Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

footnotes all messed up

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

Was he Arab or Persian? Does it really matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) I read your comments, but I find them without a base. Again you are being repetitive and the comments have no relevance since you agree his origin is from Chorasmia and he was not of Arab ancestry. That is sufficient to make him non-Arab. Since his asl (root) according to Ibn Nadeem was from Khwarizm he is Chorasmian Iranian and not Arab.

2)Working in Baghdad does not make you an Arab since Baghdad was a Multi-ethnic city. For example I mention the two Abbasid Vazirs who were not Arabs during the time of Khwarizmi. His children is not relevant and neither is his great great great grandchildren. Also the Children of Kurds in Baghdad are also Kurds not Arabs. You basic argument is that Khwarizmi moved to Baghdad. Mind you as I said several times Baghdad was a Multi-ethnic city and today there is even 500,000 Kurds who are not Arabs. There are many Armenians in Baghdad as well. Also if we are going to quarrel over the Arabic names of many Iranians, then Baghdad is a Persian non-Arab name. But Majoosi and Khwarizmi are not Arabic names and do not have Arabic etymologies. Also Al-Farabi wrote all his work in Arabic but he was from Central Asia and was not an Arab.

3) On your third comment thanks for agreeing that the word Khwarizmi is not an Arabic name which again proves my point. This was part of his name as mentioned by Ibn-Nadeem. So is the word al-Majoosi which is not Arab. Also I mentioned the name of a Zoroastrian poet from Khorasan which is all Arab: Abu Mansur al-Daqiqi. So this argument is really weak. Most Iranians or at least a very reasonable percentage have Arabic first name and last name. Alireza Asefi for example who is the presidental speaker. Hoddaad 'Aadel. Just like most Americans have Hebrew names: Mike, John, Matthew, Moses, Abraham, Sean (a variation of John)..

4) The comparison between Arab and American and Baghdad to New York is groundless. American is a citizenship and in New York you find thousands of groups and ethnicities. But the Abbasid empire did not grant citizenship card and being an Arab is not a citizenship, but an ethnicity. Also at the same time, the comparison is not too bad, since both Baghdad and New York city were multi-ethnic.

5) I have many sources like prominent Harvard Professor Richard Frye. I said I am not a specialist in the history of Islamic Mathematics. But Prof. Jeffery Oaks is and he wrote a while back, here is exact quote from Prof. Oaks:

I was quite surprised to see my article on al-Khwarizmi mentioned so often in the discussion section of the Wicopedia article on al-Khwarizmi! I'm writing to you now to help in two directons: (1) to give you an account of my background and more recent work, and (2) to steer you and others toward reliable sources on Islamic/Arabic mathematics.

(1) I began studying medieval mathematics in 1999, having studied Roman history for many years before. It is true that my article "Was al-Khwarizmi an applied algebraist?" relied heavily on secondary sources, but I can tell you, after several years of deep immersion in the field, that they are reliable sources. At the time I was just beginning to read Arabic---I have the good luck to have Haitham Alkhateeb, a native Arabic speaker, as a colleague. I continue to pester him with questions, though less and less as the years pass. Now I am finishing up writing my 3rd, 4th, and 5th articles on Arabic algebra. See my web page for a description of the first two:

http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Oaks.htm

I can send you pdf versions if you like.

(2) For good sources on various aspects of medieval Islamic mathematics, see my online bibliography:

http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/Biblio/Intro.htm

Over 2,500 books and articles are arranged by topic. Many books & articles are for the general public, which I label "Introductory". Let me know if you want any guidance here.

Regarding the ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi: he was a Persian who wrote in Arabic and who worked in Baghdad. Most scholars in Baghdad at the time were Persians, and many were still Zoroastrian (though al-Kh was apparently a Muslim). This is not to slight the Arabs: the great (perhaps greatest?) Islamic philosopher, al-Kindi, was an Arab. The predominance of Persians in intellectual fields was due to cultural trends. Persia had an old tradition of learning, which had been supported by the vast Sasanian state and earlier Persian dynasties. The Arabs, up to the time of the prophet, had been traders and herdsmen, with little motive to study science (though they had a rich tradition of folk poetry). But of course, once the Muslims had conquered the Persian empire, things changed. As the decades passed, the Persian element faded. By, say, the 12th c., a scholar in the Muslim world could have just about any ethnic or cultural background.

I must add that it is a pity that just saying "Persian astronomer/mathematician" should raise so many objections! The word "Persian" to me places al-Khwarizmi geographically, and tells me something of his cultural background. Iranians can feel proud of this label if they like, while Arabs can point out in return that the man wrote in Arabic.

By the way, a couple days ago I did insert a few comments in the "discussion" section of the sub-article on his work in algebra.

Best wishes,

 Jeff Oaks

-- Jeffrey A. Oaks, Associate Professor & chair Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Indianapolis 1400 E. Hanna Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46227

6) Arabs were not familiar with Persian Zoroastrian calendar, but the Gregorian calendar comes through the Arabized Christians and Foreign rule. That is why Arabs never have used Persian Zoroastrian calendar for their work and only Iranians writing in Arabic have. Just show me an instance of one major Arab Scholar (and scholars who wrote in Arabic with their roots in Iran and Central Asia do not count) using the Zoroastrian calendar instead of the Hijra lunar calendar.. If you can show me an instance, then I won't use argument 6 here although the other arguments are sufficient themselves.

7) Serving in Baghdad does not make you an Arab just like the American soldier that is serving in Afghanistan then Baghdad does not became an Afghan and then Arab. And even living in Baghdad right does not mean you are Arab since hundreds of thousands of Kurds live there right now. Back in the Abbasid times Baghdad was much more mixed. Do not forget the early caliphs inherited Iraq from the Persian empire. Your argument is basically like saying Salman al-Farsi was an Arab because he lived most of his life in Arabia! Whereas it does not even hold for the case of multi-ethnic Baghdad. The bottom line is that Khwarizmi is from Chorasmia. He is not even a middle eastern let alone an Arab. If there should be a disagreement about him, which there shouldn’t be, it should be over whether he was Iranian or Turkic and we know he was Iranian since the area was not turkified and he had the title al-Majoosi plus the quotes of Biruni. Writing in Arabic does not make an Arab (and btw using Persian calendar means that he wrote in Persian since all the names in Persian calendar are Persian and the Persican calendar has a name for each day of the month). Again do not repeat the same thing. Baghdad was a multi-ethnic city and even today there is 500,000 Kurds in Baghdad. Before Saddam's racist policy there was a large Iranian community in Baghdad as well. Also the Abbasid army strangely enough slowly became domianted by Turks.. all these statements are backed up by the most impeccable references. --alidoostzadeh 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

section header

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

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

I know the discussion is non-productive, so why don't we just put a lock on that section without locking the rest of the article, if possible. As Professor Oaks said:'Regarding the ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi: he was a Persian who wrote in Arabic and who worked in Baghdad. Most scholars in Baghdad at the time were Persians, and many were still Zoroastrian (though al-Kh was apparently a Muslim).. I also mentioned Professor Bergen who has corrected the previous texts he wrote : [4]. Note these are Professors currently active in the actual field. That is why I do not think we should compromise. Note how Prof. Bergen corrected himself. Also to say he was Middle-Eastern is false (although it would get rid of the constant revisions but it is just false). He was from Chorasmia and moved with his family to the Middle east. The area of Chorasmia produced a good amount of scientists during that era. Another one as you already know is Biruni and it is amazing that Biruni predicted many geological phenomenons that were disovered only in the last century. The fact is that some users will not be satisfied and for them Muslim is equal to Arab and they will always try to neglect the massive Iranian contributions to the common Islamic civilization. I am sure the French would not be too happy if some people in the future claimed that Pascal was British and the British would not be too happy if some French people claimed Newton as French.--alidoostzadeh 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but exactly why would "Middle Eastern" be false? —Ruud 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and it is a great question to ask since not too many people know about Chorasmia where Khwarizmi (Chorasmi) is from. . The area of Chorasmia (about modern Uzbekistan) is part of Central Asia and not Middle East. Look at the map here: [5]. For more historical background: [6] [7]. Middle Eastern at least in US, when applying for citizenship, denotes a person born in the Middle East. Khwarizmi was Central Asian as Prof. Bergen mentions. --alidoostzadeh 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This argument does not belong here. You are not suppose to do any research. Here at Wikipedia we only put what reliable sources says. If it says he is an Arab, we put that. If it does not agree on that, then we put both point of views. The policy is very clear on that. --Islamic 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually talk page is for bringing argument. And also you wrong, when there is an argument, we can seek outside expert arbitration and overhere we have seeked neutral experts who are experts in the relavent field. BTW are you Sultanio? Bottom line is that experts in Mathematical History of Islamic era agree that Al-Khwarizmi was not an Arab and these are not nameless people, but Professor with many citations and publications. He was from Khwarazm and his epiphet was al-majoosi. He was Iranian. Some old sources have even mentioned Avicenna as an Arab, but now they are changing. There was a time in the West where Muslim and Arabs were equivalent and people did not distinguish them. Slowly this is coming to end. I have shown ample proof that Khwarizmi was Iranian and this is backed by several experts I quoted on Mathematics of the Islamic world. Khwarazm was never remotely Arab even. --alidoostzadeh 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The guy was Arab, put this in your head! He was an Arab! I changed it BTW. User: Koolboy

Saying that Khwarizmi was arab is like saying Ghandi was English.

Last time I checked, Ghandi's name is NOT English, he DID NOT do his work serving the Queen of England, and he DID NOT live his productive life in London, how did you come up with that phrase?... I have no clue. As for the discussion, if a man lives in Iraq/Baghdad, speaks arabic, writes books in arabic, and his name is arabic,then it is truly mere foolishness to say he wasn't an Arab... if he was not an Arab then most of people in Iraq today are not Arabs by the same definition. And saying he is a Persian just because his FAMILY NAME hints he or one of his ancestors originally came from somewhere that was once (before his birth probably) UNDER persian control (not even Iran itself), is just like saying Ghandi was English... I suggest whoever isn't familiar with the way surnames/family names are given specifically in Iraq, to go do some research. --SandHawk 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  --Lambiam 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this funny, just because an unknown history book said he was Persian wikipedia insists he must be, if your only proof is a book that a modern historian wrote, why aren't you considering al-Khawarizmi's books? they are written in arabic you know, and again, Khawarizm isn't a part from Persia, it was under their control for some time, but it was always a part from Turkey, why not consider he was from Turkey instead?

I think his books should be considered the number one lead.

and I still find it very reasonable to not mention either Arabic or Persian, as there is no way to make sure of it, the world was a different place than what it is today. --SandHawk 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives before jumping into discussion. There was a long debate and in the end two Professors of mathematical history (one from Princeton) gave their verdict. He was not from Baghdad. He was from Chorasmia (Ibn Nadeem) which at that time spoke Persian-based language (per another Chorasmian Biruni). Also part of his name was al-Majusi showing his Zoroastrian ancestry besides the fact that he calculated everything in Zoroastrian. See this about Biruni [8] who was also from the area. Chorasmia is part of Central Asia and not Turkey. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the summary the reasoning based upon the archives: [9] --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizmi isn't even mentioned once in List of films about mathematicians :( —Ruud 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

His ethnicity (again)

This issue has essentially been going on since...forever! Is there any way we can resolve this once and for all? Khoikhoi 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi was Arab. His name is Arabic. He lived in Baghdad - part of the Arab World. All his writings are in Arabic. So what exactly is Persian about him? Acts like duck, looks like a duck, talks like a duck...it is a ____? Yes, the answer is a "duck" - NOT a "camel". Okay I think we get the picture now. Khalilak 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an inherent problem of Wikipedia: anyone can edit and WP:RS isn't enforced strictly enough. —Ruud 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizmi's name is not arabic. Khwarizm is a region to the east of Iran and west of Afgahnistan. He lived in Baghdad because in those days, Baghdad was a scholarly center and he wrote in arabic because the language of science was arabic. Just as a German scientist that lives in New York and writes in English remains German, Khwarizmi remains persian.

Even if he had migrated to Baghdad from Apar (Khwarizm) this doesn't mean that he was Persian. This area has always been Turkic for almost 1500 years that time, it's even stated in Orkhon script. Stop that illusional Persian chauvanism that's claiming everyone is Persian. --BlueEyedCat 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Ghandi was arab is like saying Gandhi was English -- User: Bozorg

my name is arabic but I am a persian

It is clear that your name cannot change your race and birthplace.I am a persian with complete arabic name.this is common in all islamic countries if your father named you mohammad. Kharazm is a persian state in old days.

Baghdad is a persian name means: Gift of God. Tehran is an Arabic name! Besides at those days there were very little arab people outside Arabia.Baghdad was an anceint persian city those days. Syria was Roman state too.We cannot talk about about ancient arab nation as we talk about modern-arabs: epyptian<>ancient-Arab but today epytians are modern arabs. Toaday Kharazmia is a part of Uzbakistan.But at the old-ages it was a persian state with persian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved before I unprotect

I've been asked to unprotect. However, I don't think I should, given that the edit war is just going to start right back up again. I've noticed that the version that says he is arab only references encyclopedia articles, which are unacceptable. The version that says he's persian has no footnotes; refs should be added, citing "there's a lot of discussion in the talk page" is not going to be enough to stop the edit war.

May I ask the community on this page to consider keeping the current edit?- that is, removing mention of his ethnicity from the lead. Or is that unacceptable? Borisblue 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the problem will stop if we applied Wikipedia's policy on these issues: Both referenced point of views need to be mentioned in the article. --Islamic 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The version that says he's persian has no footnotes: the three footnotes at the end of the first sentence point to acceptable references. They used to be positioned directly behind the word Persian, but I think they look better at the end of the sentence. removing mention of his ethnicity from the lead: as stated I have stated above and in the archives many times I would find this acceptable (albeit unfortunate, as it allows the reader to place him in the a cultural and geographic context) but it would not stop this (very slow) edit war. The word Persian/Arabic/Islamic/Muslim/Zoroastrian would still be inserted every now and then. —Ruud 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was shown in the discussion pages using secondary sources that he was Persian? Maybe I am wrong.Khosrow II 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that modern experts in mathematical history have already it made it clear he is Persian. If someone wants to challenge what is in the discussion archives, they need to read it first and bring something new since I have already brought all the major primary sources. --alidoostzadeh 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying that sources exist. I am saying that you should cite them on the article! This will discourage casual users from changing the 'persian' into Arab Borisblue 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Check sources 1 2 and 3 .. I can summarize the discussion here,Although I think it is beneficial to concentrate more on the mathematics. But in the dicsussion we have shown that Khwarizmi used the Zoroastrian calendar, had an ephiphet Al-Majoosi showing Iranian ancestry and was from Chorasmia. So that is why experts in the history of mathematics do not consider him an Arab. I brought emails and discussions from expert and even a major Professor who 20 years ago wrote Arab but now consistenly writes Persian. --alidoostzadeh 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Applying Wikipedia's rules in his ethnicity

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. And since we find sources that say he was arab AND was perisan, we include BOTH. Anybody who has a problem with that, should first of all, change the Wikipedia:Verifiability rule, which BTW I didn't make Jidan 18:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not when there are published reliable primary sources that say otherwise. Encyclopedias are secondary sources. --ManiF 18:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Who are you to say what is a primary source and what is not? 2)The rules are clear, readWikipedia:Verifiability carefully, the source has just to be reliable, no mention about primary/secondary. And an Encyclopedia like coloumbia encyclopedia, or an article by a professor, is a reliable source. Jidan 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tertiary sources, like Britannica or COlumbia Encyclopedia, are deemed less reliable than secondary sources written by professionals in the field. Beit Or 21:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And from where do sources like Britannica or COlumbia Encyclopedia get ther info from? ;-) Jidan 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody knows where they get their material from or who writes their entries. There are, however, scholarly encyclopedias, like the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which are written by the best-known experts in the field and are geared towards researchers rather than the general public. Such encyclopedias are reliable and acceptable. Beit Or 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are being very bias here. You first say Tertiary sources, like Britannica or COlumbia Encyclopedia, are less reliable than secondary sources, although the former orignially get thier info from primary/secondary sources, und unlike artclies written years ago by proferssors, these encyclopedias continuesly update thier info each year. Then you say that Encyclopaedia of Islam, are written by experts, to imply that Britannica or COlumbia Encyclopedia are written by amatuers. Jidan 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica and Columbia are mostly written by freelances with no expertise in the field they are covering. Beit Or 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica/Columbia use the outdated concept of Muslim=Arab for many of the great scholars who were not Arabs. The fact is Encyclopedia of Islam is a much more specialized source as is Encyclopedia Iranica (see the article on Chorasmia). Also the Professors of Mathematics history have also been named. --alidoostzadeh 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also the britannica article you cite is not from EB, but from the student's edition, which Britannica itself has admitted (in their reply to Nature's Britannica/Wikipedia comparision) oversimplifies things (e.g. Nature found "errors" in those articles but Britannica called them "simplifications".) There is also a big difference in reliablitly in a signed article from Britannica and an unsigned one from Columbia. Unsigned articles are generally not written by experts, and the sources the authour of that article used should be used as our sources instead. —Ruud 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. But, what sources do I still have to provide? Jidan 19:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Something published in a reputable series/journal on the history of mathematics. —Ruud 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And books? Jidan 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think something published by professor of mathematical history who is accessible via email and who has published in peer reviewed mathematical journals. This has been the case for the correct historical fact as Prof. Oaks and Bergen (who 20 years ago use to write Arab but now consistently writes Persian) have demonstrated. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have sent emails to the authors of this article [10]. In this article they named as reference 53 books/articles [11] and they didn't say he Persian or Arab. They have also wrote articles on Histroy of Mathematics (go to thier persoanl homepage). A question to Ali, Howmany professors have you actually contacted? (including the replies you didn't like) Jidan 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I contacted Professor Oaks and Professor Bergen. You actually brought Professor Bergen which in his older texts used to garble Muslim and Arab. But after contacting him he said the text was from 20 years and now he consistently writes Persian. Note there are not too many Professors of history of Mathematics specializing in the Islamic era. The fact is that all the scanty materials on Khwarizmi's life has been compiled and he was from Chorasmia far from any Arabic speaking land, he used Zoroastrian calendar and according to some sources part of his name was Al-Majusi. He also spent time in the courts of Khazars according to some sources. I do not think writing a biography on Khwarizmi is possible but these scanty evidences are sufficient. Note it has already been mentioned that he wrote all his work in Arabic and we can even mention that he contributed to the mathematics of the Islamic

era. But he was not an Arab. --alidoostzadeh 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that you consistently ignore the fact that he used the Jewish calender, yet nobody claims him to be a Jew. You don't become a Persian by using some religious calender, that's a false assumption. MB

First bring your proof. Second arabs did not use Zoroastrian calendar to do calculation of trajectories of stars. They had their own calendar and that is why Khwarizmi's calendar work was later translated by an Arab scientist from Spain. Third the field of mathematics history is very specified field and its experts hve the final word. --alidoostzadeh 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jidan already gave you proof. Primary sources don't work in an encyclopedia, since only you can verify it. That's just false. Also, please stop your attempt to come off as someone with superior knowledge, your condescending tone doesn't threaten me. Also, where do you get off saying that Arabs didn't use the zoroastrian calender? What would stop them from using it? You're trying to push a racist Persian version and stamp "Persian over here" on every Muslim scientist on Wikipedia. Even al-Azdi, who's clearly from an Arab tribe. MB

Your repeating the same thing when I asked for clear proof but now trying to cover it up with labels. I am not involved in the Muslim scientists discussion with the exception of Khwarizmi for the most part. Also labeling and name calling won't work since sources from history of mathematics Professors are the primary sources. The emails of both Professors Bergen and Oaks and others are also listed. Also you did not answer the question. When did Khwarizmi use the Jewish calendar? (not write about it but actually use it for calculation of trajectories and astronomical tables). Bring your proof as I do not even see Jidan claiming this. Also Arabs did not use Zoroastrian calendar (Yazedgardi-Sassanid calendar) to do calculation of astronomical tables as they had their own calendar and the Zoroastrian calendar is much more complex (each day of the month has its own name and there are 360 days plus 5-6 leap days). Abu Rayhan Biruni wrote about 20 different calendars. Writing about different calendars and using the Zoroastrian calendar for calculations are two different things. As per Jabir al-hayyan that is another article not related to this one and he has at least four different titles one them being tusi and another azdi (which could even mean he was a client (mawali) of the 'Azdi tribe as mentioned by Corbin). This article is about Khwarizmi who was from Chorasmia, had the title Al-Majusi (Zoroastrian) and the history of mathematics is a very specialized field and the history of Islamic mathematics even more. All the primary sources relavent to Khwarizmi have been examined in the Archives. Not that Khwarizmi's ethnic origin is in doubt since he was from Chorasmia, but my challenge is still there. Show one Arab scientist that used the Zoroastrian calendar instead of the Arabian calendar for his astronomical tables. --alidoostzadeh 08:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All the primary sources relavent to Khwarizmi have been examined in the Archives. Primary sources can only be verified by you, as such you can't use them as evidence in an encyclopedia. MB

Wrong.. Primary sources in Arabic can be verified by anyone. Go to a decent library. --alidoostzadeh 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't recieved any emails yet from the professors, maybe someone else can try contacting them. The article as it is now, states that A-Khwarizmi is persian as if it's an undeniable,and absolut fact, i.e. as if someone traveled with a time machine back to 9th century, sat with him for a cup of tea and asked him if he is persian or not. The introduction of this article should clearly state that his ethnicity is not clear. Jidan 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry ali, but I have to revert it to a version which is inclusive.Jidan 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

His ethnicity is clear as he is from Khwarizm which every author has clearly stated that the people there spoke Iranian languages and are a branch of Iranians (Biruni). He has the title Al-Majusi. Used Persian calendar. I can forward the emails from Professor Bergen and Oaks to user Rkoot and Khoikhoi for i.p verification. Until you provide a modern source from a published Professor specializing in mathematics history, then what you claim is invalid. The emails from Professor Oaks and Bergen were already brought and that should end the discussion. --alidoostzadeh 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a problem with Ali's explanation. There is no evidence beyond reasonable dought that he was persian, race was not a big issue back then in the middle east. If the origins are from eastern iran that means nothing! you ask why? Because Arab settlers headed there at the beggining of the arab invasion. Ahmad bin hanbal was from khorasan, although he was ethnically arab. Then he left for baghdad. Second, Arab is not about an ethnicity. Instead it is about culture and language especially the muslim understanding of it. There is no verifable evidence, thus I think it should just be mentioned that he lived in baghdad and was orriginally from uzbekistan. As for the example that the barkhimids were persian, that is simply not true. Their grandmother was persian, but after that it was arab lineage. Well anyways this is kind of stupid, this is like reffering to some native american cheif as being a new-englander or such, RACE WAS NOT AN IMPORTANT FACTOR BACK THEN. People were not catorgized based on it.Namrasit 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence. His ancestors were zoroastrians (al-Majusi), he was from Chorasmia (no country such as uzbekistan then) and he used persian Pahlavi-Zoroastrian calendar and was familiar with Pahlavi. Barkhamids were also Persian clan/family. See Philip Khuri Hitt (himself an Arab) pg 268 in Makers of Arab history: Harun's effort in this field was seconded by those his Persian Barmakid courts. Also Baghdad was a multi-ethnic city and many persians were from Baghdad. Baghdad itself is a Persian name. Anyways for this article, we eventually asked experts in the history of Islamic mathematics. They have the final say. Also the Arab settles were absorbed , but they went to Khorasan, not Chorasmia.

Should we specify al-Khwarizmi being a Tajik?

I am suggesting that beside the word Persian in the sentence: "Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (Arabic: محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي) was a Persian mathematician, astronomer, astrologer and geographer.", we should add the term (Tājīk) in brackets to specify him being from Central Asia rather than the modern day country of Iran. Persians and native-Persian speakers living East of modern day Iran are referred to as Tajiks today, and also in the past. We can still keep the word Persian and/or native-Persian-speaker, since ofcoarse he was an ethnic Persian, but to specify he was from Central Asia the term Tajik should be also be added. Parsiwan 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources calling him "Tajik"? Beit Or 08:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not right now. But there is no source calling himself a "Persian" either. He called himself a Farsi/Parsi (which means Persian or Persian(Farsi)-speaker) and the Turkic people around him called him a Tajik since that is/was the Turkic word for Fari/Parsi people (Persians) and Persian-speakers. And today by definition, Central Asian Persians are known as Tajiks because that word, although originally a Turkic word, is now widely used to differentiate Central Asian Persians from Persians of Iran, and al-Khwarzmi was for certain born in southern-Uzbekistan and needs to be differentiated from Persians of Iran. We should still keep him being a Persian, but only add the Tajik term in brackets next to it to specify him being Central Asian.Parsiwan 08:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No. No reliable source => it doesn't get in. There are sources calling him Persian (Oaks, Hogendijk and Toomer.) —Ruud 14:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ofcoarse. But I meant in the native term, which would be a Farsi/Parsi. But nevermind, I agree with you until I find a source. --Behnam 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All of Alkhawarezmi books were written in Arabic and he studied and lived in Baghdad, Iraq under the Abbasid empire (which is Arab empire) therefore Alkhawarezmi was Arab.Despite his place of birth.

Persian or Arab I do not really care, but this website says that he was born in Baghdad [12]

We have discussed this numerous times and in the end sought the opinions of historians of Islamic mathematic. Very detailed topic. Note on the website: Al-Tabari's epithet could mean no more than that his forebears, and perhaps he in his youth, had been Zoroastrians.. Also Ibn Nadeem directly says he was from Khwarazm. --alidoostzadeh 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tajik??? Are you kidding me? Khwarezm have never had Tajik population. If you want to specify that he was from Central Asia just say "Central Asian" or "Khwarezmian". People who have no clue were Khwarezm is do not normally have an idea who Tajiks are.

Tajik, Afghan both are modern names

It is importent to specify a correct name for an importent man like Kharazmi...But Afghan or Tajik or Iranian are modern names for persians.... be carefull not to change persians great history and glory.Greater China has the same point.India too.... In the birth days of Kharazmi in Bokhara and Kharam persian people lived who forced to live in southern places after mongols-conquer.

I think because his birth place was Kharazm and Kharazm's mother-language before mongols was Persian so the best name Is :Persian Moslem Scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.122.15 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One more instance of the "invention of zero" myth

The introduction of the article states that Latin translation of Khwarizmi's algebra "introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world".

This a statemente is obviously false, or rather nonsensical, in the part that concerns number zero!

Of course, no one ever introduced "number zero" in the Western world (or any other world). The concept of number zero (although not the Arabic-origined name we call it today) is a quite natural concept, that probably all civilization on earth have always been familiar with. After you eat all the apples contained in a basket of apples, you are left with a basken containing no more (or zero) apples. That's as simple. In any case, the concept of number zero, and even specific a symbol for it, certainly existed in the mathematics of classical Greece.

What Khwarizmi's work actually brought to the West was the concept of digit zero, i.e. a special symbol acting as a placeholder for empty position in a positional number system. But changin "number zero" to "digit zero" above wouldn't work, as digit zero is a key feature of any positional number system, so if we already said that someone brought the positional number system somewhere, it is redundand and misleading to add that he also brought digit zero.

I think that we should simply remove the words "and the number zero" from the introduction. Any other ideas?

85.42.220.213 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your argument (please read this article on the history of zero both as a concept/number, sign/digit, and as a word.) The concept of "zero" clearly is not as trivial as you make it out to be, nor does a positional number system require a digit for zero, nor was the digit zero considered to be on the same level as the numbers 1, 2, 3, ... by Fibonacci and other mathematicians until c. 1600. —Ruud 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept of zero is a psychology kinda of thing. Cats have a concept of zero. If a cat has a litter of seven kittens and one is missing, it knows something is up. 12.44.67.78 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

state-Abbasiya

In the era of state-Abbasiya

the People of Bukhara Samarkand Neyshabur Khorasan was Speaking Arabic and they was Persians and Arabs too who consider themselves arabs, and they was Muslims Sunnah

I should recommend this dear friend to first learn English; then try to study valuable history books in international language (English) and not just from Arabic books or recent "Arab-donated" English history books!! If you earn so much money these days from your crude oil, doesn't just mean that all the world history should be rewritten from viewpoint of Musim Sunnies in Hejaz!!

Anybody know why....

al-Khwārizmī full name says that he is the son of Moses? ( Is that not a jewish lineage according to the name Moses). User_talk:CltFn —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The name Musa is not uncommon for Muslims, as are Ibrahim, Da'ud and Isa. All are considered prophets of Islam.  --Lambiam 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!

Is Khwarizm/Khiva the same as Khorasan?

I agree with the dear friend talked in Arabic that Alkwarizmi was Persian and not Arab; but I think ibstead of these unuseful debates between Persians and Arabs, it is better to refer to famous history books in this regard or at least ask famous professors in renowned US (or other countries) universities to supervise the content... All in all, Wikipedia is going to be a famous encyclopedia not just a forum to debate on racial matters!

Was Muhammad ibn Musa a Shi'a Muslim?

A repetitive edit claims that Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Shi'a Muslim. As a source the web page http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/nahjulbalaga/lifelineage.htm has been suggested. It may be useful to note that this web page refers to one "Muhammad ibn al-'Abbas al-Khwarizmi (d. 383/993)". This is not the same person as Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (d. ~850), but another Muhammad (not an uncommon name), who apparently also stemmed from Khwarizm, but lived more than a century later.  --Lambiam 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Lambian. I don't know whether this man was Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to a Wikipedia article requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Historians don't have much more to say about him than is already in the Biography section. Likely a Muslim, possibly from a Zoroastrian family. They don't give anything more exact then that. —Ruud 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Drastic revert

Is there a reason why this revert is so drastic, going back all the way to the revision as of 18:39, November 19, 2007 (UTC)? Are really none of the intermediate edits worth being kept?  --Lambiam 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really and not really. —Ruud 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

It does not directly say that he belonged to Islam, do we have source that he did? 76.16.187.218 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See the quotation from Toomer in the section Biography.  --Lambiam 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of mathematics

Someone recently changed the gentleman's entry at Timeline of mathematics with commentary. Could someone more expert in that make the year 750 entry more appropriate to Wikipedia? Thanks.

Since his name is Muhammad it's obvious that at least he was known as muslim. Moreover,Persia in that time have been converted to Islam by the muslims and arabic has become the official language and the dialogue as well.

(John User:Jwy talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done I've rewritten the Al-Khwarizmi entry and moved it to 830 CE.  --Lambiam 08:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arabic not visible

Why is the Arabic script in the first line visible when editing, but not when looking at the page itself? Badagnani (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. dab (𒁳) 08:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khawarizmi's nationality

Is there any authenticated reference that states Al-khawarizmi was German as it is stated in the text? I think all the arguments about his nationality revolve around three axis: Turkish or Persian or Arab. If any one can support the article's argument, I would be glad to hear his analysis. Best Ahmedettaf (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This was the result of vandalism. She was also not an Italian astronomer, and the word algorithm does not stem from orgami.  --Lambiam 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Persian different from Iranian? (129.217.230.35 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Notification of related discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Algorithm on this very topic. I think it might benefit from the input of those who have already discussed related issues here. silly rabbit (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The small abacus

You are welcome to visit our research about Al-Khwarizmi numerals at: [13] Thank you. Roberto Lyra (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

fake infomation

he was not Persian see this source from Encarta encyclopedia [14] --Bayrak (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can cite that source alongside the other sources , but anyway , in the western literature, they use the word Arabic and Islamic interchangeably .
Using the tag is not justifiable --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

listen to me in that time when citizen of kingdom of islam (caliphate) talk arabic as native language so they were arabs exactly the same with sassanid empire all of them talk persian so they where persian and so on... --Bayrak (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the tag. Khwarizmi was not a "Persian" in the modern sense of the word, but he was most certainly an Iranian. His native language was Khwarezmian, a language related to Persian, while he wrote all of his works in Arabic and worked at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. According to al-Tabari, he was known as al-majus, which means "the Magian", a clear reference to his Iranian Zoroastrian origins. Tājik (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

you said that his native language was Khwarezmian do you have source please? and to be clear the Arabizm is culture not orign Bayrak (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to distinguish between "Arabism" , as a cultural entity , and Islamic culture . Anyway , as user Tajik correctly mentioned , the great historian Tabri names Kharazmi as "محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي المجوسي" that shows his immediate ancestors were Zoroastrians - and then from Iran.Writing only in Arabic is not surprising , because in that time , the Arabic was the only lingua franca of all Muslims , but that's clear that persons like Sibawayh , Tabari and Khwarizmi where Iranians who wrote in Arabic .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

you saying now he is iranian?!! --Bayrak (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Persia and Iran are interchangeable names . Please see (Iran naming dispute).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not all iranin are persians but all persians are iranian so if we claim he was iranian that does not mean he was persian --Bayrak (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Persian means "Iranian", please see [15] and[16] for example. Abu Rayhan Biruni (a native Chorasmian) explicitly states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree". he has meant "Iranian". As to Khorasan, please look at this, for example:

The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India.

The quote's from: [17]. So sometimes Khwarezm has been mentioned as included in Khorasan and sometimes not, hence the term Greater Khorasan.--Raayen (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Iran" is the word that Iranian themselves use to name their nation . Because the other nations were more involved with the central government of Iran in the beginning of history and/or was under the influence of first Persian empires of Iranian history ( that were Persian), that was customary to name the all of Iranians as Persian . The modern distinguish between Iran and Persia took place only in 20th century , after the demand of Iranian government to use the native name of Iran in other countries , so when we use the term "Persian" , that mostly means Iranian unless it is mentioned that we are using it as an ethnic term and not in a national sense . So being Persian in history can mean the individual can be Turkic language , Tajik , Khawarazmian , Arabic language , kurdish and etc . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times, opinions from Professors of history in mathematics were sought and this is the final outcome that he was a Persian. --Wayiran (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

rewrite the history..! no way --Bayrak (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

also britannica see here [18] --Bayrak (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article itself that: <Abu Rayhan Biruni (a native Chorasmian) explicitly states: "The people of Khwarizm are a branch of the Persian tree">. There are many reasons behind the Persian origin of Khwarizm people. --Wayiran (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dont delete the sources please.. --Bayrak (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sina111 delete the sources??? --Bayrak (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• What is important is statements from Professors of Mathematical History. Please read the archives and the resulting wording is from the concensus and feedback of Professors who study Islamic Mathematical history which is a very specialized field.
• New Britannica (2008) does not discuss background and states just "Muslim". Some Western scholars have used the terms "Muslim" and "Arab" synonymously. This shows that Muslim and Arabs were used to mean the same thing before. For example see this: Medieval Islamic Economic Thought, By Shaikh M. Ghazanfar, Published by Routledge, 2003, Page 5. He says:

""Further, the chapters interchangeably use terms such as "Arab" scholars, "Arab-Islamic" Scholars, or simply "Islamic/Muslim" scholars. While in some sense the distictions may be appropirate, our reference throughout is to the Islamic (or Muslim) scholars, whether Arab, Iranian or Persian, who wrote their discourses in the early Islamic civilization.""

So why not using "Persian" and "Muslim" interchangeably; or for that matter, Berber and "Muslim" like so?! And this: The Historians' History of the World: A Comprehensive Narrative of the Rise ... - Page 20, edited by Henry Smith Williams, World history, 1907, page 20

""Moslem philosophy (of which the most notable exponents were men of non-Arab descent, Persians, Spaniards, etc. ...""

• Encarta/Britannica are Teriatary sources. Per Wikipedia Rule: Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources "Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources." Secondary sources are exactly Professors of history of Islamic mathematics who were consulted for this article. So Teriatary sources do not have the same weight as primary and secondary sources.
• Before editing, please review the archives, as the current version was accepted by Wikipedia admins and it is the concensus based upon the response of Professors in Mathematical history. This is one of the users who participated: User_talk:Nepaheshgar/Al-Khwarizmi_the_Mathematician. To change a concensus, you need strong sources and not tertiary sources.
• Khwarizmi's title al-Majoosi shows Zoroastrian background. Has there been any Zoroastrian Arab?! And the people of Khwarizm according to the native Chorasmian Abu Rayhan Biruni were a branch of the Persian tree.
• As to Khorasan, you can also read thses: Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages, by Ian Blanchard, 2005, Page 557, it says: "Khiva in Khorasan", or, Stalin, by Nikolaus Basseches, 1952, Page 176, which reads: Khiva (Khorasan).--Raayen (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fraud

if some new sources claimes that he was persian that doesnt make the case be an abosolute truth --Bayrak (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was ethnically Persian. Does an Arab who speaks English become an Englishman? His ancestors were Zoroastrians, even by ancient sources. Do you know of any Arab Zoroastrians? --Enzuru 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We might create a Mesopotamian ethnicity for the prophet Muhammad, instead of Arab! The former culture minister of a country have actually done that!!--Raayen (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad was the descendant of a long line Arab speakers (unlike al-Khwarizmi), and those who are considered ethnically Arab (which Persians are not). Once again, do you know of any Arab Zoroastrians? And does an Arab who speaks English become an Englishman? --Enzuru 03:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

the Ethnic is language and culture not origin because there is no nation Offspring from one person , and who knows maybe al-khwarizmi was turkish who moved to persians and Convert to Zoroastrians maybe before that he was from russian origin moved to the turks and so on...

If his family moved to Persia and intermarried with Persians, as his origin shows, he is Persian because most of his ancestors (except the Turkish one) is Persian. One person moving doesn't make a difference. --Enzuru 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

therefor when i write he was arabic i mean he was arabic native maybe from Foreign origin --Bayrak (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you haven't brought any point that he had Arab-speaking ancestors. There is no evidence Arabic was his first language. Once again, you ignore my question. Does an Arab who speaks English become an Englishman? --Enzuru 23:18, 18 November 2008 (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 [19] [20] --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 [21] [22] 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 [23] 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.

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

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))

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)

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)

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)

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 [24]. 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)