jus sanguinis) and by Jus soli Arab. jidan 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all, it's not clear if he was an Arab or Persian by ethnicity. Some sources categorically refer to him as Persian which could mean he was Persian by blood. Also, you can't say that some sources "state" something while the others "claim", it's against WP:NPOV. --ManiF 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So if even his ethnical status is disputed than there is no compromise possible. Than a solution of the problem will be ignoring everything and wait for historiens to setle the dispute in citable literature. But to call him islamic is simply strange, was he a religious man? Without a source this is not a point someone can write into the article. If I change the english biologist Charles Darwin to the christian biologist Charles Darwin (in fact he was areligiuos man!), the impression everybody would get that his religious status had a big influence on his research.--Stone 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A wiki user User:Inahet, had actually took the time to go the library, borrow the book E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry, and type the part important about his ethnic background (Thank you Inahet ;-) ).

 [16]

And guess what my dear friends? Jabir is labeled there as an arab from the al-azd tribe. And this is consistent with all major encyclopedia's like Britannica, Brockhaus, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and all that I know of. In other words, jabir's ethnicity is not less clear than alexander the great(one can say he might be german or turk??) or Gengis Khan(one can say he might be chinese, or turk??). Jabir was labeled Iranian/Persian by some sources because of his birth-place, not becasue of his ethnicity which all sources say that it was arab. IMHO, the following passage is the most accuarate and neutral we can get:

 He was born in Tus,Khorasan(in present Iran), which was at that time a province in the arab calphite, to parents of arab descent.

jidan 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jabir left Tous,Khorasan(at that time an arab province) in his childhood after his father got executed. He then moved to yemen, the home country of his parents[17].There he learned to read and write. He lived most of his life in Kufa(Iraq) and Baghdad(Iraq) and wrote all his works in Arabic. So, by culture,nationality and by blood, he is an Arab. jidan 10:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan, a province in the arab Umayyad Caliphate

A user has found the idea POV, that Khorasan was a province in the Arab Umayyad Caliphate. He certainly needs to explain why that is.

Khorasan

Khorasan was not a native territory of Umayyad during the Arab occupation of Iran, just as Poland was not a native territory of Nazis during the World War Two. The WP:NPOV term is "ruled by Umayyad" not "province of Umayyad" --ManiF 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Move Geber -> Jabir ibn Hayyan

Jabir's article should be moved from Geber to Jabir ibn Hayyan, since that is his original arabic name. I have tried the "move" tab, but it gets somehow reverted by a bot. Anybody knows how to do this? jidan 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On Iraq

now, i am not an expert on this man, nor will i try to be. I do not know whether he was arab or persian, but i do know that the majority of iraq was persian/iranic (due to the sassanid empire nad parthian empires). therefore, we cannot assume one is arab just because they lived or died in a nation that is TODAY arab. lets just keep this in mind.Iranian Patriot 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

a source needed

unfortunately i do not have access to my father's library anymore so i would like to ask: is there any source that states anything more than the fact that he was an arabic writer? being arabic writer has been common in iran due to easily justified reasons, however being arab and born in khorasan that's quite strange for me.

The Biography of Jabir bin Hayyan - by E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry

The following is a brief detailed biography of Jabir ibn Hayyan taken from E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry. It was typed by User:Inahet (Thank You!).

Taken from E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry pp. 49 - pp. 50

pp. 49

§18. Jabir ibn Hayyan

The greatest chemist of Islam has long been familiar to Western readers under the name of Geber, which is the medieval render­ing of the Arabic Jabir. For our knowledge of Jabir's life, we now have a not insignificant collection of data, and can recon­struct his figure with reasonable accuracy. Although much is conjectural, the following may be taken to represent, in brief, what we know of him.

In A.D. 638 the Caliph Omar was visited at Medina by a deputation of Arabs from Al-Meda'in, a town on the Tigris that they had recently conquered. The Caliph was startled by their sallow and unwholesome look, and asked the cause. They replied that the air of the town did not suit the Arab tempera­ment, and the Caliph therefore ordered inquiry for some more healthy and congenial spot. A plain on the banks of the western branch of the Euphrates was finally chosen, and there the city of Kufa was founded. The new town suited the Arabs well, and to it they accordingly migrated in great numbers. But the dwellings were at first made of reeds, and fires were frequent, so after a particularly disastrous conflagra­tion the city was rebuilt with less inflammable material, and the streets were laid out in regular lines. In orderly fashion, be­fitting a military station, the various Arab tribes were settled in particular quarters of the town—no doubt with a view to the prevention of civil commotion.

One of the tribes whose members were present at Kufa in sufficient numbers to be assigned a definite quarter was that known as Al-Azd, a celebrated tribe of South Arabia. From this tribe there sprang, towards the end of the seventh century A.D., a man named Hayyan, who carried on the business of a druggist

pp. 50

at Kufa. His life would appear to have been uneventful until the early years of the eighth century, when we find that he espoused the cause of the powerful 'Abbasid family, who were trying to overthrow the reigning Caliph of the house of Umayya in order to usurp his place. To further their plans, the 'Abbasids engaged in extensive political propaganda, and Hayyan was sent as an emissary to Persia on this business. It was while he and his wife were at the town of Tus, in Khorasan, near the modern Meshed, that his son Jabir was born, probably in the year a.d. 721 or 722. Shortly afterwards, Hayyan was arrested by agents of the Caliph and was subsequently executed.

The now fatherless Jabir ibn [son of] Hayyan was sent to Arabia, perhaps to his kinsmen of the Azd tribe, to be cared for until he was old enough to fend for himself. Whilst in Arabia, he studied the Koran, mathematics and other subjects under a scholar named Harbi al-Himyari, of whom unfortunately we have no record. Meanwhile the 'Abbasids, in whose service Jabir's father had lost his life, succeeded in achieving their object. In A.D. 748 they overthrew the Umayyads and themselves assumed the Caliphate, so that Hayyan had not died in vain. It was under the 'Abbasid caliphs, the most famous of whom was Harun al-Rashid, that Islamic civilization reached its zenith.

During the period in which these political changes were taking place, Jabir appears to have won the friendship of the Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, one of whose disciples he became. Ja'far was a man held in very high esteem by a section of Muslims known as the Shi'ites, and the Shi'ites themselves had been active in support of the 'Abbasid cause. These facts, coupled with the recollection of Hayyan's activity in the same direction, enable us to understand how Jabir in middle life came to be welcomed at the Court of Harun al-Rashid at Baghdad. He does not seem to have had much personal contact with the sovereign himself, but he was on intimate terms with the Caliph's all-powerful ministers the Barmecides, some of whom figure in The Thousand and One Nights.

Jidan 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic background not clear?

A few sentences after the introduction it's established that he's from the Arab Azd tribe, why is the article contradicting itself?--MB 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is what the Cambridge source says. In fact one of the references in the back is Homyard source (1957). Note the Cambridge source is written about 30 years after, so it is more updated. And I will quote from pg 412:

Mystery still shrouds the identity and personality of the founder of Islamic alchemy, Jabir b. Hayyan. Some have even doubted his exitence, while others like Kraus have cast doubt upon the authenticity of the works attributed to him. But when all the evidence is examined, it is hardly possible do doubt that such a person existed, that he was an alchemist and that he also belonged to the circle of the sixth Shi'i Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. it is also clear that some of the works in the Jabirean corpus are later accretions of Isma'ili inspiration. There is a link between Jabirean alchemy and Ismai'ism in such works as the Kitab al-Majid (The Book of the Glorious), and also many links with the general tradition of Sufism in such questions as the symbolism of letters.

Jabir is entitled in traditional sources as al-'Azdi, Al-Kufi, Al-Tusi, Al-Sufi. There is also a debate as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khurasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian (I guess the author means Assyrian? or Greek?) origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq. What remains certain is that he and his family lived much of their life in Tus in Khurasan, that he spent a good part of his life, which streches over the 2nd/8th century, in Kufa and at the court of Harun al-Rashid in baghdad, that he was a Sufi, and that he was also a circle of Imam Ja'far. Recently some have claimed to have discovered his tomb in western Persia. He was both the founder of Islamic alchemy and the prototype of the Muslim aclhemist in later centuries. --167.206.154.26 13:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnical background concensus

The version proposed by Manif is the perfect NPOV. -- Szvest 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1)It was not propsed by ManiF 2)There was actually a compromise and it was relativly stable until Khoikhoi started this whole ethnic crap again by inserting weasel words [18] and insterting the "citations" tag, although everything was cited. Anyway, "some" of us have a real life and dont have the time to play these childish games. Jidan 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could people provide citations for his ethnicity in the article itself? I don't see any citations in the article, and this talk page is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.193.68 (talk • contribs)

I thought I should point out that User:24.138.193.68 who just reverted to Jidan's version, and posted the above comment is an open proxy, as you can see here. --ManiF 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian Gulf round 2? Sour much?

The Arabs tried to say that the Persian Gulf was not called the Persian Gulf, and they lost due to the fact they are LIEING. Now they want to make a Persian inventor look like an Arab, are they sour after losing the last match?

This guy was Persian. You guys need to take your idea that he was Arab and throw it into the abyss of nothingness along with your non-existant "arabian gulf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.199.234 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 November 2006

He was Persian

Every single Encylopedia that I have seen supports my claim, therefore I will be making the appropriate edits. --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Talk:Geber

About a Year ago I moved the "Geber" article to "Pseudo-Geber" since its contents was about the latter. Then I started an article on the real Geber, which has grown to the present article. However that move also created a redirect from "Talk:Geber" to "Talk:Pseudo-Geber", which I did not notice in time. As a result, many comments about "Geber" ended up in "Talk:Pseudo-Geber". I am copying those comments to this page. Unfortunately, the edit history will be messed up, but since the comments on the two topics are all mixed up, that seems unavoidable. Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Botched edit

On the Geber Article: [this] Geber edit seems to be a translation into french, such an article doesn't exists in the french wikipedia, yet the markup it totally botched - maybe somene can transplant it there? 134.76.62.145 13:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not Persian

There seems to be a tendency for editors to keep associating this guy with Iranians and the category of Iranian scientists. While he was indeed born in Iran, he was born to an Arab family and lived most of his life in Iraq. I am not the anonmyous user that removed the categories but I do in fact agree with him.Yuber 23:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if we set aside Jaber's Iranian-ness by birth, consider the following:

:In Baghdad, Jaber lived amongst Persians. He was trained, schooled, and cultured by Persians. His patron was none other than Khaled Barmaki, the Persian vizier, as was almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran. (see "Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye, Harvard University, p162, 165, for corroboration.)

In fact, the Baghdad of Jaber's time was an Iranian city. It was planned and designed by a Persian Jew and Zoroastrian, based on the Persian Firouzabad, on the ruins of the Persian Ctesiphon, populated by people from Jundishapur and Khorasan. Even the caliph al-Ma'mun, who established the House of Wisdom, himself was half Persian.

Conclusion: Jaber is both affiliated to Arabs and Iranians. This is an accepted fact. And I think it is fair to say he was both.--Zereshk 01:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure as to how you use the label Iranian interchangeably with the label of Persian. Are Arab-Iranians also Persians? Geber should belong in a list of Iraqi scientists or Arab scientists, not Iranian scientists. As for now, I will let it stay as long as he is clearly identified as an Arab of Yemeni origins in both this article and in the List of Iranian scientists. Also, please try to see where the anonmyous user is coming from on this article. At the beginning this article described Geber as a Persian and had no mention of him being Muslim. It is a source of great pride for many Arabs that the "Father of Chemistry" is in fact an Aboriginal Arab from the peninsula. Regards, Yuber 01:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jaber is also of great pride for Persians. And Iraq did not exist in the 8th century. Ctesiphon, capital of Persia, was in what today is Iraq. (therefore Iranians have just as much claim to Jaber as Arabs do). Nevertheless...

Let's agree that he was both Arab and Persian. I think that is perfectly reasonable and fair, and avoids an ugly war of racism from starting here.--Zereshk 01:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful to say there was no "Iraq", as in fact there was no "Iran" either. Iraq and Iran are political entities only formed fairly recently. Iraqi history today deals with the illustrious history of the region throughout time including the Persian parts of it as well. That is why I find it strange how you can associate this guy as an "Iranian" scientist. Perhaps the list should be "Persian" scientists, and not include Arabs. I doubt the Arabs of Khuzestan would want Geber to be associated as an Iranian. However, I agree that this should not be made into an ugly edit war. And just a warning, as the Arab editors on English Wikipedia increase, you might find that issues about who is Arab and who is not to be very divisive.

Also, one more thing, is there some sort of trend to secularize articles about Islamic scientists (no mention of this guy being Muslim was here originally) and "Iranize" them?Yuber 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how many Arabs live in Khuzestan but I have many Arab friends from Ahvaz who share the same pride of being Iranian as I do. I don't buy into this separatist crap because I'm sure that the 'Iranian nationalists' far outnumber the separatists. And you should know that prior to 1935 ;) Persia's inhabtants referred to their country as Iran, even if the rest of the world didn't, so Iran did in fact "exist" at the time of Geber. Alireza Hashemi 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The List of Iranian scientists and List of Persian scientists in fact goes to the same page. We can change the name to the latter, if you are so troubled by it. I dont think anybody would mind.
2. What relevance is there to Khuzestan??? Geber was not in Khuzestan.
3. I repeat, for now, Iranians are saying it is only fair (and accurate the least) to say that scientists like Geber were both Persian and Arab. If the Arab editors want a racist edit war, they can (and will) have it.--Zereshk 19:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still have not made it clear how someone can both be Arab and Persian. According to your very article on this site a Persian is someone descended from the Aryans. Also, in your demographics of Iran article, Persians and Arabs are separate people. It is ludicrous to say someone is both Persian and Arab.Yuber 22:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Persia is the official name of the country of Iran before 1923. Therefore, if you lived before 1923, you could be Arab, and be a Persian. Nowadays, you can be Arab, and be Iranian. That simple.--Zereshk 23:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe you should revise the Persian article because Arabs aren't Indo-Europeans. Also, many of the Arabs of Iran want a separate state (I'm sure you know of this).Yuber 23:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well good for them.--Zereshk 03:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the article on hydrochloric acid was featured on the main page, I noticed that the description of Jabir Ibn Hayyan went back and forth between Islamic, Persian, Arab, etc., because of that exposure. It seems to have settled on "Arab-Yemeni (Iranian-born)", so that's what I've been changing it to in the other articles that link to him. Hope that doesn't ruffle any feathers – I did it for the sake of consistency, not to grind any ethnic or religious axes (aside from the fact that in general it seems that one's religion is irrelevant when talking chemistry.) -- Kbh3rd 02:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Kufah/Kufa

The first paragraph calls the city Kufah but the second paragraph spells it Kufa. I do not know which spelling might be preferred, but we should be consistent. Can a knowledgeable editor supply the appropriate spelling? --Blainster 20:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kufa.--Zereshk 20:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nationality edit wars

Many Famous Arab Scientist and Thinkers are being falsely claimed persians!! If not stopped or at least hindered, the credibility of Wikipedia will heavelly suffer!! And this is not good neither for the arabs nor for the persians. Since both of them use this Free Encyclopedia for the promotion of their great cultures.

Wikipedia would be a lot better if no one used it to promote anything. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not -- Jibal 12:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

And you have a tendancy to shoot your mouth off, back up your claim that is, name the scientists other than Geber and Alhazen who you believe were not Persian and state why you believe we are wrong! Alireza Hashemi 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk's definition of what the term Persian can apply to is very vague and from what I've read on this site untrue. I think ideally a list of Iraqi scientists should be developed and Geber will be moved to there.Yuber 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a list of Arab Scientists should be developed without regard to Nationality. In that way:

1) List will be bigger 2) No ugly Editing Wars between Arabs. For example Scienario 1: Mr X: Jaber is Iraqi, Mr Y: no he was Yemeni, Mr X: Why? he lived his whole life in Iraq, Mr Y: So what? If a chinese lived his whole life in Iraq will that make him Iraqi? and he was not even born in Iraq. etc... Modern Time Scientists can be then Catogrised into Nationalities. When I find the time, and I hope I will, I will start this Project.

---

Yuber,

Youre making a mistake. Not all Islamic era scientists were Persian. Ibn qurra, Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Arabi, are some big name examples.

I think youve felt unhappy after seeing that huge list I have been working on during the past 4 months.

But I am sure that if you sit down and compile a similar list of Arab medieval scientists, I think it will be just as long, if not longer. Heck, I can even help you with it, since I have some good sources. I can work on the classical era list (after I finish with the Persian list). You can work on the modern.

There are hundreds of scientists that lived west of the Euphrates (and were not hence Persian). (Misr) Egypt, (shaam) Syria, (Andalusia) Moorish Spain, (Antakiyah) Turkey, all have had numerous prominent Arab scientists.

Now once in a while we run into a fellow that has an overlapping background, like Geber. We can easily work it out by saying he was both Arab and Persian. Simple as that. Because that's how it really was. 8th century Baghdad was where Persian and Arabic cultures mixed in together in a very productive way. You had the deep Persian background and heritage mixing in with the fluency of the Arabic language and scientific ideology of Islam coming from Arabia. A very powerful mix. For example, Ibn Rushd was both Arab and Spanish. That's how cultures flourish. By overlapping into eachother. An it's a good thing.

The Persian scientist list will not seem so surprising to you if you realize that Medieval Persia was a very large place; technically from the Euphrates all the way up to Tajikestan and the Central Asian Republics. It's only therefore natural to have so many people show up as Persian on the list. The same can be said about the Arab list.

Im sure we can construct an Arab scientist list just as long that will make you feel proud as an Arab. cool?--Zereshk 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My main point was that Geber was classified as a Persian with no mention of the fact that he was an Arab by birth, language, and every other qualifier until just recently. But other than that, I am not one to start huge edit wars over a scientist's origins. A list of arab scientists would be great :).Yuber 01:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll help you out with the arab list of scientists, starting next week, after I finsh the current Persian one. I'll contact you when I do.--Zereshk 16:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, can we keep these fights about national labels out of Wikipedia? (BTW, the great flourishing of sciences in the Islamic World in the time of Jabir was surely due to the fact that Muslims from spain to central asia could interact and move around, effectively as citizens of a single country. So trying to label people of that age by nationalities is worse than pointless, it obscures that important fact.) Thanks, and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic alchemical theories

An honest question – are the theories here called "Islamic alchemical theories" indeed tied to the religious teachings/beliefs of Islam? We would not call Newton's theory of gravity and motion "Christian theories", nor would we expect to see Einstein's theories called "Jewish". If the only relation to Islam is the religion of those who held these theories, should they be called "Islamic"? -- Kbh3rd 00:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's only a meant as a chronological tag. i.e. "from the Islamic era".--Zereshk 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, more precisely the Islamic world (as opposed to Europe). Those were two intellectual universes, each with a relatively uniform culture, partially separated by religion, politics, and language (Latin vs. Arabic). For example, it took some 400 years for Geber's works to be translated into Latin, but then in another 100 years they were known all over Europe. So it makes sense to mention that division when talking about history of science and philosophy. Unfortunately "Islamic" is ambiguous, but there seems to be no better name. Jorge Stolfi 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jabir/Geber not one person

I moved this from the article itself, as in this form it obviously does not belong there:

I have removed the text that I wrote here for my own reasons. I will try to follow the suggestions Sterio has offered when I have time. Thanks. Jabot the Scrob (talk · contribs)

(Moved by Sterio 09:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Well can please give me a pointer on what exactly I didn't do right. I am making a factual claim that I think belongs in the article. I have provided a citation. Moving it here effectively takes it out of the article. I can understand that it's not up to par stylistically, it also needs to be integrated into the article, but that will take time to do right and I wanted to make sure I was in accord with anyone else who cares about this page. Thanks Jabot the Scrob

Well, I don't know anything about the subject itself, so I can't say anything about weather that's true or not, but what you wrote was like a comment from you, not an encyclopedic entry. Reword it, and don't have the signature. Also, don't put at the top in the introduction, put it in the article as a special section (for example by putting ==Jabir not one person== at the top of it). Anyway, I'm not the best person to tell, as I don't know anything about the matter, it's just that the text was written as if it were a part of a discussion, not an encyclopedic article and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Sterio 23:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Algebra from Jabir?

I removed the following line:

Algebra( Arabic for the equality) was named for Jabir how made major progress in the mathematical field of algebra.

From what I know, "algebra" does not come from Jabir but from the title of a treatise by Al-Khowarizmi, al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala. If that is not true, we need a reliable reference. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with the Iranians transforming all Arab scientists into Persian?

In Baghdad, Jaber lived amongst Persians. He was trained, schooled, and cultured by Persians.

So, if I'm a reputable Arab scholar today, and my teacher was an Iranian then, my contributions would count to the Persian civilization, instead of the Arab's? Also, Harun al-Rashid the Arab Caliph, had Persian scholars teach his children, does that make them Persian, too?

His patron was none other than Khaled Barmaki, the Persian vizier, as was almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran. (see "Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye, Harvard University, p162, 165, for corroboration.)

Many European artists had various patrons from countries different than theirs, yet the Spanish artist is called Spanish, the French artist is called French...etc. I'm not sure his patrons were Persian, even if they were, that doesn't make him one.

In fact, the Baghdad of Jaber's time was an Iranian city.

Yes, and the Arab World itself is Persian, in fact Arabs are widely accepted as Persian slaves!!!!! Please stop your distortions, Baghdad was an Arab city built by the Arab Caliph Abu-Jaffar al-Mansour.

It was planned and designed by a Persian Jew and Zoroastrian, based on the Persian Firouzabad, on the ruins of the Persian Ctesiphon, populated by people from Jundishapur and Khorasan. Even the caliph al-Ma'mun, who established the House of Wisdom, himself was half Persian.

What has al-Ma'mun to do with Jaber al-Hayan? His mother was Persian, Arabs trace their lineage exculsively through the father, so he was an Arab, too. What's the point of naming him anyway?

Conclusion: Jaber is both affiliated to Arabs and Iranians. This is an accepted fact. And I think it is fair to say he was both

"I'm both an apple and an orange"! Seriously, al-Azdi is an obvious name to an Arabian family, not Persian. Jaber was nothing but an Arab, and the article should mention it as such.

Please again, let's stop this bickering

PLEASE folks, this pointless Arab/Persian bickering has been wasting everyone's time for nothing.

We know in which city Jabir was born, and where that city is located now. We know his family's name, where he worked, the languages he wrote or speak. We know that he was a citizen of the Islamic Caliphate. Those are facts, and as such belong in the article. He being Arab or Persian or Iranian or Hawaiian is not, I repeat not a fact: it is an arbitrary interpretation of those facts, that each reader has the right to make as he or she likes. Some readers obviously like to think he was Arab, some like to think he was Persian, some may like to think something else; all that is fine, but it is not Wikipedia's role to push one arbitrary interpretation onto its readers, so neither of these interpretations belong to the article.

Surely you can find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia. There are plenty of articles on Islamic/Persian/Arab/Whatever scientists that need to written or completed. (I find it somewhat bizarre that articles about great Islamic scientists and Islamic alchemy are being written by a Brazilian, who can't read Arabic and who had never heard of those guys until a year ago...) Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. My own interpretation is that he was an African, since his family came from Africa some 100,000 years ago. I am very proud of being his relative and compatriot, and I get very annoyed when people try to deny me that honor. And this is not a joke. Jorge Stolfi 19:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

More on Persian vs Arab

The Persians started this whole debacle, check all the Muslim scholars' articles, if you're denying Jabir's ethnicity, then you should do the same to all the Muslim scholars. Persians distort facts, and equate all Muslim scholars to Persian, unless you want to go to each thread and change it(where I guess one Persian or another would revert it back, call you propagandist, and scream "Persian, Persian, Persian!" throughout the talk page) look at this talk page for instance. They haven't left any loophole to make everybody with any mentionable contributions to Islam a Persian! Until these acts seize and desist, Jabir's Arabian nationality stays. MB 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, I do not understand. His nationality was certainly neither "Persian" not "Arabian", because those nations did not exist at that time. Jabir was a citizen of the Caliphate, which in English is commonnly called "The Islamic Empire"; therefore, the word that best describes his nationality is "Islamic".

His "ethnicity" is not a fact, it is an opinion; if nothing else because everybody defines "ethnicity" in a different way. Having Arabian parents does not make someone an "ethnic Arab" (if that were true, then everybody would be "ethnic African"!!); just as being born in Persia does not make on an "ethnic Persian", and living in Iraq does not make one an "ethnic Iraqui". Unless someone comes up with clear evidence that Jabir considered himself an "ethnic X", it is inappropriate to claim that he was anyting more specific than "Islamic". Just as Diocletian, for example, can only be labeled as a citizen of the Roman Empire; it would be quite silly to claim he was a Croat, or an Italian, or anything else.

Again, please understand that tagging him as "Arabian" will not get anywhere, it will only prolong this futile persian/Arabian edit war; and neither side is correct. Please colaborate. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. As for some editors tagging everybody "Persian", it is no more annoying than other editors tagging everyone "Arabian", or "Turkmen", or whatever. I have better things to do than checking all Islamic people's articles and cleaning up their mess. I fix those mis-edits in the articles that I currently monitor, and hope that other people will do the same in other articles. Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

al-Azd tribe is a reputable Arab tribe, they did exist, as an encyclopedia, can we add data to the origins of his tribe? It sounds liogical, and will refute all Persian claims, agreed? His tribal name shows he's an Arab, though. What's the basis of your refusal? MB 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It already says that the Adz is an Arabian tribe in the "biography" section, just below the Table of Contents. What else would you add? Jorge Stolfi 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If Azd is an Arabian tribe and he's an Azdi, what does that make him? Jorge, please embrace the logic of this and let's put him as an Arab, like he truly is. It would make everything a lot clearer, and the article will seize being ambiguos about his ethnicity. Again, I won't add anything until I fully understand your POV, you don't seem like a blind Persian extremist, so what's the basis of your refusal? MB 16:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Your logic is perfect — just as the logic of the guys who claim that he was Persian because he was born in Persia! Once more, this "logical conclusion" is not a fact, it is an interpretation; it wholly depends on the assumption that the son of a X has the same ethnicity as the father, (except of course when it is convenient to assume otherwise, since if we carried this logic too far everybody would be ethnic African, and the ethnicicty game would not be fun anymore). And "ethnicity", of course, must defined as it best suits the person making the argument: so, for example, you seem to think that "Adzi" is too narrow to be an ethnicity, "Islamic" is too broad, but "Arab" is just right. Apart from the Wikipedia policy against POV, if you put in your interpretation, then the other guys will of course want to put theirs, and this edit war will never end. Jorge Stolfi 12:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim that the logic of Persians who claim Jabir was Persian just because he was born there perfect? I'm an Arab, if my parents went to Brazil and my Mom had me there, would that make me Brazilian? Would that change my whole ethnicity just because I was born at a different place? Al-Azdi saw themselves as an Arabian tribe not an ethnicity on their own...making Jabir clearly an Arab. It's not POV to state his ethnicity. It's not an interpertation, all people place their ethnicity on their parents', they don't go back to the beginning of the Human race and claim their ethnicity as Africans! If we don't add that he's an Arab, we have a lacking article, it needs to be stated. Persian logic makes no sense, and we need to state his true ethnicity. MB 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh again. He is "ethnic Arab" only by YOUR definition of what "ethnic" means. OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS, can't you accept that? For example, Brazilian law, if you are born in Brazil you by default are a Brazilian national, unless your parents take specific steps to reject that nationality (I do not even know what those steps are). Ditto if you are born in the USA. Thus I am Brazilian, even though my parents were Italian; Rudolph Giuliani is American, and Geraldo Alkmin is Brazilian, even though their ancestors a few generations back had other nationalities.

Also, can't you see that the rule "the son has the same ethnicity as the father" imples "everybody is ethnic African"? Thus if the latter is absurd, the former is absurd too!

The article already says that his father was from the Adz tribe, an Arabian tribe, and he was born in Persia. So the article already is not "lacking", on the contrary: that is more informative, more meaninful, and more accurate than saying "Jabir was an Arab". Please... Jorge Stolfi 04:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So, according to your logic, everybody is African? The Anglo-Saxons, Arabs, Chinese, Mongolian, Aryans...etc All of them were Arfrican? Nobody has any ethnicity? Do you have references to claim he's African? Britannica calls him "Father of Arab chemistry" Encarta names him an Arab. It's not an interpertation, it's a fact. Calling him Persian is the (false)interpertation, there are no sources that back it up, because it's not true. Please...stop trying to veer this off-topic, and let's add his ethnicity. MB 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is African according to your logic. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The father of chemistry

We despartly need more info about jabir. I have added some info about jaber, regarding:

• Innovations and new ideas
• Quotes from jabir: alot of info is still missing
• What others say about Jabir: alot of info is still missing

This guy was a genius!! He was the father, no, the godfather of chemisty. He is very famous in the islamic countries, but in the rest of the world he is unknown. Any info regarding this guy is wanted. Jidan 07:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos for the enthusiasm, but the section "Innovations" that you added was mostly a (mangled) copy of the section "Contributions to chemistry" (which I wrote last year). The few items that were not copied from that section are dubious or need more details to make sense:

• He identified that elements combine at a microscopic level to form new compounds without losing their own characterstic.

This is hardly his discovery, it must have been known since the time of the Egyptians. This assumption is basic to the very idea of alchemy. What Jabir did contribute was the observation that substances combine in definite proportions. This was the basic fact that led Dalton to his atomic theory, but I have seen no evidence that Jabir took that last step. Anyway this contribution was already listed there.

• Constructed a scale capable of weighing objects as low as 0,1 gramms

This seems interesting, but where did you get this info?

• He identified combustion as the release of the latent energy of the combustible material when combined with oxygen at the proper temperature.

This is hardly true as stated I have seen no claims that he had discovered oxygen or had the concept of energy. What did your source say, exactly?

• He invented... noncombustible paper

This sounds interesting too. Again, what is the reference?

• acids from Arabic "Azait", meaning oil ... elixir of life (from "al-ikser") ... Alkali "al-qaly"
• We may have a list words that were introduced to Arabic and/or English through his books. provided he was indeed the person who first used those names (and provided the etymologies are correct).
• Jabir ... distilled alcohol ... Later, Al-Kindi (801-873) also unambiguously described the distillation of wine.

Apparently Jabir noticed the flammable vapor from boiling wine (as was said already in the article), but did not think of condensing it. The bit about Al-Kindi is interesting, but since Al-Razi is credited with the discovery of ethanol, too, we need to find out who exactly did what and when.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I am quite disappointed with the quality of the contributions to this article so far. Very little substantial contents has been added since I first gathered some information from the net a year ago; and all the material, old and new, seems to be drawn from third- or fourth- or twentieth-hand sources, mostly Western ones, that now I suspect are of rather poor quality. Unfortunately the Iranian Chemistry Journal site, which seemed to be the only serious source of the lot, is presently unavailable.

The last item that was just added to the "External links", for example, is an article at Al Shindagah that was pasted together from some of the same random sources I used last year, and from this same Wikipedia article. (It was quite a funny experience seeing my very own words on Geber -- like "this discovery would fuel the dreams and despair of alchemists for the next thousand years" -- being reproduced by an article on an *Arab* site. Should I now put on my vitae that I am the foremost Arab authority on Arab alchemy? 8-))

Also, many of the recent additions to Geber's biography section were contradictory and confusing, and at odds with other net sources. I tried to remove the most obvious errors, but I am not sure about the rest. And yet this man is supposed to be the greatest Islamic alchemist ever!

Sigh... Jorge Stolfi 03:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

hello, Jorge. Yes, you are right, this man deserves more!!. I have sources(and pictures) in german and arabic, including the one in arabic wikipedia, which i think are relativly reliable. I dont have much time now, but i will translate them some time the following week. Now about the Innovations and new ideas section, which you deleted. I know that most of it are redundant, but I added them so that viewers may have a quick summerized glimpse of what this guy achieved. I dont think this will harm anybody, also not the quality of the article itself.

..Should I now put on my vitae that I am the foremost Arab authority on Arab alchemy? 8-))

Im not surprised!! ;-) If we were able to complete the holes in this article, it will be a first!! and everybody will link to this article, since the internet has not much to offer about this guy. Im looking forward to working with you and Jabir definetly appreciates your help! ;-). Jidan 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tomasz Prochownik 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)am sorry to inform everyone here but as far as reliable sources go geber is not widely referred to as the father of chemistry, he's most often referred as an alchemist, at least by reliable sources, and sites on islam are not objective webistes soooooooo.Tomasz Prochownik 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment on recent revisions

Where did this new editor get the idea that Jabir is of a Persian descent? Jorge, about your interesting logic, do you claim that Arabs, Anglo-Saxons, Aryans, Chinese...etc. are all ethnic Africans? Please let's be sensible and put his real ethnicity. Check list of Persian scientists Go tell them to change all the ethnicities to African since 100,000 years ago, everybody was African! MB 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than Geber, the only one scientist which you can argue that is not Persian and on that list is Alhazen. That said there are many important Arab scientists who are not on that list. + You are arguing here that Geber is Arabic because of his Arabian roots (e.g. father being from Yemen) and I hope I’m not the only one seeing the discrepancy here. Alireza Hashemi 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, what discrepancy? Do you have proof that Geber had Persian ancestry? Please present them, until then let's keep it to facts given so far, shall we? MB 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've come to the conclusion that Jabir ibn Hayyan was in fact an Arab. I really don't think that the Iranian contributors have any intention of over glorifying Persians, it's just that there’s some confusion about being Iranian or Persian, for very obvious reasons. I’m an Iranian but only really half Persian, the other half of me is Azeri. There’s this beautiful Persian expression, I believe it has been taken from one of Saadi’s poems: “Giram keh pedareh to bood fazel, Az fazleh pedar to ra cheh hasel”. It’s something in the lines of suppose your father was a scholar, of your father’s knowledge what have you gained? And this is somewhat reminiscent of Iranian society today.

I apologize for my speculative revert. But Arabs and Turks have also unrightfully accused Persians/Iranians of “Persianizing” Islamic scientists. This is not true. Many great Islamic scientists were undeniably Persian, like Biruni, Khwarizmi, Rhazes and Avicenna, so I have to add that I found your comment very offensive. The other reason I found them offensive is despite the fact that you think I am new here, I made the first significant contributions to some of these articles with the intention to promote familiarity and understanding of Persian culture. Either way, I believe that all cultures are equal and what we see as being glorifying is only who made the most contributions to Western life and knowledge, something trivial when compared to the diverse outlooks and lifestyles of all peoples of the world. This may sound strange, but no culture is inferior or superior to another. In terms of technological development Persians and others are indebted to Islamic and Arabic culture, and I only hope we can all learn to get along in wiki. :) Alireza Hashemi 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you came to the conclusion early. But I disagree with you, there's in fact an intention to overglorify Persian contributions to civilization, and marginalize Arab contibutions to Islam and civilization in general, making it seem we're barbarians who had no contribution whatsoever to the world. I mean you might not realize it, but your speculative reverts have been written many time throughout this article's histoy...and Jabir's tribe is a reputable, and one of the most famous Arab tribes! Sadly, many Islamic scientists are continuosly called Persian/Iranian with weak arguments{he was born there, or there's "definitive evidence" he understood/talked it in day X at year Y, or his teachers were Persian, or that he used the Persian calender, or he worked for a Persian vizier...etc.

Something about the last point, I find it funny, since it shows Arab tolerance and acceptance of Persians, whereas many Persian editors keep attacking us for destroying and banning the Persian language/culture in 7th AD, which is again used as further proof that talking Arabic, writing exclusively in Arabic is not evidence enough, but understanding Persian is extremely sufficient!!

Pesonally, I don't think one culture is superior or inferior to another, most cultures and civilizations contributed something to human knowledge and advancement. We just need to be more careful when designating ethnicities, hopefully we'll learn to be more civil to each other, and rely on facts not our thoughts/speculation. For instance I stopped reverting the Ibn Sina article, I did research and found he wasn't ethnic Arab, I only hope other Iranian editors will do the same and stop reverting pages when it's established that many Islamic scientists are in fact Arab. MB 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if he was born as an Arab in Iran he should be in the list of Iranian scientists as an Arab Iranian and not a Persian. Biruni, Khwarazmi and Avicenna are Iranian and Persian because they were from the regions of Khwarezm and Khorasan, and I'm afraid no one can argue against that! Alireza Hashemi 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

NM what I said before, after reviewing some of your most recent posts I've come to the realization that you're only a racist vandal who wants to Arabize all of wikipedia, most of the edits you make are questionable to say the least. If the scholar or scientist was born in Baghdad or Basrah then you would have a point but your edits on prominent Persian scientists from Kharmathein or Khorasan are just ridiculous and only serve to indicate your resentment towards Persian culture. Sadly there are many among us, both Arabs and Persians who are like that! Alireza Hashemi 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jabirs roots according to various sources - His background is unclear

Ibn Nadeem mentions:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات ...

So there is nothing on his background and I do not see any information on him being from the Al-Azdi tribe. Ibn Nadem just mentions that he is a Shia Muslim and his ethnic background is not clear, since Kufa and its surrounding area was an ethnic mix. For example Fazl Ibn Sahl a Zoroastrian Persian who later converted to Islam and became the Vazir of Mamum (actually brought him to power) was from the area. --Ali doostzadeh 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are your sources? You need to supply name of book, and number of page or else they can't be considered sources. MB 14:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Haji Khalifa Kashf ul-Zonoon:

كتاب القمر في الصنعة من جملة مائة واثني عشر كتاباً تأليف الشيخ أبي موسى جابر بن حيان الطوسي المتوفى سنة 160 ستين ومائة ولابن وحشية لعله أسرار الشمس والقمر ذكره داود في تذكرته.

His name here is given Abu Musa Jaber Ibn Hayyan Al-Tusi.

An internet source puts his last name as Al-Tartusi (meaning he could even have been of Greek/Roman descent).

So I have for now just put the information of Ibn Nadeem. --Ali doostzadeh 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

(From Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctorines, pg 14)

Certain Western scholars like Julius Ruska have doubted the very existence of Jabir because some of the writings attributed to him have been shown to have been written during later centuries. White it must be admitted that much of the Jabirian corpus was not written by Jabir himself, due to the tendency in traditional sciences to identify the various manifestations of a school with its founder, one cannot simply deny the existence of Jabir with such arguments. Moreover, from a certain point of view the figure of a Jabir or a Pythagoras as conceived by their followers is more important for the understanding of the spiritual and intellectual forces dominant in a particular epoch than a picture which is the result of historical anlysis based on only the written evidence which has survived the decaying infleunce of time.

I am not sure with such variety and scanty information, one can even be sure if Jabir was Al-Tusi (Probably Persian), or Al-Kufi (Probably Arab or Persian) or Al-Harrani (maybe of Sabian origin) or Al-Azdi (Probably Arab, I haven't seen any ancient source for this Al-Azdi name so far) or Al-Tartusi (maybe of Greek or Roman origin or perhaps Arab). So I propose that his ethnicity should not be mentioned. Although virtually all sources I have checked listed him as shia muslim, which may be mentioned since he also spent time under Imam Ja'far Sadiq (AS).

Also More work needs to be done to list his various works that can be gauranteed to be written by him. --Ali doostzadeh 22:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a very good website here, but its in arabic: http://www.geocities.com/aujami/index.htm One of the sources mentioned is the muqadema of ibn khaldun. And there ibn khaldun (unlike Ibn nadim) lists his resources.Jidan 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Ibn Nadeem since is closer to the time of Jabir, so is probably more reliable. Either way here is what I found from Muqadema Ibn Khaldun, under all mentioning of Jabir and I do not see Al-Azdi: pg 338: وتحقيق الأمر في ذلك أن الكيمياء إن صح وجودها كما تزعم الحكماء المتكلمون فيها، مثل جابر بن حيان ومسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي وأمثالهم، فليست من باب الصنائع الطبيعية، pg 335: كتأليف جابر بن حيان في رسائله السبعين، ومسلمة المجريطي في كتابه رتبة الحكيم، والطغرائي والمغيربي في قصائده العريقة في إجادة النظم وأمثالها، ولا يحلون من بعد هذا كله بطائل منها.

pg 332:

ويكنون عن ذلك الإكسير إذا ألغزوا اصطلاحاتهم بالروح، وعن الجسم الذي يلقى عليه بالجسد. فشرح هذه الاصطلاحات وصورة هذا العمل الصناعي الذي يقلب هذه الأجساد المستعدة إلى صورة الذهب والفضة هو علم الكيمياء. وما زال الناس يؤلقون فيها قديماً وحديثاً. وربما يعزى الكلام فيها إلى من ليس من أهلها. وإمام المدونين فيها جابر بن حيان حتى إنهم يخصونها به فيسمونها: علم جابر، وله فيها سبعون رسالة كلها شبيهة بالألغاز.

pg 303:

. ثم ظهر بالمشرق جابر بن حيان كبير السحرة في هذه الملة، فتصفح كتب القوم واستخرج الصناعة، وغاص في زبدتها واستخرجها ووضع فيها عدة من التآليف. وأكثر الكلام فيها وفي صناعة السيمياء، لأنها من توابعها، ولأن إحالة الأجسام النوعية من صورة إلى أخرى إنما تكون بالقوة النفسية لا بالصناعة العملية فهو من قبيل السحر كما نذكره في موضعه. ثم جاء مسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي إمام أهل الأندلس في التعاليم والسحريات، فلخص جميع تلك الكتب وهذبها، وجمع طرقها في كتابه الذي سماه غاية الحكيم، ولم يكتب أحد في هذا العلم بعده.

pg 292:

ووقفت الشهرة في هذا المنتحل على جابر بن حيان من أهل المشرق وعلى مسلمة بن أحمد المجريطي، من أهل الأندلس وتلميذه. ودخل على الملة من هذه العلوم وأهلها داخلة، واستهوت الكثير من الناس بما جنحوا إليها وقلدوا آراءها، والذنب في ذلك لمن ارتكبه. ولو شاء ربك ما فعلوه.

So Ibn Khaldun just mentions Jabbir ibn Hayyan. For what it is worth, Ibn Khalikhan also mentions Al-Tartusi. I am sort of inclined towards Tus because it was a strong Shi'ite bastion (for example Ferdowsi and Nasir ad-Din Tusi were both Shi'i), but for now I have no information on Jabbir. I think we should just mention Muslim, since the epiphets Al-Tusi, Al-Tartusi, Al-Harrani, (Al-Azadi (I haven't seen it yet)), have all been mentioned.

--Ali doostzadeh 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Khalikhan

وفيات الأعيان ابن خلكان

جعفر الصادق أبو عبد اللله جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي زين العابدين بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب، رضي الله عنهم أجمعين؛ أحد الأئمة الاثني عشر على مذهب الإمامية، وكان من سادات أهل البيت ولقب بالصادق لصدقه في مقالته وفضله أشهر من أن يذكر، وله كلام في صنعة الكيمياء والزجر والفأل، وكان تلميذه أبو موسى جابر بن حيان الصوفي الطرسوسي قد ألف كتاباً يشتمل على ألف ورقة تتضمن رسائل جعفر الصادق وهي خمسمائة رسالة.

So according to Ibn Khalikhan his name is: Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan Al-Sufi Al-Tartusi. I am not sure if the Sufi here had to do with Sufism (which probably wasn't developed back then) or with the greek word Sophia. Also Tartusi used to be an importn Greco-Roman colony. So my suggestion is that the three names given by: Ibn Khalikhan (Al-Tartusi), Ibn Nadeem(al-Kufi) and Haji Khalifa (Al-Tusi) be mentioned and he should just be mentioned as Muslim.

--Ali doostzadeh 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ali, not everybody has a library with ancient books nearby like you do. Every encyclopedia or article says that he was an arab and give him the title Al-Azdi. They must have had an ancient source or they wouldn't have said that. Jidan 11:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I only saw wikipedia links and one link written by an Arab Professor named Hamid. So I am going to leave the information of Ibn Nadeem until somebody brings up actual sources. If other people do not have acess to old books, then they should also go their library or buy some of them. It is about keeping wikipedia as accurate as possible with all relavent information. So far I have not seen any ancient source that mentions Al-Azdi and unless people have proof of it, (with page number, print publication and etc.) the information of Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikhan, Haji Khalifa, and Ibn Khaldun should stay.

--Ali doostzadeh 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said his last name is al-Kufi?

All sources agree that he's an Azdi, please don't vandalise and falsify pages 194.170.173.50 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen one source yet mention Azdi. Also Ibn Nadeem (1000+ years) said Al-Kufi. I have checked Ibn Nadeem (Al-Kufi), Ibn Khalikhan (Al-Tartusi), Haji Khalifa (Al-Tusi), Ibn Khaldun (no ephiphet) and none of them mention Azdi. So we can't just pick and choose and all sources must be mentioned. (I haven't seen Azdi so far). I have facts here and you should brings facts instead of mentioning just some random google site. In fact if he was Al-Tusi then he would be most likely Persian since no source has mentioned Al-Azdi (so far) and none of them have mentioned Al-Azdi and Al-Tusi at the same time. If he was Al-Tartusi he could very well have been Greek. His connections with Pythagorias and his knowledge of Greek might be an indicator of this as well. I have also heared of Al-Harrani (Sabian) as well. The only thing the sources mention is that he was Shia Muslim. So please stop vandalizing the article until you have proof from ancient sources (and not just some random google site) that he was azdi as well and let the ancient sources speak for themselves. Also with all the various different information from ancient sources, the users should be aware of all the various different origins and biographies.

--Ali doostzadeh 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ali, a source is something you refer to in an article to show where you got your info, tying out two lines in Arabic doesn't constitute a source! As I said, I need the name of book, and number of page where you got the quote, also both Encarta and Britannica(both well-known encyclopedias) state him as an Arab, please unless you give me a refutation or a source of equal reliability(not some random webpage) then, his ethnicity is clear, right? Give me sources that he's Shia, and I'll agree that it should be added to the article, but please without deleting already verified, pertinent info. MB 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you can comprehend Arabic are not? My level of Arabic is sufficient to understand the passages. These are standard Arabic sources much more valuable than some random Encyclopedia without a source. These are actually the SOURCES availabe on Geber and I have given the author and title of the books. Instead of criticizing these standard source, I would first ask if you can comprehend them? Encarta and Britannica does not mean much when they talk about his ethnicity, since they do not state any of their sources and to tell you the truth I have pretty much access to all the sources mention Geber. So those two sources are not sources really unless you show me the references from ancient sources. Someone here mentioned Al-Azdi, but gave absolutely no proof and that wasn't in the Encyclopedia either, but yet you claimed: All sources agree that he's an Azdi, when even the Britannica and Encarta didn't say he was Azdi! So you are here just adamantly trying to prove something.

Secondly the reasons exactly these passages are taken from the Arabic works themselves is because people might not have access to the same the editions I have. The Al-Fehrest of Ibn Nadeem is available in most Arabic book-stores. Here is one edition of Ibn Nadeem translated also in Persian: الفهرست،محمدبن اسحاق این ندیم،ترجمه ی م.رضا تجدد.تهران،ابن سینا،1343،. (see the notes on Jabbir Ibn Hayyan which is very brief) As per the Muqaddama of Ibn Khaldun, it has been published and translated into Persian by Mohammad Parvin Gunabadi.

As per Ibn khalikhan and Jabir: شخصيتهاي شيعه از ديدگاه ابن‌خلکان در وفيات الاعيان (نقد و بررسي), / مهدي رجبي؛ به راهنمايي: علي دواني.

Now I was kind enough to actually provide the Arabic quotes and sources, exactly and Jidan can verify the quote I brought from Ibn Nadeem. So that you may not be confused with different publications, I have put the exact Arabic which are readily available. Same with the other book. If you do not have the books available that is not my problem. Jidan has Ibn Nadeem available and he can verify the direct quote I brought for example. As per the fact that he is Shia, that is well known and is mentioned by Hajji Khalifa and Ibn Nadeem (plus your Britannica: Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect). So I hope we can agree on his sect, because the old sources I brought also mention this.

As per him being Persian, this is very plausible since he was very anti-Umammyad, his patronage were the Barkamids and he was born in Tus (the same place that Ferdowsi came from). Yet there are other evidences he was born in Tartus, Kufa (which could still mean he was Persian) and etc. A source mentioned him as Harrani (Sabian). His biography is not clear and scanty. So that is why I have not list his ethnicity and unless you have clear proof he was Arab from ancient sources (and there is no way to prove it with all these various sources), and not just some Encyclopedia which has been correct many times and used to classify many other Iranian, Turkish Muslim scientists as Arabs, I would leave his ethnicity unchecked or put (of Arab or Persian or Greek-Roman or Sabian) origin. But that would be too long. Note even your two sources did not claim Azdi, which previously you were so adamant about it. So we are here trying to assess his ethnicity from all available sources without any bias. If he was Tartusi, Kufi, Tusi, Harrani, then his ethnicity may have well been Greek, Persian or Sabian and not Arab. I would recommend you to go to your university library (preferably a good university) and pick up a copy of Ibn Nadeem. It doesn't mention anything about him being Arab, nor does it mention al-Azdi. This is one of the oldest biographies of Geber available. Hajji Khalifa, Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Khaldun also do not mention anything about his ethnicity and neither do they mention an Azdi tribe. Now even if you do find an old source that mentions, "Azdi", there is absolutely no reason why these 4 sources should be ignored. So his ethnicity as I have proven here is unclear. Note if I was just being nationalistic, I would have said Persian, but the evidences on his background are just scanty and this means that both Arabs and Iranians, do not (and will never have) enough material to convincingly prove his background. So I propose we put of (Arab or Persian) origin or leaving it unchecked.

BTW here is the full text from Britannica. Note except for the parts in quotes, which was given to him by westerners (just like they used to call Avicenna who had a Zoroastrian mother and Persian father as Arabian prince of medicine), there is nothing to indicate he was arabic. These terms like "Arabian prince of medicine" for Aviecenna and other terms have been out-dated by centuries and have to do with more popular myth than actual facts.

born c. 721, , Tus, Iran died c. 815, , Kufah, Iraq

alchemist known as the “father of Arab chemistry.”

Shortly after Jabir was born, his father was beheaded for the part he played in a plot by the 'Abbasids to depose the Umayyad dynasty. Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect. Apparently, he studied most branches of learning, including medicine. After the 'Abbasids defeated the Umayyads, Jabir became a court physician to the 'Abbasid caliph Harun ar-Rashid. Jabir was a close friend of the sixth Shi'ite imam, Ja'far ibn Muhammad, whom he gave credit for many of his scientific ideas.

More than 2,000 works are attributed to Jabir. The Muslim Isma'iliyah sect published a large body of alchemical and mystical works under his name. In the 14th century a Spanish alchemist placed the name Geber (the Latinized form of Jabir) on his own manuscripts, possibly to attribute them to Jabir and thus gain greater authority.

From Jabir's own works, there is no evidence of any achievements that might justify the extraordinary esteem in which he was held by later alchemists. His reputation appears to rest mainly on the appeal of his metaphysical philosophy of nature and perhaps his unique style, emphasis, and development of the theory of matter. Jabir revised the ancient Greek belief that everything is composed of fire, earth, water, and air. He believed that these four elements combined to form mercury and sulfur and that all metals are formed from these two substances when combined in various proportions. Jabir was aware that when mercury and sulfur are combined, the red compound cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) is produced; but he felt that, if the ideal proportion could be found, gold would be the product. This theory was widely adopted; altered and spread, it had a great influence on early chemistry and eventually led to the belief in phlogiston.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me just show how your arguments are false: If he was Al-Tartusi he could very well have been Greek. His connections with Pythagorias and his knowledge of Greek might be an indicator of this as well.

I have knowledge of English, is that a strong indication I'm British?

Nope you don't seem to get it. If he is from Tartus, then he is most likely not Arab specially at that time where the city was not Arabized.

As per him being Persian, this is very plausible since he was very anti-Umammyad

The Abbasids were very anti-ummayad too, so much that they destroyed their dynasty, does that make them Persian? Your place of birth doesn't designate your ethnicity, even still, Kufa is an Arab city, not Persian.

Kufa was a mixed city of Persians and Arabs at that time. Tus was mainly Persian.

So that is why I have not list his ethnicity and unless you have clear proof he was Arab from ancient sources (and there is no way to prove it with all these various sources), and not just some Encyclopedia which has been correct many times and used to classify many other Iranian, Turkish Muslim scientists as Arabs

Actually, these encyclopedias are verified, I see that a favorite tactic of yours is ignore, mock, and marginalize sources that your opponents give, just check your comments on all the articles you had. Please, don't use sleazy tactics to get your way in editing. Also, Encarta specifically states him to be Arab.

Nope you didn't give me one source. Encarta does not mean anything when you can't show me an ancient source that says he was Arab. Note Britannica even stayed away from discussing his ethnicity. There are literally hundreds of mistake in both Encyclopedias as well as the fact that manya articles for the same entery could even contradict each other. I need ancient sources. You claimed that all sources mention as al-Azdi and when I asked you for one ancient source, you stayed sliet.

I'm an Arab, are you telling me I can't comprehend my own language?! I asked for the name of book, year of publication, and the number of pages from which the quote was taken. Do you understand English?

Well then read it. I gave you the publications above. Ibn Nadeem, Tehran, 1342 (1963) (look in the index for Jabir). Al-Muqadaama Ibn Khaldun, translated by Mohammad Parvin Gonabadi, Tehran, 1360 (look in the index for Jabir).

I have sources that state him to be Arab. He spoke, wrote and lived in the Arab world, please stop trying to falsify articles for your own views. MB 09:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is not a source relative to the sources I brought. 1911 Britannica also mistakenly called Avicenna as an "Arab" and now it has been corrected. I have brought four sources: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Nadeem and Haji Khalifa. I have brought the exact Arabic quotes. Now both Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikhan .. mention the he was a Shia and so does Britannica. Why do you delete that portion at least? This is a well know fact. Do you agree that he was a Shia or not? I am not saying all Shias are Iranians, but historically Shi'ism has been very strong in Iran specially in Tus Khorasan where the inhabitants are Persians and never have been Arabs (Unless you claim otherwisfe). Many of the so called "Arab" shi'ites of Iraq have Persian origin as well. Even the current leadership of the Howza is Ayatollah Sistani who is Persian. Now I am not claiming 100% Geber was born in Tus, because Kufa and Tartus are also mentioned. But if he was born in Tus, most likely he was Persian. Yet I have no definite proof, since I can not discout the other two Kufa, Tartus and etc. Again I ask you to prove your claims that he was an Arab from ancient sources and if you can't, then you should not persist in just repeating the same Encarta argument. Encarta is the one that has no sources. Over here I brought four of the most reliable and ancient sources ever. So fact of the matter is that his ethnicity is unknown. Even some people question his existence, but his existence is known by Ibn Nadeem and others and so his biography should be put from there. BTW you claimed all sources mention him al-azdi and even Britannica, Encarta didn't. Neither did the more authentic and ancient sources like Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khalikan and Haji Khalifa.

--Ali doostzadeh 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali doostzadeh's comment, just because Geber wrote in Arabic does not mean that he was an Arab. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that he was a member of Al-Azad tribe as you claim. Also, please avoid personal attacks and stay civil. --ManiF 10:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are many sources that state him to be Arab, I already gave the sources, please don't delete verifiable info from the article. 213.42.2.28 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I share the concern of those who think Geber is being labeled Arab by Britannica just because he was Muslim. It is true that mistakes were made about Biruni and Avicenna and a few other Muslim figures. However we should keep in mind that Britannica updated itself, Biruni and Avicenna are referred to as Persians, and in cases where there were uncertainty, like Kharazmi, ethnicity was not mentioned. This gives me a reason to accept the current version. However it is likely that it will change in the future. That said, the same Britannica calls him a Shia and I don’t know why people keep deleting that. MB why do you delete Shia when you want to add Arab? Is there a law against being an Arab and Shia at the same time? I am putting shia back in.

Thank you.

Gol 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

jabir ibn hayyan al-azdi

From Alchemy by E.J. Holmyard

His biography:

Al-Azdi, Al-Kufi,Al-Tusi,Al-Sufi..."These various designations. confusing as they seem at first sight, were in fact clues that did much to clear up uncertainties ab out Jabir's life"

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=de&vid=ISBN0486262987&id=svvrC-5-G8UC&dq=jabir+al-azdi&lpg=PA69&pg=PA68&sig=xWsGOMJ9LWZHRi6MlWnhrtXv6Kc

The matter is settled.

Jidan 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you quote only the parts you like. The book does not help in any way to clarify Jabirs ethnicity since the author clearly states: "Much is still conjectural, but the following account is probably authentic in main". Note the ethnicity of Jabir again is uncertain and the author uses probably and conjectural. If it was certain, he would not have used probably and conjectural. Note that virtually no manuscript of Jabir Ibn Hayyan has been authenticated as from him, so the attribution of any manuscript to him with a name "azdi" is unreliable. See the note I mentioned above. Again I ask what early Islamic biographer has put Al-Azdi as his tribal designation? I am waiting for one Islamic biographer at least. Also why do you guys delete the Shia Muslim part which is in every single biography (even the ? This hardly makes the matter settled. Jabirs ethnic identity is uncertain like I stated because the words Tusi and Azdi do not appear in the same places. The only thing biographers agree upon is that he was Shia muslim. The author for example also claims Jabir had something to do with Sufism, but sufism was not developed back then and the title Al-Sufi to be interpreted within sufism does not make sense. The fact is any guess on Jabirs ethnicity is conjectural and probable. I can also quote the following books from the site on alchemy and claim he was Persian:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0226577120&id=M1mYByGE1P4C&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=8QQU97iZ5TMYcZ14BrAh49Hqo6s

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0738703109&id=WVoWXSd9owIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=EgD7iGAFPxstg0u3gv6hII10V_k

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0801856647&id=ZXFJMLWx7UgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=um5FHyADmwxImkDHF0zifqAtQ7o

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0973899204&id=X-s2xn-r_kwC&pg=PA2014&lpg=PA2014&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=YJ3YGWW8q8i1tmUgx1cpBFFPBT8

I am still waiting to see which ancient biographer has given him a title "Al-Azdi". So far there is no clear evidence and I only hear of certain manuscripts, whereas many of these manuscripts are not authentically authored by Jabir.

--Ali doostzadeh 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry Ali, but 3 out of 4 links you posted don't work, and one link doesn't say anything about his ethnicity. Jidan 22:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He was Arab

Most notable encyclopedias including Britannica and Encarta states that Geber was an Arab. Please stop this racist edit war, Geber and Alhazen are both non-Persians, and none of you have the evidence to prove otherwise. Bring your evidence. Any information from an Iranian- or Persian-nationalist web site will not be accepted.--Inahet 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali doostzadeh's comments on this page. --ManiF 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he Azd you ask?

E.J. Holmyard, a notable scholar in the field of Alchemy, author of Makers of Chemistry and The Arabic Works of Jabir ibn Hayyan says that Jabir was from the Al-Azd tribe, one of the many Southern Arab tribes that settled in --Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Kufa.[19] and [20] I'm sure that Holmyard had done a lot of research using, of course, "ancient" sources. What other sources do you think he used? --Inahet 09:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And who is ibn Nadeem? I don't think he is notable in Islamic history, maybe in Shia history. But because you, doostzadeh, didn't find any information on Jabir's ethnic background in the very few books you read, doesn't mean that information is nonexistant. Many notable sources including the Columbia Encyclopedia and The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography says that he is Arab. None say that his "ethnicity is unknown". Wikipedia is not a place for inadequate and exclusive research or for nationalistic wars, it is to reflect the accepted opinion, and that opinion is Jabir is an Arab. --Inahet 09:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the history page, there are many notable sources that states that Jabir was Arab. No notable source was brought to prove that he was Shia, or that his ethnicity was unknown. Even the proof that Doostzadeh brought, which some of you rely on to make your arguement, is not at all inclusive. I think a scholar in the field of alchemy like Holmyard has done a lot more comprehensive research in older texts than Doostzadeh has ever did, and therefore Wikipedia should include the opinion of the former. Before some of you decide to revert, please cite your source. The source should be notable. Inahet 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you just changed your name from MB to Inahet. And if you even had done minute amount of research, you would know who Ibn Nadeem is. I am not here to give you an education in order to remove your complete ignorance of this situation. Ibn Nadeem is one of the foremost ancient sources on many of the scholars of the Islamic world. Do a google search on Ibn Nadim or Ibn Nadeem or on Al-Fihrist. First of his Shia identity is identified by Ibn Nadeem, Encyclopedia Britannica, Ibn Khalikan and even the sources you brought. The second thing is I gave some sources above that his ethnicity is Persian. If he was born in Tus, he could definitely be claimed as an Iranian (by territory) and even perhaps by ethnicity. There is no notable source that says he is an Arab. Because all the ancient sources on him: Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Nadeem, Ibn Khalikan, Haji Khalifa have not put him as al-Azdi. And no actual manuscript has been authneticated that clearly should belong to him. Besides they have given different birth accounts. But all of them are unanimous on him being a shia. Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic wars, and there is no accepted opinion on Jabirs ethnicity as I showed a good amount of sources (from above) that he was Persian. So I have left his ethnic identity unchecked. For example thee Encyclopedia Britannica on Geber which was silent but mentioned he was a Shia.

Here are some sources that mention him as Persian:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0226577120&id=M1mYByGE1P4C&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=8QQU97iZ5TMYcZ14BrAh49Hqo6s

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0738703109&id=WVoWXSd9owIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=EgD7iGAFPxstg0u3gv6hII10V_k

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0801856647&id=ZXFJMLWx7UgC&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=um5FHyADmwxImkDHF0zifqAtQ7o

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0973899204&id=X-s2xn-r_kwC&pg=PA2014&lpg=PA2014&dq=jabir+hayyan+persian&sig=YJ3YGWW8q8i1tmUgx1cpBFFPBT8

I am still waiting to see which ancient biographer has given him a title "Al-Azdi". I can also claim these as "notable" sources, so please do not spew ignorance here. What is important is what the ancient sources have wrote. So far Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Nadeem and Haji Khalifa have not done so. Ibn Nadeem mentions that he is from Khorasan and does not mention the title al-azdi. He is the earliest source on Jabirs biography and clearly states that he was Shia (see the above).

Here is the exact quote from Ibn Nadeem (see the refrence above for publication): هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات ...

Note it clearly states he was a shia. So does Ibn Khalikan. Now I am not making any claims on his ethnicity although Persians historically have been strong supporters of Shi'ism and being born in Tus means that he was born in a prevalently Persian city. But this is not the only biography on Geber that is available. So I have left his ethnicity unchecked, bought his religious sect is very certain.

--Ali doostzadeh 06:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I and Mb are not the same person, I understand this is a tactic you use to undermine the credibility of your "opponents." It's very sleazy, and I would never have went that low no matter what the situation was. And, I suggest that you write your arguments without a belligerent tone, because we can turn this into a petty fight, or we can healthily debate the issue at hand. The ball is in your court. I will, however, check the sources and get back to you. Inahet 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a Google account, is there any way you can quote the actual text? --Inahet 17:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I already did a google search on Ibn Nadim; very little information was given about this person. He's not mentioned in the most comprehensive Islamic web sites like Islamonline.net and he has no entries in the most popular encyclopedias, which is an indicator of his notableness.

I asked someone for a translation of the Ibn Nadeem quote you provided, because I'm not sure your translation is accurate. Here is my translation:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه:::::: من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات

He is Abdullah Jabir bin (son of) Hayyan bin Abdullah Al Koufi, well-known among the Sufis, and different from the people of his time, For it was said by the Shias that he was from from the greatest of them, one of the (al-Abwab), they allege that he was a friend of Ja'fir Al-Sadiq (radhee Allah 'anhu) and he was from the people of al Kaufa, and a people of philosophique allege that he was from them and he was in the rational and ranked philosophers.

Furthermore, the only source that I cited that claims that he was a Shia also claims that he is from the south Arabian tribe al-Azd, you cannot be selective.Inahet 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. I am not knowlegable on Arabic but the translation above seems a little wrong. Either way there is no al-Azdi here and Ibn-Nadeem is one of the oldest and most reliable sources on.

I also brought a quote from Ibn Khalikan about him being Shia: فيات الأعيان ابن خلكان

جعفر الصادق أبو عبد اللله جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي زين العابدين بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب، رضي الله عنهم أجمعين؛ أحد الأئمة الاثني عشر على مذهب الإمامية، وكان من سادات أهل البيت ولقب بالصادق لصدقه في مقالته وفضله أشهر من أن يذكر، وله كلام في صنعة الكيمياء والزجر والفأل، وكان تلميذه أبو موسى جابر بن حيان الصوفي الطرسوسي قد ألف كتاباً يشتمل على ألف ورقة تتضمن رسائل جعفر الصادق وهي خمسمائة رسالة

As you can see, neither Ibn Nadeem, nor Ibn Khaldun, Nor Haji Khalifa, nor Ibn Khalikan have mentioned al-Azdi. Also for example the Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention al-Azdi, but mentions: "Shortly after Jabir was born, his father was beheaded for the part he played in a plot by the 'Abbasids to depose the Umayyad dynasty. Jabir was sent to Arabia, where he became a member of the Shi'ite sect. ". Furthermore three different birth places have been mentioned: Tus, Tartus, Kufa. And as you can see there is no 100% certain biography on him or 100% certainty on his ethnicity. But him being Shia Muslim is mentioned in a good amount of sources. The other by Ibn Khalikan is helpful. And all sources mention that he was disciple of Imam Jaffar Sadiq (AS). --69.86.16.239 04:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (Ali Doostzadeh).

I have asked two others to translate the Ibn Nadeem quote, as my Arabic is also not that good. I made a Google account, and checked the links you provided. The first three do not work. The last doesn't claim that he was Persian, this is the actual text: "The earliest reference to sulfuric acid goes back to sometime in the 8th century when Jabir ibn Hayyan spoke of distilling niter with green vitriol. A Persian alchemist in the 10th century is credited with its discovery..." --Inahet 07:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three links work and I am not sure why you are saying they do not work. Get a google account and check it out.

For example on the first link, the book is "Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest for the perfect nature", pg 181: "The corpus acribed to the putative eight-century Persian sage, Jabir ibn Hayyan, sometimes called "parascelsus of the Arabs", (By Europeans), compromises almost three thousand works", and the third link says: "Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan(8th century);". So as you can see his ethnicity is not known and both Arabic and Persian can be claimed. Also check out this link on shi'ism which has an opposite take on my opinion: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=jabir+hayyan+shiite&sig=F4VWYaemaFTrMaIC-_O5X7SmyIw Another major factor is the work of Jabir ibn Hayyan, "the father of Arab alchemy"(European middle ages term), who was born in Tus(Khorasan) and brought his science to Baghdad and to Kufa. Research begun by Ruska into the person and work of Jabir, resulted in a monumental work by our late regretted colleague Paul Kraus. Tradition has Jabir as disciple of the sixth Shiite Imam,Ja'far al-Sadiq, who initiated him into alchemy and other esoteric sciences. Research has undoubtly established that this is an historical impossibility, and has gone to conclude that Arab alchemy from the oldest texts of the Jabirian corpus must have originated in the scientific culture of northeastern Iran. This thesis is supported by Pahlavi(middle-Persian) and Persian (modern Persian) terms used in the technical vocabulary"

And as per the title "al-Azdi" (which so far I have not seen any ancient sources and biographies on Jabir, the french author says: The nisba al-azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Jabir seems to have been a client (mawla) of the Azd tribe established in Kufa.

Now as you can see the information on his background is extremly diverse and various theories and counter-theories on his origin, place of birth, sect, ethnicity and even existence has been proposed. Although his shi'ism is still supported by most sources, even if he did not meet Imam Jaf'far Saddiq(AS). Because both Kufa and Tus were major shi'ite strongholds. And Kufa had a lot of Iranians, for example Mukhtar who lead a revolt against the ummayad had mainly Iranian soldiers and mawalis from Kufa in his army. So much so that the minority Arabs in his army complained about his more favorable view on Persians than Arabs. So there is no way to claim him as 100% Arab and as there is no way to claim him as 100% Persian. Even the title "al-Azdi" (which I have not seen any ancient source as of yet), could simply mean he was a client of the Azd tribe. So I propose both ethnicity should be mentioned and instead of Shia, we just leave it as muslim.

--Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other sources

To resolve this dispute, please also see the following academic sources that have discussed Geber in detail (and are referenced by the NIH):

• Syed Nomanul Haq, Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir ibn Ḥayyān and his Kitab al-Ahjar (Book of Stones) [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 158] (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994)
• Manfred Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam, Handbuch der Orientalistik, Abteilung I, Ergänzungsband VI, Abschnitt 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), pp. 198-207
• Donald R. Hill, 'The Literature of Arabic Alchemy' in Religon, Learning and Science in the 'Abbasid Period, ed. by M.J.L. Young, J.D. Latham, and R.B. Serjeant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) pp. 328-341, esp. pp. 333-5.
• William Newman, 'New Light on the Identity of "Geber"', Sudhoffs Archiv, 1985, vol. 69, pp. 76-90.

Thanx.--Zereshk 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list of writings. I don't have access to any of these sources, so I guess I will rely on the others to obtain any relevant information. Doing a Google search on these books is fruitless. However, I found an article written by William Newman published in 1989, in which he refers to Jabir as an Arab: "I have recently shown that Paul of Taranto, a thirteenth-century Franciscan, was the probable author of a famous alchemical text, the Summa perfectionis, spuriously attributed to the Arab Jãbir ibn Hayyãn" [21] I wouldn't be surprised if he claimed that Jabir is an Arab in his other (earlier) publication that Zereshk mentioned, but I admit I'm speculating.--Inahet 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen some recent books name Rhazes an "Arab" too. That's why we have to go a bit deeper and investigate the sources. Many authors use "muslim" and "Arab" (especially during the Golden Age of Islam) interchangeably. As User:Jidan stressed to us, an Arab is defined by many people as someone who speaks Arabic. Hence the source of confusion.--Zereshk 09:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits wars

What's with all these edits wars here? Can we just call him an Arab Shia Muslim? You guys need to discuss these in the talk. Aucaman^Talk 10:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the discussions on this page. It's not clear if Geber was an Arab by ethnicity, some sources refer to him as "Persian" or "Iranian" by ethnicity. --ManiF 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the sources that claim he was Persian or Iranian, because so far I have not seen one.--Inahet 16:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a scholarly philosophy magazine calling Gaber an Iranian. [22] --ManiF 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, they do mention that he is Persian, but, that is not a scholarly philosophy magazine. They claim that their web site is "Europe's largest battery solutions provider producing over 500,000 batteries every month." We don't know from where they derived their information. --Inahet 17:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Iranian the same thing as Persian? There are Iranian Kurds, Iranian Arabs, Iranian Armenians, etc. --Inahet 17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Ali Doustzadeh's comments on this page, there is no historic evidence that Geber was an Arab or a Persian. He could have been an Arab or Persian. The only thing we know for sure is that he was a Shia Sufi born in Iran's Khorasan. --ManiF 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is no historic evidence until you have some notable secondary sources that say that there is no historic evidence of his ethnicity being Arab or Persian. But most sources say that he was Arab (with no hesitation) and even far less sources say that he was Persian, actually one so far, but they said he was Iranian. I'm still waiting for the translation on the Ibn Nadeem quote.--Inahet 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ManiF, I don't think your recent edit is fair, but I don't want to engage in an edit war. How about we keep Shia and the Iranian scientists catergory, but add back the Arab scientists catergory, and remove the portion in the introduction that says "Persian has been claimed" because thus far we have not seen one notable source that refers to him as being Persian. What do you think? Inahet 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I will make the changes that I proposed, and then you decide whether you agree with it or not. --Inahet 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The first three links work and I am not sure why you are saying they do not work. Get a google account and check it out.

For example on the first link, the book is "Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest for the perfect nature", pg 181: "The corpus acribed to the putative eight-century Persian sage, Jabir ibn Hayyan, sometimes called "parascelsus of the Arabs", (By Europeans), compromises almost three thousand works", and the third link says: "Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan(8th century);". So as you can see his ethnicity is not known and both Arabic and Persian can be claimed. Also check out this link on shi'ism which has an opposite take on my opinion: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1556432690&id=A8PzaQZwzZQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=jabir+hayyan+shiite&sig=F4VWYaemaFTrMaIC-_O5X7SmyIw Another major factor is the work of Jabir ibn Hayyan, "the father of Arab alchemy"(European middle ages term), who was born in Tus(Khorasan) and brought his science to Baghdad and to Kufa. Research begun by Ruska into the person and work of Jabir, resulted in a monumental work by our late regretted colleague Paul Kraus. Tradition has Jabir as disciple of the sixth Shiite Imam,Ja'far al-Sadiq, who initiated him into alchemy and other esoteric sciences. Research has undoubtly established that this is an historical impossibility, and has gone to conclude that Arab alchemy from the oldest texts of the Jabirian corpus must have originated in the scientific culture of northeastern Iran. This thesis is supported by Pahlavi(middle-Persian) and Persian (modern Persian) terms used in the technical vocabulary"

And as per the title "al-Azdi" (which so far I have not seen any ancient sources and biographies on Jabir) the french author says: The nisba al-azdin certainly does not necessarily indicate Arab origin. Jabir seems to have been a client (mawla) of the Azd tribe established in Kufa.

Now as you can see the information on his background is extremly diverse and various theories and counter-theories on his origin, place of birth, sect, ethnicity and even existence (some scholars even have questioned if he was a real person!) has been proposed. Although his shi'ism is still supported by most sources, even if he did not meet Imam Jaf'far Saddiq(AS). Because both Kufa and Tus were major shi'ite strongholds. And Kufa had a lot of Iranians, for example Mukhtar who lead a revolt against the ummayad had mainly Iranian soldiers and mawalis from Kufa in his army. So much so that the minority Arabs in his army complained about his more favorable view on Persians than Arabs. So there is no way to claim him as 100% Arab and as there is no way to claim him as 100% Persian. Even the title "al-Azdi" (which I have not seen any ancient source as of yet), could simply mean he was a client of the Azd tribe. So I propose both ethnic backgrounds should be mentioned. We can leave the Shia part, but even that is not 100% certain although very very probable.

--Ali doostzadeh 22:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan

He was born in Khorasan which was home to a sizable Arab population during the Middle Ages (and there still remains a Khorasani Arab population there). Just my two cents. SouthernComfort 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

THere is no Khorasani Arab population. And we have gone through this argument already. Most of the Arabs that came to Khorasan, were assimilated quickly and the majority of them came to Merv. There is absolutely no source that mentions that Tus had an Arab population. Also the number of Iranians in Iraq was much greater than the number of Arabs in Khorasan and many Iraqis claim Iranian ancestory.

--69.86.16.239 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken - there is indeed a Khorasani Arab population. A very small one in this day and age, but they do exist. See this link [23] for example as well as Britannica [24]. SouthernComfort 07:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a minority Arab population in Khorasan, but the chances of him being Persian are probably higher than being Arab since the majority in Khorasan were Persian. Regardless, for now we have no historic evidence that proves Geber was an Arab or a Persian beyond any doubts. --ManiF 15:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I Have given up

ManiF You don't want to follow the rules, you think your revision is more valid than mine even though you cite far less sources that are mostly unverifiable. I doubt you even read a section from the books you cited, and you won't allow the more verifiable revision remain until more proof is provided because you have to have it your way. I have given up, I'm requesting help from an admin. --Inahet 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read my last comment in the above section. You requested sources and it was given to you in abundance and yet you don't acknowledge them. We can not label someone an Arab when there are contradictory sources referring to the same person as an Iranian. The best solution is to leave the ethnicity part out of the article in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. --ManiF 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's far from the best solution. I can't pretend to know everything about this issue, but I can offer best practices. Until the more rigorous sources posted in an above section can be checked and/or better can be found, it seems clear sources differ on his ethnicity and nationality. So instead of leaving an important fact out or claiming it is unkown, simply report the sources differ. Differentiate his ethnic background and his place of birth as much as possible. The best source would be a peer reviewed on the speaks to the specific issue and has not been significantly questioned. Lacking that, report the facts: the sources differ. List the significant claims and cite the best sources to each. Only state it is unknown if a source makes that clear. - Taxman ^Talk 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you read Ali Doustzadeh's comment on this page, he has cited several historic quotes that explicitly state that many details about Gaber's life, including his background, are unknown. That's why we reported the fact that the sources differ on his ethnicity by saying "His ethnicity is unclear, though some sources identify him as an Arab and others as Persian". --ManiF 08:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

The name Geber, a Latinized form of Jabir, was adopted because of the great reputation of the 8th-century Arab alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan. A number of Arabic scientific works credited to Jabir were translated into Latin during the 11th to 13th centuries. [25] Britannica also identifies him as an "unknown author." SouthernComfort 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

totally trivial is the following: western sources refer to arabic writers as arab. hence no way to accept britanica. i will come up later, now i have write my own stuff. kalash7oct2006.

There is a paper entitled New Light on the Identity of "Geber" by William Newman that may shed some additional light on who Geber was. However, even then I think this paper identifies him as an Arab, as do Columbia and Britannica. I believe he should be identified as an Arab in this article, but one may wish to also state that his identity was "unknown" or "unclear" or some such wording. SouthernComfort 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Geber's ethnicity

Sources

Okay guys, drop all the different sources here. Don't give any explanations unless necessary. Let's see what we're dealing with. If it's a website just drop the link. If the source is offline just put the quote. In any case don't include any arguments. Aucaman^Talk 14:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Different sources have already been listed under "Settling the Issue". --ManiF 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not bark orders at others. It is considered rude and incivil. SouthernComfort 03:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

==More about Ibn Nadeem==--69.86.16.239 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Inahet said above that Ibn Nadeem is not "notable in Islamic history" as a source.

Two things I can say in response:

• "The al-fihrist is the oldest and best existing source of our knowledge on these matters [history of medicine]." Edward Granville Browne, Islamic Medicine, 2002, ISBN 8187570, p.15
• The al-fihrist is available in English at a good library near you:

The Fihrist of al-Nadim; a tenth-century survey of Muslim culture. Bayard Dodge, editor and translator. PUBLISHED: New York, Columbia University Press, 1970. ISBN 023102925X [26]

Thanks.--Zereshk 21:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that was a dumb thing for me to say. Anyway, according to the "Kitab al-Fihrist" (I'm assuming it is the same one you're referring to) Geber was born in Tarsus, Turkey, thus he isn't Iranian, not by ethnicity nor by the region he was born in. Here is the article I got this information from:

Also known as: Dschabir Ben Hayyan, Abou Moussah Djafar al Sofi

Birth: ? in Tarsus, Turkey

Death: c. 776 A.D.

Nationality: Arabian

Occupation: alchemist

Source: Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biographical Essay

Further Readings

Source Citation

BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Arabian alchemist whose real name has been variously stated as Dschabir Ben Hayyan or Abou Moussah Djafar al Sofi. According to the tenth-century Kitab-al-Fihrist, Geber was born at Tarsus and lived at Damascus and Kufa. Very little is known of his early life. He undertook wide experiments in metallurgy and chemistry with the object of discovering the constituent elements of metals, in the course of which he stumbled upon nitric acid and red oxide of mercury. It is upon such actual discoveries that his reputation is based, not upon the many spurious treatises that have been attributed to him and embrace the entire gamut of eighth-century science.

His alleged extant works, which are in Latin, are regarded with suspicion, especially since several other medieval writers adopted his name. It is believed, however, that the library at Leyden and the Imperial Library at Paris contain Arabic manuscripts that might have been written by him. His books Sum of Perfection and Investigation into the Perfection of Metals are his most important works. Complete editions were published at Dantzic in 1682 and are included in the Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa of Mangetus, published at Cologne in 1702.

Sum of Perfection professes to draw its inspiration from alchemical authors who lived before Geber, but because alchemy was not advanced at that time the derivation is an unlikely one. The book states that success in the great art is only to be achieved by rigid adherence to natural law. A spirit of great strength and a dry water are spoken of as the elements of the natural principle. The philosophical furnace and its arrangement are dealt with in detail, as is the ``philosopher's vessel, a glass vase with several intricate details.

"Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC END OF ARTICLE

I would appreciate it if you would note this in the article and remove the Iranian scientist category since it is disputed. Thanks in advance.Inahet 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have the al-Firhist and in no where I see Geber being mentioned from al-Tartus. BTW Tartus is not in Turkey, but is in the Syrian coast of the mediterranean river which at the time of Geber was mainly Greek Christians.

Also provide the quote exactly in Arabic. The auhor above mixed up his sources and Ibn Nadeem no where claims Geber from being Tartus but is very clear on Geber being from Khorasan.

As per your other claim, here is another source that has shown his ethnicity is unknown. This is a very reliable source produced by the University of Cambridge. http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521200938&id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&dq=The+works+of+Jabir+deal+not+only+with+alchemy+but+also&lpg=PA413&pg=PA413&sig=8KtOG5B81EF4T1pgqNrSGPwbqXg

Here is the whole quote from Ibn Nadeem:

هو أبو عبد الله جابر بن حيان بن عبد الله الكوفي المعروف بالصوفي واختلف الناس في أمره فقالت الشيعة أنه من كبارهم وأحد الأبواب وزعموا أنه كان صاحب جعفر الصادق رضي الله عنه وكان من أهل الكوفة وزعم قوم من الفلاسفة أنه كان منهم وله في المنطق والفلسفة مصنفات وزعم أهل صناعة الذهب والفضة أن الرياسة انتهت إليه في عصره وأن أمره كان مكتوماً وزعموا أهه كان يتنقل في البلدان لا يستقر به بلد خوفاً من السلطان على نفسه وقيل أنه كان في جملة البرامكة ومنقطعاً إليها ومتحققاً بجعفر بن يحيى فمن زعم هذا قال أنه عني بسيده جعفر هو البرمكي وقالت الشيعة إنما عني جعفر الصادق وحدثني بعض الثقات ممن تعاطى الصنعة أنه كان ينزل في شارع باب الشام في درب يعرف بدرب الذهب وقال لي هذا الرجل أن جابراً كان أكثر مقامه بالكوفة وبها كان يدبر الأكسير لصحة هوائها ولما أصيب بالكوفة الازج الذي وجد فيه هوان ذهب فيه نحو مائتي رطل ذكر هذا الرجل أن الموضع الذي أصيب ذلك فيه كان دار جابر بن حيان فإنه لم يصب في ذلك الأزج غير الهاون فقط وموضع قد بني للحل والعقد هذا في أيام عز الدولة بن معز الدولة وقال لي أبو اسبكتكين دستاردار أنه هو الذي خرج ليتسلم ذلك وقال جماعة من أهل العلم وأكابر الوراقين أن هذا الرجل يعني جابراً لا أصل له ولا حقيقة وبعضهم قال أنه ما صنف وإن كان له حقيقة إلا كتاب الرحمة وأن هذه المصنفات صنفها الناس ونحلوه إياها وأنا أقول أن رجلاً فاضلاً يجلس ويتعب فيصنف كتاباً يحتوي على ألفي ورقة يتعب قريحته وفكره بإخراجه ويتعب يده وجسمه بنسخه ثم ينحله لغيره إما موجوداً أو معدوماً ضرب من الجهل وإن ذلك لا يستمر على أحد ولا يدخل تحته من تحلى ساعة واحدة بالعلم وأي فائدة في هذا وأي عائدة والرجل له حقيقة وأمره أظهر وأشهر وتصنيفاته أعظم وأكثر ولهذا الرجل كتب في مذاهب الشيعة أنا أوردها في مواضعها وكتب في معان شتى من العلوم قد ذكرتها في مواضعها من الكتاب وقد قيل أن أصله من خراسان والرازي يقول في كتبه المؤلفة في الصنعة قال أستاذنا أبو موسى جابر بن حيان.

Note it mentions both Shi'ism and his Asl(root) being from Khorasan. أن أصله من خراسان

There is nothing about him being from Tartus from Ibn Nadeem.

I propose the information from the following book be put in the Wikipedia article since by now we have established many reliable sources that say either he was Persian or his ethnicity is unknown:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521200938&id=hvx9jq_2L3EC&dq=The+works+of+Jabir+deal+not+only+with+alchemy+but+also&lpg=PA413&pg=PA413&sig=8KtOG5B81EF4T1pgqNrSGPwbqXg

--Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough Arabic to understand the Ibn Nadeem quote, so I can't confirm or deny what you said regarding Ibn Nadeem's quote. And as you said, you're not very knowledgeable in Arabic either. So if we can get our hands on the English translation as Zereshk suggested then it would be much easier. And to be accurate, Ibn Nadeem doesn't directly say that Jabir is Sh'ia, he says that Sh'ias claim he is one of the Sh'ia (actually, one of leaders of the Shias). There is a big difference between the two. For example, saying that "Phillip the Arab was a Christian" is not the same as "Early Christians allege that Phillip the Arab was a Christian."

Actually, this is the exact translation that I had requested from a fellow Wikipedian: the Shiaa called him one of their leaders and one of their Ba'bs (head of the school in philosophic meaning of a religion) and they claimed that he was the follower of Ja'far Al-Sadegh (the 6th Imam of Shiaa).... Anyway, I just wanted that to be clear for others who do not understand Arabic. Also, English sources are preferable to non-English sources as according to Wikipedia verifiability policy.

Also, I have problems with ManiF's sources. What he did was he simply listed the sources that you had posted previously without bothering to look them up or reading what I had to say in response to these sources. For example, as I told you before, Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie doesn't say that he is Persian.[27]

Also, I couldn't check the other three sources from the Google links you provided because the pages constantly refreshes without displaying the contents of the pages. I see that Jidan also had the same problem. And I doubt that the pages worked for ManiF. The one that did work didn't say he was Persian (Louie's book), you had made a mistake. You might have made a mistake with the others. Could you quote them exactly? In the meantime, it is safe to say that there is still a lack of sources that claim he was Persian. Are you willing to agree with this?

Anyway I'll read the Cambridge source, I will try to write an entire section on his ethnicity and I will see whether I can incorporate the different perspectives including E.J. Holmyard's perspective as well the Cambridge perspective that you have provided. Inahet 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ali, the problem with the Cambridge source is that an important part is cut-off and there is no access to that page through Google. I want to be able to quote the author or write his perspective which I will attribute to him, but I'm not sure as to what he exactly said; is there a way you can obtain the book? Inahet 01:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have access to that Cambridge book and will bring about soon probably by this Friday. Most of it is there, and that first line basically shows that modern scholars are unclear about his ethnicity, which is the case I am arguing here as well and have brought about some sources to show this. As per arabic, I know enough to get the section of Ibn Nadeem and there is no mention of Tartus. Also Ibn Nadeem clearly says Jabir is from Khorasan. Asl (root) and Khorasan. But I will wait for someone more knowledegable to translate the whole thing exactly. Per now I think that the information from the Cambridge source should be put on the web-site and although half it is there, I will get the other half soon. But I can assure you that Tartus and Jabir do not go together since I have Ibn Nadeem on CD and did an extensive search. Either way, I'll try to bring the rest of the Cambridge source soon.

--Ali doostzadeh 03:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my rough draft that I said I would write. The last revision of the Wiki Geber article was contradictory, in the first paragraph it stated that Jabir's ethnicity is unknown, but in the biography section it is stated that he is the son of the Hayyan, an Arab. So I think my draft corrects this contradiction.

Also, another problem with the Cambridge source is that it is not a book on Jabir ibn Hayyan or on Alchemy and alchemists, but it is a book on the history of Iran. But for the sake of compromise I wrote their perspective into the section. E.J. Holmyard, in my view, has much more authority on the subject. And unlike many scholars, he doesn't refer to every Muslim scientist as an Arab. In fact, E.J. Holmyard states that "Avicenna...described as the Aristotle of the Arabians...was not in fact an Arab but a Persian."(Makers Of Chemistry, pg 69) Also, Holmyard uses Ibn Nadeem's Kitab al Fihrist as a source as proved in page 52 in the entry of Jabir Ibn Hayyan: "His (Jabir's) own list of writings, which has come down to us at second hand in the Kitab al-Fihrist of ibn al Nadim (about A.D. 1000)..."

Tell me what are your thoughts on my draft. --Inahet 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Cambridge source is written by serious historians and ethno-logist whereas any book on Alchemy is focused on Alchemy and not History. Part of History is actually studying the ethnicity of a certain person whereas this is secondary in a book about Alchemy. In fact a primary aspect of studying history is about ethnology.

I can also make strong arguments for the Cambridge source. Specially the fact that each of those scholars has hundreds of publications and many books with regards to the Islamic Middle East. It is edited by many scholars (and not just one author like the source you mentioned), it is from one of the most prestigious universities and so on and so forth.... The thing is that one can not choose a preferred source when there is so much uncertainty. I shall extract the statement from the Cambridge source soon (pg 412) and then everyone can be the judge. The problem is that again the Biography on Jabir is too scanty and nothing can be certain about him. So as a whole here, the opinion of one author here is no better than another author. BTW I rechecked all of Ibn Nadeem and there is nothing that says Jabir was from Tartus. Let me get the rest of the Cambridge source soon and then I'll get back to you. all the best --Ali doostzadeh 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is what the Cambridge source says. In fact one of the references in the back is Homyard source (1957). Note the Cambridge source is written about 30 years after, so it is more updated. And I will quote from pg 412:

Mystery still shrouds the identity and personality of the founder of Islamic alchemy, Jabir b. Hayyan. Some have even doubted his exitence, while others like Kraus have cast doubt upon the authenticity of the works attributed to him. But when all the evidence is examined, it is hardly possible do doubt that such a person existed, that he was an alchemist and that he also belonged to the circle of the sixth Shi'i Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. it is also clear that some of the works in the Jabirean corpus are later accretions of Isma'ili inspiration. There is a link between Jabirean alchemy and Ismai'ism in such works as the Kitab al-Majid (The Book of the Glorious), and also many links with the general tradition of Sufism in such questions as the symbolism of letters.

Jabir is entitled in traditional sources as al-'Azdi, Al-Kufi, Al-Tusi, Al-Sufi. There is also a debate as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khurasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian (I guess the author means Assyrian? or Greek?) origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq. What remains certain is that he and his family lived much of their life in Tus in Khurasan, that he spent a good part of his life, which streches over the 2nd/8th century, in Kufa and at the court of Harun al-Rashid in baghdad, that he was a Sufi, and that he was also a circle of Imam Ja'far. Recently some have claimed to have discovered his tomb in western Persia. He was both the founder of Islamic alchemy and the prototype of the Muslim aclhemist in later centuries.

So there is no unanimous viewpoint on Jabirs background. I think the information of Corbin is good as well. So I think in the article the information above should be written and there should not be one-sidedness.

--Ali doostzadeh 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should have special consideration for the Cambridge opinion, especially the fact that it is a minority opinion and that the information isn't extensive. As far as Jabir’s life goes, Holmyard’s perspective holds more weight, since he had studied Jabir’s life extensively and more closely. He has also wrote about him in at least two books and had translated his works. And many writers on Geber look to E.J. Holmyard's books for information, including, as you pointed out, the Cambridge collection. I would, however, add the Cambridge perspective to supplement the other prevalent opinions like E.J. Holmyard's and even the more recent perspectives, such as these sources:

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Science: An Illustrated Study (London: World of Islam Festival Publishing, 1976).

Gaw, Harold P., Geber: His Life and Works [28]

Also, it is important to reflect the proportions of the claims of Jabir's ethnicity, because as far as numbers go, the claim that Ibn Hayyan is Arab is far more than the claims that he was Persian, and is verfiable. Right now, I'm quite busy, but I'll do more research and see if I can get any more books on Geber. Also, I want to note that even an Iranian writer Fouad Kazem recognizes Geber's Arab ethnicity. Maybe this is not relevant, but I find it quite interesting. --Inahet 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Cambridge source quotes Holmyard's book and is more recent. So the information on Holmyard's book about Gebers life becomes out-dated relative to the Cambridge source which is the work of many scholars in the field. HolmYard's book is written in 1957 which is 50 years ago. One can not quote outdated sources here and more recent research has been done on Geber which is reflected in the Cambridge source, And that is not special consideration since already 4-5 reputable sources have not recognized Geber as an Arab. What concerns us here is the most recent source. The fact is that 100 years ago, even Avicenna was written as an Arab in western Books because to them Muslims and Arabs became equivalent. This bias still holds true even amongst many scholars tdoay, but it has been slowly chipped away at. It is becoming clear for Westerners that the majority of Muslim scientists were not Arabs. There is no such thing here as a minority viewpoint when the amount of uncertaintity on Gebers life is extremly high. One viewpoint is as good as other because it depends on the material a person chooses to right a biography. The most important fact is indeed that Gebers background and life is UNCERTAIN. So you can't claim to use one scholar against another and give more weight to one than the other. This is actually the majority viewpoint on Geber that his life and times and biography and event to some his existence is uncertain. Once this is recognized than both theories on his ethnicity. Also the Syrian theory needs to be added in as well. Add in the factor that in the West Muslim and Arabs have been used interchangeably in the wrong way, and then you will understand why all three theories need to be mentioned. For example you can quote Holmyards source and I will quote the Cambridge source, and in the end ther users will decide. So the idea to claim that his ethnicity is certain does not hold any ground. --Ali doostzadeh 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I was looking at Dehkhoda Dictionary today and noticed a huge section in it on Geber's biography. He thoroughly discusses reports by al-Qifti, ibn Nadeem, al-Jaldaki, ibn Khaldun, al-Majriti, and Europeans as well. He concludes that constructing a truly objective biography of Geber is impossible due to the sheer volume of inaccuraices and fabrications introduced into his biography and works. One historian for example claims he had 828 books, which is practically unrealistic! Others even claim that no such person existed.

However Dehkhoda says that, what we can be certain about him is that:

• Geber was Iranian by "asl" and Arab by "Nesbat". (I'll leave interpreting that up to you guys).
• He was most probably a follower of the Barmakids. (the "Jafar" mentioned in his biography is thus probably Jafar ibn Yahya Barmaki, not Jafar al-Sadiq)
• He was the master of Rhazes at some point.
• He remained largely in hiding until the pro and half Persian al-Mamun became caliph.

I think we cant say he was an Arab or Persian for sure. We have to somehow compromise on both.

But that is just my opinion. I'll leave the course of action to yall erudites.--Zereshk 08:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

E.J. Holmyard mentions both Ja'far ibn Sadiq and Ja'far ibn Yahya as acquaintances of Jabir. And as according to the Ibn Nadeem quote that Ali provided, Shi'as claim that he was a friend of Ja'far al-Sadiq.

Also, what is nesbat? --Inahet 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Arab

Geber is definitive arab:

• Columbia Encyclopedia
• Ancients & Alchemists
• Britannica Encyclopedia
• Encarta Encyclopedia

128.131.220.102 06:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The two great arab chemists

• Ahmed H. Zewail - 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on femtochemistry

• Jabir ibn Hayyan - the father of chemistry.

Jidan 17:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan: He was an Arab

Regarding the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan.

According to:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

• Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The following reliable sources prove the fact, that the 8th century Islamic Alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan was most probably arab:

• Makers of Chemistry by E.J. Holmyard
• Encarta
• Chemical Heritage Foundation
• Britannica
• Columbia Encyclopedia
• brockhaus encyclopedia - Brockhaus, a german well-known encyclopedia
• The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography
• Simon & Shuster New Millenium Encyclopedia
• Author of Alchemy E.J. Holmyard
• Author of Technology and Alchemical debate in The Late Middle Ages, William Newman
• "Geber." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Thomson Gale. 2006.
• Wolfram Research

Therefore, accordingly his arab ethnicity will be mentioned in his article and all related articles.

jidan 00:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Jabir's ethnicity has been discussed before under Talk:Geber#Settling_the_Issue and it was decided that there are contradictory sources on this issue, many reliable and published sources listed below refer to Jabir as Persian and/or Iranian, both views should be stated as per WP:NPOV.

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Persian:

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova (Page 286)
• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181)
• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014)
• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200)

Jabir ibn Hayyan is Iranian:

• The Voyage and the Messenger: Iran and Philosophy by Henry Corbin
• Science, Technology and Islam by Kenneth Humphreys

--ManiF 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to verfiy the sources listed by ManiF, and this is what I came to:

• Handbook of Sulphuric Acid Manufacturing by Douglas K. Louie (Page 2014): It doesnt say ANYTHING about jabir being persian. [29].This makes the crediablity of ManiF highly questionable.
  • Well, he was close: "The earliest reference to sulfuric acid goes back to sometime in the 8th century when Jabir ibn Hayyan spoke of distilling niter with green vitriol. A Persian alchemist in the 10th century is credited with its discovery." (p. 2014)--Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• History of My Life by Giacomo Casanova: is a memoir of a guy,not a histroy or science book as you can see from the contents of the book [30]
  • But this is from the notes in the back of the book: "37. Geber: Europeanized name of the Arabian or Persian physician and natural historian Jabir ibn Hayyan (8th century)" on p. 286, – this book doesn't take sides --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature by William R Newman (Page 181): unreachable to me.
  • "Summa Perfectionis, traditionally ascribed to Geber, the Latinized form of Jabir ibn Hayyan, one of the most famous names in Arabic alchemy..." (p. 72) – This is about the Spanish pseudo-Geber, not Jabir. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Essential Golden Dawn by Chic Cicero (Page 200): is a book about Magic!!! LOOL [31]
  • This is the most interesting one: "Among the most influential Arabic practitioners of the alchemical art was the Persian Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815 CE) who wrote more than 2000 alchemical works and was known as 'the father of Arabic chemistry'." It seems that some of the authors conflate the two backgrounds. Perhaps we can compromise and just give him a middle Eastern background so everyone can be happy. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can easly add more sources with jabir being mentioned as an arab. Only I think the sources I listed above are authoritive enough to prove that jabir was an arab. jidan 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, ManiF's research was fine, but his interpretation was just as biased as yours. Let's be clear about the sources. Your second source, the Chemical Heritage Foundation says he was born in Iran to parents of Arabic descent. That qualifies him as both Arabic and Persian. The crucial page 69 of the Holmdale book is restricted, so we can't tell from it, except that he was evidently Shi'a (p. 70-71). Your statement above says that you have "proved the fact" that he was "most probably Arab". That juxtaposition of two conflicting phrases indicates your own doubts, and I agree. It is not possible so say that he was only Arabic, or only Persian. We can not know for certain, so we can decide to continue edit warring over the differing sources, or we can compromise and say something like: some sources indicate he was born in Persia to Arabic parents, , or he may have been born in Persia to Arabic parents, but sources differ, with ref cited. --Blainster 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you mean by "only my sources are authoritive enough". Several users on this page have provided a dozen reliable and published sources that refer to Jabir as Persian and/or Iranian such as this one, when there are contradictory or contrary academic views, both views should be stated as per WP:NPOV. --ManiF 03:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is on the page right now is fine and clear, and not inconsistant with everybody's sources. Karol 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the majority of acadamic sources and all encyclopedia's label him as arab, he is then an arab. But since there are also sources that label him otherwise as persian (some serious historians say also that the egyptian pyramids were built by aliens), I think the following is a good compromise: He was most probably of Arab origin, but there are also few sources that describe him as Persian. jidan 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi's proposed wording is more appropriate in accordance with WP:NPOV: "His ethnic background is not clear, although most sources state he was Arab, there are also many that describe him as Persian." --ManiF 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ALL encyclopdia's, Britannica, Brockhaus, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and all that I know of, label jabir as Arab. Going against all major encyclopedia's is considered original research, and this is not allowed in wiki, as per Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. My compromise is very generous and may not even be accepted by other arab editors. Trust me on this! jidan 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If one scrolls through this talk page, one can see that many Iranian editors also accept the fact the jabir is arab. jidan 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What original research? There are over a dozen references that have been cited in regard to conflicting views on Jabir's ethnicity. As another user already stated, don't repress dissenting view points. --ManiF 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he was both Arab and Persian/Iranian. I don't see any mention here of the context, the Islamic conquest of Persia, that Persia at the time had recently been conquered and settled by Arab invaders. It is therefore very reasonable that an Arab at the time could be born in Persia, or modern-day Iran, as the Chemical Heritage Foundation source suggests. This Arab vs. Iranian discussion is (IMHO) rather like debating whether Henry I of England is English or Norman - he was a Norman of English birth, and I suspect he would have described himself as both English and Norman. What determines someone's ethnicity, their place of birth or their parents? At what point do immigrants from Germany to America cease to be German and become American? These are difficult questions. I think we should state something like, "Geber was born in Persia of Arab descent" or "Geber was an Arab born in Persia" as long as we have documentation of those facts. The current wording seems to imply that Geber couldn't have been both Arab and Persian, this is misleading IMHO. Perhaps sources listed at "Translated work of Jabir" those may help resolve the issue. Walkerma 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello to all,

I received a request to take a look at the ethnicity debate as an observer, not involved in the dispute. I have read through the debate and looked at several sources. Right now, I don't believe there is enough evidence to draw a conclusion about his ethnicity. There are more sources that call him an Arab, but some of them are not reliable (such as Encarta). I am just here as another editor trying to help. I do not have an official role. My suggestions:

• Do not mention his ethnicity at all. Say something like, "He was born in Persia and wrote in Arabic."
• If the above solution is not acceptable, say that sources call him either Persian or Arabic, and leave it at that.

I wish I could be more helpful. This is a very difficult subject to debate. There is a similar debate whether Nicolaus Copernicus is Polish or German. Maybe the arguments there will help decide how to handle Geber's ethnicity. Maestlin 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A portion of Jabir's biography from E. J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Inahet/Holmyard --Inahet 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've tried to make the article clearer, and to remove repeition, but more work needs doing (it read originally as though two articles, very similar but not identical, had been shuffled together). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing The talk page is very long. It might be time to archive older discussions. Maestlin 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A test

His ethnic background is not clear; although most sources state he was an Arab (which he was by Jus sanguinis), some claim he was Persian (which he was by Jus soli).--Stone 09:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Although, it must be said that Tous in khorasan(present Iran) was at that time a province of the arab Umayyad Caliphate. So lawfully, he is by Jus sanguinis) and by Jus soli Arab. jidan 10:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all, it's not clear if he was an Arab or Persian by ethnicity. Some sources categorically refer to him as Persian which could mean he was Persian by blood. Also, you can't say that some sources "state" something while the others "claim", it's against WP:NPOV. --ManiF 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So if even his ethnical status is disputed than there is no compromise possible. Than a solution of the problem will be ignoring everything and wait for historiens to setle the dispute in citable literature. But to call him islamic is simply strange, was he a religious man? Without a source this is not a point someone can write into the article. If I change the english biologist Charles Darwin to the christian biologist Charles Darwin (in fact he was areligiuos man!), the impression everybody would get that his religious status had a big influence on his research.--Stone 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A wiki user User:Inahet, had actually took the time to go the library, borrow the book E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry, and type the part important about his ethnic background (Thank you Inahet ;-) ).

 [32]

And guess what my dear friends? Jabir is labeled there as an arab from the al-azd tribe. And this is consistent with all major encyclopedia's like Britannica, Brockhaus, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and all that I know of. In other words, jabir's ethnicity is not less clear than alexander the great(one can say he might be german or turk??) or Gengis Khan(one can say he might be chinese, or turk??). Jabir was labeled Iranian/Persian by some sources because of his birth-place, not becasue of his ethnicity which all sources say that it was arab. IMHO, the following passage is the most accuarate and neutral we can get:

 He was born in Tus,Khorasan(in present Iran), which was at that time a province in the arab calphite, to parents of arab descent.

jidan 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jabir left Tous,Khorasan(at that time an arab province) in his childhood after his father got executed. He then moved to yemen, the home country of his parents[33].There he learned to read and write. He lived most of his life in Kufa(Iraq) and Baghdad(Iraq) and wrote all his works in Arabic. So, by culture,nationality and by blood, he is an Arab. jidan 10:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorasan

Khorasan was not a native territory of Umayyad during the Arab occupation of Iran, just as Poland was not a native territory of Nazis during the World War Two. The WP:NPOV term is "ruled by Umayyad" not "province of Umayyad" --ManiF 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Move Geber -> Jabir ibn Hayyan

Jabir's article should be moved from Geber to Jabir ibn Hayyan, since that is his original arabic name. I have tried the "move" tab, but it gets somehow reverted by a bot. Anybody knows how to do this? jidan 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On Iraq

now, i am not an expert on this man, nor will i try to be. I do not know whether he was arab or persian, but i do know that the majority of iraq was persian/iranic (due to the sassanid empire nad parthian empires). therefore, we cannot assume one is arab just because they lived or died in a nation that is TODAY arab. lets just keep this in mind.Iranian Patriot 14:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Biography of Jabir bin Hayyan - by E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry

The following is a brief detailed biography of Jabir ibn Hayyan taken from E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry. It was typed by User:Inahet (Thank You!).

Taken from E.J. Holmyard's Makers of Chemistry pp. 49 - pp. 50

pp. 49

§18. Jabir ibn Hayyan

The greatest chemist of Islam has long been familiar to Western readers under the name of Geber, which is the medieval render­ing of the Arabic Jabir. For our knowledge of Jabir's life, we now have a not insignificant collection of data, and can recon­struct his figure with reasonable accuracy. Although much is conjectural, the following may be taken to represent, in brief, what we know of him.

In A.D. 638 the Caliph Omar was visited at Medina by a deputation of Arabs from Al-Meda'in, a town on the Tigris that they had recently conquered. The Caliph was startled by their sallow and unwholesome look, and asked the cause. They replied that the air of the town did not suit the Arab tempera­ment, and the Caliph therefore ordered inquiry for some more healthy and congenial spot. A plain on the banks of the western branch of the Euphrates was finally chosen, and there the city of Kufa was founded. The new town suited the Arabs well, and to it they accordingly migrated in great numbers. But the dwellings were at first made of reeds, and fires were frequent, so after a particularly disastrous conflagra­tion the city was rebuilt with less inflammable material, and the streets were laid out in regular lines. In orderly fashion, be­fitting a military station, the various Arab tribes were settled in particular quarters of the town—no doubt with a view to the prevention of civil commotion.

One of the tribes whose members were present at Kufa in sufficient numbers to be assigned a definite quarter was that known as Al-Azd, a celebrated tribe of South Arabia. From this tribe there sprang, towards the end of the seventh century A.D., a man named Hayyan, who carried on the business of a druggist

pp. 50

at Kufa. His life would appear to have been uneventful until the early years of the eighth century, when we find that he espoused the cause of the powerful 'Abbasid family, who were trying to overthrow the reigning Caliph of the house of Umayya in order to usurp his place. To further their plans, the 'Abbasids engaged in extensive political propaganda, and Hayyan was sent as an emissary to Persia on this business. It was while he and his wife were at the town of Tus, in Khorasan, near the modern Meshed, that his son Jabir was born, probably in the year a.d. 721 or 722. Shortly afterwards, Hayyan was arrested by agents of the Caliph and was subsequently executed.

The now fatherless Jabir ibn [son of] Hayyan was sent to Arabia, perhaps to his kinsmen of the Azd tribe, to be cared for until he was old enough to fend for himself. Whilst in Arabia, he studied the Koran, mathematics and other subjects under a scholar named Harbi al-Himyari, of whom unfortunately we have no record. Meanwhile the 'Abbasids, in whose service Jabir's father had lost his life, succeeded in achieving their object. In A.D. 748 they overthrew the Umayyads and themselves assumed the Caliphate, so that Hayyan had not died in vain. It was under the 'Abbasid caliphs, the most famous of whom was Harun al-Rashid, that Islamic civilization reached its zenith.

During the period in which these political changes were taking place, Jabir appears to have won the friendship of the Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, one of whose disciples he became. Ja'far was a man held in very high esteem by a section of Muslims known as the Shi'ites, and the Shi'ites themselves had been active in support of the 'Abbasid cause. These facts, coupled with the recollection of Hayyan's activity in the same direction, enable us to understand how Jabir in middle life came to be welcomed at the Court of Harun al-Rashid at Baghdad. He does not seem to have had much personal contact with the sovereign himself, but he was on intimate terms with the Caliph's all-powerful ministers the Barmecides, some of whom figure in The Thousand and One Nights.

Jidan 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic background not clear?

A few sentences after the introduction it's established that he's from the Arab Azd tribe, why is the article contradicting itself?--MB 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay here is what the Cambridge source says. In fact one of the references in the back is Homyard source (1957). Note the Cambridge source is written about 30 years after, so it is more updated. And I will quote from pg 412:

Mystery still shrouds the identity and personality of the founder of Islamic alchemy, Jabir b. Hayyan. Some have even doubted his exitence, while others like Kraus have cast doubt upon the authenticity of the works attributed to him. But when all the evidence is examined, it is hardly possible do doubt that such a person existed, that he was an alchemist and that he also belonged to the circle of the sixth Shi'i Imam, Ja'far al-Sadiq. it is also clear that some of the works in the Jabirean corpus are later accretions of Isma'ili inspiration. There is a link between Jabirean alchemy and Ismai'ism in such works as the Kitab al-Majid (The Book of the Glorious), and also many links with the general tradition of Sufism in such questions as the symbolism of letters.

Jabir is entitled in traditional sources as al-'Azdi, Al-Kufi, Al-Tusi, Al-Sufi. There is also a debate as to whether he was an Arab from Kufa who lived in Khurasan, or a Persian from Khurasan who later went to Kufa or whether he was, as some have suggested, of Syrian (I guess the author means Assyrian? or Greek?) origin and later lived in Persia and Iraq. What remains certain is that he and his family lived much of their life in Tus in Khurasan, that he spent a good part of his life, which streches over the 2nd/8th century, in Kufa and at the court of Harun al-Rashid in baghdad, that he was a Sufi, and that he was also a circle of Imam Ja'far. Recently some have claimed to have discovered his tomb in western Persia. He was both the founder of Islamic alchemy and the prototype of the Muslim aclhemist in later centuries. --167.206.154.26 13:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnical background concensus

The version proposed by Manif is the perfect NPOV. -- Szvest 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

1)It was not propsed by ManiF 2)There was actually a compromise and it was relativly stable until Khoikhoi started this whole ethnic crap again by inserting weasel words [34] and insterting the "citations" tag, although everything was cited. Anyway, "some" of us have a real life and dont have the time to play these childish games. Jidan 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could people provide citations for his ethnicity in the article itself? I don't see any citations in the article, and this talk page is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.193.68 (talk • contribs)

I thought I should point out that User:24.138.193.68 who just reverted to Jidan's version, and posted the above comment is an open proxy, as you can see here. --ManiF 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Credit for alembic

I decided I should add a reference for the claim that Geber invented the alembic. Turns out this is difficult. This article in Isis (the most prestigious journal in the history of science) seems to establish beyond much doubt that Geber's design had existed much earlier. Wareh 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived the old discussions from before March 2007, mostly arguments about whether he was an Arab or Persian. -kotra (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)