Talk:Al-Biruni

Edits

Why does the article include the fact that he was Muslim in the introduction. I think we should go on every single article regarding Western scientists and include the word CHRISTIAN in the introductions. We assume that he was Muslim but how do we even know if was a practicing muslim or was even religious? Why cant the article just say that he was Persian because that is a proven fact not an assumption.Dariush4444 22:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The orientalists use this word in the beginning as it was they who brought into light the works of muslim scientist and thus they named them as muslim scientist.Moreover there are scholars who are not muslims but have arabic or persian names,for example "Thabit ibn Qurra" "Dr.Abdus Salam" etc,so in my opinion it's important to write muslim.You have also said that how can we know that he was a religious person or not,so in the same article it is written that he was a theologian and i think that it's enough proof to accept that he was a prctising muslim.One more thing it's kind of a nice thing to write muslim because the world may also come to know that muslims are not only terrorists as a lot of tv channels and a many articles over here say about alleged terrorists as muslim terrorist,extremist or islamic jihadist.In the last i would accept here that the most important thing that we should value is the work of al-biruni or any other scientist and it's for everyone whetehr muslim or non muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humming20 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont get it, why is there such a great article written on Galileo, while this kind of small article written about an inventor who made more discoveries than Galileo and Newton combined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.182.194.29 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC).

There is no Eurocentric conspiracy in WP. Whoever feels they can give it a shot, Be Bold and expand it. Alexander 007 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree why this article has no say in Biruni's greatest works when he has made vast discoveries far beyond those of Galileo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.163.166 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Once again: this is an open encyclopedia. If you see something wrong, you can fix it yourself. Alexander 007 1

8:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Mathematician

El Biruni is a Turkish Mathematician not Persian. He is from Harezm, Uzbekistan which is a Turkic State. The Persian Empire was governing the area but that doesnt mean that the people there were Persian. In fact Turks controlled the region in 11th century. Ands there was a local Turkish population there beforehand. Resid Gulerdem 06:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone reverted back without discussion. I will change it to the correct version. Resid Gulerdem 06:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says that Biruni was a Persian. Each and every other encyclopedia I have ever seen refer to him as Persian or Iranian ( when they say Persian they do not mean necessarily someone of the Persian ethnicity they might mean Persian nationality since Iran was called Persia until 1935 in western countries but it was called Iran by its own people)

I have not change anything but I strongly suggest changing it back to either Persian or Iranian Gol 07:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He has also a persian book: The Mas'udi Canon (Persian قانون مسعودي). Bidabadi 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Briuni is 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.

Persian controlled the region for some time. But, we cannot call Gandhi an English just becase England occupied India for some time, right? There is no evidence of him being Persian at all. If nationality is specified, it should be Turkish: the most strong possibility. 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.

Please note that many Turkish states in the history has Persian as their official language for a long time. I realized the same mistake in Al Khawarizmi 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 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

When Biruni was born in Khwarazm, that area was under the Samanid rule (an Iranian Dynasty). About the history, before that time, there wasn't any turkic state in Khwarazm. Also, the local people of Khwarazm were historically related to Scythians and soghdians whose language was one of the Iranian languages. Bidabadi 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI,

The native language of Abu Rayhan Biruni was Khawrazmian which is an Iranian language. So calling him Persian (Iranian) in the wider sense is fine. But he was not Turkic and he even messed up the sequence of Turkic months. Khawarzmian was a close relative of Sogdian and an important trade and scientific language,spoken primarily in the upper Oxus River region. Evidence of Khwarazmian can be found in the works of Biruni,and also the Khawarazmian-Arabic dictionary of Zamakhshari,which testify to its continuous importance in Central Asia after the conversionof that region to Islam.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Biruni"

Khawrazmian a Persian language?!? Are you kidding? It is a Turkic language, the best proof is to actually go to Khiva, Uzbekistan (Where I'm from) and see for your self.

proposed move

I propose that this article is moved to al-Biruni. He seems to be refered to by this name more ofter and it si consitent with the page name of other biographies. Are there any objections? —Ruud 16:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Zereshk 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Move done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Khwrazmian========

The native language of Abu Rayhan Biruni was Khwrazmian which is an Iranian language. So calling him Persian (Iranian) in the wider sense is fine. But he was not Turkic and he even messedup the sequence of Turkic months. Khwarazmian was a close relative of Sogdian and an important trade and scientific language,spoken primarily in the upper Oxus River region. Evidence of Khwarazmian can be found in the works of the astrologer Biruni,and also the Khwarazmian-Arabic dictionary of Zamakhshari,which testify to its continuous importance in Central Asia after the conversionof that region to Islam

Khwarizmi is Iranian?!? Buddy you need some serious history lessons. Khwarizmi is 100% Turkic. Trust me.

he was persian

Whoever removed the word Persian from the article please dont do that again. First of all you need to discuss it in talk page and also you need to have a source

Britannica says he is Persian. Please bring another legitimate source that says he is not. adding the "muslim" part was great and thank you to whoever did that but you should not remove Persian from the article.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015394?query=biruni&ct=eb

Thank you

Gol 01:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that there is a lot of discussion about the ethnicity of al-biruni.Well different people have given their opinions and i think it's difficult to know whether he was a persian or turkish as there would always be objection about it.All i want to do is to bring a simple fact to your knowledge that in the past it was a custom to relate people as arabs and ajams(persian or non arabs).So i think that because of the word ajmi a lot of people are today known as persians and we can never know what their real ethnicity was.But i think that we should all be proud that he was a muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humming20 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian?

This site mentions that al-Biruni is an Arab: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579454/Al-Biruni.html It should be mentioned, I'm taking off Persian since it's disputed. Also, this site states he's an Arab as well: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/arab.html MB 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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.”[1]. If they say so, that`s good enough for me. Zmmz 22:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Zmmz and I agree 100%

MB, you can not base your argument on a random website. we dont know how accurate they are. we need a legitimate source, like Britannica, which is respected and highly regarded by most people. so please bring one if you want to change anything.

Gol 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Encarta is a very legitimate source, also the second link sources the library of congress and has a decent bibliography page. Britannica isn't the only legit source in the net. I gave legit sources showing he's an Arab, you decided to delete my sources to keep citing him as Persian, you're extremly biased. Your racism is causing Wikipedia's legitimacy to be questioned, seriously please understand that not all Muslim scholars were Persian! Keep your propaganda for yourself, this is a neutral source of information. MB 08:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is actually [the] most used and respected encyclopedia in the world. And, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, as well as, the Oxford dictionary are [the] most widely respected dictionaries in the world, that are used online and as a hard copy. Also, the difference between your MSN, or AOL Encarta and other source is that these three are the most recently updated ones. And, MB from judging the fact that you have tried to changed the identity of many Persian scientists, not just this one, in the past few weeks, I’d say you are the one who seems to go against over-whelming consensus, and try to edit articles to be more desirable to your personal opinions. You don’t assume good faith. Sorry, you are the biased one. Bottom line: You have the three best of the best sources; that’s all you need.Zmmz 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion, you can't force it down my throat. I have posted a legit source, nobody has a right to delete it. Also, I don't assume good faith?! Well, if it isn't the crow calling the raven black! Besides, I can see that since you started writing these articles, you had the "Muslim scholar=Persian scholar" equation, Even in Jabir Ibn Hayyan al-Azdi(who's tribe is a reputable Arabian tribe) has been called Persian in it's earliest version. about 50% of the scholars listed in your "list of Persian scientists" are Arabs. You're extremly biased, and you refuse to listen to reason. I have already contacted an admin on the violations at this article. If you want me to assume good faith, you should show it. i.e. don't delete my legit reference, simply because you don't agree with what it proves. MB 21:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has the right to delete yours or anyone else`s refrences. Yet, I have proof that you have tried to change the birthplace of many Persian scientists, including ones that are universally known as Iranian like Avicenna. There isn`t one source that comes from one encyclopedia that says Avicenna was an Arab. So why do you feel it is necessary to change his or other scientists origins? I`m just curious, what do you get out of it? Just because you have an opinion, which I know you are passionate about, it does not mean you can bend history to your will. So, bottom line, I don`t get it; you are saying my sources that for the fourth time in a row I am mentioning here, are Merriam-Webster dictionary, as well as, the Oxford dictionary, as well as the Britannica are wrong?Zmmz 21:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, nobody has a right to delete references, tell that to R.Koot. Also, you're very selective: What about Jabir, universally known as an Arab. What about Ibn al-Haytham, also universally known as an Arab; the article's reference page was full of sites naming him Arab, yet we had Persian extremists calling him Persian! Al-Biruni is disputed, since I gave references that disagree with him being Persian, and name him Arab, yet you decided to call him Persian. Why did you do that? I simply want to show the truth that not all Muslim scholars were Persian. Some of them were, some of them were Turks, and a lot of them were Arabs. I want Wikipedia to be more factually accurate, that's all. And why do you claim that all Muslim scholars are Persian, is there a reason? I never claimed your sources are wrong, I simply said that I have two sources that show otherwise, unless we have definitive evidence, or we all reach a consensus, the matter is disputed. You're triggering an edit war by keeping the Persian ethnicity. MB22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don`t know who called Geber Persian? That would be inaacurate, and would go against all the encyclopedias and scholars who say he was an Arab. But this is the same thing you are doing to the Persian scientists. I respect you, and respect the fact that Geber was an important Arab scientist. He was the `Father of Alchemy`. No one has the right to change his origins. But, when you try to tell a culture that its own people, in this case scientists, were of a different race, specially when that country and all the major dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world recognize them as such, then you have created a problem. No one wants their race changed, it takes away from their culture and pride. Facts are more important than hypothesis when it comes to religion, or in this case culture and race. There are some important scientists in every culture, but you cannot change their origins if they are universally known to be Persian for example. I can`t go on with these discussions anymore, since the argument does not have much merit to begin with anyway. It seems you and a friend of yours are the lone voices who object to this; yet, the dictionary and all the encyclopedias say something else. Please understand that. Zmmz 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% I dont know who named Geber Persian either, certainly wasnt me, but it was completely wrong to do so. I grow up in Iran and he was always refer to as Arab. However just as it was wrong to take away his ethnicity is equally wrong to change Biruni’s ethnicity he is defined a Persian by Britannica. As for people who argue that Iran was part of Islamic territory, so what? That does not change the ethnicity of Persians. Egypt was part of Iranian imperial territory for 200 years does that make the people of Egypt Persian? Egypt was also under the rule of Ottomans for a very long time but that does not make them Turkish.

Gol 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Biruni was Persian.. Besides his Persian name, and the fact that he clearly mentions the people of Khawarazm are a branch of Persian, he has several Persian works as well. In those Persian works he used many pure Persian terms for complex concepts. --Ali doostzadeh 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Khawarazm is a Persian branch geographically speaking, but the people are Turkic.

Actually Not! the region was filled by Persians who later was slaughtered by Mongolic and Turkic people : in the very early part of its history, the inhabitants of the area were from Iranian stock and they spoke an Eastern Iranian language called Khwarezmian. The famous scientist Biruni, a Khwarezm native, in his Athar ul-Baqiyah (الآثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية) (p.47), specifically verifies the Iranian origins of Khwarezmians when he wrote (in Arabic): "اهل خوارزم ... کانوا غصنا, من دوحه الفرس"Translation: "The parents (forefathers) of the Khwarezm were a branch from a [region] of Persia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezm Hans

Poem about Khwarezm by Al Biruni

Well, what do you know, I found a poem by Al Biruni about the province of Khwarezm, written by the man himself centuries ago. 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".

I know it seems very disappointing to many Turkish poeple, but fact is fact, during Biruni's time the language of poeple as well as their ethnicity in Khwarezm was Persian, later Turkic and Mongolic tribes attacked the region, killed most inhabitants and some of them escaped to today khorasan province of Iran, so it's a bit strange to give the honor to the poeple who forced the great culture of this region to be vanished! by the way, as a human we all can be proud of such persons who tried to find sciennce in dark ages and it doesn't matter much which ethnicity or langauge they were. (Arash, from all spots of the globe.)

Al-Biruni may have been from mixed Persian-Arab descent

During Ummayad period, large numbers of Arab soldiers acquired lands in villages throughout Khorasan, married local women or brought their families from Iraq, and settled permanently in the province (old Khorasan included Khwarizm as well). This implies that the Arab population in Khorasan must have been huge in comparison to that in western Iran. Even if the primary component of the Arab colony in Khorasan was limited to just the 50,000 families settled there by Rabi bin Ziad, the total Arab population would have to be estimated at close to a quarter of a million people in 8th century CE. The speacial circumstances in Khorasan, which integrated Arabs and Iranians into a common social fabric, facilitated the assimilation of Iranian culture by the Arabs and the gradual acceptance of much of Arab culture(above all the religion), by their Iranian subjects and peers.(Encyclopaedia Iranica, under Arab settlements in Iran,pp.213-214).Heja Helweda 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that says nothing specifically about Al Biruni. Secondly, that may have been written by an unverifiable author, or 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, “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 the 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 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I`m just curious what evidence you have that Al Biruni was mixed, I guess? I could say Alexander the Great was a mix of Greek and Turk. But you need to provide valid sources. So, why didn`t Al Biruni ever mention this in his poem about Khwarezm, and said that the city`s inhabitants are Persian? Why didn`t other historians mention this? I don`t get your logic. Zmmz 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence and I said the same thing in Al-Kharazmi talk page. It does not change anything since we are not suppose to write our facts based what we think might have been. We can not change his ethnicity only because there is a possibility that a lot of interracial marriages was going on at the time of his birth. I am sure if it was unclear Britannica would not call him Persian. After all what reason would they have to be pro Persian?

Gol 04:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghaznavids, Turko-Persian_Tradition,Farabi Ferdowsi, Mahmud_of_Ghazni, Seljuks articles have a wealth of information of this period in Khwarezm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.51.95 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting

No discussion since the day it was protected. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Angle trisection

I rm trisection of the angle from the list of this person's works. I'm unfamiliar with the subject of this article and he may have written on the subject of angle trisection; it is possible that he published either a false construction using compass and straightedge or a correct construction using other tools. However, the classic problem of angle trisection has been proven definitively impossible.

Reinsert this text after researching this person's actual contributions and rephrase this point so as to remove the misleading suggestion that he sucessfully trisected an angle with compass and straightedge. John Reid 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkic/Persian

There are so many sources stating that he is Persian, and so many stating that he is Turkic. Almost all of the proofs are correct about him, and have a point for either one of those. Since his culture, his birth location, his native language and all other proofs suggest both, I'll just change it to Turkic/Persian. No biggie.

Actually he clearly states that the people of Khwarizm are branch of Persians. In his book also says he does not know the meaning and the order of the turkish calendar whereas he discusses the Khwarzmian and Zoroastrian calendar extensively. --alidoostzadeh 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezm was a part of Persian empire at one point of time. So was Egypt. Does it mean that say late president Nasser of Egypt was a Persian? Ancient Khwarezmians did speak Iranian language. Iranian does not mean Persian. Pashto is Iranian language, but are Pashtuns Persian? For Christ's sake Bukharan Jews speak Persian, but does it make them Persian? Truth is Khwarezmians were Iranian just like Sogdians or Massagets, but not Persian, and were completely Turkified later. So, if Biruni identified himself as Khwarezmian, it would be fare to call him Khwarezmian. Claiming that he was a Persian based on the fact that Khwarezm was a part of Persian empire for a short time during pre-Islamic period, is the same thing as to claim that Hafiz was a Mongol based on the fact that Iran was a part of Mongol empire. How about great "British" scientist Thomas Edison, or famous "Roman" writer William Shakespear? Excuse my sarcasm. I deeply respect Persian culture and history, but I strongly believe that in this article Biruni should be identified as "Khwarezmian" or "Central Asian", because both ways are correct, meanwhile "Persian" is questionable.

Elliptical orbits?

Covington's article in Aramco World (which is not a scholarly journal) appears to misrepresent al-Biruni's thought on the nature of the planetary orbits. I do not have access to the text which Covington cites, but some correspondence between al-Biruni and Avicenna makes it clear that

1. al-Biruni's concern was with the nature of the Aristotelian Celestial spheres, not the planetary orbits and
2. Although he argued that it was possible that the celestial "spheres" were oval or lenticular, he believed that they actually were spherical.

An excerpt from this correspondence, as published in Islam and Science, can be found at [2]:

33) The Sixth Question: [Aristotle] has mentioned in Book II that [the shape of the heaven is of necessity spherical because] the oval and the lenticular shapes would require space and void whereas the sphere does not, but the matter is not so. In fact, the oval [shape] is generated by the rotation of ellipse around its major axis and the lenticular by its rotation around its minor axis. As there is no difference concerning the rotation around the axes by which they are generated, therefore none of what Aristotle mentions would occur and only the essential attributes of the spheres would follow necessarily. If the axis of rotation of the oval is its major axis and if the axis of rotation of the lenticular is its minor axis, they would revolve like the sphere, without needing an empty space (makan khal). This could happen, however, if the axis of [rotation of] the oval is its minor axis and the axis of [rotation of] the lenticular is its major axis. In spite of this, it is possible that the oval can rotate around its minor axis and the lenticular around its major axis, both moving consecutively without needing an empty space, like the movement of bodies inside the celestial sphere, according to the opinion of most people. And I am not saying this with the belief that the celestial sphere is not spherical, but oval or lenticular; I have tried hard to refute this theory but I am amazed at the reasons offered by the man of logic.

Attempts to make Islamic scholars more "modern" than they were do a great disservice to their actual achievements. This article should try to identify al-Biruni's actual concerns were and how he dealt with them. The text cited above makes it clear that he (and Avicenna) were discussing a problem in Aristotle's "proof" in his De caelo that the celestial spheres were spherical; they were not at all concerned with planetary orbits in the sense that Kepler was. --SteveMcCluskey 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for evidence

I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of myths appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy. If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Great article

This is an incredible article, it was well worth the read as a reference, and I have enjoyed reading of him elsewhere. I have included info about Biruni in my edits to the article on the Chinese scientist Shen Kuo, a contemporary polymath who was only 17 when Biruni died.--PericlesofAthens 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ you though it is still considered as a "start article". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)