Talk:Al-Farabi

farab,- town/area in kurdistan

According to Dr. A. Ravitsky at Hebrew University. Im just geeving his words, not concluding anything.

Sogdian or Turkish ?what?

Sogdian is an Iranian language not turkish !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.49.233 (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He was a turkic philosoph.it is fact Turano'g'lu (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

He was an Iranic philosopher, Farab is a Persian word, and Arab historians who studied his works confirmed that he was born to Persian parents. turk nationalists seem like they want to claim every scientist under the sun as "turkic", maybe because you have none of your own :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5AC0:61:88F7:53D3:E734:C54A (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Turks spoke Persian at that time, though, since most (educated) people in that region were at least tri-lingual. In contemporary scholarship, classification of ethnicity is largely based on location, thus "Turks" cannot be classified as such. Because of that, there is a gap, when it comes to Turkic/Turkish writers/scientists.

This however, doesn't say anything about his heritage. Turks and Persians are hard to distinguish at that period anyways. It would be great, to adress this issue and make corections accordingly, instead of having a cultural war over pseudo-national identities, however I do not have time for this. If someone else is interested in that however, I recommand them to look into the construction of "nationality" at the time of al-Farabi. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"To use Maimonides’ words, if Aristotle is the First Master the second one is undoubtedly Farabi"

This comment isn't sourced. I have been unable to find any reliable source for this in any of Maimonides' writings. He does write very complimentary things about Al Farabi. But not this.

For example he writes "ובכלל אומר לך, לא תתעסק בספרי מלאכת ההיגיון אלא במה שחיבר החכם אבונצ"ר אלפראכ"י לבדו, כי כל מה שחיבר בכלל, ובפרט ספר ההתחלות הנמצאות שלו, הכל סולת נקיה, ויתכן שיבין וישכיל האדם מדבריו, לפי שהוא היה מופלג בחכמה"

But nothing I could find which supports the above statement that Maimonides called al-Farabi the 2nd master.

Unfortunately this statement seems to have been copied in many other web pages, whether they copied it from here or here is copied from there, this is not the way to do things!

Please either provide a source or remove this statement, thanks

Boiledspaghetti (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

origin of Farabi

He was originally Persian, from the golden age of Islam. He was born from Persian parents and his place of birth is currently in Kazakhstan. He lived in so many cities. There is no evidence of him being Turkish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.233.2.105 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias in Origin Theory

Greetings, @Qahramani44:. The sections about origin theory entail some biases against the Turkic origin. While the Persian section mentions a lot of sources which call him a Persian, the section lacks any theory. It implies the arguement, he spoke Persian and also what no English was found. This is all great and valid, but it is written in a way as it tries to oppose the Turkic origin specifically. On the other hand, the Turkic section downplays the arguements within the source. For example, the source given ("C. Edmund Bosworth (15 May 2017). The Turks in the Early Islamic World. Taylor & Francis. p. 381. ISBN 978-1-351-88087-9.) is only cited for the claim that ""great figures [such] as al-Farabi, al-Biruni, and ibn Sina have been attached by over enthusiastic Turkish scholars to their race", but does not mention any arguement. The arguement within the source states that "Turcologist would be disappointed" because we will not found any traces of Turkic legacy. And yes, this is a valid arguement and should be mentioned in the article. But the context is not given. Instead quotes are invoked which simply state "he was not a Turk" and given some authorities. Especially, most often is Dimitri from the Encydlopedia Iranica cited. And yes, the lack of Turkish language is a valid one. However, the opposing views, for example the ones I added (also within the same source), stating that Turks already lived there and had no such nomadic life. As a Turkologist student myself, I know that a lack of Turkish language is not sufficent to conclude someone was not a Turk. Especially within the Persian culture, since Turks already mingled with Persians back when. Note, this is also supported by the sources. My edit summary was just to give context, I have not brought anything new (as some user asserted). However, the sections are written a if the Turkic origin was just some sort if "fringe" theory, that is not the case. Therefore I woul like to make some rewrites. Especially giving a context for the Persian theory, which just uses as much sources as possible and quotes from scholars to support their claim, but does not provide any actual theory. Furthermore, after checking the encyclopedia of Iranica, I would even object the statement about "many sources also consider him a Persian": "The sources from the 6th/12th century and later consist essentially of three biographical entries, all other extant reports on Fārābī being either dependent on them or even later fabrications: (1) the Syrian tradition or collection of biographical narratives on Fārābī represented by the entry by Ebn Abī Oṣaybeʿa (II, pp. 134-40), and to a lesser extent by Ebn al-Qefṭī (pp. 277-80); (2) the pro-Turkish tradition, compiled and composed as a continuous narrative by Ebn Ḵallekān with the purpose of documenting a Turkish ethnic origin for Fārābī (ed. ʿAbbās, V, pp. 153-57; tr. de Slane, III, pp. 307-11); and (c) the scanty and legendary Eastern tradition, represented by Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Bayhaqī (pp. 16-20, no. 17)." So basically, there are three traditions? Why stateing something about quantitiy in that case? But at last, the author is clearly against a Turkic origin for Farabi. This is fine and Dimitris interpretations are valid arguements, but yet, the sections are writte as if Dimitri's position is a matter of fact and as if there is a consens. For example, here you find a source preferring the Turkish-origin: "Z. B. Fakhry 2004, 111; Schupp 2005, xi; Black 1996, 178; Watt 1967, 115; Farmer 1952; Netton 1992, 5; Shlomo Pines: Philosophy. In: P. M. Holt et al. (Hrsg.): The Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 2B, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970, S. 780–823, hier S. 794:„...a descendant of a Central Asian Turkish family“; Henri Laoust: Les schismes dans l’Islam, Paris 1965, S. 158: „...né dans le Turkestan, à Fārāb, et sans doute d’origine turque, bien que l’iranisme le revendique aussi". "Al-Farabi and His School von Ian Richard Netton" Also speaks of Farabi as a son of a family of Turkish soldiers. I do not know what he is and do not claim to know, but many arguements provided to support a "clear proof for Persian origin" are not as clear as the article suggests or Dimitri claims to be. Especially considring he could be a descendant of Ghaznavids.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your wall of text doesn't make any point besides the fact that you think he's a turk. Your WP:OR theorizing is completely baseless, not least because of the fact that you're not a historian and have no credentials to speculate on Farabi's origin. For "actual theory" see the countless sources in the Iranian-origin section which state the evidence and theory behind Biruni/the inhabitants of Farab being Iranic. There isn't much reason to remove the section by Dimitri Gutas, especially since he's pointing out the inconsistencies in the medieval Arabic manuscripts. --Qahramani44 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

user:VenusFeuerFalle has legitimate points.The sources for Al Farabi being Persian are more generalizations by Westerners who used the term very different from how modern Iranians view the term Persian. There should be some indication here (and on Wikipedia overall) of this. The majority of historians indicate he was of Turkic ethnicity who spoke Farsi due to it being the dominant language in the region. Fareediaz (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

By "majority of historians" you mean turkic ethnicists who also claim other historical figures (Ibn Sina, Khwarazmi, etc.) as turks despite zero evidence for the latter either. There is no such thing as "Turkic ethnicity who spoke Farsi", that's just a cheap way to claim a figure from another ethnic group. If there's verified evidence his mother tongue was Persian/Sogdian and no evidence that it was turkish, then it's quite obvious that the Iranian claim is more reputable.

The trustworthiness of Western (and other third-party) sources is that they are not blinded by ethnic bias and have no favoritism to either side, which is more than can be said for any turkish historian. The current article describes sources for both sides well enough. --Qahramani44 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In short, there is only a theory about that his Turkic origin is faricated by Turk-Muslim enthusiasts without much more qualification than he is a Persian. But much of the text suggests that he is a Persian and theories regarding hi Turkic origin are fake. However, this is hardly the consens among the different scholars. Therefore I suggest rewriting part of the text and focus at least on the Turkic origin section in "Turkic legacy" and not just repeat the "Fabricated Turkic origin-Theory" by the other scholar who became the main focus within the article, unfortunetaly.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dispute

@2A01:C23:899B:0:797D:93C8:EE5:BAFF: Please take your concerns here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Problematic use of language

The article, especially the lede, is rife with language that is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. To wit: "He was an impeccable early Islamic philosopher..." and "...His impact on philosophy is undeniable..." (emphases added) Subjective adjectives like these are frowned upon by all relevant style manuals, for use in encyclopedia. I'll give fair warning to anyone who might be willing to clean up the language here, and if no one else steps-up to do it after a month or so, I'll undertake it myself. Bricology (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I can (sort-of) see the issue with the first instance, but the second example of "bias" isn't problematic at all and it most definitely isn't subjective. Al Farabi objectively had an undeniable impact on philosophy in the Islamic world and, by extension, the scholastic school in the Latin West. I don't see the issue here. If it continues to be a problem I think you can submit a request to have a mod look at it. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:9A1B (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Farabi and Kara-Khanid Khanate

Neither Nasr & Aminrazavi nor Durant, pp. 253-254, say nothing about Kara-Khanid Khanate, and Farabi died almost half a century before they came to power → Michal Biran (2012). "Ilak-Khanids." Encyclopædia Iranica; C.E. Bosworth (1954–2007). "Ilek-K̲h̲āns or Ḳarak̲h̲ānids." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Fari Dark (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

He's of Iranic stock from Faryab, Afghanistan.

End of the debate, Turanists and pan-Turkicist take their claim from a Kurd claiming to be a Barmakid how ironic. From Farabi's own work there's no traces of any Turkic influence. Also Abbasid Caliphate barely reached if not at all Kazakhstan. Transoxiana barely included or did not even include Kazakhstan too. Outside of Ahmad Yasawi a 11th century Turkic poet Kazakhstan got no legitimate claim.

He had Shia influence which was non existent during 9th century Kazakhstan, but not for the 9th century Greater Khorosan. Kazakhstan also never had any known scholar before the 19th century, how can they have only one from the 10th century ?

This is unfair for Faryab province of Afghanistan and an insult to logic.

2A02:8428:809E:6701:F0D7:5A73:115E:BA24 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Image captions?

Why does the caption for the image of the Iranian stamp feel the need to stress that this is al-Farabi's "imagined face", while the caption under the equally imaginary picture in the Kazakh banknote remains silent, and the medieval European woodcut only admits in a you-have-to-go-looking-for-it pop-up that that artist didn't even bother imagining al-Farabi and just recycled the same picture used for other people? And why is it the medieval European woodcut — probably the least accurate of the three — the one chosen to be the portrait of this guy? 2604:3D09:A984:A600:9489:A8E8:7BC4:92AC (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)