Talk:Avicenna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Some details

Ibn Sina was put under the charge of a tutor, and his precocity soon made him the marvel of his neighbors; he displayed exceptional intellectual behavior and was a child prodigy who had memorized the Qur'an by the age of 10 and a great deal of Arabic poetry as well. From a greengrocer he learned arithmetic, and he began to learn more from a wandering scholar who gained a livelihood by curing the sick and teaching the young.

However he was greatly troubled by metaphysical problems and in particular the works of Aristotle. So, for the next year and a half, he also studied philosophy, in which he encountered greater obstacles. In such moments of baffled inquiry, he would leave his books, perform the requisite ablutions, then go to the mosque, and continue in prayer till light broke on his difficulties. Deep into the night he would continue his studies, stimulating his senses by occasional cups of wine, and even in his dreams problems would pursue him and work out their solution. Forty times, it is said, he read through the Metaphysics of Aristotle, till the words were imprinted on his memory; but their meaning was hopelessly obscure, until one day they found illumination, from the little commentary by Farabi, which he bought at a bookstall for the small sum of three dirhems. So great was his joy at the discovery, thus made by help of a work from which he had expected only mystery, that he hastened to return thanks to God, and bestowed an alms upon the poor.

He turned to medicine at 16, and not only learned medical theory, but by gratuitous attendance on the sick had, according to his own account, discovered new methods of treatment. The teenager achieved full status as a physician at age 18 and found that "Medicine is no hard and thorny science, like mathematics and metaphysics, so I soon made great progress; I became an excellent doctor and began to treat patients, using approved remedies." The youthful physician's fame spread quickly, and he treated many patients without asking for payment.

His first appointment was that of physician to the amir, who owed him his recovery from a dangerous illness (997). Ibn Sina's chief reward for this service was access to the royal library of the Samanids, well-known patrons of scholarship and scholars. When the library was destroyed by fire not long after, the enemies of Ibn Sina accused him of burning it, in order for ever to conceal the sources of his knowledge. Meanwhile, he assisted his father in his financial labours, but still found time to write some of his earliest works.

When Ibn Sina was 22 years old, he lost his father. The Samanid dynasty came to its end in December 1004. Ibn Sina seems to have declined the offers of Mahmood of Ghazni, and Ibn Sina proceeded westwards to Urjensh in the modern Khiva, where the vizier (a kind of prime-minister), regarded as a friend of scholars, gave him a small monthly stipend. The pay was small, however, so Ibn Sina wandered from place to place through the districts of Nishapur and Merv to the borders of Khorasan, seeking an opening for his talents. Shams al-Ma'äli Qäbtis, the generous ruler of Dailam, himself a poet and a scholar, with whom Ibn Sina had expected to find an asylum, was about that date (1052) starved to death by his own revolted soldiery. Ibn Sina himself was at this season stricken down by a severe illness. Finally, at Gorgan, near the Caspian Sea, Ibn Sina met with a friend, who bought a dwelling near his own house in which Ibn Sina lectured on logic and astronomy. For this patron, several of Ibn Sina's treatises were written; and the commencement of his Canon of Medicine also dates from his stay in Hyrcania.

Avicenna's work was so influential that he is even commemorated here in this Polish stampIbn Sina subsequently settled at Rai, in the vicinity of the modern Teheran, (present day capital of Iran), the home town of Rhazes; where Majd Addaula, a son of the last amir, was nominal ruler under the regency of his mother. At Rai about thirty of his shorter works are said to have been composed. Constant feuds which raged between the regent and her second son, Amir Shamsud-Dawala, compelling the scholar to quit the place. After a brief sojourn at Qazvin, he passed southwards to Hamadãn, where that prince had established himself. At first, Ibn Sina entered into the service of a high-born lady; but the amir, hearing of his arrival, called him in as medical attendant, and sent him back with presents to his dwelling. Ibn Sina was even raised to the office of vizier; but the turbulent soldiery, composed of Kurds and Turks, mutinied against their nominal sovereign and demanded that the new vizier should be put to death. The amir consented that he should be banished from the country. Ibn Sina, however, remained hidden for forty days in a sheik's house, till a fresh attack of illness induced the amir to restore him to his post. Even during this perturbed time, Ibn Sina prosecuted his studies and teaching. Every evening, extracts from his great works, the Canon and the Sanatio, were dictated and explained to his pupils; among whom, when the lesson was over, he spent the rest of the night in festive enjoyment with a band of singers and players. On the death of the amir, Ibn Sina ceased to be vizier and hid himself in the house of an apothecary, where, with intense assiduity, he continued the composition of his works.

Meanwhile, he had written to Abu Ya'far, the prefect of the dynamic city of Isfahan, offering his services. The new amir of Hamadãn, hearing of this correspondence and discovering where Ibn Sina's was hidden, incarcerated him in a fortress. War meanwhile continued between the rulers of Isfahan and Hamadãn; in 1024 the former captured Hamadãn and its towns, expelling the Turkish mercenaries. When the storm had passed, Ibn Sina returned with the amir to Hamadãn, and carried on his literary labours. Later, however, accompanied by his brother, a favourite pupil, and two slaves, Ibn Sina escaped out of the city in the dress of a Sufite ascetic. After a perilous journey, they reached Isfahan, receiving an honourable welcome from the prince.

The remaining ten or twelve years of Avicenna's life were spent in the service of Abu Ya'far 'Ala Addaula, whom he accompanied as physician and general literary and scientific adviser, even in his numerous campaigns.

During these years he began to study literary matters and philology, instigated, it is asserted, by criticisms on his style. But amid his restless study Ibn Sina never forgot his love of enjoyment. Unusual bodily vigour enabled him to combine severe devotion to work with facile indulgence in sensual pleasures. His passion for wine and women was almost as well known as his learning. Versatile, lighthearted, boastful and pleasure-loving, he contrasts with the nobler and more intellectual character of Averroes. His bouts of pleasure gradually weakened his constitution; a severe colic, which seized him on the march of the army against Hamadãn, was checked by remedies so violent that Ibn Sina could scarcely stand. On a similar occasion the disease returned; with difficulty he reached Hamadãn, where, finding the disease gaining ground, he refused to keep up the regimen imposed, and resigned himself to his fate.

His friends advised him to slow down and take life moderately. He refused, however, stating that: "I prefer a short life with width to a narrow one with length". On his deathbed remorse seized him; he bestowed his goods on the poor, restored unjust gains, freed his slaves, and every third day till his death listened to the reading of the Qur'an. He died in June 1037, in his fifty-eighth year, and was buried in Hamadãn.

Ibn Sina is comparable to such greats as Abu Bakr Mohammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi himself. However, despite such glorious tributes to his work, Ibn Sina is rarely remembered in the West today and his fundamental contributions to medicine and the European reawakening go largely unrecognised.

Ibn Sina also wrote extensively on the subjects of philosophy, logic, ethics, metaphysics and other disciplines. All his works were written in Arabic - which was the de facto scientific language of that time - and in Persian, Ibn Sina's own mother tongue. Of linguistic significance even to this day are a few books that he wrote in nearly pure Persian language. Unlike Aquinas who more or less sanctified Aristotle as church dogma, Ibn Sina corrected him often, encouraging a lively debate in the spirit of ijtihad (which was still a part of religious life at that time). Accordingly he is one of the earliest pioneers of the scientific process of peer review as we know it today, his influence on that process being profound at least, and perhaps even decisive.

About 100 treatises were ascribed to Ibn Sina. Some of them are tracts of a few pages, others are works extending through several volumes. The best-known amongst them, and that to which Ibn Sina owed his European reputation, is his 14-volume "Canons of Medicine", which was a standard medical text in Western Europe for seven centuries. It classifies and describes diseases, and outlines their assumed causes. Hygiene, simple and complex medicines, and functions of parts of the body are also covered. It asserts that tuberculosis was contagious, which was later disputed by Europeans, but turned out to be true. It also describes the symptoms and complications of diabetes. An Arabic edition of the Canons appeared at Rome in 1593, and a Hebrew version at Naples in 1491. Of the Latin version there were about thirty editions, founded on the original translation by Gerard of Cremona. The 15th century has the honour of composing the great commentary on the text of the Canon, grouping around it all that theory had imagined, and all that practice had observed. Other medical works translated into Latin are the Medicamenta Cordialia, Canticum de Medicina, and the Tractatus de Syrupo Acetoso.

It was mainly accident which determined that from the 12th to the 17th century Ibn Sina should be the guide of medical study in European universities, and eclipse the names of Rhazes, Ali ibn al-Abbas and Averroes. His work is not essentially different from that of his predecessor Rhazes, because he presented the doctrine of Galen, and through Galen the doctrine of Hippocrates, modified by the system of Aristotle. But the Canon of Avicenna is distinguished from the Al-Hawi (Continens) or Summary of Rhazes by its greater method, due perhaps to the logical studies of the former. The work has been variously appreciated in subsequent ages, some regarding it as a treasury of wisdom, and others, like Averroes, holding it useful only as waste paper. In modern times it has been more criticized than read. The vice of the book is excessive classification of bodily faculties, and over-subtlety in the discrimination of diseases. It includes five books; of which the first and second treat of physiology, pathology and hygiene, the third and fourth deal with the methods of treating disease, and the fifth describes the composition and preparation of remedies. This last part contains some personal observations. He is, like all his countrymen, ample in the enumeration of symptoms, and is said to be inferior to Ali in practical medicine and surgery. He introduced into medical theory the four causes of the Peripatetic system. Of natural history and botany he pretended to no special knowledge. Up to the year 1650, or thereabouts, the Canon was still used as a textbook in the universities of Leuven and Montpellier.

Scarcely any member of the Arabian circle of the sciences, including theology, philology, mathematics, astronomy, physics, and music, was left untouched by the treatises of Ibn Sina, many of which probably varied little, except in being commissioned by a different patron and having a different form or extent. He wrote at least one treatise on alchemy, but several others have been falsely attributed to him. His book on animals was translated by Michael Scot. His Logic, Metaphysics, Physics, and De Caelo, are treatises giving a synoptic view of Aristotelian doctrine. The Logic and Metaphysics have been printed more than once, the latter, e.g., at Venice in 1493, 1495, and 1546. Some of his shorter essays on medicine, logic, &c., take a poetical form (the poem on logic was published by Schmoelders in 1836). Two encyclopaedic treatises, dealing with philosophy, are often mentioned. The larger, Al-Shifa' (Sanatio), exists nearly complete in manuscript in the Bodleian Library and elsewhere; part of it on the De Anima appeared at Pavia (1490) as the Liber Sextus Naturalium, and the long account of Ibn Sina's philosophy given by Shahrastani seems to be mainly an analysis, and in many places a reproduction, of the Al-Shifa'. A shorter form of the work is known as the An-najat (Liberatio). The Latin editions of part of these works have been modified by the corrections which the monkish editors confess that they applied. There is also a Philosophia Orientalis, mentioned by Roger Bacon, and now lost, which according to Averroes was pantheistic in tone.

In the museum at Bukhara, there are displays showing many of his writings, surgical instruments from the period and paintings of patients undergoing treatment.

In Iran, he is considered a Persian hero. He is often regarded as one of the greatest Persians who have ever lived. Many of his portraits and statues remain in Iran today. An impressive monument to the life and works of the man who is known as the 'doctor of doctors' still stands outside the Bukhara museum and his portrait hangs in the Hall of the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Paris.

Ibn Sina was interested in the effect of the mind on the body, and wrote a great deal on psychology, likely influencing Ibn Tufayl and Ibn Bajjah.

Along with Rhazes, Ibn Nafis, Al-Zahra and Al-Ibadi, he is considered an important compiler of Early Muslim medicine.

He is considered one of the four great Mutazilite scholars, the others being Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd.

There is a crater on the moon called Avicenna after him.

References For Ibn Sina's life, see Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary, translated by de Slane (1842); F. Wüstenfeld's Geschichte der arabischen Aerzte und Naturforscher (Gottingen, 1840). For his medicine, see Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine; and for his philo;ophy, see Shahrastani, German translation, vol. ii. 213-332; K. Pranti, Geschichte der Logik, ii. 318-361; A. Stöckl, Philosophie des Mittelalters, ii. ~3-58; S. Munk, Mélanges, 352-366; B. Haneberg in the Abhandungen der philosophische-philologisches Classifikation der bayerischen Academie (1867); and Carra de Vaux, Avicenne (Paris, 1900). For a list of extant works, C. Brockelmann's Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Weimar, 1898), vol. i. pp. 452-458. (XV. W.; G. W. T.) For an overview of his career see Shams Inati, "Ibn Sina" in History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. Hossein Seyyed Nasr and Oliver Leaman, New York:Routledge (1996).

please make these changes Admin, and put a protection over this section and Rumi's please. No other person has been able to provide a credible source besides me. Thank you!

Uniformity of Reference

To be consistent with Western usage the name Avicenna should be used throughout. In addition the dating system of CE (Common Era) not AD (Anno Domini) or AH is to be preferred. Remember, this is the English language page of Wikipedia.

...However, this is wrong: "His Latinized name is a anglicization of Ibn Sina". I can't point on a source right away, but Avicenna is the *Latin* transcription of the name, used from the late Middle Ages on, when the philosopher first became known in the West. Please don't "anglicize" too much, even in the English Wikipedia :-) --213.226.50.50 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Comments

In what country/countries are Kharmaithen and Hamadan? -- Zoe Answer: Iran

That's actually not an easy question to answer. The 1911 EB says he was "born at Afshena in the district of Bokhara" and that his father was a tax collector in Harmaitin. Modern Bokhara is in Uzbekistan but back then it was all just Central Asia. Hamadan seems to be definitely in Persia/Iran tho. Zadcat

Thanks. I'll add Central Asia and Persia. -- Zoe

Another reason for m:spacetime_DTD

Yo all're crazy man, ibn Sina was Turkmen, and that is not mentioned anywhere in your article

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,.. DO NOT MAKE RIDICUL OF YOURSELVES AND SAY THAT IBN SINA WAS A TURKMEN. HE CAN NOT BE A NOMAD. -) and I cant think of any of his writings in Turmen,. or in general Turkish lang. He ruled! Therefore the word MEDICINE ended from persian MADADE SINO (Sino's cure)

-- Apparently you don't know much about anything as Turkmens weren't even in existence when Avicenna was born.

Using Latin form names everywhere is foolish. It makes more sense to call him what Muslims do, which is Ibn Sina.

-- No it isn't, that's what they're called in English, if you look at any important English document their names are Averroes, Avicenna, Rhazes etc...! Why the confusion?

I've read Avicenna's Psychology. The term psychology there does no mean the modern practice of psychology as mental health, but more the study of the anatomy of the soul. The two are ultimately related but still distinct. The link to psychology is therefore deceptive.

First of all,. AS far as I know the word MEDICINE has been originated from persian Madadi Sino. The idea cant offer a proof. That is what I read somewhere, but cant recall. Second of all. As it has been already mentioned Arabic language was the scientific language or prestigeous language of the time. Therefore it is true, and we have been taught that Ibn Sina accomplished part of his works in Arabic, as well as in Persian. However Samanids states is considered the first oficial Tajik state. As the editor already mentioned his father worked in Samanids administration, that gave Ibn Sina opportunity to study in Bukhara (where nowadays 90% of the population speak Tajik language). Being a Tajik, I do not deny that we belong to Persian group. Unfortunately, here what is happening here. Refering to a simple example, which will make it easier for you to understand the point, I want to finish my paragraph. Looking at an elevator some people say it is a lift (from British), but other people insist in saying that it is an elevator. AND WHY IS THIS ALL NECESSARY? THE MAIN THING IS THAT HE WAS FROM ONE NATION, THAT WE ALL ARE IN,.. ISLAM!!

More detail on what "anatomy of the soul" means? Is this clinical psychology merged with moral philosophy or something? List of topics?

the Psychology of Avicenna is a study on the Soul. It means, A philosophical way to studie the human soul.

Zoe, They were both ancient provinces in Iran. Hamadan is still part of Iran, but Khwarezm and Bukhara were given to Russia when it invaded Persia, or Iran.Zmmz 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Avicenna a Tajik?

A comment on the following sentence in the article: "(Some sources actually state that Avicenna was born in Hamadan, and a good brief biography, linked below, claims him as a Tajik from Balkh)."

The tajik ethnicity is ill-defined, and the meaning seems to have fluctuated in the course of history. Some say that the tajiks are descendants of arabs after the Islamic invasions, others claim they are persians have emigrated from the iranian area around 200 AD. Today some will call any persian-speaking sunni with no specific ethnic association in the afghanistan/tajikstan area a tajik, yet there exists ismaili tajiks and even an extremely small group of imami tajik. Others affiliate themselves with different tajik clans.

Because of this confusion around the tajik ethnicity the modern day tajiks are striving to create a national identity, and thus some tajik sites will present persian philosophers with a background from the modern-day Tajikistan area as tajiks... though this can be viewed as highly speculative...

It is extremely doubtful that Ibn Sina/Avicenna would associate a tajik ethnicity with himself... most probably he viewed himself a persian.

-- I'm Azeri/Turkic and I'm more than convinced that Avicenna was PERSIAN!

-- Even though I have a high regard for Persian contributions to human civilization, I think SOME of today's Persians have an inferiority complex, because they self-"persianize" all the great Muslim Scholars. Speaking Persian does not show anything about being a Persian or not, just as using Arabic does not indicate origin. It is a fact that the Islamic world was very mixed those days. Most Muslims were very mixed and spoke Arabic and Persian those days in addition to their native languages. Ibni Sina was born in Central Asia and he could very well be of Tajik or Turkic origin, as well as of Persian or Arabic. -Serkan

“Avicenna’s ethnicity”. I found it very interesting that there is so much discussion over an obvious fact! He was Persian. No doubt about it. But there are always those who want to change the obvious. He was not Persian, he was Tajik, he was not Tajik, he was Turk… He was Persian and that is his ethnic background. Was he a Muslim? Of course he was. Did he write in Arabic? Yes he did. But “Muslim” is not an ethnic background. The moment that the world starts crediting Descartes as a Christian scientist or Spinoza as a Jewish scholar we can call Avicenna a Muslim scientist.

Most of his work is in Arabic for two main reasons. One, Arabic was the scientific language of the time so it made sense for him to publish his work in Arabic. The scientific language of our time, as you know, is English. I know of a Greek mathematician (She was born in Greece, fluent in German, English, and Greek) working at the Princeton university. She publishes her work in English. Now is she an English mathematician, a Christian one or an American one? You decide!

The second reason for Avicenna to do his work in Arabic and not in Farsi, was the religious one. If he were to publish all of his work in Farsi, he would risk alienating the religious cast and the ruler(s) of the time and that would mean imprisonment, execution or exiled to say the least. Throughout centuries Arabs, under the name of Islam, tried really hard to erase anything that was Persian. The same phenomenon happened during the dark ages under the ruling of the Roman Catholic Church.

As for some of the Persians suffering from the “inferiority complex”, you are absolutely correct! After all, no nation is perfect! But rest assured that those who know the history of that nation and its contributions to the civilization of the man kind are extremely confident about their heritage. Call Avicenna Turkish if it builds your cofidence. Try advocating “Arabian Gulf”in the magazines. When the dust is settled Avicenna will be known as a Persian scientist and maps will note the gulf as the “Persian Gulf”. Kiarash

-- In fact before psychological conclusions you need to study unbiased resources , for Avicenna look at the section below.Pasha 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

-- I think it's quite obvious where Serkan is from, nice try!

--The only people with an inferiority complex are Turks and Arabs who cliam a Persian scholar who regarded himself as a Persian as their own to make themselves feel better. -Manny

--Well, I am ethnically Kurdish and I think I can see myself closer to the Persian. I care about the truth, I do not give a damn about ethnicities otherwise. Just to point out what is wrong with SOME of the Persians here, how can a gulf can be claimed to be absolutely Persian?! If somebody calls it Arabian, that is as legitimate as the Persian. My point is why so much fuss about this? Now, extrapolate this behaviour of yours to your claims regarding the etnicities of the middle-eastern scientists, and you might see what the problem is. -Serkan

People, just thought youd like to know:

1. Tajik is an Iranian language, culture, and ethnicity. The Tajiks themselves believe this. So even if Avicinna was a Tajik, he would still be an Iranian.
2. Avicinna also wrote in Persian too. Example, the book: "Daneshnameh ye Alaaee"--Zereshk 18:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Textbook Farsi is Dari. If he wrote in Persian it was not the same dialect which Iranians speak today. Persia was a VAST empire at the time of Ibn Sina. He was not "Iranian" because Iran was nonexistent. He was from Balkh which is present day Afgh/Tajik. Iranians claim all great muslim poets and writers as their own but if their poems are closely examined it is evident that they are NOT Iranian. Rudi.

--Can you speak any of these dialects? Do you think dialects remain constant over time?Pasha 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can speak, and we can in fact read texts written 1000 years ago. Prose or poetry. Persian dialects are in fact nothing more than accents in practicality. The "Islamic Republic of Iran" did not exist back then. But Iranians did. With your line of reasoning, Shakespeare cannot be considered English either. Nor can Dante be Italian. And if Persians are "claiming" all those people as Iranian, well maybe it's because the land called Persia was a damn huge place in antiquity. Why do you think The BBC Persian service caters to both Afghanistan and Iran? Look at the page, it has material for both readers. It even has news items written for Tajiks.[1]--Zereshk 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is where confusion the comes from; Tajikestan, Ghazaghestan, Bukhara, Khwarezm, Samarghand, and a few other states and cities formerly part of the Iranian plateau, and the country Iran, were at some point fairly recent in history, invaded and thus give to Russia, when Peter the Great invaded Iran. As a result, these ancient Iranians are now Iranian-Russians, or Iranian-Turkey.Zmmz 01:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Avicenna article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Avicenna}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Depending on how old the reference to "Tajik" is, it might mean Arab, as "Tajik", derives from Tayyi', the name of an Arab tribe at the forfront of the Muslim conquests in the East (David M. McClory, micopsor@aol.com).

So Rudi with your logic, the Germans are "germanizing" Emmanuel Kant and a great many other great minds because their birthplace lies now in Russia or elsewhere! The Germans cann then disown Hitler! He was born in Austria! Nice logic!

Just wanted to make a point. Avicenna was Persian and tajik and Persian have the same meaning, that is Iranian-persian muslim. Avicennas mother was Zoroastrian and this is a good enough proof of his Iranian/Persian/Tajik origin as opposed to a Turkic origin.

Irania/Persian?

I did a search on Avicenna and he was described as either Iranian or Persian by these sources: Encylopaedia Britanica , Encylopeda dot com , American Heritage dictionary ,The Columbia encylopedia,MSN Encarta , UNESCO , PDF format,Reference dot com .So his origin is very clear.I added the term of Persian-Tajik origin to the text.Both Persians and Tajiks attribue Avicenna to themselves and in fact they are closely related to each other.Pasha 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert in ethnology, especially Central Asian (I'm 14 and from the UK) but as I was doing some homework on Avicenna I found [2]. It clearly shows Avicenaa in the top right corner, so does this mean Wikipedia's stance on Avicenna ethnicity is that he is a Tajik? Phalanxia 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Iranian or Persian

I have noticed in this article as well as a few others that the world Iran or Iranian is not used and many try to justify it by saying that Iran did not exist back then. (before 1935) This is a common misunderstanding among westerners who think Iran was CREATED in 1935 and it just happened to be on the same land as Persia or that the name Iran is a modern name. which is of course wrong since the country Iran was called Iran for at least the past 2000 years( since Sassanid period) by its people but it had a different name in west (Persia) therefore I think historical Iranian figures like Ibn Sina should be called Iranian not just Persian. In Iran, Ibn Sina is referred to as an IRANIAN scientist not Persian. More importantly I am not sure if Ibn Sina was PERSIAN as far as his race is concerned since not all Iranians are Persians. He could be a Tujik or Turkman but still be an Iranians since he lived and died in the country that was called Iran. I just wanted to see what you all think of my proposal.

Gol

Ibn Sina was born in Bukhara, then part of Persia, now part of modern day Turkemanistan. So Ibn Sina is truly Pesian and all you arabs and turks can deny it but he will always remain a Persian. The only reason why he wrote most of his books in arabic is because the language of Islam was arabic, not because he was arab.

Patriot

Hi Patriot. I don't think it's a big deal. There are no Turk neither Arab conspiracies going on. It is simply a question of naming! If you have some concerns about the naming of Iran/Persia, please I advice you to visit Iran and discuss this there before here. -- Svest 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that Ibn Sino was PERSIAN. In his time, Bukhara city in Mouraunnahr(modern Uzbekistan) was invaded by Persians, but it in no circumstances is a proof that he was Persian. Avicenna as well as Al-Biruni, Al-Khorazmi is NOT Persian. They only lived in territories occupied by Persia(Iran). It's just like saying that all Iraqies are Americans, which is completely incorrect.

• Arabian physician and philosopher, born at Kharmaithen, in the province of Bokhara, 980; died at Hamadan, in Northern Persia, 1037. [Editor's Note: Avicenna was actually Persian, not Arabian.]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02157a.htm

Maybe the article is written by pan-Iranists. He cannot be be Persian, even though the territory of Uzbekistan. At that time there were no distinguishing people by ethnicity and no one knows his origin. Many modern Uzbek scholars write in Russian, becuase of Russian influence.

The most democratic way of defining his is Avicenna is the greatest scholar from CENTRAL ASIA born in modern Uzbekistan.

Actually Uzbekistan has more right to claim this scholar as 'their' fellow'.

You should STOP claiming that all those scholars were Persians. No doubt Iran has very rich culture, but that does not make all the scholars "Iranian" or "Persian". Write that he is CENTRAL ASIAN!!!!

Citizen of Uzbekistan.

Avicenna lived 1000 years ago, in a time when Turks had not yet conquered Central-Asia. And he was certainly not an Uzbek, because Uzbeks arrived in that region some 500 years later.

Avicenna was an urban native Persian-speaker (="Tajik"), son of a famous Persian scholar from Balkh. When the Turks (Ghaznavids) conquered Khorasan, Avicenna left his home and fled to the court of the Persian Buyyids in Isfahan.

Only because he was born in a region which 950 years later became "Uzbekistan", it does not mean that he was an "Uzbek". The Turkish scholar Mahmoud al-Kashgari (who is considered an Uzbek national hero today!) was born in Kashgar ... but that does not mean that he was "Chinese"! The same goes to Alisher Navoi, who was born in Herat and lived his entire life there. Today, he is considered Uzbekistan's greatest poet ... although, according to your logic, he was not an "Uzbek", but an "Afgha" (=Pashtun).

Tājik 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Physiotheraphy section

I removed the whole section as it is a total mess. I hope someone can help creating it from scratch. Cheers -- Szvest 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Apparently, a grade 8 canadian textbook has called Ibn Sina as "one the most famous arab scholars". Unfortunately i have forgotten the name of the textbook.

I don't think Avicenna is unrecognized

Fascinating article on Avicenna that I enjoyed reading. But one thing: "Ibn Sina is rarely remembered in the West today and his fundamental contributions to medicine and the European reawakening go largely unrecognised." This is puzzling. Unrecognized? Surely not! Avicenna is generally and universally regarded as one of the most important intellectual influences on European thinking for the next four or five centuries. Americans learn his name in grade school. I think he is one of the most important names in culture anywhere in the Western world--East or West--in that period of time. But it was a long time ago....it should not be surprising that Voltaire is more recognizable now. He's only been dead for two hundred years.  :-) - N. Harris NaySay 1/17/06 14:14 (UTC)

Persian?

In his own biography, Ibn Sina never mentioned a Persian descent, or anything of the like. Obviously, he didn't see himself as such, why are people trying to force their POV on this article? Afshna and Bokhara were part of the Islamic Caliphate at the time, not Persia. What we do know, is that Ibn Sina wrote the bulk of his work in Arabic(he didn't write similar texts in Persian, as this article is trying to imply). Even if his ethnic background was not Arab, he was extremly influenced by the Arabian culture, he wrote in it, spoke it, and thought in it. I'm sure battling on his ethnicity( Arab/Turkic/Persian) will get us nowhere. I'm taking off the Persian descent references, and correcting the mistakes done to the locales' sovereignty.

Also, does anyone know german? What does this reference translate to: F. Wüstenfeld's Geschichte der arabischen Aerzte und Naturforscher (Gottingen, 1840)?

I don't know German, but it doesn't take a genius to see that "arabischen" translates to "Arab", but what is the context? MB 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He is sometimes mistaken for Arab because he wrote some of his books in Arabic which was the langue of science in the eastern world the same way that Latin was the dominant language in the western world but it does not mean any scientist who wrote in that is a Roman. Ibn Sina also has books in Persian. He is Persian and all the encyclopedias either mention him as Iranian or Persian. I suggested using Iranian but other people said Persian is more appropriate. In either case defining him as just Muslim is wrong since it is a vague term and it would be like saying that Dante was a Christen poet! The only argument is whether to call him Persian or Tajik but the Tajik themselves are defined as “central Asian Persians” so I think it is correct to refer to him as Persian but I still prefer Iranian.

Here is the link to Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011433?query=ibn%20sina&ct=

Gol 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously did not even consider my argument, Ibn Sina wrote most of his work in Arabic, not only because it was the language of science but also, because that's the language he was more comfortable with. are you trying to imply that all Middle-easterners are Persian? Also, until the dispute is over with, I suggest we keep the ethncity debate to the talk page. MB 06:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You can not prove that he was more comfortable with Arabic, how do you know? How do you know my suggestion that he did it because it was the language of science is not correct? Beside even if he was more comfortable with Arabic that does not make him an Arab. Don’t attack me or make up things about me. I never tried to say all Middle Easterns are Persians! Britannica says he was Iranian so do you argue about their legitimacy? I don’t think they are pro Persian/ Iranian do you?

We can not just label him as Muslim it is too vague have you seen Dante being labeled as Christian poet?

Gol 07:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are two more sources and one of them is Columbia

http://www.bartleby.com/65/av/Avicenna.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Avicenna.asp

I am putting Persian back on because I have provided enough sources for you.

dont change it until you have proven that he is Not Persian or Iranian. or that he is Arab.

Gol 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

He was Arab nor Persian, wow....he was from AFGHANISTAN. Everyone and their mamas are trying to steal from us

Asshole, your dirty MF people tries to steal our glory and heavy persian (tajik) history by claiming us Awghans (mother/donkeyfuckers)

Awghanistan did not exist since 1911 officially and 1892 when british called it so first time

Abu Ali Sina, was a Human and had an ethnicity, not a land to devide him to modern day countries, he was a persian, not a mongol or turk who later invaded the land and genecided persians and became a majority there. and for sure not an uncivilized arab of the time who conquared Persia and took persians centuries to get rid of them! ( no comments for the guy calling him Afghan, coz jokes have no reactions but laughter! ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.46.15 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A compromise

Gol, I can't prove that a certain twisted fact doesn't exist: Somebody claims that a man named Arash Al-Farsi died in Tehran at 6 PM on Saturday. I can't give him sources that Arash Al-Farsi didn't die in Tehran( because simply it didn't happen), so does that mean that Arash did die? Obviously, you need to check your logic. Now, most people at that time identified themselves to religion, especially in the Middle-East. Just because Arabic was the language of science doesn't mean that it couldn't have been his first.Also, I know that Arabic was the language he was comfortable with, because he spoke with it, and wrote most of his books in it. Trying to twist my words won't make your arguments stronger.

Anyway, there are three opinions here: That he either was Tajik, Persian, or Arab. Instead of degrading ourselves to an edit war( something I saw you're keen on) let's all compromise and claim the subject controversial. That's much more professional than you screaming "Persian, Persian, Persian!" down our throats on the article. What do other editors think? MB 14:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are new to Wikipedia and don’t know the rules.

Original research is not accepted you have to have a source. Which I do!

Read the guidelines please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR

you have to have a legitimate source.

I gave you three sources that he was labeled either as Persian or Iranian and one of those sources are considered to be the most legitimate in the world. Can you give me a source that he is labeled as Arab or Turk? A source as legitimate as Britannica? I am changing it to Persian but you can change it to Iranian if you want. My argument is based on Britannica you have no source. Stop editing based on your own belief. I have sources. Very legitimate sources. You don’t

Encyclopaedia of the Orient also describes him as Iranian.

Provide a source first. Britannica says he was Iranian. Do you a have more legitimate source?

This is not a twisted fact! Otherwise Britannica would not support it.

and stop attacking me!

Gol 17:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird, you previously provided a source, yet it's gone now, how come? belatedly discovered disparities, maybe? If your sources are definitive re-post this 'another source'. What's this encyclopedia of the Orient? Anyway, There is obvious controversy concerning Ibn Sina's ethnicity, mentioning it won't detract from any arguments. The basis of NPOV is to mention all sides, and not be biased towards a certain ethnicity, race, or religion. Obviously you're extremly biased, and mentioning he's Persian here won't make him as such. What's the matter with you?

The Britannica link only mentions 75 words from the whole article, it's an incomplete source. From what I got you base your arguments on him coming from what you deem "Persia". At that time, Persia was part of the Islamic Caliphate, and Khorasan was considered Central Asian, not Persian. Your weak attempts at distorting Geography are poor desperate attempts to confirm something ingrained in you. Objective researchers don't pay mind to the preconceptions they were taught, as such mentioning the controversy was the scholarly thing to do.

Instead, You're obviously engaging in a revert war, something against Wikipedia's policies. Please adhere to them before you stand on a podium and instruct others to do so. I won't put the ethnicity controversy back, obviously from your observed childish behavior you'll propably revert it back(again). Instead, I'll wait for an editor with some sense to back me up, until then please refer to the definition of vandalism. MB 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link because it would not go to the right page no matter how many times I tried to copy it. A technical difficulty but the source was correct and it was the Encyclopedia of the Orient which I mentioned above.

Here is the link to the main page but you should type "Avicenna" in it to see.

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/index.htm

If you can not see the whole page on Britannica is because you are not a member. Beside why does it matter the word Iranian is mentioned in the beginning. Are you saying it will be changed in the rest of the article??

You are not doing revert war? I provided one of the most legitimate sources in the world and based on that changed your edits but you changed mine without any source.

Stop attacking me! personal attacks and name callings are not allowed in WP

If my edits are wrong then provide source dont call me names!

Gol 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To those suggesting that Avicenna was more comfortable with Arabic than with Persian I can only say you have no business editing articles on this subject. Avicenna has even written poetry in the classical styles of Persian literature. Anybody familiar with the Persian language knows that these are extremely difficult styles, which you can only use if you have a command of the language well above that of ordinary (even educated) people. Avicenna most definitely had no problems with the Persian language. As already pointed out, Arabic was a language any educated person of that time was supposed to know. But well, you wouldn't say all wikipedians are English because they write in English, would you? Shervink 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)shervink

As it has been already mentioned Arabic language was the scientific language or prestigeous language of the time. Therefore it is true, and we have been taught that Ibn Sina accomplished part of his works in Arabic, as well as in Persian. However Samanids states is considered the first oficial Tajik state. As the editor already mentioned his father worked in Samanids administration, that gave Ibn Sina opportunity to study in Bukhara (where nowadays 90% of the population speak Tajik language). Being a Tajik, I do not deny that we belong to Persian group. Unfortunately, here what is happening here. Refering to a simple example, which will make it easier for you to understand the point, I want to finish my paragraph. Looking at an elevator some people say it is a lift (from British), but other people insist in saying that it is an elevator. AND WHY IS THIS ALL NECESSARY? THE MAIN THING IS THAT HE WAS FROM ONE NATION, THAT WE ALL ARE IN,.. ISLAM!!

Zero Compromise

MB, it is true that Avicenna may not be Iranian, and he may be an Arab (how can anyone logically say that, it is beyond me). On another discussion page you said, “Prophet Muhamad spoke Persian”. But, people who think that are along the lines of the same people who swear Alexander the Great was actually Turkish, and that history has done the Turkish people wrong. I guess some people believe in UFOs too, and have been trying numerous of times to edit the UFO article, saying “They do exist”. This article is not concerned with the fact that all Middle-Eastern people are not Persian; it has, however, to do with Pur Sina (Avicenna) who was Iranian. Furthermore, I have noticed that you have tried to change the birthplace of many Persian scientists over the past few weeks (Al Biruni, Avicenna, Al Khwarizmi etc.). I do realize that these facts might not be desirable to you, yet, that does not excuse your reverts. You have also mentioned that a certain article in Britannica is incomplete because it has 75 words. Unlike Wikipedia, Britannica only displays a part of an article, and you have got to pay to view the rest. However, in this case you need not to look far; I looked at it and the first thing that Britannica says about Avicenna is, “....born 980, Bukhara, Iran died 1037, Hamadan. Arabic Ibn Sina, in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina. Iranian physician, the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam” [3]. But, you seem to play tune-def, and may be a bit biased. Now, it is important as a scholar to question the status quo, however, if you have your own hypothesis, you need to provide refrences rather than just rhetoric. What books are you reading that say this stuff are true? Any way, I have to tell you though, just because you can edit in Wikipedia, it does not mean you can insert your own off-the-wall opinions, with brute force, and without providing ONE credible source. In the face of over-WHELMING evidence provided to you in [good faith], you still try to revert the article, and at this point if you try to revert this article without proper merit one more time, I will report you if you violate the 3rr rule, as well as, report you for possible vandalism, and being a possible sockpuppet. Wikipedia is not a democracy; it is based only on facts. Hence, when and if a mediator reviews the article’s history and sees you have no references, yet you still revert, they [may] permanently block your username and even IP address. You have also been personally attacking some users here. Just be forewarned of that please.Zmmz 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the intro, let people draw their own conclusions from his place of birth and living I'd say. —Ruud 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Root, there is no conclusion to be drawned out in this case. The man was Iranian according to three major encyclopedias, and the Merriam-Webster, and the Oxford dictionaries. The area he was born in was part of the then Kingdom of Iran (Persia), and centuries later it was invaded and taken away from Iran by Peter the Great of Russia. His province was an ancient Iranian state before this invasion. See the above refrences for Khwarezm, and then let me know what you think? Zmmz 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

avicenna was not turkic at all. the only turkic empire that was able to produce such minds was the ottomans. the central asian empires were turko-persian empires. the persians took all the administration, science, scholarly, religous,etc... levels, while the turkic tribes took care of the military aspect. the central asian turks were better at fighting, and iranians were better educated, that is a fact, most educated people of the time were iranian, due to the hundreds of years of cultural development, while the turkic tribes were all nomadic. there is no way he was turkic, or arab for that matter for the exact same reasons. even arabs wrote about how persians did most of the cultural and scientific work. and even turkic tribes new that, such as timur, that is why they let the persians administer the empire while all they did was expand it. that is why the term turco persian is used for the central asian empires, and that is why persian culture has always been the dominating force in central asia, the middle east, and the ottoman empire. avicenna was tajik/persian (tajik and persian are of the same tribe) --Iranian Patriot.

a poem of avicenna

دل در ایـن بادیه بسیــار شتافت یک مـوی ندانست ولی مـوی شکافت و اندر دل من هزار خورشید بتافت و آخر به کمال ذره‌ای راه نیافت

iranian

why don't we just call avecenna Iranian. doesn't iranian mean all iranic people(tajiks, ossetians, persians, balochis, ect).so if avecenna's definitely from Iranic origins why shouldn't we use that term?

you make sense, but the thing is for anyone doing research, iranian means nothing. most westerners only know of irans history as persian. iranian will just confuse the reader. also, there is some dispute between iranic peoples over the term iranian. iranian now has come to mean more of a nationality than ethnicity, because the iranic peoples now are not under one roof like they were during the achaemenids, parthians, and sassanids. some iranics dont like being called iranian, others dont mind being called iranian. however Persian works best in this context.Iranian Patriot 16:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Badly written and needs clean up

Please clean up the 'flowery language' and add more factual information with citations. Central Asia and present day Afghanistan was never called persia.

Thank you.

neither was iran until the west labled it Persia on their maps. when these countries were part of Persia (iran as iranians know it) they were also called persia. the fact is that persia is the name used by the west to represent Iran. Iran has always been called iran, all iranians know this, afghans know it, tajiks know it, etc... (arya, Eron, iranzameen, and other variations for 2500 years). but the fact of the matter is that the west only knows about irans history as persia. many westerners still believe that iran was an invented name imposed on the nation by the shah in the 1930's. they dont know the truth, and to keep our history alive in the english language and in the world, we have to use the term persia.Iranian Patriot 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Avicenna was Persian

He was born from Bukhara from a Zoroastrian mother and Ismaili Father originally from Balkh. He lists the languages he knows and neither turkish nor even Iranian Soghdian is mentioned. Bukhara during Samanid times was Persian speaking as Rudaki is the first poet from there. Soghdian (which is an Iranian language) was the previous language, but at the time of Samanids it was well supplanted by new Persian. --Ali doostzadeh 05:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

bukhara today is still persian speaking.Iranian Patriot 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---OK what about Shah Ismail what language was he speaking and what was the official language of Persia(an ancient term used till Macedonian-Hellen Massacre) And tell me who are ottomans which language was Selim the brave was using and what was the official language of ottomans and selcuks. Dont be kidding aboıut you know few Shah Ismail was a half Turkish(probably Kipcak of Azerbayjan) Arian(father side) but strange he was using Cagatay(lingua franca of asia of that times) in his court instead of persian and it is absolute that Selim was Turanic and using Persian (not even Ottoman) in his poetry. Shah Ismail sent letter to Selim in Cagatay relim replied back in Persian. Also official languages of Seljuks was Persian. Persian was used to civilise and de-militarise Turkish tribes in great Turkish empires. And even after long run migrations to anatolia from todays Iran till 1968 turkish population was 1.3 times the persian population(12 mil turanians 9 mil persians in 11 mil arians total 25mil) in Iran which is still assimilating Turks and even genosiding(google Azadistan and south Azerbajan)

OMG ... no comment. For your information: Chagatay language & Safavids! Besides that, it's Aryan (spelled with a "y") and not Arian! Tājik 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical doctrine

Have started on taking some stuff from the French version, which was a Featured Article. Not an expert on the subject though, so please copyread if you are. --Vjam 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review citation needed

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:History of scientific method#Peer review in medieval Islam?. --SteveMcCluskey 16:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Avicenna vs. Ibn Sina

I'm not sure what the naming conventions are here, but it seems the article should be titled 'Ibn Sina' - with a redirect from Avicenna - rather than the way it is now, considering that was his real name. Other philosophers (Ibn Khaldun, Al Khwarizmi) with Arab/Persian names have articles at their real names rather than latinizations of such (e.g. Algoritmi).

Also, the article internally uses both names at different places for no apparent reason - I think it should be made consistent (i.e. mention the "Avicenna" variant at the top, and use Ibn Sina throughout the article.) Comments? Valarauka 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am in agreement here. Using the Latinized name creates a nasty POV. Kingturtle 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nasty POV? What are you talking about? "Avicenna" is how this person has always been known in English, just like in English one says "Confucius" and not "Kǒng Fūzǐ". Wikipedia's article naming official policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions) is very clear on this: ""Article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". "Avicenna" is the common name of this person in English, whereas "Abū Alī ibn Sīnā" is a transliteration of its Arabic name which most English speakers have never heard about (just as most English speakers wouldn't know who the hell was "Kǒng Fūzǐ"). 99% of users looking up this article will type "Avicenna", and not "Abū Alī ibn Sīnā", in the Search box. Per Wikipedia's very explicit policies on the matter (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names), which mandate the use of "the name that is most generally recognisable [and] unambiguous with the name of other articles", and per common sense, this article has to be at "Avicenna", with "Abū Alī ibn Sīnā" as a redirect, so I'm reverting the inappropriate move. Uaxuctum 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also put my vote for Ibn Sina rather than Avecinna. Also, didn't this man have a first name or two? Calaf 00:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Persian vs. Tajik

Tajiks and Persians are basically the same people, therefore, if it says Persian it doesnt really matter. Both are Iranic and not only that, but both are from the same tribe. --Iranian Patriot

But, more importantly at the time of Avicenna Khwarezm was not even what it is today, part of Russia, it was part of Persia. Later Russia invaded Persia and took it away.Zmmz 02:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

are you iranian zmmz? avicenna is definetly iranic (tajik/persian most likely), can you please tell me which people dispute this fact, so that i may enlighten them... thanks--Iranian Patriot.

Tajik vs. Persian seems to be the newest dispute. I think Avicenna should be referred to as Persian, based on the following reasons:

1. His father was from Balkh in Khorassan, which is not even close to where Tajik tribes traditionally resided. 2. His father was Shia, while Tajiks were/are primarily Sunnis. 3. Avicenna never referred to himself as Tajik.

I would like to see solid evidence of Avicenna being a Tajik, other than a general dubious claim that every Persian speaking Central Asian has to be Tajik. In particular considering that his father had moved to Bukhara from Balkh, his original birth place. If tomorrow I move to Tajikstan, that does not make me or my children a person of Tajik ancestory.

Ghlobe 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Tajiks are the main inhabitants of Khorasan.
2. Ibn Sina's father was from Balkh, a Tajik city.
3. He was born to a Tajik mother in Afshana, near Bukhara, another Tajik city.
4. Ibn Sina's father was not Ithna Ashari Shia, like the modern population of Iran, but an Ismaili Shia, like many people in modern Badakhshan. Besides that, this is not really an important point, because a) Iran was converted to Shiism by the Safavids 500 years after Ibn Sina, and b) religion does not define ethnicity.
5. Ibn Sina never refered to himself as Persian either, but we KNOW that he was an ethnic Tajik (=Persian), because of his writings.
6. If you take a look at the article Tajik, you'll see that Tājīk "is a term generally applied to Persian-speaking peoples of Iranian origin living east of Iran. The Tajik homelands are Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and the Xinjiang province of China. Alternative names for the Tajiks are Fārsī (Persian), Pārsīwān (Persian-speaking), and Dīhgān (roughly "urban" in contrast to "nomadic" or "tribal"—only used in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan)".
7. The word Tajik was already in use at the time of Ibn Sina, although mostly in Turkic languages. Mahmud Kashgari used the word as a synonym for Persian in his famous "Diwān-u Lughat al-Turk".

Tājik 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik,

You will have to provide more links or references for some of your claims. In particular my argument is that:

1. I am an ethnic Khorassani myself, and I am not Tajik, and I don't believe Tajiks are the main inhabitants of Khorassan, in particular the region from Balkh to central Iran where Avicenna's father came from. Please provide a source for your claim.

2. Also you base your claim on the definition that all Persian speaking people outside of the current boundaries of Iran will have to be Tajik. This description (which also shows up in wikipedia's definition of Tajiks) is not accurate enough. Ethnic Tajiks are a distinct tribe who also look differently from other central asians. In particular considering that the borders of Iran today is quite different from what it was 1000 years ago, your basic definition of a "Tajik" does not sound solid.

That said, your mentioning of Mahmud Kashgari clears up the issue about the use of the term "Tajik" 1000 years ago. Thanks for the reference. I'll have to try to find a copy of his work.

Can anybody check and see if Avicenna ever referred to himself as Persian or Iranian?

Ghlobe 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik is a definition. Tajik is what Central Asian Persians have been referred to in the past, and the name stuck. Tajik=Persian, and Persian=Tajik, its the same thing. I have no problem with Tajik being in this article.Khosrow II 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Ghlobe: if you are from Khorasan (and I guess you are talking about the modern Iranian province(s) Khorasan), then you are a Tajik, even if you do not call yourself as such. "Tajik" is not a seperate ethnic group, but simply another name for the people who are generally known in the west as "Persians". And usually, Persians who are from the regions East of Iran, are generally called "Tajiks". From Khayyam and Ferdousi to Rumi and al-Biruni, all of them were "Tajiks". Tājik 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, I'm sure that this user thought taht Tajik was a different ethnic group. I think we both made it clear to him now that Tajik is just a definition which means: Central Asian Persian. Hopefully this dispute is resolved.Khosrow II 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this claim requires proof. Please provide an independent source that states the term "Tajik" is not a separate ethnic group. Alternatively we can replace the term in the article with "Central Asian Persian" to resolve the dispute. Ghlobe 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The source is already given in the article: Encyclopaedia of Islam, which is an authoritative scholarly work. Here is a "screenshot" of the article "Tajik": [4] The article is written by Prof. Clifford Edmund Bosworth. Another source proving that "Tajik" and "Persian" are synonyms, and that they were used as synonyms even in the Safavid kingdom: [5].

Besides that, if Tajiks and Persians WERE different ethnic groups, then Avicenna was rather "Tajik" than "Persian". Tājik 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Qashqai turkic tribes still call all Persian speakers as Tajiks. --alidoostzadeh 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

B-Class

Guys, you should work to make this a B-Class article, i am sure that it will take very little to achieve it. I would also like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars. --Striver 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Sina... Persian/Tajik/Iranian/Arabic

Since there are so many arguments about his ethnicity and it is very hard to prove 100% who he really was, especially considering the time he lived in, lets just called it an even and leave just "Persian" since Iranians and Tajiks are Persian. However there is also strong possibility he was not Persian, but I advice we leave just him as "Persian" for now, until better proof is found. (I would look more into Eastern sources rather than Western, since they are not always accurate, and they are sometime misunderstand Eastern history)

What do you, intelligent people, say?

By the way I found a great website where you can find more information abotu him here - http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/sina/ I didn't have time to go over it but if you guys have time I advise you to go there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.212.89.57 (talk)

Actually Ibn Sina's ethnicity is very clear. He writes in his texts that he only knows Persian and Arabic. Also his mother name was Setareh and his Name "Saena" is Persian. So he was Iranian/Tajik. Thanks for the links. --alidoostzadeh 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what his mother's name meant, they lived around Persians, They were Turkic.

French

I added the relevant information from the French article fr:Avicenne a few days ago. As such, I removed the FAOL|French tag. -- FaerieInGrey 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Fraud

In Asian Games 2006 (Doha), at the Openning Ceremony, it is mentioned that Avicenna was an Arab physician (This historical fraud repeated for Biruni Al-Biruni). These great men were Persian. It is needed that every Persian (Iranian, Tajik, Azaris, Kurds,...) be sensitive to this dirty movements. Nima007 13:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but actually neither of these are Persian either they are both Turkic, and it is historical fraud to say they

were Persian. 75.5.238.53 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They were both Iranians. Biruni was a Khwarzmian and Abu Ali Sina was from Balkh. There is 100% evidence that they both did not know Turkish. Biruni when he talks about the Turkish months he writes: I do not know their order or their meaning. Abu Ali Sina also writes: in the language we know... and then brings a phrase from Persian and then Arabic. Both of them also have Persian writings. --alidoostzadeh 04:05, 26 December 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.

It should be changed in the template as well (on top of the picture).

No serious scholar would ever claim that he was Turkic. It is a well established fact - based on his own autobiography (written in Arabic) - that he was of Persian descent. I have never seen any scholarly article or book claiming that Avicenna was a Turk. His birth-place, his name, and even his Persian works only point toward a Persian origin. Tājik 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually he clearly states that In the languages I know and them mentions a phrase in Arabic and then Persian. And as you pointed out he has several Persian works. Plus his father was Ismaili from Balkh and his mother's name was Setareh. --alidoostzadeh 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Sino Turkic not Persian and defenitely not Tajik

Ibn Sino is Turkic. First of all he was born in Afshona village which is 100% turk. Secondly, he lived in Seljukid Empire time. Seljukids were turkic nation and iran was part of the empire. Which means not central asia but persia was part of the central asia. Thirdly, there are people who speak persian in Bukhara but they are not persian and certainly not tajiks. They are local people whos language been enfluanced by persian culture and language. If you compare there ghisical look with old iranian or aryan you will see that they look more like turkic nation rather the persian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buriwolf (talk • contribs).

Neither Iran nor Turkey existed at those times. Indeed, Afshana is located near Bukhara in Persia (now part of Uzbekistan). So where's Turkey in all this? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Sina lived in the Samanid Empire and later in the Buyyid Empire - he had nothing to do with the Seljuqs. Besides that, the Seljuqs were a highly Persianized Oghuz-Turkic family who ruled over a land that was overwhelmingly NON-Turkic. The Turks - including the ruling family - were a tiny minority, not even numbering 100,000. As for the "looks" - this is the dumbest example ever. First of all, we do not know how ibn Sina looked like. Secondly, the population of Central Asia 1000 years ago was totally different than today. And third: the "looks" are not really an indicator for someone's origin. May I remind you that almost NOBODY in Turkey has a "Turkic look" nowadays?! Even Atatürk himself had light hair and eyes! Tājik 14:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tajik. Turk come to central asia in 5th century and they were there for long time. Secondly, there is no turkic look it is true but 1000 year ago there were turkic and persian look diferences. Even today scientes can pridect origin of the persons. Thirdly when I mean turk, I don't mean turkish. You should understand deference between turk and turkish. Example, uzbek live in uzbekistan and turkish live in turkey but both of them turk not turkish. Nation called tajik never existed, maybe some tribe name was tajik in 19 century. Main nations in central asia were turks and persians. if he is not turk then he is persian, if not persian then turk. Tajik maybe persian tribe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buriwolf (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about?! Avicenna mentions in his own autobiography that he is Persian. Besides that, the number of Turks was at that time not more than 200,000 IN TOTAL (comparable to the number of Mongols at the time of Genghis Khan). It is attested by Ghaznavid historians that the TOTAL number of Oghuz Turks living in Central Asia was at the time of Sultan Mas'ud Ghaznavi not more than 60,000 - and the Oghuz were the LARGEST Turkic group in Central Asia. At the same time, Baghdad alone had more than 300,000 inhabitants! This has been discussed so many times. It is totally hillarious to claim that Avicenna was a Turk ... and I am not even talking about the fact, that - at that time - the Turks were still predominantly a nomadic people with no interest in science or philosophy! Ibn Sina was the son of a known Persian scholar from Balkh, his mother was member of the Samanid family. Do you have ANY reliable sources for your claims? As for Tajik ... go to the article Tajiks and figure out the meaning of the word. Tājik 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually he clearly states that In the languages I know and them mentions a phrase in Arabic and then Persian. And as you pointed out he has several Persian works. Plus his father was Ismaili from Balkh and his mother's name was Setareh. Uzbeks did not exist as an ethnic group during the time of Avicenna as they are not attested by any source. --alidoostzadeh 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali (or 'Father of Ali' in English) is 'Kunya' or 'Nickame'

And not the Muslim scholar's name as incorrectly indicated in the box. The name mentioned in the article, as per the naming convention, his name in the box should be(First/Last Name): Al-Husayn Al-Balkhi (known in the East as 'Ibn Sina' & in the West as 'Avicenna')[or reverse: Last/First Name][unless his middle [=father's] name is added then it will be: Al-Husayn Abdullah{or 'A.'} Al-Balkhi (known in the East as 'Ibn Sina' & in the West as 'Avicenna')[or reverse: Last/First/Middle]. (ILAKNA 08:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Persian (Tājīk)

I was reading this discussion and I think people are missing some points here. When we are asking where someone is coming from, the answer is the name of the country that he is from not his ethnicity or his language. We should follow the same here. Therefore, I think the word Tajik in parenthesis which refers to his ethnicity is not appropriate here. The other confusion is about the word Persian. Persian can refer to Persian (Ethnicity), Persian (language), and residents of the country of Persia(Iran). Therefore here we should say Avicenna was a Persian … (As it is done in many reliable sources) and Wikilink Persian to Iran or Persian Empire as the name of the country he was from.(Arash the Archer 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Ibn Sina

Having sources that are not biographical, at least 50+ years old and referring to him as an Arab scientist is not being honest. The fact is that we know enough about his life and he was Persian. He has written lots of Persian works (hard any arab in history has written in Persian), his father was from Balkh (Afghanistan) and his mothers name was Sittarah. And also in a passage he indicates that he knows only Arabic and Persian. What is interesting is that 1911 Britannica called him an Arab but the 2007 has fixed it and called him a Persian. Thus this convention of calling all Muslim scientists as an Arab (even non-Iranian ones) is being slowly disregarded within western academia. But for Avicenna given his Persian works, and what we know about his biography, it is sufficient. --alidoostzadeh 19:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir you removed not only Arab origin references but others too about Arab science and Arab Galen. But according to Wikipedia policy, all major points of view should be reflected. You can note that modern research considers him Persian, however older sources were split on the issue, calling him Arab too. This is per Wikipedia's NPOV policy [6] [7] After all that's what's being done on the Al-Farabi page too, where despite nearly all sources, including modern encyclopedia Britannica calling him a Turk, references about his purported Persian or Tajik origin are inserted as well. Weiszman 19:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus among all major academics and historians that Ibn Sina was Persian. This is indisputable. Fringe views don't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. --Mardavich 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually wikipedia OR policy requires primary sources over secondary and secondary over teriatary. Primary sources consider him a Persian. You can't use something from 1952 which is not even biographical. The term Arab science is a misnomer. Also Wikipedia requires modern research or primary sources. We don't put old research in wikipedia. And research means research on biography. --alidoostzadeh 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no such requirements - please cite where you take those rules from, its surely not from English Wikipedia. citations I've provided are abiding by all Wikipedia rules and should be part of the article, not removed arbitrarily by self-appointed aribiters. Weiszman 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires primary sources over secondary sources. In the case of secondary sources overwhelmingly favor Persian. But in this case we have enough from primary sources including the fact that Ibn Sina's mothers name was Sittarah, he was born in Balkh Afghanistan and scholars who have written about his biography (which is relevant) have stated he was Persian. Note on Al-Farabi many sources have mentioned he was Arabian because Muslim and Arab were synonmous. Thus biographical and specialized and modern sources count. Note Ibn Sina lived under Persian dynasties, and wrote Persian and his last name Sina is also Persian plus his mother's name which was mentioned. So primary sources affirm what modern scholars say (and we don't rely on a medical book from a japanese doctor on a biography of avicenna). All modern references including Encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Columbia[8] and Britannica[9] do not have a shadow of doubt about his ancestry. --alidoostzadeh 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, for yet again one more time, Wikipedia makes absolutely no such requirements (i.e., primary sources over secondary) as you think, re-check again check here and here. Moreover from these policy pages, pay attention to these lines: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." The names of people (mother, grandpa, etc) are not very relevant here: Mahmud Kashgari whom another guy mentioned today, despite being a Turk had a non-Turk name. Many Turks had Muslim (Arab and Iranian) names. Afghanistan had and still has many Turks living there, specifically in Balkh which was governed by Turks as early as 7th-8th century[10] "According to Tabari, "Al-Krz" was to be the last station for Tarkhan Tirek/Nizak.75 Balkhl76 states that "The Turk who was amir of Balkh" was killed by...""

"Mahmud of Ghazna recruited Khalaj Turks from the regions of Balkh and Ghazna." [11] RICHARD N. FRYE, A. M. SAYILI (1945) THE TURKS IN KHURASAN AND TRANSOXANIA AT THE TIME OF THE ARAB CONQUEST The Muslim World 35 (4), 308–315.

To wrap up, Wikipedia rules request multiple points of view (MPOV) and all major verifiable sources, that's why his Arab origin sources should be included (just as minority opinion on al-Farabi's possible Persian or Tajik origin is included in its the respective article). Weiszman 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that source of yours is old (1945). And has nothing to do with Avicenna. Richard Frye is actually explicit and says Avicenna is Persian, so you can not make intrepretations. Since Avicenna lived during Samanid era. As per Avicenna he clearly states he only knows Arabic and Persian only and I have his statement. There is no minority viewpoint with regards to Avicenna in modern scholarly references. You seem to not understand wikipedia policy of OR well. No biographical source of recent has mentioned Arabic origin. Farabi by the way has been called Arabian in many old sources as well, but today we know that is not true. Farabi has been called a Persian by the oldest extant source discussing his ethnicity. As I have explained to you, Islamic scientists were called Arabian scientists equivalently in older western scholarship. This was a practice of middle ages. Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 has changed significantly relative to 2007 and where-as in 1911 they had avicenna as an Arab in 2007 they have him as an Iranian. Also your sources had absolutely nothing about Avicenna and his biography whereas I brought four very recent and modern sources which also discuss biography. In wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional proof. Not something from 1952 in a japanese journal. In the case of Avicenna, he was from Balkh so Arabic is out of question. All the sources mention he was Persian and the turkic population of balkh today are Uzbeks who are recent newcomers. And no, he was not a khalaj turk (and there are disputes now even about khalaj turks and the ethnicity of hephtalites as well who were mixed) as his father was an Ismaili which were generally hostile to Ghaznavids. As he mentions the languages he knows (Persian and Arabic) and does not mention Turkish and actually has a comment about Turks not reaching civilization (nomadic)... None of the major encyclopedias Britannica, Columbia, Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica mention a minority opinion and they are all equivalently clear. On Farabi encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica are not clear, primary sources differ, he has Soghidan and Persian glosses but no Turkish and etc. So the two cases are totally different and your comparison would be valid if Farabi is called an Arab because some sources (even in google books) describe him as an Arabian. What you are suggesting is actually to put Arabian as well for Farabi because couple of sources have called him Arabian in google books and these sources are not specialized and it was common practice to call Muslim scientists as Arabs. --alidoostzadeh 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sir, actually there is no rule in Wikipedia about "old" or "new" sources (please prove otherwise if I am mistaken). One cannot label sources "old" to remove them. These sources are from after 1950, not from 19th century after all. Then, my response was to your talk of Wikipedia's "requirement" of "primary sources over secondary" (and other similar claims) and the statement "he was born in Balkh Afghanistan" as being some uncontestable evidence of his Persian origin. As the above sources write, including Frye, not just Persians, but for example Turks lived in Balkh since before Avicenna's time (as did Arabs after the Islamization of the area). Here are some more sources including Frye's Cambridge History where he and other editors revisit that aricle decades later and don't change the findings The Cambridge history of Iran By W. B. Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshater, R. N. Frye, J. A. Boyle, Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly, Charles Melville

"Chinese sources of the time say that the western boundary of the Turks extended beyond Balkh to Merv in 630 AD. Baladhuri also mentions Merv as the last outpost of the Sassanians against the Turks at the time of the Arab conquests" (Frye, "Khurasan," 313). [12]

"after Nēzak tarxān, who retreated towards Balkh. It happened also in 709 that the. Arabs defeated some Turks who tried to help the Sogdians." [13]

Another is here Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World By Andre Wink

"After the well-known victory of Bahram Chubin over the army of the Ephtalits and Turks in 58835 Hurmazd36 IV presented him Balkh city and all of Khorasan37. After the murder of Chol-khaqan38 his son Yil-tegin39 took cover in the fortress of Paykand40. Bahram Chubin lay siege to the fortress and forced him to surrender at discretion, and captured a great booty. However, he had sent Hurmazd only a part of it, and the rest of it he appropriated for himself. This provoked the anger of the shahanshah and he wiped him off his post41. According to data of the Byzantine sources, after the victory over the Turks Bahram Chubin has been sent to Caucasus, where he was at war with the Byzantine army. In this war Bahram Chubin suffered a defeat, an after that he has been wiped off his post42. However, Bahram Chubin refused to submit to Hurmazd and excited revolt against him in 590 in Balkh43. Before that he concluded a treaty with the Turks, and included in his army the troops of the Turkish volunteers. Then he set out with united army to the capital of the Sasanids - Ktesifon44." [14]

However, it is not the Turk origin of Avicenna that is discussed (at least I did not bring such evidence), but the addition of several sources describing him being of Arab origin. All those sources are major, English-language, and verifiable, thus qualifying per Wikipedia rules. At the same time no one is removing the majority opinion of him being Persian. Yet Wikipedia rules of MPOV and NPOV are clear that all major points of view, major sources, should be included and reflected. Weiszman 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again Hephtalites today are not known as Turk by many but that is beyond the issue. Yes Gok-turks fought Sassanids over Balkh. And yes as you see the boundary of Turks extended beyond Balkh to Marv (more to the east). But it was beyond balh. And Marv is modern day turkomanestan. But this is not a discussion on Turks. So I'll end that here.

Back to avicenna. Your sources again are not sources that talk about Avicenna's biography! Unlike the sources I brought. They are old and lack any relevance to Avicenna's biography. They contradict modern encyclopedia's and sources and books. And they lack any primary evidence which is a key in Wikipedia. They are not biographical scholarly sources from historians of Islamic philosophy writing in recent time. Also Arabs did not choose Persian names. Sina and Sitarah are both Persian names. Arabs did not write in Persian like Avicenna did. And Wikipedia does require modern references specially when all the 2007 references (Iranica, Columbia, Encyclopedia of Islam , Britannica) and tons books as well as primary sources contradict two sources you have from 1952. Else instead of Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 which states Avicenna as a Persian, someone mistakenly could quote 1911 Britannica. Again by your own claim then, we should put Farabi as an Arab because some old sources have said Farabi as an Arab where-as no primary source has said so. Again your 1952 source which is non-biographical and not specialized to Avicenna contradict biographical sources that are specialized for Avicenna in Iranica, Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, Encyclopedia of Islam and also modern scholars of Islamic history. Also you do not have any primary sources. Thus in Wikipedia exceptional claims require strong sources.

And you should read this: If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too[15]. I believe that should be clear for any user. The term Arab is used generally for any muslim scientist regardless of ethnicity. This is also the case for Farabi. But all new encyclopedias do not follow this convention. Encyclopedia 1911 Britannica called avicenna an Arab but Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 does not. I think this change itself is sufficient reason. --alidoostzadeh 04:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this dispute listed on RFC. If Britannica 2007 calls him Persian then it means that there is a consensus behind it, hence that's what wikipedia should follow. If somehow it is proved that a major alternative view considers him Arab (which I doubt) then you can simply label him as a 'muslim' scholar on the lead and explain all viewpoints in a section within the body of the article. Miskin 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure you did - like other users before you. Since Britannica 2007 calls al-Farabi a Turk then it means that there is a consensus behind it, hence that's what Wikipedia should follow, disregarding the minority's opinion of him being Turkish? Is that right? Weiszman 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment.. And it is not only Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia. But even more scholarly Encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica. I believe that should settle it and there is no strong counter-claim from any modern academic source that is specialized towards Avicenna and his biography. Also note that to use the word Arab and Muslim interchangeably has been long practice in orientalist material. But this convention is slowly being done away with.--alidoostzadeh 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Weiszman, your views about primary vs secondary sources are wrong, there is a huge distinction between the two. You can't just call him an arab because people did so 1000 years ago, this is pretty self-explanatory. Why is he not called an Arab today? Did some sort of conspiracy take place? I highly doubt it, it's probably because the definition of an 'arab' has slightly changed since the middles ages, which is only normal. Miskin 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

welcome to discussion. Please consider familiarizing yourself with the discussion a little more beforehand though (and definitely before accusing someone of being "wrong"), as the references are not from 1000 years ago, but from four respectable sources in 1950s and 1960s. Although even if it were from 1000 years ago (which would make them primary sources), that should still be noted in Wikipedia per the rules, as long as undue weight it not given to that information. Similarly, Wikipedia does not prefer primary sources over secondary and tertiary, and neither does it require an author name, nor some other demands that have popped up unilaterally. Therefore as you can see my position is based on Wikipedia's rules and regulations, whilst what others' position is not. Weiszman 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about "primary sources", which does not mean people from 50 years ago. It means people contemporary to Avicenna who may have used the word "Arab" to mean muslim. Regardless, a source from the 50s and 60s is unarguably outdated compared to Britannica 2007. You should familiarise yourself with WP:CITE and/or WP:ATT, that way you won't have to wait for others to convince you that you're wrong about something as fundamental. Miskin 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

your comment about "primary sources" is in both cases misplaced. Afterwards when you familiarize yourself with WP:CITE and WP:ATT, you'll discover that there is simply no rules about "outdated" materials. Although my sources are barely 50 years old, to consider a source "outdated" one has to feature at least a 100+ year old reference. Britannica 2007 is basically not different from previous versions, as did not update its article, it has remained the same for some time now. Also, it calls Avicenna as Islamic (or Muslim) philosopher and scientist, not Persian. It only says that his city of birth, "Bukhara, Persia, now Iran". Weiszman 06:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I respond to the RfC.

I completely agree with Weiszman's interpretation of the policies and guidelines, and completely disagree with alidoostzadeh's and Mardavich's interpretations of the same.

However, while Weiszman's got the policies correct, his implementation of them in this case is not adequate; and while the other two editors got the policies upside down, their case is nonetheless strong.

Using primary sources is all but forbidden in Wikipedia. Trying to deduce a person's descent from his place of birth and his parents personal names is clear cut original research, and is forbidden in Wikipedia. Scholarly works published in the 60's are not prima facie outdated. Above all: Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about direct and explicit attributability to reliable secondary sources.

The point is, alidoostzadeh and Mardavich needn't have resorted to original research to make a strong case for their views. If, in fact, Avicenna's ancestry is described as Persian by several contemporary encyclopedias, as in fact i was able to ascertain in the case of the Columbia encyclopedia, and if no contemporary source can be procured which contradicts this claim, then for Wikipedia's purposes, he was of Persian ancestry.

Moreover, alidoostzadeh and Mardavich needn't have resorted to twisting Wikipedia's policies to discredit Weiszman's two quotes. These quotes do not explicitly state he was of Arab descent. They qualify him as an Arab scholar. This may reasonably mean a scholar writing in Arabic, who is strongly influenced by the Arabic scholarly tradition and who, in turn, made his mark on this tradition.

To sum up, it is my opinion that alidoostzadeh and Mardavich should read carefully the Attribution policy and they probably owe Weiszman an apology for their misguided assault on him. However the article should not state, neither explicitly nor implicitly, that Avicenna was of Arabic descent, unless an explicit claim to the contrary by a reliable secondary source can be produced. Itayb 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty familiar w/ the fact that Avicenna (ابن سينا) was not an Arab. However, i totally agree w/ Weiszman and Itayb (i.e. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about direct and explicit attributability to reliable secondary sources.) We assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.source

Now, in order for everyone to respect wikipedia policies and guidelines, i suggest the following formulation or an equivalent:

Ibn Sina (full name Abū ‘Alī al-Husayn ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sīnā al-Balkhī; Arabic, ابن سينا ; Also known as Avicenna, born 980, dead 1037) was a Persian (Tājīk),<refs> physician, philosopher, and a scientist...Though he is widely known as being a Persian, some scholars and other sources of the 20th century refer to him as being of Arab descent<refs>...

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually unlike what Weiszman suggests, Britannica 2007 clearly and explicitly says: ... Iranian physician, the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam. . [16] I am not sure why Weiszman without any sources states that Britannica says:Avicenna as Islamic (or Muslim) philosopher and scientist, not Persian. . This shows in my opinion a lack of sincerety. Everyone can see the above link and judge for themselves. And actually Arab scholar is different word than Arab descent. I have explained the position already of some western scholars. Please read this: If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too[17]. So this note is very important and what these scholar mean by Arab is not Arab descent but Arab in this sense described. So there is nothing about Arab descent. I think the above clarification and terminology needs to be taken into account. Britannica 2007, Columbia, Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam, ...etc. are all very up to date and modern sources and they do not mention any Arab descent. None of them also contradict each other as in the case of some other scholars. Wikipedia should be an up to date encyclopedia. --alidoostzadeh 11:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, please Assume Good Faith, and don't say "actually unlike what Weiszman suggests, Britannica 2007 clearly and explicitly says ... I am not sure why Weiszman without any sources states that Britannica says: "Avicenna as Islamic (or Muslim) philosopher and scientist, not Persian." This shows in my opinion a lack of sincerety. Everyone can see the above link and judge for themselves. Indeed, see this:

• Muslim scholar Avicenna (incidentally, it claims that the city of Bukhara is now in Iran, as opposed to Uzbekistan)
• Islamic philosopher and scientist (born in Bukhara, Iran)
• Islamic philosopher and scientist (born in Bukhara, Iran) (same thing)
• The eastern Muslim countries could boast of the first systematic writers in the field of philosophy, including al-Kindi (died c. 870), al-Farabi (died 950), and especially Avicenna (Ibn Sina, died 1037).

as you can see, none of the Britannica's articles call him Tajik, Persian, or Iranian, preferring instead Muslim or Islamic scholar. So it is not my "wild" suggestion, or "lack of sincerety". Weiszman 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FayssalF, your suggestion is unacceptable. Avicenna was not Arab, you know that, I know that, suggesting otherwise contradicts all scholarly sources. I have seen fringe sources that state Saddam and Arafat were homosexual, that doesn't mean I should republish those claims on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV clearly states "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views", and that's the case here. To call Avicenna an Arab is a fringe view not worthy of serious consideration and contrary to all rational and all the scholarly biographies and encyclopedias. --Mardavich 12:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I know that this comment will annoy Persians who expect I say that "Avicenna is Persian" (As I really believe) but I believe the problem is not his ethnicity. The problem is our(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) ethnocentrism. It's extremely foolish to debate about his ethnic origin instead of improving the article. I hate ethnocentric attitudes which result in ethnic tensions among us(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc). I beg you(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) to leave such debates and try to improve the articles, if not we(Persians, Arabs, Turks, etc) will never have numerous FA articles about our great scholars. Please pay attention to Rumi's poem:

I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin.

I am not from the kingdom of the two Iraqs. I am not from the land of the Khurasan. ... My place is placeless, my trace is traceless No body no soul, I am from the soul of souls..."

—Rumi

Please forgive me and continue your extremely important debate!!!--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sa.vakilian for your input. Much appreciated.

To Ali. Please remember that Britannica 2007 reference to him as an Iranian physician is erroneous. It should state Persian.

To Mardavich. You seem to miss the point. It is about a debatable fact. I know of course that Avicenna is not an Arab. Most Arabs know that. But if there exist a real debate at the scholarly level than we must note it here. If not we don't have to. So it is up to you both (yourselves and Weiszman) to figure out if there's such a scholarly debate or not. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Britannica 2007 reference to him as an Iranian physician is NOT erroneous. "Iranian" is sometimes synonymous with "Persian". Iran has always been called Iran internally, and Persians are an Iranian people, in the ethnic sense as well. --Mardavich 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

what Mardavich says is correct. Persia is only used by foreigners (western and sometimes Arab historian). The local people only called it Iran or Iranshahr. please also see Iran naming dispute--Pejman47 14:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Weiszman you don't have to be uncivil to everyone who doesn't share your opinion. It's as if you are trying to scare me off, though you're actually achieving the opposite. Weiszman said:

Afterwards when you familiarize yourself with WP:CITE and WP:ATT, you'll discover that there is simply no rules about "outdated" materials. Although my sources are barely 50 years old, to consider a source "outdated" one has to feature at least a 100+ year old reference.

WP:AFAQ says:

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject — Historical or out-of-date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject. If no newer sources are available, it is reasonable to caveat use of sources with an indication of the age of the source.

Concerning the "specialty" of a source, is adds:

Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another... These issues are particularly pertinent to Wikipedia where various editors involved in an article may have their own expertise or position with respect to the topic. Not all sources on a topic are equally reliable, and some sources will have differing degrees of reliability in different contexts.

Therefore I insist, you are the one who needs to familiarise himself with WP:POLICY. Miskin 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Miskin if you remember, you said "You should familiarise yourself with WP:CITE and/or WP:ATT, that way you won't have to wait for others to convince you that you're wrong about something as fundamental." Hence my reply that neither one of the abovecited policies govern the "outdated material". Weiszman 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History background

Also, note that Iran was not an independent state at the time of Avicenna (980–1037). To say he was born in "Bukhara, Iran" or "Bukhara, Persia", much less that supposedly no non-Iranian people lived there, would be simplistic. The region was under long Arab domination. Both of the following histories are from this site.

Samanid Dynasty was the first native dynasty to arise in Iran after the Muslim Arab conquest. The four grandsons of the dynasty's founder Saman-Khoda, had been rewarded with provinces for their faithful service to the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun: Nuh obtained Samarkand; Ahmad, Fergana; Yahya, Shash; and Elyas, Herat. Ahnad's son Nasr became governor of Transoxonia in 875, but it was his brother and successor, Isma'il I (892-907) who overthrew the Saffarids in Khorasan (900) and the Zaydites of Tabaristan, thus establishing a semiautonomous rule over Transoxonia and Khorasan with Bukhara as his capital. But from the mid-10th century, Samanid power was gradually undermined, economically by the interruption of the northern trade and politically by a struggle with a confederation of nobles. Weakened, the Samanids became vulnerable to pressure from rising Turkish powers in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Nuh II (976-997), to retain his nominal control, confirmed Sebuktigin, a former Turkish slave, as semi-independent ruler of Ghazna (Ghazni,Afg.) and appointed his son Mahmud governor of Khorasan. But turkish Qarakhanids, who then occupied the greater part of Transoxonia, allied with Mahmud and deposed the Samanid Mansur II, taking possession of Khorasan. Bukhara fell in 999 and the last Samanid Isma'il II, after a five-year struggle against Ghaznavid Mahmud and the Qarakhanids, was assassinated in 1005.

State of Samanids AD 819-999

Descended from a Sassanid general who established himself a ruler of Transoxania, the Samanid Dynasty in 960 AD found itself torn between two military families, one of which was headed by the Turkic general Alptigin, who had used his influence to conquer eastern territories and establish himself as a provincial governor at Ghazna (modern Ghazni in Afghanistan). When the Samanid Emir Abu ol-Hasan died in 961 AD and Alptigin's candidate was rejected by the court ministers, he retired from Khurasan (northeastern Iran) to Ghazna, where he ruled as a largely independent sovereign, thus starting the Ghaznavid list in 962 AD. Ghaznavids (962-1186 AD)

Weiszman 16:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes we all know he was born under Samanid dynasty who have called their state Iran many times as mentioned by Rudaki. Ghaznavids too. Geocities and fanticus sites are not really scholarly anyways. For example Samanids were established still in Bukhara their capital from (AD 819–999) (Britannica) and Ghaznavids came about from AD 977–1186. (Britannica). But no one has issue with saying Samanid Bukhara. The issue you raid about Avicenna being Arab is rejected by all modern relevant sources as well as all users. All modern source are clear he was Persian and there is no ambiguity in primary sources. He also explicitly says the only language he knows is Persian and Arabic and he also says that the reason Turks/Africans do not cultivate intellectualism is because of their harsh climate and thus they are there to serve the people of virtue. His mothers name and his last name are both Persian as well. Also it seems the RFC responses were clear that avicenna was not an Arab. So that should end that issue. --alidoostzadeh 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if he lived during a time that Iran was considered occupied it still doesn’t matter. Since ancient times, Iran has always been a completely recognized territory. Many other countries came and go through the history but Iran was always a country with more or less the same borders. In some part of the history Iran was occupied but it doesn’t mean the Iranian nationality didn’t exist in that period. (Arash the Archer 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

britannica articles on avicenna

It is amazing that user weiszman still claims Britannica only calls him a Muslim! I already brought the Britannica link from everyone directly from Britannica's site.[18].

Here is part of Britannica academic edition:

Arabic Ibn Sina, in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina Iranian physician, the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam. He was particularly noted for his contributions in the fields of Aristotelian philosophy and medicine. He composed the Kitab al-shifa' (“Book of Healing”), a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopaedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which is among the most famous books in the history of medicine.

Avicenna, an ethnic Persian who spent his whole life in the eastern and central regions of Iran, received his earliest education in Bukhara under the direction of his father. Since the house of his father was a meeting place for learned men, from his earliest childhood Avicenna was able to profit from the company of the outstanding masters of his day. A precocious child with an exceptional memory that he retained throughout his life, he had memorized the Qur'an and much Arabic poetry by the age of 10. Thereafter, he studied logic and metaphysics under teachers whom he soon outgrew and then spent the few years until he reached the age of 18 in his own self-education. He read avidly and mastered Islamic law, then medicine, and finally metaphysics. Particularly helpful in his intellectual development was his gaining access to the rich royal library of the Samanids—the first great native dynasty that arose in Iran after the Arab conquest—as the result of his successful cure of the Samanid prince Nuh ibn Mansur. By the time he was 21 he was accomplished in all branches of formal learning and had already gained a wide reputation as an outstanding physician. His services were also sought as an administrator, and for a while he even entered government service as a clerk.

But suddenly the whole pattern of his life changed. His father died; the Samanid house was defeated by Mahmud of Ghazna, the Turkish leader and legendary hero who established Ghaznavid rule in Khorasan (northeastern Iran and modern western Afghanistan); and Avicenna began a period of wandering and turmoil, which was to last to the end of his life with the exception of a few unusual intervals of tranquillity. Destiny had plunged Avicenna into one of the tumultuous periods of Iranian history, when new Turkish elements were replacing Iranian domination in Central Asia and local Iranian dynasties were trying to gain political independence from the 'Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad (in modern Iraq). But the power of concentration and the intellectual prowess of Avicenna was such that he was able to continue his intellectual work with remarkable consistency and continuity and was not at all influenced by the outward disturbances.

Avicenna wandered for a while in different cities of Khorasan and then left for the court of the Buyid princes, who were ruling over central Iran, first going to Rayy (near modern Tehran) and then to Qazvin, where as usual he made his livelihood as a physician. But in these cities also he found neither sufficient social and economic support nor the necessary peace and calm to continue his work. He went, therefore, to Hamadan in west-central Iran, where Shams al-Dawlah, another Buyid prince, was ruling. This journey marked the beginning of a new phase in Avicenna's life. He became court physician and enjoyed the favour of the ruler to the extent that twice he was appointed vizier. As was the order of the day, he also suffered political reactions and intrigues against him and was forced into hiding for some time; at one time he was even imprisoned.

Writings This was the period when he began his two most famous works. Kitab al-shifa' is probably the largest work of its kind ever written by one man. It treats of logic, the natural sciences, including psychology, the quadrivium (geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music), and metaphysics, but there is no real exposition of ethics or of politics. His thought in this work owes a great deal to Aristotle but also to other Greek influences and to Neoplatonism. His system rests on the conception of God as the necessary existent: in God alone essence, what he is, and existence, that he is, coincide. There is a gradual multiplication of beings through a timeless emanation from God as a result of his self-knowledge. The Canon of Medicine (Al-Qanun fi al-tibb) is the most famous single book in the history of medicine in both East and West. It is a systematic encyclopaedia based for the most part on the achievements of Greek physicians of the Roman imperial age and on other Arabic works and, to a lesser extent, on his own experience (his own clinical notes were lost during his journeys). Occupied during the day with his duties at court as both physician and administrator, Avicenna spent almost every night with his students composing these and other works and carrying out general philosophical and scientific discussions related to them. These sessions were often combined with musical performances and gaiety and lasted until late hours of the night. Even in hiding and in prison he continued to write. The great physical strength of Avicenna enabled him to carry out a program that would have been unimaginable for a person of a feebler constitution.

The last phase of Avicenna's life began with his move to Esfahan (about 250 miles south of Tehran). In 1022 Shams al-Dawlah died, and Avicenna, after a period of difficulty that included imprisonment, fled to Esfahan with a small entourage. In Esfahan, Avicenna was to spend the last 14 years of his life in relative peace. He was esteemed highly by 'Ala' al-Dawlah, the ruler, and his court. Here he finished the two major works he began in Hamadan and wrote most of his nearly 200 treatises; he also composed the first work on Aristotelian philosophy in the Persian language and the masterly summary of his Kitab al-shifa', called Kitab al-najat (Book of Salvation), written partly during the military campaigns in which he had to accompany 'Ala' al-Dawlah to the field of battle. During this time he composed his last major philosophical opus and the most “personal” testament of his thought, Kitab al-isharat wa al-tanbihat (Book of Directives and Remarks). In this work he described the mystic's spiritual journey from the beginnings of faith to the final stage of direct and uninterrupted vision of God. Also in Esfahan, when an authority on Arabic philology criticized him for his lack of mastery in the subject, he spent three years studying it and composed a vast work called Lisan al-'Arab (The Arabic Language), which remained in rough draft until his death. Accompanying 'Ala' al-Dawlah on a campaign, Avicenna fell ill and, despite his attempts to treat himself, died from colic and from exhaustion.

... "Avicenna." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 9 Apr. 2007 [19]

Note the difference with Britannica 1911. [20]. Also note Britannica 1911 uses the word Arabian not in an ethnic sense. AVICENNA [Abu 'Ali al-Husain ibn 'Abdallah ibn Sinai (980-1037), Arabian philosopher, was born at Afshena in the district of Bokhara. His mother was a native of the place; his father, a Persian from Balkh, filled the post of tax-collector in the neighbouring town of Harmaitin, under Nall II. ibn Mansur, the Samanid amir of Bokhara. .

At that time Arabian and Muslim were used interchangeably. Now it is note the case and most european literature have been updated. So this link clearly shows Arabian and Muslim were used interchangeably. He is called Arabian philosopher but ethnically he is Persian. Now we use the term Muslim philosopher as in 2007 Britannica. The user weiszman insisted many times that Farabi was a Turk but there is a lot of google book searches that states him as an Arab. Also In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors is not really a source dealing with Avicenna and Islamic philosophy and his biography and something from 1956 is out-dated and non-specialized and non-verifiable acadamecially. But I believe the explanation by Britannica 1911 and 2007 is sufficient to close this matter. And users should again read this: If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too[21]. Not that there existed any debates anyway since all users with the exception of one user agreed Avicenna was Persian. And the use of the term Arabian/Arab equivalent to Muslim is clearly noted in Britannica 1911 which has been rectified and corrected by Britannica 2007 academic edition. Mardavich has also noted: WP:NPOV clearly states "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". But I would go one step further that this is just mis-intrepreting the word Arab/Arabian and is not even a fringe view in the academic community (shoclars dealing with Islamic philosophy and history)--alidoostzadeh 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it's amazing that user alidoostzadeh ignores what 3 other articles from Britannica say:

• (980–1037). During the Middle Ages, few scholars contributed more to science and philosophy than the Muslim scholar Avicenna. By his writings he helped convey the thought of the Greek philosopher Aristotle to the thinkers of western Europe, and his ‘Canon of Medicine' became the definitive work in its field for centuries.

Born in Bukhara, Persia (now in Iran), in 980, he spent his childhood http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273035

• Arabic Ibn Sina in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina

born 980, Bukhara, Iran died 1037, Hamadan

Islamic philosopher and scientist.

He became physician to several sultans and also twice served as vizier. His Canon of Medicine was long a standard work in the field. He is known for his great encyclopaedia of philosophy, The Book of Healing. His other writings include The Book of Salvation and The Book of Directives and Remarks. His interpretations of Aristotle influenced European Scholasticism. His system rests on a conception of God as the necessary existent: only in God do essence (what God is) and existence (that God is) coincide. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9356223

• The eastern Muslim countries could boast of the first systematic writers in the field of philosophy, including al-Kindi (died c. 870), al-Farabi (died 950), and especially Avicenna (Ibn Sina, died 1037). Avicenna's work in philosophy, science, and medicine was outstanding and was appreciated as such in Europe.

http://open.britannica.com/women/article-13717 Weiszman 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On Ibn Sina's mother's (who was from Bukhara) possible Jewish origin

"Although he was to become one of the greatest of Moslem philosophers (as well as one of the greatest physicians of the Middle Ages), it has occasionally been speculated that Avicenna was at least partly of Jewish descent, through his maternal line. The Bokhara region of Persia from which he hailed had been home to a substantial Jewish community since time immemorial, and later in the tenth century there were converted to Islam thousands of Jews, as well as Nestor Christians and Zoroastrians [...]. The very name Avicenna is a Latinization not of the Arabic form of his name, Ibn Since, but of the Hebrew version, Aven Sina." Heynick, Frank. Jews and Medicine: AN EPIC SAGA, KTAV Publishing House, New Jersey, 2002, p. 92

"The occasional claim of a Jewish background for Avicenna,"Jewish Social Studies, Page 200, by Conference on Jewish Social Studies (U.S.), 1939, [22]

Old and new quotes on Ibn Sina being of Arab descent and an Arabic scientist

• "From AD 980 to AD 1037 a learned man of Arab descent lived in the Persian city of Hamadan." Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6 [23]

• Acta Geneticae Medicae Et Gemellologiae, International Society for Twin Studies, Società italiana di genetica medica, Permanent Committee for the International Congresses of Human Genetics, Istituto "Gregorio Mendel", 1952, p. 268

• "Ibn-Sina has been referred to as the Arab Galen." Philip Khuri Hitti. Makers of Arab History, 1968, p. 216

• "In him Arab science reached its climax."Eugene A. Myers. Arabic Thought and the Western World in the Golden Age of Islam. 1964, p. 33

• "AVICENNA Avicenna (979-1037) is admittedly by far the greatest of Moslem philosophers and a physician in whom Arab medicine reached its highest culmination. ..." Allahbukhsh Karimbukhsh Brohi, An Adventure in Self-expression, 1975, p. 385 [24]

• "Al-Qanun, a book written by Ibn Sina (Avecina), an " excellent physician and one of the greatest Arab scholars, was translated into Latin""

Wajih Ibrahim Saadeh. Arab Enlightenment and European Renaissance, 1985, p. 40. [25]

• "as expounded by the Arab scholar Ibn Sina and in his ..." Gerald Sykes, Aurobindo Ghose, Zvi Cahn. Sri Aurobindo on Social Sciences and Humanities for the New Age: An Anthology, 1962, p. 402. [26] Weiszman 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional reputable sources presenting him as Muslim (Islamic) or Arab scientist:

• Dr. Sajjad University of Bristol, University of Bristol, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• UNESCO's Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, vol. XXIII, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 53-69, and is © UNESCO

The Sheikh al-Ra'is Sharaf al-Mulk Abu 'Ali al-Husayn b. 'Abd Allah b. al-Hasan b. 'Ali Ibn Sina (known in Europe as Avicenna) was born in the village of Afshana in the vicinity of Bukhara (in what is now Uzbekistan), in 370 AH (980 AD) - the generally accepted date - of an Ismailian family concerned with intellectual sciences and philosophical inquiry, all of which had its effect upon the scientific career of Avicenna.

So Avicenna lived in the fourth century of the Islamic era, the most flourishing 'Abbasid period in respect of learning and knowledge, which stands in complete contrast to the political situation at that time.

• BMJ 2005;331:1486-1487 (24 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7531.1486 Weiszman 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what do you and your references mean by the term Arab. By looking at the Arab in Wikipedia it is obvious that even nowadays Arab doesn't have a single meaning so I can't imagine what it means to call Avicenna that lived 1000 years ago Arab. Anyway it doesn’t matter since Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph says that only Nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Nationality means the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. (Arash the Archer 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, who rides who, let's call him turkish, arabic or jew! Iran is an isolated country now, so Persian Gulf is Arabian Gulf, and all the scholars from Iranic race can be called Arabic, coz they don't have the power now. thanx.

Britannica says Persian and Muslim. By today's convention: Muslim is not an ethnicity and Persian is not a religion

It is amazing that the user Weiszman thinks that just because some Britanica articles have said Muslim scientists then he can ignore the other Britannica articles that have said ethnic Persian. I am not sure if he knows the difference between Islam (a religion) and Persian (language,ethnicity, culture). Also it is amazing he ignores the main article on Britannica where Ibn Sina is called both Muslim and Persian. I will have to recopy and paste this information again until the user understands that one can be a Persian and a Muslim. Muslim and Arabs have been used in the past interchangeably but that is not the case anymore. Muslim,Persian and Arab have been garbled by western scholars in the past but this terminology and convention is not followed by modern references. (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007 as opposed to 1911). I even brought a source where the author categorizes Persians, Berbers, Copts and other non-Arabs as Arabs. The Jewish link with avicenna's mother is not mentioned in any authoritative source either.

He should read this first Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. But furthermore his argument has no weight as the orientalist term Arab, Arabian and etc. as described before and will be described more clearly here did not denote ethnicity with regards to Avicenna but they had to do with one of the languages he used and the fact that he was Muslim. I will quote:(wikipedia policy)

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it

is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. (end wikipedia policy)

And also: (wikipedia policy)

Note that the reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. (wikipedia policy)

So far it has been show that no one holds such a view in light of the term Arab being used as a non-ethnic term. It has been used as a cultural term and religious term by old sources. Also a book needs to be relavent to the context and topic. That is what my sources are. I have shown it has been used as a term to encompass Persians, Copts, Berbers and non-Arabic people in the West. Thus the one source which is not even within context and is from more than 50 years ago mentionsArabic descent from Persia (land) where-as Persia was known as geographic area, Persian has been grouped as Arab by old sources (see 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica again). The jewish mother viewpoint which is a speculation by two jewish sources (and even they don't agree with) also is just a speculation as they mention (and one of them mentions Persian father but we do not rely on non-academic sources) and so it is not a viewpoint at all and is not relevant to the context. Scholarly facts are above speculations. And finally prominent adherents should be from scholars of Islamic philosophy working in the field (or a primary classic source) and not general authors and non-experts.

Also It is amazing that user weiszman still claims Britannica only calls him a Muslim! I already brought the Britannica link from everyone directly from Britannica's site.[27].

Here is part of Britannica academic edition:

Arabic Ibn Sina, in full Abu 'Ali al-Husayn ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Sina Iranian physician, the most famous and influential of the philosopher-scientists of Islam. He was particularly noted for his contributions in the fields of Aristotelian philosophy and medicine. He composed the Kitab al-shifa' (“Book of Healing”), a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopaedia, and The Canon of Medicine, which is among the most famous books in the history of medicine.

Avicenna, an ethnic Persian who spent his whole life in the eastern and central regions of Iran, received his earliest education in Bukhara under the direction of his father. Since the house of his father was a meeting place for learned men, from his earliest childhood Avicenna was able to profit from the company of the outstanding masters of his day. A precocious child with an exceptional memory that he retained throughout his life, he had memorized the Qur'an and much Arabic poetry by the age of 10. Thereafter, he studied logic and metaphysics under teachers whom he soon outgrew and then spent the few years until he reached the age of 18 in his own self-education. He read avidly and mastered Islamic law, then medicine, and finally metaphysics. Particularly helpful in his intellectual development was his gaining access to the rich royal library of the Samanids—the first great native dynasty that arose in Iran after the Arab conquest—as the result of his successful cure of the Samanid prince Nuh ibn Mansur. By the time he was 21 he was accomplished in all branches of formal learning and had already gained a wide reputation as an outstanding physician. His services were also sought as an administrator, and for a while he even entered government service as a clerk.

But suddenly the whole pattern of his life changed. His father died; the Samanid house was defeated by Mahmud of Ghazna, the Turkish leader and legendary hero who established Ghaznavid rule in Khorasan (northeastern Iran and modern western Afghanistan); and Avicenna began a period of wandering and turmoil, which was to last to the end of his life with the exception of a few unusual intervals of tranquillity. Destiny had plunged Avicenna into one of the tumultuous periods of Iranian history, when new Turkish elements were replacing Iranian domination in Central Asia and local Iranian dynasties were trying to gain political independence from the 'Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad (in modern Iraq). But the power of concentration and the intellectual prowess of Avicenna was such that he was able to continue his intellectual work with remarkable consistency and continuity and was not at all influenced by the outward disturbances.

Avicenna wandered for a while in different cities of Khorasan and then left for the court of the Buyid princes, who were ruling over central Iran, first going to Rayy (near modern Tehran) and then to Qazvin, where as usual he made his livelihood as a physician. But in these cities also he found neither sufficient social and economic support nor the necessary peace and calm to continue his work. He went, therefore, to Hamadan in west-central Iran, where Shams al-Dawlah, another Buyid prince, was ruling. This journey marked the beginning of a new phase in Avicenna's life. He became court physician and enjoyed the favour of the ruler to the extent that twice he was appointed vizier. As was the order of the day, he also suffered political reactions and intrigues against him and was forced into hiding for some time; at one time he was even imprisoned.

Writings This was the period when he began his two most famous works. Kitab al-shifa' is probably the largest work of its kind ever written by one man. It treats of logic, the natural sciences, including psychology, the quadrivium (geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music), and metaphysics, but there is no real exposition of ethics or of politics. His thought in this work owes a great deal to Aristotle but also to other Greek influences and to Neoplatonism. His system rests on the conception of God as the necessary existent: in God alone essence, what he is, and existence, that he is, coincide. There is a gradual multiplication of beings through a timeless emanation from God as a result of his self-knowledge. The Canon of Medicine (Al-Qanun fi al-tibb) is the most famous single book in the history of medicine in both East and West. It is a systematic encyclopaedia based for the most part on the achievements of Greek physicians of the Roman imperial age and on other Arabic works and, to a lesser extent, on his own experience (his own clinical notes were lost during his journeys). Occupied during the day with his duties at court as both physician and administrator, Avicenna spent almost every night with his students composing these and other works and carrying out general philosophical and scientific discussions related to them. These sessions were often combined with musical performances and gaiety and lasted until late hours of the night. Even in hiding and in prison he continued to write. The great physical strength of Avicenna enabled him to carry out a program that would have been unimaginable for a person of a feebler constitution.

The last phase of Avicenna's life began with his move to Esfahan (about 250 miles south of Tehran). In 1022 Shams al-Dawlah died, and Avicenna, after a period of difficulty that included imprisonment, fled to Esfahan with a small entourage. In Esfahan, Avicenna was to spend the last 14 years of his life in relative peace. He was esteemed highly by 'Ala' al-Dawlah, the ruler, and his court. Here he finished the two major works he began in Hamadan and wrote most of his nearly 200 treatises; he also composed the first work on Aristotelian philosophy in the Persian language and the masterly summary of his Kitab al-shifa', called Kitab al-najat (Book of Salvation), written partly during the military campaigns in which he had to accompany 'Ala' al-Dawlah to the field of battle. During this time he composed his last major philosophical opus and the most “personal” testament of his thought, Kitab al-isharat wa al-tanbihat (Book of Directives and Remarks). In this work he described the mystic's spiritual journey from the beginnings of faith to the final stage of direct and uninterrupted vision of God. Also in Esfahan, when an authority on Arabic philology criticized him for his lack of mastery in the subject, he spent three years studying it and composed a vast work called Lisan al-'Arab (The Arabic Language), which remained in rough draft until his death. Accompanying 'Ala' al-Dawlah on a campaign, Avicenna fell ill and, despite his attempts to treat himself, died from colic and from exhaustion.

... "Avicenna." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 9 Apr. 2007 [28]

Note the difference with Britannica 1911. [29]. Also note Britannica 1911 uses the word Arabian not in an ethnic sense. AVICENNA [Abu 'Ali al-Husain ibn 'Abdallah ibn Sinai (980-1037), Arabian philosopher, was born at Afshena in the district of Bokhara. His mother was a native of the place; his father, a Persian from Balkh, filled the post of tax-collector in the neighbouring town of Harmaitin, under Nall II. ibn Mansur, the Samanid amir of Bokhara. .

At that time Arabian and Muslim were used interchangeably. Now it is note the case and most european literature have been updated. So this link clearly shows Arabian and Muslim were used interchangeably. He is called Arabian philosopher but ethnically he is Persian. Now we use the term Muslim philosopher as in 2007 Britannica. The user weiszman insisted many times that Farabi was a Turk but there is a lot of google book searches that states him as an Arab. Also In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors is not really a source dealing with Avicenna and Islamic philosophy and his biography and something from 1956 is out-dated and non-specialized and non-verifiable acadamecially. But I believe the explanation by Britannica 1911 and 2007 is sufficient to close this matter. And users should again read this: If we speak of Arabs in this Chapter we include all those that belong to the civilization of Islam which means syrians, Persians, copts, Berbers and others too[30]. Not that there existed any debates anyway since all users with the exception of one user agreed Avicenna was Persian. And the use of the term Arabian/Arab equivalent to Muslim is clearly noted in Britannica 1911 which has been rectified and corrected by Britannica 2007 academic edition. Mardavich has also noted: WP:NPOV clearly states "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views". But I would go one step further that this is just mis-intrepreting the word Arab/Arabian and is not even a fringe view in the academic community (shoclars dealing with Islamic philosophy and history)

No one is ignoring the sources that call him Muslim! His Islamic religion was never disputed by anyone. Only his ethnicity is disputed by one user!

So Britannica is clear. He is a Persian and Muslim Being one does not contradict the other. Yet the user is saying since he is Muslim he is not Persian.

Now I have examined the term Arab above and it does not denote ethnicity.

This is the sense the word Arab is being used for Avicenna.

Now before I give dozens of sources (anyone can be a google scholar) let me examine the sources of this person: He writes:

"From AD 980 to AD 1037 a learned man of Arab descent lived in the Persian city of Hamadan." Herbert Wendt. In Search of Adam: The Story of Man's Quest for the Truth about His Earliest Ancestors. Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, p. 6

Note the source is not by a scholar. It is from 1956. It is not a source related to islamic philosophy. And it could as well use Arab in the sense of Britannica 1911. Britannica 1911 is a key.

"Ibn-Sina has been referred to as the Arab Galen." Philip Khuri Hitti. Makers of Arab History, 1968, p. 216

Yes by Europeans like Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. Note the author of the above source himself is an Arab. He also has called Ibn Sina Persian here:[31].

"In him Arab science reached its climax."Eugene A. Myers. Arabic Thought and the Western World in the Golden Age of Islam. 1964, p. 33’’

This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Arab science and Islamic science were used equivalently. Note science does not have an ethnicity. When europeans say Arab science they mean the science of Islamic golden age. Thus scientists who participated in such endevour were labeled as ‘’Arab’’ scientist irregardless of their ethnicity. See above and the rest below.

’’Al-Qanun, a book written by Ibn Sina (Avecina), an " excellent physician and one of the greatest Arab scholars, was translated into Latin"" Wajih Ibrahim Saadeh. Arab Enlightenment and European Renaissance, 1985, p. 40’’

The source is written by an Arab scholar but has no reference to ethnicity!! Arab scholar mean language. The user needs to read this Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight and find out why all modern Ecncylopedias do not claim an Arab ethnicity for Avicenna. Also I have explained the ambiguous use of Arab as above.

Anyone can go in google books and do a search. It’s amazing the user just chooses couple of sources who have used the term Arab as equivalent to Muslim . Or his sources are not even from scholars of the field of Islamic studies.

Here are some great scholars with sources pertaining to the issue. All these books pertain to the issue of Islamic philosophy. They are relevant sources in the specialized field of Islamic philosophy. They are specialized and geared to the topic. They are not random books! They are actual biographies of the great Persian scientist Avicenna. Thus they are extremely strong sources and not some 1952 source about Adam and Eve.

0)

The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy By Arthur Stephen Macgrade (pg 98) [32]

Scholars have sometimes preferred to Speak of ‘’Arabic philosophy’’ to avoid suggesting that there is an ‘’Islamic’’ way of Philosophizing…..we need to recognize that not all philosophical texts were written in Arabic, since Avicenna, amongst others, penned some important treatise in Persian. Beside the word Arabic may be construed as referring not only to the language used by the philosophers but also to their ethnic background and with the exception of al-Kindi and Averros, few philosophers were Arabs. Avicenna and Al-Ghazali, for example, were Persian’’

1)

…Ibn Sina’s only major work of philosophy written in his native PERSIAN Avicenna By Lenn Evan Goodman[33](pg 37)

This book is a biography of the man and not some random source from 1952. It is a biography written about Avicenna. Note the title: Avicenna, Lenn E. Goodman, Arabic thought and culture. But Avicenna is a Persian, but the term Arab was used in synonom with Islam.ic thought and culture.

2) [34] The Islamic Middle East: Tradition and Change By Charles Lindholm ‘’Iranian Platonic philosopher’’(pg 277)

3)

Persian Grammar: History and State of Its Study By Gernot L. Windfuhr [35] The first known discussion of Persian is by the famous philosopher Avicenna

Now I ask. How many Arabs had a Persian name (Sina) and their mothers’s name was Setareh and have written in Persian and lived their whole life under Persian kings? There is no such example.

4) Professor George Saliba of Columbia university clearly considers him a Persian in an article that is pertinent to Islamic science. George Saliba also uses the term ‘’Arab astronomy’’ [36]

5)

The ISAT Social Science Coach: Grade 7 By Vivienne Hodges ‘’ Ibn-Sina (980—1037) Also known as Avicenna. Persian physician and philosopher. Wrote work that was standard medical text until 1500.’’[37]

6)

Goodnow's History of Nursing - Page 95 by Minnie Goodnow – 1963 ‘’Avicenna, a Persian, was one of the great scholars of the Arabic world.’’ [38]

Note Avicenna never lived in an Arab speaking country. Thus again we see how the term Arab is being loosely.

7) Medieval Islamic Economic Thought: Filling the Great Gap in European Economics By Shaikh M. Ghazanfar ‘’Avicenna, Suhrawardi(both Persian)’’ pg 115 [39]

8) For Court, Manor, and Church: education in medieval Europe - Page 154 by Barnes, Donna R. - 1971 - 214 pages ‘’ Next to Rhazes is the Persian-Muslim physician ibn Sina, or Avicenna’’ [40]

9)

Islam: An Historical Introduction By Gerhard Endress pg 136 [41] ‘’

10)

Virginia SOL Coach: World History and Geography: to 1500 A.D. By Vivienne Hodges pg 134 ‘’ Also known as Avicenna. Persian physician and philosopher’’ [42]

11) The Texture of the Divine: imagination in medieval Islamic and Jewish thought By Aaron W. Hughes ‘’ It was for this reason that Corbin was so interested in Persian thinkers such as Avicenna and Suhrawardi: they were the phenomena by which he could return’’ Pg 240

12)

‘’ The Review of Religion By Raymond Collyer Knox, Horace Leland Friess ‘’[43]

‘’Avicenna's life and its background of Persian and Mohammedan culture’’(pg 106)

13)

Science Encyclopedia By Jenni Rainford (pg 224) ‘’ In the 11th century, Persian doctor Avicenna wrote the Canon ofmedicine, a medical textbook used across the Arab Empire for centuries’’(pg 224) [44]

14)

‘’ The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton - Page 95 by Stanton J. Linden - 2003 - 286 pages’’(pg 95) [45] ‘’ the Persian-born Avicenna (“Prince of Physicians,” “Aristotle of the Arabians”)’’

15)

One Thousand Roads to Mecca: Ten Centuries of Writing about the Pilgrimage to Mecca By Michael Wolfe(pg 15) ‘’ *Avicenna: Western name of Ibn Sina (980—1037), renowned Persian philosopher and physician.’’[46]

16)

The Development of Metaphysics in Persia: A Contribution to the History of Muslim Philosophy - Page 38 by Muhammad Iqbal - 1908 - 195 pages

‘’ Among the early Persian Philosophers, Avicenna alone attempted to construct his own system of thought.’’(pg 38) [47]

17) The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy By Jonathan Rée, J O Urmson, Inc NetLibrary (pg 41) [48] ‘’Avicenna (980-1037) Persian physician (the name is Latinized from Ibn Sina)’’

18)

Kcct Soc Studies Gr 8 (pg 200)

‘’Ibn-Sina (980—1037) Also known as Avicenna. Persian physician and philosopher. Wrote work that was standard medical text until 1500’’[49]

19)

Musics of Many Cultures: an introduction By Elizabeth May (pg 270) ‘’ Of the great music theorists, two were Persian: Ibn Sina (Avicenna, 980- Iran 1037), and Safi al-Din (d. 1294).’’ [50]

20)

‘’As elsewhere in the Muslim world, in medieval Persia Arabic was the lingua franca. Almost all Persian writes and scholars were bilingual, and an extraordinary number of scientists and philosophers continued to write entirely or primary in Arabic. In addition to the historian Tabari and physicial and philosopher Avicenna, three of the greatest Islamic theologians…This fluidity enabled medieval Persian scientists’’(Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies By Mona Baker, pg 516)[ http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415093805&id=ewBfSBo8rRsC&pg=RA1-PA516&lpg=RA1-PA516&dq=avicenna+persian&sig=Wb9nqOG97GmbXnFm16daCcZkdQc]

21) Library: An Unquiet History - Page 65 by Battles, Matthews - 2003 - 245 pages

‘’ The library of the Persian court was one such house of riches, as the Iranian 

philosopher and physician Avicenna (980—1037) testifies’’ [51]

22)

Islamic Art and Architecture, 650-1250 By Richard Ettinghausen, Oleg Grabar(pg 134) ‘’ the great Persian scientists and poets Ibn Sina (Avicenna)’’[52]

23)

Encyclopedias Britannica 2007 : Avicenna, an ethnic Persian who spent his whole life in the eastern and central regions of Iran (citation given above) Encyclopedia Britannica 1911: AVICENNA [Abu 'Ali al-Husain ibn 'Abdallah ibn Sinai (980-1037), Arabian philosopher, was born at Afshena in the district of Bokhara. His mother was a native of the place; his father, a Persian from Balkh, filled the post of tax-collector in the neighbouring town of Harmaitin, under Nall II. ibn Mansur, the Samanid amir of Bokhara. . (citation given above)

Columbia Encyclopedia: [53]Islamic philosopher and physician, of Persian origin, b. near Bukhara

Encyclopedia of Islam: His native language was Persian.(Encyclopedia of Islam: © 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Encyclopedia Iranica: That he should have written poems in Persian, his native and everyday language, is probable, but can not be proved. (Avicenna in Encyclopedia Iranica)

Encyclopedia Encarta: Avicenna (Arabic, Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abd Allah ibn Sina) (980-1037), Iranian Islamic philosopher and physician, born near Bukhara ...[54].

Encyclopedia of Religion: his native languate was Farsi(Persian), but the language of his education was Arabic (Avicenna in Encyclopedia of Religion,MacMillan Reference Books; 2nd edition (January 30, 2005)).

All the above Encyclopedia's (with the exception of 1911 Britannica which also clearly says Persian) are clear and also relevant to the context of the discussion. Wikipedia requires sources to be relevant to the context of the discussion.

Note many of the sources above describe exactly why Avicenna, an ethnic Persian has been called ‘’Arabian’’ because ‘’Arabian’’ and ‘’Islamic’’ were used equivalently in early 20th century scholarship.

Check the Encyclopedia 1911 Britannica (posted above).. Arabian was used for Islamic where Persian is used for ethnicity.

Note the user still denies that Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 and 2007 call him Persian and his response is that: ‘’they use Muslim’’! Actually they use both. It is clear for me that the user is not here to discuss Avicenna or else he would not ignore Britannica and all these primary sources relevant to Avicenna. And many of the above sources are specialized dealing with either Avicenna (one book is about him) or Islamic philosophy. I think if anyone reads the above, everything will be clear to them. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments. Encyclopedia 1911 Britannica has shown this clearly that he was of Persian ethnicity but yet the encyclopedia going with once normal convention which is increasingly in disuse also calls him an Arabian scientists not due to ethnicity but the fact that Arabian was used as Islamic. Thankfully everyone except one user agreed with the RFC results. So the term Arabian in few sources (mainly out-dated) as shown above is not about his ethnicity. --alidoostzadeh 00:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one more:

'Another great Arab physician of the ninth century was Rhazes, a Persian by birth[55] (Collier's Encyclopedia: With Bibliography and Index By William Darrach Halsey, Emanuel Friedman, pg 646). Thus I have shown the term Arab is used for Berbers, copts, Persians and also Muslims. This was a convention in west. Where-as none of the authoritative sources have ever claimed Avicenna to be an ethnic Arab. Culturally he contributed to Persian and Arabic languages. I think the issue is resolved and had there been any debate about his background, some modern Encyclopedia and sources like Britannica, Iranica, Encarta, Islam, Columbia would have mentioned it where-as they don't and these are sources relevant to the context. Note I brought 6 modern encyclopedias (besides I can dig up many more random books but random books might not be relevant to the context) and none of them have a shred of doubt. I can of course insert these numerous sources in the article, but I don't like to clutter an article with this.--alidoostzadeh 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The way I see everyone admits that he was a Persian, older sources used "Arab" in respect to the culture he contributed. Compare to how El Greco is sometimes coined a "Spanish" painter. Miskin 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is a good example. That is why further research and sources were brought. All modern Encyclopedias from the last 10 years:Iranica, Britannica, Encyclopedia of Islam, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta say he is Persian. These are sources relevant to the context per wiki rules. The term Arab is used by some writers (mainly old writers) to describe Persians,Berbers,Copts, anyone speaking Arabic, muslims, any near-easterner and etc. Any how a according to Wikipedia a source needs to be within a context and a good source in this regard was an actual biography about Avicenna and it does not have multiple viewpoints or any ambiguities. Also Ibn Sina contributed to Persian culture since he has important works in this language as well. --alidoostzadeh 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disbeliever

I added the section "accusation of disbelief". I can sense that it may be controversial, if you wish to discuss it (with me, personally), please use my talk page and not the annonymus IP address page as I forgot to log in. {Truth 06 05:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)}

A Question Concerning Text

The following passage seems to be missing a transition:

At first, Ibn Sina entered into the service of a high-born lady; but the emir, hearing of his arrival, called him in as medical attendant, and sent him back with presents to his dwelling. Ibn Sina was even raised to the office of vizier. The emir consented that he should be banished from the country.

The sentence ending "to the office of vizier" seems to be expressing the emir's pleasure with Ibn Sina, yet the sentence immediately following says the emir consented to his exile.

First, who asked for his exile and why? Second, why would the emir consent to his exile if the last sentence is speaking of raising him to the office of vizier? It is as if I wrote "Jane was in love and married John. So she decided to murder him." It is obvious that something has been removed from this passage.

Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge to fill this lacuna, nor do I have the time to dig through prior revisions and find out what was removed and why. So I hope someone with more knowledge will look at this passage and fill in the omitted material.

128.164.107.176 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

h

Should I add Poor Sina as his name too? I've only seen it used once. Alireza Hashemi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4