Jump to content

Talk:Al-Farabi: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Block: new section
No edit summary
Line 186: Line 186:
== Block ==
== Block ==


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


He seems to be making changes to Persian/Iranian related articles, and after reading his rant, one wonders why there are so many jokes about...
He seems to be making changes to Persian/Iranian related articles, and after reading his rant, one wonders why there are so many jokes about...in Iran

Revision as of 10:20, 28 April 2010

Ethnicity section copied from the article

Origin

There exist a difference[1][2] of opinion on the ethnic background of Farabi. According to D. Gutas: Ultimately pointless as the quest for Farabi’s ethnic origins might be, the fact remains that we do not have sufficient evidence to decide the matter[1].

My comment:

Response, it does says:"In the same way, the grandfather of Farabi, the famous scholar who is claimed to be both Turkish and Iranian, was called Tarkhan". Also provides valuable etymology. It is also a Turkish author that in my opinion is neutral in the sense that he states both theories.--RustamDastani (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is multiple sources that can back the difference, Britannica is one example. You can add the sentence ""In the same way, the grandfather ..." to the article. To avoid OR we should avoid any interpretations. Sole Soul (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added 2 refs instead. Sole Soul (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that source is good nevertheless and shows a difference of opinion. If you read it carefully: "the famous scholar who is claimed to be both Turkish and Iranian". It is not speculating about his grandfather. Rather about Farabi, but mentions his grandfather had such a surname. --RustamDastani (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranic origin

Medieval Arab historian Ibn Abī Uṣaibiʿa (died in 1269), mentions in his ʿOyūn (final rescension in 1268) that al-Farabi's father was of Persian descent[3][1]. Al-Shahrazūrī who lived around 1288 A.D. and has written an early biography also has stated that Farabi hailed from a Persian family[4][5]. Additionally, Farabi has in a number of his works references and glosses in Persian and Sogdian(and even Greek but no Turkish[1]),[6][7]. Sogdian has been mentioned as his native language[8] and the language of the inhabitants of Farab[9] pointing to an Iranian-speaking Central Asian origin.[10]. A Persian origin is also discussed by Peter J. King[11] and other soruces[12] as well as in a comprehensive source on Islamic Philosophy written in Arabic by the Egyptian scholar Prof. Hanna Fakhuri[13].

In this regard, Oxford professor C.E. Bosworth notes that "great figures [such] as al-Farabi, al-Biruni, and ibn Sina have been attached by over enthusiastic Turkish scholars to their race".[14]. D. Gutas has criticized Ibn Khallekān's statement, as it is only aimed to ridicule the earlier reports of Ibn Abī Uṣaibiʿa, and seems to have the purpose to document a Turkish origin for Farabi[1]. In this context, he mentions that Ibn Khallekan was also the first to use the additional nisba (surname) "al-Turk" - a nisba Farabi never had[1].

Comments:

  • "and the language of the inhabitants of Farab"
There is an omission, as the source says "Soghdian or maybe a Turkish dialect"
Response. It says: "Islamic world of that time, an area whose inhabitants must have spoken Soghdian or maybe a Turkish dialect". I think the must have is the strong statement. As a compromise, we can put an "an". But we should add the rest of the sentence in the reference or put the maybe in the other section. However must have mean certainty while maybe does not. --RustamDastani (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criticism to to these primary sources is not emphasized as mentioned by Gutas.
  • Only the criticism to Ibn Khallekan is mentioned, although Gutas criticized other sources. On Ibn Abī Oṣaybeʿa he said it "includes much legendary material" Sole Soul (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, criticism of D. Gutas with regards to other sources should be mentioned in other places of the article as well. But he specifically criticizes Ibn Khalikan and states: "with the purpose of documenting a Turkish ethnic origin for Fārābī". So I agree, we should mention that both Ibn Khalikan and Ibn Abi Osaybea contain much legends (in the biography section when discussing the 12th/13th century sources). With regards to Ibn Khalikan he criticized for origin specifically. However, this we should mention after : "When major Arabic biographers decided to write comprehensive entries on Farabi in the 6th-7th/12th-13th centuries, there was very little specific information on hand; this allowed for their acceptance of invented stories about his life which range from benign extrapolation on the basis of some known details to tendentious reconstructions and legends" the sources (Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi OSaybe and etc.) contain much legends. --RustamDastani (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: "It includes much legendary material, but Ebn Abī Oṣaybeʿa also quotes Fārābī where he can. Ebn Ḵallekān’s entry, by contrast, is a response to that of Ebn Abī Oṣaybeʿa: the latter had mentioned at the beginning of his entry, and for the first time by any extant biographer, that Fārābī’s father was of Persian descent; Ebn Ḵallekān’s entry is completely animated by the effort to prove that Fārābī was ethnically Turkish." I think we should mention that "for the first time by an extant biographer" --RustamDastani (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sogdian has been mentioned as his native language[8] and the language of the inhabitants of Farab[9] pointing to an Iranian-speaking Central Asian origin".[10]
Cherry-picking: from source 8 that his native language is Sogdian (and leaving "Turkic dialect"
Source no. 10 has no info about publisher. The article only exists in Archive.org and Google documents. Any user can upload anything to both of these sites. I did not find anything about the author even in google web search. Sole Soul (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Hanna Fakhuri. He did not endorse any ethnicity, he said : Ibn Abi Osayea narrated that his father was a Persian who married a Turkish woman." He also said that his city was Farab and he knew the Turkish language among others. Sole Soul (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

There is cherry picking, but I can live with your change. Sole Soul (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the edit summary Gutas sourced in the article from 2 different works. It is a possibility that a reader would assume that he is quoted from the same source. You don't think that a website is a RS, and I think Iranica is partisan. I don't think saying Britannica is biased in certain areas is a conspiracy theory, much less Iranica. Plus, Iranica is the most cited reference in the origin section. Sole Soul (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine. Aas I said, the stuff about Soghdian (the same sources) can be used in the other section. So that is fine in my opinion. On Iranica, ultimately you would be saying D. Gutas is biased. The editor E. Yarshater has absolutely no experience in Islamic philosophy and he didn't write any of that section. At most he would be checking for spelling. But the Cambridge Arabic history does reference Iranica article as others [1]. For me, I have not seen a more detailed article than that of D. Gutas in Iranica. Maybe the article by Muhsin Mahdi could be it. Britannica seems to have no author. They can change their mind anytime. For example in 2009 they had Farabi as a Turkic scholar and now they say they do not know. Brittannica is not really a good source as no one knows who the author and editors for the article are. Anyhow, I am satisfied with the section and I kept your according to Encyclopedia Iranica. I think D. Gutas has shown three things that prove his point 1) the nisba. 2) the clothing "Turkish clothing" according to Ibn khalian as if someone 300 years later can figure out what clothes Farabi wore. 3) the attempt at trying to find etymology for some names.. I hope someone else expands the other section. --RustamDastani (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most important factor in determining a RS in Wikipedia is the publisher. That's why self-published works is generally unacceptable. The role of Iranica, its editors or any other effect is just speculations. Sole Soul (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. However, in my opinion there is no need to mention the source (as the user can click on it). However it is fine if you insist here. I hope someone improves the other section as well. But I am glad some work was done mutually to satisfy all parties currently involved. --RustamDastani (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic origin

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

The oldest known reference to a possible Turkic origin is given by the medieval historian Ibn Khallekān (died in 1282), who in his work Wafayāt (completed in 669/1271) claimed that Farabi was born in the small village of Wasij near Farab (in what is today Otrar, Kazakhstan) of Turkic parents, and in the following decades and centuries. Other sources including the Oxford companion to philosophy have mentioned a Turkic origin[15].

Comment:

  1. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference Iranica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Bilge Umar, “The close affinity between the Iron Age Languages of Luvian Origin in Anatolia and the first Iranian languages – The possible connection between the name “Turk” and the Anatolian name “Tarkhun” (Ruler, Sovereign, Lord” in Cilingiroglu, David H. French, Anatolian Iron Ages: The Proceedings of the Second Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium Held at İzmir, 4-8 May 1987, Published by Oxbow Books, 1991. excerpt: "As far it is understood, Tarkhan was a title but could have been used as a name as well. In the same way, the grandfather of Farabi, the famous scholar who is claimed to be both Turkish and Iranian, was called Tarkhan. It is clear the word Tarkhan was not pure Turkish and that it was adopted into Turkish from the old language of Soghdiana. This was proved in the Turkish dictionary Divan u Lugat it-Turk written by Kashgarli Mahmut (sic! Turkish way of saying Mahmud Kashghari) in the 11th century(1985: 436-471). ..Elbiruni says that Tarkhun was not a pure name. It was a title and had the same meaning as Tarkhan. It was however, in a different form. Welhausen (1902:270), who may be called a contemporary historian, also accepted this opinion. Here the most important view is that of Frye who agreed with the Russian scholar Smirnova (quoted by Frye op.cit). They say that the name written as Tarkhun and read as Tarkhan by the Arabic historians should be Turkhun of the local language of Sogdiana."
  3. ^ Ebn Abi Osaybea, Oyun al-anba fi tabaqat at-atebba, ed. A. Müller, Cairo, 1299/1882. و كان ابوه قائد جيش و هو فارسي
  4. ^ An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, Vol. 1: From Zoroaster to ‘Umar Khayyam”, I.B. Tauris in association with The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2007. Pg 134: “Ibn Nadim in his al-Fihrist, which is the first work to mention Farabi considers him to be of Persian origin, as does Mohammad Shahrazuri in his Tarikh al-hukama and Ibn Abi Usaybi'ah in his Tabaqat al-atibba. In contrast, Ibn Khallikan in his '"Wafayat al-'ayan considers him to beof Turkish descent. In any case, he was born in Farab in Khurasan of that day around 257/870 in a climate of Persianate culture"
  5. ^ Arabic: و كان من سلاله فارس in J. Mashkur, Farab and Farabi,Tehran,1972. See also Dehkhoda Dictionary under the entry Farabi for the same exact Arabic quote.
  6. ^ George Fadlo Hourani, Essays on Islamic Philosophy and Science, Suny press, 1975
  7. ^ Kiki Kennedy-Day, Books of Definition in Islamic Philosophy: The Limits of Words, Routledge, 2002, page 32
  8. ^ Joshua Parens (2006). An Islamic philosophy of virtuous religions : introducing Alfarabi. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press. pp. 3. ISBN 0791466892 excerpt: "He was a native speaker of Turkic[sic] dialect, Soghdian".
  9. ^ Joep Lameer, "Al-Fārābī and Aristotelian syllogistics: Greek theory and Islamic practice", E.J. Brill, 1994. ISBN 9004098844 pg 22: "..in area whose inhabitants must have spoken Soghdian.."
  10. ^ G. Lohraspi, "Some remarks on Farabi's background"; a scholarly approach citing C.E. Bosworth, B. Lewis, R. Frye, D. Gutas, and others; PDF
  11. ^ P.J. King, "One Hundred Philosophers: the life and work of the world's greatest thinkers", chapter al-Fārābi, Zebra, 2006. pp 50: "Of Persian stock, al-Farabi (Alfarabius, AbuNaser) was born in Turkestan"
  12. ^
    • Henry Thomas, Understanding the Great Philosophers, Doubleday,Published 1962
    • T. J. Denboer, "The History of Philosophy in Islam", BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008. Excerpt page 98:"His father is said to have been a Persian General". ISBN 0554302535, 9780554302539
    ت، حـ، ديبور: تاريخ الفلسفة في الإسلام. ترجمة: محمد عبد الهادي أو ريدة. مطبعة لجنة التأليف والترجمة، القاهرة، ط4، 1957،ص 196
    • Sterling M. McMurrin, Religion, Reason, and Truth: Historical Essays in the Philosophy of Religion, University of Utah Press, 1982, ISBN 0874802032. page 40.
    • edited by Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins. (2003). From Africa to Zen : an invitation to world philosophy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 163. ISBN 0742513505 "al-Farabi (870-950), a Persian,"
    • Thomas F. Glick. (1995). From Muslim fortress to Christian castle : social and cultural change in medieval Spain. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 170. ISBN 0719033497 "It was thus that al-Farabi (c. 870-950), a Persian philosopher"
    • The World's Greatest Seers and Philosophers.. Gardners Books. 2005. pp. 41. ISBN 8122308244 "al-Farabi (also known as Abu al-Nasr al-Farabi) was born of Turkish parents in the small village of Wasij near Farab, Turkistan (now in Uzbekistan) in 870 AD. His parents were of Persian descent, but their ancestors had migrated to Turkistan."
    • Bryan Bunch with Alexander Hellemans. (2004). The history of science and technology : a browser's guide to the great discoveries, inventions, and the people who made them, from the dawn of time to today. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 108. ISBN 0618221239 "Persian scholar al-Farabi"
    • Olivier Roy, "The new Central Asia: the creation of nations ", I.B.Tauris, 2000. 1860642799. pg 167: "Kazakhistan also annexes for the purpose of bank notes Al Farabi (870-950), the Muslim philosopher who was born in the south of present-day Kazakhistan but who persumably spoke Persian, particularly because in that era there were no Kazakhs in the region"
    • Majid Khadduri; [foreword by R. K. Ramazani]. The Islamic conception of justice. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, c1984.. pp. 84. ISBN 0801869749 "Nasr al-Farabi was born in Farab (a small town in Transoxiana) in 259/870 to a family of mixed parentage — the father, who married a Turkish woman, is said to have been of Persian and Turkish descent — but both professed the Shi'l heterodox faith. He spoke Persian and Turkish fluently and learned the Arabic language before he went to Baghdad.
  13. ^ Fākhūrī, Ḥannā., Tārīkh al-fikr al-falsafī ʻinda al-ʻArab, al-Duqqī, al-Jīzah : al-Sharikah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʻĀlamīyah lil-Nashr, Lūnjmān, 2002.
  14. ^ Clifford Edmund Bosworth, "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In Islamic Civilization, ed. by D.S. Richards. Oxford, 1973.
  15. ^ * edited by Ted Honderich. (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 269. ISBN 0198661320 "Of Turki origin, al-Farabi studied under Christian thinkers"
    • edited and translated by Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin. (2003). Classical Islam : a sourcebook of religious literature. New York: Routledge. pp. 170. ISBN 0415240328 "He was of Turkish origin, was born in Turkestan"
    • Ian Richard Netton. (1999). Al-Fārābī and his school. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. ISBN 0700710647 "He appears to have been born into a military family of Turkish origin in the village of Wasil, Farab, in Turkestan"
    • Bassam Tibi. (2008). Political Islam, world politics, and Europe : democratic peace and Euro-Islam versus global jihad. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415437814 "In fact was by origin a Turk, but his cultural language was Arabic and his commitment was to his was to the Islamic civilization, not to his ethnicity"
    • Gulnara A. Bakieva. (2006). Social memory and contemporaneity. Washington, D.C.: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. ISBN 1565182340 "Al-Farabi, a Turk by origin, born in Otrar, which was in the territory of modern Kazakhstan"
    • edited by Henrietta Moore. (1996). The future of anthropological knowledge. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415107865 "al-Farabi (873-950), a scholar of Turkish origin."
    • Diané Collinson and Robert Wilkinson. (1994). Thirty-Five Oriental Philosophers.. London: Routledge. ISBN 0203029356 "Al-Farabi is thought to be of Turkish origin. His family name suggests that he came from the vicinity of Farab in Transoxiana."
    • Fernand Braudel ; translated by Richard Mayne. (1995). A history of civilizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin. ISBN 0140124896 "Al-Farabi, born in 870, was of Turkish origin. He lived in Aleppo and died in 950 in Damascus"
    • Jaroslav Krejčí ; assisted by Anna Krejčová. (1990). Before the European challenge : the great civilizations of Asia and the Middle East. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 140. ISBN 0791401685 "the Transoxanian Turk al-Farabi (d. circa 950)"
    • Hamid Naseem. (2001). Muslim philosophy science and mysticism. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. pp. 78. ISBN 8176252301 "Al-Farabi, the first Turkish philosopher"
    • Clifford Sawhney. The World's Greatest Seers and Philosophers, 2005, p. 41
    • Zainal Abidin Ahmad. Negara utama (Madinatuʾl fadilah) Teori kenegaraan dari sardjana Islam al Farabi. 1964, p. 19
    • Haroon Khan Sherwani. Studies in Muslim Political Thought and Administration. 1945, p. 63
    • Ian Richard Netton. Al-Farabi and His School, 1999, p. 5

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

removed. Sole Soul (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But food for thought, do you think ""Henrietta Moore"[2] has studied Ibn Khalikan, Ibn Abi Osaybea, Al-Shahrazūrī, Farab, Otrar, Arabic and etc.? How many of these authors have really delved in the issue? Of course these sources meet WP:RS in wikipedia.--RustamDastani (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My believe is that nobody really know, so I have my issues with the so called "specialists" also, but we can only apply Wikipedia rules here. Sole Soul (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A great quote from the Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy: "These biographical facts are paltry in the extreme but we must resist the urge to embellish them with fanciful stories, as the medieval biographers did, or engage in idle speculation about al-Farabi’s ethnicity or religious affiliation on the basis of contrived interpretations of his works, as many modern scholars have done." Sole Soul (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be added and I have added it. Thanks. --RustamDastani (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Biography expanded

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

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

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

A thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) His home city has no bearing it, since: a) A good amount of the sources say he was a Persian/Iranian from Central Asia (starting with Ibn Osaybea and also 2ery sources). b) No author has said: "If Farabi was born in Farab, then he must have been Turkish". And no author has said: "If he was Persian, then he was not born in Farab". One cannot take a one line website article which does not make such a statement and make such an extrapolation(WP:OR), since that one line does not exhaust all the possibilities (which are mentioned in the Iranica article in details and again there is no exclusions) nor does it make statement if A was born in Farab, then he must have been Turkish. The third option: Being born in Farab and probably Persian is mentioned by other sources (Iranica) and there is no source that states: Farabi was born in Farab, then he is not Persian. Another fourth option is being born in Faryab in Khorasan and being Turkish. Another fifth option is migration of his parents to Farab [3] who were Persian..and etc. A sixth option is to note that some sources uses Faryab for the Central Asia and Farab for Khorasan [4](Cambridge Compantion: "His familial origins are recorded as alternately in Farab, Khurasan or Faryab, Turkistan"). So simply, you cannot make any WP:OR.

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

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

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

Now about things I did not mention:


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

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

Which fits fell with Soghdian theory.

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

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

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

I was not arguing whether he was Turkish or Persian. I talked in good faith but clearly that is not working . I will stop these discussions. Sole Soul (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith although I do think your criticsm of D. Gutas is a slightly off. I just wanted to mention 1,2,3 and say that there are other arguments. I just basically summarized the Iranian origin section. You can do the same for the Turkish origin section if you wish, but please remember points 1,2,3 above which I mentioned some wikipedia rules about possible WP:OR (extrapolation from a sentence) and WP:synthesis. Thanks. --RustamDastani (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, if I add anything I will use near the exact words as the RS, not more. Sole Soul (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There were other arguments I did not mention , so that the main issue can be about Farabi and his works rather than the silly back and forth. However it is good to have this summary since classical sources differ. Since the issue is inconsequential as far as his work (except possibly his work on music). I have no problem with putting a similar size paragraph in the other section. I just had a problem with extrapolation(WP:OR (point 2)) or synthesis (point 3). --RustamDastani (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

observation

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

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

Persians's Historical Theft

This article's origin section contents is 100% wrong and has wrote in persian nationalistic and fascistic form. All turk's heros and dynasties have been shown persian heros and empires in most wikipedia articles. Ottomans and seljuqids were not persian and Afrasiab and al farabi were not persian but all were Turk. Afraasiaab were a Turk Hero and his original Turkic name were Alpertunga (Refer to:Al Kashgari's Diwan) and afraasiaab is not persian name but is muarrab or arabized form of Alpertunga. Ferdowsi, first Persian poet, belived that Turks and Turanians were same(Refer to: Shahnameh of Ferdowsi). Some scholars believed that even Sumerians and Mesopotamia's first civilisations origin were from asianic peoples or Turk related or prototurk peoples, and they derived hundreds similiar prototurkic and Sumerian words; For example Sumerian's god were Tengri and protourks god were Tengring (tangri in todays Turkistan variants or Tanri in Turkish and eastern Turkic languages (refer to Russian scientist Olzhas Suleimenov's AZ-i-IA book or Homel's books)). Persians destroyed middle east most civilisations and after the Achaemenians attacked Mesopotamia, all old civilisations such as babylon, Assyria, Elam ,Akkad and so were cleaned from human history and totly destroyed their culture, their deep civilisation, and killed all their oppressed peoples. This event is known as Purim Genocide in Torah. Greeks referred to persians as berbers and the 300 movie is based on this belief. Old Turks referred to Persians as Tat that its meaning were berber and uncivilised peoples (Refer to: Al Kashgari's Diwan) and Arabs referes as Ajam to Persians in that meaning, even todays. Todays, there are no Persian in world and peoples in Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan that say their selves persian are from mixed race. Persian Iranians that makes max. 25 percent of population of Iran are mostly from Arab, Turk, Greek, Armenian, indian and a little old persian peoples mixing and genetic testing have proved this fact. Tajiks living in Afghanistan and Tjikistan are mostly Turks and Indians that speak persian and genetic testing have proved this fact too. Thus Persian people is a wrong word to refer to that peoples and the correct word is Persian speaking people. 70 percent of todays persian vocabularies are Arabic(mostly entered after Islamic era) and also 10 to 15 percent are Turkic (before and after Islamic era) and Turkic languages, in addition to influencing the vocabularies, effected grammar of persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.218.193 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farabi was a SUNNI, not a Shia

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

Rather than go through all the sources, can you point out two or three that are cited in the article that support the claim? —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a fallacious fabrication. Al-Farabi is a well known Sunni. He did not belong to the "twelver" maddhab! This is a lie [5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.3.15 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. The link provided is to the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which states its "objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought." They claim he's Sunni. By contrast, the History of Islamic Philosophy claims he's Shi'a, per the citations made in the article. That work isn't online, so I can't readily validate it. However, it seems we have two contradicting sources here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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

He seems to be making changes to Persian/Iranian related articles, and after reading his rant, one wonders why there are so many jokes about...in Iran

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Farabi&oldid=358823951"