Talk:Al-Khwarizmi

Archives: 1 2

footnotes all messed up

The footnotes are misnumbered, and the links between them don't work. It's confusing enough that I'm not going to try to fix them, but someone with experience with the article should try to sort it out. --jacobolus (t) 19:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Was he Arab or Persian? Does it really matter?

This man was not famous for his ethnicity, he was famous for his amazing accomplishments throughout his life. I suggest we just remove both and replace it with something like "Middle Eastern". This article has seen too many edit wars over something very trivial. —Khoikhoi 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When we say that he was an Arab, we aren't stressing ethnicity but rather the fact he was one of the great scientists in the dominating Arab culture of that time. To call him a Persian is as wrong as calling Dwight D. Eisenhower a German just because of his origin as was pointed out by the famous German orientalist Sigrid Hunke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sultanio (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2006.

The problem is that the Arab article is indeed about the Arab ethnicity, not just about Arab culture in general. —Khoikhoi 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So by this logic we would have to edit the first line in Eisenhower's article to "Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was a German soldier and politician.". But clearly no sane person would do that. Sultanio 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you...are you happy with just saying he was Muslim? —Khoikhoi 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with that even though the fact that he wrote all the books he is famous for in Arabic and under the service of the Caliph should be sufficient to also consider him an Arab.Sultanio 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That would make him Arabized, but not necessarily an Arab. ;-) My great-great grandfather spoke Hungarian, but wasn't ethnically Hungarian, he was Jewish. —Khoikhoi 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So what is the result of Arabization if not becoming an Arab? After all that's why people living in countries like Egypt, Marocco, Algeria, Sudan etc. are called Arabs. Besides, Karl Marx was also of Jewish origins, but will anyone complain if we call him a German economist? I don't think so. Sultanio 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. These nationalistic claims over historic figures get a bit much after awhile. —Khoikhoi 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Check the archives, you will find your answer that there is no doubt he was not an Arab. One of his title was al-majusi (magian) referring to his zoroastrian ancestors. [1]. I do not want to go through the archives again.. --alidoostzadeh 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. ;-) —Khoikhoi 01:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know the arthive is long.  :) The full version of Encyclopedia Britannica says Muslim. But anyways here is a summary of the archives. After consulting with Academics that do work in Islamic Mathematical History (which is a very specialized field and the most relavent and there are not too many mathematical historians in the first place and amongst them a minority does research in Islamic mathematical history) the truth was determined. We had a moderator who was assigned to the entery and he after doing careful research and examination and also corresponding with the relavent Professors, decided the case [2]. --alidoostzadeh 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is plain ridiculous. His name does by no means prove that he was a Persian, but rather that originally his family came from a certain region that belonged to the fallen Persian empire. At the time of Al-Khwarizmi the Persian empire was already history. There was no such thing as Persia anymore. In fact, that's the reason why he was not called Al-Farsi (the Persian) like Salman Al-Farsi. But let me try to give you another more current example. The father of the Islamic scholar Muhammad Nasir ud deen al-Albaanee was given that name Al-Albani when he emigrated from Albania to Syria. His son inherited the name and was henceforth also known as Al-Albani just like the whole family. Still today his children who have nothing to do with Albania bear this name. Therefore the Arabic name itself is not sufficient to declare a person a non-Arab. The only thing that we can notice from his name is that it is completely Arabic. And furthermore the only thing that can not be denied is the fact that he wrote all of his famous books in Arabic and in Bagdad and under the service of the Caliph and in the time when the Persian empire had become history.

Let me go even further and ask what justifies him calling a Persian mathematician at all? Is it because that region of today's Uzbekistan - the alleged birthplace of Al-Chwarizmi - once belonged to the historical Persian empire? But then at the time of Al-Chwarizmi, this Persian empire had ceased to exist and the whole region became part of the new Islamic empire ruled by the Arabs. So even this alleged birthplace (for which there is no proof) fell under the "Arabic empire". So why is it ok to call all the people of that region that at some time belonged to the Persian empire Persians, even if they don't belong to same race and even if this empire has long fallen under Arabic leadership? Sultanio 09:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comment. But but you are not a scholar in the History of Mathematics(neither am I) specially the Islamic era and that is why you need to refer the relavent authorities in the actual fied. In the West the concept of Arab and Muslim was used interchangeably until the 30 years ago and slowly references are being updated although not fast enough. Please read the archives on this dicussion. Do research on Chorasmia.. Khwarizmi used the Yazegerdi calendar and not Hijri clanedar with Persian dates..(read the archives) One of his ephitet according to Tabari was Al-Majoosi(Zoroastrian, Magian) which denotes Zoroastrian ancestory: ومحمد بن موسى الخوارزميّ المجوسيّ القطربّليّ

Ibn Nadeem also says Khwarizmi is from Chorasmia: الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم . This makes non-Arab for sure since Chorasmia was far from Arabic lands.

Most Iranians have Arabic names these are religious..Also we are not talking about empires, but ethnic groups. For example everyone born under the Abbassid empire would not be an Arab just like everyone born under Ummayads would not be a Turk. The area of Chorasmia before Turkficiation (during 11-13th century) was Iranian/Persian ethnicity.

That is why Biruni himself the son of Chorasmia says: "The people of Khawarizm are a branch of Persians". و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس

BTW the Abbassid empire were only Arab in name for most of their durations, some had mixed ancestory, some had powerful Persian Vizirs (like nawkhbakht and barkamids), and later on it was Iranian dynasties (Daylamites) and later on Turks that controlled them and the Caliph became a mere figure somewhat like the Queen of England is today. Baghdad also was a mixed multi-ethnic city back then and even till the last century, there was a large Iranian population until pan-Arabist policies and Saddam Hussein expelled them. Also the word Khwarizmi is not Arabic and it is close related to Khorasan. The first part is clear Khwar(Khor) (which is still used in modern persian) means sun. Barmakids who were Vazirs of Harun and Mahdi for example were Persians. Fazl Ibn Sahl, who was the Vazir of Mamum, was Persian. The sciences at the time could not have grown withouth the direct support of these Vazirs.

Also your comparsion with Dwight Einsenhower is irrelavent to the argument, since the concept of nationality and national ID cards did not exist back then, but the concept of ethnicity did as it always has. Neither all the people under Persian empire were Persians (for example Greeks) and neither all people under Abbassids specially in mutli-ethnic Iraq of that time were Arabs.

Also a note to my friend Khoikhoi, the Man was not Middle-Eastern he was from Chorasmia which was Iranian before Turkification[3] . --alidoostzadeh 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read my argument carefully. The point is that the name Al-Khwarizmi can only be taken as a proof that originally his family came from a region in today's Uzbekistan and that's it. It is completely irrelevant of what ethnic group people are who live in that region simply because all we know about Al-Khwarizmi is that he lived in Bagdad under the service of the Caliph. Anything that goes beyond that is mere speculation. In fact even his birthplace is subject to dispute.

As for Iranians having Arabic names, then this is only partially true. All Iranians I know have Iranian surnames, at least Ahmadineschad, Khameini, Khomeini, Tabatabai, Rafsanjani are all non-Arabic names. So what is the Persian name of Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khawarzimi?

Now as far as Ibn Nadeem's quote is concerned, then unfortunately you haven't translated it correctly. What he said was that "Al-Khwarizmi whose name is Muhammad bin Musa is originally from Khawarizm", just like Al-Albani and his children are orginally from Albania and Eisenhower is orginally from Germany. It is by far not sufficient in order to turn him into a Persian.

As for Al-Biruni, then his full quote actually goes against you. In the same paragraph he goes on to list a few names of famous people from that region and not a single name sounds Arabic in complete contrast to Muhammad bin Musa Al-Khwarzimi. This proves that while the people that lived there had their own names, those who emmigrated had long been Arabized and considered themselves Arabs. So clealy, we have to make a difference between people who remained there and those who emmigrated just as we do with Europeans who remained in Europe and those who emmigrated to America. Finally, the word Al-Khwarizmi is simply the name for that region. The Arabs didn't invent a new word for it. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here.

As for Eisenhower, then his example is very much relevant here regardless of national ID cards. The American pioneers didn't have national ID cards either, still they are called Americans and not Germans or Britons.

Anyway, as a compromise I would agree on "Muslim scientist". Sultanio 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your comment, that we are not scholars, then of course this is true. But I don't know what makes you think that those who wrote the articles using "Arab mathematician" in other encyclopedias were not scholars. Also the only specialized scholar I know who specifically dealt with this question is the above mentioned orientalist Sigrid Hunke who argued that it is right to call all these people Arabs. Sultanio 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again it is not right to call person that is originally from Khwarizm as Arab.. And as per Arabic names, there is a lot of people in Iran with Arabic names including myself and as you can see the titles Al-Majoosi and Al-Khwarizmi are not Arabs. Also Baghdad was a mutli-ethnic city then and you can't claim it as Arabs. As per the sources you brought, they are authorless and the complete Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 says Muslim indicating they are slowly changing their source. I will contact Encarta soon as well, since they have used 50 year old material were Arabs and Muslims were not distinguished and the interesting thing is that they say he was born in Khwarizm which means he was not an Arab considering the Al-Majoosi title as well. What is important is what current Historians specially ones studying Islamic mathematics say. More importantly is that we had a moderator here and when we referred to historians on Islamic Mathematics, things were set straight. As for Khomeini his real name is Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi. So this discussion has taken place. BTW Khomeini is just the city he comes from. So if we take Khomeini as the Persian part as you do, then Khwarizmi is the Persian part of Khwarizmi. If you think Khwarizmi is an Arabic word then I can easily prove you wrong. So your argument works against you here, since Khwarizmi is not arabic word and throughout major texts he is referred to as Khwarizmi just like Rafsanjani is Rafsanjani. Another example Abul-Faraj Esfahani. Esfahan is a Persian word but Abul-Faraj Esfahani is originally an Arab. Eisenhower has absolutely no relavent since the Abbasid empire was not a nationality or citizenship. If you become a US citizen then you are automatically American. There was no such concept back then. Your compromise is rejected simply because Al-Khwarizmi is from {[Chorasmia]] and not Arab lands and the people of Chorasmia were a branch of Persians and were Iranians as Biruni mentions. We can add that he was Muslim plus his ethnicity. There is also an interesting passage in the book Tabaqat al-Umam written by Qadhi Saa'id al-Andalusi (1029 to 1070 A.D.) In it the Qadhi talks about a certain scholar by the name Abu al-Qasim Muslamah ibn Ahmad. The Qadhi writes: " Abu al-Qasim Muslamah ibn Ahmad, know by the name al-Majriti. He was the chief mathematician in al-Andalus during his time and better than all the astronomers who came before him. He was extremly interested in astronomical observations and very fond of studying and understanding the book of Ptolemy known as Almagest. .. He also worked on the table of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khawarazmi and changed the dates from the Persian to the Hijrah calendar..". And as you can Biruni lists the Months of Khwarizmians which are all Iranians right after saying the people of Khwarizm are a branch of Persians and all those names have legitimate philological roots. Also Iraq was not Majority Arab until recently and anyone living there is not an Arab. Look at Kurds for example who are ethno-linguistically not Arabs and they compromise 20-25% of the people of Iraq. Ayatollah Sistani for example is also Iranian. Neither were the Vazirs that supported the arts Arabs. Also some of the Caliphs were half Arabs. Some major cities and areas like Anbar and Baghdad and Kirkuk..do not have Arabic names. And later on the Abbassid Caliphs were just figurehead. Also we know much more about al-Khwarizmi than you think.. He didn't simply live in Baghdad (which was a multi-ethnic city then). He was originally from Khwarizm and he also Served under the Khazar Khaghans as well. He practiced Astrology(common Zoroastrian practice) and used Persian date and calendar. So just like him serving under the Khazars does not make a Turk (Khazars were multi-ethnic empire too) , he does not become an Arab just because he lived in Baghdad which was cosmopoliton. Neither were the Abbasid Vazirs I mentioned are Arabs. It is sufficient to point out that the al-Majoosi title and he was Chorasmia, which makes him neither middle eastern nor Arab. I have emails from authoritative people on this subject and if you have a problem with the current page, you can see the moderator I mentioned. I do agree that Muslim can be added although there was even Zoroastrians that had Islamic sounding names: Abu Mansur Al-Daqiqi for example. But he was an Iranian Muslim like Avicenna, Biruni, Ghazzali, Bukhari,Tabari ..etc. And Arabic was the scientific language of the time and many Iranians developed it as well. Indeed according to one scholar out of the 2 million ancient manuscripts in Arabic, about 1/4 were written by Iranians (the percentage is higher if we consider important works). --alidoostzadeh 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are chosing not to read my comments. Anyway, so let me summarize your main points.

1. You're strongest proof seems to be his title "Al-Chwarzimi". I already made it clear that this title only proves that originally he came from a certain region in Uzbekistan. In fact you yourself argued that having the title "Al-Majusi" for instance does not make him a Zoroastrian: "Khawarazmi was not Zoroastrian but had Zoroastrian ancestors." So why is it so hard to understand that the same applies to "Al-Chwarizmi"? It's not more than the name of the region his ancestors came from. Now please tell me, would you also call his children Persians if they had been born and were raised in Bagdad just because they probably bear the same title "Al-Chwarizmi"?

2. You also argue that having his origins in some country prevents him from becoming an Arab. Why should it be forbidden to call someone who lived his life among the Arabs under the service of an Arabic ruler, wrote all of the books that made him famous in Arabic, had an Arabic name, an Arab? Not to forget that it is even unknwon whether he was born in Chwarizm to begin with.

3. Concerning Arabic names you say Al-Chwarizmi is not Arabic. First, thank you for pointing out that Khomeini refers to his city. Still his name Ruhullah is uncommon to Arabs. In fact, it is not hard to distinguish Iranians and Arabs from their names.

4. You say Baghdad was not Arabic. This is like saying NY is not American because people of different origins live there. In fact it is worse, because in Bagdad all the people talked in Arabic and this by definition makes them Arabs.

5. You claim that specialists on this field have settled the issue already. I'm not sure whom you are talking about. I recommend you to read "Allahs Sonne ueber dem Abendland" by Sigrid Hunke.

6. You say he used the Persian calendar. Well, if this is a proof for him being a Persian then how do you consider him writing all of his books in Arabic? Many Arabs today use the Georgian calendar, does this turn them into Jalab?

7. You say he served under the Khazars. Well, even if we believed that single source which claims he was once sent to them, it doesn't prove that he really spent a significant amount of time there. Going on a temporary business trip to another country is different from living most of your life in Bagdad...

Nevertheless, I again repeat my offer to agree on calling him a "Muslim scholar" as a compromise since he was a scholar of the Islamic empire. Sultanio 23:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

section header

Would anyone have a problem with referring to him as "Middle Eastern" and delay the discussion on his etnicity and religion to the biography section? This endless discussion is rather non-productive. —Ruud 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't Middle Eastern, the term Middle Eastern is relatively new, and misleading geographical denominator. --ManiF 23:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)