Talk:Al-Farabi

Protesting Wikipdia

I am protesting Wikipedia. I won't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. Be happy with persian ignorism. Goodbye.

Arab invasion and Greek heritage

Deleted this bit because it seemed POV:

Baghdad's Greek heritage in philosophy that had survived the Arab invasion

Jorge Stolfi 01:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Turkish or Persian

These terms are not very meaningful for someone born in the 9th century, are they? Trying to label him either way is rather pointless. Any criterion (geographical, political, ethnic, linguistic...) will be arbitrary and will only invite edit wars. IMHO, better just omit the nationality and give all the relevant facts and theories in the Biography (he was born in then-Persia, now-Turkmenistan, probably from Turkic ancestry, etc.). Jorge Stolfi 04:20, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is not pointless, because being born an Iranian just means that. Turkey was not even a country then, and centuries later, [some] of such Iranian tribes settled into today`s Turkey. The only analogy I can make is; imagine a scientist is born in Italy, and speaks it, he also speaks some dilect since he is from Tuscany. Does that make him anything else but Italian? Even worse, to this date I had thought Al Frarabi was an Arab, since all the Islamic sites claim him as such. They try to claim so many people; it isn`t fair, because they were only to speak and write in Arabic, or face death. It is like all the Greek artists that built Rome, but at least the world knows they were Greeks. Zmmz 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The other article has been speedily deleted (as being an incorrectly titled duplicate of this article, containing nothing that isn't here), so I've removed the merge template from this article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Or Persian

The terms if used objectively provides information on background and subjects heritage. In this case Farab's name Uzlog indicative of his Turkish/Turkic heritage. mehrdadd 03:20, 06 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The changes to the article have been made with no citation of sources. I know of no reputable book (actually I know of no book at all) that supports your claims. If you do, then please supply the reference. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

-I agree with Mehrdad. Also his name Al-"Tarkhan" is very Turkic. -Ur

It is well known that he was an Uyghur Turk. That's why Uyghur article of Wikipedia links to Farabi; a Turkic nation like Kazakhstan puts his picture on their currency; international encyclopedias (britannica, larousse) tells that he was ethnically Turkish.

It is not well known that he was Turkish (or Persian for that matter). The article is most accurate in its current codition. Leave it alone.--Zereshk 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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. In the case of Farabi, I followed what the Encyclopedia Britannica says (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9364210?query=Farabi%2C%20al-&ct=). Please don't change it following your certain desires. -Ur

Funny how we see the Arabs, Turks, etc doing the exact same thing as well.--Zereshk 07:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

National labels seems to be the single major cause of edits to this article (and to articles of other prominent Islamic figures of the epoch). Sigh. If only a fraction of that energy was spent in improving the real contents of the article, we would have a whole alfarrabio on Al-Farabi by now.
Actually, the heat of the dispute, by itself, is a sign that the question has no correct answer. The fact is that modern national labels are not really meaningful for someone living at that time. If we could ask Al-Farabi whether he was Turkish or Persian, I suspect that he would have answered "What?".
I have a proposal: why don't we just write "Islamic" in the head paragraph, and then explain the facts in the article: that his family was of XXX descent, that he was born in YYY but lived his life in WWW, that he spoke spoke ZZZ, etc.. And just that. Then, any reader who feels that he cannot appreciate the man without a national label will be able to choose that label according to his own criteria. What do you say?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 08:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I wrote the sentence in the article: "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins." But some people just cant help it. They have to go around taking up our time with this ridiculous ethnic crap.--Zereshk 08:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think as along as we are doing our best in being objective, that is great. I care about the facts. That is it. If he is Persian so be it. But we have to prove it. If there is data that he could have been from some other ethnicity, then that must be presented. I think your modification is still biased, at least the way it is worded. -Ur

Another Pan-Arian sh** here, what did Persians give to islam but terror and chaos. But at least they forged the bloodiest terrorised nation slaughtering thousands in Azadistan then patroning PKK, ASALA, Hezbollah, Taliban and several others.How can this nation have a child like Farabi, the only persian genious is Hasan Sabbah who is the traditional ancestor of terror in Islam.

Book of Music

I thought it was entitled Kitaab al-Musiqa al-Kabeera (the big book of music). Anyone have any input/sources for this? Though it's just a minor point.

Muslim? Or Muslim like Voltaire was Xian?

Every work I've read, including his own, states he is a Muslim. The Quran itself repeatedly calls on it's readers to ponder and question its own meaning, as well as nature. Farabi had his own perspective, but neither denounced religion nor was branded as a heretic, which was a definite possibility for any philosopher in history. As such, the analogy to Voltaire's Christian credentials (he renounced it) is unreasonable. Farabi's views on predestination etc are not universally condemned as heretical by most Muslims. -- 24.86.203.199 06:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He was Persian and was born in Iran

http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/FARABI.html

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html

http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/farabi/farabi.php

http://www.oqya.5u.com/photo6.html

The article should include his Persian ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are even more (and more authoritative) sources that deny any certainty in the matter; that's why the article says what it does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are more sources that say he was Persian than otherwise. The date and time of his birth is a very relevent argument in this case. That part of Kazakhastan was mostly inhabited by Iranians and Persian peoples at that time. His Father was a part of the Persian Samanid court. I have said this before and I will say it again, His religion is irrelevent. We do not even know if he was a practicing muslim or not therefore refering to him as simply, a "muslim" scientist is very misleading. He was Persian and this must be recognized.Dariush4444 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as do the scholarly sources; there may well be a huge number of Persian/Iranian nationalist sites that call him Persian, but it's not a matter of mere numbers — it's the quality of the sources. Moreover, all the evidence that you mention is consistent with him not having been Persian, and is therefore not conclusive. As for his being Muslim, there's no serious doubt about that; "practising" is a vague and irrelevant term (what is it that you want to know about his practices as opposed to his stated beliefs, and why do they matter here?. You have read his work, haven't you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that no one is denying the possibility that Al-Farabi was Persian. Sources that specify Al-Farabi as belonging to a specific ethnicity were written centuries after his death, and they do not agree with each other. He could be Persian, or he could be Turkic. Many Turkic peoples lived in Central Asia ever since the Kok-Turk Kaganate in 551 AD, and they closely interacted with the Persians, so it is even possible that Al-Farabi was a mixed Persian and Turkic person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.114.255.3 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is, under these circumstances, as clear as possible with regard to Farabi's ethnicity. If someone wishes to conduct scholarly research and convincingly prove that he was either Persian or Turkic - or Nordic for all I care -, please go ahead, maybe he'll see it appear here someday. But I'm seeing too much original research on this talk page... Selfinformation 13:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran: almost %50 percent Turkic was even more before 1071 assimilated and killed lots during Pehlevi's and never had names like Tarkhan which is pretty common among Turks and Tatars so his ancestors was Turkic but somehow he is persian. What a wonderful world full of surprises.

The name "Tarkhan" was not al-Farabi's name (or that of his father), but - according to both Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica - an invention of Ibn Khallekān who was himself a Turk and was desperatly trying to "turkify" al-Farabi. His work is not really a biography of al-Farabi, but only a comment on an older work: that of Ibn Abi Osaybe'a. Ibn Abi Osaybe'a claims that al-Farabi was Persian. It is the oldest known record of Farabi's life and background. It is assumed that Ibn Abi Osaybe'a's is based on even older sources which are lost today. That would mean that the oldest sources supporte(ed) the claim that he was Persian. This is also the oppinion of mainstream scholars, while Turkish scholars and nationalists reject the oldest sources and stick to the biased claims of Ibn Khallekān. Tājik 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Khallekan was of no Turkish ancestry. He was a pure Kurd. There was no reason for him to twist any information relating to al-Farabi. P.S. Persians in the south of Kazakhstan? Doesn't it sound ridiculous? (Onbagan Parsylar betimen ketken!!!)Even in Iran the Farsis populate only a minor part of their country! Anyway, al-Farabi was born within the territory of present-day QAZAQSTAN (melting pot of Turkic, Turano-iranic and Mongolian tribes). Only WE (e.i. QAZAQS) have the full right to call him our ancestor! So you persians better stay tuned and delve into the issue of "rafidite expansion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.12.227 (talk • contribs)

Aristotle's Theology

The italics seemed wrong to me, but I am no expert, so please consider the following:

   Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
   was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.

Shouldn't it be:

   Unfortunately the book Theology of Aristotle, which he relied upon, 
   was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, a neo-Platonic philosopher.

Or something even clearer, such as:

   Unfortunately the book Theology, which Farabi thought to have been written by 
   Aristotle and relied upon, was eventually revealed to be the work of Plotinus, 
   a neo-Platonic philosopher.

(or something the like)

Or am I totally off? Selfinformation 13:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, on the whole, the italics are OK here; if they're not placed around "of Aristotle", the sentence would seem to be contradicting itself (first identifying the book as by Aristotle, and then saying that it wasn't) — though that doesn't apply to your second version. As it is, "of Aristotle" is part of the title (like Diary of a Nobody or Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which weren't, of course, by a nobody or by the Elders of Zion). Checking the sources and other texts, "Theology of Aristotle" seems to be a common way of printing the title of the book. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Persian scientists

Should he, or should he not be included on this list? The list of Persian scientists-page states:

  The following is a non-comprehensive list of Iranian scientists and engineers that lived
  from antiquity up until the beginning of the modern age.
  
  By "Iranian", all the peoples of historic Persia are meant, i.e. what is today Iran,
  Afghanistan, and all the countries of Central Asia ("common modern definition") that were
  historically part of the Persian empire. In some cases, their exact ancestry is unclear.
  They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but
  nevertheless their names and work are somehow linked to the words "Iranian" and/or "Persian".

This seems to relate to ethnic identity, which has been established to be uncertain in F.'s case... Selfinformation 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for categories and for lists are often much looser than for other aspects of Wikipedia; in this case al-Farabi's inclusion seems justified by the sentence: "They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other 'Lists of...', but nevertheless [sic] their names and work are somehow linked to the words 'Iranian' and/or 'Persian'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Farabi's ethnicity according to Britannica

Muhammad ibn Tarhan ibn Uzlug el-Farabi, also known as Alpharabius or Avensar in medieval Latin texts, born 878 in Turkistan, died 950, one of the most brilliant and famed of Muslim philosophers; also know as the second teacher, (Aristotle being the first). He was of Turkish origin. Farabi’s father was in the Turkish bodyguard of the caliph, and his life was spent in Baghdad and Aleppo. Farabi, al: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980 edition, Vol.4, p.51.

Another source

Farabi was born in Vasic, a district of Oghuz Karacuk (Farab) city in Turkistan. He received his early education in Bukhara, Turkistan and continued the rest of his education in Baghdad. He led a simple Sufi life in Damascus when he died. He left many works in logic, metaphysics, morality and politics.

Farabi introduced philosophy to Islam, the newly acquired religion of Turks. He found Islam as a religion was of itself not sufficient for the needs of a philosopher. He saw human reason as superior to revelation. Religion provided truth in a symbolic form to non-philosophers, who were not able to apprehend it in more pure forms. The major part of Farabi’s writings was directed to the problem of the correct ordering of the state. He argued that just as God rules the universe, so should the philosopher, as the most perfect kind of man, rule the state; he thus relates the political upheavals of his time to the divorce of the philosopher from the government.

Philosophy in Farabi’s cultural environment faced many obstacles which did not occur in the time of Aristotle and Plato. As a Turkish philosopher, it is necessary to see Farabi’s originality and contributions within this context, as he tried to reconcile philosophy with Islam as a radical monotheistic religion. Farabi successfully utilized the mystic element as one of characteristics of Turkish-Islamic thought while he was resolving this problem. He made rational mysticism a characteristic in the Turkish religious perception and tried to reconcile religion and philosophy as two separate ways leading the truth.

One of Farabi’s views that has an important place in Turkish-Islamic thought is his perception of morality and politics. According to him, happiness is a purpose that everybody desires to have and it is “absolute good” due to its nature. Every action which leads human beings to this purpose and will make them happy is “good” and the action that prevents him from becoming so is “bad” and human beings have the potential to distinguish what is good and what is bad. Since wisdom can comprehend what is good and what is bad, human beings should have a balanced freedom in the field of morality.

Farabi has an irreplaceable place in Turkish-Islamic thought and Sufism, as opposed to Arabic-Islamic thinking, with an influence reaching over eleven hundred centuries.

Reference: “Philosophy among the Early Muslim States”, Prof.Dr. Hanifi Ozcan, The Turks, Vol.2, Yeni Turkiye Yayinlari, Istanbul, 2002.

A great article is here

http://www.muslimheritage.com/features/default.cfm?ArticleID=473

Its clearly evident that he was ethnically a Turk, all reliable source's point towards this conclusion aswell as logical points, he was born in Turkestan, the slave guards were Turkic, his name is Tarkhan etc etc etc

I'll add it to the article.

Johnstevens5

There are more sources that call him Persian, some of which have already been listed on this page, but none are conclusive, as the article already states "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins". --ManiF 03:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

John, this article says, "There is no consensus or sufficient evidence to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins", so why push one ethnic group over the other? (FYI, "Iranian" isn't an ethnic group, it's a nationality) —Khoikhoi 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

John....

Do you understand that "Iranian" is not an ethnic group? —Khoikhoi 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are not more sources that say he's Persian, that's absolutely utterly riduclous, please source these claims.

Tarkhan and Uzlug are Turkish names.

He was not Iranian, he was a Muslim Turk so cannot be included in "Persian scientists" or "Iranian Scientists" because its not accurate or correct.

Here read this

FARABI

bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.

He died in Damascus, whither he had gone with his patron. His works are very clear in style, though aphoristic rather than systematic in the treatment of subjects. Unfortunately the success of Avicenna seems to have led to the neglect of much of his work. In Europe his compendium of Aristotles Rhetoric was published at Venice, 1484. Two of his smaller works appear in Alpharabii opera omnia (Paris, 1638), and two are translated in F. A. SchmOlders Documenta philosophiae Arabum (Bonn, 1836). More recently Fr. Dieterici has published at Leiden:

Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).

For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.

der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm

Its pretty conclusive, Tarkhan Uzlug Farabi was a Turk, Britannica 1911 is very objective and uses scholorly sources.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Sources are needed to back up the claims that he was "Persian" and not born in Farab.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Farabi's origin according to the (authoritative) Iranica

• "... These present themselves as our most extensive and detailed sources though they date a good three centuries after Fa@ra@b^'s death. Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a's entry, which is the earlier one, consists of a collection and patching together of all the diverse pieces of information that were available to him in Syria at that time. It includes much legendary material, but Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a also quotes Fa@ra@b^ where he can. Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry, by contrast, is a response to that of Ebn Ab^ Osáaybe¿a: the latter had mentioned at the beginning of his entry, and for the first time by any extant biographer, that Fa@ra@b^'s father was of Persian descent; Ebn K¨alleka@n's entry is completely animated by the effort to prove that Fa@ra@b^ was ethnically Turkish. To this end, Ebn K¨alleka@n first gave Fa@ra@b^ an additional nesba, one he never had, al-Tork^. Abu'l-Feda@÷, who copied Ebn K¨alleka@n, corrected this, and changed the word, al-Tork^ "the Turk," which reads like a nesba, to the descriptive statement, wa-ka@na rajolan tork^yan "he was a Turkish man" (Mokòtasáar II, p. 104). Second, at the end of his entry, Ebn K¨alleka@n spent considerable time giving the correct spelling and vocalization of all the names which he says are Turkish and are associated with Fa@ra@b^: the names of his alleged grand- and great-grandfather, T®arkòa@n and Awzalag@ (adding explicitly, wa-homa@ men asma@÷ al-tork, "these are Turkish names"), and the toponymics of his origins, Fa@ra@b, OtÂra@r, Bala@sag@u@n, and Ka@œg@ar (the information on the toponymics is derived from Sam¿a@n^, under the nesba al-Fa@ra@b^, though Sam¿a@n^ does not refer to the philosopher). In between, Ebn K¨alleka@n offers a continuous narrative of Fa@ra@b^'s life as reconstructed by him. ..." -Encyclopaedia Iranica: "Farabi"

As you can see, the claim that he was Turkish is actually the WEAKEST claim among all and was the work of an obvious "nationalist" who - like this johnstevens5 - invented and created false claims just to give his wrong vews some base.

It's funny that this guy has now suddenly discovered the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, because yesterday, he did not accept any information of the Britannica in regard of Ulugh Beg and his origin (Britannica calls him a "Persian scientist").

Tajik 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is not authoritative, its a student project, it is a joke compared to Britannica.

Here is the objective reality.

FARABI

bu Na~r Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ul-Farabil (ca. 870950), Arabian philosopher, was born of Turkish stock at Fgrb in Turkestan, where also he spent his youth. Thence he journeyed to Bagdad, where he learned Arabic and gave himself to the study of mathematics, medicine and philosophy, especially the works of Aristotle. Later he went to the court of the ~Iamdnid Saif addaula, from whom he received a warm welcome and a small pension. Here he lived a quiet if not an ascetic life.

Alfarabis philosophische Abhandlungen (1890; German trans. 1892); Alfarabis Abhandlung des Musterstaats (1895; German trans. with an essay Uber den Zusammenhang der arabischen und griechischen Philosophie, 1900); Die Staatsleitung von A tfarabi in German, with an essay on Das Wesen der arabischen Philosophie (1904).

For Farbis life see McG. de Slanes translation of Ibn Khallikan (vol. 3, pp- 307 if.); and for further information as to his works M. Steinschneiders article in the Mimoires de lAcademie (St Petersburg, srie 7, tom. 13, No. 4, 5869); and C. Brockelmanns Gesch.

der arab. Litteratur, vol. i. (Weimar, f 898),pp.210-213. (G. W. T.)

http://38.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FARABI.htm

Using "Iranica" makes you a Nationalist, if I was to use a Turkish Encyclopedia you woulnd't accept it and call it bias.

Its one rule for all, not one rule for some and another for others.

The theory that he was a Persian need's hard sources and references.

The reality is he was a Turk

Uzlug- Tarkhan are Turkish names.

He was born in a Turk area.

If you find this hard to swallow that's your problem.

--Johnstevens5 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How can the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a source for Wikipedia???

the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a credible source?It was first printed in 1931, a time when the Shah was obsessed with nationalism and proving the superiority of Persians, a period in which there was a huge anti-Turkism in Iran.

How can this be considered objective? how can it be allowed in Wikipedia? it should definately not be used as a source.

I'll remove it.

--Johnstevens5 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are extremists removing fully objective and reliable sources?

I am using a Britannica 1911 fully referrenced and accepted source to prove Tarkhan al-Farabi's origins but these are being removed by extermists who don't like it.

Regards

--Johnstevens5 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is that it was written almost 100 years ago! John, not all historians agree that he was 100% Turkic. —Khoikhoi 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica "fully objective and reliable" ... if it were so—thus making it indisputably factually correct—the world would probably be an even scarier place than it already is.

There is no such thing as "fully objective", as complete objectivity is an impossibility; all there are is approximations in the direction of objectivity. —Saposcat 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well how can the "Dehkhoda Dictionary" written in 1930's Nationalist Iran be accepted as a source and not Britannica 1911??? Why not include the "Turkish Dictionary" entry regarding Uzlug Tarkhan Farabi which states he was a Turk and has historical referrences to prove it.

There is no reference or citation given for the story that he was a Persian, I try to give a source for his heritage of being a Turk and you try to delete it.

This isn't a Pan-Persian site, its meant to be objective and not supportive of certain theories just because someone happens to be of that ethnicity.

That's what I'm finding hard to understand, its one rule for some and another for others.

Why if you insist its not clear if he was a Turk or Persian do you allow him to be included in "Persian Scientists" while refusing him to be included in the "Turkic Scientists", this is a definate double standard.

--Johnstevens5 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dehkhoda Dictionary is reliable and verifiable source (I think Dehkhoda was Azeri or Turkic himself), and if you look closer there are half a dozen of other sources on this talk page that refer to Farabi as Persian, infact more sources call him Persian than Turkic. Regardless, both theories should be stated as per NPOV and that's what was in the article before you decided to unilaterally change the compromise-version of the article to suit your POV. --ManiF 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This Pan-Turkist "Johnstevens5" is the biggest hypocrite on Wikipedia. Here, he is crying about the "reliability of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911" while in fact he openly rejects, denies, and deletes the information of the Britannica whenever he dislikes the message! For example in the article Babur where he has deleted the information of the Britannica (current version) and Iranica (article by Mughal- and India expert F. Lehman) only because he does not like the message: [1] In the article Kizilbash, he deleted 2 entire sections that were fully based on the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, because he simply rejects the fact that there were also Kurds and Persians among the "Kizilbash" (whom he wrongly associates with "Turkish nationalists", such as the Gray Wolves): [2]. And in the article Ulugh Beg, he totally denies the information of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, because it states that Ulugh Beg was a "Persian scientist" and not a "Turkish scientist", as this pan-Turkist claims. The fact that he deletes entire sections of well-referenced articles, only because he does not like Persians, Iranians, or Shias should be totally enough to ban this freak from Wikipeda - at least for a few months! Tajik 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, it's you that must be banned. You're the greatest vandal i've ever seen in the histrory of Wikipedia. You've ruined nearly tens of topics in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to show up your Persian chauvinism.--85.100.33.205 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Madhhab

What was his madhhab?--Striver 13:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian vs Iranian

Does anyone debating here understands the difference between Persian and Iranian? Doesn't seem so. Persian empire ran from West of India to South of former USSR to East of Saudi Arabia. A Persian can be 1-Iranian, 2-Iraqi, 3-Turk, 4-Afghan, 5-Uzbek, 6-Tajik, 7-Turkman, 8-Kazak, 9-Azeri, 10-Kirghez, 11-Chinese, 12-Bosnian, 13-Romanian, 14-Russian ... Does anybody know famous Persian poets Rumi, Iqbal, Ghalib, Amir Khusro ... from Turkey to India? None of them were Irani!!! They were not even Shia. Even Hafiz, Sadi, Jami etc were Sunnies. Sunni legends like Imam Abu Hanifa and Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilan were Persian speaking. Please cool down. Hassanfarooqi 13:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the terms Iranian (citizens of modern Iran) and Iranian/Iranic (belonging to the Iranic peoples). Besides that, "Iranian" is not a synonym for "Shia". And religion does not define ethnicity, not to mention that usually Sufis cannot be considered "Shia" or "Sunni" in any way in regard of the modern meanings of those terms. (One of the greaest poets of medieval Persia, Omar Khayyam, was a Sufi and is considered by many a Non-Muslim). Tājik 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing Iranians and Iranic people. True Iranic people Parsi do not live in Iran anymore. For past one thousand years they have been living in South Asia, mostly in Bombay, Karachi and other business cities. They practice Zoroastrianism. As for Sufi's not being Sunnies, they were always sunnies until fifty years ago the House of Saud (a group of desert raiders practicing Wahhabism) took over Hejaz and declared themselves Sunnies and the non-wahhabies as non-Sunnies. They have the oil power so the world listens, but the facts remains facts. Omar Khayyam is not the only person declared Kafir by Wahhabies, even big names like ibn-Arabi, ibn-Farid, ibn-Rushd, Bu Seeri etc have been declared Kafir by ibn Abdul Wahhab. What is new? Hassanfarooqi 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Parsi people are NOT the "true Iranic people" ... As I have already said: you are confusing the Persian people with Iranians and Iranic peoples (which also include Pashtuns, Kurds, etc).

As for Sunnis and Sufis: I won't jump into that one because it is not relevant here, but claiming that "Sunnis have always been Sufis" is most certainly wrong. In fact, in the course of history, orthodox Sunnis have been the greaest enemies of Sufism or any other liberal or un-orthodox movement within Islam. Mansūr-e Hallāj, for example, was not tortured and killed by Wahhabis, he was tortued and killed by the normal Sunni ulema. Ghazali - probably the first real Sunni Sufi - was the one who managed to bring these two groups closer to each other. I would also like to point out that Bektashi Sufis of Anatolia and Mesopotamia were among the main victims of the orthodox Ottoman Sunni Empire. The fusion of Bektashi Sufis with Safawī Kizilbash from Persian gave birth to the modern Alavi religion in Turkey.

Of course there were many Sufi mystics who - more or less - belonged to either the Shia or Sunni political branch ("Sunni" and "Shia" are names given to political groups, not religious ones - using "Sunni" or "Shia" synonymous with certain "Madhhabs" of Islam is a new and wrong interpretation), but in its essens, a "Sufi" is neither a Sunni, nor Shia, a Khwarijit, or whatever else.

Tājik 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)