Talk:Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleMuhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 12, 2004.
Article milestones
January 19, 2006Refreshing brilliant proseKept
January 2, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

On the initial article[edit]

Quick note for the author of this page (and others) - great work, but it's not the done thing on the wikipedia to place one's name in an article text. This is because an article might get edited and/or expanded by anybody after you have worked on it, meaning it really would be "by" you any more. If you want people to know what you're responsible for, I'd suggest making a user account - then you can put a list of your pages on your user page if you like. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Camembert

I'm not sure about the copyright status of some material in this article, especially the quotes should be better acknowledged ([1]). I'm also not sure about the copyright status of the picture. -- till we *) 19:33, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)


To all:

  • I have tried to reformat the article according to the Wikipedia standards, chiefly by adding one "=" to the level of all sections.
  • However, I used "*" instead of "====" for the sub-sub-sections (commentaries on individual books), because the document's structure seemed clearer that way. On my browser "====" looks just like "===". (Of course that may be a fluke of my browser/fonts combination.) The drawback is that editing an individual book commentary is not possible. Perhaps the old format was better after all...
  • The commentary on Razi's medical work is quite extensive, perhaps even too detailed for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, the commentary on his chemical work, which was perhaps even more important, is too skimpy. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of chemistry would be willing to provide the details of his discovery of sulphuric acid and alcohol? (Based on half-remembered sources, I guess that the former was by distillation of vitriol; but that is little more than a guess.)
  • Ditto for the =Biography= section (currently one small paragraph...)
  • The Arabic /Persian title of Al-Hawi in the list of medical books looks strange. Could it be vandalism?
  • The full list of book titles could perhaps be moved to a separate article, "list of al-Razi's books". That would avoid the huge gaps between sections and make the text flow more naturally.

I am doen for today. All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 23:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

More fixes[edit]

Some fixes:

  • Changed "Iranian" to "Persian". As far as I know, "Iran" is a modern name. (Cf. Julius Caesar — usually said to be "Roman" not "Italian").
Iranian is an old name, although the country was usually called "Persia" in English before 1935. john k 23:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Restored the sentence about alcohol. From the sources I have seen, Al-Razi is indeed credited with the discovery of alcohol (meaning ethanol - as opposed to alcoholic beverages, which of course were pre-historical). Or, at least, he was the first who described its preparation (which presumably is what counts). Is that claim contested? BTW, as far as I know "alcohol" derives from Arabic for "spirit".
  • Merged the footnotes into the text (footnote 3 apparently was not anchored anywhere).

Jorge Stolfi 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arab or Persian ?[edit]

I have a university book about Alrazi it says he was an Arab and was born in Iraq and worked at the house of wisdom in Baghdad ! Are persians are Arabic people ? they are a part of Arabia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

According to most reliable sources, he was Persian. --pashtun ismailiyya 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Or better said, according to worth reading sources he was Persian.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

in Arabic resourses Al razi was a persian who adopted the Arabian life syle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewoone (talkcontribs) 14:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is any doubt about the nationality and citizenship of Razi. He was born in Persia and a considerable amount of his work is written in Persian (Farsi). It is highly unlikely that an Arab scientist or philosopher would have produced works in Farsi. The reason his name has been arabized is because in the Islamic world, Arabic was the language of choice. This is true in the case of Biruni, Khayyam, Abu Ali Sina, Khawrazmi, etc. Also, when the West got to know about this figures, they came across the arabized name first and that is why in the West their are know by their Arabic name. kamran MihanKamimihan (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The world Razi mean a Person from Rey and the surrounding are.. People of Rey are not Arabs for sure.Pouyakhani (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol discovery[edit]

It would probably be best to state exactly what Al-Razi was credited doing first. It wouldn't have been discovering alcohol or even the preparation of alcohol, since ancient distillers must have done that, too. Was he the first to identify ethanol as the intoxicating component of alcoholic beverages, or the first to describe how to prepare pure ethanol? It's probably necessary to specify ethanol, since alcohol is ambiguous in English. (By the way, Merriam-Webster Online says the word is derived from Arabic al-kuhul, "the powdered antimony". Seems like there's an etymological link missing, or at least an interesting story.) In any case, on en:wikipedia, it shouldn't have the connotation in English that he first did something that has obviously been done for millenia. I'd supply a better phrasing myself, but I don't know exactly what Al-Razi did. -- Jeff Q 23:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What "ancient distillers" are those? I have never heard of distilled beverages in ancient Greece or Rome, or anywhere else before the era of the Islamic alchemists. (They had wine and beer, of course.) Jorge Stolfi 03:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems that Geber already knew about alcohol (at least as a flammable gas that escaped from bottles of boiling wine). So presumably Al-Razi was the first to condense the product? Jorge Stolfi 06:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I am hoist by my own petard! "Distillers" was probably the wrong word. I was responding to your statement that Al-Razi "was the first who described [alcohol's] preparation". My thought was that, unless people before the 10th century C.E. found their ethanol-based beverages lying around in puddles, many people must have been preparing it for millenia. ☺ But distallation is a more specific means of ethanol preparation. Is this what Al-Razi discovered and/or invented? If so, that would eliminate the ambiguity. (BTW, I replaced your bullet above with an indent colon, because bullets screw up talk page formatting in this wonderful new style the Wiki Powers That Be have forced upon us. Please pardon the edit.) -- Jeff Q 17:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Also, it would be interesting to know if al-Razi had any idea of the antiseptic qualities of alcohol. If so, and if we can find a reliable source, we should make not of it both in this article and the article on Joseph Lister. --dws 4/25/2005

Alcohol etymology[edit]

((moved to Talk:alcohol Jorge Stolfi 03:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)))

Sulfuric acid[edit]

There is something fishy about the sulfuric acid story. This article claims that Al-Razi discovered H2SO4, and then Geber used it to discover HCl, HNO3, and aqua regia. However, according to the dates in Wikipedia, Geber died about 50 years before Al-Razi was born. What is the real story?
Jorge Stolfi 06:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that that part of the article is incorrectly stating that Razi's work "paved the way for Geber". Geber's article also indicates that Geber's discoveries "paved the way for Razi"!! Obviously Razi could not have paved the way for Geber (unless the author of the article meant Pseudo-Geber) so it seems that the "Razi paved the way for Geber" part must be removed. --K1 10:25, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I just added that part in the Geber article, after reading a document on the net about the discovery of alcohol that seems authoritative and has detailed quotes of observations by Geber and other Arab alchemists. I will take out that line about Geber, but now I am unsure about whether he indeed was the frist to prepare ethanol, or whether credit should go to someone else, possibly just after Geber's . (The one above does not even mention Al-Razi, but perhaps it was due to nationalistic prejudice.)

The H2SO4 problem is even more urgent, since Geber is supposed to have used the stuff to make other acids. However, perhaps Geber did not use H2SO4, but distilled a mixture of salt and viriol, which I suppose would have generated HCl directly. Ditto for HNO3. Then perhaps Al-Razi distilled vitriol alone and got H2SO4.

Pseudo-Geber does not seem relevant, he was too late. Surely the distillation of spirits was already well known by then, even in Europe. (BTW, it seems that by the 16th century the distillation of ethanol was a very popular research topic of European alchemists. I wonder why... 8-)

Jorge Stolfi 14:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

2 questions[edit]

  1. "Razi always used a natural approach when treating ill patients"
    What exactly does this mean? Can you elaborate perhaps?
  2. Why exactly did Abu contradict that a Muslim priest (or mullah?) got so angry as to have his head smashed in? That is quite a severe punishment, and inspires curiosity as to the nature of the offense. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

al-Hawi anecdote[edit]

The Wikipedia article says:

A Muslim priest, whom Razi had apparently contradicted somewhere in its pages, ordered that Razi be beaten over the head with the [al-Hawi] manuscript until one of them broke. Razi's head broke first, and the result was permanent blindness for Razi.

The NIH website says:

The most sought after of all the compositions by al-Razi (Rhazes to Europeans) was his Comprehensive Book on Medicine (Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb). It was not a formal medical encyclopedia, but rather was assembled posthumously from Razi's working files of readings and personal observations. [My emphasis.]

Razi's "manuscript" was not assembled until after his death. Yet a "Muslim priest" orders that he be beaten over the head with it? What is wrong with this picture?? It's also suspicious that the Muslim priest is not named, thereby making the story all the more difficult to verify.

Do we have a reference for the head beating story?

--Susurrus 05:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or what about this?

His medical career was cut short by his major work, the Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb, or "The Comprehensive Book on Medicine", commonly referred to as "al-Hawi". [Followed by the head-beating story.]
Razi suffered failing eyesight for several years, and though he eventually lost all vision he continued to provide medical consultations and often even lectured.

The first person to spot the contadiction wins a teddy bear.

We NEED a reference for this head-beating story. I have performed a quick Google search for a reference. The whole first page of references to that story are all different versions of this Wikipedia article—never a good sign. I have already quoted the dubious material in full above. I therefore see fit to delete it from the article in the absence of any voiced dissent.

--Susurrus 23:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A citing of the head beating story appears in "A Prelude to Medical History" by Felix Marti-Ibañez on p. 112. The book was published in back 1961. This obviously predates the Wikipedia article a bit, but unfortunately the book doesn't give a source for the story. Hope this helps in some way.

==Three categories of diseases?

''Italic text'

He further classified diseases into three categories: those that are curable, those that can be cured, and those that are incurable.

What is the difference between the first two categories, please?? I think this passage needs reworking...

05:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Start of Editing Article-25 August 2005, finished 11 Sep. 2005[edit]

I am new to Wikimedia but I was searching for Al-Razi (for my study on Hermetism/Alchemy) and was very impressed with the immense research of this scholar. Not all of us have the perfect Oxford English level of the English language and I therefore volunteer to do some editing over the coming months. I first checked with the Sandbox to familiarize myself with some basic editing modes and that took some time. I am a student of English and reasonably familiar with alchemical works of the past, because of my recent study of Alchemy. So I hope I can be of some help. I will do my utmost not to change in any way the content or meaning of the article, but will only change structure of sentences and replace verbs with synonyms wherever applicable or needed. CHITRANI 25 August 21.45 (GMT +1)

SEP.07/05 I have edited p.1-8 and added information obtained from: 1. the Alchemy website: Alchemy in Islamic Times by Prof. Hamed Abdel-reheem Ead, Prof. of Chemistry at the Faculty of Science - University of Cairo
2. Brian Copenhaver: Hermetica Cambridge University Press -ISBN 0 521 42543 3 (1992).
3.G.R.S. Mead: Thrice-Greatest Hermes.3 Vol.York Beach (Maine), (1992).
4.Peter Marshall,"Alchemy,the Philosopher's Stone',-[London]: Macmillan, ISBN 90 4390 145 8, (2001). Last sentences on pages spill over and that will be corrected in the future.
CHITRANI- 07 SEP/2005- 18.51 (GMT +1)

FINISHED 11 September 2005. CHITRANI 14:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


I removed this section since it did not seem to have any connection to Al-Razi. On the contrary, his style seems completely contrary to the hermetic tradition of mysticism and obscure symbolism. If there is a connection, it should be better expressed and supported by actual evidence from Al-Razi's writings (not just by someone else's unsupported statements). All the best, Jorge Stolfi 04:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alchemy's source can be traced to the Hermetica, writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, Hermes Thrice-Great who is identified with the Egyptian god Thoth, inventor of alchemy and god of Wisdom. It was in ancient Egypt that the Hermetica emerged and reached the state now visible in various treatises of Arabian alchemists and philosophers. Hermeticism encompasses the Art of alchemy (both 'technical' and 'philosophical' alchemy) as well as astrology and talismanic magic. As in so may other respects, Moslems and other non-Europeans of late antiquity and the early middle ages outdid their Western contemporaries in preserving and extending the Hermetic tradition. Alchemical works began to enter Islamic lands from Alexandria as early as the 7th century, even prior to Jabir al-Hayan (known as Geberu). Many Arabian alchemists emerged since and most of them were physicians, just as al-Razi. Their alchemistical experiments lead to the discovery of many medicinal and chemical inventions which laid the foundation for future developments in both sciences.


If the artist is unknown, then it's more likely than not a copyvio.... --Jacqui M Schedler 01:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


While likely the Arabic of his name is that of common usage, those that can not read the Arabic script might naturally assume it is his full name given right before it. His full name would be: "ابو بكر محمد بن زكريا الرازى", I believe. To avoid ambiguity the opening could be changed to: "Abū Bakr Muhammad Ibn Zakarīya al-Rāzi; also Abū Bakr Al-Rāzi (ابو بکر الرازی), ...", since I don't believe writing out his full family name is necessary, as he was most likely never referred to by it anyway. Khiradtalk 06:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Surely this page is not named in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Shouldn't it be at Al-Razi, or some such? john k 21:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so. However, since full names are often used in order to disambiguate homonyms, it is not a hard and fast rule, is it? As long as there is a redirect...
Jorge Stolfi 22:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Are there any other people named Al-Razi? If not, he should go there. Just as we have articles at Avicenna and Averroes rather than Abu Ali al-Husain ibn Abdallah ibn Sina and Abu Al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd. john k 23:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is there any objection to a move to Al-Razi? john k 05:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article name 2[edit]

Why Al-Razi? The name must be Razi. -- 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, we have several options:
"Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakariyah al-Razi" (full Arabic name)
"Zakariyah al-Razi" (common Arabic name)
"Al-Razi" (Arabic name as might be used in English)
"Rhazes" or "Rasis" Latinized names (there may be more), widely used in historical European documents, still used by some
"Razi" (above proposal)
Personally I would be against "Razi" since I don't think it has been widely used in the West (but I may be wrong). Moreover, since it means "of Rayy", it is even less appropriate linguistically than "al-Razi" ("the one from Rayy"). Methinks that in this case "Zakariyah al-Razi" may be the best option, and consistent with the treatment of other historical figures that are known mostly by their surname, e.g. Newton (Isaac Newton).
A year ago someone decided that Jabir should be renamed Geber, so for consistency we should rename Al-Razi as "Rhazes" or "Rasis". But that is problematic because there are various options, and it seems like going backwards.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that he is a Persian, and he is not called by the name of "Al-Razi" in Iran, in the West he may have been called Al-Razi by some but I believe Razi is the correct and the name that should be used. -- - K a s h Talk | email 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
More important than that, the point is that this is an english wikipedia and we should see what english speakers call him. If they know him as "Al-Razi" then that's the best thing to call him here.حضرت محمود (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments under "Arab or Persian" section above. The fact remains that we have the following names available to us:

1. The Persian name which is Abu Bakr Mohammad Zakariya-ye Razi that has been shortened to Zakariya-ye Razi and this is the name that is used predominantly in the Persian world. 2. The Arabized name which is Abu bakr Muhammad-ibn Zakariya Al Razi or Ar Razi 3. The Latinized name Rhazes or Rasis One would think that Wikipedia should be interested in the use of the authentic(i.e. the Persian) name and then link it to the arabized and latinized names.Kamimihan (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


"Al-Razi" is a fairly generic name, and simply dedicating the whole page to Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakariyah al-Razi is akin to exclusively giving the article "Smith" to Adam Smith. There is another, equally important person with the name Al-Razi: Abu Hatim Al-Razi, a somewhat fundamentalist theologian, who actively engaged in dialogues with Rhazes (the al-Razi of this article.)

Also, Rayy was and is an intellectually fertile region of Iran, thus, its possible that there are more al-Razis, or that more may be produced.

As long as there is only one other "Al-Razi", it can be accomodated by a "for ... see" note at the top of this article (I don't like such notes, but I seem to be a minority of one... 8-() If there are more, they may go to "Al-Razi (disambiguation)". I don't think that "Al-Razi" should be a disambiguation page, because Rhazes is obviously far more important than all the other Al-Razis put together. But it may be indelicate to say so, and other people may even think otherwise.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


The MOS for Arabic is to use solar letters, which means that it should be written as it is pronounced, which is Ar-Razi. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as noted on the MOS page. Al-Razi is far more common, and the MOS isn't finished yet. —Ruud 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you can show a significant amount of references as al-Razi, then that would be the primary transliteration and it should remain. Otherwise ar-Razi is the standard. The MOS on this subject is clear, and the current voting is to solidify the standard which has been around a long time. Cuñado Bahaitemplatestar.png - Talk 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI- Googling Al-Razi gets around 143,000 hits, while Ar-Razi get around 52,200 hits. --khello 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It's true that Ar-Razi is the correct Arabic pronunciation, but this person is Persian and he was born in Iran, so I believe it's better to rename this article Razi (as pronounced in the Persian language), or the Latinised names Rhazes or Rasis (like Avicenna). MK (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Support. Per MOS. Although "Al-Razi" is more referenced, "Ar-Razi" is more correct methinks --khello 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Former FA[edit]

Former FA? Why not revert back to the FA class and make it a FA article? --Striver 08:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is really informative, but reading through why it was stripped of its FA status I can see why- it is full of lists. What would other editors think of moving all the lists of books/publications by Al-Razi to another article, called something like List of Al-Razi works? or is that not accepted "wikipedia style"? We could move the summaries of all that work there, and just have a brief paragraph directing to the new article. Thoughts? --khello 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I had originally read about al-Razi on a website which mentioned his condemnation of Islam, his rejection of religious faith, his denouncement of people who were known as prophets, and his criticism of the Qur'an. I mean, he did write books called "The Prophet's Fraudulent Tricks" and "On the Refutation of Revealed Religions". Coming to this page, however, it seems that one would be rather hard-pressed to find any strong expression of this. For instance, the article mentions A'lam al-Nubuwwah, which is a book of response to a lost book of al-Razi's, which had made some controversial claims. The article also quotes him on his view of prophetically-revealed religions, which is not a favorable one. Here is a summary of al-Razi's views in his lost book, as it is expressed in the response:

(1)All men are by norted mixture of "absurd and inconsistent fables," which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much vaunted "eloquence" are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the "writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."
(2) "The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity. If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better than the Qur'an [the transcendent literary beauty of which, denied by Razi, was thought by orthodox Muslims to prove the truth of Muhammad’s mission]."

Al-Razi was more a deist than an actual Muslim, probably comparable to calling some of the Founding Fathers Christians. However, the article seems to attribute some parts of his philosophy to the very religion he is opposed to, without warrant:

It is quite evident that most of his thoughts were derived from the Islam

Really, is it? Because it seems to echo a more independent, general monotheism to me. Obviously, we all bear a little bit of baggage from the realm of thought we were born into, but I don't believe it's fair to attribute his opinions so assuredly to Islamic thought, especially with the statement that "most" of his ideas came from "the Islam".

Hopefully, I'll be able to use a few of the sources, both online and print, to help add a more reasonable representation of al-Razi's stance on religion and prophecy. I'm rather lazy, so it might be ages until I get around to it.--C.Logan 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The section On Religion quotes entirely from a single secondary source. More diversity is needed. I will add something from Encyclopedia of Islam, but that is also a secondary source. Martindo (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The section On Religion quotes entirely from a single secondary source. More diversity is needed. I will add something from Encyclopedia of Islam, but that is also a secondary source. Martindo (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) - BUMP! I was just going to say the same thing. Are there are primary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

State of the article.[edit]

I'm surprised to see this as a former featured article, because the article looks to be in a bad state. Almost no citations (footnotes), weasel and peacock terms throughout, a rambling style, a load of irrelevant or overly specific information scattered throughout, etc.

Couldn't the sections dealing with his writings be moved to a separate article, such as Works of Al-Razi, or something? The article is very quote-heavy, and although the article definitely presents a lot of information, it's hard to verify any of it without citations in-text. I believe the only actual citation was in the section I had a hand in editing some time ago, concerning Razi's harsh criticism of Islam. As I'm no great expert on Razi, it would be difficult for me to determine what is essential and what is extraneous.

We need to remember that this an encyclopedic biography, and we should try to keep it as concise and readable as possible. As it is, it fails in this qualification.--C.Logan 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On religion section...full of b.s.?[edit]

Seriously when did al-Razi say any of that which the authors of the article claim him to say? What books he wrote mentioned them? As the article is written now, it sounds like: "well, bob said that steve said...." I think the original books were those quotes are written should be mentioned or the whole section should be deleted. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The books are already given in the first sentence of the section. Please read the section thoroughly before you make complaints.--C.Logan 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can make up a title and a quote. As a matter of fact, these books do not exists and have never be retrieved unlike his other books. It is also very fishy that only 1 western self-claimed historian wrote about Al Razi and his books when no other historians is backing that fact up. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added more credible sources. He was regarded as a heretic, and these quotes survive thanks to Abu Hatim al-Razi's refutation.Gamma737 (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Beans cause blindness[edit]

The article references his blindness was caused by beans. I checked the wiki entry for the broad beans, and there are no health issues related to blindness listed. Should this be removed? Pgrote 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you hate having to clean up after other editors' unsourced unlikely-sounding stuff? Anyway, you might also want to consider removing it as a copyvio. See this book. Dicklyon 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sad reflection on this article[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this revision of this article is far superior to what is currently the revision served to our readers? BTW in case you haven't clicked it yet, that revision is from April 2003, that is to say 5 years ago. *deep sigh* -- (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion[edit]

This page violates wiki standards by having macrons in the title. Most people can't type those. I recommend a move to Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi. Also, the macrons are in the wrong place... his name is Muḥammad ibn Zakariyā ar-Rāzī, not Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi[sic]. ناهد𒀭(dAnāhita) 𒅴 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Books in Persian[edit]

His books was released in Persian, similar alphabet to Arabic but different language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the Persian books, under "The Books on Medicine" have been incorrectly romanized. The correct romanization, according to the international convention for romanization of the Farsi language, is as follows:

Eşbāt-e Elm-e Pezeshki Darāmadi bar Elm-e Pezeshki Rāz-e ...... Rāz-e ...... Ketāb dar Padīd Āmadan-e Sangrīzeh Ketāb-e Dard-e Rūdeh-hā Ketāb dar Dard-e Pāy va Dard-e Peyvandhā-yeh Andām Ketāb dar Falaj ( Book on Paralysis of Organs) Dar Hey'at-e Kabed Dar Hey'at-e Qalb Dar Rag Zadan Seydeh/neh/sidneh ( was not able to make any sense of this name) Ketāb-e Ebdāl Sūdhā-ye Serkangabīn Darmānhā-ye Ābeleh

I do reccommend that the list in the article be corrected accordingly.KAMRAN MIHAN74.96.148.137 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rearrangement of Sequence[edit]

Is there anyone else who feels that the page is very long, effectively burying his skepticism near the bottom?

I propose to put all of the "Books About x" lists at the bottom, which will make his actual quotes (and comments about them) more prominent on the page.

It seems to be common practice in WP for lists to be relegated to the bottom of a page in order to present a better visual display. Martindo (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't particularly relevant to him, though. He is famous primarily as a scientist, alchemist, and physician, not for his views on religion. -- (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the info[edit]

Can anyone upload some quotes from these Persian scientists/scholars/intellectuals on Wikiquote (or add more quotes on their wikipage). Perhaps figures such as Biruni, Khwarizmi, Razi, din- Tusi, ghazali, etc (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)ditc

NPOV [-On Religion-][edit]

The "On religion" section needs revision for the following reasons:

  • It fails to mention that the named books are disputed, including their content and attribution to Razi. These doubts are expressed by traditional biographers, like Shahrastānī and Ibn Abi Usaibia, as well as by contemporary historians.
  • At least one of these books have the wrong title. It's مخاريق الأنبياء and not مخارق الأنبياء. Moreover, Ibn Abi Usaibia suggests that this book doesn't exist, and that this title is only a pejorative name used by opponents of Razi. This fact needs to be mentioned in the article.
  • Also there is no consensus on the title of the second book in online and non-credible sources. Is it حيل المتنبيين or حيل المتنبئين? There is a world of difference in meaning between the two, and we need a more credible source.
  • The third book also seems "made-up" to me. Any references beside the spurious dead links I found online?
  • We should also mention that most traditional Arabic biographers/historians consider him Muslim.
  • Also The sources used in this section are not credible sources as far as Islamic philosophy is concerned. A source that is a self-proclaimed "history of atheism" (which is ironic, considering that Razi is a strong theist) is not enough to claim anything about Razi's religious views with some certainty.

So better sources needs to be cited/discussed, and other point of views need to be represented. I will try to integrate these views in the section with some quotes and sources. Any help or more information is appreciated. Alwiqi (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone fix the on religion section or do I have to do it myself. Seriously, Al Razi never wrote books on Religion. These books do no exists and they never did. Unless, you can give a better source, I'll remove the section. And if he did really profess a disliked towards Islam, he would have been executed under Sharia Law for apostasy. Common Sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added more credible sources. He was regarded as a heretic, and these quotes survive thanks to Abu Hatim al-Razi's refutation.Gamma737 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to do some cleanup on Religion section because sources 17,18,19 and 20 are heavily unreliable as described by Wikipedia's standards. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd better explain why you think the The Guardian, the Encyclopaedia of Islam and books by respected publishers are unreliable sources before removing them again. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources[edit]

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 Cleanup6. 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.

Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So basically, the user Johnuniq is to follow the user Jagged85 to every single article he edits. Than, Johnuniq (an islamophobe) continues to blindly argue that the sources must be wrong because they are introduced by Jagged85. Score 1 for Bias. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA (as well as WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG which I just recommended on another talk page). I would normally just remove a comment such as yours (it is off-topic and an attack), but this reply might be more helpful for a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol (again)[edit]

I took out the stuff about being the first to do ethanol. It was very weakly ref'd, and doesn't agree with Ethanol#History at all. In the section (way) above about this, there appears to be confusion about what his actual contribution was in this area William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I added some sources where it was asked "citation needed", could you please check them to see if they are reliables ? Thanks a lot and long life to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Persian Zakaria Razi.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

clean up[edit]

Verifiable sources for al-Razi;

clean up is needed. J8079s (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

al-Razi's Chinese student[edit]

Al-Razi had a Chinese student who was fluent and literate in Arabic, and to whom he dictated the works of Galen to. The student wrote down everyhing he said in a cursive form of Chinese writing.

وهو أن لكل كلمة تكتب بثلاثة أحرف وأكثر صورة واحدة ولكل كلام يطول شكل من الحروف يأتي على المعاني الكثيرة فإذا أرادوا أن يكتبوا ما يكتب في مائة ورقة كتبوه في صفح واحد بهذا القلم قال محمد بن زكريا الرازي قصدني رجل من الصين فأقام بحضرتي نحو سنة تعلم فيها العربية كلاما وخطا في مدة خمسة أشهر حتى صار فصيحا حاذقا سريع اليد فلما أراد الانصراف إلى بلده قال لي قبل ذلك بشهر اني على الخروج فأحب أن يمل على كتب جالينوس الستة عشر لأكتبها فقلت لقد ضاق عليك الوقت ولا يفي زمان مقامك لنسخ قليل منها فقال الفتى أسألك أن تهب لي نفسك مدة مقامي وتمل علي بأسرع ما يمكنك فإني أسبقك في الكتابة فتقدمت إلى بعض تلاميذي بالاجتماع معنا على ذلك فكنا نمل عليه بأسرع ما يمكنا فكان يسبقنا فلم نصدقه إلا في وقت المعارضة فإنه عارض بجميع ما كتبه وسألته عن ذلك فقال إن لنا كتابة تعرف بالمجموع وهو الذي رأيتم إذا أردنا أن نكتب الشيء الكثير في المدة اليسيرة كتبناه بهذا الخط ثم إن شئنا نقلناه إلى القلم المتعارف والمبسوط وزعم أن الإنسان الذكي السريع الأخذ والتلقين لا يمكنه أن يتعلم ذلك في أقل من عشرين سنة وللصين مداد يركبونه من أخلاط يشبه الدهن الصيني رأيت منه شيئا على مثال الألواح مختوما عليه صورة الملك تكفي القطعة الزمان الطويل مع مدوامة الكتابة وهذا مثال قلمهم


Rajmaan (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and vitriol[edit]

For the third time (in 10 years) the claim that Rhazes discovered alcohol was in the article. So was the claim for vitriol. We know he did not discover vitriol. We await a decent accessible source and more detail for the alcohol claim. So far we have

Issues with these sources are:

  • The first is behind a paywall and is written by a paediatician.
  • The second is available via Google books [4] a search for alcohol yields no hits.
  • the third is available on-line [5] and has no mention of alcohol or vitriol

This vague and sweeping claim has been copied from Wikipedia, and we have no grounds for making it. I have removed it form the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

Hi everybody, I added some sources where it was asked "citation needed", could you please check them to see if they are reliables ? Thanks a lot and long life to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Another source states Al Razi discovered alcohol:

Could you please confirm ?

Call to rework this article based on first-level research[edit]

This article is in bad need of being rewritten, and should be based on the research of those experts who are doing or have done research into the primary sources (e.g. the work of Paul E. Walker; his article on Islamic Philosophy Online -see external links- is a good start). As it stands now, too much is being based on the studies of non-experts or experts of later (Latin and early modern) science history, who are very prone to perpetuate the mistakes and inaccuracies of obsolete secundary sources. (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly "He was among the first to use humorism to distinguish one contagious disease from another". Can that be true? Humorism dates back to the ancient Romans and Greeks.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol discovery yet again[edit]

@Kansas Bear: @GreenMeansGo:
There is a lot of confusion regarding this point. Not only the distillation of Alcohol by Muslim chemists is debated, but also who made it first.
Robert J. Forbes clearly denies that al-Razi or any other Muslim chemist had ever distilled Alcohol [6].
Even if we accept the other sources which say the contrary, the distilition of alcohol has been acscribed alternately to different Muslim chemists, most notably Gaber, al-Kindi and al-Razi [7][8][9][10][11][12].
From the sources above it is clear that there is no agreement on this point. So to claim that al-Razi was the one who discovered alcohol is a bold statement that is highly contested by other sources. what do you think then? should we delete the statement altogether, or alter it so that it reflects the argument or what ?Viaros17 (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I...have no context for what we're discussing. I'm not totally sure how I'm connected. As very generic advice, if there is serious academic disagreement in the sources (and not just a small detracting minority), then we present that disagreement, and don't take a side "as Wikipedia". GMGtalk 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let me give the context :
R. J Forbes : reliable but slightly outdated (he died 45 years ago)
As to your other « sources », not a single one is from a notable historian of sciences :
Rassool : psychopathologist.
Yazdani : Indian studies
Source number 9 : images and icons in islamic tradition
Cotnoir : alchemist, artist and award-winning filmmaker
Joseph M Carlin : macrophage, monocytes, tnf, interferon and interferon-gamma
Perry Luntz : whiskey and spirits for dummies ? Is it really necessary to comment this one ? Not an academic work in the field of history of sciences ...
While the sources supporting the invention of alcohol by Razi :
Houchang D. Modanlou : among his skills : history of medicine, history of science —-> reliable.
Stefan Schlosser : University of technology in Bratislava —> reliable (at least more than the guys you cited above).
Source number 12 in the article is a blog and i’m going to remove it.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Blog removed from the article.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it is a well-known fact that there is a dispute and an uncertainty regarding the place and time of the first distillation of wine. The sources above was just to give a picture about the debate.
R. J Forbes book is a reliable source and has been used in Wikipedia articles like Distillation and Jabir ibn Hayyan.
Also, if you bothered to check, Rassool's source is quoting Ahmad Y. al-Hassan who is historian of Islamic science and certainly a reliable one.
And It's funny how you dismiss my sources when yours are not any better. you said:
Stefan Schlosser : University of technology in Bratislava —> reliable (at least more than the guys you cited above).
What kind of presentation is that? Are we supposed to accept this guy because he apparently went to college or what ? your sources seems to be just typical desperate search on google and actually only prove my point that there is no clear-cut sources about the topic. There is another sources which credit Jabir and Al-Kindi with this discovery like Ahmad Y. al-Hassan as mentioned above. I am ok with altering the statement so that it reflects the debate like saying "al-Razi is sometimes credited as being one of the earliest chemists to describe the distillation of alcohol". The current statement clearly does not agree with available sources Viaros17 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
« your sources seems to be just typical desperate search on google and actually only prove my point that there is no clear-cut sources about the topic »
Yeah, since you haven’t even checked the books you posted above, clearly that’s what you did, but let’s focus on content, not contributors.
We are not dealing here about who first distilled wine, we are dealing about who discovered rubbing alcohol (almost pure ethanol) and used it in medicine. As far as i know, this is not debated. However, if there is a consensus here for replacing the statement of the article with something like « he has been described as the discoverer of alcohol », i’m ok with that, but for now, there is clearly no such a thing.-—>Farawahar (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Isolating ethanol = alcohol distillation. The first isolating of ethanol has been achieved through distillation of the wine. Al-Razi might has advanced the process, or might has been the first to use alcohol for medical ends. However, to ascribe the discovery to him is a very bold statement for a hotly debated topic. Also alcohol distillation seems to be one of those discoveries that can not be ascribed to one person, but rather to the culture in which it first appeared. According to the historian of Islamic science Ahmad Y. al-Hassan [13]: The distillation of wine and the properties of alcohol were known to Islamic chemists since the eighth century, and that includes chemists like Geber and al-Kindi who were both older than al-Razi.
Given the available sources, I propose changing the wording of the sentence so that it becomes "He also was one of the first to describe" instead of "He also discovered". That is until more conclusive sources become available. Viaros17 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 »Isolating ethanol = alcohol distillation. »
Sorry, but i think you do not understand what we are talking about. In the 8th century, Distillation of wine could produce some very low quality ethanol, but not rubbing alcohol (ie high quality ethanol >90’, sometimes called pure ethanol and which may be useful in medicine). By the way, Hassan does not state that Jabir or al kindi produced pure ethanol, this is your opinion and actually OR, he said these guys invented the alembic and described the process of distillation, which is of course true. Also, Rassool’s statement page 226 : « Pure distiiled alcohol was first produced bu muslim chemists in the islamic world during the 8th and 9th centuries. » is not a quote from Hassan and therefore unreliable (because as i said above, Rassool is not a historian). Jabir created the alambic and al Kindi described the process but no mention of pure ethanol. In the article about Zakarya Razi, two reliables sources state that he discovered pure ethanol. You have added what Hassan states about Jabir and al Kindi in the alcohol article and this is ok, but do not extrapolate that Jabir or al Kindi discovered ethanol, again, this would be OR.—>Farawahar (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
None of your words seem convincing to me. And you are the one who seems to be missunderstanding but acts like you do. Again: discovering alcohol = wine distillation = isolating ethanol. This is an unquestionable fact.
In middle ages, the only possible way to isolate ethanol was through wine distillation.
I did not deny that al-Razi might has produced more pure alcohol than his predecessors, he still achieved this via distillation.
Also,rubbing alcohol according to its article is far from being ""pure ethanol". I bet you did not know what rubbing alcohol was and just read that al-Razi invented it in this article.
Anyway, I am leaving my statements here as a future reference for specialist editors about the topic. I provided my points of objection and they can act and edit the article accordingly. Viaros17 (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I know that medieval scholars distilled wine to obtain some alcohol, and Razi did the same, but it’s a matter of quality here. If the quality of alcohol did not matter, why don’t we just call wine alcohol ? Just because wine contains only about 15% alcohol. The process of distillation was well known by Al Kindi and probably by Jabir, but in practice, the first one to improve the process enough to obtain something who decently can be called alcohol was Razi and this is why many reliable sources consider him as the imventor of ethanol.—>Farawahar (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)