Talk:Al-Khwarizmi/Archive 1

Khwarizmi was NOT Arab
He was Persian. Who wrote he was Arab? When did Arabs ever live in Khorasan? This is and always has been Iranian. Just because he did works in the Arabic language did not make him Arab. (Contribution from 154.20.105.198 07:26, 2 July 2005)
 * Logged-in Wikipedians are working to retain this information, in the face of anonymous reverting from User:67.42.116.33. --Wetman 2 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

And for the same reason his name should be transcribed according to his real name, that is of course Persian and not Arabic, both in the title and wherever it is refered to him in the article (though Arabic alternative is ok to be given). So it should be Kharazmi, though his books were written in Arabic (Arabic was the official language of science at his time) and so the Westerners became familiar with him via Arabic to English translation, probably, so the Arabic name Al-Khwarizmi has entered English. And I think that Al-Khwarizmi should be redirected to Kharazmi, as the ttle of the main article! Nimak 11 September 2005 02:05


 * For support for this argument see 69.157.0.3 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. His name means "the Khwarizmian". He was Persian. --61.24.87.41 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi guys.. I am not sure why you think he is Persian. As his name suggested, he was from Kharezm (now called Khive or Urgench) in Uzbekistan around the delta of Amu Derya river. He has Turkish origin... Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Khawrizm was a major province in Persia that in modern times became part of the Soviet Union as Uzbekistan, and became independent after the fall of Communism. Incidentally, Uzbekistan still retains its Iranian or Persian heritage, as well as obviously its Russian heritage; they speak Farsi with a distinct accent. In fact, many important scientists came from this one time Persian province, including `The Father of Modern Medicine` Avicenna, which is Latin: in his native Persian language he is known as Pur Sina, i.e. his real name. It is mind boggling how Arabs, Turks, and Indians try to claim these Iranian, or Persian giants of history, like Khwarizmi, Avicenna, the poet Rumi, etc., as their own. But, personally, I take it as a compliment that these people think so highly of these Persians, that they want to steal them, and alter history.

Relevance of Islam

 * Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (780?-845?) was a Muslim mathematician and author whose work was fundamental to the development of the field of mathematics.

What the heck is "Muslim mathematician"? I thought math was a unified subject? If he's a Muslim, or famous for BEING a Muslim, let's say so.

I made a lot of edits downplaying how WONDERFUL this guy was. If he advanced and/or spread algebra, that's nice - and if he invented the concept of the algorithm, that's nice too. But leave out the gushing praise, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:50, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, you sure *DID* make a lot of changes. You ask "What the heck is Muslim mathematician?" -- I wonder if you ever asked "what the heck is Western?"   You are either ignorant or prejusiced, or as is the case often with people who possess either one of the two attributes, both!


 * You removed the part that said "Mathematics and the sciences that are expressed in terms of mathematics would not be what they are today without the ground-breaking contributions of Al-Khwarizmi." -- this was no exaggeration at all, since Khwarazmi *IS* the one who defined and fomulated the so-called Arabic Number System (even though he himself was not an Arab). Without his amazing and groundbreaking work, chances are, to this day you would be using the stupid Roman Numerals.
 * [The two preceding 'graphs are from two edits (the second at 12:43, 2003 Nov 26) by User:67.30.100.98. --Jerzy(t) 07:12, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) ]


 * [The following 'graph is Jerzy(t)'s response to the IP who criticized Uncle Ed's edit.]
 * Largely nonsense. Bcz of being in the right time and place, he put finishing touches on a system whose essentials came to him from mathematicians who happened to be Hindus.  The West probably got good arithmetic and math sooner bcz Islamic culture was in a vital period then, but the best minds in a sufficiently dynamic culture always transcend their cultures by hunting down the world's best ideas, and we'd be using either base 5, 10, or 20 without him or Islam having ever existed. --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * Hello Jerzy. A few points (regarding your above and below comments). Firstly, if you are deeply bothered by the fact that someone added "Muslim" to this article (and I agree with you on this point), it doesn't mean that you should now be unfair and unkind to Al-Khwarazmi for it, he had nothing to do with it.  Secondly, your assertion about the so-called "Hundu mathematicians" is bogus.  You cannot back it up with facts.  It was Khwarazmi who for the first time defined and systematized the number system that we have today, the so-called "arabic number system".  His books are still available.  The ones who claim this comes from India, mostly do so out of their ignorance and hatered for Islam, because it is too "painful" for them to accept that the very foundation of modern science is a contribution from what they in their little mind perceive as "the Islamic world".  If you understood his number system, you would laugh at yourself for talking about binary, octal, hexadecimal and other bases as independent "systems" as they all are well-defined within the same number system.  And Khwarazmi is the one who defined this system, not some obscure "Hindu mathematicians" as you claim.  Your attempt to trivialize his status and achievements as "being at the right place at the right time" was truly pathetic.  Without his contribution, today your number system probably was still this antic: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.  ....  and lastly, even though I would be the first to agree that emphacizing "Muslim" in this article is wrong, I wonder how many times have you made the same protest about numerous other articles where "Jewish" is emphacized?   --K1 23:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed by such bizarre inferences as
 * my being 'deeply bothered', and
 * that my failure to mention the obvious (that Al-Khwarizmi was a mathematical genius comparable to the Greek geometers), or my disagreement with others' equating of greatness and indispensibility, amounts to 'unfair[ness] and unkind[ness]'.
 * I am concerned that anyone who paraphrases 'mathematicians who happened to be Hindus' (in the context of criticism of the phrase 'Muslim mathematician') into 'so-called "Hundu mathematicians" ' is probably over their head in trying to deal with the nuances of this discussion.
 * One need look no further than Zero for a name of one of the supposedly 'obscure "Hindu mathematicians" ' who gave Al-Khwarizmi giant shoulders to stand on. On the other hand, the inferences about my mathematical background suggest a tunnel-vision understanding of mathematics (perhaps as being started and completed by Al-Khwarizmi); not everyone who knows of his work can be expected to realize that his results follow inevitably (tho not necessarily immediately) from the Indian conceptualization of zero as number, perhaps in India, perhaps in Baghdad, perhaps in Pisa or Warsaw or K&ouml;nigsberg, no matter which of the two accounts at Arabic numerals is true.
 * Perhaps another form of tunnel vision is involved in the complaint about the use of "Jewish" in Wiki-bios. Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian mathematician (or perhaps an Arabized Persian mathematician; i haven't had the need to become versed in the relevant terminology). Charles Steinmetz was a German-American mathematician, because his ethnicity is summarized by the nationalities of the two countries he made his successive homes.  Albert Einstein doesn't fit a nice hyphenated pattern because his ethnicity was more complex.  He was a German-American Jewish mathematician, or an Americanized German-Jewish mathematician, because being Jewish was part of his ethnicity, no matter what his beliefs were.  (He did say "God doesn't play with dice", but quantum physicists don't care whether he was talking about Jahweh or the Trinity. Or joking about the image of a bearded old man that children imagine taking care of things, which is what i've always assumed.)  Ethnicity tells you worlds more that is encyclopedic about a person than either their beliefs (even if anyone really knew what anyone else's beliefs are) or what house of worship has their name on a list.  It sounds like my colleague might think it unfair that "Jewish" is ambiguous between belief and ethnicity, and "Muslim" isn't, but WP isn't here to make the world fair.
 * I'm of the opinion that his religion must be stated because it directly contributed to his works and initiatives. However if the majority thinks it must not be stated, so be it. A. 05:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Hadj. I do not know of any religious books that Khwarazmi ever wrote.  Do you know of any?  There is no evidence that he was even a religious person.  How do we know he was a dedicated muslim? And on what basis are you saying that his religion "directly contributed" to his scientific achievements and scholarship?   --K1 07:48, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * [The following 2 'graphs are Jerzy(t)'s response directly to Uncle Ed, and not to the 3 edits (one of them confusingly stating it is in part in response to my comments below!)
 * The inclusion of the word "Muslim" is an embarassment to Islam, especially when coupled with the claim in a summary about Islam being responsible for his work. A glance at the dates of Islamic technical workers' work of long-term value in fact shows that something besides being a Muslim is crucial to their productivity.
 * There should be a category tag for this to assist locating Muslim scientists, and an article about Islamic cultures' contributions to hard knowledge, but the number of scientists whose bios deserve mention of their belief systems is very small, and that usually bcz they were persecuted (for their beliefs or by their relgious own authorities) or because they made a mark in a belief-sytstem-oriented thought. (Einstein's pacifism comes to mind, tho it should be in the last few 'graphs of his bio.) --Jerzy(t) 15:51, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * BTW, after realizing that "language of Persian science" was misleading at best, and "language of Middle-Eastern science" was probably an anachronism, i realized that even more than any relevant empire, there was a "language of science in the Islamic world" at that time. I assume Uncle Ed and A. will agree with me that this is quite a different case from "Muslim mathematician". --Jerzy(t) 07:12, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

- WHAT IS THIS nonsense discussion about calling Kharazmi a Muslim Scholar or not? Why not? After all, calling him as such will convey more information about him as he was from Muslim Middle East, not from pre-Islamic Middle East etc.! Calling him a Muslim scholar should not hurt you if you are a true seeker of truth. It is amazing how some people can come up with petty arguments.-Serkan

-Also, I see that some obscure people here downplay the great works of such a scientist. How can you do that if you have a bit of knowledge and conciousness? He was without any exaggeration a great contributor to Mathematics. I see a lot of ignorance and prejudice in these claims. -Serkan

First of all, the proper related word to "Westerners" should be something like "Middle-Easterners", "from the Middle East", ...., and not Muslim. Muslim is the term comes to mind when you are speaking about religion. Sometimes, some extra information about the religion of the scientist can cast some light on what will come in the rest of the article, for example, it can be explained why Einstein had to leave his country behind, ... However, I do not think that such information is relevant when we are talking about Kharazmi. And secondly, I've thought about why many Iranian scholars are more famous of being a muslim rather than an Iranian. One reason is that the Westerners learned about their knowledge via the medium of Arabic for the first time (and a longer time to come). But I've noticed some other explenations on why this has continued to the present time. One is that for Arab people being a muslim comes before their nationality (even being an Arab does so). On the other hand, Iranians are usually very proud of their nationality, so they prefer their scientist to be referred to as Iranian or Persian rather than Muslim, a term that many mistaken that it is limited to Arabs (believe me, I've been asked many times if our official language is Arabic, just because it's the case with most of the countries in the Middle East). However, I think there is more to it than the care or lack of it for the nationality. There is a tendency among the Arabs, maybe just because they think that other nationalities do think the same as they do, to downgrade the nationality issue, especially when it comes to Iranians, or just for the desire of showing themselves as a greater nation. (That I believe it's true to some extent.) Anyway, no matter which of my proposals, or even none of them, is true, it does not make it necessary to mention the word Muslim. Nimak 11 September 2005 03:05

I definitely don't agree with you as to whether to use the word "Muslim" or not. As for 'On the other hand, Iranians are usually very proud of their nationality, so they prefer their scientist to be referred to as Iranian or Persian rather than Muslim, a term that many mistaken that it is limited to Arabs' (Nimak). Yeah, I can see that very well. The problem is that you are taught that all great men of Middle East must be Persian. Are you sure this is nothing to do with arrogance? Also, as I indicated in another relevant article's talk page, I am sick of some people making all the Middle-Eastern scientists, philosophers, rulers etc., "Persian." Man, you guys must suffer from inferiority complex. If the person under discussion speaks Persian you use this as a "proof" that he was Persian. If the he does not speak Persian, then you say: "well, just because he had other native language does not mean he is not Persian." All these scientists, philosophers, poets etc. under the title "Persian ..." could very well have been an Arab, a Turk, a Kurd, or any other Middle-Eastern ethnicity. For Kharizmi, we simple don't know exaclty. I followed how the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355023?query=sci-fi&ct=). Please don't change it.-Ur


 * We don't believe "all great men of the middle east must be Persian", but it is widely accepted that Khwarizmi is Persian. His full name is Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi which means "Mohammed the father of Jafar and the son of Musa, the Khwarizmian" (from the Persian province of Khoresm, south of the Aral Sea, which the Greeks had called Khorasmia).


 * If the person under discussion speaks Persian you use this as a "proof" that he was Persian. If the he does not speak Persian, then you say: "well, just because he had other native language does not mean he is not Persian." 


 * Persian after the advent of Islam was not the lingua franca of the middle east. All literary works under the Caliphate had to be in Arabic, and all religious text had to be in Arabic, so of course if someeone spoke Persian during the time of the Caliphate, it gives a strong indication of them being Persian.


 * Anyways our personal opinions are irrelevant. The general scholarly consensus is that he was Persian, and the opinions of a few chauvinistic Arabs who want to claim all muslim contributions equal arab contributions can't change that.

--61.24.87.41 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the language of literature was Persian throughout the major parts of the Middle East. Persian was very common among non-persians such as Turks, Afghans, Indians etc. Any learned non-Persian knew Persian very well. If you look at the literary works of Selchuks, Mughals, and Ottomans you will see that. So this invalidates your conslusion above.


 * I think it is the "Chauvanistic Persians who want to claim that all Muslim contributions equal Persian contributions." I, for one, say: It belongs to the Islamic Civilization to which Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, etc all contributed. BTW, I personnally, even though disgusted from seeing almost racist "Persians" these days, admire Persian civilization. But one has to understand a great civilization is not forced down peoples throats, it happens naturally via creativity and hardwork. --Ur

Cartography
He supervised the work of 70 geographers to create the first map of the known world. I don't think so. First surviving? First Muslim? First what? Wetman 00:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Personally I have no knowledge of his contributions to the field of cartography, but assuming what the article mentions in that regard is correct, it would not be at all surprising if that was the first map of the then "known world", considering he lived in the 8th-9th century. Why is it surpsing for you?     --K1 01:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It surprises me because it doesn't appear to make sense. "Known world" is not an absolute entity.  Known to whom?   Maybe al-Khwarizmi supervised construction of a map of the world that was known to his culture, but it certainly wasn't a map of the whole world, and it's certainly true that other cultures had made earlier maps of the parts of the world that they knew about.  This would include very limited maps made by cultures for whom the "known world" was very small.   So unless there's something I'm missing or I don't understand, it's very difficult to believe that the claim is true, as written. -- Dominus 16:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the claim that he created the "first map of the world" is bogus. I am going to change that.  In fact, I am not even sure that he was ever involved in a cartographical project directly, although I do know that he wrote a scientific gerographical book in which he defined the world in terms of lattitudes and longitudes (title of the book: Thorat-al-Ardh or Face of the Earth).  I will try to rewrite this article one of these days, I think this article can be improved quite a bit.     --K1 01:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Text for Possible Merging
Content from page redirected here: I may try to merge this.

'' Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi was born around the year 780 in Baghdad, which is now in Irak and he died around the year 850. We do not know very much about his life, so many guesses have been made based on very little evidence.

Probably, Harun al-Rashid was the fifth Caliph of the Abbasid dinasty when Al-Khwarizmi was born. His court was in the capital, Baghdad, and he brought different intellectual disciplines to the Arabic world. He had two sons, al-Amin and al-Mamun. When Harun died, in 809, there was a violent fight between the two brothers.

Later on, al-Mamun won the war. On the other hand, al-Amin was killed in 813. Al-Mamun became Calìph. He continued bringing different disciplines to his empire and he founded the House of Wisdom, which was an academy. There, Greek philosophical and scientific works were translated. Moreover, he built up a library, which was the biggest library after the one in Alexandria. He also set up some observatories, where Muslim astronomers studied the stars,...

Al-Khwarizmi was one of the scholars at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. He and his colleagues translated Greek scientific works and studied algebra, geometry and astronomy. It is certain that Al-Khwarizmi worked under the reign of Al-Mamun because he dedicated two texts to the Caliph. These texts were his treatise on algebra and his treatise on astronomy. This algebra treatise (Hisab al-jabr w'al-muqabala) was the most important of all his works. It is the first book to be written on algebra. ''

Charles Matthews 15:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Pre-Merge Histories
The following are histories of pages that have been converted to redirects here. This record of the respective histories may help comprehension of the merged history that will result from the history-merge i am undertaking.

(Specific versions and comparisons between them may still be retrieved from the history page of the merged version, namely that of Al-Khwarizmi

Al-Khawarizmi

 * 22:53, 2004 Jun 13 Docu m (fix link)
 * 03:18, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Giving up & removing comment too: # REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
 * 03:17, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Remove text, leaving only comment after redir)
 * 03:16, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Single line w/ comment & extra text, trying to fix redirect)
 * 03:04, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (# REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
 * 02:19, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (# REDIRECT Al-Khwarizmi)
 * 09:41, 2004 Mar 18 Charles Matthews m (fx lk)
 * 01:17, 2004 Feb 15 Docu m
 * 04:56, 2003 Jul 19 Silver Maple m (stub)

Al-Khwarzimi

 * 12:35, 2004 May 12 JASpencer (Redirecting to proper article)
 * 12:31, 2004 May 12 JASpencer (Setting this up)

Al-Khwarizmi

 * 00:03, 2004 Jul 22 Jerzy (- redundant phrase)
 * 00:02, 2004 Jul 22 Jerzy (lessen formality of caption to match the stamp's text; - claim that stamp is based on a millenium-old portrait; status of Arabic)
 * 19:48, 2004 Jul 20 Roozbeh
 * 14:39, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
 * 14:38, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
 * 14:37, 2004 Jul 20 212.238.143.99
 * 06:16, 2004 Jul 20 Sundar (Famous works - spelling Arithmatic => Arithmetic)
 * 04:09, 2004 Jul 20 Stevertigo m (adding new category Category:Ancient mathematicians)
 * 22:06, 2004 Jul 16 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason m (is:)
 * 14:53, 2004 Jul 16 Chris 73 (added image)
 * 14:10, 2004 Jul 11 Szajd m (+hu:)
 * 21:02, 2004 Jun 20 Lzur
 * 05:53, 2004 Jun 19 Ellywa m (nl)
 * 15:58, 2004 Jun 4 Jerzy (rv to 21:18, 2004 Jun 3 edit by Roozbeh; see talk)
 * 00:00, 2004 Jun 4 Roozbeh m
 * 23:48, 2004 Jun 3 Hadj
 * 23:48, 2004 Jun 3 Hadj (nuancé)
 * 22:50, 2004 Jun 3 Roozbeh m (readded "mulsim", if anyone likes to do a debate, go on. i don't think this is really important.)
 * 21:18, 2004 Jun 3 Roozbeh (some formatting, removal of Muslim in the intro line)
 * 17:54, 2004 Jun 2 Hadj (because the Islamic culture encouraged people to think (see other scientist during the Chaliphates))
 * 03:20, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (fix link)
 * 03:00, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Melding of the combined texts)
 * 02:42, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Merger of full text of both, reordered)
 * 02:14, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (rv to last by Schneelocke, as base for merging Al-Khawarizmi in)
 * 02:11, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Tsk. forgot it needed editing, so forgot to preview)
 * 02:07, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (Overwrite with snapshot of history page of Al-Khawarizmi article, about to be merged.)
 * 02:00, 2004 Jun 2 Jerzy (overwrite with smaller article, to support comparisons between it and merged article)
 * 14:34, 2004 May 30 Schneelocke m
 * 12:26, 2004 May 16 Henrygb
 * 08:33, 2004 Apr 21 199.183.105.198
 * 14:07, 2004 Apr 14 Roozbeh (corrected paragraph about native tongue and removed the dispute message (which I had placed there myself))
 * 06:51, 2004 Apr 14 130.216.191.183
 * 20:40, 2004 Apr 11 80.58.47.42 (es:)
 * 18:26, 2004 Apr 2 Michael Hardy m
 * 10:05, 2004 Apr 1 Jengod (npov, copy edit, cleanup)
 * 01:07, 2004 Mar 24 XJamRastafire m (Correction de:)
 * 18:31, 2004 Mar 6 Roozbeh
 * 01:49, 2004 Mar 3 K1 (minor editorial adjustment)
 * 09:11, 2004 Feb 29 213.233.160.4 (+NPOV)
 * 14:38, 2004 Feb 21 Roozbeh m (al-jabr o al-muqabala -> al-jabr "wa" al-muqabala)
 * 00:43, 2004 Feb 20 155.198.17.114
 * 17:25, 2004 Feb 14 Ayman m (Ibn -> bin (see naming conventions) also fixed Arabic name)
 * 15:22, 2004 Feb 14 Ayman m (ar:)
 * 14:22, 2004 Feb 12 Roozbeh m (fixed a typo in Arabic name)
 * 14:09, 2004 Feb 12 Roozbeh (moving things around, removing double mentions of information, provided Arabic and Persian original names)
 * 17:01, 2004 Feb 11 130.88.197.124
 * 16:59, 2004 Feb 11 130.88.197.124
 * 01:41, 2004 Jan 7 Robbot m (Andre Engels - robot Modifying:de,fr)
 * 03:35, 2003 Dec 23 Ellmist (==External links==)
 * 02:05, 2003 Dec 11 24.5.138.79
 * 02:04, 2003 Dec 11 24.5.138.79 (hahaha)
 * 12:58, 2003 Nov 26 Chancemill m (A better rephrasing.)
 * 12:44, 2003 Nov 26 67.30.100.98
 * 16:46, 2003 Nov 24 Ed Poor ("Muslim mathematician" => "mathematical pioneer", etc. - basically toning down praise)
 * 18:37, 2003 Nov 2 Adam Bishop m (fr:Al-Khwarizmi)
 * 16:09, 2003 Nov 2 Mats Halldin m (+sv:)
 * 20:09, 2003 Oct 8 Dominus m (wikified dates)
 * 01:15, 2003 Oct 6 Olivier m
 * 02:23, 2003 Aug 29 XJamRastafire m (+sl:)
 * 00:08, 2002 Oct 5 Isis m
 * 20:36, 2002 Sep 16 63.205.228.14
 * 00:35, 2002 Sep 15 63.205.228.14
 * 00:33, 2002 Sep 15 63.205.228.14
 * 15:18, 2002 Sep 13 Andre Engels m (disambiguation)
 * 02:02, 2002 Aug 25 Brion VIBBER m (linked arabic numerals)
 * 02:00, 2002 Aug 25 Brion VIBBER m (lang links: +de,eo)
 * 09:36, 2002 Jun 14 Stepnwolf m
 * 15:43, 2002 Feb 25 Conversion script m (Automated conversion)

Etymology
I removed two adjacent sentences, the second quite recent: Neither of these adds to the article more than does the simple statement
 * 1) The word algorithm is a corruption of early English algorisme, which came from Latin algorismus, which in turn came from the name of al-Khowarizmi.
 * 2) Other scholars citing his work in Latin language used the expression "dixit algorismi" ("as said Al-Khowarizmi"), which is believed to have coined the expression.
 * The words "algorithm" and "algorism" derive ultimately from his name.

The first expands a standard dictionary etymology into a sentence, as if that represented something more encyclopedic.

The second is poorly written, especially in light of its being written to be slammed up against the first, without any visible effort to establish what relationship brings them together. This is especially unwelcome since the second seems to intend to contradict the first.

There is, by the way, some doubt about the meaning of the second. In either case, however, nothing about etymology is explicated: perhaps "algorismi" is a Latin inflection, to suit that syntactic role, of some other Latin rendering of his name, but it sure looks like just a transliteration. If that's what it's getting at, we have not been given the means of guessing it.
 * Standing alone, i would take it to be a garbled version of something close to
 * When other mathematical scholars, in their own works in Latin, cited his Arabic work, they would precede an assertion with "dixit algorismi", Latin for "(as) Al-Khowarizmi said". And that's where "algorithm" comes from.
 * A colleague, in an edit summarized "rewording to remove ambiguity", rewords, to mistakenly attribute the use of Latin to him (tho we know he wrote in Arabic), apparently in order to permit hinting at some kind of relationship with the first sentence, by making the "Other [mathematical] scholars" into "other etymologists":
 * Other scholars cite his work in Latin language where he has used the expression “dixit algorismi” (“as said Al-Khowarizmi”), which is believed to be the precursor to the expression.
 * I'm sorry to have misunderstood the intended meaning of the previous sentence and to have reworded it into a factually wrong sentence. -- Sundar 09:53, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

It is, however, interesting that -ismus is a noun-forming suffix in Latin, giving rise to the noun-forming suffix -ism in English, and the coincidence may have played a role in determining which words derived from it (two nouns) survived. (If somone name Melish contributed to English-speaking culture, we might expect an adjective "melish" more than a noun.)

I have moved this text here rather than discarding it, and tried to clarify it, in the hope that it may later be of some use. The etymological events that would be of some interest here concern the modern contrast between "algorithm" (the familiar general term) and "algorism", a now fairly obscure term WP regards as referring to the decimal notation system. But IMO "algorism" is surely connected to the other by the need, in introducing any positional notation, to explicitly state the algorithms that specify how math operations are done on such numbers. (For instance, the carry and borrow steps are part of algorithms -- that few of our elementary-school teachers used the term "algorithm" in describing.)

At present, we lack the raw material for writing such a discussion: our wretched account of the contents of his work hints not at all at whether he The terminology stinks of him not having felt a need to distinguish between algorism's algorithms and more general algorithms, and when we have a better article, the etymology will be one tool in describing the staged elaboration of the concepts, which is an encyclopedic topic of history of mathematics (and the sociology and psychology of discovery), and of more than etymological interest.
 * used a term to mean "algorithm" (if he paid no attention to the question of guaranteed finite completion, i'd argue he laid a foundation for the concept, but didn't arrive at it),
 * stated any algorithms where a formal proof of computability needs to go beyond "inspection" ("Look, stupid, you've got a finite number of digits N; you multiply them pairwise, with no more than N2/4 pairs, and each pair takes no more than M steps; of course you have to run out of pairs, and any fool can see you're done then!")
 * stated any algorithms beyond those of elementary-school arithmetic.

--Jerzy(t) 09:19, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Algorism is the original term. Algorithm was dervided by changing the pronounciation to make the word sound more greek. The original Latin is Algorismus. I don't know enough about Latin to be sure about the name of the book cited, but I would think it would be Algorismi. See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/algorism and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=algorithm&searchmode=none and the OED entry. (I no longer have access to it, but I remeber there was useful information there.)

Furthermore, while it is Etmologically true that Algorithm comes from Khwarizmi's name, the modern conception of the word is only tangentialy related to his work, so this may confuse readers. 216.15.124.196 03:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Moslem Scientist?
Then why not refer to Max-Plank as a Christian scientist and Einstein as a Jewish one? Was Einstein a genious because he was a Jew? Or the other way around? What did his religion have to do with his achievements? Have you ever heard of anybody calling Newton "a great Christian Physicist"? So, why keep callin Khwarazmi a Moslem scientist? Because there are so few of them, scientist from Moslem backgrounds?
 * No, because that was his religion and that is relevant to his life. --Revolución (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, we call him Muslim because we are not talking about modern days where people are identified more easily ethinically and geographically. People from Middle East in those times were not exactly as keen on their ethnicity as we are today. As a result in most cases we don't even know their exact ethnicity with full confidence. Hence calling them "Muslim." Another factor is the fact that historically (for better or worse) these things were written mostly for western readers, and they referred to Middle Easterners as "Muslims." -Ur

Image dispute
Ok, what's with the image dispute? Personally I find the image of the Soviet stamp to be of much greater quality and detail than the image some user keeps on inserting, claiming the stamp is "Arabized", whatever that means. I find the image the user insists on putting in the article to be of low quality. It looks like a sketch drawing. Also, I have serious doubts about the copyright status of the one you keep on inserting. --Revolución (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is copyrighted indeed. It's from the Mac Tutor bio page of Khwarazmi linked at the bottom of the article.--Zereshk 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi has Turkish Origin.
I am not sure why he is mentioned as Persian. As his name suggested, he was from Kharezm (now called Khive or Urgench) in Uzbekistan around the delta of Amu Derya river. As clear from the preface of his book, he is orthodox Muslim. These all show that he has a Turkish origin... Resid Gulerdem 07:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure Khwarezm didn't lie in Peria? —Ruud 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A did a really quick check. Khwarezm did became Turkish until the 11th century. Al-Khwarizmi lived in the 8th century. Cheers, —Ruud 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. Central Asia was largely Persian/Iranian before the large scale invasion of the Mongols/Turks in the 13th century. Almost all the great thinkers and scientists of central asia came before the 13th century. --61.24.87.41 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Khwarazm is in fact what was known as "Iran-vij" by the ancients.--Zereshk 23:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Khwarezmi did live in 9th century. And Turkish control is in 11th century. But there was large amount of Turkish population there, even before the Turkish control. El-Biruni is another one lived in 11th century. They both have Turkish origin. During the 13th century Turks were already deep in Europe. Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Turks are everywhere in Iran today as well. What does that prove? Khamenei is even a Turk. The Safavids, Qajarids, and even Pahlavis were Turk or had Turkic origin. So does that make Iran a "Turk" country?--Zereshk 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot see what you mean... It looks your arguments supports what I am saying. Iran is not a Turkic country, but there are many Turks there... Al Khwarezmi one of those at the time of Persian State (Empire). He is orthodox Muslim. He was in Beyt-ul Hikmeh for a long time which is an institution established by the khalifeh El-Memun ~(813-837). In fact there is a Turkic state in the history with the same name: State of Khwaresm. These are all suggesting that he is a Turk. Resid Gulerdem 06:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything what is written in Wikipedia must be veribiable. Please cite your sources, or else this is original research. —Ruud 09:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right... So what is your evidence that he is Persian? Is what you are doing an original research? The fact is that there is not much known about him. I say he is Turkish because of some evidence: His name suggest he is from Khwarezm. It was a Turkish State in the history, not a persian. He wrote in arabic. He is an Orthodox Muslim. There is nothing to do with Persian at all... Were all the people living in the Ottoman Empire Turkish? Of course not! Resid Gulerdem 09:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't need to prove he is Persian, all the authorative sources state he is. Either prvides a few reliable sources yourself or stop reverting. This will only get you RfCed. —Ruud 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

McTutor shows him as born in Baghdad, about 780 AD, see also more information about him on that page. I find Resid Gulerdem's statement of Al-Khwarizmi's being Turkish no more than guesswork. I don't think it is appropriate to write this in the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the link you provided, or anywhere else, is there an evidence (not claims only as you did here) that support his being a Persian? So, why you try to keep it?


 * I am not guessing. I am proposing some arguments:


 * He was an Orhodox Muslim (which is a strong evidence that he was not Shia)
 * He is from Khwarism (It is a place where Turks were living all along the history. There is even a Turkish State with the same name in the history).
 * He wrote in Arabic (not even Persian)


 * I would like to see the authorities and evidences that he is Persian! Can Ruud help me with that, what sources you are refering to?


 * No one can say he is this or tahat for sure. But what can we say is: the highest possibility is 'he is Turkish', the lowest possibiility is 'he is a Persian'.


 * I wont revert this time, up untill you come up with your reliable sources with some evidence which show that he is Persian. Resid Gulerdem 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, MacTutor, the sources listed by MacTUtor, Encyclopaedia Britannica. The burder of proof is one you here. Just provided even one source and we have something to disucus about. —Ruud 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not known if Al-Khwarizmi indeed came from Khwarizm. See again McTutor. He may have been Persian, maybe Arab, maybe having some Turkish ancestry. Who knows. But it is surely incorrect to state in the article that he was Turkish, again please give your evidence. Maybe we should follow the example at McTutor and not mention anything about his nationality to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Ruud, I checked again the sources you refered to, but there is no single evidence of his being Persian. Could you please copy paste the paragraphs you are refering to..


 * Dear Oleg, I do not know how much you know about history of science? I am working on philosophy of science and related to history of science a little bit. I know Arabic too. Let me give you a quick hint: The name Al-Khwarizmi mean literally 'a person from Khwarism' which is a historically Turkish state and region. Persian controlled the place for some time but local people there were Turks all along the history. I checked again McTutor, as I did couple of times before. And I am aware of the references they are quoting from. It doesnt show that he is Persian at all.


 * As I said his name itself suggest that he is from Khwarizm. We cannot call Gandhi an English just becase England occupied India for some time, right? Please note the explanation about the claim of his being from Bagdad in McTutor.


 * What I am saying is closer to what Oleg suggesting. There is no evidence of him being Persian at all. If nationality is specified, it should be Turkish: the most strong possibility (please see my previous note). His being Persian is incredibly weak statement coming from nowhere...


 * The last thing is this: Unfortunately, some people -most likely Persian- just naming Turkish or sometimes some Arabic scientists as being Persian. They are even calling Rumi as Persian too, although it is clear that he is Turkish. It is simple not acceptible. I realized the same mistake in Biruni article too. He is also from Khwarism, and Turkish. It is stated otherwise in the article. I do not know if 'calling some famous scientists from different nationality as Persian' bring any honor to these people...


 * The last thing is, if it is somehow not acceptible to call him with his true nationality, we should just call him a Muslim scientist, and leave the rest to the curiosity of the reader. Resid Gulerdem 03:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need to know much Arabic to figure out what Al-Khwarizmi means. All I am saying is that his name is not enough evidence that he is from Khwarizm. May have been his ancestors rather than himself. Anyway, to put it frankly, it appears to me that you are having a prior agenda here, and it was inappropriate for you to modify this article to call him Turkish, since that is based only on your own loose guesswork. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this an acceptable compromise, although I have removed his name in Turkish, as I fail to see the relevance of it. —Ruud 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is kind of funny that Oleg is calling my arguments as loose guesswork without trying to prove any of his statements. All those sources you are referring to are doing nothing but a guesswork. If I write a book then you will probably refer to my guesswork as a strong evidence from a source. I would recommend you read the history of science rather than reading my intensions: I have a prior agenda?!... Resid Gulerdem 03:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly this his how Wikipedia works: no original research. If this matter so much to you, maybe you should write a book? —Ruud 04:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any statements to prove, isn't that clear enough? I said it is not known what the guy's nationality is. On the other hand, you go changing the people's nationality to Turkish without being able to provide evidence. My stand is very simple: if you don't have references for something, then you don't write anything. I am sure you are a smart person and know more than me about history of science. Your deduction about the nationality could as well be right. But Wikipedia allows only information which is verifiable in the existing publications or books, as R.Koot says above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezmia was "Turkish"? My goodness.

Biruni specifically says:


 * اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس


 * "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian"

There is sufficient evidence given in the etymology and early history sections on the Khwarezmia page.--Zereshk 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the sources indicating he was Persian is his name--the other is the Meriam-Webster dictionary. Many scientists at the time traveled to Baghdad, a city built by Persians, located in the land know as Babylon, which were Persians came from before it was occupied by Arabs.

Lower-case title warning message necessary?
I really don't think it's necessary to have the lower-case title template, since most of the other hundreds of articles beginning with Arabic definite-article al- don't have it -- and Arabic script doesn't have a distinction between capitals and lower-case anyway... AnonMoos


 * I put it there because when Wikipedia will become case-sensitive Real Soon Now, I will suspect that pages with this template will be renamed automatically. Also sheep-arguments (because the rest doesn't) don't tend to convice me :) Cheers, —Ruud 20:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizmi: Persian Genius
Two things are a big deal to Iranians; one the fact that Zoroaster and the Persian Empire for the first time in history spread the idea of Monotheistic religion, the belief in one God, to humanity, thus single handedly influencing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--and the second is Khwarizmi and his discovery of Algorithm that single handedly allowed science to progress to what it is today. The reason why Persians state that most of Islamic scientists were Persians is because almost 90 percent of that era’s scientists like Razes who discovered alcohol, `The Father of Modern Medicine` Avicenna who by the way also came from the ancient Persian province of Khwarizm, poets like Hafez, Sa`adi, Rumi who created Sufism, and architects like the Persian Jew Mashallah, who built the city of Baghdad, etc., were all Persians. By the way, many scientists at the time traveled to Baghdad, a city built by Persians, located in the land previously known as Babylon, which is where Persians originally came from, and the place where the capital of the first three Persian Empires were, namely Ctesiphon in Babylon. However, centuries later, when Arabs defeated the last great Persian Empire, the Sassanid dynasty, and conquered Persia, this land was occupied by Arabs, and today it is known as Iraq, an Arab country. As far as the literature goes, there is physical proof that Persians have the most extensive and famous literature about Islam, even though as history states over 95 percent of their literature was lost when first Alexander the Great, then Arabs, and finally the Mongols burned their libraries and destroyed most of the Persian literature. Yet, their literature in fact [still] remains the most extensive literature in the history of Middle-East, and even the masterpiece `1001 Nights` is a mere translation of the Persian folktale, `1000 Myths`--you may refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for further reading, or Wikipedia itself. It is noteworthy that the major body of Islamic poetry and tales, were penned by Persian poets such as Rumi, who for fear of persecution fled Iran and immigrate to Konya, a land that is now somewhere in modern Turkey, Attar, Hafez, Sa`adi, and Omar Khayyam wrote the most famous Islamic poetry discovered thus far, with Khayyam even inventing the new Islamic calendar. Persians have even designed the shape of the Mosques as we know them today, painted almost all of Islamic related paintings, etc., and Iranians as such have every right, in fact a moral obligation to defend their scientists and poets who have contributed so much to humanity. The reason why Persians were overwhelmingly responsible for almost all contributions that occurred in the Islamic era is because for almost seven centuries Persia ruled over most of Asia, or at least Middle East, and had empires that stretched from India to Greece. In fact, before the invasion by Alexander the Great, for two centuries Persia was the lone Super Power in the world; hence, as a result they were very well educated, well-fed, and were encouraged to pursue science, literature, etc., because after all, they were in power, they had all the wealth, and the Empire made sure its own people were well taken care of. So, it is not a racist thing, rather it just shows you the important role and the benefit that the environment can play in a particular society. Finally, the works of the Greek mathematicians were completely different when compared to that of Khwarizmi, for that he alone discovered and articulated the use of numbers in mathematics, rather than the Greek methods of solving math problems via Geometry. And, if Greek mathematicians had discovered Algebra, then there would have been a book written by a Greek, not the Iranian or Persian born Khwarizmi. Whether, you like it or not, he is most likely the most important mathematician in history, and one of the most significant scientists of all time. I suggest you honor his work by showing respect to this Ancient Iranian scientist who changed the course of humanity as we know it.


 * I think al-K was a pretty cool guy as well. —Ruud 11:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Persian again, huh?
''Persian after the advent of Islam was not the lingua franca of the middle east. All literary works under the Caliphate had to be in Arabic, and all religious text had to be in Arabic, so of course if someeone spoke Persian during the time of the Caliphate, it gives a strong indication of them being Persian.''

This is a lie, Persian language wasn't exactly dead at that time, either. Actually, historically it was quite the opposite, many people had command of Persian and used it as a second language. The Prophet Muhammad himself is known to have spoken Persian( although he was an illiterate), would you use that argument to say that "it's a strong indication that he's Persian"? Also, this source lists him as an Arab: it references Columbia University Press, very legit, won’t you agree? I’ll add it, since I have definitive evidence. MB 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article currently says he's Muslim and born in Persia. Let's just keep it at that Ok? The he was Persian, no he was Arabian, no he was Turkish arguments start to get tiring. —Ruud 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying he's a Muslim born in Persia would suggest that he's Persian, where you don't have any claims to your statements. I have legit sources that state he's an Arab. Also, you re-added the categories that say Khwarizmi was a Persian scientist, geographer, and mathematician. Obviously a lie. Also, please don't delete legit sources, it's considered vandalism. MB 04:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's absolutly certain the he was born in Persia, I can't help it if people interpret this as him being a Persian. Also note that neither Encyclopedia Britannica nor MacTutor mention anything about him being Arabic. The categories are only used to make information easier to find, sicne we now have both sources saying he's Persian and sources sating he's Arabic it is likely people will try to look for him under the category Persian mathematicians as well as Arabic mathematicains, so let's categorize him under both. Also I do not remember removing any references, to which reference are you refering? —Ruud 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * MB, your source is a mirror of wikipedia. In any case, his name carries the proof of his ethnicity. deeptrivia (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it also references Columbia University Press, don't take it off. MB 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that more clearly now. Sorry about that. deeptrivia (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, since you see it now, can we refer to him as an Arab, and take off all Persian categories related to him? After all, this is an encyclopedia, if we want people to take Wiki seriously, we have to strive to make sure we only add pertinent data. Him being Persian is not sourced, but him being Arab is, are we agreed? Can we take off all references to him being Persian? MB 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh.... two letters... N... O... —Ruud 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking to Persian nationalistic extremists, obviously you're too blind to see the truth. The fact that you were born in a certain geographic location doesn't make you a national of the land. Many Arabs are born Brazil, that doesn't make them Brazilians, I know many people who were born in Canada or the USA, then went back to their original countries. It doesn't make them American and non-Arabs. Your logic is flawed, and you failed to present one source to prove he's Persian. I'm putting his Arabian nationality back, because I presented legit sources, until you do the same, any changes will be reported as deliberate vandalisms.

P.S. Putting ellipses between letters is very childish. MB 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

MB, it is amusing to me to see that you have tried to change the birthplace of many Persian scientists over the past few weeks (Al Biruni, Avicenna, Al Khwarizmi etc.). Personally I take it as a compliment that so many cultures want to claim these scientists for themselves; like some say the poet Rumi was Turkish, even though he himself wrote he was from Khorasan, Persia. Khorasan is still a state in Iran. And, Khwarizm [was] the upper chunk of that state; it was an ancient state in Iran from which many Persian scientists came from. They had many dialects in Khwarizm; kind of like in the US people from Boston have an accent. However, during the modern era, Peter the Great of Russia invaded Iran, and colonized Khwarizm. Centuries after Al Khwarizmi was born, Khwarizm became part of Russia, and today is the independent country of Uzbekestan. Keep in mind there are ancient literature like a poem by Biruni that actually state, “Inhabitants of Khwarezm are Iranian”. Or, as Encyclopedia Britannica says, “It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD”. As far as Khwarizmi, his fellow Iranian-historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari simply gave him two titles, one was `al-Qutrubbulli`, which meant of Qutrubbull (maybe a title given out of affection, since Khwarizmi may have lived there after emigrating from Persia to Iraq), and the other title was al-Majusi (meaning Zoroastrian). Al Tabari, and no other historians ever said that Khwarizmi was an Arab--and of course we now know he got the Zoroastrian part partly wrong. Even so, Khwarizmi may have been a Zoroastrian as a child, and most likely either converted or was forced to convert to Islam. Keep in mind, as mentioned before, many scientists came from Khwarizm, Iran--such as, Razi, Avicenna, Biruni, etc, etc. Also keep in mind, at that time Arabs had invaded Iran, and during that time Persians were prohibited, or at best discouraged from participating in their own culture, and as such they were forced to speak and write mostly in Arabic. Finally, many discoveries made by these Iranian scientists found their way into the West through the Arabs via Spain (part of the Arab empire then), and because these scientists wrote in Arabic, the name of many of their discoveries took the Arabic prefix of [Al]. For example, Razi discovered alcohol, which is a word coming from kohl, then added the Arabic prefix Al, and alcohol became its name. And Gorithm is the Latinized name for Khwarizmi, later Al was added, and it became Algorithm. So, although these scientists were under Arab rule, yet we should not do a disservice to them, and forget the fact that they were Persian.Zmmz 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MB, the Encyclopedia Britannica article that you mention says, “Al-Khwarizmi was born in Khwarizm (now Khiva), Russia” (although, they should mention what is today Khiva, previously a state in Persia). However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary says, '''“Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”''', as well as even Muslimtents.com written by Arab scholars, Muslimheritage.com written by Arab historians from Egypt, the Department of Islamic studies in University of California, Refrence.com , Unhas.ac.id, that is an Islamic university in Indonesia, under the section MUSLIM SCIENTISTS that is written by a Muslim, namely Dr. Zahoor,, the Oxford dictionary, Scientific Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com, Museum of SJSU, etc.etc., all say Khwarizmi was either Persian, or they say he was born in Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia. However, the reason that a minute few fail to mention his correct birthplace is because, since this matter was recently resolved, it will take time for some references to update their info (Columbia Encyclopedia emailed me after I complained, and said they are awaiting their new edition). Yet, as you can see the over-whelming majority of the refrences have updated their info. Zmmz 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why al-Khwarizmi is not Perisan
Having al-Khwarizmi in his name doesnt mean that you are an ethnic khwarizmi. You can get this name also if you traveled from khwarizm to another place. There are many famous arabs who have names after persian places. One of the famous arabs was Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). So according to the "persian name = persian nationality" theory he must be persian, since al-isfahani indicates he is a persian from isfahan in Iran. Answer is NO. He was an Arab. And not only that!! he was even a descendant of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph!!! He got the "al-isfahani" name when he moved from isfahan to baghdad. This, once and for all, proves that labeling Muhammad Abu Ja'far al-Khwarizmi as persian because of his name, is totally and absoultly invalid!!

Fact is:


 * It is not certain where al-Khwarizmi was born. al-Tabri (one of the most trusted historians in islamic history) say's he was born in a small town near Baghdad.


 * Khwarizm was a province of the arab empire (therefore arab passport and nationality)


 * He lived his whole life in baghdad, and died there(capital city of the arab empire)


 * He wrote all his books in Arabic. Not a single book in persian is known of him.

These facts should make him an Arab or at least stop him from being falsly labeled perisian. I personally have a family name after a persian place, but im not persian!! Jidan 20:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would've said that your place of birth doesn't designate your ethnicity, but you put it much more nicely, Jidan. MB 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jidan your “It is not certain where al-Khwarizmi was born. al-Tabri (one of the most trusted historians in islamic history) say's he was born in a small town near Baghdad” statement is [false]. Al-Tabri, who himself was a Persian by the way who emigrated from Persia to Iraq, [never] said Khwarizmi was an Arab, nor did he ever mention where Khwarizmi was born; he simply gave him a [title] that was the name of a province that Khwarizmi resided in most likely, after he travelled from Persia to Iraq as well. No historian EVER names Khwarizmi as an Arab, or being born an Arab. In fact, no historian ever mentions where Khwarizmi was born in. Al-Tabri also indicated he was Zoroasterian, and not Muslim. So, which is which? Keep in mind, many Persian scientists and poets came from Khwarizm, like Avicenna, Rumi, Biruni etc. Also, numerous merchants, scientists, and others travelled to Baghdad from Persia, since the city was the center of scientific learning at the time, and since Arab Caliphs commissioned some of these scientists to Baghdad. In al-Khwarizmi`s case he was ordered to draw the map of the globe at the time. And, much like Latin in Europe, at the time Arabic was the language of the day; in fact, Persians were discouraged to participate in their own culture. Furthermore, the scientist and poet Biruni said in his ancient poem, “ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". ”.

But, most importantly the Britannica source you mentioned is about another scientist, who was an Arab, and had emigrated to Iran, since many scientists were from and lived in Iran. Britannica says ``Khwarzimi was born in Khiva``, then Khwariam, Persia. So, even the numerous Arab Muslim scholars that I mentioned as sources, Britannica etc., say where he was born. And, the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries actually [say] he was [Persian]. So, what are you saying? They aren`t they good enough sources?Zmmz 21:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When Arabs invaded Persia, simultaneously the Romans invaded Greece. It is well known that most of scientists, engineers, and artists in Rome were Greek. This analogy is very relevant to Arabs and Persians. In fact, most of that era’s scientists came from Persia, and were commissioned by Arab Caliphs to go to Baghdad. Because this ancient Persian province was made to be a center of scientific knowledge during Sassanid Persia--during the early years of Islamic invasion, this tradition continued. Famous Persian scientists from Khwarezm included, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tusi (Tusi was from the neighboring Khorasan), and Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, what's with the obvious biased edits?
The state of Iran didn't exist at that time, and Persia itself was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate, Jidan gave good argument to him being Arab, you don't agree. You call your sources definitive while you dismiss our sources, which are just as legit. Until all editors reach a consensus(i.e. not you and your friends only), I'm taking off the ethnicity, and putting where the province truly belonged. Also, are we to expect that you'll demean yourself to senseless, biased edits whenever a dispute occurs? Shows how confident you and your accomplices are that these scholars are Persian, doesn't it? MB 21:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

People agreeing on something is called a consensus, and should not be labeled as ``friendships``. Also, the state of Iran and its people existed starting from 2500 years ago when Cyrus the Great formed the Kingdom of Iran, or as ancient Iran is known to the West; Persia. To this day its people are the same, and like many countries it was an empire and was also invaded at some point in history. Arabs invaded Persia, and at this time most scientists who were from Persia emigrated to Baghdad, which was a city that by the way was built by the Jewish Persian architect named Mushallah who was forced to convert to Islam. But, what does all this talk about the Persian Empire falling to the Arabs has to do with Persian scientists? Look, America has invaded Iraq right now; so if any scientist from Iraq discovers something, he should be known as an American? I don`t get your logic. And, even though numerous Arab Muslim scholars themselves, Britannica, and others say where he was born, that is not good enough? Bottom-line if he was Arab, why the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries [say] he was [Persian]?Zmmz 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

History cannot be rewritten. Khwarizm was part of the older Persian province of Khorasan and Khwarizmi was a Persian. His father was a Magi for God's sake! There were no Arab Magis! --ManiF 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, I have already spent a lot of time on this. I don`t have any more time for this. If you and other actually bother to read my 7 refences in the discussion page, and if you go to the actual sites, you will see there is an over-whelming consensus that at least say he was born in Khiva, Russia. So, to be fair, the only agreement I will make about the article is that we must mention he was born in Khiva, Russia and in a paranthesis we write formerly khwarizm, Persia, or vice-versa. Of course, I have also provided multile refrences that say Khwarizm was an ancient province in Iran. I mean by the way, I gave you refrences about the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Oxford dictionary that say he was born in Persia. I HAVE the actual Merriam-Webster dictionary in my hand right now as we speak. I don`t think you can get a better source than a recently updated English dictionary. Do you? Yet, I am still willing to comprimise on this, and just say where he was born.Zmmz 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof: Poem about Khwarezm by Al Biruni
Well, what do you know, I found a poem by another prominent Persian scientist and poet Al Biruni who he himself was from Khwarezm, and lived about a century or two after Khwarizmi. Now, that is very important because if there was any mixing between Arabs and Persian in Khwarizm, he would have mentioned it. It is written in Arabic because it was the language of the invading Arabs who required their subjects to speak it (Persians were discouraged from participating in their own culture). It says, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". Zmmz 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Until you give me sources, then I'll assume that this is apocryphal. MB 16:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarazmi's ephipet was Al-Majoosi thus clearly establishing his Persian heritage. The Arabs that settled in Khorasan during Ummayat times were wiped out by Abu Moslem Khorasani as told by many sources.

That may have been written by an unverifiable author, or written by an Student Encyclopedia because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). Also, I clicked on the link you provided, it takes you to an empty page, then asks you to download an Adobe file. It may have been written by a student, but that certainly is not of encyclopedic magnitude. That seems to be the [only] source you have, and although hard to label something, but with all due respect that Adobe file could be written by anyone. Don`t you think an important thing about a culture`s race would be written in at least one Encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica or a dictionary? In fact, I searched Encyclopedia Britannica and it says, “Khwarizm Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R”. Note that Arabs invaded it when then Persian Empire fail, yet the Romans invaded Greece at the same time, but still most of scientists and artists in Rome were Greek. Same analogy applies here.Zmmz 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopaedia Iranica is a well-known scholarly source in Iranian history/culture and language. Try to be more neutral, specially when the evidence is against your POV.Heja Helweda 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

''because first of all Islamic law prohibited Arab Muslims from mixing with ``gentiles``(non-Arabs). ''

What the...where the hell did you get that?! Islam is a global religion and doesn't impose a ban on Arabs to marry non-Arabs. There's no edict like that in the Holy Qura'an or the Prophet's(PBUH) Sunna. Your extremist, baseless insults to a billion people's religion are against wiki's "No Personal Attacks" policy. Encyclopedia Iranica is a project backed by the Columbia University Press, a reputed encyclopedia. It's an Adobe file, Zmmz, obviously you need to download! The factual accuracy of the article has nothing to do with it being on Adobe or not. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

During those times, the haydays of Islam, they did not want the decendents of prophet Muhamad to mix with non-Arabs. That is a well known fact, and it appears in numerous Arabic and English literature. You need to do more reading and less writting.Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. It's not fact, it's only silly fabrication. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That encyclopedia is a student encyclopedia, not an authoritative source, and that is the ONLY source you have. Just click on it and you`ll see it is a student written one--go to Encyclopedia Iranica.Zmmz 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No it is not. When evidence is against your POV try to learn the subject and modify your opinion accordingly.Heja Helweda 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When Arabs invaded Persia, simultaneously the Romans invaded Greece. It is well known that most of scientists, engineers, and artists in Rome were Greek. This analogy is very relevant to Arabs and Persians. In fact, most of that era’s scientists came from Persia, and were commissioned by Arab Caliphs to go to Baghdad. Because this ancient Persian province was made to be a center of scientific knowledge during Sassanid Persia--during the early years of Islamic invasion, this tradition continued. Famous Persian scientists from Khwarezm included, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, Al Tusi (Tusi was from the neighboring Khorasan), and Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong here, again. You're trying to get an analogy that doesn't exist. A invaded B                                                                             C invaded D                                                                   B contributed greatly to A                                       So, does that mean that D also contributed greatly to C?

Your logic is flawed again, and your analogy is extremly false. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a math class, the historical facts I mentioned are universally known, and have nothing to do with A, B, Cs. You claim Khwarizmi was as Arab even though historians say Khwarizmian were Persians, but how about all the other scientists that were mentioned that were Iranian and came from Khwarizm as well, and travelled to Baghdad on the request of the invading Arab Caliphs? Are you denying that Avicenna was an Arab too for example?Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They're only "universally known" in your head, you have done nothing but clim 'historical fact', 'universally known', 'known fact' throughout this discussion. You have offered no tangible evidence, and keep repeating the same arguments. You were trying to make an analogy between the Greeks who contributed greatly to the Roman Empire, even though they got invaded. You were trying to put an analogy to the Persians, claiming that they contributed greatly to the Arabs, because they too got invaded. Obviously your logic is flawed, and I refuted it. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Heja helweda input regarding the massive arab immagration to khwarizm combined with the other points mentioned above are decisive in proofing that al-khawarzmi was actually an arab. Kwarzim was the richest province in the whole islamic caliphate, and this has pushed massive immagration of the ruling arabs from the desert-climate of the arabian pemimsula to Kwarzim. This also explains why the islamization was more rapid there than anywhere else in persia!!! Jidan 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is you completely disregard sources from encyclopedias, and you yourself have nothing that proves these hypothetical claims. Heja helweda provided a blank web page with an Adobe file. Don`t you think the scholars who investigate cultures and races would have submitted these info into [any] of the major encyclopedias or dictionaries? Even the Persian scientist, historian, and poet Al Biruni who lived two centuries after Al Khwarizmi, and whom you have tried to claim as an Arab as well, which is against all Encyclopedic sources, said in his poem about Khwarezm; "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". You figure 3-4 centuries after Arabs invaded Khwarizm and Khorasan, if there was “massive arab immagration to khwarizm”, this famous historian would have mentioned it.Zmmz 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're the one completely disregarding encyclopedias, three so far: Encarta, Columbia University Press, and Encyclopedia Iranica. What are you gaining by keeping mentioning him as Persian, even though you've been proven false by three encyclopedias, and by your own logic? Isn't it our job to make the articles as accurate as possible? Three sources that are reputed encyclopedias, you provided a dictionary. MB 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect there are no three encyclopedias. There is Encyclopedia Iranica that is a student project encyclopedia sponsored by Columbia University Press. Note that Columbia Encyclopedia itself is a different source and actually does not support your claim. The second source you have is MSN or AOL Encarta. However, my sources that say he was born in Persia supersede yours since they are the Meriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries.Zmmz 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that Columbia Encyclopedia itself is a different source and actually does not support your claim

Actually, it does, it states that al-Khwarizmi is an Arab. You provided sources that he was born in Persia( then a province of the Arab Islamic Caliphate) but, you have zero sources that claim he's a Persian. All these encyclopedias are well known, your attempts to make them negligent are futile. MB 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Persia was under the invading Arabs, that does not prove anything at all. He was still Persian. Where are you refrences by the way?Zmmz 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I already gave the sources, but your extremism is blinding you even to that: 1- al-Khwarizmi 2- al-khwarizmi

Both explicitly state that he's Arab, you have zero sources that say he was Persian, as you claim. MB 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I m not going to go through this again, I provided two top dictionary refrences that he was born on Persia, as well as, numrous articles from Islamic universities, who themselves say he was not an Arab. A poem written by the greatest historians of Islamic era, the Persian born Al Biruni said, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian". Zmmz 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no sources to prove al-Biruni(an Arab as well) has said that. You keep quoting it, but have no definitive sources. Until then, I'll assume it's apocryphal. Until you give me sources I'll not discuss this poem. MB 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that you try to claim all of these universally know Persian scientists as Arabs. Stop filling these discussion pages with propagandist rhetoric, and start providing valid sources.Zmmz 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So, I ask for sources, and you call that propagandist rhetoric? Excuse me, I wasn't the one who wrote he's Persian, though I have no sources. I'm not the one who named him Persian, based on my interpertation that he lived in Persian, so he must be Persian( please refer to WP:NOR). I provided two legitimate sources that state he's an Arab, you provided none that claim he's Persaian. MB 19:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Since, all of the sudden now Al Biruni are claimed as an Arab too, here is some refrences saying he was Persian; Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, among numerous other sources say, “......in full  Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni  Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”. If they say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not all of a sudden, check the article's discussion page, I have proven that he's an Arab: so, not all sources agree. Also, please do tell me what other "numerous sources" you have to provide? Obviously it's a weasel word, you only have one source, same as me. This makes it at the very least disputed. You refuse to see this, and continue calling him Persian to spread your propaganda. MB 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MB, you have repeatedly tried to claim universally known scientists as Persian, are actually Arabs. Avicenna, Al Biruni, and now Al Khwarizmi. This is a discussion about Al Khwarizmi. I am not going to make it about Al Biruni, but I invite the reader to go to Al Biruni`s discussion page and see for theselves that all the major dictionaries and encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries etc., all say  Al Biruni was Persian. All the links are provided in that page. In the mean time, stop filling this discussion page with unwarranted rhetoric.Zmmz 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Born
The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe ”. That is good enough for me.Zmmz 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this should be the end of this really. There is no dispute, just Anti-Iranian reverts. --Kash 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

An Arab
We currently have only one source saying persian-born, Arabs were in control of Persia at the time, it stand to reason that he was born to a non-Persan family. Also, we have two sources naming him Arab:  at Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th edition. And at Encarta. Both of them are good enough for me. MB 16:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and Alexander the Great was from Turkey.Zmmz 20:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he was from Macedonia, al-Khwarizmi, al-Biruni and as well as half of the scholars in your "list of Persian scientists" were Arabs. See, you get the nationalities of historical figures all wrong. MB 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, to date you do not have [one] legitimate source like an encyclopedia that supports your claims. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Oxford dictionary and other sources say he was Persian born. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says,“Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”. More importantly, numerous Encyclopedias say he was born in now Khiva, then Kwarizm. About Kwarizm I proved via quotes and reference from the Columbia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, poems from Islamic, Persian scientist, poet, and historian Al Biruni who lived during the Arab invasion, in fact, in his time the Arabs were in Persia for four centuries already, that Kwarizmia was part of the country of Iran, or Persia. More importantly, the references I provided unanimously say the inhabitants of Kwarizmia are Persian. This is getting to be disruptive at this point. Zmmz 19:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I gave two, both of which are encyclopedias. Your source says "persian-born". Heja Helwada provided sources that there were a large number of Arabs in Khwarizm. You gave me no sources from Columbia encyclopedia, also, you provided no sources to prove that the alleged poem was written by the Arab scientist al-Biruni. Encyclopedia Iranica states that there were huge immigrations by Arabs to the region, proving that not everyone from Khwarizm was Persian. Please stop disregarding tangible evidence. MB 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Al Biruni, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian. Encyclopedia Britannica says, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni  Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”. In regards to Al Khwarizmi, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian; '''“Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”'''. If they all say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizm was part of the arab abbasid empire
....Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of Persia (now Khiva, Uzbekistan) - This is NOT true

Why persia???? It should say: Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan).

Just like today, khwarzim is not part of persia(Iran), back then it was also not part of persia(Iran), rather it was in in the province khursan, which was part of the arab abbasid empire, ruled by the Arabs!!!. Jidan 17:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is your proof? What are you talking about? Too many scientits came from Khwarizm, and the Khorasan province in Persia during the time the Arabs invaded Persia. Scientists like Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Tabari, Al Razi etc. Are you going to say they were Arabs too, even though [all] of the Encyclopedias and dictionaries say they were Iranian? Zmmz 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear ZmmZ, by saying that khwarizm was part of the arab abbasid empire, im not implying that khwarizm is arab! The abbasid empire consisted of many provinces. Here you see how the abbasid empire provinces were divided, http://www.ghazali.org/maps/abasid.JPG. As you see, one of these provinces was called Fars arabic for persia, which had its own ruler. The province were khwarzim is located, was called Ma wara al nahr, arabic for beyond the river. Therefore the entry in al-Khwarzimi article should say: Khwarizm in the Mawaraalnahr province of of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan). Jidan 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don`t see how it would relevant. Anyone who reads the history of tht era, even in this article will discover that at time Arabs had invaded Persia. This deserves no further elaboration since this article is about Al Khwarizmi.Zmmz 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this has no relevant to al-Khwarzimi's nationality. Therefore i wonder why its being constantly changed by you!! Jidan 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Turkic, Not arab, but Persian/Tajik
First of all, let me say why he wasnt Turkic: 1)Turks had still not migrated to these areas in large numbers. 2)During this period of history, Iranic tribes, such as the Tajiks, lived in these areas and still do. Something like 40% of Uzbekistan today is Tajik, Afghanistan is mostly Iranic, and ofcourse, Tajikistan is Iranic. 3)Iranic peoples have always lived, and still do live in these areas, and have lived there before Turks got there.

Now to the Arab issue: 1)How is it possible that Arabia, which was not even close to a civilised country at the time (as in culture, economy, etc... compared to Egypt, Persia, and other kingdoms) able to create such minds in such a short amount of time? Its impossible.  For example, when the Mongols conquered Iran, they still gave the highest positions to Persians (scholars, scientists, governers, philosophers, religous leaders, etc...) because they, having been nomads with no real civilisation, did not know what to do.  That is why the Mughal Empire and other Central Asian empires were called Turco-Persian Empires, because the Persians were the administrators, and the Turkic tribes took care of the military aspects. It was the same with the Arabs. 2)The reason Arab population is so high today is because of the Arabisation of North Africa and major parts of the Middle East. This, at the time of the Abbasid Caliphate was not the case. The Arab populations were low, and highly out numbered by the other ethnicities. Iranic peoples outnumbered Arabs by large numbers, therefore, the probability that Khwarizimi was Iranic (Tajik/Persian most likely) is the highest, especially because of the region he lived in, which was almost entirely Iranic at the time. And the monarchy of the empire was Arab, but the administration was still largely Persian based. 3)The attempted Arabisation of Iran by the Arabs required that the Arabs ban the Persian Language, which they did under penalty of death for violaters. This is why Khwarizimi was forced to write in Arabic. Arabic was not the language of science at the time because it was high cultured, it was so because it was forced.

These points that I have made, and which are all true (you can check them if you wish) and sensible, prove that he was not Arabic. And more so, the laughable claim that he was Turkic is also thrown out.

Now hopefully you pan Arabs and pan Turks will just leave Iranian History alone, but I guess your jealousy of our history is too great. -- Iranian Patriot.


 * This is what they teach you in Iran. You will be surprised to know that there is another truth, a one which they dont tell you in Iran. Jidan 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, actually the whole world knows this stuff, besides some people in Arabia who were never taught it perhaps. In regards to Al Biruni, Columbia Encyclopedia, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian. Encyclopedia Britannica says, “......in full Abu ar-Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni  Persian scholar and scientist, one of the most learned men of his age and an outstanding intellectual figure.”. In regards to Al Khwarizmi, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries all say he was Persian; '''“Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe”'''. If they all say so, that`s good enough for me.Zmmz 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These sources should be enough to put an end to this dispute. --Kash 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

--'''I dont live in Iran, and I wasnt educated in Iran. I was educated in the USA, and I learned even more by reading and studying Iranian History.''' Dont be jealous of what we have! --Iranian Patriot


 * @Iran Patriot, the text you wrote contains massive racist statements. For example: How is it possible that Arabia, which was not even close to a civilised country at the time (as in culture, economy, etc... compared to Egypt, Persia, and other kingdoms) able to create such minds... In Iran its ok to say such racist things. But in the civilized world (and wikipedia) its NOT. Alone for this statement you should get banned. Jidan 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

-- there is nothing racist in what i said. and again, i live in the USA and have been raised in the USA. the arabs were like the mongols that conquered persia, they were like the germanic tribes that conquered rome. its simple as that. the truth of the matter is that arabic civilisation was like mongol civilisation, it was war based, with little culture and important history. there is nothing racist in that. so i guess im also racist against germans and mongols too right? the fact of the matter is that mongols, arabs, and the germanic tribes were no where near as advanced or as cultured as the empires they bordered, and eventually conquered. nothing racist about that, just the truth. --Iranian Patriot.


 * The germans and the japanese started as uncivilised tribes and they are now the second and third most powerfull econimocal countries in the globe. From mohammad (the prophet) tell Al-khwarzimi, 200 years has passed. So why do you think that the arabs are not able to create smart men like al-khwarzmi?? Jidan 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

--I never said arabs were never capable of creating smart men. infact, there are lost of arab scientists, scholars, etc... dont put words in my mouth. the only reason you arabs think that khwarizmi is arab, is the same reason why you think egyptians were origionally arab. the fact is that khwarizmi was forced to write and speak arabic, he would have been killed otherwise. he was tajik/persian. i bet if ferdowsi wrote in arabic you would be claiming him too, LOL!

by your logic, all the chinese scholars, scientists, etc... were mongolian just because the mongolians conquered china. the fact of the matter is, although the mongolians were the rulers, everything else remained chinese. the historians, geographers, scholars, etc... were all chinese. its the same with with the abbasid caliphate. it was arab ruled, but everything else was persian. --Iranian Patriot


 * Did you know that only 51% of the Iranian population are persians? ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People ) Jidan 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizm in the Mawaraalnahr province of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan)
Khwarizm in the Ma wara al-nahr province of of the Abbasid Caliphate (now Khiva, Uzbekistan). This should be corrected in the main article, and replace: ...from Khwarizm in the Khorasan province of Persia (now Khiva, Uzbekistan). Jidan 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me please specifically, which of the following statements do you disagree on: Jidan 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Khwarizm was in the Ma wara al-nahr province
 * Ma wara al-nahr was one of the provinces of the abbasid empire

The fact that Khwarizm was a state in Iran. You neglected to mention that. Of course, at the time Iran was invaded by Arabs, there is question about that, but that has no relevance to this article. Yet it was already mentioned anyway.Zmmz 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me please, where in the map above do you see Iran(in arabice fars)?Jidan 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All those states that say Khwarizm, Khorasan, Pars, Ray etc. This is a map of the Arabic Caliphat Empire and its colonies. I have a map of the Persian Empire that does not show the name Egypt, and simply is a big map saying Persia. That does not mean Egypt as a country did not exist. That does not mean Egyptions as a people did not exist or that those Egyptions were Persian, no they were still Egyption/Arabs yet under the control of Persia. Same thing here. What are you talking about? Zmmz 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Egypt was a province under Achaemenid Empire and under the abbasids (misr). Jidan 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. I was making an analogy based on Emperial colony maps. By the way, there was no Achaemenid Empire. It [Egypt] was under the Persian Empire, ruled by the Achaemenids dynasty of Persia. Same analogy applies to Persia being invaded by and ruled by Arab Caliphates.Zmmz 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you know that only 51% of the Iranian population are persians? ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#People ) Jidan 05:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that the word Persian comes from only [one] of the states in the country, and it is being used only in the English literature, and the true name of the country [and] its people is Iran? That is like saying in America 51% are southeners, and the rest are Yankess in Boston etc. Did you know 95% in Iran are pure Iranians? Go to, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#PeopleZmmz 05:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at it this way, one would conclude that the Spanish and Sindhis were Arabs too during the Abbasid Caliphate. We should be careful in using political boundaries of empires to determine ethnicity and nationalities. Empires are not necessarily nations. deeptrivia (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the map you showed right is that of ummayed and not the abbasid caliphate . Second, spain(al-andulas) was never part of the abbasid caliphate. Third, spain(al-andlaus) and sind(pakistan) were always provinces in their own. Fourth, if you actually read what i wrote, you will understand that i never claimed the all those provinces are arab. I only said that the province Iran(fars) didnt include khwarizm. Have a good look at the map above.. Jidan 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, replace Abbasid by Ummayid in my statement above, if that helps. Take it easy. deeptrivia (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Al-Khwarizim - NO to nationalism and patriotism
I want to thank you all for the info you shared regarding Al-Khwarizim ethnicity. Although i disagree with some, i learned alot. Although I am sure that he was an Arab because of the points i listed above, still i see myself (as an arab) not natural enough to judge that. I also hope that my persian and arab friends understand that nationalism and patriotism has no place in an encyclopedia. Jidan 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It has no place at all, but when all the dictionaries say the man was Persian, yet people are submitting all these rhetoric, that is doing a disservice to the man and his heritage. You can admire him and be inspired by him but don`t change his nationality.Zmmz 07:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran today has only 3 million Arabs!
If Iran today only has 3 million Arabs, then that means it had far less back then! its not like all the Arabs left Iran after the Abbasid Empire collapsed. There is no way that khwarizmi was Arab. Pan Arabs just need to stop. Again, like pan Turks, you are fighting a losing battle. --Iranian Patriot.

We should stop debating
Al-Kharazmi is the father of aljebra, he is one of the most important mathematicians in the world. This doesn't make people to argue about his nationality. Firstly from the beginig of the Persian empires Kheva and Uzbekistan were very imporatant perts of Khorasan rovince. Also after the Islam it was also part of Khorasan province in Persia. This is why it is said to be Persian. Also because of this Persian have an award for science called "Kharazmi award". Also the Kharazmshah Empire was a Persian Empire from Uzbek so this is an evidence to prove that he was Uzbek Persian. Secondly because he worked for the Abbassid caliphate in Baghdad he is said to be Arab and most of the people believe that he is Arab. However this point doesn't mean that he was Arab so if we want to say about his biography we should say he is Iraqi not Arabic because Arabs are in the Arabian Peninsula. By the way why Arab put the prefix "al-" to him. Al- is for Arabs not for Uzbeks or in the old times Persia. Uzbeks also think that he was Uzbek and this is right because he was Uzbek and Kharazm is in Uzbekistan. We should accept this reality and this is the truth. I believe the best way to express his nationality is to say he was Uzbek Persian because Uzbekistan was a part of Persia and also there are lots of Persian Empire that derived from Kharazm. Every country which once was a part of Persia should think that it wasn't just Iranians who made Persia so great but it was all of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Afghans and other countries which made their old land so great that even Greek and Roman Empires could't defeat us and were afraid of us. When we conquered Babylon and Assyria it was the cooporation of all of us that made us create the biggest Empire the ancient world ever seen. I am writing this as an Iranian but I am defending Uzbekistan because I believe it's unfair to hide the truth. I believe Arabs don't have anything to do with this because its not their business to come in the problem between three countries of Iran, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Written by Maziar Fayaz 19:27 03.03.06

please study your history first. there was no uzbekistan then, and during that time, there were few turks in the area. central asia was mostly iranic tajik at the time before the turkic migrations. khwarizmi was not uzbek nor was he turkic. that is a fact both arabs and iranians and every other historian can agree on. but the fact remains, was he iranic or arab, most of the evidence seems to point to him being iranic, most like tajik which is the same as persian. --Iranian Patriot.


 * @Iranian Patriot: You are claiming that Uzbekistan didnt exist, which is true, but did you know also that Iran didnt exist? The only state which existed at that time was the arab abbasid caliphate. Al-khwarzmi lived his whole live in their capitel (baghdad), read there books, and his salary was from them. The abbasid state (which was arab) should be credited for this. Jidan 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Khwarizm, Historic region along the Amu Darya (ancient Oxus River), in modern Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It formed part of the empire of Achaemenian Persia in the 6th–4th centuries BC. The Arabs conquered it in the 7th century AD. In the following centuries it was ruled by many, including the Seljuqs, Khwarezm-shahs, Mongols, and Timurids, until the early 16th century, when it became the centre of the khanate of Khiva. In 1873 Russia conquered the region and made it a protectorate. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the khanate was replaced by a Soviet republic, which was later dissolved and incorporated into the U.S.S.R.”[4]. That means Khwarizm became part of the country of Iran when the founding fathers of Iran, the Achaemenid dynasty united all the provinces in the Iranian plateau and called the country Iran (Persia). If you do the math, you`ll see Khwarezm was part of the country from its birth, and it stayed part of the country until the Russians invaded Persia and took that land away. So, until it was given to Russians fairly recently, the state stayed part of Iran through the Greek invasion, Arab invasion, and the Mongol invasion. So if they became Arab, how come to this date while part of Russia, they speak Persian and not Arabic? Read the article about Uzbekistan, and stop playing tune-def.Zmmz 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Khwarizm was a state in Iran. You neglected to mention that. Of course, at the time Iran was invaded by Arabs, there is question about that, but that has no relevance to this article. Yet it was already mentioned anyway.Zmmz 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All those states that say Khwarizm, Khorasan, Pars, Ray were and some still are ancient Iranian states. This is a map of the Arabic Caliphat Empire and its colonies. I have a map of the Persian Empire that does not show the name Egypt, and simply is a big map saying Persia. That does not mean Egypt as a country did not exist. That does not mean Egyptions as a people did not exist or that those Egyptions were Persian, no they were still Egyption/Arabs yet under the control of Persia. Same thing here. What are you talking about?Zmmz 21:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * what are you talking about jidan???? Iran has always existed, the arab force was an occupation force that was overthrown eventually! by your logic, all the greek philosphers during roman occupation were roman! that doesnt make sense. and like i said before, the monarchy was arabic, but everything else was still iranian, and the arabs were highly outnumbered by the tens of millions of iranians living in iran.  and like i said before, arabs forced their language onto others. khwarizmi was FORCED to speak arabic, or otherwise you arabs would have killed him. i believe ferdowsi also lived during the arab occupation, was he arab too? LOL, you are not making any logical sense at all. do you even think before you write?


 * let me guess, you probably aslo believe that all the chinese greats during the mongol occupation were mongol. you probably also believe that einstein was american. your logic doesnt make sense! LOL you cannot win this argument, you have no proof of your claims! he wasnt turkic, he wasnt arab, he was PERSIAN! --Iranian Patriot.


 * Iran(persia) is a political entity not a racial/ethnic entity, that didnt exist at al-khwarzmi's time. If you look today at the nationality in the travel passport of an arab from khusaztan, turk from khursan, or kurd from kurdistan. You will find one thing common, they are all Iranians !!!! Jidan 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * your logic does not makes sense...!! can you not understand that? LOL LMAO! --Iranian Patriot.


 * Do you consider the people i listed above Iranians? Jidan 22:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What authoritative sources do you have that say the country of Iran never existed? Do you even have one source? Or, are you just filling this page with rhetoric? My guess is the latter.Zmmz 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Jidan, they are iranian arabs, iranian turks, etc... just like khwarizmi was an iranian persian. --Iranian Patriot.
 * Isnt being iranian and being persian the same?? Jidan 01:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi to all, what's going on here? Is there any question on Al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity?
 * http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992
 *  D iyako Talk + 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there were was never a question. Just try to convince our Iraninan friends.Jidan 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How long is this article going to be protected? its misleading and wrong and it should be corrected! --Iranian Patriot.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary says, “Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe ”. That is good enough for me.Zmmz 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It say's only that he was born in persia. If he was persian it whould have been persian mathematician, just like it says in britannica Arab mathematician. Jidan 01:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It says Persian born, not born in Persia! LOL, you keep trying to spin things around. you are losing, just give up, its you versus a countless number of valid sources. --Iranian Patriot.
 * We may disagre on many things, but please let us not disagree on simple elementry english. Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician means he was only born in persia. persian mathematician means that he was persian. Jidan 01:51,

4 March 2006 (UTC)

It says exactly what it is. We should not interpret it according to our personal opinions. Last time I checked Persian mean Persian.Zmmz 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia
Let's look into the Persians' claims, shall we?

Zmmz lists Merriam-Webster with this quote: "Function: biographical name circa 780-circa 850 Muhammad ibn MusA al-KhwArizmI Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician & astronomer; one of the greatest scientific minds of Islam; source of much of mathematical knowledge of medieval Europe".

Notice, it says "Persian-born" in parantheses, and gives Islamic as the nationality. Basically, they defined him by religion and stated his place of birth. He was born in Khwarizm, in the Khorasan province. At the time of his birth, it was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate, now it's part of the Uzbegistan nation-state. Alas, Persians burnt us saying that it's in fact Persian, so let's take it as Persian. Now, according to sources cited by Heja Helwada, Khorasan in general had a huge Arab population. In accordance to that, defining him as Persian simply because he was born in Khorasan, is not only disputed at best, it also constitutes OR(original research) which is against Wiki's policy, see: WP:NOR

A troll showed up lately and claimed that Arabs are fighting a losing battle, I'm not sure we're in a battle-field here, but I got the gist: he thinks we have no sources...poor little guy!

Sources that state he's explicitly an Arab:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlKhowar.html

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/text_761560322___0/Khwarizmi_al-.html

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992

Who's losing the "battle" now, I wonder? MB 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

you guys are still losing. do you live in the west? it doesnt seem so, so i will enlighten you.

in the west, they use the term islamic to mean the middle east. they dont refer to islam as an ethnicity. in the west, when they talk about people after the islamic era, they refer to them as muslim this, or muslim that. they generalise it. just like in the media, if there is a terrorist, they say islamic terrorists most of the time, instead of saying, palestinian or saudi or whatever. the west generalises us into one category due to religion. so that is why western articles say islamic scientist or muslim scientist. however, them puting Persian in parenthesis is them giving his ethnicity. you have to understand the western psychi before you make your comments.

by the logic you guys bring up, for example, jidan says that because iran was occupied by arabs at the time, the arab caliphate should get the credit. by that logic, because the USA has occupied iraq, anything of significance done by the iraqi's should be attributed to the americans. that just doesnt make any sense does it?

and the province now in modern uzbekistan, was mostly if not completely iranic! turks had not migrated there in large numbers at the time, and according to jidan, only 50,000 (if any) settle in the area. now lets see, jidan also said they were all soldiers, so how could a soldier afford to educated their child to the extent that khwarizmi was educated. jidan also said that they were given land, by this we assume they were going to farm, and by farming they would have kept all their children at home to help. so even jidan's theory has major wholes in it, why the Persian/Tajik theory is relatively sound and solid.

your arguments do not make sense, and are easily disected. he was Tajik/Persian. Iranian Patriot 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need 'enlightenment' from a Persian extremist(check your username, click your username). I have many Western friends, I lived in London for a few years, and I have an excellent grasp on the English Language. Them putting it in parantheses is to either: signify un-importance, an after-thought, or to simply add extra information to the article. It wasn't a pseudo-psychological reason, where they fear the bogey-man so they put "Persian-born" in parantheses. Also, Muslim is a nationality, it's not an ethnicity. You shouldn't debate me witb Jidan's logic, you should debate me with my logic. Nice try, though. Al-Khwarizmi's contributions are a pride to all Arabs, because he was one. I have given three extremly legit sources that explicitly state he's an Arab. You failed to give me one source that explicitly names him Persian. Most of your debate was based on an exchange you had with Jidan. Newsflash, I'm not him. I have based my argument on verifiable sources, you presented none, and clung to your own baseless theories. It all comes down to this: Can you prove he's Persian? I have given three sources that explicitly state he's Arab. You presented none. Conclusion: You're still losing. MB 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * MB, it's an undeniable fact that Khwarizmi was Persian and Khwarizm was a part of the Persian province of Khorasan. If you have any doubts, please check Khwarizmi's background and see how his father was a Magi. Whatever misunderstanding there is about Khwarizmi's ethnicity, is attributed to the fact that he lived under Arab rule and hence some sources list him as "Arab" by nationality. Otherwise, there is no argument about Khwarizmi's Persian ethnicity among informed Islamic scholars and historians such as Professor Bernard Lewis and others. --ManiF 20:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources that his father was Magi? He himself was a Sunni Muslim(it's not debated)...weird, no? Actually, your logic says that everyone who wrote in Arabic is under suspicion of being a Persian untill proven otherwise, is self-contradictory. I'm an Arab, is my ethnicity under suspicion because I talk, write, and think in Arabic? Very self-contradictory indeed. Also, what's this about there being no debate about him being Persian? Who are these "informed Islamic scholars"? Their names? Sources where they said that he was Persian? Give me tangible proof...untill then, he's obviously an Arab by the bulk of evidence and sources I gave. MB 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * at that time, shia islam had not arrived yet, so everyone was sunni. also at that time, arabic was forced onto the iranian people. if anyone spoke another language they were killed. Iranian Patriot 21:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What has Shia Islam to do with his father being a Magi?? Arabic was never forced on the Persians, you accepted it(or at least your ancestors did) by your own free will. If Arabs killed everyone who spoke Persian, how come all Iranians know the language? If we killed all Persian-speakers how come everone in Iran can speak it fluently? Obviously, your claims are refuted by logic itself. Again, I gave sources proving he's Arab from three very legit encyclopedias, give me one legit source that explicitly claim him Persian. MB 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Al Tabari, the historian, gave him the title of ``Al Majusi``, that nobody can argue with, because it is in the history books. This title means Zoroastrian, which was the religion of Persia before the Arab invasion. So, this indicates that he was probably a Zoroastrian who was forced to convert to Islam. Back then, if any of the Iranian people, specially, scientists spoke Persian they were persecuted by the Arabs.Zmmz 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is refuted as well: He was a Muslim, if he was "forced" as you claim, give me sources. You have none. Nothing to prove the farfetch'd claims you're trying to include in the article. There's a verse in the holy Qura'an that says: (Let there be no compulsion in religion) "2:48" Muslims held paramount to these rules and so, nobody was forced to convert. If you claim otherwise(which you do) please supply ample evidence from legit source. Untill then, let's stick to history and veer off propaganda, shall we? MB 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, recently I took a look at Islamic scientists, and I deeply respect everyone, but I`ve got to tell you, it is almost mind-boggeling how many of the scientists of Islam were Persian, [and] they were the most important ones (with the exception of Geber). It is almost as amazing to see almost every-single-one of them came from either Khwarizm or Khorasan, Persia. Most did write in Persian too, but the early ones wrote mostly in Arabic, because during those days they were told either write in Arabic, or face the death penalty, wow.Zmmz 00:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Same logic applies here, if all Persians who spoke Persian were killed, how come you all speak it fluently now? Did you mirraculously escape the horrendous barbaric Arab massacre?! Also, Khwarizm was part of the province of Khorasan, which was part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate at the time of al-Khwarizmi's birth. Also, you can't cite an article which might also be POV'd, by a simple look many of those scientists claimed to be Persian were either Arabs or Turks. MB 07:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Al-Majusi was part of his title makes him Iranian. His father or Grandfather was a Majusi (Zoroastrian) and thus the Arab claims on this this Iranian scientist amount to rubbish. Furthermore Khwarazm was Persian speaking and the so called Arabs of Khorasans were wiped out by the Abu Moslem revolt and the remnants were assimilated. Their main citadel was Merv which was destroyed by the mongols. --Ali doostzadeh 03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. MB you shouldn'y think Arabic
when in 2000 years ago Persian think Persian you were living in small tribes and you didn't have any cities. But now when Persian and central Asians are thinking Globaly you are telling me that you're thinking Arabic. I think it's ridicules. Maybe you are destroying the Arabs or maybe you are too old for debating. Sorry by the way Central Asia and Iran are all Persia even Azerbaijani people like Nezami are Persian so learn because kharizm is in Persia Kharazmi is Persian. So you Arabs should just go back and think about your religion that all of us have problems about its rules, that thinking Arabic. and never call Persian Arabs because we don't want to share our beliefs with your beliefs. i am asking the Iranians and central Asians and especially Uzbeks to be united against Arabs to stop saying these words. if one arab tell me an arab scientist from the arabian peninsula he will make his country to be proud of him. By, Maziar Fayaz


 * Al-Khwarizmi was an Arab and has nothing to do with Farsis. Has not it still been proven by all those credible sources? Is our POV more important and accurate than those reliable sources??  D iyako Talk + 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Khwarizm
According to Columbia Encyclopedia: “(khwärz´m) (KEY) or Khorezm (khrz´m) (KEY), ancient and medieval state of central Asia, situated in and around the basin of the lower Amu Darya River; now a region, NW Uzbekistan. Khwarazm is one of the oldest centers of civilization in central Asia. It was a part of the Achaemenid empire of Cyrus the Great in the 6th cent. B.C. and became independent in the 4th cent. B.C”. Zmmz 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this, it became independant in the 4th century B.C. Which means that it wasn't Persian anymore...intriguing. When the Arabs conquered it, that's about 1100 years after independence from Persia, very intriguing. When al-Khwarizmi was born, that's about three centuries after the Arab conquest, and according to references in encyclopedia Iranica, three centuries after immigrations to the area by Arab families, and assimilation of the land to the Arab culture. I'm just following the source you referenced, Zmmz. Extremly intriguing, indeed! MB 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Funny that no authoritative sources like any of the major encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica back-up that hypothesis. That Encyclopedia Iranica you mention, which by the way you are exagerating its results, is a student project encyclopedia; I invite the reader to see for themselves. Finally, hhhmmm, so why Khwarizm that is now Khiva, Uzbekistan, its people still to this date they speak Persian and there is not a trace of any Arabic culture in there? Why don`t they speak Arabic, if they were so “Arabized ”?Zmmz 08:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What?! Excuse me, what I got was from your source itself!

4th century BC Independance of Khwarizm from Persia 7th century AD Conquest of the region by Arabs Simple arithmatic: 1100 years have passed since Khwarizm earned independance from Persian rule.

If you're going to discredit a source you gave just to push away a hole I found in your arguments, then that says a lot doesn't it? Also, I didn't exagerate results, stop trying to attack my integrity, I'm saying it exactly as Iranica put it. MB 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes math and history don`t mix. Why? Because the Persians ruled over Arabia, Egypt, Israel etc., for almost 1200 years; yet, non of these countries became Persians or lost their heritage. The Greeks ruled over Persia for a century, but today Iran is still Iran. Also, how about some simple history lessons? Others still haven`t answered my question yet; if Khwarizm (now Khiva, Uzbekistan, formerly the Soviet Union) was so hugely Arabized as you allege, then how come to this day they still speak Persian, and have a mixed Russian-Persian culture, and there is no hint of them being Arabs? They are actually living proof right there for, so you do not need a math lesson.User:Zmmz|Zmmz]] 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they dont speak persian either, but rather Uzbek, which is an Eastern Turkic language. And there is a trace of arabic culture....they are muslims!!. Jidan 11:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

“Well, they dont speak persian either”? Really? Hhhmm, that is news to me. With all due respect some of us need to do more research. By the way, the other day I was personally speaking to an Uzbek, and he confirmed it. They have their own language, Russian, and Persian too. But no sign of speaking Arabic or any Arabs in Uzbek. So, I wonder..hhmmm.Zmmz 19:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Khwarizm was part of the larger Iranian empire, the inhabitants were almost entirely Persian throughout history. --ManiF 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true, when Arabs conquered Persia, Khorasan(where Khwarizm is located) became a part of the Arab Islamic Caliphate. Sources in Encyclopedia Iranica state the region had huge Arabian immigration, making the claim that he was Persian simply because he was born in Khwarizm hugely controversial at best, and it might constitute OR. MB 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a poem by another prominent Persian scientist and poet Al Biruni who he himself was from Khwarezm, and lived about a century or two after Khwarizmi. Now, that is very important because if there was any mixing between Arabs and Persian in Khwarizm, he would have mentioned it. It is written in Arabic because it was the language of the invading Arabs who required their subjects to speak it (Persians were discouraged from participating in their own culture). It says, ل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا" من دوحه الفرس "the inhabitants of Khwarezmia are Persian".Zmmz 03:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources. Sources. Sources. You keep mentioning poems, articles, and "known facts"(which only you know about) but you don't give me references, how do I know that this wasn't written by another author, or made-up by someone with too much time on their hands? Also, I spot an extreme POV: It is written in Arabic because it was the language of the invading Arabs who required their subjects to speak it (Persians were discouraged from participating in their own culture).  <What's this? Very false fabrication, Arabs never forced their language on Persians. You accepted it yourself, Arabs treated the Persians with kindness, they never burned a village, or kill innocent citizens. They never forced them to convert or change their language. Persians assimilated by themselves, Arabs had nothing to do with it.


 * It's a historical fact, supported by all Western Historians that the invading Arabs killed many innocent civilians and Persians were subjected and forced to accept Islam and speak Arabic before they rose up against the Caliphate and established the Samanian Empire. --ManiF 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your friend "Iranian Patriot" elaborated the point you're trying to make. His comment got deleted, please refrain from posting unsourced propagandist comments. The Arabs were extremly kind to the people they conquered, including Persians. If we prosecuted Persians, then how would they so willingly accept the language and Islam? Contrary to Persian extremists' belief, not all Persians were united around the Sassanid empire. No rebellions were instigated after Yezdeger died. You don't need a political scientist to tell you that a rebellion is envitable when a poulation's needs and demands are not met by their rulers, yet no rebellion was instigated in Persia. also, what's this "Samanian empire"? MB 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا من دوحه الفرس"

Translated in english this would be: the people of khwarizim...were a branch of persia. There is a difference between were =كانوا and are=هم !!!. Proving that at the life time of Al-Biruni, khwarzimi's were not entierly persians. Jidan 03:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

''..The people of khwarizim...were a branch of persia. Proving that at the life time of Al-Biruni, khwarzimi's were not entierly persians''? How in the world did you come to that conclusion? That`s funny though, because that actually confirms that Al Khwarizmi was definitely Persian, since this poem was written 3 centuries after Al Khwarizmi`s death. Secondly, hhmmmm, that is strange that Al Biruni who was the most important Muslem historian, scientist, and poet of his lifetime, whom by the way was Persian as well, never mentioned anything about Arabs in Khwarizm, ever. You figure by his time, which was 4 centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia, if there was any Arab mixing going on, he would have mentioned [something] at least.Zmmz 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Heja Helwada offered cited references that Khorasan had huge immigrations from Arab families. I offered many references that state him to be an Arab. Logically, these are better than a potentially bogus poem you posted.

Three legit sources that al-Khwarizmi was Arab

References that Khorasan had a huge immigration by Arabs.

Nothing but claims that al-Khwarizmi was Persian

You gave us zero references that state him to be explicitly Persian, not only that but you also tried to veer this off to a discussion on the political/historical background of Khwarizm. What do we conclude from your(and other Iranian editors') actions so far? MB 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I rather take the word of Al Biruni who was the most important Muslem historian, scientist, and poet of his lifetime, whom by the way Persian as well, and whom never mentioned anything about Arabs in Khwarizm, ever. In fact, not only he never said anything like that, but instead, 4 centuries into the Arab invasion of Persia, and 3 centurirs after Al Khwarizmi was dead, Al Biruni wrote, :: "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا من دوحه الفرس" , which means, "the people of khwarizim are Persian". This argument is getting old, and frankly I rather take the word of one of history`s greatest historians and scientist, rather than you or Heja Helweda who have some wierd hypothesis not backed by one encyclopedia or dictionary. Heja Helweda keeps inserting a genetic test experiment about the Kurds that is unverifiable by the world community, into articles about Persians. You are very actively pushing your own agendas, and you don`t have much credibility MB, because you have tried to also claim other Persian scientists as Arabs, for example, Avicenna, Al Biruni, Al Razi, and perhaps others. People like you only drive away other editors that have something legitimate to contribute to these articles. With all due respect, give it a rest, this is not a chatroom.Zmmz 08:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not true, we have indeed presented many references of our own:

1) Merriam Webster calling Khwarizmi Persian

2) Khwarizmi being a Persian name

3) Biruni, who himself was a Persian from Khwarizm, callings the Khwarizmis Persian

4) Khwarizmi's father being a Magi (Notice that all Magis were Persian)

Those are the facts. --ManiF 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All your "references" need references themselves! Pay attention:

1) Check my comment on this at "Khwarizmi being Persian: Original research" I refuted the claim that Merriam Webster claims he's Persian.

2) Khwarizmi refers to Khwarizm, a province in Khorasan. It was a province of the Arab Islamic Caliphate by itself, not part of Persia at the time. Zmmz her/himself offered references that it was independant since 4th century BC. When I said that this proves the province has been independant from Persia for 1100 years when the Arabs arrived, s/he said that I don't have authoritative sources to prove my "hypothesis". You guys are an extremly interesting bunch, you know that?!

3) No. The poem claimed to be written by him is not sourced, untill then I'll treat it as apocryphal(untill you source the alleged poem) Also, al-Biruni is an Arab, but that's for a different dispute.

4) Notice that you don't have sources that prove the claim his father being a Magi.

There you go, successfully refuted your "references". My references are three extremly legit sources from three very reliable encyclopedias. Obviously you can't refute any of them, on the other hand, I just refuted all of your references(which paradoxically need references themselves). MB 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Biruni quote is not "bogus" as someone claimed above. I can scan a picture of the text from a book where this quote is actually written.--Zereshk 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, present it. We can discuss it if it exists. And you have to prove it was written by al-Biruni himself not someone else. MB 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More on the ethnicity of Al-Khwarizmi - clearing some misunderstaning
I have realized that most non-arabs (specially persians) dont understand what it means to be an arab. Being an arab, does not mean that you come from the arabian peninsula. Egyptians, morocians, sudanese,etc, are all considered arabs, and they dont stem from the arabian peninsula. On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking people."

"Al-khwarzimi is a person whose language is Arabic, who lived in an Arabic speaking country(baghdad), and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking people."

Therefore ,without regard to his ethnicity, al-khwarzimi is an arab!! Notice also that most encyclopedias, like brittanica and colomubia, say that he was an arab, while at the same time, describe other islamic scientists like Ibn Sina or Al-biruni, who lived nearly the same time, and wrote in arabic, as persians!!. Jidan 13:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he fits those categories, but let's hold paramount that al-Khwarizmi was ethnically Arab by three legit sources from very reliable encyclopedias...he was an Arab in ethnicity, not just linguistically. MB 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So, that`s what it is all about huh? Just as I suspected. But, please know, first of all these Persians in a way had no choice but to speak and write in Arabic rather they mother`s language, because otherwise they faced persecution, and second of all you can admire them, and be inspired by them, but that does not mean you have to change their nationality.Zmmz 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Do you have any sources that support your claim? Your friend the Iranian extremist tried to elaborate on your point, his comments got prominently deleted, please keep the discussion off racist, propagandist comments. MB 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that is true, then we must fix the article Arab, because it defines an Arab almost entirely on an ethnic basis.--Zereshk 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually have the above defination of Arab from the arab article. Jidan 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says that a person whose first language is Arabic is an Arab. Just because Kharazmi or some other Muslim scientists wrote in Arabic it does not mean their native language was such. The definition of Arab is not anyone who speaks Arabic but someone who speaks it as the first (native) language. As for living in an Arab country, first of all this definition is completely wrong since according to this rule Kurdish people of Iraq are Arabs! Obviously not the case. More importantly, Iran was occupied by Arab forces at the time and if that makes the residents of those lands Arab, then any polish person born during the German occupation is German! Neither of these reasons make him an Arab.


 * In the end I would like to add that I am not saying that Kharazmi was Persian, or was not Arab, maybe he was but these issues mentioned above are not sufficient enough to label him as one. Gol 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * @Gol. The above passage was actually off topic, but i just wanted to get it out. Put in simple text, it means, the only difference between an arab and a persian is the language he speaks and whether he likes to reads Ferdowsi or Al-Mutanabbi. Ofcourse, some people will tell you, aryan, semitic, and all that racist crap(e.g. sadam hussain), but still thats only linguasticly. People through out history have been known to immigrate and intermix, and the middle-east is the biggest mixing pot ever.!! Lets be honest about that!! Thus, I make the assumption that al-khwarzmi is an arab, only, because he spoke arabic, wrote in arabic, learned in arabic and lived nearly his whole life in an arabic city(baghdad, and not tus or balkh). I am also fine with the actual sitution. Jidan 06:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Listen Al-khwarazmi title was Majoosi since his father was a Zoroastrian. This is clear enough proof of his Iranian origin. Writing Arabic does not mean that a person becomes Arab just like writing in English does not make one a Britian. --Ali doostzadeh 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī1 (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي)....this looks to me like a name of a muslim!!...and the preface to his Algebra book suggests that he was an orthodox Muslim. Jidan 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that is not necessarily true. There were Zoroastrians with Arabic names, for example Mohammad Daqiqi was a Zoroastrian poet during the Ferdowsi Era so your first argument is disproven by this simple.  Furthermore the title "Al-Majoosi" could be a refrence to his ancestor and not necessarily him.  Or to the fact that the people of Khawarzm were still mainly Zoroastrian up to that.  What is 100% certain is that this title is used by Al-Tabari (which is very early and undeniable source) to refer to Al-Khwarazmi.  Tabari himself was Persian as well but a very strict muslim and he would not give such a title to Al-Khwarazmi as a joke since Majoos were considered Semi-Kaffar by Muslims.  So even if Al-majoosi refers to his ancestor, it is sufficient proof that he was not Arab.  Also the definition of the Arab league is not even worth considering since today many people even Lebabon and Egypt consider themselves non-Arabs but معرب (Arabized).  And genetic data backs up this fact.


 * Either way you can not gloss over the title "al-Majoosi" mentioned by Tabari who was a very strict muslim. Also another point to mention is that Biruni has recorded that the people of Khawarazm spoke Persian.  If there was any Arabs from Ummayyat times, they were either wiped out by the Abu-Moslem revolt or were heavily assimilated after that.  We have a good amount of samples from the Chorasmian native language from couple of books.  The fact that Arabic was the scientific language does not make such a scholar an Arab. For example Einstein was not an Anglo-Saxon! Ibn Khaldun himself mentions that most scholars of Islam were non-Arabs.  Here is a very specialized refrence by one of the best known academians of the field.

The Golden age of Persia by Richard N. Frye, Professor of Iranian, Harvard university Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1975

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

And just in case you might have thought that they only produced great mathematicians, read the following quote from the same book:

page 150: The famous philosopher of history, Ibn Khaldun, living in the fourteenth century in north Africa, wrote the following:

It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars both in the religious and intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs ... Thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of whom were of Persian descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired knowledge of it        through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules [of grammar] and made it into a discipline for later generations. Most of the hadith scholars, who preserved traditions of the Prophet for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and breeding because the discipline was widely cultivated in Iraq and regions beyond. Furthermore, all the great jurists were Persians, as is well-known. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most of the Qu'ran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of        preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the Prophet becomes apparent, ``If learning were suspended at the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it.'' ... The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them. They were cultivated by arabicized Persians, as was the case with all the crafts, as we        stated at the beginning. This situation continued in        the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khurasan and Transoxiana, retained their sedantary culture.


 * So this a clear proof from an Mo'arrab scientist like Ibn Khaldun that the majority of scientists in the Islamic era were non-Arabs and were mainly of Persian stock. And Richard Frye mind you is well known Harvard scholar that has tons of publications.

--Ali doostzadeh 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

First,I want to thank you for sharing your information with us.

You said: ''Well that is not necessarily true. There were Zoroastrians with Arabic names, for example Mohammad Daqiqi was a Zoroastrian poet during the Ferdowsi Era so your first argument is disproven by this simple. Furthermore the title "Al-Majoosi" could be a refrence to his ancestor and not necessarily him. Or to the fact that the people of Khawarzm were still mainly Zoroastrian up to that. What is 100% certain is that this title is used by Al-Tabari (which is very early and undeniable source) to refer to Al-Khwarazmi. Tabari himself was Persian as well but a very strict muslim and he would not give such a title to Al-Khwarazmi as a joke since Majoos were considered Semi-Kaffar by Muslims. So even if Al-majoosi refers to his ancestor, it is sufficient proof that he was not Arab. ''

I say: If we belive al-tabari, then we have to belive everything he said! Not just take the part we "want" and leave the one we dont want. Now, Al-Tabari gave him the title "al-majosi"(Zoroastrian), but he also said that he was born near baghdad. This means he was NOT born in persia and we have to change the article accordingly!! Al-khwarzmi's preface to his book: al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala (الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة), suggests that he was an orthodox Muslim. This means not him, but his ancestors were Zoroastrian's. So far so good? Now, if a persian went to iraq, married there and had childern. Wont you think that after 2 or 3 generations, his grandchildern are considered iraqians? So basically al-khwarzim is an Arab!!

You said: ''Also the definition of the Arab league is not even worth considering since today many people even Lebabon and Egypt consider themselves non-Arabs but معرب (Arabized). ''

I say: Mostly, its christians that dont consider themselves arabs. And egypt is the MOTHER of all arabs, they are the ones who started the Arab League. Remember Gamal Abdel Nasser, ...exactly he was the one how suggested to change the persian gulf to Arabian gulf. The offical name of Egypt: جمهوريّة مصر العربيّة = Arab Republic of Egypt. And if egyptians are not arabs, then arabs are egyptians.

You said: And genetic data backs up this fact.

I say: It was done using Iraq's and Iranians, and no difference was noticed.

You say: ''Also another point to mention is that Biruni has recorded that the people of Khawarazm spoke Persian. If there was any Arabs from Ummayyat times, they were either wiped out by the Abu-Moslem revolt or were heavily assimilated after that.''

I say: Ohhh yes my friend, there were arabs fom Ummayyed times, in khorasan and khwarazm. And the most prominent ones, called themselves the abbasids. khorasan and khwarazm was the base, from which the abbasids started their revolt on the ummayyeds!! Meaning there must have been a huge concentration of arabs there. Notice also that the islamization in khorsan, was more rapid than anywhere else in persia!!

Yes, ibn khaldun and Richard Frye praised the persians. And i praise them too. ;-)

Jidan 11:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Arabs have given their share to the civilization for example who can deny the greatness of Ibn Arabi? Although unlike you, I think there should be a difference between Arabs and Mu'arabs (Arabized).  I am not sure why an Egyptian would want to do away with several thousand years of culture and start at 1400 years ago and call himself Arab.  Of course that is up to them, but it seems that it is kind of denying your heritage.


 * Anyways we are not talking about Al-Khwarizmi's great great grandchildren. Maybe your grandchildren and thousands and millions of muslim immigrants to the west will be pure English speakers and intermarried with the rest.  For example we have all these Seyyeds all over the world who do not speak Arabic but claim descendant from the Prophet.  Although each of them does not look any different than the local people.  So your definition of "arab" does not hold for them whereas they do consider themselves to have one Arab root (mainly to the Prophet).


 * Again the title Al-Majoosi is significant and sufficient that he was not an Arab. You do not know who he married or when his family moved to Baghdad.  But his name "Khwarazimi" suggests that it was less than one generation or else his family would be called Al-Baghdadi.  As per Arabs of Khorasan, there is no trace of them is there?  Note that Abu-Moslem (not Abbasid) revolution had strong connections to the Shua'abiya and most of their soldiers were Mawali.  There are many reports that many of the arab colonies (since most of them were pro-Umayyad) were wiped off.  For example in one Shi'i book backedup with references, the reason Imam Ja'afar Sadeq (AS) does not accept the caliphate from Abu Moslem was due to his anti-Arab and "racist" behavior in Khorasan.  Note that the influx of Arabs stopped after the Umayyads and their main concentration was not in the villages of Khorasan, but in the city of Merv, which was destroyed by the Mongols.  Most of these Arabs (and their number was small relative to the population or else Iran would become Arab speaking like Jordan) intermarried with the locals.  At the same time, none of these Arabs retained their language or else Iranian Khorasan would be like Egypt.  So their influx was small and genetic studies on Iranian shows that they are dissimilar to Arabs of the Arabian peninsula.  Also you know full well that the Coptic Christians do not consider themselves Arabs generally (do not bring one or two examples, I am talking about generally).  As per the city of Baghdad, it was not uni-cultural city, but it was a major multi-cultural city with many Arabs, Iranians, Greeks, Berbers, Turks, etc.  And if we take your argument, it can be totally used against you.  Notice that many places in Iraq like Baghdad, Fallujah, Anbar.. have Persian names.  You know the reason?  It is because unlike Arabs that ruled Iran only for 200 years, Persians ruled Iraq for 1200 years. Furthermore unlike the very scant trace of Arabs after the revolution of Abu Moslem, there was a large number of Persians living in Iraq until Saddam extradided them and many of them had to keep their identity as a secret as they still do.  But  from the start of Cyrus the Great all the way down to the Arab invasion, Iraq was under Iranian rule.  So I can claim that all the people of Iraq are Iranians by similar argument due to large number of Iranian influence there.  Either way I will summarize:


 * 1) The title Al-Majoosi given to him by the almost contemporary At-Tabari is sufficient that Al-Khwarazmi was not Arab. No Arab would ever have such a title since this means Zoroastrian.  So either Al-Khwarazmi was born a Zoroastrian and converted, or his ancestor one generation back was Zoroastrian.  His other title "Al-Khwarizmi"  denotes a region in Persian Central Asia whose inhabitants considered themselves Persian according to Biruni.  Look up Chorasmian language in Encyclopedia Iranica.  These two facts are sufficient proof that he was not of Arab origin.


 * 2) Some non-specialized sources consider him Persian, some consider him Arab, some maybe even consider him Uzbek although Uzbeks settled in much later. But the eminent Harvard Professor Richard Frye says clearly that he is Persian and if you can find someone on par with such an excellent scholar of the Mid-east and Central Asia, then there could be a discussion.


 * 3) Ibn Khaldun differentiates between original Arabs and Mu'Arab. His scholarly definition from socio-logical point of view is much more clear than the definition of Arab league since many Christian Arab-Speakers do not consider themselves Arabs in any way.  Even the Druze do not either.  So even if you want to claim that Baghdad was pure Arab speaking back then (which it was not and only Saddam hussein made it so), you can not deny the fact that Al-Khwarazmi's parents came only one generation prior or else there would be no need for such a title as Al-Khwarazmi and Al-Majusi.


 * 4) As per genetic data, Iraq is varied as Iran if not more. Iraq was home to non-semitic Sumerians and Hurrians as well.  But genetic data suggets that the majority of Iranians are close to the Parsi (Zoroastrian) speakers of India and so they have not been influenced by Arabs as much.  Even analysis on Egyptians suggest that they are mainly remnants of pre-Islamic non-Arabs whose language was replaced.  But Egypt is an Arab speaking country whereas Iran is not and so the influence of Arabs in Iran was even much smaller.  Also Iranians are very dissimilar to the pure Arabs of Arabia and Yemen, and you will not find that type in Khorasan.  I might add that a large portion of the inhabitants of historical Khorasan (which some include Uzbekistan and Turkemenistan too) are now Turkic speakers.  But there is absolutely no trace of Arabs there (either due to the Abu Moslem anti-Arab revolts and various other Shua'abiya revolutions like Sanbad, Mawqna, Yaqub Layth, Samanids or due to the fact that their number was small and they were rapdily assimilated after couple of generations).


 * 5) About the article by all accounts the title Al-Majoosi given to him by Tabari deserves a mention as well.  So does an explanation on the ethnic and historical background of the Iranian region of Khwarazm.  In fact the only ancient biography we might have on him might be what Tabari has said and so we must put the whote quotation there.  This way his Persian origin by the title "Al-Majusi" is made clear.  There is no way an arab would ever have such title and so all efforts to cast Khwarazmi as an Arab is doomed to failure by the only available ancient biography that we have of him.  By the way Khwarazm etymologically is equivalent to Khorasan.  Khwar/Khor means sun in Persian.  But the Azm in Khwarazmian means earth (like person Zam) and asan means above in Pahlavi.  Either way the region's name is also Iranian meaning "land of the sun".


 * --Ali doostzadeh 15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The title Al-Majoosi given to him by the almost contemporary At-Tabari is sufficient that Al-Khwarazmi was not Arab. No Arab would ever have such a title since this means Zoroastrian. So either Al-Khwarazmi was born a Zoroastrian and converted, or his ancestor one generation back was Zoroastrian. '

As i said before, If we believe al-tabari, then we have to believe everything he said! Not just take the part we "want" and leave the one we dont want. Al-Tabari gave him the title "al-majosi"(Zoroastrian), but he also said that he was born near baghdad. This means he was NOT born in persia and we have to change the article accordingly!! Al-khwarzmi's preface to his book: al-Kitab al-mukhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala (الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة), suggests that he was an orthodox Muslim. This means not him, but his ancestors were Zoroastrian's. And after more than 1 generation in baghdad, he is considered an arab!.

''His other title "Al-Khwarizmi" denotes a region in Persian Central Asia whose inhabitants considered themselves Persian according to Biruni. Look up Chorasmian language in Encyclopedia Iranica. These two facts are sufficient proof that he was not of Arab origin. ''

Having al-Khwarizmi in his name doesnt mean that you are an ethnic khwarizmi. You can get this name also if you traveled from khwarizm to another place. There are many famous arabs who have names after persian places. One of the famous arabs was Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). So according to the "persian name = persian nationality" theory he must be persian, since al-isfahani indicates he is a persian from isfahan in Iran. Answer is NO. He was an Arab. And not only that!! he was even a descendant of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph!!! He got the "al-isfahani" name when he moved from isfahan to baghdad. This, once and for all, proves that labeling Muhammad Abu Ja'far al-Khwarizmi as persian because of his name, is totally and absoultly invalid!!

2) Some non-specialized sources consider him Persian, some consider him Arab, some maybe even consider him Uzbek although Uzbeks settled in much later. But the eminent Harvard Professor Richard Frye says clearly that he is Persian and if you can find someone on par with such an excellent scholar of the Mid-east and Central Asia, then there could be a discussion. 

Richard Frye is an iranologist!! He considers persia the mother of all civilizations. An egyptologist consider egypt the mother of all civilizations, and a sinologist considers china the mother of all civilizations. Thats normal!. I suggest you read the book History of the Arabs by Philip Khuri Hitti (professor of Princeton University) to know more of the arab history.

3) .... So even if you want to claim that Baghdad was pure Arab speaking back then (which it was not and only Saddam hussein made it so), you can not deny the fact that Al-Khwarazmi's parents came only one generation prior or else there would be no need for such a title as Al-Khwarazmi and Al-Majusi. 

see 1)

''4) As per genetic data, Iraq is varied as Iran if not more. Iraq was home to non-semitic Sumerians and Hurrians as well. But genetic data suggets that the majority of Iranians are close to the Parsi (Zoroastrian) speakers of India and so they have not been influenced by Arabs as much. Even analysis on Egyptians suggest that they are mainly remnants of pre-Islamic non-Arabs whose language was replaced. But Egypt is an Arab speaking country whereas Iran is not and so the influence of Arabs in Iran was even much smaller. Also Iranians are very dissimilar to the pure Arabs of Arabia and Yemen, and you will not find that type in Khorasan. I might add that a large portion of the inhabitants of historical Khorasan (which some include Uzbekistan and Turkemenistan too) are now Turkic speakers. But there is absolutely no trace of Arabs there (either due to the Abu Moslem anti-Arab revolts and various other Shua'abiya revolutions like Sanbad, Mawqna, Yaqub Layth, Samanids or due to the fact that their number was small and they were rapdily assimilated after couple of generations). ''

Aryan, semitic, and all that racist crap, is only linguasticly. People through out history have been known to immigrate and intermix, and the middle-east is the biggest mixing pot ever.!! Lets be honest about that!! An iranian walking in baghdad, damaskos, dubai or riyad, will never be recognized as a foreigner from his appearence.

5) About the article by all accounts the title Al-Majoosi given to him by Tabari deserves a mention as well. So does an explanation on the ethnic and historical background of the Iranian region of Khwarazm. In fact the only ancient biography we might have on him might be what Tabari has said and so we must put the whote quotation there. This way his Persian origin by the title "Al-Majusi" is made clear. There is no way an arab would ever have such title and so all efforts to cast Khwarazmi as an Arab is doomed to failure by the only available ancient biography that we have of him...

see 1) And there were arab zorostrians. Persia, specially under khosru II, ruled nearly all arab regions(yemen, iraq, oman, etc), and it was not unusuall to find arab zorostrians. Jidan 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Baghdad was a multi-ethnic city. Even today there are several hundred thousand Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomens, Armenians there. Just because he lived in Baghdad does not make him Arab.  There were hundreds of thousands of Iranians before Saddam in Iraq.  The city of Sammarah was created by Mut'asim who was half Turk for his Turkish armies.  The Buwayid dynasty was Iranian, the Seljuqs were not Arabs and many of the Caliphs were not Arab either.  There is tons of reports of Persians, Turks, Berbers, Zangis (Blacks) all over Iraq and Baghdad from that era.  Have you heared of the Zanj(black African) revolt?  What about the many Turkish revolts during different Caliphs?  Or many Iranian ministers of Abbassids like Barmakian?  What about even the Persian poet Araghi who hailed from Baghdad and lived there most of his life?  Again we have to see what are the available biographies.  If all we have is Tabari, then yes we have to say he was born near Baghdard (although I am waiting for your refrence on this), but from Khwarazmian ancestory and that his time was Al-Majusi indicating that either he converted to Islam or his ancestors were Zoroastrians.  This makes him Iranian.  Iraq at that time was the center of Islamic world and in no way can we call the people from the first generation immigrants there as Arabs.  So your statement: And after more than 1 generation in baghdad, he is considered an arab! is false by many historical facts that I just brought up.  The Buwayid dynasty ruled for several generations and they did not consider themselves Arab.  This is dishonesty and no Arab would be called Al-Majusi in Baghdad.


 * 2) You said: Richard Frye is an iranologist!! He considers persia the mother of all civilizations. An egyptologist consider egypt the mother of all civilizations, and a sinologist considers china the mother of all civilizations. Thats normal!. I suggest you read the book History of the Arabs by Philip Khuri Hitti (professor of Princeton University) to know more of the arab history.


 * My response: Your opinion on Professor Richard Frye is simply wrong and does not matter. Since he is much greater scholar than you are. He has many books written about Arabs, Turks and Iranians.  BTW Professor Philip Khuri Hitti is Lebanese.  Do you want me to quote hundreds of Iranians?  How Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr?


 * 3) You say: And there were arab zorostrians. Persia, specially under khosru II, ruled nearly all arab regions(yemen, iraq, oman, etc), and it was not unusuall to find arab zorostrians.


 * Ya Akhi, we are talking about someone whose parents or himself was from Khawarazm.  Even if there was Arab Zoroastrians (which were insignificant specially during Abbassid times there is absolutely no record of them), they did not hail from the region of Khawarazm!  Al-Khwarazmi was not an Arab Zoroastrian since his ancestors came from Khawarazm and so they were Iranian Zoroastrians.  Plus if someone is Zoroastrian 99% chance is that they were Persian Zoroastrian.


 * Finally here is all we have from his scant biography: His ancestors hailed from Khawarazm. 1) (So he could not be an Arab Zoroastrian since the Caliphs sent muslims to islamify that region). 2) Either Al-khwarazmi was a zoroastrian convert to Islam or his direct ancestor were Zoroastrian and hence the title "Al-Majoosi".  There is simply no other extant biography of him available.  And Baghdad had many many types of people and not just Arabs.  For example numerous Turks and Persians are mentioned in many sources.  Unless you find another biography, what we gain from Tabari (whos generation is virtually very close to that of Al-Khwarazmi and hence his biography is reliable and any later biography, if there is any,  can not be as reliable) is that 1) his ancestors hailed from Khawarazm which was prominently Persian.  2) His title was Al-Majoosi making him a former Zoroastrian or his ancestor a former Zoroastrian.  So he is considered Iranian and not Arab.  I can go back and forth, but I draw attention to the fact that the only biography we have so far is that from Tabari whose time is very very close to that of Al-Khwarizmi.  There is no other evidence and so he is not Arab, but an Iranian.  Your case with Abul-Farj Isfahani (whose ethnic origin again is not relavent to this article and I can claim he was Persian) does not matter because he did not have the title "Al-Majusi".  The "Al-Majusi" title is the best proof that Al-Khwarazmi was not of Arab descent.  And there is no record of Arab Zoroastrians during Abbassid times, specially ones whose ancestors hailed from Khawarazm.!  You have to put 1+1 together.  1=title Al-Majusi(he or his ancestor were Zoroastrians) + 1 (ancestors hailed from Khawarazm)=Iranian.  Yes I can bring many scholars that claim he was Iranian (like the eminent Prof. Frye) and someone might bring other scholars that claim he was Arab or Turk.  But ALL WE HAVE IS THE BIOGRAPHY OF TABARI and based on Al-Majusi and Al-Khawarzmi we have Iranian and the two titles "Al-Khawarazmi" and "Al-Majusi" cannot be analyzed separately, but must be analyzed coherently together.  If you can show proof of Zoroastrian Arabs hailing from Chorasmia, then we can discuss the issue.  Else there is no need for discussion, since there was never any Zoroastrian Arabs from Chorasmia and the people of Chorasmia were Persian during the time of the other great Khwarazmian (Abu-Rayhan Biruni who has some Persian works as well).  To show the futility of your claim, it is like saying there was a scholar name al-Yemeni and his title was "Al-Muslim" and for me to claim that he was Persian, because Sassanids and Achaemenids controled Yemen and there are Muslim Persians.  No sir, this would not hold even though my case would even be stronger since there is no trace of Arab Zoroastrians after Islam and in the Abbassid era, whereas Muslim Iranians were becoming majority by then.  BTW the funny thing out of all this is the fact that Arabs still call Persians Majoosi and never consider them as equal muslims.

--Ali doostzadeh 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
This seems to be a relatively trivial dispute, and the article has already been protected for a week. I'm unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit war continued, so I've reprotected it . —Ruud 21:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Need the help of someone who can read/write/transliterate Arabic
Can someone transliterate the frontispiece from al-Khwarizmi's Algebra for me. Cheers, —Ruud 19:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The transliteration: Al-kitab al-mokhtasar fee al-Jabr wa al-mokabala, tasneef al-sheikh al-ajal Abi Abdullah Mohammad Bin Mousa al-Khwarizmi.

P.S. R.Koot did your position change on al-Khwarizmi's ethnicity since the protection?(I noticed your mediation page). MB 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What does "tasneef al-sheikh al-ajal" mean? On al-Khwarizmi's etnicity... I haven't read the discussion you have had above so haven't really made my mind up but it seems that his etnicity is disputed, even by historians, and that the article in Wikipedia should probably mention something about that. —Ruud 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, 'tasneef' might mean categorized, but in context it probably means 'written by'. al-sheikh al-ajal is basically an honorific, not really needed in the translation, but if you must add it, then give me some time and I'll get you an adequate translation. In the mediation page you made, there's four sources listing him as an Arab, and just one(I'm not sure which language it was written in) that claims him as Persian. What do you make of that? MB 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So...abusing power, huh? So early, too!
R.Koot, you've been an admin for what, less than five days now? And already you put al-khwarizmi as Persian and protected the page! Then you went on and added Persian Mathematician for a book you asked to be transliterated, very mature. I think making you an admin was a hasty decision, you and your Persian friends ganged-up and are conspiring to put up falsified information, even after I described by reason, and fact why al-Khwarizmi is in fact an Arab. MB 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that heading, and the language used is not appropriate in Wikipedia; this is not a chatroom. Whoever, R. Koot is, he must`ve had sufficient evidence of an edit war, started by MB and others. An admin has every right to protect a page, in order to prevent wars. Please refrain from personally attacking an admin or others.Zmmz 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from sounding like a neutral party. You're the one who instigated the edit war by putting him as Persian, I have offered three legit sources that he's an Arab, you offered none, and used an argument which was refuted by Jidan, me and Heja Helwada. Obviously there's no consensus that he's a Persian, and we offered tangible proof that he's in fact an Arab. Still you insisted on inserting your POV the moment the page was unprotected, R.Koot joined you by immediately protecting the page after reverting my edit(notice I didn't insert Arab). I didn't personally attack anyone, I simply put up a fact. MB 22:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We have provided ample evidence that he's an Arab, we should keep he's an Arab and a Muslim, al-khwarizmi had nothing to do with being Persian. MB 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We have provided enough evidence to you. You were blocked once, so please stop attacking me, or the admins. We decided to keep both Persian and Muslem, and yet you keep reverting to only Muslem.Zmmz 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

ONLY FACTS - Why Al-khwarizmi is an arab!

 * Having the title "al-khwarizmi" doesnt mean you are an ethnic khwarizmin. See Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412), who was not an iranian from isfahan, although he had the title.


 * Khwarizm was part of the arab empire, so its not unusual to find arabs from khwarizm.


 * He lived his whole life in baghdad(iraq), was tought in baghdad, and died in baghdad (iraq). Unlike ibn sina or al-biruni, how were mostly in khurasan(iran).


 * He wrote all his books in Arabic. Not a single book in persian is known of him.


 * Al-tabari had given him the title "al-majosi", meaning his ancestors must have been persian. Masudi (also known as the Arab Herodotus), who lived the same time as al-tabari, and Ibn Khaldun (one of the forerunners of modern historiography) have critisized al-tabari, stating that al-tabari(an orthodox muslim) wrote more on speculations than facts. Absolutly not a single historian other than al-tabari, had given him the title al-mojosi. Al-tabari also states that he was born in the near of baghdad, meaning he was not persian by birth!

In addition to all that:

Encyclopedias:
 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Arab mathematician
 * Encarta: Arab mathematician
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: Arab mathematician

Dictionaries
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Arab mathematician

These facts should make him an Arab.

Jidan 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No Zoroastrian was ever an Arab. They were all Persians. So when Al Tabari says he was Al Majusi, it does not translate into his ancestors were Persian, as you say, its actual translation is; the Magi, meaning the Zoroastrian priest. Also, by the way the Al Tabari that you mention was a Persian too, and along with Avicenna, Al Razi, Al Biruni, and numerous other Persian scientists who mostly came from Khwarizm as well, were all summoned to Baghdad to perform tasks for Arab Caliphates. They were all told to write and speak in Arabic, or face persecution, which is the same thing the Mongols said to them as well. Also, we provided you links to many dictionaries like the Merriam-Webster, and Oxford dictionaries that all say he was Persian.Zmmz 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jidan, how many times do we have to tell you that Arabs forced their language on Iranians. If anyone talked in a language other than Arabic they were killed! That is well known by all historians. Arabs did not have the numbers to occupy this whole Arab population. The leaders of the Caliphate were Arab, but the majority of the people were non Arabs. And you cannot put modern borders on ancient empires. Baghdad at the time was mostly Persian! Even until twenty years ago, before Saddams persecution, whole parts of baghdad only spoke Persian. Many Iraqi actually have Iranian blood in them! Baghdad was only 40 kilometers from Cteisophon, the Persian Capital.  Iraq at the time was Persian, not Arab. You logic does not makes sense at all! By your logic, Greek scientist and scholars in Egypt during the reign of Ptolomey were actually Egyptia because they lived and died in Egypt. And by the same logic, because Greeks were ruling Egypt everyone was actually Greek and the majority were Greek.


 * That doesnt make sense does it? Your logic is wrong. He was Persian, definetly not Arab. Nomadic peoples that come out of the desert with no education or culture, do not suddenly produce great minds only within 200 years. Did the Mongols, Visigoths, etc... produce such great minds suddenly after defeating the Romans and Persians? No they did not, because they were undeducated nomads. Its ridiculous to say Khwarizmi was Arab.  However, the 700 year of Arab rule in Spain and even more in Egypt did create some wonderful and great Arab scholars, scientists, etc... but only because of the length of time that passed. Do you see what I'm saying?Iranian Patriot 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Again response to Jidan.
Jidan claims: ''Having the title "al-khwarizmi" doesnt mean you are an ethnic khwarizmin. See Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412), who was not an iranian from isfahan, although he had the title.'' Answer: But we know that Al-Khwarazm was not arabized like Isfahan. Either way it denotes Khwarizmian ancestory. We can agree that he or his ancestors were from Al-Khwarazm. Now move on.

Jidan: Khwarizm was part of the arab empire, so its not unusual to find arabs from khwarizm.

Answer: Many Abbassid Caliphs were non-Arabs. Many of their ministers were non-Arabs. Many of their soldiers were Turkic and Daylamites and others. As per the language of Khawarizm, Abu Rayhan Biruni describes it as Persian and not Arabic.

Jidan: ''He lived his whole life in baghdad(iraq), was tought in baghdad, and died in baghdad (iraq). Unlike ibn sina or al-biruni, how were mostly in khurasan(iran).''

Answer: This is given without a source so far that he was born in Baghdad. But Baghdad was a diverse city back then. There were many persians, arabs, bebers, blacks, turks, greeks and etc. So this is false again and does not prove anything. You can not have it both ways, you claim Abu Al-Faraj Al-Isfahani was an arab (which maybe true), although he was from predominantely Persian city, yet you want to claim Baghdad as a pure Arab city, which it is not even today. There are hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomens, Armenians in Baghdad today and during the Abbassid times it was even much more diverse. Even the name of the city is Persian. For example the famous Persian poet Fakhr-ad-din Araghi was from Baghdad according to many sources and yet he was of Persian origin. Even in 1920's there was a lot of Persians in Baghdad. One dramatic example is found in the 1920s when the Iraqi Ministry of Education ordered Husri to appoint Muhammad Al-Jawahiri as a teacher in a Baghdad school. A short excerpt of Husri's interview with the teacher is revealing (see Samir El-Khalil's Republic of Fear, New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, p.153-154): Husri: First, I want to know your nationality. Jawahiri: I am an Iranian. Husri: In that case we cannot appoint you.

Jidan: ''He wrote all his books in Arabic. Not a single book in persian is known of him.''

Answer: This is irrelavent as Arabic was the scientific language of the time. Einsten did not write anything in Hebrew either, but he was Jewish. Many people now only write solely in English.

Jidan: ''Al-tabari had given him the title "al-majosi", meaning his ancestors must have been persian. Masudi (also known as the Arab Herodotus), who lived the same time as al-tabari, and Ibn Khaldun (one of the forerunners of modern historiography) have critisized al-tabari, stating that al-tabari(an orthodox muslim) wrote more on speculations than facts. Absolutly not a single historian other than al-tabari, had given him the title al-mojosi. Al-tabari also states that he was born in the near of baghdad, meaning he was not persian by birth!''

This is where Jidan makes a big mistake and truly shows that he is extremly biased. Tabari lived around 839-923 (A.D) What Masudi is talking about is the pre-Islamic history of Tabari. What Jidan fails to mention is that there is absolutely no earlier refrences to Al-Khwarizmi than Al-Tabari. These two could have possibly even lived at the same time! So to claim that because Tabari makes a mistake about historical records several thousand years before islam does not cut it. Since these two events were contemporary. That is where Jidan loses because Tabari lives in the same age or one generation after Khowarizmi. And he is the earliest and virtually only source we have about Khowarizmi and he is a contemporary of Khowarizmi. For example we know one of the books Khowarizmi was written around 833 AD. So Tabari could was the same as Khowarizmi's son. This is an important proof because Tabari here is reporting contemporary history and not on pre-Islamic Yemen or Persia! Such a shallow claim by Jidan can in no way discount such a strong statement by Tabari. Al-Majusi makes Khawarzmi Persian and there is no way Jidan can deny such title. He also has not shown proof from any other sources that mention this great Mathematician during his own age. So the Tabari statement is indeed the earliest statement we have on this great scientist and it refutes all anti-Iranian claims, by the simple title "Al-Majusi". Combined with the title "Al-Khawarizmi" that is sufficient to make him an Iranian. BTW Masudi talks about big dragons in the Caspian Sea! Each statement needs to be evaluated by case by case basis. There is no reason for Tabari who is contemporary of Khowarizmi or just one generation forward to give him the title Al-Majusi. Since such title by orthodx muslim is considered an insult just like Arabs insult Iranians today by calling them Majoosi! So the title refers to his ancestors who were Zoroastrians and this fact can not be argued.

In addition to all that, there are some very emminent scholars and not random Encyclopedias! and dictionary! that have no authors. For example: Professor Richard Frye (Harvard) Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr(George Washington University) or even internet sources: Algorithm from www.dictionary.com and much more can be found. For example a Professor of Math from utah: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/java/fibonacci/al-Khwarizmi.html The point is to discuss the issue with all available sources and Jidan has absolutely no reason to dismiss that statement from Tabari.

We do not need any judgments from the past or internet sources. We need to look at the facts available and all we have is Tabari who gives the earliest refrence to Khowarizmi al-Majusi. The earlier the title, the more accurate in its veracity and when you have almost two contemporary great scholars like Tabari and Khowarizmi living during the same age, then there is absolutely no reason to deny the Al-Majusi title. Quoting nameless and authorless sources here doesn't cut it, since Jidan can not explain the title of "Al-Majusi" and that is his biggest problem. He wishes this title did not exist and tries to manipulate to get it around it. If he could, he would change every copy of Tabari so that the word Al-Majusi is erased. But he can not disclaim a contemporary source like Al-Tabari and then quote an authorless source like the American heritage dictionary! So the title Al-Majusi combined with Al-Khawarizmi is sufficient to establish the Iranian heritage of Al-Khawarizmi. Furthermore Ibn Khaldun the Arabized Beber Historian mentions that the majority of people that cultivated the sciences during Islamic times were non-Arabs and they were mainly of Persian stock. So Jidan sorry buddy, but Al-Majusi+Al-Khawraizmi combined together makes him Iranian and you can not just cut your way around this source, which has the final say on this matter.

--Ali doostzadeh 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ali doostzadeh, you have my repsect. You definatly know alot about history!
 * Since you say, we must trust al-tabari, then it comes all to one question: Did Al-tabari say that al-khwarzmi is persian? Jidan 02:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What is sad is that we have spent a whole day or two fighting about this and in the end we need to be proud of 1200 years ago, since we have not accomplished much in the last several hundred years.  I mean if there was an Iranian or Arab Einstein, both of us would not care.  As per Tabari, he does not even give a biography from what I gather.  He just gives the full name of Al-Khwarizmi and Al-Majusi is part of that name.  What makes Tabari important here is the fact that him and Al-Khwarizmi lived at most a generation apart.  This is not even history and they can be considered contemporaries.  Tabari does not explicitly say what ethnicity Al-Khwarizmi is, but the title Al-Majusi (wether Al-Khawarizmi converted or his Father did) is equivalent to calling Al-Khwarizmi a Persian.  If you dig up more ancient sources like Tabari, let us all know.  Tabari has the fullest  weight here due to the short time-distance factor between the two great scholars.  I think we should approach this issue unbiasedly and I'll try my best to do so.  In the end I will be happier to known the truth than to know a lie.


 * What is sad is that we have spent a whole day or two fighting about this and in the end we need to be proud of 1200 years ago, since we have not accomplished much in the last several hundred years. I mean if there was an Iranian or Arab Einstein, both of us would not care.  

Here i agree 100% with you ! I think we talk alot about the past, because we have no present! ;-)


 * Note that there is some dispute among historians about the titles. It is possible that al-Majusi referred to another person, but that a 'wa' was left out (see John J. O'Connor and Edmund F. Robertson. Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi at the MacTutor archive.). —Ruud 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Tabari never said Al Khwarizmi was Persian, but he never said he was an Arab either. The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries among others [say] he was Persian. Al Tabari, a Persian historian himself, said he was an Al Majusi, meaning a Zoroastrian priest. Zoroastrians were exculsively Persians. Numerous encyclopedias say he was born in Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia, then Persia. Many, many, many other Persian scientists came from Khwarizm and Khorasan, Iran as well, who were forced to write only or mosly in Arabic. So--figuring-out his ethnicity should be a no brainer. Oh, he was forced to, or most likely voluntarily did convert to Islam though. Thanks Zmmz 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias
 * Brockhaus: persischer Mathematiker und Astronom
 * Columbia Encyclopedia: Arab mathematician
 * Encarta: Arab mathematician
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: Muslim mathematician
 * Encyclopedia Britannica (students edition): Arab mathematician
 * Winkler Prins: ???


 * Dictionaries
 * American Heritage Dictionary: Arab mathematician
 * Meriam-Webster: Islamic (Persian-born) mathematician
 * Oxford English Dictionary: ???


 * From the same site. In [1] Toomer suggests that the name al-Khwarizmi may indicate that he came from Khwarizm south of the Aral Sea in central Asia. He then writes:- But the historian al-Tabari gives him the additional epithet "al-Qutrubbulli", indicating that he came from Qutrubbull, a district between the Tigris and Euphrates not far from Baghdad, so perhaps his ancestors, rather than he himself, came from Khwarizm ... 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.... Again I do not want to quote this site or that site. I want to discuss the issue from the available facts we have. What we know is this: Baghdad was multi-ethnic city, but Arabic was the lingua-franca. Khwarizm was mainly a Persian city, but there could have been Arabic colonies. Quoting this dictionary to claim he was Persian and another to claim he was Arabic does not make sense and will not resolve the argument. I am sure eveyone can google and find some sites.


 * Here is the full title from Tabari: محمد بن موسى الخوارزميّ المجوسيّ القطربّليّ Note that the claim by the previous wikipedian respondant does not hold here since in history we have no record of المجوسيّ القطربّليّ in any textbook or text and no work by such author is known. And all the copies of Tabari I have seen there is no "wa" to make two people. Also the user quotes a person by the name of "Rashed" and perhaps this person saw his Islamic or Arabic sensibilities hurt by the title Al-Majoosi. The name "Rashed" seems Arabic and we do not want quote from modern Arabian or Iranian scholars. Even if we take this case, then we have to talk about Khwarizm itself which was predominately Persian and then due to the fact that Khwarizm was predominately Persian, then the probability of him being Persian is much greater..  If we take the Al-Majusi part, then he becomes Persian automatically.  Also there is no reason to assume that Tabari made a mistake since both lived during almost the same time and both lived in the same area.  Plus all we seem to have are these scant notes by Tabari and perhaps few others. --Ali doostzadeh 02:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is an extract from two books:

[1]Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York 1970-1990). (Upon this you claim that al-khwarzmi is persian)

"But the historian al-Tabari gives him the additional epithet "al-Qutrubbulli", indicating that he came from Qutrubbull, a district between the Tigris and Euphrates not far from Baghdad, so perhaps his ancestors, rather than he himself, came from Khwarizm ... 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."

[2]E Grant (ed.), A source book in medieval science (Cambridge, 1974). Proof that he or his ancestors were NOT persian zorostrians

"... Al-Tabari's words should read: "Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi and al-Majusi al-Qutrubbulli ...", (and that there are two people al-Khwarizmi and al-Majusi al-Qutrubbulli): the letter "و" was omitted in the early copy. This would not be worth mentioning if a series of conclusions about al-Khwarizmi's personality, occasionally even the origins of his knowledge, had not been drawn. In his article ([1]) G J Toomer, with naive confidence, constructed an entire fantasy on the error which cannot be denied the merit of making amusing reading. "

I am sorry buddy, but this makes your claim that he is persian equal to zero!! Jidan 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The letter for "and" in arabic is "و", just one letter!!! So its highly possible that it was mistakenly omitted. Jidan 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Highly possible" does not cut it here since there is no proof. Even  let us assume there was a copyit mistake, than your whole claim that he was born around Baghdad is gone as well. So that leaves us Al-Khwarizmi and considering the fact that Khwarizm was predominately Persian area (as Abu Rayhan Biruni has clearly mentioned), this makes him Persian.  We can not use less frequent cases, just like Fakhr-ad-din Araghi was Persian from Baghdad.  So I can not claim every scholar from Baghdad just because there was some Persian scholars there.  So far actually we do not even have a record of one Arab scholar from Khwarizm.  Now we must consider here the general population which means Al-Khwarizmi was most likely Persian since Khwarizm was mainly Persian.  But the claim of Rashed holds no water.  It was not a mistake since there is no mention of al-Qutrubbulli Al-Majoosi in any historical texts and no text by such author has ever been found!  Again "Rashed"  sounds like an Arab author and we can not take modern Arab authors seriously in this discussion.  He had a problem with the Al-Majoosi part recorded by Tabari and so he made such claim.  If you even think his claim has slight chance of validity than you must also prove the existence of a certain al-Qutrubbulli Al-Majoosi in history.  How come Nowbakht which is mentioned next to Al-Khwarizmi in Tabari is well known but no such author by the name of al-Qutrubbulli Al-Majoosi has ever been recorded.  Plus the chances of Al-Majoosi surviving in the region of Baghdad is very  low whereas Khwarizm was still mainly Zoroastrian.  I can also claim that some copyist even wrote his name by mistake and his first name was not Mohammad, but it Maahmish (or some other Persian word close to the spelling of Mohammad) and then say "This is highly possible".  The fact of the matter is all we have is this long title recorded by Tabari.  If you even insert a "wa" before al-Qutrubbulli, then the last name is Al-Khwarizmi and Chorasmia was mainly a Persian speaking land and so by the case of "most likely scenario" he will be recorded as as "most likely Persian" scientist. --Ali doostzadeh 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Ali, claiming that al-khwarzimi is persian because he has the title "khwarzmi" is NOT enough. If you travel from khwarzm to baghdad, people will give you the title al-khwarzmi, regardless If you are a black-african, chinese, or arab.You know alot about histroy, there you should know how easy it is to get such a title. There are MANY not just one, famous arabs with titles of a place in Iran. One of the famous arabs was Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412), who was even a descendant of Marwan II, the last Umayyad caliph.
 * As i said before, the "and" in arabic is just ONE letter: و . To write Maahmish as Mohammad as you stated, you must be really drunk!! ;-)


 * Is there a possibilty that you can scan us this page from his book and show it to us. Maybe from the sentence context, we can judge if al-tabari meant two persons or one!. I dont care if he is an arab or persian, i just want to know the truth!! Jidan 04:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am concerned with the truth myself since I rather know the truth or the closest hypothesis to the Truths rather be lied to. I found a new source from Ibn Al-Nadeem:

الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم
 * According to this source "his origin is from Chorasmia" so this much is cerainly established and so any theory about his origin being outside of Chorasmia should be done away with. Remember we can only work with what the ancient sources say and can not step outside of their bound.  Now if we do not have any other sources that specifically mention his ethnicity than we should write "Most likely of Persian origin" since Chorasmia was Persian speaking bastion as mentioned by Biruni.  But I am going to do more research and bring every statement about his origin.  But now the chances of him being Persian is much higher due to the simple fact that the people Chorasmia spoke Persian.


 * anyways to claim that the copyist of Tabari made a mistake, we can put the "wa" anywhere and just claim his name was Muhammad and thats it. Such hypothesis should not be taken seriously unless a person by the name of al-Qutrubbulli Al-Majoosi is recorded in history and such person is not recorded in history or else there would mention of him outside of Al-Tabari and in the book of Ibn-Nadeem or some other book.  Also I must mention that if we are talking about culturally, than all other khwarzmian scientists like Biruni are well known Persian.  I have not seen an example of single Arab from Chorasmia so far.


 * Its very good that you have Kitab al-Fihrist. Doest Ibn al-nadim mention if a person is arab or persian? Does he for example say that al-biruni is persian? Does he say that Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani was arab? Jidan 05:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Short biographie of Roshdi Rashid: Prof. Roshdi Rashed

A Paris based, internationally renowned historian of science Prof. Rashed has made many significant contributions to the history of mathematics and science. He has been awarded with many honorable degrees and prizes including the Légion d'Honneur (legion of honor) from the president of France for scientific production in 1989, the medal of the International Academy for the History of Sciences (Alexander Koyré Medal) in 1990, then Avicenna Gold Medal from Federico Mayor, General Director of UNESCO in 1999, "for his contribution to recognition of Islamic culture as a part of universal scientific heritage and for promoting the dialog among different cultures." He has occupied various prestigious positions on the level of international scientific organizations.

Jidan 05:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with this article? SouthernComfort 05:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've provided quite a number of sources (all easily referenced online) that state he was Persian. SouthernComfort 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

''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.'' SouthernComfort 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jidan. Thanks for the information on Professor Rashed.  But still I am trying to stay away from any modern sources and only look at ancient sources. Since Prof. Rashed or Prof. Nasr can not know anything more from the ancient sources than me or you could. Even highly acclaimed scholars of different ethnic groups in modern times can be biased.  Of course if Ibn Nadeem or some other ancient book had clearly mentioned the ethnicity of Al-Khawarizmi, than there would not be any need for discussion!  So we must assume that such a direct statement does not exist.  Sol the only fact we have is that his origin اصله was from Chorasmia.  On the other hand,  if he was an Arab from the region (which is very unlikely since the majority of Chorasmia were Persians), then his tribal affiliation as part of his name is not there.  Now I draw attention to what Biruni has said about this region and others might have posted this.  Biruni, a Khwarazmian native, in his Athar ul-Baqiyah (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية) (p.47), specifically verifies the Iranian origins of Khwarazmians when he wrote (in Arabic):
 * "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا, من دوحه الفرس"
 * Translation:
 * "The (forefathers) of the Khwarezm were a branch from the of Al-fars (Persia, Persians)."
 * Also in his very valuable Persian book, Al-Tafhim which was also translated into Arabic by him, Biruni has mentioned the Chorasmian Calendar, days and months.  And he has given us valuable information on the Iranian Chorasmian language spoken during his time. So by the virtue of the fact that Chorasmia was predominately Persian, than the Persian ancestary of Al-Khawarizmi is more probable by deduction.  Although I will go through all sources I can, but it is guaranteed that there is no source that says explicity that he was this or that --Ali doostzadeh 05:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This all sounds fine to me. But why would one of the most famous and reliable encyclopedia's like Brittanica and Columbia Encyclopedia mention him as an arab? While they mention ohter islamic scientiscts like ibn Sina, al-biruni, etc., as persians?Jidan 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Jidan. That is good point. I recall a math book few years back whose first edition says he

Arab and the next edition says he was Persian. There is a lot of mistakes in Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. For example if they take their information from Dr. Frye's book, then they would have said Persian. But if they took it say from Prof. Hitti, then they might have said Arab. For example check out the 1911 Britannica Article on Avicenna. It claims he was an Arabian philosopher but the new edition of Britannica rightfully mentions he was a Persian philosopher. The problem in the west is the terms Muslim and Arab have been confused to great degree and they have been used by mistake interchangeably, although the fact is that today Arabs are about 15-20% of all Muslims. This is like the word "farang" in the muslim world which refers to all Europeans, but originally it just menas Franks. At one time, the Europeans called all muslims as Turks in their literature. Thankfully old age predujices are in decline. Going back to the issue, I reiterate that all we have are ancient sources and if for example this Professor says this or another says that, does not matter since they have no proof outside of these ancients sources either. I think unless new material from ancient sources are given that prove otherwise, the article should keep the ethnic Persian origin.

Because they are not updated, that is why. The Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries are updated and they say he is Persian, or at least Persian born: Of course because he was never allowed to write in Persian, and instead, he was told to write in the language of the conquerors of Persia, Arabic. As such, most of his books are in Arabic, and Latin. So you can see where the slight confusion came from. Zmmz 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to this day the people of Khwarizm, now Khiva, Russia speak Persian, of course Russian, and Uzbeki too. So they have no trace of an Arabic culture or language: Proving that when people say Khwarizm became Arabized, just because it was invaded by Arabs at some point, it certainly is not true. I have provided numerous sources mentioned in the above sections that says he was born in Khwarizm, so that is not just his name. Some of those references are from the same Columbia Encyclopedia that they keep mentioning. Other sources are some Islamic university web sites, Islamic Arabic books and others. So what is the problem? The case is settled. Thanks Zmmz 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Britannica doesn't say anything about him being an Arab. SouthernComfort 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311992 or offline Brittanica(student-edition).

Some sources give conflicting information, because they are not updated. For example, the Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionaries are updated and they say he is Persian, or at least Persian born. Of course because he was never allowed to write in Persian, and instead, he was told to write in the language of the conquerors of Persia, Arabic. As such, most of his books are in Arabic, and Latin. So you can see where the slight confusion came from. A prime example of this confusion is Encyclopedia Britannica itself that in an older edition mistakenly states Al Khwarizmi was born in Baghdad, Iraq, yet, now in a newer edition it states he was born in what is now Khiva, Russia (then, Persia). Thanks Zmmz 06:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Merriam-Webster states he's Islamic(persian-born) not Persian. Actually, he wasn't "told". He wrote the books in Arabic on his own free will. All these encyclopedias are updated, and they all agree that he's an Arab, some of them state he's Muslim. No sources state him to be Persian. MB 08:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing written at the current version of the article
This is written at the beginning of the article: "According to many sources, he was an ethnic Persian. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]"

The links take you to the references page, but, in the references page we have two sources that state he's an Arab, one calls him Muslim, while the others don't state his ethnicity. Can we get someone to delete the falsifications? MB 09:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jidan. That is good point. I recall a math book few years back whose first edition says he was Arab and the next edition says he was Persian. There is a lot of mistakes in Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. For example if they take their information from Dr. Frye's book, then they would have said Persian. But if they took it say from Prof. Rashed, then they might have said Arab. For example check out the 1911 Britannica Article on Avicenna. It claims he was an Arabian philosopher but the new edition of Britannica rightfully mentions he was a Persian philosopher. The problem in the west is the terms Muslim and Arab have been confused to great degree and they have been used by mistake interchangeably, although the fact is that today Arabs are about 15-20% of all Muslims. This is like the word "farang" in the muslim world which refers to all Europeans, but originally it just menas Franks. At one time, the Europeans called all muslims as Turks in their literature. Thankfully old age predujices are in decline. Going back to the issue, I reiterate that all we have are ancient sources and if for example this Professor says this or another says that, does not matter since they have no proof outside of these ancients sources either. I think unless new material from ancient sources are given that prove otherwise, the article should keep the ethnic Persian origin although perhaps "most probably of Persian origin", due to the fact that Khawarizmn was a chiefly Persian region.

Ok, first of all I'm not Jidan. Second of all, the claim that he's Persian simply because he was born in Khwarizm was refuted when Heja Helwada offered sources debunking the claim that all people from Khwarizm were Persian. Please, offer tangible truths to prove he's Persian, you don't have any. MB 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To MB. Heja Helwada sources did not prove anything since, he is talking about Umayyad military garrisons in Merv and  most of these were wiped out by Abu Moslem Khorasani.  Either way we are talking about Chorasmia and not Merv which is historically more part of Khoarasan.  Also Heja is biased and for example he claims Dinwari was a Kurd whereas in fact he was from the mixed Arab+Persian city of Dinwar at that time.   Heja's words carry no weight here since we have an exact statement from Abu Rayhan Biruni that the inhabitants of Khawarizm were Al-Farsi (Persians).  So the area was predominantely Persian or else Biruni would not make such a statemen.   Based on the observation of Ibn Nadeem that he was from originally from Chorasmia, and based on the fact that the area was predominantely Persian as Biruni has mentioned, and based on the Al-Majusi title given by Tabari, and based on the fact that we have many other Persian Chorasmian scholars from the area, the most notable being Abu Rayhan Biruni, all evidences point to a Persian origin.  We do not have evidences outside of the ancient sources and so we must logically deduct based on these facts that he was most likely of Persian origin.  You can't refute these facts and are just blabbering nonsense to satify your anti-Persian pan-Kurdist agenda.  That is why if you had any arguments from the ancient sources, you would present it.  I have done so: 1) Ibn nadeem clearly states he was from Khawarizm 2) Biruni clearly mentions that the people of Al-Khawarizm were Persians.  This unlike areas like Halwan (near Qasr-e-Shirin) or Dinvar (near Kermanshah) or Esfahan or Qom other areas where geographers have described Arab colonies (although these must have been small since they were all assimilated).  If you have any statement directly about Khawarizm that contradicts Biruni's statement (remember he was from the area), then bring it.


 * User:SouthernComfort added a lot of sources, I think all of them are useles, except for http://facstaff.uindy.edu/~oaks/MHMC.htm. This is an authorative, neutral and well sources article (written by an Associte Professor of Mathematics who specializes in the history of Arabic/Islamic mathematics) and he clearly states al-Khwarizmi was Persian, not Arab. Unless you can provide an equally authorative source I think this would settle this dispute. —Ruud 14:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I offered three authorative sources stating he's an Arab. The dispute was settled long ago, it's your bias that's keeping you from seeing it. The source you mentioned relies on the argument of his birthplace, Encyclopedia Iranica refuted that claim. MB 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop the propaganda. Encyclopedia Iranica does not have any information on Al-Khawarizmi as of yet.  But it has information on Chorasmia and the people and language there were definitely Iranians and not Arabic.  Your sources like the other sources that have been brought are all from this or that internet site.  Some say Persian and some say Arabic.  But those sources are basically irrelavent.  They don't amount to anything, since we have plowed through ancient sources like Tabari, Biruni and Ibn-Nadeem.  If you have any other ancient sources, then bring them forth.  Else the available ancient sources point to a Persian origin and those ancient sources have the final say unless Al-Khawarizmi wakes up oneday and says he was African.

Stop the propaganda shouldn't you follow your own advice, first? I wasn't spreading propaganda, the source stated he's born in Khwarizm, so he must be Persian. Heja offered sources that state Khwarizm had huge immigrations from Arabs. Also, the claim that al-Tabari called him "al-Majusi" is disputed, the MacTutor reference in the article describes the dispute. The poem alledged to be written by al-Biruni hasn't been sourced yet, untill someone does, a neutral editor would treat it as apocryphal. Where are the sources from Ibn-Nadeem? Who "plowed" through the ancient sources? Who are you? Please sign your comments after logging in, I want to know who I'm adressing. MB 17:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope Heja offered no sources here about Chorasmia. He provided a source about Merv during Ummayad times and their military garrissons. We are talking about Chorasmia here and not Khorasan. Although most of those military colonies were wiped out by the Shua'biya and Abu Moslem revolts, that has nothing to do with the Chorasmia discussion. So your statement that Heja did this or that doesn't cut, since you don't even know what Heja wrote and can not prove anything about Chorasmia and Heja is no scholar either. Unlike you I mentioned a direct source from Biruni that clearly states the inhabitants of Khawarizm were Persians. How much more clearer do you want? You seem to not know that Merv and Khwarizm are two different areas. There is no poem by Al-Biruni but a statement from Athar-al-Baqqiya that the inhabitants of Khawarizm are of Persian origin. The actual Arabic statement was brought here already. But just in case you do not want to find them, here we go again: 1) Biruni: The famous scientist Biruni, a Khwarazmian native, in his Athar ul-Baqiyah (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية) (p.47), specifically verifies the Iranian origins of Khwarazmians when he wrote (in Arabic):

"اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا, من دوحه الفرس"

2)

Ibn Nadeem الخوارزمي واسمه محمد بن موسى وأصله من خوارزم وكان منقطعاً إلى خزانة الحكمة للمأمون وهو من أصحاب علوم الهيئة وكان الناس قبل الرصد وبعده يعولون على زيجيه الأول والثاني ويعرفان بالسند هند وله من الكتب كتاب الزلزيج نسختين أولى 3) Tabari: ومحمد بن موسى الخوارزميّ المجوسيّ القطربّليّ

Now these are all evidences from ancient sources, and are very much clear indicators of the Persian origin of Khawarizmi. If you have no direct ancient sources and quotes to backup your claims, then you should not persist. BTW there is no dispute on the Al-Majoosi part, since there is no copy of Tabari with a "wa" in there and Prof. Rashed with all due respect for his achievements is an ethnic Arab and no other scholar has suggest such a theory and either way it was refured because there is no Al-Majoosi Al-Qurutbuli mentioned in history. Note also that Al-Majoosi is not  a name but a title and so is Al-Qurutbuli, so the idea of there being a "wa" is not founded. Besides what Ibn-Nadeem and Biruni say is sufficient and if we add the Al-Majoosi part, then it becomes 100% certain that he was Persian. (Ali Doostzadeh).

Al-Khwarizmi is NOT persian - for the last time
I am sorry to disappoinment you all, but picking a random website in the internet is not enough. For finding articles that al-khwarizmi was an arab mathemtician just click this google link:. Funny also that while SouthernComfort tried to prove he is persian with some web links, he also proved at the same time that he is an arab! LOOL

With all respect Ruud, but with voting we can even make isaac newton a persian. LOOL

The best source i have seen in the internet that talks about al-khwarzimi in a detailed and a dedicated way (not just one line like the website you provided) was this: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Khwarizmi.html. And this source is authoritive and neutral, and it uses as a refernce 53 Books!!!...unfortunatly, they didnt say he was persian!

As i said 1001 times, we can't say that al-khwarzmi is persian, just because his name indicates he is from khwarzim, which is persian. Its SIMPLY NOT RIGHT.

Lets take this man:'Abd al-Wahab al-Daylami. From his title we can say that he is from Daylam, a region on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea in Iran. But he is NOT persian!! He is the Ministry of Justice of Yemen. Although he himself admits that his ancestors came from persia, during the occupation of persia to yemen, he is still a yemeni!! Nobody dears to call him persian.

Lets take another man: Omar Khayyam. This man is persian, because he wrote in persian, lived in Nishapur, in Persia. But his name indicates that he stems from a prominent arabian tribe, al-khayyam. See http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume1/Robert_Green.pdf. The fact that tentmaker doesnt mean khayyami in persian, also supports this. But nobody dears to call him arab, beceause he lived in persia, wrote in persian, and was assimilated with the persian culture.

Another man: Abu faraj al-isfahani (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003412). If this man did not write in his book that he was an arab, he would also be labeled falsely as persian!! since al-isfahani means he comes from isfahan, which is in persia and predominatly persian. This man also lived in baghdad

Do you get my point!!!!

'''It does not matter where your ancestors are from, it ONLY matter where are you NOW! And thats NOT persia!! '''

Al-khwarzmi ancestors might have been persian from khwarzim and even zorostorian (like al-tabari mentioned), but still, NOW he is not. '''He did NOT live in persia, he lived in baghdad. He wrote in arabic, he did not NOT write in persian. Ibn al-Nadim didnt mention a single book of him in persian. ''' These are FACTS!!, unlike the speculations about his ethnicity.

Nobody argues about the ethnicity of ibn sina or al-biruni, because unlike al-khwarzmi, they lived in persia.

Since i know that the persians will not agree with all i said (without regard if its right or wrong), I suggest the following natural, open soultion:

Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (c.780 - 850) (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي, Persian موسى خوارزمى) was a Muslim mathematician, astronomer,  and geographer.

Because of his book on the systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations, al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala, al-Khwarizmi is, together with Diophantus, considered to be the father of algebra. The word algebra is derived from al-ğabr, one of the two operations used to solve quadratic equations, as described in his book. Algoritmi de numero Indorum, the Latin translation of his other major work, on the Indian numerals, introduced the positional number system and the number zero to the Western world in the 12th century. The words algorism and algorithm stem from Algoritmi, the Latinization of his name.

This is my last entry regarding this issue, i dont really care anymore. But Keep in mind that if the entry was no put as natural as possible, it would be continuesly changed!!

My regards and thanks to all(specially Ali doostzadeh)

Jidan 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)