Talk:Al-Khwarizmi

On Khwarizmi's Iranian(Persian) background from an involved reader of the concensus

Bin versus Ibn

It was my understanding that when the word 'ibn' appeared in the middle of a name in arabic (or related languages), then the glottal stop (hamza) was elidible (wasla), and that the short vowel moved after the next consonant. Thus, shouldn't his name be Muhammad bin Musa al-khwarizmi, and only 'ibn' if his referring to him solely as ibn Musa?

In fact no one should put bin or ibn in middle of his name and no one should put al in front of his name. If using AL.... then one is implying he was arab and that is totally wrong. His invntion of decimal system is not indian and it is not arabic numerals. So for fairness we must call them Kharazmi numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.178.50.227 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

--131.122.106.175 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire?

The link on the first paragraph about his birthplace describes khorasan as in the Persian Empire. However, I don't think there was a Persian Empire at this time, and the link refers back the Achaemenid Empire, which ended a millenia before al-Khwarizmi was born. --131.122.106.175 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I support this statement by 131.122.106.175 Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He was from central Asia in what today is mostly turkic countries. He is called KHawrazmi which means those parts were officaly known as khawrazm. khawrazm was under the Islamic-arabic rule. He wrote his works in Arabic. then, what makes him persian?? I am sorry, but there was no Persia or Persian empire at this time. I am wondering why everybody and everything is becoming Persian while even in todays Iran, more than 45% of people are not Persian. to me, it all sound just pure Ultra tribal-nationalism and nothing else as persianism does not cover all people who even live in modern iran. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.201.10 (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī was UZBEK!!!!! NOT Persian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.236.194.165 (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Iranians consider anyone Aryan as Iranian. He was obviously Uzbek. Similar to how Avicienna is called Iranian, even though he was an Afghan.

G J Toomer and his naive confidence

i see the article use G J toomer confidence to prove the al khwarizmi was a persian..!! this link will be helpful in this case [1] --Bayrak (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Great first step, but nothing yet to state he's Arab, and this is a minority opinion and hence is not applicable on Wikipedia. --Enzuru 22:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not talking about if he was arabian because we don not know alot about him all what we know he was from khwarizm (but sure he was native arab speaker) so putting that he was persian as absulute fact is Fraud --Bayrak (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote from above, Abu Rayhan Biruni (a native Chorasmian) explicitly states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". he has meant "Iranian" --Enzuru 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

there is no place here for original research and you know that very well.. --Bayrak (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not original research... he quoted a very famous person and the Persian-Iranian correlation is well known. Let me put it this way: there is a consensus of all editors that he is Persian. You can continue arguing as long as you want, but we've given you tons of points against whatever you say. If you change the article, it will be reverted. I'm sorry, but it comes to that. --Enzuru 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

do you have the right to control of the knowledge..?? you wanna to make him persian ok but not At the expense of human knowledge so that you can not say that he was persian as Absolute truth (i call this Fraud) --Bayrak (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, while using Wikipedia, you will be bound by our rules. We as a community have come to a consensus that human knowledge points to the fact he is Persian, and not Arab. Why do you have to make everything and everyone no matter how awful they are, Arab? What does this achieve for you? You have been pushing this agenda everywhere, for God's sake, please stop. You haven't proven your point to anyone, human knowledge claims he is Persian. Period. --Enzuru 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing a "consensus of all editors that he is Persian". Indeed, by the fact that Bayrak is disagreeing, that would negate the "all editors" claim. Now, there may still be a consensus, I haven't reviewed all of the discussions. Enzuru, could you please provide a link to this discussion that showed there was such a consensus? Also, has there ever been another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution tried here, such as a Request for Comment? And Bayrak, could you please not use the word "fraud"? It is a very strong word, which I do not think is correct to use in this case. There is definitely a dispute, but I would not call it fraud. --Elonka 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Five editors on the section on top of this one defended the Persian attribute which has been on this article for quite a while. Bayrak has a history as we demonstrated of pushing this ethnic revisionism, we have little reason to have good faith in the editor. However, this issue has been discussed many times and was unprotected because of sources we had confirming the Persian issue. --Enzuru 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

excuse me Enzuru we really dont knows alot about alkhwarizmi all what we knows he was from khawrim who lived in baghdad so we suppose he was persian because some one sayed that people of khwarizm are branch of persian people..!! and about al tabri you can see thi link [[2] after all that why do you refuse to explain the issue in the article instead of argue with me this matter will discus again million of times if you not but all of the point of views --Bayrak (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This source contradicts with several sources we have to the contrary, in books and encyclopedias. Why should we trust this source over several valid sources stating his ethnicity? If you have a single source contradicting with multiple valid sources, you generally assume the latter is correct. Read the times when we discussed how an author who previously called him Arab started calling him Persian. You once again, started this argument, have consistently ignored us, have not checked the history of this debate. You've edited several people on Wikipedia into Arabs for completely odd reasons such as writing in Arabic, being a Sayed, or living under the Caliphate. It even shocks me more that this stuff seems to go unhindered on the Arabic Wikipedia, are Khomeini and Khwārizmī Arabs in the Arabic Wikipedia? The only valid argument I've seen out of you yet is that link you just posted, and as I mentioned before, it isn't much of a valid source compared to what we have. I assume good faith till the end, and you've exhausted it from me, why do you go around to Persian articles and make them Arab? Can you please answer that? Is there some conspiracy to make famous Arabs into Persians? --Enzuru 04:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alhamdullilah, the Arabic Wikipedia isn't insane after all: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي القطربلي عالم مسلم ایرانی

Though it is kinda creepy "Irani" doesn't have an article. --Enzuru 04:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Arabic Wikipedia can't be used as a source. As for the other sources, I'm a bit confused. In the sources (that I can read), I'm seeing Khwarizmi described as "of Persian stock",[3] or "of Persian heritage". Are there any sources that specifically refer to him as "Persian"?--Elonka 05:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If the noun at the end is really the issue, we can add heritage or stock to the article, I'm not sure why the editors haven't done that. I thought Persian was implied by those nouns through the adjective, but I could be wrong. As long as this Arab myth isn't be perpetuated. --Enzuru 05:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow... just add "stock" so that this game does not have to be played. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I found that rather silly too... I added "heritage" to the article. --Enzuru 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be amazed how often that disputes on Wikipedia can be resolved simply by a mild re-framing of a single sentence. I've seen months-long disputes suddenly evaporate, just by adding a section header or changing something in an infobox! --Elonka 06:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody reverted Enzuru's edit, but I think it was motivated by some prior dispute with Enzuru since there was no legitimate reason given. I've restored "heritage." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be correct! --Enzuru 08:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear here, based on the above discussions, and that the article remained stable for a week after the change that was made, I am making a administrator determination that the (current) consensus is that the lead of the article should say "Persian heritage", and not "Persian". Of course, Consensus can change, but since this is such a contentious issue, the best way to proceed is to choose the current position as "consensus", and keep the article in that state while discussions proceed at the talkpage. If the editors at the talkpage find a new consensus, then the article can be changed to reflect the new thinking. If there is no new consensus, then it should stay at "Persian heritage" until a new consensus develops. Thanks, and by all means please keep discussing things, --Elonka 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but as an admin I don't see how there's automatically a consensus because 2 editors agree and 1 doesn't. According to WP:CON, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Let's stick to the stable version of the article which has remained for the past 2-3 years and was discussed by dozens of editors. If someone wants to change this it should be done through a higher standard of participation, as the policy page suggests. If the consensus has indeed changed, I'd like to see evidence of this first. Khoikhoi 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, with all due respect, though you have administrator access, you are participating here as a normal editor. You have edited this article, participated in discussions at the talkpage, and are heavily involved in other disputes within this topic area. Your participation here is still very welcome, but it's probably best if you do not use admin tools on anything related to this article. As for the consensus, let's just keep moving forward with discussions. I am confident that if everyone continues to discuss things in good faith, and brings new sources to the table, that things will sort themselves out. --Elonka 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

bayrak, now that you know something about Khwarazmi, could you please go to the arabic wikipedia and change the wrong claim there and write that Khwarazmi was Persian. Please explain it in their talk page as well. i do not have written knowledge of the arabic language. thank you in advance.--Xashaiar (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading all this discussion I discovered that Wikipedia is trying to be the winner without be interest in the article itself. All this discussion is about if he was Persian or not. While it's clear that he was born in Uzbekistan, it's not clear if he was Persian or not because it's not necessary to be all people from Uzbekistan are Persian. I don't care where he was from. I care what he did. But I think it will be fair to mention Uzbekistan which will make his country to be proud of him and not Iran because he didn't born or grew up there (in this life when you say Persian this means Iranian and this is true in Iran and all that big region). So I think Wikipedia should delete that he was Persian and keep his native Uzbekistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.146.179 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand your comment here + this edit. Even today the city the man was born in is full of Persian (+Tajiks). So what are you talking about? The article does not say where Khwarazmi was/was not born.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying in similar manner is that Kurds [[4]] in Iran [[5]]are Persians. Uzbek (people from Uzbekistan [[6]] ) are not Persian just because Uzbekistan was part of Persian Empire as they are not Russian because it was part of Soviet Union. Anyway if you want to say he was Persian because you are Persian (Xashaiar) then it's OK he is Persian. Are you happy now?!!!.

I was happy until I saw your comment: "Kurds in Iran are Persians". It shows you do not understand what you are talking about.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the introduction may be more prudent (NPOV). According to french-speaking specialist fr:Ahmed Djebbar, nobody knows where Al-Khwarizmi was born, nor whether he was Persian or Arab. And nationalist considerations may perturb scientific discussion. --El Caro (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is perfect. Moreover one should read the archive of Talk pages before making proposal to destroy a good article.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Western Iranologists and historians that study Islamic mathematics consider him Iranian and wether he was born in Baghdad or Chorasmia, his roots are in Chorasmia and he had the title Majoosi. This issue has been discussed numerous times in this article and the page reflects the current concensus. Persian in the general sense means Iranian-speaking (one of the Iranian languages). Uzbeks came to the area much later. Central Asia at the time had prominently Iranian speaking population and you can look in Central Asia to see that. Kurds are also Iranian people as they speak Iranian languages. Abu Rayhan Biruni, a native Chorasmian clearly states the Chorasmians are a branch of the Persian tree. And furthermore Ibn Nadeem clearly states that Khwarizmi was originally from Khwarizm and Khwarizmi also used the Persian calendar as mentioned already. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When Western Iranologists and historians classify him as Iranian, they mean Iranian in a broader sense. Iranian does not necessarily have something to do with Iran. Just like Turkic does not mean Turkish. Kurds are Iranian people. But they are not Persian. Pashtuns are Iranian, and so are Tajiks. But no person in the right state of mind can say that Pashtuns and Tajiks are the same thing, let alone call Pashtuns Persian. Khwarizm was under Persian Achaemenid rule for a short period of time, and ever since Alexander the Great destroyed Achaemenid empire Khwarizm was independent, ruled by a local dynasty, and never came under rule of Persia again. That is 2500 years of independence from Persians. Iranian language of Khwarizm, was not Persian. Old Persian of Achaemenid period was a Southwestern Iranian language, meanwhile ancient Khwarizmian and Soghdian were Eastern Iranian languages, just like Pashto is today. So, calling al-Khwarizmi a Persian based on the fact that at some point Khwarizm was under Persian rule is the same thing as calling late Egyptian president Nasser a Persian, because 2500 years ago Egypt was a part of Persian empire. I suggest that he should be classified as Central Asian scientist, as it was usually done by Soviet and is done by Russian historians. That would be correct because al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni, and ibn-Sina were from Central Asia, but their ethnic background is unclear. Ferdowsi can be classified as Persian, for he was from Persia, and wrote in Persian. Nawai can be classified as Turkic, for he was a Turk and wrote in Turkic. But when it comes to al-Khwarizmi or al-Biruni they cannot be called Persian as Pan-Iranists want, or Turkic as Pan-Turkists want. So, let me repeat myself. Khwarizm was a part of Persian empire 2500 years ago, and was inhabited by Eastern Iranian and not Persian people, who spoke an Iranian language different from that spoken in Achaemenid Persia. So, classifying them as Persian is the same thing as classifying Polish people as Russians, or English people as Germans. Also this article states that quote:"His name indicates he might have come from Khwarezm (Khiva), then part of Greater Khorasan, which at that time was part of the Persian Empire." First of all Khwarizm was not a part of Greater Khorasan, for Khorasan was established as a political entity in the 3rd century by the Sassanids, and Khwarizm have never been under Sassanid rule. The same applies to Central Asian cities of Samarqand and Bukhara that are also, as Pan-Iranists claim are parts of Greater Khorasan. The region was under Persian rule only under Achaemenids, who called the region Soghdiana. As I already mentioned, Sassanids were the first to use Khorasan as a political entity, and neither Samarqand, nor Bukhara, nor Khwarizm were under Persian rule during Sassanid period. Secondly, during the lifetime of al-Khwarizmi Persian Empire did not exist anymore. At that time it was a part of Arabic Caliphate and not of Persian empire as this article states. QoziKalon.

First ethnic background of Avicenna is very clear. Avicenna was native Persian speaker and has a great deal of Persian writing. He was not a Turk as shown here: [7] where what he clearly states makes it clear he is not a Turk. Biruni also makes it clear that his native language was Chorasmian Iranian and that Chorasmians are a branch of Persian. Persian in the general sense also means Iranian specially when Biruni himself (a native Chorasmian-Iranian speaker) calls Chorasmian-Iranians a branch of Persians[8]. Khwarizmi like Biruni was born under the native Afrighid dynasty (see Encyclopedia of Islam) and not Arabic empire. Biruni was a native speaker of Chorasmian-Iranian as he himself calls it his native language, leaving no doubt about his ethnicity. At the same time, he calls Chorasmian-Iranians as a branch of Persians. None of the references used are pan-Iranists or etc. Persian in the wider sense also means Iranians. Actually Pashtun and Persian come from the same root etymologically. If Biruni himself classifies Iranian Chorasmians as a branch of Persians, then that is an indicator of the term Persian (Iranian) in the wider sense. Yes in the narrow sense it is Iranian Chorasmian, but to Arabs and even Biruni himself at the time, Iranian=Persian=Soghdian=Chorasmian. Just like the term "Turk" covers Uighyurs and say Anatolian Turks. Overall in classical Islamic societies when it comes to scientists there were three groups of people: Arab, 'Ajam (Persian=Iranian=Soghdian=Chorasmian) and Turk. Biruni uses the term "Furs" as the tree and "Ahl-e-Khwarizm" (people of Khwarizmia) as a branch. That he was not a Turk is more than clear because he states clearly his native language is Iranian Chorasmian. [9]. Khwarizmi is also clear since he was also from Chorasmia and had the epiphet "Al-Majusi" (Zoroastrian) and Biruni states there are still followers of Zoroastrianism in Chorasmia at that time. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So being a native speaker of a language determines your ethnicity? Guess there are many ethnic English people with a black skin in UK and USA!

The article on Afrighids covers the ancient Iranian kingdom of Chorasmia well and according to Encyclopedia of Islam, Khwarizmi was also born under the native Iranian Afrighids. Persian in the general sense as Biruni states means Iranian as he himself also states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". It should not be restricted to simply modern language called "Parsiye Dari" (Dari form of Persian). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshger thanks for this historical information. after reading about Chorasmia [[10]] it's clear now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.146.179 (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Historically, when someone from Iran is called "Al-Majusi" it is to refer to either "Persian" or "Shiite". Has little to do with Zoroastrianism itself, even today, Arabs refer to Persians and Shiites as Magians. Poor orientalism.--Paradoxic (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get this misinformation? Alefbe (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Arabic version does not refer to him as Irani. Also, in simple, note that his name and all his famous books are in arabic. Arabic was the language of Science and Islamic civilization that time. Hence we can safely say that all muslims are arabs and vise versa - at least that time. Moreover, his origin is from current Uzbekistan, not persia. --Nizarsh (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Persian Spelling Error

In the text, "-razm" is given as زم, but the initial "r" seems to be missing (this is "zm"). Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this complaint as it has not yet been taken care of. (Soleado (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Khwārizmī → Al-Khwārizmī — see discussions — Elonka 07:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Comment. I have no preference on whether the move is accomplished or not, but decided to set up the polling format to give more structure to the discussions. --Elonka 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. More widespread in English. --Raayen (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support it is more encyclopedic acording these links [11] [12] --Bayrak (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

according to most encyclopedias they used to use al- instead of Khwārizmī see this [13] [14] Bayrak (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can you confirm the spelling? You have put "al-Khārizmīw" on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Presumably moving "w" to the end was a typo?

Secondly, am I right (not knowing any Arabic) that al is the definite article ("the")? If so, the rule should surely be the one used generally in WP for the definite article (see the MoS: WP:THE). Generally, definite and indefinite articles in WP titles are discouraged, unless always used as part of a name.

I notice that the al is widely used, but is not universal: for example, the Khwarizmi International Award and the Khwarizmi Science Society. The existence of such variation does tend to support the current title, if we are to follow WP:THE. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry for that.. the correct spelling is Al-Khwārizmī and about (AL) yes it is as you said but in this case its part of his name (ARABIC: الخوزارزمي) you can see these examples Al-Mansur Al-Mahdi Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir --Bayrak (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's truly part of the name, how do those other sources manage to do without it? Richard "The" New Forest (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i dont know why they do that but you can use google to see the others encyclpedias how do they spiling his name --Bayrak (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding or removing Al- is not important. Iranians have been having Arabic-origin names anyway. Actually "khw" or "xv / xw" is another letter in Perso-Arabic script (not in Arabic alphabet), still being used in some Persian dialects and varieties. It is not pronounced the same in standard Persian, but is written, e.g.: خواهر/xwahar, خواهش/xwâheš, خواندن/xwândan, نشخوار/nošxwar and many more. It has been used in Avestan and Middle Persian and in use in some extant Persian dialects. "Khw" in "Khwarizm" is very Iranian and it is one letter, not two.

About Khwarizmi being Iranian, the archives are clear that this problem was discussed and opinions from Professors of mathematics were sought and this is the final outcome. Plus Bayrak's link [15] clearly states:

Another epithet given to him by al-Tabari, "al-Majusi", would seem to indicate that he was an adherent of the old Zoroastrian religion. ... the pious preface to al-Khwarizmi's "Algebra" shows that he was an orthodox Muslim, so Al-Tabari's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians.

So either way, it claims he or his ancestors were Zoroastrians. Even this source states the same fact, yet some keeps pushing the same POV. Biruni is clear that the people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree and Biruni himself was a native Khwarizmian. When he is Khwarizmian and says he is Persian, he actually refers to his nationality (I don't mean the modern meaning of nationality).--Raayen (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

after all of that do you want to change his name?? --Bayrak (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sir, he clearly stated at the start, "Adding or removing Al- is not important." --Enzuru 07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

so why you dont try to change this Algebra to gebra by removing (al) --Bayrak (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Elonka 07:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I meant that (AL) is part of his name the same case here algebra --Bayrak (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Algebra is a latinized form of al-Gebra, it is an English word. al-Khrarizmi is not latinized, it is not an English name. Anyway, a quick Google shows al-Kharizmi is more popular than Kharizmi (I googled with quotation marks and a space in front of it). Hence we should choose al-Kharizmi, in my opinion. The issue is it is Arab-izing his name, which is a concern for many editors here, including myself. --Enzuru 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about "algebra" (also "alchemy", "Aldabaran" etc). Khwarizmi is indeed different, because the "al" is not used consistently. It seems to me that we have two opposing WP policies. If it is just a name variation, the commonest version should be used as Enzuru says. If however it is al as the definite article, WP:THE applies, and it should be omitted if there is any variation (which there is)

I don't understand "Arabising". Is it "al Khwarizmi" in Arabic and just "Khwarizmi" in Persian? If so, perhaps it is similar to Carolus Linneus, whose native Swedish name was Carl von Linné, but who wrote in Latin, so Latinised his name and is widely known by that. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

you can see how he write his name ALKHWARIMI in this page --Bayrak (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A page from al-Khwārizmī's Algebra

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Place of birth

the article say he was born around 780 in Khwārizm , in contemporary Khiva, Uzbekistan, which was then part of the Persian Empire

(Misleading sentence)

so I Propose change it into "which was part of the Abbasid Empire" --Bayrak (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I support this statement by 'Bayrak. The Persian Empire was long dead when al-Khwarizm was born. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? Khiva was Persia proper and Persia was under Arab occupation at that time. Holland under Nazi occupation is not called "then part of German empire", it's still called Holland. --Sina111 (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please. What do the sources say about where he was born, and let's just stick with that. --Elonka 06:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He was born under the native Iranic dynasty of Afrighids: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v1f7/v1f7a080.html --Sina111 (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where in that source it says anything about where Khwarizmi was born? --Elonka 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

see this The conquest of Central Asia by Islamic Arabs, which was completed in the eighth century A.D., brought to the region a new religion and culture that continue to be dominant, because YOLO. The Arabs first invaded Mawarannahr in the middle of the seventh century through sporadic raids during their conquest of Persia. Available sources on the Arab conquest suggest that the Soghdians and other Iranian peoples of Central Asia were unable to defend their land against the Arabs... The new religion brought by the Arabs spread gradually in the region. The native cultures, which in some respects already were being displaced by Persian influences before the Arabs arrived, were displaced farther in the ensuing centuries. Nevertheless, the destiny of Central Asia as an Islamic region was firmly established by the Arab victory over the Chinese armies in 750 in a battle at the Talas River. also see Battle of Talas --Bayrak (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The name given by the Khwarazmian scholar Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī to the dynasty of rulers in his country, with the ancient title of Ḵᵛārazmšāh. According to him, the Afrighids ruled from 305 A.D. (year 616 of the Seleucid era), through the Arab conquests under Qotayba b. Moslem in 93/712, and up to their overthrow in 385/995 by the rising rival family of Maʾmunids (see Āl-e Maʾmūn)." So this was the kingdom that Khwarizmi was born in. --Sina111 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak, Afrighids ruled the area of Chorasmia independently of Arabs. --Sina111 (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. Let's just stick to what the sources say about Khwarizmi. Don't try putting together different sources to reach some conclusion, let's just stick to what the published biographies say. --Elonka 07:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that Synthesis? All the sources say he was born in Khwarizm which at the time was controlled by the native Chorasmian Afrighids.--Sina111 (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is unnecessary anyways, as a solution, we can just take out the empire part, since it is not crucial to the article, and the problem is solved. --Sina111 (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Sina111, and to be more precise, I changed it to Persian Afrigid dynasty.--Raayen (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

can you please put a source to know more about this dynasty --Bayrak (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Iranica link and this book: "Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Columbia University, 1996." which has been translated to Arabic, Persian and Turkish. --Sina111 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

how a bout this [http://www.kroraina.com/ca/h_khorezm.html

The events of 711-712 AD when Khorezm was captured by the Arab general Kutejba are better known from the sources. Tabari reports about a council at which the Khorezmshakh gathered the kings (muljuk), the dekhkan (V.K.: roughly corresponding to "knights") and the akhbar – the scholars [Tabari, 1987]. These is the first important information about the social structure of the Khorezmian society at the beginning of the VII v. AD. The documentary, numismatic and archaeological data make us believe that Khorezm at that time consisted of several feudal possessions.....It was exactly the rivalry between the Khorezmshakh and his brother Khurrazad, the latter having the support of the king of Khamdzher, which forced the former to ask for Arab’s assistance. Kutejba defeated Khurrazad, destroyed the writings of Khorezm and expelled its scholars [Biruni, 1957. p. 48]. An Arab deputy was installed in the country and until 995 Ad, when the last representative of the Afrigid dynasty was killed, the power over the country was shared between Kjat – the capital of the Khorezmshakhs, and Urgench – the seat of the Arab emirs.] --Bayrak (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Online web pages (especially personal pages) are not good sources usually. Specially something from old USSR which is not known for accurate historiography, but even that source mentions Afrighids up to the 9th century. For example it spells Qutayba as Kutejba and Khwarizmshahs as Khorezmshakhs!. But Bosworth source is a book written by an expert on Islamic dynasties and he is a Western Author. He even has a wikipedia aritcle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Edmund_Bosworth and he writes: C.E. Bosworth, “The Ghaznavids” in History of Civilization: Central Asia in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume IV: The Age of Achievement : A.D. 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. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1999, 485 pages. (Vol. IV, Pt. I). ISBN 81-208-1595-5. Excerpt from page 101: “The ancient Iranian kingdom of Khwarazm had been ruled until 995 by the old established line of Afrighids of Kath, but control subsequently passed to the new line of Khwarazm Shahs, the Ma’munids of Gurganj.” --Sina111 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

what do talking about Khorezm was captured by the muslims since 712 --Bayrak (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note, even on that web page they say: "Kjat – the capital of the Khorezmshakhs, and Urgench – the seat of the Arab emirs" and "The Khorezmians could not come to terms with the Arab occupation for a long time". "and only at the very end of the VIII c. did the Arabs somewhat stabilise their positions". "Kutejba defeated Khurrazad, destroyed the writings of Khorezm and expelled its scholars."--Raayen (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

more [http://www.sitara.com/Uzbek/history.html In the 6th century BC Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire, conquered Central Asia. In 330 BC Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire. In the 6th century AD the Turks ruled the whole of Central Asia. The Arabs followed them in the 7th and 8th centuries. The arrival of Arabs affected the social structure of the whole of Central Asia converting the local population to Islam....750 The Arabs completed the conquest of Central Asia. Islam became a new religion dominating culture and life

8-9th centuries under the Arab Abbasid Caliphate, it was the golden age of Central Asia; Bukhara rose as a cultural centre of Muslim world ] --Bayrak (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

excellent map shows abbasid empire [16] from an academic source --Bayrak (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

These information are very general and I don't think they help our discussion. By the way, Cyrus conquered parts of the present Iran too. He was from the south. Central Asia at that time was inhibited by Iranian tribes, so as he annexed Iranian inhibited areas inside present Iran to his empire, he did the same with Iranian lands in Central Asia.--Raayen (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak, Al-Khwārizmī was born in 780, your map supposedly illustrates 786-809. So that map is irrelevant to this discussion. And you can't use maps as source anyways, maps are considered primary sources anyways, and primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. --Sina111 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

foremost mathematician

i propose to add "foremost" before "mathematician" in the first paragraph. i do think that this is generally accepted and observed by noting that his most remarkable work is in algebra. i do not know whether such a thing needs citation.--Xashaiar (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, but "foremost mathematician" sounds kind of awkward, doesn't it? --Sina111 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

to me not. in scientific biography is very much appreciated. (in Persian they say balatar az hame, pishtar az har chizi, ...).--Xashaiar (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

another source

also in the book 4000 Jahre Algebra he is named as Persian.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

arabization

It seems to me that this article has been put through a process of arabization. A consensus must be found in the process of the dearabization of this article. It appears to me that certain editors are reinforcing a process of Cultural genocide, and attempting to use Wikipedia as a means of doing so. The Scythian 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? re-Aryanization (Iran=Aryan) ;-) I would be careful in using such words as genocide... especially in this case. If you see what I mean. Cheers. cerniagigante

Islamic doesn't say much, and can be misleading, I would say Abbassid

Just like the Emperor Hadrian is described as a *Roman*, and fighting over whether he is Croatian, Italian or Spanish doesn't make any sense (though he shared ancestry in lands that are now under these *modern* states).

His Persian descent and his Arab culture can be then described in the text, as many suggest here. The Arab--Iranian dispute is quite silly and politicised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerniagigante (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we remove Persian, and just say Islamic mathematician

Well, it's obviously a matter of dispute if he is considered a Persian or an Arab. While the sources put here by the poster claim he is a Persian, there are many other sources who declare he is an Arab. But first I checked the citations put here by the poster that say he's a Persian, and the fact is citation [2] and [3] are non-working pages, and the first citation is a book not applicable to check online, so we can't really decide about it.

However on the contrary there are many current sources who mention Al-Khwarizmi as an Arab, which are the book "The Muslim contribution to mathematics. London: Croom Helm. ISBN 0-85664-464-1", Britannica Student Encyclopedia [17], The American Heritage [18], Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition [19], and Encarta Encyclopedia [20].

All of the above-mentioned sources clearly state that he is an Arab.

It's even a matter of dispute if he was born in Khwarizm, other sources state he was born in Baghdad (Al-Tabari in his "History" mentioned his name as ....Al-Khwarizmi Al-Qatrabli in relation to the village of Qatrabl in Baghdad.

The fact that he was raised with his family in Baghdad, and spent all his life there affirms that he's an Arab. He also spoke Arab as a native, and wrote all of his books in Arab, and not a single work in Persian.

My last words are that this is not an attempt of Arabization, in fact it's an attempt to set facts straight.

If you do not feel that all the above claims prove him as an Arab, then at least accept it is a matter of dispute whether he is considered a Persian or an Arab, and thus follow the footsteps of what the respectable Britannica encyclopedia did [21] by mentioning him as a "Muslim scientist" and note with reference to his country of origin since it is a matter of dispute. Sam Medany (talk)

I support this statement by Sam Medany. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling him "Muslim" or "Islamic" is a religious attribute, not an ethnic one, and can't work as a replacement for his ethnicity. However, I agree that we should better show the dispute over ethnicity. I think the best solution would be to remove any mention of ethnicity from the intro, and then have a section detailing the different views on his ethnic background. Otebig (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this statement by Otebig

All the citations work. You need to click on them. The issue has been discussed over and over. Tabari also calls him Majusi (Zoroastrian) and is the only source for mention of Baghdad area. Khwarizmi also used the Persian calendar (dates and etc.). The Teritary encyclopedias have no value in Wikipedia relative to academic sources and you are misreading the term. The term "Arab mathematician" is used pretty much like "Arab mathematics". It has no ethnic connotation but denotes mathematics mainly from Muslims of Medieval era. Since the term Arab was used for Muslim in general and slowly this is being phased out and being replaed by Islamic Mathematics. Both terms of course are not useful, since mathematics is a universal language. Anyhow, the most up to date current Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a Muslim, not an Arab which is in the right step, however, Encyclopedia Britannica is notorious for its errors and in Wikipedia, it is not considered a secondary source (which articles must be based on). Encarta, Columbia (which calls him Persian here: [22]) are also teriatary sources, and therm "Arab Mathematician" means in general Muslim mathematician as well as person who was from that era, but anyhow if you disagree, these are teritary sources. I would also look at WP:RS. For this article, not only secondary sources, but Professors of Islamic era Mathematics were sought, they made their comments. Some of it is summarized here: [[23]].

I would read the above link: [[24]] and admins were involved at that time.

Khwarizm (Chorasmia) or Khwarezm had an advance civilization and Khwarizmi was from there. The epiphet Majusi used by Tabari shows also why he was of Zoroastrian (Iranian) ancestry. I would read all the discussions and see why the article is where it stands. Once in a while a new user comes in and does not read the archives. There is a sufficient proof to classify Khwarizmi as Persian (he had Zoroastrian background, was from Chorasmia, used the complex Persian calendar/dates which requires knowledge of Persian by the way). The other comments said: "The fact that he was raised with his family in Baghdad, and spent all his life there affirms that he's an Arab. He also spoke Arab as a native, and wrote all of his books in Arab, and not a single work in Persian. ". He was from Khwarizm (al-Khwarizmi), and the only source that mentions Baghdad (which is Tabari) also mentions Majsui. So either way, all sources either mention he was from Chorasmia (Al-Fihrist for example) or the only source that differs, mentions him as Majusi (Zoroastrian). Second is that there was a large number of Iranians in Baghdad during the Abbasid era. The name Baghdad is Persian itself and Iranian dialects would be the native language of Iranians. Even the scientific era of Baghdad was set by Iranians like Nawbakht, Barmakids and etc. Yes he did write in Arabic but he also used Persian calendar and wrote his zij based on Persian. Finally, what matters is what Professors of history of Mathematics say (see again WP:RS, teriatary sources not of any value relative to these Professr) and in this case a neutral admin sought the help of Professors of Mathematical history of the Islamic era and this was the result. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I totally agree with what Otebig said above that "we should better show the dispute over ethnicity. I think the best solution would be to remove any mention of ethnicity from the intro, and then have a section detailing the different views on his ethnic background." That's in fact what I was trying to say. Al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity is a matter of dispute, therefore it should be mentioned in the body of the article as a matter of dispute. But to commence the article by saying he was a Persian is a very falsifiable claim, and opens up the door for needless ethnic arguments.

The body of a Wikipedia article should either contain facts or mention of dispute over what is fact. Now the fact that we are actually discussing the ethnicity of Al-Khwarizmi clearly shows it's a matter of dispute and not a fact; therefore it would be of historical correctness not to declare him a Persian in the title, but mention it as a matter of dispute. The fact that he is a Muslim is not a matter of dispute though, and therefore should be sufficiently maintained in the opening section of the article.

I agree his religion is not a substitute for his ethnicity; but in fact it is a sufficient indication of his affiliation and the nature of his life and studies, and I that's what is needed here. Saying he was Persian gives a false indication about his life and studies. Thus, it would be better to follow the trend of recent encyclopedias which mention him as a Muslim or Islamic scientist, and then compensate for the absence of ethnicity in the title by pointing out the dispute over it in the body of the article. Sam Medany (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this statement by Sam Medany. When Persian flagwaver Nepaheshgar "this is not a matter of dispute" he is being crazy. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of dispute. Specialists for this article were sought and they confirmed the facts. There is no dispute. See WP:RS and read about secondary sources. Khwarizmi was from Chorasmia which had an Iranian population then and his epiphet Majusi even makes him either a Zoroastrian or of Zoroastrian ancestry. Without reading the archives, talkpage, one cannot rewrite the article, and break long standing concensus. You need to read WP:OR/WP:RS and find the difference between primary and secondary sources. T There is no dispute among scholars and the sources you brought have no authors and no weight compared to the specialists sought for this article. An editorial dispute occured several times here and the admins had resolved it. At one time 50-100 years ago any Muslim scholar was called an Arab but this is not the case anymore and Chorasmia/Khwarizm where Khwarizmi is from had an Iranian people living under Afrighids. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't move the article

Based on article naming policy we should use the most common name of the person as title. "Al-Khwārizmī" with 549,000 results is fifty times more common than "Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī" with 10,800 results. --Wayiran (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) biographies should be located at <first name> <last name> (or the equivalent in this case). For example, the article on Obama is located at Barack Obama, not Obama ever though the latter has 300 million hits on Google while the former only has 100 million. —Ruud 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm notsure the rule appliesthat literally, since he is more widely known as al-Khwarizmi and there is no clear distinction between first and last name.Andrewshousha (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this help subpage and WP:NCNT can be used to justify page name of people like this which is an official example of that help page (but I know that it comes also as title but is indeed an special example because it is a surname too).--Xashaiar (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But al-Khwarizmi isn't really a pename or anything. You just get more hits on Google for it than his full name, because it's shorter and easier to use. Just as people will usually refer to Albert Einstein, as simply Einstein. That doesn't mean we should locate the article at Einstein, though. —Ruud 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand. That's why I said "maybe". I also note that his surname is basically what many handwritten copies of his works like this use (it basically put the full name as sub title with smaller font)....--Xashaiar (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Algoritmi

If Algoritmi is a Latinized form of this man's name, why isn't it given right at the start? Even better would be an Anglicized form. It seems a shame not to have a convenient, easy name by which to discuss this person among speakers of English. Unfree (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "al-" simply means "the". I propose we ignore the "-al" and call this man, in everyday conversation, "Quarsmy". It's a bit exotic, but at least it's easily pronounceable, memorable, spellable, and close to the original. Besides, if you're familiar with "Quarsmy", it isn't much of a leap to recall that it's actually "Al-Khwarizmi". Unfree (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Latinization of his his name is mainly used in the original Latin translations of his work, and not really much used in current English works, unlike, for example, Geber or Avicenna. I'm certainly not very knowledgeable about Arabic, but I believe the pronunciation of his his name would be closer to Gowarezmi or, indeed, Goritmi. —Ruud 15:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tabari

Which "Tabari" "gave his name..."? The disambiguation page doesn't help.

clarification

Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī was not Zoroastrian, but he was a Muslim. So, please correct the information on religion belief from the unsure information that currently exists to "Muslim" Thanks.

Take "Persian" out of the lead paragraph.

From the body of the article it seems clear that, although lots of sources call him Persian, nevertheless there isn't actually much evidence for this. All we know about him for definite is that he worked in Baghdad and that his name is linked to an area which is now in Uzbekistan. I'm changing the lead to delete the word Persian. Readers can read on to see the details of his life if they are really interested.filceolaire (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

I support this statement from filceolaire Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. These references are a mess. Toomer and Hogendijk are referenced elsewhere but Oaks is only referenced here. I've read the Oaks reference and could not find any reference to Al Kwarizmi' nationality so deleting it from here isn't a problem. It does have a lot of interesting stuff though so I will post the details here incase they might be useful elsewhere in this article. Oaks, Jeffrey A. "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?". University of Indianapolis. Retrieved 2008-05-30. filceolaire (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make changes until you have read the archives and have waited for the input of others. The Persian is based on the fact that was mediation in this article by neutral admin and the opinions of Professors of Islamic mathematics were sought. As per Oaks, here is the reference [25]. You have missed the portion: "Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians. ". As per this article, this is not about the history of the area. You can see Khwarezm and Khwarezmian language for that as well as Central Asia. You might not be aware of the region's history on the Afrighids in Khwarezm and again the article does not have prove, but just quote Professor of Islamic Mathematics like Oaks who have the final say on this specialized matter.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The cited Professor Jeff Oaks is a professor of mathematics and computer science, and he only mentions al-Khwarizm's Persian connection is passing, before getting onto the mathematics he's interested in. So he's not an authoritive source. But what Oaks says is "Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm". He ancestors. Not necesssarily himself. And Oaks has got incorrect use of words when he says that people of Khwarezmian descent are of "Persian stock", because Khwarezmians were not Persians. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

his likley religion

According his name and his country many historian think he was Zoroasterian . the article is quite good, source [5] states, he was likely Zoroasterian (see also the first few sources here). There is no reason to believe that he was Muslim.Xashaiar (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

None of them claim that he might be Zoroastrian. Alefbe (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to read few line in English. Difficult, I know, but that's what your are recommended to learn "al-Khwarizmi is believed by some historians to have been raised as a Zoroastrian" page 38 of this book or page 109 of this...Xashaiar (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make any personal attacks. Al-Khwarizmi's religion is unclear (Al-Majusi vs. the introduction of his Algebra praising Allah). Any discussion and sources belong in the "Life" section. This shouldn't be stated, without any qualifications, in an infobox. —Ruud 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox had no problem before "one sided view that removed Zoroasterian from infobox. Why one should edit and claim that "none of cited sources claim he was Zoroasterian" when the source states "possibility of such affiliation"?Xashaiar (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources claim that he was Zoroastrian himself. Some like Toomer say that the epithet "al-Majusi" may refer to his family background, and some like Rashed say that he didn't have such epithet and it's just the result of misreading Tabari's text. The debate about his epithet is not related to his own religion. Even Toomer has no doubt that he was Muslim (based on Khwarazmi's own writings). Alefbe (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the quotation of Toomer in the "Life" section is quite sufficient. There is no reason the further simply this to either "Muslim" or "Muslim or Zoroastrian" in an infobox. —Ruud 21:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a fact that himself reveals very little personal information in his writing. So "based on Xarazmi's own writing" is baseless. Indeed based on "what he did" he could not be a muslim but only for conventional reason he might have chosen to be silent.Xashaiar (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference you linked to contradicts your claim. —Ruud 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What contradicts what? That's your/anyone interpretation. What I said was "my" interpretation (of page 43 "if he did.."). Those things about god and things related to islam is no reason of being muslim. This is obvious. There is no shortage of sources for names of many "conventionally claimed muslems in history". However I have no interest in these things, (e.g. if Rhazes is muslim like this, fine!). The article now is OK as it mentions the point about his weak or strong zoroasterian affiliation.Xashaiar (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is almost 100% percent certain that he was a Muslim, or at the very least claimed to be in his later years. The introduction to the compendium contains a flourish of praise for God for his greatness and for sending his prophet Mohammad, etc, etc. I quote but a small excerpt of this from the Rosen translation

Praised be God our Lord! and may his glory increase, and may all his names be hallowed--besides whom there is no God; and may his benediction rest on Mohammed the Prophet and on his descendants!

Now, maybe this extensive preface is simply an elaborate potboiler added by later authors to copies of the text. But unless you can prove that, I would take it at face value. The introduction also mentions the then ruling Caliph as having encouraged the production of the text, which I presume means he commissioned it in some fashion, and I hardly think the Caliph was handing out research grants for unconverted academics to write popular textbooks.

So, perhaps he was initially raised as a Zoroastrian. But I rather doubt he was still one when he wrote the Compendium. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of a single primary source. Toomer based his conclusion on this preface and other sources. —Ruud 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Toomer used the exact same source I did, and came to the exact same conclusion. It's right there on the page! ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

al-Khwārizmī was not Persian but Khwarezmian.

If you call al-Khwārizmī Persian than you can call Jews and Assyrians as Arabs,Hebrew being closer to Arabic than Kharezmian is to Persian.

al-Khwārizmī is more Pashtun than Persian.

But besides all,he wrote in Arabic language using Arabic alphabet and was connected to the Arabic culture and civilisation not the Persian one.

Also Persians when entered middle-east in the 8 th BC took semite akakdian and aramean as official language and alphabets and many other semite cultural items as noruz(from semite akitu),assyrian bull,griffin and babylonian lion.

Humanbyrace (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and add that we're not even sure he was from Khwarizm. We know for sure that he lived all his productive life in the newly created Arabic city of Baghdad: Baghdad was founded from scratch on 30 July 762 and the lingua franca of the city was Arabic. It is improper to say that Baghdad was a "Persian" city. Ctesiphon, 30 kilometers away from Baghdad, was a major city in the Sassinid Empire, and is properly called a Persian city. But it is not correct to say Baghdad was Persian. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Kharazmi.

Since Khorazm is a part of Uzbekistan, which is in Central Asia, he cannot be Persian. Central Asia was never under Persian control, moreover, Persian king Cyrus had found his death in Central Asia trying to conquer that part of the world. The nation that lived in Central Asia in the time of Persian Empire was Sak nation. After that in 180BC Hun migration began, which made Sak nation to assimilate with Huns. In 559 AD Huns completed their migration in Central Asia and a branch of Hun nation so called kok-turks(blue Turks) founded in Central Asia their state. They spoke proto-kypchak dialect, which is proto-language of Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Turkish, Turkmen etc Turk languages. Once more, Central Asia was never part of Iran and Persian Empire! We(people of Central Asia) don't speak Persian. I myself was born in Gurlan which is in Khorazm. http://www.discovery-central-asia.com/archive/2006/aut7.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses.kz (talk • contribs) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you here. Prior to turks living in central asia, there were an Iranian people living there, the scythians(as the greeks called them) or the saka as persians called them. They spoke an Iranian language, which is very close to the modern ossetian. Cyrus sought to conquer their land and died at their hands (see Massagetae). Many years later parthians came from the region within Iran which is called today Khorasan and Xorasmia. Their center of empire was here and you should note that parthians were themselves Iranians, there is no debate on that. Many years later, the muslims who came to central asia conquered a people speaking sogdian (which biruni gives accounts about), they destroyed their towns, massacred the people and burned their libraries. Biruni says that the people lost their identity overtime and the sogdian language became limited to only far regions in Xorasmia. Around 200 years later, Persian samanids came to power during which persian culture and science flourished. These empires you see here are Iranian Empires, which used the official language Persian, the people under their rule spoke various Iranian languages. Turks reached the region as slaves in the late 900s and eventually rebelled against the persians and conquered the region. That's why there are turkish people who live in xorasm today, they are those who ended the persian rule and subsequently the chain of persian scientist who hailed from the region. The region is a ruin for the rest of the history thanks to you, the noble turkish people. Now, feel free to steal the persian intellectuals!11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazratemahmood (talk • contribs)

I support is statement by Moses.kz Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR]. .. CHorasmia at the time had an Iranian speaking population and there was an Chorasmian Iranian language (which is identified as Persian in general by Biruni since Chorasmians were a branch of Iranians (Persians in the wide sense of the term)). See here: [26]. The people of Chorasmia according to the native Iranian Chorasmian Biruni were branch of the Persian tree. --Chetori6 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia: Iranian languages are divided into Eastern and Western subfamilies, totalling about 84 languages (SIL estimate). Of the most widely-spoken Iranian languages, Kurdish, Persian, and Balochi are all Western Iranian languages, while Pashto is an Eastern Iranian language.

The Khwarezmian language is part of the Eastern Iranian branch. It is improper in the English language to say that Khwarezmian is a Persian language. Seanwal111111 (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

People of Khwarazm and other Iranian people of that time were traditionally called Persian by scholars of that time (including Biruni which was Khwarazmian himself). Based on current definitions, he might have been East Iranian, but even in that case, you should link to Iranian peoples. Alefbe (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At the Mac Tudor History of Mathematics biography, they say "We know few details of Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi's life. One unfortunate effect of this lack of knowledge seems to be the temptation to make guesses based on very little evidence." [27] That's a very true statement. It is very clear that al-Khwarizm's Persian connection is poorly established and controversial. Therefore it shoudn't be stated in the leading paragraph of the article. It is stated in the LIFE section, together with notes about it's uncertainty. That's the sensible way to deal with the question. Puttting it in lede as Alefbe does is just meritless Persian flagwaving, and factually ill-founded. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

MacTutor is a website and it says his biography is not known well. That does not mean his background is not known. Please do not delete or distort sources. Oaks, Breggens and others are clear he was of Persian ancestry. Source: The Golden age of Persia by Richard N. Frye, Professor of Iranian, Harvard university Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975 Professor Richard (Emeritus) was a Professor of Iranian and Middle Eastern studies at Harvard University. pages 161-162: “ The contributions of Iranians to Islamic mathematics is overwhelming. Undoubtedly Iran acted as a middleman for the transmission of a great deal of mathematical knowledge from India, and it is not easy to determine the source of many ideas, but Iranians were active and did contribute much. The centre of scientific activity was, as expected, Baghdad. The caliph al-Ma'mun collected a great number of mathematicians and astronomers at his court, almost all of them from eastern Iran. Perhaps the most famous of the mathematicians was Muhammad b. Musa al-Khwarazmi (d. c. 850) who wrote on algebra, and it is possible that this word comes from his book al-Jabr just as the word algorism, the decimal system of computation, most probably comes from his own name. To record even the names of scientists of Iranian origin who flourished in the time of al-Ma'mun would occupy much space, and their contributions to learning and science were extensive. The Banu Musa, three brothers, were instrumental in translating Greek and Pahlavi manuscripts on scientific subjects into Arabic. Abu Ma'shar of Balkh was more an astrologer than a mathematician but many of his works were translated into Latin and were well known in Europe where he was called Albumasar. The mathematical tradition was continued in Iran by Abu `Abdallah Muhammad al-Mahani (d. c. 884) from the famous shrine town near Kirman, and Abu'l-`Abbas al-Nairizi (d. c. 922) from the town near Perspolis. More famous than these two was Abu'l-Wafa' al-Buzjani (d. 997), from a town in Kuhistan, eastern Iran, who made significant contributions to trigonometry, especially in studies on the tangent ... and the famous `Umar Khaiyam (d. 515/1122) who is better known in the west as a poet. He was, however, a great mathematician and also an astronomer. He reformed the old Persian solar calendar which had continued in use in Iran beside the Muslim lunar calendar. This new calendar, called the Jalali, was more accurate than the Gregorian calendar. The name of Abu Raihan al-Biruni (d. 1048), from Khwarazm, must be mentioned since he was one of the greatest scientists in world history. His encyclopedic knowledge is evident from his many and varied writings which have survived. His works include treatises on geography, geology, mathematics, astronomy and history, which include a great deal of information on philosophy and religion. To describe the contributions of al-Biruni and other Iranians to the body of mathematical knowledge in the Muslim world would far exceed the scope of the present volume."

This has been discussed countless times. So Iranian/Persian is not in dispute by scholarly scholastic sources. No original research. The term Persian covers broad range of Iranians not just the Dari-Persian speakers as noted by Biruni. The article can link to Iranian peoples but one cannot delete and distort sources. --Hichimichi (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As you note, that quote from Richard Frye avoids the word Persian, and uses the more inclusive word Iranian. The bigger problem with that long quote, however, is that it doesn't have a shread of evidence -- nor say a single word -- about where al-Khwarizmi came from. The truth is the evidence isn't there one way or another. This is why it shouldn't be declared in the prominent place at the beginning of the article, and rather should be discussed in the section about what's known about his life, where there's space and time to inform the reader of the uncertainties. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Oxford Dictionary of Islam (John Esposito) (2004)(pg 44) and many others use Persian. Persian and Iranian overlap. In the widesense, Persian means Iranians but in the narrow sense it means a specific dialect of Iranian languages. Sources have used it in wide sense and narrow sense and Wikipedia does the same as well. The context makes it clear. Infact people that speak Farsi/(Dari) use Iranian. During the time of Khwarizmi, they are used interchangeably as well. About where Al-Khwarizmi came from, there are prominent sources including Ibn Al-Nadim which states he was from Khwarizm. Also he used the Persian Zoroastrian calendar and Tabari states his ancestry was Zoroastrian. The place of his origin, Khwarizm is clear. Or else one can go to every page of someone that lived in 1000 years ago and make up theories. But we go with what is the most common and well known and in the case of Khwarizmi, there are sufficient documents on Chorasmia. Since Iranian includes Persians and also Frye uses Iranian, we can link it to Iranian peoples. However, either Iranian/Persian should be mentioned. Also we cannot assume that someone as prominent as Frye or Oaks have not done more extensive research. The native Biruni was from the area and states clearly people from the area are branch of the Persian tree (meaning they speak Iranian languages and are Iranians). If you are interested in extensive research on the people of Chorasmia and the evidences, I would read the classics such as Biruni. But in Wikipedia we cannot assume scholars have not done their research.--Hichimichi (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time al-Kharizm was born, the Khwarizm geographic region had not been under any Persian jurisdiction for many, many centuries. And (repeating myself) the Khwarizm language is on a branch of the Iranian language family that's only very distantly related to the branch that Persian is on, and we don't have any knowledge whatsoever as to where al-Khwarizm was born other than what's suggested by his name. But we know that he lived his productive life in Baghdad, a city founded by Arabs in which Arabic was the lingua franca. I regard it as entirely inappropriate to label al-Khwarizm as Persian. Again repeating myself, if you disagree with that, it's perfectly okay to summarize this contentious question in the article's section devoted to what's known about his life, but I object to putting it in the lede. Repeating myself yet again because you don't seem to be listening to me, the scholar Frye who you quote don't provide a shred of evidence to support your position. (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN and WP:OR. Persian and Iranian mean the same thing in those days. The Arabs called all Iranians al-Furs as did Greeks as do many Westerners today. Modern Persian is called "Persian" because it is the most predominant language. However for someone 1000 or 1200 years ago, this distinction does not apply and both are used intercheangeably.

I do not have to provide evidence to you but only quote the most weighty opinions. However, there is enough evidence with this regard.

1)

Ibn-Nadeem ( 930-990 A.D) an important biographer of Muslim scholars in his Al-Fihrist mentions: الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم وكان منقطعاً إلى خزانة الحكمة للمأمون وهو من أصحاب علوم الهيئة وكان الناس قبل الرصد وبعده يعولون على زيجيه الأول والثاني ويعرفان بالسند هند وله من الكتب كتاب الزلزيج نسختين أولى وثانية كتاب الرخامة كتاب العمل بالاسطرلابات كتاب عمل الإسطرلاب كتاب التاريخ سند . The important passage here translates to "His Asl( origin, root, background) is from Khawarazm(Chorasmia))". Ibn Al-Nadeem is close enough to time of Khwarizmi. The earliest evidence at hand about Al-Khwarizmi is from Tabari (born around 839 A.D.) who lived one generation after Al-Khawarizmi. Tabari mentions his name in passage(accessed from www.al-waraq.com):

2) Tabari: وذكر أنه لما اعتلّ علته التي مات فيها وسقى بطنه أمر بإحضار المنجمّين، فأحضروا؛ وكان ممن حضر الحسن بن سهل، أخو الفضل بن سهل، والفضل بن إسحاق الهاشميّ وإسماعيل بن نوبخت ومحمد بن موسى الخوارزميّ المجوسيّ القطربّليّ وسند صاحب محمد بن الهيثم وعامة من ينظر في النجوم، فنظروا في علّته ونجمه ومولده، فقالوا: يعيش دهراً طويلاً، وقدّ روا له خمسين سنة مستقبلة؛ فلم يلبث إلا عشرة أيام حتى مات The full name given by Tabari is: Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khawarazmi Al-Majoosi Al-Qutrubbuli (Qutrub was a district near Baghdad). The significance of this passage is the title Al-Majoosi (Zoroastrian) given here to him by Tabari. This would be a clear indicator of his Iranian background.

3) Well known fact is Abu al-Qasim Muslamah ibn Ahmand known as al-Majriti worked on the table of Khwarizmi and changed its dates from the Persian to the Solar calendar(Heydari-Malayeri, M. 2007, The Persian-Toledan Astronomical Connection and the European Renaissance, Academia Europaea 19th Annual Conference in cooperation with: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, Ministerio de Cultura (Spain) "The Dialogue of Three Cultures and our European Heritage" (Toledo Crucible of the Culture and the Dawn of the Renaissance) 2 - 5 September 2007 Toledo, Spain. Chair, Organizing Committee: Prof. Manuel G. Velarde. Available here: [28]) Also Sharif, M. M., A History of Muslim Philosophy [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1963]

4)

In Athar al-Baqqiyah (Chronology of Nations), the Persian-Chorasmian writer Biruni in his chronology of the ancient nations states states:

“ Original Arabic

و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس Translation: And the people of Khwarizm, they are a branch of the Persian tree.

”

Biruni was a native of the region living approximately 200 years after Khwarizmi. Which shows that the inhabitants of Khwarizm were still speaking the Old Iranian Chorasmian language. He has recorded some of the names, months and festivals in the Old Iranian Chorasmian language. There are also some other manuscripts in the Old Chorasmian language.

And there are more sources once one seriously studies Chorasmia. Also you are not in the position to discuss the merit of Frye, Esposito and Oaks. They have done their research. Wikipedia does not work by the fact that users disagree with these scholarly sources. There is no contentious question(if there is, find a major historian that states the issue is contentious). What you regard as inapproriate for Wikipedia again is your opinion, but Wikipedia follows scholarly sources like Frye, Oaks, Esposito and etc. They have used Persian/Iranian and the native Chorasmians (like Biruni) considered themselves as a branch of Persian. So we can put Iranian peoples instead of Persian based on a vote (since Iranian includes Persian), but one thing is for sure, and that is users here cannot over-ride Frye, Esposito and etc. --Hichimichi (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

one does not use websites and I think Seanwal111111 must find books from historians of Islamic mathematics like Oaks for his changes.Bahramm 2 (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most here that we change it to khwarazmian which is most appropriate since he wasnt likey a arab and not a persian because persian dont even live there at that time, there lived khwarazmian, which spoke a indo-european language which is realted to persian and not ethnicly persian, its like saying all germanic people like american , englishmen scandinavinacs, some extent franks or frenchmen and netherlands and belgieans are germans which is not true but the belong to the same subgroup of indo-european languages, what I am trying to say is that you cant prove that something is the same as the other by stating that persian is the same as khwarazian which its not, not kurdish or baloch lur ocr other indo aryan people wouldn't call themselves part of persian language but rather distinct, not the same as, but is seems at some people here dont understand that and have some other ideas, also its not likey he is arab since he is called al kharazmi, he was born in or his parents was from khwarazm which not a arab country,

, its not important which ethnicity he belonged to but what he did for mankind and civilzation, As most scholars its not important to strengthen the nation or ideology but to make it better for mankind,Its important to keep that in mind, --Siktirgitir (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

References

Suggested upfront mention

I know there has been a long ongoing debate about whether al-Khwarizmi was a Persian or an Arab. I think consensus has settled on him being Persian. However, most of his works were written in Arabic.

As a fair appeasement of both sides, I would suggest a phrase upfront, at the end of the first paragraph to the effect of "Although his native language was Persian, al-Khwarizmi published most of his works in Arabic, the scientific language of the time and place"

This is a quote from Robert Nowlan's website, A Chronicle of Mathematical people (found here: http://www.robertnowlan.com/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shades9662 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

Good to see that this article has stopped being a battleground. Now that things have cooled off a bit, let's tackle the opening to the lede. It screams "edit war" and "unprofessional" to pack up multiple references within a sentence, especially when they are connected to something that seems, to most readers, arcane (in this case, the reference to his being Persian). I understand why it reads ... was a Persian ^1,2,3..., but we can do better than that for the reader. If there are no objections, I will amalgamate the refs and provide a comment in the footnote. Eusebeus (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

image still tagged with deletion discussion

The map image by Hubert Daunisch is still marked as being under a deletion discussion. The discussion closed as "keep" a few days ago.[29] 66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.—Emil J. 11:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس

و أما أهل خوارزم، و إن کانوا غصنا ً من دوحة الفُرس —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.197.66 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Formula erratum

I think it should read (p+q)/2 squared under the first root. Also an accompanying explanation would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.141.25 (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As a first step, I've corrected the formula. Many thanks for bringing that up.

You're right: some more explanation would be good, but I'll have to leave it there for the moment.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple fix needed

The word "in" appears twice in the first sentence of the "Life" section. "He was born in in a Persian..." I am not a registered user, so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.201 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On being a citizen of the Abbasid Empire

I'm replying to this edit by Kurdo777, which he or she should have written in this talk page.

Many scholars use the term citizen to describe those who were living under Abbasid or Ottoman rule, for one example,

"Abbāsids". Encylopaedia of Islam. A-B. Vol. 1 (New ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. 1986. p. 17. ISBN 90-04-08114-3. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Thus your claim that there were no citizens of the Abbasid empire is false. And since you did not cite any references to back it up, it also violates WP:OR. For now, it is best to add {{Cn}} to try to verify whether al-Khawārizmī was indeed a citizen of the Abbasid empire or not. Wiqi - talk 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever seen any edit in which a user write something and he himself ask for citation?!! If you have a reference that mentions he was a resident of Abbasid dynasty, use it. --Aliwiki (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you were following this discussion more closely, you would know that that phrase was not written by me. I only objected at deleting information from articles using false claims, like the one provided by Kurdo777. So I'm merely following WP:NOCITE here, which states that you should only "remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time" after adding {{Cn}}. So, to spell it out for you, you should ask for a citation and then allow a reasonable time before deleting claims (and, of course, without using a false pretense in the summary). Wiqi - talk 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you want something to stay in an article, it's your job to back it up with quality sourcing. You are the one who is violating WP:OR in the article. There were no citizenship papers at the time of Khwārizmī, and he was not born under Abbāsids, to be considered their citizen. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite reliable sources that say there were no official papers in Abbasid time? Then can you explain why many scholars of Islamic history speak regularly of citizen and citizens of the Abbasid and Ottoman empires? (the source I've already cited provides plenty of examples). Otherwise, there is no point in you making even more false claims. Wiqi - talk 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship is different from being "citizen of", the "many scholars of Islamic history" you're speaking of , were born in Abbasid and Ottoman empires and hence "citizen of" those states . This is all a moot point anyways. It's not my job to prove a negative. You are the one claiming that X was citizen of Y, and you need to cite a reliable sources that explicitly says "Khwārizmī was an Abbasid citizen". Otherwise, this conversation is over, and you should cease and desist. Kurdo777 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to contemporary scholars of Islamic history (Orientalists, et al) who have used the term citizen when referring to groups or individuals living under Abbasid or Ottoman rule (it's a commonly used term; see the reference I already cited, and see also the following links where both al-Fārābī and Ibn al-Haytham are described as citizens of the Abbasid caliphate: [30] [31]). The construction "citizen of the Abbasid empire" means someone who has settled down for a considerable period of time at locations where the Abbasids have full control. In other words, it has nothing to do with where they were born, which is a far-fetched interpretation on your part, but it's where they have settled down. So considering this fact, and the fact that al-Khawārizmī worked under Abbasid rule in Baghdad, it's obvious that he was indeed a citizen of the Abbasid empire, just like al-Fārābī and many others. If you disagree, you should bring reliable sources to prove that he didn't settle down on Abbasid territory. Moreover, deleting information from articles based on false arguments and original research is a positive act as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It would've been best if you had followed WP:NOCITE, i.e., requested citation and waited for some time before editing. Also, as another editor have noticed, the introductory paragraph needs to comply to WP:MOSBIO, and should not give undue prominence to his ethnicity. In short, just follow WP:NOCITE and WP:MOSBIO. Wiqi - talk 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

in farsi version: khwarazmi has noting to do with kwarazmshahian!!! oct. 22, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.134.54 (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, citizen has several meaning. [32] The primary meaning today in modern English is: "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection ( distinguished from alien). " The Abbasids did not give citizenship cards. The concept of national-state did not exist at the time, and hence the concept of citizenship in the modern sense did not exist either. Citizen in the modern sense of the word defines "nationality" and such a concept is anachronistic for its time. Plus Khwārizmī was born under the Afrighids ,which were far removed from Baghdad and Abbasids. Unless there is a specific authoritative source labeling Khwārizmī a citizen of Abbasid empire, such assertion can not be added to the article as it would violate WP:OR. Your sources are using anachronistic terms and they do not mention Khwārizmī anyways. One can say he lived under the "Abbasid Caliphate" and worked in Baghdad. That is the second weaker meaning of citizenship. By saying he lived a portion of his life in Baghdad (which was under the Abbasid control), we are in a sense saying the same thing. However the ambiguity about the term "citizen" should be avoided unless the primary definition (nation-state naturalization or native) is used. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of citizen does not contradict what we know about the Abbasid empire, which had a sophisticated system of taxation, property and land ownership, rights and obligations for its citizens, etc. It was a full-fledged state. Perhaps not a "national" state, whatever that means, but a state nonetheless. Besides, if historians are casually using the term citizen in their discourse about the Abbasid empire, then you and I have no right to proclaim that term to be anachronistic or ambiguous. That would clearly violate WP:OR, as does your assertion that the Abbasids did not give citizenship cards. How do you know? Perhaps they did or had other means of determining whether someone is a citizen or an alien (for instance, we now know that the Umayyad Caliphate had regular censuses [33]). As for al-Khawārizmī, it's a matter of figuring out how many years he lived, what positions he held, and in what parts of the Abbasid empire. It would make little sense to claim that he lived and worked most of his life in the Abbasid capital without being a citizen of the Abbasid empire. These two propositions are contradictory statements. Wiqi - talk 00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You only brought two sources (one of them non-expert) that uses citizen of Abbasid. Even in this case, it would violate WP:OR and WP:synthesis since Khwarizmi is not mentioned. Unless you have a specific academic source that he was "a citizen of the Abbasid empire", then it cannot be inserted in the article. Also there was no citizenship cards back then as the concept of a citizenship card did not exist, despite millions of people who lived under the empire. We cannot work with hypothesis here. Either these is a source specifically that states:" Khwarizmi was a citizen of the Abbasid empire" or there is no point to carrying on this discussion. Kurdo777 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one academic source that describes al-Khawārizmī as such: it's by the Russian orientalist I. M. Filshtinsky ([34]). This should cover your argument and be enough for Wikipedia to use the term. For the general case, I have already provided three sources that use citizen to describe anyone who worked under or payed taxes to the Abbasids. Also Montgomery Watt used it to describe all Arabs and Persians living under the caliphate ([35]). This usage of the term citizen by Watt and others implicitly includes al-Khawārizmī. Finally, it's worth noting that neither the use of this term by historians nor its dictionary definition imply or require the existence of a "citizenship card". So your peculiar definition is irrelevant here. Wiqi - talk 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", what you have found is just one outdated obscure source. The majority of sources, however, simply say: "He lived during the Abbasid Caliphate" or "He lived under the Abbasid Caliphate". (look it up on Google books or scholar) We should go with what the majority of sources say in this case. The concept of citizen is used by one vague source. A sentence such as: "He lived in Baghdad which was under the Abbasid's rule" is more precise, and could be added to the life section. Kurdo777 (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The work of I. M. Filshtinsky is well-known and widely cited in academia (google his name to verify this). And a claim cannot be considered "exceptional" unless there are other sources claiming the opposite, of which there are none. In other words, no historian has ever claimed that al-Khawārizmī was NOT a citizen of the Abbasid Caliphate. It is just your own unsubstantiated POV. On the other hand, those who examined the sociopolitical climate during the Abbasid Caliphate have used citizen, either while explicitly referring to al-Khawārizmī, like Filshtinsky, or while referring to everyone who lived under the Abbasids (including al-Khawārizmī), like Watt, the Encylopaedia of Islam, and many others. So I see no reason why this important view was deleted from the article. Wiqi - talk 21:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Change link from Shi’a Islam to Shia Islam

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the box where we can see he's picture (Infobox Person), please correct the link "Religion" from Shi’a Islam to Shia Islam, so that when clicked the user is not redirected to the deleted article page, instead to Shia Islam.

FROM religion = Shi’a Islam

TO religion = Shia Islam

ՀԱՅ (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

His religion has now been removed due to lack in sources. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry people. Muslims know very well he was a sunni muslim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.81 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Language

• a. His contributions had a great impact on language. That statement is wrong. You cannot say that his contributions had a great impact on language (in general) when some words were derived from his name or some Arabic expressions he used.
• b. There may be other people, sometimes mentioned as the founders of algebra. Their importance pales beside al-Kwarizmi. It is therefore unnecessary to mention them here, in this brief introduction to the artcle. S711 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the "In Renaissance Europe he was considered the original inventor of algebra, although we now know that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources." part. This misconception is still being repeated in popular literature today, but has long been dispelled in academic references. —Ruud 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep it as simple and clear as that, but as I said, it's up to you. S711 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Importance of the Number Zero

My proposition is to add some type of explanation in the "Algebra" section to add some explanation to the importance of making zero a placeholder. For Al-Khwarizmi, the zero was not yet a true number for him to use. A quote: “Only positive square roots yielded answers, because the very idea of a negative root implies the acknowledgement of negative numbers as independent entities having the same mathematical status as positive ones," from the History of Mathematics: An Introduction by David Burton (7th Edition). This statement is important for anyone looking for information on him. Thoughts? Slim3658 (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)MTH314Project

It is unfortunate that it took centuries after al-Khowrizmi before zero was commonly understood and used. Al-Khowrizmi did know zero from the Hindu numeral system but did not use it as proofs when given "had to be geometric to be convincing" (Burton, D. M., 2011, p. 240). Perhaps, it is this geometric view that delayed the development of algebra and other abstract ideas. Burton also informs that it was Fibonacci's Liber Abaci (Book of Counting) in 1202 and its examples that made calculations easy with the "zero" placeholder but this was in the context of real-world applications. Still, mathematical ideas and interest wasn't accessible until printing was invented around 1450. And even then Liber Abaci wasn't printed until 1857.MstoneMTH314 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, some mathematical example could help to highlight the importance of zero as a place holder. 207.118.15.7 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)E.F.

I believe that an update for the number zero because some of his work was revolved around the number zero. Because of Al-Khwarizmi, the thought of zero as a placeholder came about.Slim3658 (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

• Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

De-Ethnicization of Persian Islamic intellectuals

It seems desperate Arab nationalists are on a jihadi endeavour to Arabize everything with an Arab name on wiki, look Arabic was the lingua franca of the area in the medieval era, this does not mean you can categorize everyone of this period as Arabs. No one is trying to cover up the ethnicity of Arab intellectuals of the same era, stop trying to cover peoples identity if it is well known, which in this case is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan Pars (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So... what exactly you think is wrong in the article? You have to be a bit more specific. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Etnicity, but place

Best is: Cental Asian scholar!

Aztone

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī → Al-Khwarizmi per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH

According to google books:

• Muḥammad Ibn-Mūsā al-Khwārizmī 5 ?
• al-Khwarizmi 395

-- Takabeg (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCP (we don't move Barack Obama to Obama either) and WP:COMMONNAME (use the name found in Enlgish-language reliable source, in particular subject-specific encyclopedias):
  • Toomer, Gerald (1990). "Al-Khwārizmī, Abu Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Mūsā". In Gillispie, Charles Coulston (ed.). Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 7. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-16962-2. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Brentjes, Sonja (2007). "Khwārizmī: Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al‐Khwārizmī" in Thomas Hockey et al. (eds.). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, Springer Reference. New York: Springer, 2007, pp. 631–633.
  • Dunlop, Douglas Morton (1943). "Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Khwārizmī". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (2). Cambridge University: 248–250. JSTOR 25221920. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews
  • Rosen, Fredrick (1831). The Algebra of Mohammed Ben Musa. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 1-4179-4914-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Vogel, Kurt (1968). Mohammed ibn Musa Alchwarizmi's Algorismus; das früheste Lehrbuch zum Rechnen mit indischen Ziffern. Nach der einzigen (lateinischen) Handschrift (Cambridge Un. Lib. Ms. Ii. 6.5) in Faksimile mit Transkription und Kommentar herausgegeben von Kurt Vogel. Aalen, O. Zeller.
  • Suter, Heinrich. [Ed.]: Die astronomischen Tafeln des Muhammed ibn Mûsâ al-Khwârizmî in der Bearbeitung des Maslama ibn Ahmed al-Madjrîtî und der latein. Übersetzung des Athelhard von Bath auf Grund der Vorarbeiten von A. Bjørnbo und R. Besthorn in Kopenhagen. Hrsg. und komm. Kopenhagen 1914. 288 pp. Repr. 1997 (Islamic Mathematics and Astronomy. 7). ISBN 3-8298-4008-X.
  • Mžik, Hans von (1916). "Afrika nach der arabischen Bearbeitung der γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις des Cl. Ptolomeaus von Muh. ibn Mūsa al-Hwarizmi". Denkschriften d. Akad. D. Wissen. In Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. 59. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Mžik, Hans von (1926). Das Kitāb Ṣūrat al-Arḍ des Abū Ǧa‘far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḫuwārizmī. Leipzig.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

—Ruud 07:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We can find some samples for Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī . But it will never become a WP:COMMONNAME of him in English language. -- Takabeg (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME carefully. It requires us to follow English-language reliable sources. The Further reading section contains a near complete bibliography of the reliable sources written on al-Khwārizmī. Nearly all of those use "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī" or a variant transliteration. —Ruud 08:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose According to WP:NCP , the format "<First Name> <Last Name>" applies to the majority of biographical articles on Wikipedia . Al-Khwarizmi , is not the name of the scientist , but it is an Epithet.By using Al-Khwarizmi , how can we distinguish between Al-Khwarizmi 1 , Al-Khwarizmi 2 and Al-Khwarizmi 3?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose That's like suggesting that we move Leonardo Da Vinci to Da Vinci. —Mark Dominus (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect image caption in the Algebra Section

The pair of images of the Arabic and English manuscripts are labeled incorrectly. The Arabic is to the left, and the English to the right. Furthermore, I'm not really sure why the "Right" image would be described first. So simply switching the words Left and Right in the caption should be good. Thesquaregroot (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

al khwarizmi was an Islamic pantheist

almost all Islamic philosophers were pantheists, the page describes Islamic Pantheism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastren (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Muslim scientists were not pantheists, some Ash'ari, some were orthodox, Mutazilite, and some were Shi'a. Islamic Pantheism is new modern movement based on Ah'arite and Mutazilite schools of thought--BelalSaid (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace and categories

Britannica states that he was born in Baghdad [36]. Why is this left out ?! The categories he is included in are also missing some info. Unflavoured (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are ambiguous on whether he came from Chorasmia or Baghdad. See e.g. the article by Toomer in the DSB, which is much more nuanced than EB. —Ruud 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But this is not reflected in the article. It should state that some sources say he was born here, while other sources state that her was born there. Unflavoured (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Link Indian Numerals in infobox

In the infobox below the image for the Known for section link Indian numerals to the Wiki Page like Indian Numerals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminatus7 (talk • contribs) 15 October 2012

Done. A request to wikify existing text is uncontroversial. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Name

Abu 'Abdallah al-Khwarizmi was actually another muslim scholar who died in 997 and wrote the book Mafatih al-'ulum (The Keys of Knowledge)This al-Khwarizmi was called Abu Ja'far. Sources: Ignác Goldziher: The Short History of the Arabic Literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.181.43.180 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See the footnote at the bottom. The literature is quite confused on this topic. —Ruud 12:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

See also our article on the author of the Mafatih, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khwarizmi. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Al-Khwari*th*mi in Classical Arabic?

This is not true: "The word al-Khwarizmi is pronounced in classical Arabic as Al-Khwarithmi hence the Latin transliteration."

Source: Obvious to a native Arabic speaker and a google search for "الخوارذمي or الخوارثمي" reveals 5 and 1 hits, respectively. Please change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.246 (talk) 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I should like to know which dialect changed it. The Greek language has a perfectly suitable "Z" consonant. Latin, though, doesn't use it much except in loans; and the Spaniards especially have been known to lisp. My money's on Andalusia. --Zimriel (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

His name

hi, if khwarazmi was a persian why we ve written his name in ARABIC ??? Greekogreeko (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

His name (more so his father's name) isn't really Arabic. It's Qur'anic. It's like saying that Elijah Wood is a Jew just because his name makes sense in Hebrew. Wood was simply given a name out of the Bible. --Zimriel (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Persian or Khwarazmian?

There seems to be an edit war going on about this. I'd like to point out that none of the specialist sources I've checked mention anyting about his ethnicity. His article in the Encyclopedia of Islam starts with "mathematician, astronomer and geographer, who utilised the Arabic language. [...] We know that in his youth, during the caliphate of al-Ma'mun, he worked in the Bayt al-Hikma [q.v.] of Baghdad, but we know very few other biographical details." (2nd edition, vol. 4, p. 1070) Also in Britannica he is described as a "Muslim mathematician"[37]. There is no mention of his ethnicity anywhere. This is also the case for the other encyclopedias linked in Further reading; none of them use "Persian". Unless we know something about his biography that the other encyclopedias didn't know (seems unlikely), I suggest that we remove "Persian" from the lede. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wiqi we should change the name , it seems that some people here have political motivated agendas to add and edit wikipedia for their one benefit and not for all readers and everyone,

Khwarazmi was a khwaramian which is a indo-european people, does this make all the rest of the indo-european in the world, germanics, slavics, kelts, and half of the world, persian, as they claim here some of the defenders of the persian theory, also their are claims of khwarazm being persian controlled but that was several centries ago befoer khwarazmian was born, that user seem to be very little informed, persian power ended in the arab conquest of central asia, and that was 200 years after khwarazmis death, before that turks and arabs controlled which according to his theory he should been an arab or turk, however, the majority of the natives in khwarazm was indo-european and not persian, its not the same thing, others claim that biruni said that khwarazmian and perians were the same , but thats doubtful , according to heredotus, there was one million soldiers of the persian army invading greece, which cant be taken seriously because the land cant feed one million soldiers, there arent one milliion perisian men avaiable , so history afterwards have to take in consideration what is likey or not likely even if the priamery source wrote this or that,

Also I have noticed aggresive opionions and allegations and accusations to other users for example by arya pars, who claims that their is only arabs nationalistics trying to make room for themselvs, its not appropriate but wikipedias guidelines to behave this way, the user should be warned or banned,

please give your opinions,--Siktirgitir (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

Idealy, the editors who reverted you are now expected to explain their action. And yes, some people do push a nationalist agenda here on Wikipedia. This is usually done by citing poor-quality sources or ignoring ones that deal extensively with the subject and happen to be more faithful to the primary source (which I assume doesn't say anything about al-K's ethnicity). BTW, a similar problem also exists in the lede of Biruni. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

thank you mr Wiqi, I really appricaite your opionions, you are a hero to mankind by spreading objective and true information, I wanted point out that,

as you say quote "This is usually done by citing poor-quality sources or ignoring ones that deal extensively with the subject and happen to be more faithful to the primary source" I totally agree, also in the biruni topic, thank you for enlighting this problem,----Siktirgitir (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)siktirgitir

One of the cited sources for his ethnicity obviously say that he was Persian:

Al-Khwarizmi himself was of Persian stock, his ancestors coming from Khwarezm, in distant Transoxania. The Banu Musa, al-Mahani, and a host of others in the intellectual circle of ninth century Baghdad, were also Persians.

So you can't remove his ethnicity just by starting a section on the talk page and a removal just based on your personal claims. The article is clear and the reverts have no problem. I've reviewed this edit warring that started by Siktirgitir and if he/she continues, admins will decide about him/her. If you think "Khwarizmian" is something different than "Persian", use your reliable sources, but DO NOT delete current cited sources. Also remember Persian and Persian-speaking are Iranic, and Iranic is Indo-European. Khwarizmian is Iranic too. So your nonsense "Indo-European" claim is not helpful for this article. Can you define "Indo-Europeans"? Zyma (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Zyma, could you explain why the other encyclopedias (especially the ones with long and authoritative articles) do not use "Persian" anywhere in their articles? Also, the term Persian has multiple meanings. It can refer to Persian people, but it can also more loosely refer to anyone in Iran and parts of Central Asia who speaks an Indo-European language. To avoid confusion, some historians explain which sense of Persian they mean (e.g., [38], see n.21). Thus we can't just assume that any source which uses Persian automatically implies Persian people. That would be original research. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Al-Xwārazmī on the Peoples of Central Asia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25202803

09:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's about the author of the Mafatih, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khwarizmi, not this Khwarizmi. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not the "Jewish Calendar" it is the "BabylonCity Calendar"

"Babylonian Calendar" is what Post-Age-of-Mohammed European Roman Catholics introduced to avoid referring to the Baghdad, Headquarters of the Golden Age. "Babylonian" as a word has an etymology that starts in the 1400's AD well after the Inquisition started in 1184 AD. Also Babylon was a city in Iraq and not a nation, just as Israel was a city in Phoenicia. This latin and english mistake of exaggerating Biblical interpretation of "cities" as "nations" is ridiculous. The 19 year Calendar Predates the stories in the Book of Genesis. The other 4 books of the Torah were all written in Iraq. And the Rivers of Eden in Genesis 2 are also in Iraq. Noah's boat floated upstream and landed on a Mount Ararat in Iraq. etc etc. Europe failed at the Crusades so the best the Catholics could do was Corrupt Biblical Greek words that said "Babylonian City Calendar" instead of admit "Iraqi National Calendar" existed.

Egyptian artifacts in 1150 BCE phonetically name Palestine and (the 450 BCE Greek "Histories") confirm it predated King Saul and King David by hundred of years. Those Kings were Mayors of Cities, not Nations. The whole scale of information in the Bible is exaggerated and some authors are just plain wrong, stopping short of calling them lies. 108.196.192.38 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

al-Kawarizmi is Arab, NOT Iranian, NOT Persian

Greetings,

Some people are trying to distort history and claim that al-Khwarizmi was not Arab but Persian/Iranian. Without even looking at the sources cited by them in Wikipedia, which show that these books know little about him, you can clearly see evidences that he was an Arab person:

1- His full name is Arabic name, which logically indicate that he was Arab person. His full name have no indication whatsoever that he was a Persian. Some people claim that, because his last name was al-Khwarizmi and there was a region called Khwarizm in what is called now Iran (there was no Iran in 780 AD. Iran was founded in 1935 only), he must be a Persians and Iranian. This is false reasoning. If somebody's last name is similar to or exactly the same as a name of a region, this does not mean that this person is from that region. It could be coincident or just name-on-name. A well known family named the-Egyptians that lives in Saudi Arabia now and their ancestors never been to Egypt ever. However, the possibility that al-Khwarizmi was born in Khwarizm and moved later to Iraq remains a possibility. But without evidence that preclude evidences number 2 and 3 below, this possibility is less likely to be cogent/strong.

2- He wrote his entire book in in Arabic language and only in Arabic language. If he was Persian or Iranian as what some people claim, why did he write his book in Arabic language if his native language was not Arabic? I hope those who disagree with me can answer this question. Secondly and hypothetically, If he was a bilingual (Persian and Arabic language was his second language), why would he write his most important and complex book entirely in Arabic language with no single Persian letter or simple in it? Those are tough questions for those who claim that al-Khwarizmi was Persian or Iranian. Please answer them and show your resources and evidences.

3- He lived in Baghdad, Iraq. I hope nobody will disagree with me on that because all books agree on this.

To conclude, a person whose name is Arabic name, wrote his book in Arabic language, and lived in Arabic city, he is more likely to be an Arab person. Especially that little known about al-Khwarizmi and those who claim he was Persian or Iranian failed to back their claims with evidences.

Hassan Tam

1. Almost all non-Arab medieval Muslim authors were using Arabic names. Even medieval Persian poets -- most of whom wrote exclusively in Persian -- were using Arabic names, see Category:Persian poets.

2. He was not "a bilingual (Persian and Arabic language was his second language)". His native language was Khwarezmian, and like any other medieval Muslim author, he knew Arabic, which was the lingua franca of Muslim World back then. Not just Khwarezmi, but most of medieval Persian and other non-Arab authors wrote their works exclusively in Arabic language. There may be many Japanese authors who write in English, should we consider them as Angles?

3. He migrated to Baghdad, just like any other major Muslim scholar, since the House of Wisdom was over there. Regarding "Arabic city", many of the people in Iraq were Persians and non-Arabs such as Assyrians. Even the administrative language of Iraq was Middle Persian until the reign of al-Hajaj ibn Yusuf. (Iraq/Asurestan was part of Persian Empire for hundreds of years, it was called "The Heart of Eranshahr" during Parthian and Sassanian Empires)

Anyway: If you have any reliable source, you can integrate them in the article; otherwise be advised that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Z 12:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Groundless and False 19th century Eurocentric Claim that Khwarizmi Works are based on Greek Sources.

"In Renaissance Europe, he was considered the original inventor of algebra,although it is now known that his work is based on older Indian or Greek sources." This is very false and baseless to say that his work is based on Greek or Indian sources. There are NO legit sources that support this claim. This claim could only be made by a 19th century Eurocentric person. We would not possibly know what algebra is if it wasn't for the time and dedication that this man put in his works, also would not have no decimal system if it wasn't for this man. even if it was invented 100,000 years before him. It is very insulting to claim something based on groundless facts that his works that he worked hard to get done does not belong to him.

For those who claim that Khwarizmi was an Arab/Muslim because his writing was in Arabic. I should remind you that Arabic were official language of the Abbasid Empire which was FORECED upon people and also you could not possibly work in House of Wisdom and get support from caliphate if you were not a Muslim. Therefore it is possible that many scholars of the time especially Eastern Iranian origin had faked their religious beliefs or converted to Islam later in life before they join house of wisdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshtonBerlitz (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

i agree with what you are saying, but the wikipedia has this policy of using only reliable sources which means you have to find a published source which agrees with your point of view before you can make the change. The current text you have quoted appears to be from a published source (rossen 1831) and hence will require consensus to remove. alternatively you could look for other sources which agree with you and feel free to remove this source as minority point of view. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the <big> tags from your comment—we're all equal here! The fundamental problem is that there is an industry of "boosterism" where people put a lot of effort into adding stuff like "X is the father of Algebra" to further some personal interest. That happens everywhere, not just at Wikipedia. See #Misuse of sources above for a well-known case of an editor who put thousands of such edits in articles. I just checked each of Jagged's edits and it seems others added (April 2005) the "father of algebra" meme—before that it was "grandfather of computer science"!). As editors became aware of the silliness of X is the father of Y, the wording was changed to something more plausible, and a series of tweaks have resulted in what now appears. When someone writes a textbook they often want to include a paragraph or two of human interest, and they might copy anything that meets that need. That leads to a circle of "reliable sources" that quote each other to reinforce the meme. Only a super-specialist with extremely good language and history skills could reach a reasonable conclusion about what to say in an article like this, and that would take several years. If we can find a reliable source written by such a specialist, the article could be improved. Until then, there's not a great deal that can be done. If you would like to examine the sources in the article and report here on what they say (or find other sources), we could possibly improve the text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015: fix link to Wiktionary in article

The quotation after the second paragraph in the section "Life" contains the bracketed text:

… between whom the letter wa [Arabic 'و' for the article 'and'] has been omitted …

The link and points to a nonexistent entry in the Arabic Wiktionary. Moreover, 'and' is a conjunction, not an article. I suggest replacing the bracketed text with:

[Arabic 'و' for the conjunction 'and']

which is the appropriate entry for the Arabic word in the English Wiktionary. Thanks. 189.30.253.246 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ruud Koot: the text changed in the brackets does not appear in the source quote; it's an editorial clarification per WP:BRACKETS. You may see the source on page 108 of this (end of first paragraph of note 1). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2015

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī → Al-Khwarizmi – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is redundantly too long to even type, and not as common as the proposed title. The shorter, "Al-Khwarizmi" is the COMMONNAME as per RS and even the article itself, and already redirects to the article. As for the diacritics, Google Books search shows "Al-Khwarizmi" and "Al-Khwārizmī" are both common in English language books, though "Al-Khwarizmi" (without diacritics) tends to be more common in the titles of books written about him. Furthermore, as per the policy on WP:MOSAR, standard transliteration is preferred over strict transliteration. "If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used". As per the table on WP:MOSAR#Long vowels, a standard transliteration should not use diacritics; only a strict transliteration may use diacritics. (Titles of other articles using standard transliterations also do not use diacritics, including Al-Biruni, Masjid al-Haram, etc.) Hence our title of the article using standard transliteration should not use diacritics either. Khestwol (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as #Requested move (2011): our article on Obama is located at Barack Obama and our article on Da Vinci at Leonardo da Vinci per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). —Ruud 16:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: the current name is not in a first name last name format. The current title includes a given name, a father name, and then a geographical name. Hence your comparison seems invalid. Khestwol (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And the "da" in Leonardo da Vinci is neither a first, nor a last name, but a preposition. The same reasoning still applies. —Ruud 16:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Still no reason whatsoever has been provided why we should continue to use the diacritics in the title when the standard transliteration of WP:MOSAR doesn't use them. Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The rejection of diacritics in what is the scholarly standard is confusing to me as they impart rather crucial information and they are widely-used for many other languages. This is a scholarly romanization that goes back a very, very long time. It's not like some newfangled fad and it's part of their name. Here's an example: "Huế () is the capital city of Thừa Thiên–Huế Province, Vietnam. Between 1802 and 1945, it was the imperial capital of the Nguyễn dynasty." Ogress _smash! 21:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not "scholarly." And no one off Wikipedia writes like that. Compare: "Hue (hwā) [key], city (1989 pop. 260,489), former capital of the historic region of Annam, Vietnam, in a rich farming area on the Hue River near the South China Sea."[39] ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. It is unlikely that a visitor will type the full "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī" to reach this article. They are more likely to type the WP:COMMONNAME to find this article, which is "Al-Khwarizmi". Khestwol (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We have redirects and a search engine for that. This is a non argument. Most visitors will find the article on Albert Einstein by typing merely "Einstein". —Ruud 16:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • We must move to WP:COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I can only assume you have not actually read WP:COMMONNAME. See #Requested move (2011) for why "al-Khwarizmi" is not the "common name" per that policy. In either case, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) would take precedence. —Ruud 16:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
        • WP:NCP#Single name favors, clearly, the proposed title. Book titles commonly use the single name to refer to him hence ambiguity is not a problem, and WP:CONCISE favors the proposed title too. Khestwol (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Book titles most certainly do not commonly use the single name. See the long list of titles given at #Requested move (2011). —Ruud 16:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A counter evidence can be found at the Google books link in the nomination post. Khestwol (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Google searches are unreliable, and WP:COMMONNAME states we should use reliable sources. The same argument could be used to argue that Ludwig van Beethoven should be moved to Beethoven, which we shouldn't. —Ruud 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Google Books search is our most reliable tool to determine WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources in English. Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as #Requested move (2011): our article on Obama is located at Barack Obama and our article on Da Vinci at Leonardo da Vinci per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Ogress _smash! 21:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely no one is using the current title. See this ngram. "Al-Khwārizmī," appears to be the encyclopedic form of the name. ConstitutionalRepublic (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)