Talk:Fakhr al-Din al-Razi

Let's prevent ethnic warfare
He is from Banu Taym an Arab tribe of Quraysh. the iranians need to understand the difference between birth and blood. if a chinese man is born in Tehran is he Persian? please learn the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.196.253 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's prevent ethnic warfare
Like many articles regarding islamic personalities a war often takes place. Persians claim the person the be theirs. Arabs claim the person to be theirs.

If Al-razi was a descendant of Abu Bakr (pbuh) then he was an arab. If his family originates from anywhere west of Persia then he is an arab. If his family originates from anywhere from Persia then he is persian... unless afghans, tajiks, kurds etc... have anything to say

The least childish thing is to do is allow for both possibilities.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 04:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Born in Rey in Persia, died in Herat in Persia, al Tabaristani, Tabaristan is in Persia, you honestly claim this man to be an Arab? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.148.226 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You geniuses; if an Arab was born in Britian, is he ethnically British? No, he isn't. This is the exact same case. Why don't you read his full name? His name says in the end: "The Taymi", which was a part of the Quraishi tribe, in fact he is a descendant of Abu Bakr, the companion, which is why his name has "Al BAKRI". He lived in Persia, no problem, but he wasn't Persian. --24.186.110.18 (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Without sources, anyone's opinion is just that "an opinion". This source, Richard Maxwell Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760,University of California Press,1996, - Page 29, calls him Iranian.
 * The other source however, Shaikh M. Ghazanfar, Medieval Islamic Economic Thought: Filling the Great Gap in European Economics,Routledge, 2003, alludes to a Persian ethnicity.
 * Do you have sources that state otherwise? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you open the Abu Bakr page in wikipedia and see his, Abu Bakr, full name, it is: Abd Allah ibn 'Uthman ibn Aamir ibn Amr ibn Ka'ab ibn Sa'ad ibn TAYM. TAYM is freaking sub-clan in Arabia. You find evidence the banu taym is part of Quraish in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=BZiabfstLJEC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=banu+taym+clan&source=bl&ots=u3NIHbTmB-&sig=U5XlrRfjeegOS6TJCpeMYChMbhA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o9i3UYy4BJOy0AHpuICwAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=banu%20taym&f=false--24.186.110.18 (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All I see is a snippet view of a page. That snippet view does not say he is an Arab. Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What the hell
Its not ethnic warfare, its theft of intellectual credits. He was born in Ray of Persia (now Tehran), how the f%^$# can he be Arab. Im sick of these narrow minded Arabs with fabricated, or obscure sources claiming that Persian scholars/scientists were really Arab (because they spoke a language that was imposed by them). They lived in a Persian environment, not a nomadic hostile one found in parts of Arabia.

Stop trying to steal our scholars, these are figures who are taught about in contemporary Iranian schools, and the vast majority of Iranians know (even if they dont have higher education) their historical figures.

DITC

Oh Please, stop playing the Persian victim mentality. You Persians are so arrogant that you people literally though that you created everything in this world. Shut up. If anyone should be sick, it's everyone else except the Persians who tried to claim they created everything. As if the Persians didn't inherited any culture and knowledge from the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Akkadians. Do the Persian acknowledge their contributions?

And it's very clear that you have a VERY RACIST mentality of the Arabs by assuming that all of them lived a nomadic lifestyle. People of Makka thrive with trading activity, Medina's main source of economy was agriculture and Taif's residents planted grapes as their main crops. To assume that all of Arabia is desert is either purely ignorant on your part or just plain wicked in trying to portray them as barbaric, as you Persian had always portrayed them through stereotype.

And if Arabic language was imposed towards the Persians, why didn't their intellectuals try to change that? Al-Ghazali, a famous Persian Muslim theologian wrote most of his books in Arabic despite him being fluent in Persian, as though both Bukhari and Muslim, whom were ethnically Persian.

Nobody is trying to steal "your" scholars. These are Islamic scholars and they never ascribed themselves to any form of nationalism like you people are trying to imposed on them here. 175.143.183.217 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Some quotes for our friend above
It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions,most Muslim scholars in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs,thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him,al-Farsi and Az-Zajjaj.All of them were of Persian descent and they inven...ted rules of (Arabic) grammar.Great jurists were Persians.Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works.Ibn Khaldun PEACE BE UPON HIM

If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it. محمّد PEACE BE UPON HIM

The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour. Abbasid Caliphate العبّاسيّون PEACE BE UPON HIM The Persians ruled for a thousand years worshiping fire!! They did not need Arabs who pulled them out of it. That's why Arabs cannot do without the Persians for one hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.163.193 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, another Persian nationalist who is trying to boast his superior race as though they conquered the entire knowledge of the Universe. The Hadith that you quoted above exist in two versions,it also states that "If Faith were at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (the highest star)" Contemporary scholars interpreted that this hadith meant "knowledge of Islam" and this is also the reason why Imam Muslim (also from Persia) named an entire chapter for this hadith THE MERITS OF THE PEOPLE OF PERSIA”.

In other words, the Persian people of that time value that hadith as a source of pride where they would be the one who will carry the religion of Islam; this is contrary to today's Persian nationalist, they view Arabs and Islam as something so disgraceful that they repeatedly called them names such as "barbaric animal" or "the religion of harsh Arabs". Your ancestors never boast about their ancient Sassanid or Achaemenid empire; they boast about their position as the inheritors of Islam; something that you Persian nationalist needs to ponder about.

And as for the view from the Abbasid Caliphate about the Persian, you don't think that the Abbasid had the same view towards the Turks after they control the political scene after the era of Caliph Mutasim? You should really learn more about political rhetoric before quoting a statement made by those who control the governance.175.143.183.217 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Stub and rework
For background information, please see RFC/U and Cleanup. With 121 edits, User:Jagged 85 is the main contributor to this article by far (2nd: 18 edits). The issues are a repeat of what had been exemplarily shown here, here, here or here. From the last pre-Jagged85 version (12 September 2007) I restore the referenced parts. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

copyedit January 2017
I did a little copyedit, mostly on the Kalam section. Here are a few short notes: If I made a mistake with those, please do change them back. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There were a couple cases of ar-Razi that I changed to al-Razi
 * I changed The Qur'an to the Quran (per MOS:ISLAM) unless it was in a quote or title
 * I made a few changes in keeping with Plain English, eg: hermeneutical → interpretive

Banu Taym origins?
Hi ! The fact that a source is not in English is not a sufficient reason to remove it, like you did here and here: according to WP:NOENG, Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Also, when an edit is reverted, the IP user and you were supposed to discuss at the talk page rather than to re-revert and edit war.

That said, I agree that the sources you removed in the edit I linked to above are weak, because they are primary sources, which should never be used to base evaluative statements on. I also agree that as Wikipedia editors we cannot derive from the fact that one of his nisbas was "al-Taymi" that he should have had origins in the Arab Banu Taym tribe: that would constitute original research.

But that said, the fact that we have primary sources speaking of Arab origins, combined with the nisba, does raise a strong suspicion that indeed Fakhr al-Din al-Razi may have had some (claimed) Qurayshi origins (such claims would have enhanced prestige, and were quite common at the time, and in some places even today: see Sharif, Sayyid, Asharaf, Samaale, etc.). Anawati 1960–2007 does not mention anything about this, but this is typically not a topic that most scholars are interested in. It would be worth looking for a reliable, secondary source that does treat this topic (the source given by the IP user,, whose translated title is The Arabness of the Scholars Who Have Been Related to Foreign Countries in the Islamic East, is most definitely not a reliable source). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing the matter to the talk page and also for your evident interest and long contribution to this section of Wikipedia. As you would know, a nisbah is not given necessarily in a patriarchal matter. For example, Imam al-Bukhari also has an Arabic tribal nisbah despite undisputed Persian native heritage, and a reference to it in his middle-Persian paternal name. The problem with the provided sources isn't that they are just not reliable, they are unreliable and unlinked, which makes their verification impossible. Ethnic origin in regards to Islamic scholars is a trivial matter to be sure, but in all of the modern English peer-reviewed sources he is claimed to be Persian of origin, so it is rather the attempt to change this while referring to relatively modern Arabic-Language sources which is indicative of non-impartial editorial agenda. I would restate my advice to designate this page as a sensitive one so as to prevent future disruptions from anonymous accounts.شاه عباس (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, except for one thing: the fact that some sources are not available online does not make their verification impossible (libraries still exist), and such sources are in fact legitimately used on Wikipedia all the time; this is also explicitly noted in policy, see WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE. The problem is rather illegitimate use of primary, non-independent or plainly unreliable sources. Temporary page protection has been requested and is indeed a good idea. However, when in the future some of your edits get reverted, please come to the talk sooner (see the bold, revert, discuss cycle). ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, and I understand the weakness of the sources. I'm fully aware of the policy and I have often myself referred to non-digitalised sources, however this is evidently a sensitive topic and the edits are made with some weight behind them, so the persons making the edits also bear the burden to justify their sources. Otherwise anyone can make an edit and refer to an unknown source to justify it, even if the sources have nothing of the sort in them.شاه عباس (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment In my humble opinion, a nisba and some primary sources are not enough to counterbalance secondary sources claims. Even in case of inclusion, that should be done with due weight. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)

See this for more details (p. 29-32) https://archive.org/details/fakhruldin-alrazi/page/n29/mode/2up?view=theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.7.224 (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Providing some sources that fit with your POV is not enough, consensus matters. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Taha Jabir al-Alwani isn't the most reliable source (as a religious scholar he's not very independent, and the publisher, Dār al-Salām, does not have much of a reputation for fact-checking), but I do think that the two-page long (!) footnote which al-Alwani dedicates to what various medieval sources have said about the nisbas al-Ṭabaristānī, al-Taymī and al-Bakrī is enough to merit at least an explicitly attributed citation. For example, we could add the following to the 'Biography' section:


 * "According to Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Fakhr al-Din received the nisba al-Ṭabaristānī because his family had been living in Tabaristan before they moved to Ray, while the nisba al-Taymī refers to his family's origins in the Arab Banu Taym clan (a sub-clan of the Quraysh), and the nisba al-Bakrī to his purported descent from the first caliph Abu Bakr (c. 573, himself a member of the Banu Taym)."


 * Of course, this does not in any way belong in the lead, per MOS:ETHNICITY. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a very difficult stretch to justify providing the single opinion of one scholar (who, by the way, in the linked text also addresses that there is a view that he is Persian, while picking a bet that that is not the case) while there are hundreds or thousands of scholars who have commented on the matter. The issue is not significant, and the scholarly academic consensus agrees with the article as it currently stands, so any change must be justified with bulletproof sources, not with sources the likes of which have been hitherto mentioned.شاه عباس (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A similar summary to the one proposed here has also been expressed by Byron D. Cannon:
 * "The family claimed both a long tribal ancestry (associated with the Taimi tribe) and descent from the family of Abu Bakr, the first caliph."
 * Sign. Wiqi(55) 12:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@شاه عباس: al-Alwani himself actually frames it as that Fakhr al-Din was "Tabaristani in origin (al-aṣl) and Qurayshi, Taymi, and Bakri in lineage (nasaban)". With regard to his sources, he points out that some of them (like Ibn Khaldun and Ahmad Amin) reckoned him among the non-Arabs (al-ʿajam), even while confirming his lineage to Abu Bakr and to the Banu Taym. He cites Ibn Khaldun as saying "even if some among them [a group of non-Arab scholars including Fakhr al-Din] are Arab in their lineage, they are still non-Arab in their language, upbringing and guidance." He quotes Ahmad Amin as saying "Al-Fakhr al-Razi is Muhammad ibn Umar al-Taymi al-Bakri, but he is also Persian like al-Ghazali." The "also" (ka-dhālika) here is very revealing: there can be no doubt that the nisbas al-Taymi and al-Bakri are understood by all involved as referring to a purported Arab lineage, but this is not understood as meaning that he wasn't Persian. The nisbas as such only point to him being a Persian/Tabaristani of Arab lineage.

The question that poses itself is rather whether these nisbas are authentic, or given by later tradition. And if authentic, to what degree it is likely that they represent a real rather than an imagined Arab lineage. It is for answering these questions in a definite way that we would need a better scholar than al-Alwani. But al-Alwani is not pulling all of this out of his ass: he cites Ibn Khallikan, Ibn al-Wardi, Ibn al-Subki, al-Dhahabi, al-Shahrazuri, and al-Suyuti as all giving the nisba al-Bakri. It's absolutely clear that almost immediately after Fakhr al-Din's death in 1209, medieval historians started to refer to him as a descendant of Abu Bakr, and that for this reason he was known throughout the ages as al-Taymi al-Bakri. Thanks to, we now also have a rather more reliable scholar, Byron D. Cannon, explicitly confirming that Fakhr al-Din's family claimed descent from Abu Bakr ('claimed', just like I suspected above! ).

There's also the fact that we are already validating this tradition by actually citing the nisbas, as given by Habashi 2014. With this in mind, I think there's no good reason not to also explain them: for the specific and limited task of explaining the nisbas, Ahmad Amin and Taha Jabir al-Alwani are reliable enough, especially if we also refer to Cannon 1998. An alternative would be to just remove the nisbas, but I think that in the current situation that would be just obfuscating things. Better sources would still be very welcome, but there's simply too much here not to mention something about it, and I think that now's our chance to do it with as much proper context and sourcing as possible. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 12:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your elaborate response. I consulted the source mentioned above, there is no reference to where the specific claim was made by Razi talking about his ethnic ancestry, rather than any other hereditary inheritance of the nisba in question. It can't be assumed that Razi was referring to direct ethnic ancestry when mentioning his nisbaat. I think the fact that every part of his name is mentioned is unnecessary long, given that it is not usually the case with other scholars of the same importance on Wikipedia, and in the source (Byron D. Cannon) his nisbaat are not mentioned. The name which appears is much more concise than what we currently have in the article. I think what is clear from all of these sources is that he was Persian ethnically, and in terms of identity, while possessing a nisbah which referred to a claim for either a paternal lineage leading to Abu Bakr, or referring to some sort of a Tariqah/Sirah which leads to him non-genetically. شاه عباس (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing we use the word ethnic. But we have a reliable source explicitly saying that his family claimed both a long tribal ancestry (associated with the Taimi tribe) and descent from the family of Abu Bakr, the first caliph. It's not reasonable to suppose that this is not an interpretation of the nisbas al-Taymi and al-Bakri on Cannon's part, just because he doesn't mention these nisbas. The words ancestry and descent are also clear enough, not warranting any speculation on our part that this should be some kind of tariqa lineage. I do agree, however, that it might be better to leave out the nisbas from the first full representation of his name, and instead say something about them separately. So what about the following (please keep in mind this is intended for the biography section, not for the lead):


 * "Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, whose full name was Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Ḥusayn (أبو عبد الله محمد بن عمر بن الحسين), was born in 1149 or 1150 (543 or 544 AH) in Ray, Iran (whence his nisba al-Rāzī). He was also known by the nisbas al-Ṭabaristānī, al-Taymī, and al-Bakrī. According to Taha Jabir al-Alwani, the nisba al-Ṭabaristānī refers to the fact that his family had been living in Tabaristan before they moved to Ray, while the nisba al-Taymī refers to his family's claimed origins in the Arab Banu Taym clan (a sub-clan of the Quraysh), and the nisba al-Bakrī to his purported descent from the first caliph Abu Bakr (c. 573, himself a member of the Banu Taym)."


 * ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What al-Alwani says or not does not matter, what the mainstream of reliable sources say is relevant. Are we able to find multiple reliable sources claiming an Arab origin for Fakhr al-Din al-Razi ? if yes, then let's just include that claim, if not, then drop it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent the proposal above as itself claiming Arab origin: perhaps it needs some rewriting to better avoid that suggestion, but it is not its intention, and we are not in need of sources backing up a claim we do not intend to make. Habashi 2014 mentions the nisbas, and Cannon 1998 makes it very clear that these are based on the claims by al-Razi's family of being descended from the Banu Taym and Abu Bakr. Al-Alwani 2010, even though clearly helpful, can be dropped if need be. But Habashi 2014 and Cannon 1998 cannot, unless other sources explicitly addressing the nisbas or the purported Taymi/Bakri lineage can be found (which would be great!). For now though, the question is how we are going to convey the reliably sourced and clearly relevant information we have, not if.
 * Perhaps a little shorter would be nice:
 * "Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, whose full name was Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Ḥusayn (أبو عبد الله محمد بن عمر بن الحسين), was born in 1149 or 1150 CE (543 or 544 AH) in Ray, Iran (close to modern Tehran), whence his nisba al-Rāzī. He was also known by the nisbas al-Taymī and al-Bakrī, al-Razi's family having claimed a lineage going back to the Arab Banu Taym clan (a sub-clan of the Quraysh) and to the first caliph Abu Bakr (c. 573–634, himself a member of the Banu Taym)."


 * ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, i don't see how i misrepresented something here, just asked for multiple reliable sources for inclusion, which sounds quite relevant. Anyway, firstly, your above proposal sounds quite good to me, but it should be mentioned somewhere that most sources do not mention any Arab origin for Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Secondly, as you know, inclusion is not only subjected to verifiability but also, and even mainly, to consensus, but so far, there is no such thing. So no, the question is not how we are going to include this but if we are going to do so. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're still replying as though we're mentioning some sources that claim Arab origin, and now should make it clear that most sources don't. But that's just not the case. We're mentioning that al-Razi's family claimed (distant) Arab origin, which by the looks of it is just an uncontroversial fact. There are no sources denying it, or in any way contradicting it. Sure, most sources are happy to ignore this little fact, which is rather unfortunate given that some more context about the unlikelihood and motivated nature of these claims would have been nice, but there's nothing we can do about that.
 * You're of course right that there's no overriding reason why we should absolutely include it, but in any case we should find a good way for how to deal with this. Completely leaving out all mention of the nisbas is a viable alternative in my view, but then we should explicitly adopt it as a consensus that until more context is found on these nisbas and the family claims upon which they are based, we don't mention anything at all about them (as most sources do). I just think it will be easier to keep edit wars at bay when we have this little piece of correct and properly sourced info on the origin of the nisbas, which is the main reason why I wrote the proposal above. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a distant Arab origin is probably relevant for some people (like the blocked IP) who are seeking to gain some pride of it. On my end, i think that nisbas are just too vague and should be left out. Some nisbas are given to a notable individual because of his/her birth place, or because of his/her ethnicity, or because of the city/town/region he/she spent most of his/her life, not a big deal. I also think that if most sources are, as you said happy to ignore that supposed distant Arab origin, it's probably because this point is irrelevant to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's life. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that, regardless of the ethno-nationalist sensitivities of some WP editors, there's some historical relevance to this Shafi'i-Ash'ari family claiming descent from Abu Bakr: that's why Cannon 1998 mentions it. I also honestly think that editors not liking it here is entirely due to the same kind of pride you mention. But fair enough; let's say that unless someone comes up with an additional source that tells us something more about the subject than Cannon 1998 does, or until we have at least a few more sources like Cannon 1998, we'll just not mention the nisbas at all, as is the case in most sources. Let's call it undue until then. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Thanks for the collegial discussion. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again after the lovely block although I have only trying to get the page back as it is used to be so the protection would be just for all parties before having any talks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lhHDXimoLc). Anyway, I have four points: First, al-Razi's distant Arab origin has been recorded by more than thirty medieval historians almost immediately after his death according to al-Alwani's study. Secondly, the English sources do not mention the term "Persian" to trace al-Razi's origin but rather his place of birth. For instance, can we simply say that Avicenna - who is clearly a Persian - was an Arab just because he is mentioned in this "peer reviewed" work as an Arabic? (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110652086/html?lang=en). Of course not since the "context" is apparently about Avicenna's language not his origin. Thirdly, the argument from silence is one of the weakest ones in academia especially when we have such rich historical sources which tell the opposite. Therefore, not mentioning the nisbas or ignoring them is not an evidence by the virtue of itself. Fourthly and most importantly - upon the request of Apaugasma (aptronym btw) - is the fact that Ayman Shihadeh, who is the leading authority on al-Razi in Western academia, mentions this nisba in a detailed sense(p. viii-xi)(https://www.academia.edu/5034053/Fakhr_al_D%C4%ABn_al_R%C4%81z%C4%AB_s_Father_Diy%C4%81_al_D%C4%ABn_al_Makk%C4%AB_Nih%C4%81yat_al_Mar%C4%81m_f%C4%AB_Dir%C4%81yat_al_Kal%C4%81m_Facsimile_of_the_Autograph_Manuscript_of_Vol_II). I'll stop here since the evidences are authentic enough to safely suggest in any leading peer reviewed journal that al-Razi was an "Arab" ethnically. However, I'll leave the decision up to the editors who do not have ethno-nationalist sensitivities (The role of "knowers" should shape Wikipedia not the "majority": http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/146836/1/WRAP_Theses_Giavazzi_2020.pdf). On a separate note, I recommend revising this article using Frank Griffel's recent work on al-Razi (The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190886325.001.0001/oso-9780190886325). Farewell... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.7.224 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello IP user! It would have been very helpful if you would have posted some of this before engaging in an edit war. It's unfortunate that, not being familiar with the rules and customs on Wikipedia, you were prevented from participating in the discussion above, since you do seem to know what you're talking about! While we do not consider a scholar like al-Alwani reliable, Ayman Shihadeh is of course, as you say, one of the leading scholars on Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. I elaborated on the Shihadeh source you provided below. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

New source: Ayman Shihadeh 2013–2019
Above, 213.48.7.224 has brought up a new source, Ayman Shihadeh, who is one of the leading scholars on Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (also the author of the EI3 article on al-Razi's father and teacher, Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Makkī). I believe the reference 213.48.7.224 gave to the introduction of Shihadeh's 2013 edition of Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Makkī's work Nihāyat al-marām fī dirāyat al-kalām (republished by Brill in 2019) is precisely the kind of due coverage that was missing above. It's worth quoting here the relevant passage on pp. viii–ix:

I think it's clear that, combined with the reference in Cannon 1998 provided above, something about the Meccan/Qurashi background and the claimed descent from Abu Bakr deserves to be included in the article. Thoughts? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In light of the recent sources, I think the only thing which has been confirmed is the fact that the family of the person in question 'did' in fact use the nisbaat in question. This being the case, I think we either do not mention them, or we mention them and attach a disclaimer along the lines of: "like many Islamic Fuqaha of his time, Razi's family claimed ancestry from prominent muslim figures, in this case the first Caliph Abu Bakr, as evident by his nisba Al-Bakri." In fact I wrote something similar for Ibn Khallikan whose nisba relates him to the Barmakids.شاه عباس (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Apaugasma! Thanks for your kind words and the constructive participation. This is my first time Wikipedia because one of my friends emailed me about this issue after seeing the page (I remember telling her long time ago that al-Razi was an Arab so she was confused after reading that he is a Persian). I knew from the beginning that the discussions will be like this after checking the profiles of the other editors. This is why I do not participate here in Wikipedia (the last time was 10 years ago) as I prefer to publish in peer reviewed journals. This is also why we do not allow our students (even those in Bachelor degree) to cite Wikipedia with all due respect to some sincere efforts here. Thanks again and I wish you all the best :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.8.195 (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 213.48.7.224 In the future, perhaps try not to mislead students or acquaintances into believing things with little substance (not a single source says "Razi was an Arab", at most they say he was Arab "nisban" while he was Tabari or Persian "bil'asl"), so when they are introduced to scholarly consensus they don't try to wreak their havoc on the rest of us. The edit war occurred because there were no reliable sources maintaining the claim that he was an ethnic Arab. Nobody here is ideologically or otherwise committed to omitting the fact that his family used tribal nisbaat, which may or may not indicate any potential distant Arab ancestry.Furthermore, Wikipedia is an excellent resource for research where many people contribute by compiling sources and information that would be impossible for a single person or an encyclopedia directed by a small team, provided that checking the citations is maintained while reading and citing claims. شاه عباس (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wikaviani and شاه عباس for your advice and I wish you all the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.8.195 (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with شاه عباس. Reliable sources do not call him "Arab", so we should neither. However, as an online encyclopedia created by a collaboration of many people we can and often do include more information than is found in most other encyclopedias. If done right, this is actually one of the strengths of Wikipedia: while often (not always!) less reliable, there are also almost always a few things which one can find in the Wikipedia article that are commonly omitted elsewhere, which for research purposes can often be a boon. It's because we do not always need to be a 100% correct right from the bat that we can include many things which others would exclude out of pure caution. But through time, we will become both the most thorough and the most reliable source! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment : It would have been better to provide those above cites before instead of engaging in an edit war and being blocked. I agree with the inclusion of a mention about a distant Arab origin, this can be done in the lead and detailed in the body of the article, given that we have now enough material to do so. IP, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is still presented as a Persian scholar, not an Arab, the sources you provided only deal with a distant Arab origin, not Arab ethnicity. Being of X origin does not mean being an ethnic X. Just an example : Michael Dukakis has far closer ties with Greeks (his parents were Greeks) than Fakhr al-Din al-Razi with Arabs, however, nobody says that Mike Dukakis is Greek ... i suggest you make a proposal. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  08:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I would keep this far from the lead, per MOS:ETHNICITY. The lead calls him "Persian", which is just about right given that he was born and raised in Ray, and in my view the lead should never elaborate upon any more complex ethnic background that can't be expressed in one word like that (a compound like Greek-American or "Arabo-Persian" would also do, if it would be used by reliable sources, but that's clearly not the case here).


 * For the biography section, I propose the following:


 * "Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, whose full name was Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn al-Ḥusayn (أبو عبد الله محمد بن عمر بن الحسين), was born in 1149 or 1150 CE (543 or 544 AH) in Ray (close to modern Tehran), whence his nisba al-Razi. His father's family had moved from Mecca to Tabaristan (a mountainous region located on the Caspian coast of northern Iran) in the 11th century, and had settled some time after that in Ray. Al-Razi claimed descent from the first caliph Abu Bakr (c. 573–634), and was known by medieval biographers as al-Qurashī (a member of the Quraysh, the tribe of the prophet Muhammad to which also Abu Bakr belonged). However, it's not clear from which precise lines of descent al-Razi envisioned his purported ties with Abu Bakr to result."


 * ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 10:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. For the lead, i suggest something like Zakariya al-Qazwini's article. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with what User:Apaugasma has put forth. However, I would recommend some changes. Since the claim that his paternal family had undergone a migratory event from Mecca to Tabaristan is only maintained by one available source. I would substantiate the claim by changing it to something along the lines of "according to ibn sha'ar al-mawsili, who was amongst Razi's earliest biographers, his paternal family had migrated to Tabaristan from Mecca in the preceding century."شاه عباس (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok for me, if you don't want to mention his Arab ancestry in the lead, i have no problem with that as long as it is mentioned in the body of the article. I also agree with the inline citation proposed by you. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @شاه عباس: we can't say that his family migrated to Tabaristan according to Ibn al-Shaʿʿār al-Mawṣilī, because the latter only speaks (according to Shihadeh) about al-Razi's great-grandfather being born in Mecca and being a rich merchant there, not about the migration to Tabaristan: this is something that Shihadeh himself concludes from the fact that Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn al-Makkī already carried the nisbas al-Makkī and al-Ṭabarī (= al-Ṭabaristānī, a nisba later found ascribed to Fakhr al-Dīn), and perhaps from some unnamed primary source. I adjusted the text to explicitly mention Ibn al-Shaʿʿār al-Mawṣilī, but I don't think there's much room to second-guess Shihadeh's expert judgement on the migration to Tabaristan if there's no source that contradicts him.
 * @Wikaviani: though I admit that the "Persian [...] of Arab ancestry" in the lead of Zakariya al-Qazwini is reasonably concise, it's just that mainstream academic sources would never put something like that in the lead of an encyclopedic article. Anawati 1960–2007 in Encyclopaedia of Islam doesn't even mention the words "Persian", "Iranian" or "Arab". Ancestry generally just isn't important enough to be among the first things mentioned in the great majority of cases. That's my view, but if someone wants to add "of Arab ancestry" in a reasonably non-convoluted way, I won't make a fuss about it.
 * I also added a bit about Ibn ʿUnayn's (died 1233) praise of him as a descendant of Umar ibn al-Khattab, which I think is relevant because it illustrates how tenuous such ancestral claims really are, and how they function more as identity markers than as reliable genealogy. With all these additions, the paragraph has become a bit long, but not overly so in my view. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i know you're right about this, but one must recognize that doing so is a normal practice on Wiki. Anyway, as i said above, if you guys want to leave this out of the lead, i have no problem with that. By the way, you did a nice job with your recent edits. Thanks. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand me guys as I have no personal issue with Wikipedia in addition to the fact that I had benefited a lot from it through the past ten years. However, and according to mainstream academia, the main issue with Wikipedia is the obscurity regarding the qualifications of participants. This follows logically to have an impact on the "consensus" as it could be done by non-specialists because there is no committee of specialists that can examine the output of any article at the end of the day. This is why I suggested long time ago that the Universities should force the professors - as a part of their academic promotion - to convey their peer reviewed publications to Wikipedia to serve the community. That's the whole story, and I apologies for the harsh words mentioned before as they are only meant for what happened regarding this topic. Good luck for you all in your sincere attempts to serve the community. Farewell... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.8.195 (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the article stands good in regards to ethnicity and ancestry, with much more substance and much better sources. I wouldn't change the lead section, as it is in line with the majority of scholarly sources. شاه عباس (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is of Arab descent
Al-Razi is related to the city of Rayy (or Rey) in which he was born, and Al-Tabaristani is attributed to the town of Tabaristan, he attributed to it, because his family were living there before they emigrated to the city of Rayy/Rey. Al-Qurashi is related to the Quraysh tribe, and Al-Taymi is related to Banu Taym, the tribe of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in Quraysh. Al-Bakri because his lineage goes back to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. Thus, it is clear that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi is of Arab origin/descent.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello ! It seems likely that he was Arab descent, but not for the reasons you give. What expert scholars like and  deduce from the nisbas you cite is that al-Razi and/or his family claimed Bakri/Qurashi descent. Since his great-grandfather came from Mecca (Shihadeh 2013–2019 seems to find this credible, and for good reason), he may very well have been of Arab descent, but while we cannot entirely rule out that he descended from Abu Bakr, that particular connection is rather tenuous to say the least.
 * In any case, the article as it stands now makes it very clear that according to the most credible account, al-Razi did in fact descend from a Meccan family. Since Meccans are clearly Arabs, I'm not sure what this new section is supposed to be about.
 * What is very important, however, is that you should know that, and why, we will never use sources like Yasin T. Al-Jibouri's self-published book Nahjul-Balagha: Path of Eloquence (published by 'Author House'), or another Wikipedia article (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), here on Wikipedia. Please do read the pages I just linked to: they will be very helpful. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just wanted to quickly confirm that his lineage is of Arab descent/origin, regardless of the reliability of the sources and the policies of the Wikipedia! 😁 I know very well that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that the first source is not considered reliable, because it is self-publishing! 🤓 Anyway, here are some reliable sources on the matter:








 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagle107 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to remind you here that we do not have a single source which makes the unequivocal claim that Razi was an ethnic Arab, not one. The strongest 'indicator' of this being the case is his great-grandfather having been born in Mecca, and 'not' his nisbaat. As to being born in Mecca, I would bring it forward here that being born in Mecca doesn't necessarily equate to being an ethnic Arab. In fact, if you had read Arabic and travel literature of the time dealing with the two cities, you would know that it was a place where merchants of 'all' Islamic ethnicities gathered. The most famous example of this is perhaps in Ibn Arabi, who encounters a Persian family in Mecca, the family of Abū Shujā bin Rustem, including Lady Nizam, who he falls in love with. This is just the same as the fact that being born in Naysabur does not necessarily equate to being an ethnic Persian (see Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj). So, the fact that not a single source mentions Razi being "an ethnic Arab" (even 'charitable' modern Arab sources) for any reason other than his nisbaat (which have already been addressed extensively), makes the article as impartial as it can be as it currently stands.شاه عباس (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, for all we know, he may have been a Persian Meccan who claimed to be an Arab in Ray! Crazy, huh? As is so often the case with historiographical topics, we can't rule it out, though it's certainly not the most likely option. But what we do know is that it's because of this kind of uncertainty that the first source quoted by TheEagle107 in their last post above (which actually is, whom we're already citing) speaks about claims, not about some definite ancestry. The reference to de Slane (who lived 1801–1878!) is interesting in that it still takes the nisbas at face value, but then it was only a footnote in a translation, not a careful and thorough investigation like the one carried out by . Anyway, I'm very happy that the discussants from the sections above are all as satisfied with the result as I am (we are closely following the best sources available, a model of WP:NPOV), so please don't spoil that now TheEagle107! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , Yes, I agree with you that none of the three sources added above explicitly states that he is of Arab origin. But the first source states that his family claimed both a long tribal ancestry (associated with the Taimi tribe) and descent from the family of Abu Bakr, the first caliph.


 * , Well, at least his full name should be added as written in the second source above. Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771/1370) in his Tabaqat al-Shafi'iyya al-Kubra specifically mentioned his name as "Muhammad b. 'Umar b. al-Hasan b. al-Husayn al-Taymi al-Bakri".--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No. If we mention these nisbas, we must also explain them, including that scholars view the al-Taymi and al-Bakri nisbas as questionable. But the scholarly sources themselves prefer not to mention the nisbas at all in this context, and rather speak about the ancestral claims in a more direct way. The best sources, like, just don't mention the nisbas at all. We follow the sources in this. I think we have a consensus for that now, so please stop beating the dead horse. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with, no need to mention nisbas, Most high quality sources don't and including them will not really improve the article. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The question regarding the tribal nisbas should only be "are they the result of 'wala or not? If there's definitive proof of him having (recent) Arab descent and a tribal name and no proof of his family being Mawali then "Arab scholar" should be written. An example of a similar case is Hassan-i Sabbah, he was born in Iran but his father was a Yemeni Arab. Is Razi's great-grandfather the only conclusive Arab ancestor he has? Where were his parents/grandparents from? Also, claiming descent from Abu Bakr isn't sufficient imo, 15+ generations ancestry doesn't make one an Arab otherwise every Sayyid would also be considered Arab. --Qahramani44 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * CLARIFICATION: I would like to apologize for an unintended misunderstanding, because I commented here without reading the article! I must admit I only read some edit summaries, but after reading the article, it became clear to me that it is neutral and presents the different points of view. I thought that there was no place in the article that mentioned his lineage to Abu Bakr! This is quite enough for me. Please accept my apologies. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

, Here are some Persian sources on this issue that you may find useful and interesting:
 * جايگاه اهل بيت(ع) در نزد امام فخر رازي
 * --TheEagle107 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)