Talk:Al-Farabi/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Protesting Wikipdia 2 Arab invasion and Greek heritage 3 Turkish or Persian 4 Merge proposal 5 Turkish Or Persian 6 Book of Music 7 Muslim? Or Muslim like Voltaire was Xian? 8 He was Persian and was born in Iran 9 Aristotle's Theology 10 List of Persian scientists 11 Farabi's ethnicity according to Britannica 12 John.... 13 Citation Needed 14 Farabi's origin according to the (authoritative) Iranica 15 How can the Dehkhoda Dictionary be used as a source for Wikipedia??? 16 Why are extremists removing fully objective and reliable sources? 17 Madhhab 18 Persian vs Iranian 19 Strauss 20 al-Farabi and the "theology of aristotle" 21 al-Farabi's philosophy 22 "Reason is superior to revelation" - citation needed. 23 Long-standing compromise 24 suggestion

[edit] Protesting Wikipdia

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Well if that's your argument there was no Iran in that era or Persia. The region was known as "Turkiston", Tarkhan Uzlug is a big give away, Arabic names were adopted due to religion as Turkic names wern't religous there was no need for non-Turks to adopt Turkic names. He was born in Turkiston town and was of Turkic heritage. --Johnstevens5 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If the scholars and academics of repute are hopeless in establishing his origin, I believe the Wiki-Editors are far from being intellectual enough to solve this problem! Please refer to Muhsin Mahdi's, "Farabi" article in Encyclopaedia Iranica (LINK) for further info. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2006.

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". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.16.12.227 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

You can find a hundred sources saying he's Persian, I'll show you a hundred saying he's Turkic, now listen, its quality not quantity. The guy was evidently of Turkic heritage, born in Turkiston, his name, him being son of slave guards who at the time were Turkic.

Ultimately, he was a muslim scientist of Turkic heritage, simple.

--Johnstevens5 16:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I agree ^^

Tajik attempts to cleanse anything possible of the word "Turk". He has been proven wrong time and time again with hard sources and fact's and many articles have been salvaged from this vandalism as a result. This can be seen in the Babur article, in Kizilbash, in Tamerlane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnstevens5 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Madhhab

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Strauss

Reading Leo Strauss's famous Persecution and the Art of Writing I'm wondering if any discussion of his 'esoteric' exigesis of Farabi should be included. Wilhelm Ritter 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This would probably explode into a series of acrimonious debates - look at how much time was wasted here over Farabi's ethnicity! Some bones of contention that would likely come up are:

• The status of the Falasifa as believing muslims - were they in fact the unbelievers (kafir) that Ghazali said they were?
• The status of Farabi's so-called 'Neoplatonism', especially in the light of his Philosophy of Plato.
• Perhaps most problematic, the mention of Strauss would undoubtedly bring along the culture wars that his legacy is currently embroiled in.

I know this is slightly ridiculous in that the most recent English language books on Farabi have come from 'Straussian' authors: i.e., Christopher A. Colmo and Joshua Parens - but there is no way getting around it. Perhaps a separate page on the Straussian Farabi that links to this page (and the Leo Strauss page) would be a decent compromise? Pomonomo2003 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] al-Farabi and the "theology of aristotle"

According to Deborah Black in an academic article written for the History of Islamic Philosophy (edited by Oliver Leaman and Hossein Nasr), al-Farabi did not treat the theology as an authentic Aristotelian text, and his preference on Neo-Platonic metaphysics is because of real philosophical considerations. Therefore, unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I suggest we remove the following section:

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

Alexander.Hainy 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Alexander.Hainy 11:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] al-Farabi's philosophy

I've started to add to the section on al-Farabi's philosophical thought, main priorities are his metaphysics/cosmology (done), psychology and practical/political philosophy. If anyone has any suggestions, any comments, please feel free to post them up!

Alexander.Hainy 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added two paragraphs on epistemology, more sources (and possibly more detail) will be added when I get home and have all my books with me. Next up is his theory of the soul and the afterlife! Alexander.Hainy 11:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on the soul and prophetic knowledge is complete. Everything in the philosophical thought section is referenced as well. Aiming to add sections on practical philosophy and the afterlife this afternoon. Alexander.Hainy 14:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Practical philosophy done for now, next task will be a small section on his contribution to logic. Does anyone have any other ideas? Alexander.Hainy 09:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Reason is superior to revelation" - citation needed.

I might be mistaken (and I usually am), but I thought al-Farabi considered philosophy and revelation two different ways of attaining the same truth; one based on the soul's faculty of reason, the other based on it's faculty of imagination.

If there is a good academic citation of this, could someone provide it? Otherwise I'm not sure if this sentence should be there! :-S

Alexander.Hainy 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sentence amended. Alexander.Hainy 13:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-standing compromise

If you read this talk page, you'll see that this page had been subject to many edit-wars over the ethnicity of Al-Farabi, which is why it was agreed to state both POV positions as a compromise, and that's what made the article stable. --Mardavich 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

I suggest we make a 5 sentence Persian and 5 sentence Turkic view. Since primary sources differ about his background and the earliest one has said Persian and another one has said Turkic. --alidoostzadeh 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight to the Persian sources, as overwhelming majority of verifiable sources, per Wikipedia policy, state Al Farabi was Turk. So while all points of view should be reflected, the Turk is paramount over others. Weiszman 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I will place the Turkic version first, and remove then the unnecessary "no consensus to decide the matter of al-Farabi's ethnic origins." unless its placed in the other section as well. Weiszman 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine put the no consensus on both sections. --alidoostzadeh 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe just place it before the two sections, on the last line - "Primary sources have described his ethnicity differently"? Weiszman 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--alidoostzadeh 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment addressed to Rayis: if you run any (verifiable) search on Google Books, JSTOR, etc., most academic sources will call him Turk. The word "most", as opposed to "many", is fully justified, and more precise. The two versions of ethnic origin are not equal - the Turkish one is preferred by majority, whilst the Persian (Tajik) one is shared by the minority. Weiszman 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the weight of the academic sources. Actually Encyclopedia of Islam as far as I know as well as Encyclopedia Iranica are two weighty academic sources. The part about writing most needs to be written from a scholar in the field and google book hits is not sufficient to determine this. For example random sources whose scholars are not necessarily experts in the field does not justify most. I actually believe majority of scholars are not sure. Some sources by the way have written Arabian philosopher which is of course not true. If you have a statement from a scholar that says:most then please put it in, but if not it is considered OR. Google hits/books does not necessarily equate to opinion of most scholars and of course scholars needs to be verified (relevant scholars to the field of Islamic philosophy?). Basing opinion on google hits/books can be considred OR. If something has a majority consensus then it requires a scholar in the field to equivalently state it as such. --alidoostzadeh 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote the Encyclopedia of Islam article? It is not cited on the article itself at all, but questions of NPOV were raised in the Talk page about Encyclopaedia Iranica. Its article is written by Muhsin Mahdi, an Iranian, which makes it POV and unreliable. Also all its top editors are Iranian [3]: Yarshater, Ashtiany, Ashraf, Kasheff. Weiszman 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually being Iranian/non-Iranian does not make one unreliable. It has to do with academic credentials. If one is a Full professor in a Western university, then they are sure reliable regardless of their ethnic origin. Also iranica has many western editors and people on its board. Iranica and its authors are cited by mainstream academics. As per the Encyclopedia of Islam, it was written by non-Iranian and I'll cite it soon. There was another guy recently from the republic of Azerbaijan who made a claim about Iranica. But anyways note Nicholas Sim Williams is the top expert in Soghdian and he is on the editorial board. Back to the topic, if a scholar has said something about consensus, then sure put it in. Or else it would be considered OR. The Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam are the most up to date. --alidoostzadeh 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

actually being Iranian/non-Iranian does make one reliable and unreliable. Actually you sir are otherwise contradcting your own words on Amir Khosro page: "Sorry but the author of that article's is Turkish (his first name is Erdogan Mercill) and he is from Turkey. You need a neutral third party source." and "The policy does not allow for nationalistic writing. You need multiple neutral sources to verify a statement. The source by Erdogan Mercil is not neutral." It's clear that an Encyclopedia Iranica with its Iranian editors are partial. Having a few non-Iranians doesn't change much, since the editor in chief and all senior editors are Iranian, and they outnnumber Western editors in both rank and numbers. This is what another guy on the Talk page of Amir raised prevously. Per rest, please re-read Wikipedia policy, there is not a single word about "Full professor in a Western university" and other original thoughts you put forward. Weiszman 22:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia requires reliable authors as you may know. So I can ask for the credential of the source. Western universities are generally considered reliable by all editors where as Iranian, Turkey and etc. are not. That is general consensus between many editors here. And of course Full Professor at western university is much more reliable position than one in a near-eastern university. And actually the overwhelming majority of articles in Iranica are not written by Iranians. Its editorial board is mixed. The consulting editors are overwhelmingly non-Iranian. [4]. I can question someone from a Turkish university, but it is much harder to question Iranica. And note Iranica is not used here for Farabi's ethnicity and Iranica clearly states there is not enough information given the various contradictory sources. So I am not contradicting myself and I am not quoting an Iranian scholar (Muhsin Mahdi) who does not support any position. Anyways, if you have a statement from a scholar stating a consensus, please state it. Else it is OR. --alidoostzadeh 23:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

you must be confusing me with someone, as I dind't say there was a concensus, but that overwhelming majority of all reliable sources consider Farabi to be Turk. Hence the word 'most' as opposed to 'many', which some here opposed. The article from Iranica as all senior editors are Iranian, making it less reliable. The names and titles of other non-Iranian contributors are meaningless as they didn't have anything to do with the article or active editing of it. anyhow, what's important here is that majority of sources consider Farabi to be Turk, whilst a minority of sources, of them most being Iranian or citing Iranian sources, consider him Persian, Tajik. Weiszman 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats all OR. You need to bring statement of scholars about majority or minority or etc. You can't make statements on your own about overwhelming majority. You need a scholar to state such a claim. The oldest source on Farabi's ethnicity is actually an Arab source and claims he was Persian. As per Iranica it is quoted by many sources so it is reliable regardless of your opinion. I am not here to discuss Iranica. Rayis has a good point. If you find scholars saying:overwhelming majority then state it from that scholar. Else many is a good compromise although I can even say some given the fact that many scholars do not even state it and put muslim. --alidoostzadeh 23:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

sir I am not making any statements - I've suggested anyone go and verify with Google books or JSTOR or other approrpiate databases. when discussing ethnicity, Farabi was a Turk acording to overwhelming majority of those sources, and a Persian or Tajik according to a minority. Term "many" is not precise, and reflects an imprecise point of view. Weiszman 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making a statement not any scholar. Actually google books has more writers than just scholars. Scholars are people here relevant to the field of Islamic philosophy. And there could exists tons of scholars who are not right now in google books. So unless you have a statement from a scholar about majority or overwhelming.. then it is considered your own OR and not allowed by wikipedia. A scholar needs to read all sources and then decide majority, overwhelming, 90% and the other terms you use. But since you are not a scholar then you can't add such statements unless a scholar has mentioned 90%, overwhelming majority, minority and etc. --alidoostzadeh 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

actually, you are making OR, as you did not calculate whether Google books has more scholars or writers. Please cite your sources. Secondly, there is no requirement of "full professors" or scholars -- as long as its a reputable publishing house, a major source, and is verifiable, it satisfies the requirement. Please cite your objections using Wikipedia rules in case you think I misunderstood Wikipedia rules or missed an additional clause. Thanks. Weiszman 23:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not making a statement based on google books! You are. So I do not have to calculate anything except mention the fact that not all books in google books are scholarly books! Wikipedia rules forbids original research. So a statement about majority/minority needs to be reported from a verifiable scholar. Since you are not a scholar, then you need to quote a scholar about majority/minority having this viewpoint or that viewpoint. Or else it is OR. --alidoostzadeh 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica says he was Turk, as the #1 encyclopedia it is basing that only on the majority of sources. therefore the word 'most' over 'many' is appropriate. Weiszman 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are making OR again. Britannica does not say Majority or minority. Unless you have a source that says majority or minority, then you can't make your own intrepretations on britannica. Also Iranica and Encyclopedia of Islamic are more reliable than Britannica which does not even have an author right now. And based on those I can say majority do not know and etc. So unless you have a scholar of the field saying majority/minority, then you can not make OR based on your own intrepretation. You need a scholar expilicitly saying:majority believe this and a minority believe ... --alidoostzadeh 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica is a primary academic source. It is superior to Britannica, which does not even have a general academic author. There is no need to have this discussion. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Americana, as well as primary academic articles published in academic papers or in special books are authoritative and sperior to any other source. This is not a quiton of quantity, it's a question of quality. Besides that, there are also other academic sources which state that he was not a Turk, for example here.

As correctly mentioned in Iranica, everything we know about Farabi was written 300 years after his death (!!!). And among these vague sources, Ibn Khallikan's is one of the most unreliable, because it is a known fact that he even invented and falsified facts (for example by inventing the nisba "al-Tork" - a nisba al-Farabi never had). He is the first (and the only) one who actually gives names of Farabis alleged ancestors, of course giving them Turkish names. His biography of Farabi was a respone to Ibn Abi Osaybe'a, and it has only one purpose: to declare Farabi a Turk, no matter how. For some unkown reason, his biography has become popular, and that's why many modern biographers of Farabi base their works on Ibn Khallekan's stories.

Taking these weak sources aside, it is very unlikely that in the 9th century a Turk would have become scientist. There were no Turkic scholars at that time, and the first who may be regarded as a Turkic scientist was Mahmud of Kashgar who lived 200 years after Farabi.

I suggest to explain in the article that there is really no consensus in this regard, and that ALL sources about Farabi were written at least 300 years after his death. The oldest known source calls him a Persian, another source - a response to the first source - has only one aim: to declare him Turkish. All other sources, classical and modern, are derived from these two oldest sources. Tājik 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

this is original research. Also, there is no requirement for a specific, single, identifiable author to sign all articles in an encyclopedia or edited collective work. Neither does Wikipedia have such a rule. Britannica is preferred to Iranica in every aspect of non-bias, independent third party stance. it's enough to compare respective editorial boards. Iranica is not a primary academic source - Britannica is. An interesting article on famous Tajiks is here. Most manuscripts that are at modern disposal are from 12 century and later. But this was not the case in 700 years ago, when they had access to older, sometimes original MSS. This's a common problem for most famous individuals of the era. Weiszman 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Iranica is superior. It is written by scholars and specialists in the field and is affiliated with Columbia university. As per producing nationalist history, that is the problem with all muslim USSR countries. Either way you can not make intrepretations and you need a direct statement about majority/minority from a primary source.--alidoostzadeh 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is obviously written by scholars and specialists too, all major articles are signed. They've been around far longer than Iranica, and have a better reputation, untainted by clear bias towards one particular side. They of course make mistakes, hundreds of them according to Nature magazine, yet they are independent. by the way, [http://books.google.com/books?id=U7sMAAAAIAAJ&vid=0XCJA7tZBwBnceQQ8W&dq=persian+turk+farabi&q=definitely+conjecture&pgis=1#search Soheil Muhsin Afnan Published 1964, E.J. Brill, p. 43] says "How much Persian he knew is a matter of pure conjecture". Weiszman 07:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranica seems bias for political oriented people, but that is neither my or wikipedia's problem. As long Iranica has received extremly well reviews by scholars and the scholars quoted are cited by other scholars, that all that counts. And amongst scholars (not ideologists) Iranica/Encyclopedia of Islam is superior to Britannica. Also you need to quote the rest of that sentence to see what that author thinks on how much persian Farabi knew. And this other work says mixed descent: [5]. We know unlike Soghdian, Greek, Persian,.. Farabi has not used any Turkish glosses. Also some of your source say: He appears to have been born in a military family of Turkish origin[6].. Appears is not same as assertion which shows even the author is not sure. --alidoostzadeh 11:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)