Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

Active discussions
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Mathematics.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

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

The orgin of al-KhwarizmiEdit

Al-Khwarizmi was from Uzbekistan, so he is not Iranian, and he is called "Al-Khwarizmi because he was from Khwarizm which is now not a part of Iran but from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

At that time there were no Turks or "Uzbekistan" in that area (Turks came there some 2 centuries after the death of this scholar) and we have numerous reliable sources stating that al-Khwarizmi was Iranian.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
But Iranian doesn't mean Persian. He could have been Pashtun, Kurd or something else. What is the proper evidence for him being Persian? It's also well-known that the historical Greater Khorasan region was a multi-ethnic one. Not to forget that "After the assassination of the king, Khorasan was conquered by Arab Muslims in 647 AD. Like other provinces of Persia it became a province of the Umayyad Caliphate. [...] The first independent kingdom from Arab rule was established in Khorasan by Tahir Phoshanji in 821, but it seems that it was more a matter of political and territorial gain". 93.132.10.46 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The proper evidence for him being Persian is the cited sources. Sources like H. Corbin, G. Saliba, Clifford A. Pickover etc ... Also, the first independent dynasty from the Ummayads was Samanids, in 820 and the region being conquered by Arabs does not imply anything about the ethnicity of this scholar, please read WP:OR.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Still, that's no proper evidence. Some western sources and especially persian ones merely claim someone iranian being persian. So these sources aren't appropriate, as long as they don't provide any factual matter. 78.49.49.80 (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources state that he was Iranian, end off. Khwarazm was populated by Khwarazmians at that time, a Eastern Iranian group. Although there were some Persian immigrants as well. That is the academic consensus (see History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume 4 for example). Also, Khwarazm wasn't part of Greater Khorasan, which was populated by Iranian Khorasanis (also mentioned in the source). Your opinion is irrelevant, you're not a academic historian. Claiming that he was Ubzek is anachronistic/revisionism. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Religious InfoboxEdit

@Wcherowi:

Why do you think a religious infobox is "inappropriate"? I would strongly argue the academic infobox, which seems more suited to modern academics, is inappropriate, the religious infobox allows for specifying religious denomination, creed etc. Important points for a figure from that region and era of history. ParthikS8 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not writing an encyclopedia for "that region and era of history". What he is known for today is his academic achievements. He was not, as far as I can tell, a religious leader, so making this a religious infobox is really very inappropriate. We do not use a religious infobox for say Galileo, even though he was quite definitely Catholic. There have been many attempts to bring up al-Khwarizimi's religion, yours being the most brazen that I have seen. These have all been denied due to WP:UNDUE, putting undue weight on a minor attribute. Granted, this might be important to you, but it is not to the general readership.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wcherowi:
The reference to Galileo did give me a laugh, considering he was excommunicated.
Anyway, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, was/is referenced by al-Tabari and he himself talked on other religious topics e.g. the three schools (sourced content which you have removed in your reversal of my edits). As stated by Toomer, he starts his seminal mathemical work by praising God. I think though the problem between us here is a method of thinking. Al-Ghazali, a Sunni Ash'ari theologian, writes that the study of mathematics is "fard al-kifayah" - a communal religious obligation - i.e. the study of mathematics itself is a religious topic from the Muslim perspective. Perhaps this idea is hard to understand from a secular western context which views Mathematics as a secular pursuit having nothing to do with religion.
I think you need to bring evidence that my specific edit has been denied in the past due to it being undue as your words contradict the reality of the article. Even in your reverted version, his religious views are clearly discussed at length under the views section.
Now why specifically would I argue for inclusion of the religious biography infobox?
I would argue for its inclusion solely on the basis that it allows useful information on him, some of which is found in the article, to be immediately viewable from a glance (such has his jurisprudence, creed etc.) Note that this would not apply to Galileo so the other stuff exists argument would not apply.
I would not push for the inclusion of the infobox if we could include his religion, denomination, jurisprudence, creed etc. in the current infobox. Ultimately an infobox is what readers of the article see - not what they are named etc.
Also, from a very minor (and mainly irrelevant) aesthetic view, the academic infobox is bland and colourless - a bit of colour to the article wouldn't hurt and the religious biography infobox assists in this.
Here is a compromise I would suggest: We include the infobox as you have put it, but embed the religious biography infobox allowing his religion (already discussed at length in the article), jurisprudence (sourced content which you removed) and creed (if I find reliable sources stating it - I would hazard a guess that he is either a Mutazili or Ash'ari but would need a reliable source to make these claims) to be included in the article.
Hope we can arrive at some kind of understanding/compromise. ParthikS8 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I was hoping that other editors would chime in on this discussion, but it doesn't seem to have caught their eyes. My choice of Galileo as an example was serendipitous but upon consideration I see that the case for including religious information about him in the infobox is much stronger than what we have here. And, just to set the matter straight, he was not excommunicated and was buried in consecrated ground.
I am generally open to compromise solutions to conflicts, but in this case I don't see it. Infoboxes are meant to convey the most important information on the topic. They are meant to be small, real estate in them is at a premium. Your claim that his religious life is discussed in the article at length just does not hold water, there is barely a mention of it. Furthermore, very little about his personal life is known. What you want to include is not fact but rather speculation and I can see no justification for it.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To whom are denomination, creed, etc. important? What reliable source documents these factoids? Does the source indicate whether they were an assumed automatic tag, or whether they actually had meaning for the subject? Did the subject ever write about the importance of their denomination or creed? Did the source document effects of the denomination or creed, or are they just labels like noting his height? Apart from that, anyone wanting to change an article needs to justify the change. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2020Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


Muhammad ibn Musa al-KhwarizmiAl-Khwarizmi – In English he is best known as just "al-Khwarizmi". The present title Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi is not even his full name as explained in the first note. In Persian he is also known as just خوارزمی, with books using just that as his name. 92.184.116.138 (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: al-Khwarizmi simply means 'from Khwarazm', which was a nisba used by others as well. The current name is fine imo. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to "Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi" page.