Jump to content

Talk:Ibn al-Haytham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Old post

The text that was pasted in here on Dec 7 2003 by an anonymous user at 66.17.154.157 is lifted bodily from http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Haytham.html and looks very like a copyright violation. Have made an inquiry of the authors of the material. (That explains why so suddenly and annoyingly turned into ibn al-Haytham.) Dandrake 08:09, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

It was a violation. Checked with authors of the stolen material. Deleted. Dandrake 01:45, 30 January 2004 (UTC)

Basra

  1. The "Abbasid Caliph" was a ruler, of a dynasty, not a place. "Persia" was a place.
  2. The Abbasid Caliph itself was itself almost entirely Persianized: "It is clear however, that Iranians not only dominated the bureacracy, but all branches of The Abbasid government". Richard Nelson Frye, Golden Age of Persia, p151. Even al-Mamun's mother was a Persian.
  3. Do you have any proof that he was Arab? The name Basra itself is an originally Persian name. The entrie region was homeland of Persia until the Arab invasion. The Persian capital was in fact far inside today's Iraq. Basra was Persia.

My vote is that we say he was neither Arab, nor Persian, but simply lets say he was "a muslim".--Zereshk 15:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Basra is Arabic city which have pure Arabic name (حجارة رخوة إلى البياض ما هي وبها سميت البصرة Basra means soft white rocks)and it is well-know who founded Basra (The present city was founded in 636 as an encampment and garrison for the Arab tribesmen constituting the armies of amir `Umar ibn al-Khattab,).why don’t you say the Persian invasion because the native people of Iraq are Assyrian, Cheldan and Arab(Lakhmids , Almanathera)(اللخميين و المناذرة) and Iraq now is mixed country (like Iran).However it is considered as Arabic country like Iran is considered as Persian country. Also remember Persia is historically southern Iran and the region around Shiraz (شيراز). Aziz1005 14:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


1. "Basra" is a PURE PERSIAN word. BAS + RAH = BASRAH. both the "bas" and "rah" are pure Persian words. "bas" means many and "rah" means way, overall it means "many ways" and this naming was because of the many ways which were branching from it to different places. If you know arabic read this part, it is from an Arabic source: وقال حمزة بن الحسن الأصبهاني: سمعت مُوبَذ بن اسوهشت يقول: البصرة تعريب (بس راه) لأنها كانت ذات طُرُق كثيرة انشعَبَت منها إلى أماكن مختلفة.

2. Assyrians were defeated by Aryan Medians and Babylonians also were defeated by Aryan Persians. The Kurds are a group of Aryans who came to Iranian plateau, who were called Medians. So they are Iranian. Iranian means Aryan. The word "Iran" is taken from the word "Aryan". Besides this, Basra was a part of PERSIAN GULF long time ago(geologically).1 At the time of Cyrus when Babylonia was defeated, mostly Aryans(Persians or Medians) Settled in those parts(near to basra). See, When you are talking about Iraq you shouldnt think that as it is an arabian country so all people of Basra in the past also had to be Arab. No, If you are talking about "Karbala" it is acceptable that its people are Arab, but not Basra. Even, if you look to the present map you can see how close is Basra to Iran. and if you look to the historical maps before Islam you will see Todays Basra was always a part of Persia.

3. Persia was the name of Iran before 1935. (see Persia) and it was how others were call us. Persian only in English and foreign languages means Iranian, and not that group of Achaemenids who were in Shiraz. As I said Iran is a word taken from Aryan, and was used in persian from long time ago. It was a word by which we used to call ourselves, but others used to call us Persian. Even Ferdowsi has used in his Poem this name and many others. But if we forget how others call us, and why do they call us Persian(They only call but know that we are Aryan), Iranians are mixture of different Aryan groups whose languages were too similar to each other. Medians, Persians, and Parthians and some other groups. You wrote: "However it is considered as Arabic country like Iran is considered as Persian country" But it is different in case of Iran. They dont consider us as Persian, but only they call us in this way. Persian in western languages means from Persia, and Persia=Iran. It doesnt mean like what you said a group of Iranians who were "Persians" have been generalized for Iran, Like Arabs for Iraq. Iranway (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Basrah is a pure Arab word as well, as I know you Persians used Bassorah. Beside there are Arabs born in Iran, Is that means they are Iranians? as for the sources You can check the sources within the article, any way these are some sources, [1] or [2], what you are doing now won't change the fact that there is dispute of his ancestry. Mussav (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


We Persians don't pronounce it as "bassorah"(!!!). No original Persian word has تشدید, as you used for "s". I checked in Dehkhoda Persian dictionary also. Originally Iranians pronounce it as "Basra". He was born 20 years after the ruling of Iranian(Persian) Buyid dynasty over Basra and most parts of today Iraq, So he is Persian. This is how we decide about someones nationality in history. If an arab origin person borns in Iran, then he is Iranian, but of arab ancestors. Only if the person confesses about a different nationality for himself, then only he is of that nationality. Besides, also THERE IS NO EVIDENCE at all which proves even he was originally arab and from Arab ancestors! the native people of the land around Basra were Persians from long time back. --Iranway (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I say is same as what Zereshk said. Lets just say he was Muslim, and not saying anything about his nationality. Its better for all, and for our brotherhood. It is because we are not sure about his nationality. We will just say he was born in Basrah in todays Iraq, which at the time of his born was part of Iran. isn't it ok? It will stop the future discussions and fight between two brothers Iranians and Arabs. --Iranway (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Was he Persian, Arab, ...or BOTH? (2)

Zereshk,

First a history of Basra, 1) The city was founded by caliph Omar in 636 as a Military base on a canal that has since silted dry, a few miles south of the present city, where a tell still marks its site. The name Al-Basrah, which means in Arabic "the over watching" or "the seeing everything", was given to it because of its role as a Military base against the sassanid empire.

2) Coming back to Alhazan. Muslim scientists of non-Arabic origins were always extra mentioned in History Books. So relax! There are no mistakes about that. Alhazan was not a Persian. Here are also some resources.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Haytham.html http://www.answers.com/topic/alhazen http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579452/Alhazen.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=5788 http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alhazen.html

4) Many of the Scientists mentioned in Iranian scientists are Arabs. I will agree by saying they were just "muslims", IF you agree that all other Persian scientists are JUST "Muslims" NOT Persians! Would you like that? ;-)

You're both right and wrong. If you believe that we've "Persianized" Arabian mathematicians/scientists other than Geber and Alhazen then please name them and prove otherwise (that they are Arabs), if not, then quite simply, your argument is unfounded. You're right in that even if you could argue that Alhazen was Iranian (e.g. Sassanid influence in Basra) it still would not mean that he was "Persian". I believe that there's more going in favour of Geber being a Persian than Alhazen. Alireza Hashemi 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that we have to call every Persian Muslim Scholar as only Muslim Scholars to call Alhazen the same? In Persian Muslim Scholar pages we have sources to prove that, his own words etc. Actually, you can't call someone Persian unless you have good evidences. If one scientist didn't make a statement about his ethnicity, he is called Arab. Even if he is not. (for example AL-Jazari)

However, in this article I can't see even one evidence to make me call him an arab, but you didn't think that it is wrong to call him as an Arab. Actually, it is so easy to blame others by nationalism while you are doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.2.110 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

As for Basra, I will give the reply on the Basra page.

As for AlHazen,

Your Link 1 and Link 2 actually say he was from "Persia".

Link 3 and Link 4 I cannot access the full text to see conclusion.

I dont know why youre being so protective; is it so offending to you that he be both Arab and from Persia culturally? Astaghfurillah.--Zereshk 02:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Replay to Replay

Yes, I am actually offended. Why is it that when it comes to ethnic Arab Scientists, the “being Arab and Persian” thing is mentioned, which then is used as an excuse to put them in the Iranian scientists list, but when it comes to Persian Scientists which were born, raised and lived their whole life in an Arab environment , are considered as being “just Persian” ??
You hit the nail on the head! Shukran ya akhi --Inahet 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the latter?--Zereshk 06:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will give the reply on the corresponding articles. Just look for my name ;-).

From the modifications that you have done on only Geber, Alhazen, I can see that you are a patriotic Iranian, just like the references you use. In fact too patriotic to see the truth.

Yes. I am here to counter patriotic Pan-Arabs who are offended that Persians contributed to their culture and identity. It seems their racist attitude toward the "mawali" never really changed.--Zereshk 04:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Pan-Arab" is. I acknowledge, like most other Arabs, the Persian contribution to the Islamic civilisation, just like I acknowledge the Greek contribution which was alot greater than the persian, and the Indian. The Golden Era started only after Harun Al-Rashid have became the Caliph and ordered that all Greek Books in constintanople Library should be transleted to Arabic. "Write me a book, and I will give you the weight of it as Gold" was a famous statement from Harun.His legacy was continued by Al-mamun. You, with your very patriotic,racist and offensive statements like:"...almost 95% of the entire scientific establishment of Baghdad, all imported from Iran....The Abbasid Caliph itself was itself almost entirely Persianized...Baghdad was was an Iranian city" are the one with serious racist attiude. Zereshk,You have Persianized everything that can move or not move. And you seriously need to change your resources, if you want your articles to be Neutral.


  1. My sources are from Harvard and Columbia. I have nothing to worry about.
  2. The word "Persia" is not even mentioned on the Geber article, the word "Iran" is used only once in the entire Geber and Al Hazen articles, and you accuse me of "persianizing everything"? How fucked up is that?--Zereshk 17:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I actually didn't mean only Geber and Alhazen that were persianized, these are only the tip of the Eisberg. Anyway, I think we both agree that the Islamic civilization had produced many great scientists,regardless of race or religion, and had contributed alot to the Human Knowledge. We should join forces and show the western world that the Islamic Civilization is not to be underestimated. And when it comes to questions regarding ethnicity, I am sure we can resolve this.I end this with a quote from Al-Kindi:

We ought not to be embarrassed of appreciating the truth and of obtaining it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant and nations different from us. Nothing should be dearer to the seeker of truth than the truth itself, and there is no deterioration of the truth, nor belittling either of one who speaks it or conveys it -- Jidan 21:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Alhamdulillah I agree with you.

See if you agree with me on this:

Obviously not all Islamic era scientists were Persian. Thabit ibn Qurra, Al-Kindi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Khaldun are some big name examples. (Im a big fan of Ibn Arabi by the way)

I think youve felt startled after seeing that huge fat list I have been working on during the past 3 months.

But I am sure that if you and I sit down and compile a similar list of Arab medieval scientists, it will be just as long, if not longer.

I am willing to help you with it, since I have some good sources from the classical era.

There are hundreds of scientists that lived west of Dijla and Furat (and were not hence Persian by any means). Misr, Shaam, Andalusia, Antakiyah, Habashah, all have had numerous prominent scientists.

Now once in a while we run into a fellow that has an overlapping background, like Geber or Al-Hazen. As you say, we can easily work it out. My idea is that we can say he was both Arab and Persian. Simple as that. Because that's how it really was. 8th century Baghdad was where Persian and Arabic cultures mixed in together in a very productive way. There was the deep Persian background and heritage, mixing in with the potency of the Arabic language and scientific ideology of Islam coming from Arabia. A very powerful mix. For example, Ibn Rushd was both Arab and Spanish. That's how cultures flourish. By overlapping into eachother. And it's a good thing.

By saying he was Persian, does that mean he was not Arab? Of course not. He was an Arab as well.

Im sure we can construct an Arab scientist List, that will make you feel proud as an Arab as well.

Then we can spill them into one separate Super jumbo List of Islamic scientists. Hows that?--Zereshk 07:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I sensed a big shift in your last writing. If what you just wrote, you didn’t just wrote but also believe in it. Then you are unique among Iranians! :-). Because you are the first Iranian I know (and I know a lot of Iranians), that acknowledges the rule the Arabs had in forging the “Islamic Civilization”. If you go to the Arabic Wiki, to check Geber or Alhazen or Al-Razi , they are all categorized under just Muslims-“مسلمون”, no nationalities what so ever! You see, the Arabs are proud of all Muslim scientists that lived in that time, because they think they are the ones who provided the right environment, open libraries for everyone, and financial support. Just like an American nowadays would be proud if one of his citizens won a Nobel price, without regard to his origin country. Between 800 – 1450 CE, if you wanted to learn proper science you would have to read Arabic books, and you would have to be in one of the great cities, Baghdad, Cairo, or Cordoba ( in Spain), which all were ruled by Arabs! That’s why, Arabs are proud of all Muslim scientists without regard to nationality, while Persians are proud of only Persian ones!. Making a Super jumbo List of Islamic scientists is a great idea!

Arab scientists

I have an un-edited list of Arab scientists with a paragraph of biographical description for each. These are neither Persian nor Persian related. And Wikipedia doesnt have these folks listed.

I cant find the time to write an entry for each and put together the list. Im still working on the Persian list which I started. And I have 60 other projects to finish and tend to.

Where do you want me to send this list to? (Or perhaps paste it somewhere?) Ive contacted User:Yuber about this.

Also, let's make sure that all these entries (whether from the Persian or Arab list) ultimately appear on the "muslim scientists" list.--Zereshk 21:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Names

Could someone please provide his name and the titles of his various books in Arabic script? This seems relevant considering that they are Arabic in origin. It would also be great if we include some sort of an illustration here (such as a portrait). --Fizan 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

references and article

According to many of the references, he's an Arab, and should be mentioned as such in the article, or what's the point of the references?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All sources say he was Persian

We can not say he was "Muslim" because we are not sure what religion he followed. What is a fact is that he was of Persian (Iranian) origin.


What sources are those? Also, please sign your comments, will you? 195.229.241.187 12:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He was Arab [3]Aziz1005 12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Buwayhid Persia

Alhazen was born, raised, and lived in Basra during the time that Iraq was a part of Buwayhid Persia (945–1055). [4] --ManiF 17:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to say he was "Persian" and none of the sources proove what you are saying.--Ahwaz 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Read the article before reverting it, it says "Muslim" not Persian or Arab. He was however born in Buwayhid Persia. --ManiF 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Buwayhid Persia is simply a concoction. Will you object if I change Geber's birthplace to Tus, Umayyad Arabia? --Inahet 05:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Alhazen was an Iraqi (Iraqis at that time were mainly a mixture of Mesopotamian and Arab people). It's true that at the time of his birth the region was controlled by the Persians. But simply occupying another person’s territory does not entitle one to their achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinevitski (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Arab

And Alhazen is sooo arab that even Iraq, the bitter enemy of Iran, printed him in their currency 300px|thumb|The Arab mathematician Ibn Al-Haitham depicted in a 10000 Iraqi Dinar note. and all encyclopedias and scientific articles say that he was Arab:

And what is this about Basra being persian??? Basra was created by the arabs as a millitary camp to attack Ithe ranians!

128.131.220.102 06:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Avicenna2.jpg
Poststamp of Ibn Sina
Iraq is no "bitter enemy of Iran". Saddam was.
Having money printed with his image really proves nothing. Poland once issued a stamp with Avicenna's picture on it, and Iraq once claimed Kuwait to be its 19th province. And Iran's main laser research facility at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran is named after Ebne Heisam.
Claims therefore have little meaning.
Lets just say he was muslim.--Zereshk 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Zereshk, it will be a nice world if we called all muslims scientist just muslims. But this is not where the problem is. The problem is calling some scientist by their nationalities e.g. Ibn Sina a persian scientist while others like Alhazen just a muslim scientist. This is not fair! He was a native of basra, a city in south Iraq, which is predominantly arab. I am not going to waste my time on this anyway. I just hope the people take wikipedia as a secondray source not a primary. I have really seen alot of rubish posted in wikipedia and I think you agree with me on this too. Jidan 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Long ago in this very article, I proposed that we mention that he is both, or that he is reported to be Arab by some, Persian by others. The Arab editors did not accept. What can I say? I would have no trouble mentioning both claims. But would you?--Zereshk 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Rubbish indeed. And it's not an academic source. Serious people only use it to find more better original sources. I personally tend to find the act of creating articles more rewarding. But once made, they become the property of POV wars. That's when I leave.--Zereshk 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for a person's biography to include the ethnic origin and cultural background. Especially in an encyclopedia or other biographic work. Cultural-social upbringings bring with them both similar and different viewpoints on life as shown through history. To suggest otherwise can lead one to a fallacy such as political correctness over fact in history which is what we're all after in this great virtual community, knoweldgeable fact. I'd say that it'd be nice to see more comprehensive biographies that mention family history too, did they have many siblings, only child, were they raised by an uncle or aunt, etc.. I do think those things, especially in childhood, play a subtle to vital role in helping us understand the individual we're studying wheter a biography of non-fiction like Aristotle or a fictional character like Scarlett O'Hara. Prospero74 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about section titled "Model of Motions"

In this section, we find the following: One of Alhzen's achievements was to "reduce physical entities to geometrical entities". This sounds a little vague - and potentially false. The ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes did something very similar (if I understand the phrase correctly), for example, in his law of the lever, where weights are described as massive points at some particular distance from the fulcrum of the lever; Archimedes then extended the law of the lever to a theory of the center of mass. In fact, the concept of using mathematical entities to represent physical entities (as well as using mathematical relationships to understand the physical relationships between said physical entities) is really the foundation of any mathematics-based science. So, I do not know if we can claim that Alhazen introduced this concept into the sciences. I would like to have a response to this, as I am very interested. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.225.29 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alhazen's birthplace is not in Persia

No reliable, academic source says that Alhazen was born in "Buwayhid, Persia." They all say that he was born in Basrah, Iraq. Also, no reliable source claims that Iraq was ever part of "Buwayhid Persia." Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new imaginary countries.

Also, although the Buwayhids conquered Iraq, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in power: "In 945 the Buwayhids, an Iranian Shia dynasty, conquered Baghdad. However, they allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office as a symbol of continuity and legitimacy."--Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library. So it would make more sense to say that he was born in the Abbasid Caliphate than in Persia. But I think that leaving it as Basrah, Iraq would be more accurate and verifiable. Need I say more? --Inahet 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, Alhazen was born, raised, and lived in Basra during the time that Iraq was officially a part of Buwayhid Persia (945–1055). That's just a simple fact, look up Buwayhid in Britannica. [5] Weather or not Buwayhid symbolically allowed the Abbasid caliph to remain in office in Baghdad has nothing to do with the fact that they ruled Basrah. --ManiF 06:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, no mention of Iraq being part of a Persian empire, which was dead for 300 years before Alhazen was born, is in that link. Also, because the Buwayhids were Persian doesn't make the land they ruled part of Persia. The Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty ruled Yemen once, was Yemen part of Kurdistan, or Kurdish empire?--Inahet 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
But as I said, verification is key, thus leaving it as just Basrah, Iraq is best. --Inahet 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Read Buwayhid, they were an Iranian dynasty that called themselves Shahanshah of Iran (The native name of "Persia" is "Iran"., read Iran naming dispute). Persian empire was never "dead", there were several Persian empires over the centuries from Achamenids and Sassanids to Buwayhids and Safavids. Infect, up until 20th century there wasn't a country called Iraq. "Aragh" was a name given to a region west of Iran divided into Aragh Ajam and Aragh Arab where Aragh Arab encompassed parts of modern day Iraq, however the name Iraq was not applied to a single country until 20th century during English occupation periods. So the name Iraq is a new concept and can not be applied before 20th century. --ManiF 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compromised version: Basrah, Iraq (then part of Buwayhids dynasty, Persia) ? Amir85 20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way there is no country named Iraq until 20th century, Iraq is modern name for a region. Amir85 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


Iraq was the name which Arabs, even prior to the Islamic conquest, called mesopatamia (the land between two rivers). Iraq comes from the arabic root word Irq(عرق), which means veins, or roots. In this sense, the two rivers Tigris and Eupharets, are the veins who carried water and gave life to this land. Iraq was also a province within the ummayed caliphate, and it was called the the provence of Iraq. So Iraq is not a modern name, and is much older than "Persia". Its very interesting to notice that some Iranian editors try their best to shove in "Iran","Persia",etc to articles where it has absolutly NO relevence. jidan 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's totally inaccurate, you can't backup any of those statements with an academic source. Mesopotamia has nothing to do with the modern name Iraq the history of which I already explained. Iraq may not be a modern name, but it's a modern entity as a state. Oh and the relevance is the fact Ibn al-Haitham was born and raised in Basra which was at time ruled by a Persian dynasty the Buwayhid. --ManiF 11:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Move from Alhazen -> Ibn al-Haitham

I have moved the article from Alhazen -> Ibn al-Haitham, since Ibn al-Haitham IS his original name in Arabic. jidan 22:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not suppose to move articles without a proposal and a consensus on the talk page. --ManiF 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The change of the name of this article from "Alhazen" to "ibn al-Haitham" is untenable and contrary to Wikipedia's practices for the following reasons:
  • "Ibn al-Haitham" is a patronymic, meaning "son of [someone whose name included the phrase] al-Haitham". For confirmation, check the article on arabic names. If Alhazen is known by this patronymic alone in the non-English speaking world, so be it, add this fact to the article. But in the English speaking world, and therefore in the English Wikipedia, the latinized version should go, as he is primarily known by this name.
  • To get around the point above, you would have to include his entire name, "Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham". But then, the title of the article wouldn't be in English, as point 3 of the Wikipedia naming conventions suggest, but in latinized Arabic.
  • These conventions also state that the most common name of a person should be the title of the article. User Jidan has brought up the fact that ibn al-haitham "IS his name in Arabic". That may be, although it is only a part of it, as described above. Furthermore, Wikipedia is interested in the most common name of someone, not their actual, lesser-known name. John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison, but the title of his article is "John Wayne".
User Jidan has brought up a valid and important point in renaming the article; Eurocentric history and viewpoints should be actively questioned, especially someone who worked primarily during the Dark Ages, which as he points out in a later post were not dark at all for the Arab world. However, the facts show that, whether you support the Arabic name as a title or the Latinized name, the current name of the article is in error and should be changed. I personally support the full Arabic name, but that is contrary to Wikipedia practices, so the only acceptable choice is "Alhazen". I won't immediately change the name of the article before an adequate amount of discussion has taken place, but I think it should be reverted to "Alhazen". GuildNavigator84 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make the point, that the variant Alhazen is a modern misunderstanding (see below). Maybe it would be appropriate now to have the article by the name Alhazen, but I'm pretty sure in coming years the scientific community will have Alhacen spelling variant universally adopted. You can already check this at books.google.com, where most of the recent scholarly work uses Alhacen. It is of-course possible to rename the article all the time, but in my opinion the name of the article should be correct. --Aethralis 07:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Snell's Laws of Refraction

Within this article it says that Alhazen discorved the laws of diffraction - i am unaware if he suggested any quantitative law - but this is misleading 'the' law(s) of refraction used today (at least at A-level) were proposed by Snell.

No, it was Ibn al-Haithem. He is the first who said that the refract angel is dependent on the medium the light passes through, and that its a constant and is dependent on the incident angle. I think Snell was only the first who put it into a mathematical equation. Keep in mind that this man is considered The father of optics. jidan 11:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned author about the law of refraction. I don't recall seeing that attributed to Alhazen in the secondary literature of the history of science, and Jidan's description is sufficiently vague that it would also describe the relationship proposed by Ptolemy in the second century. Snell put it in exact quantitative form and that is what most historians of science (and scientists) count as "discovering" the law of refraction. --SteveMcCluskey 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Which sentence in this article do you disagree on? And steve, you should try reading history books written by non-europeans for a change. You would be amazed to know that the dark ages, was not dark at all! jidan 17:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On Iraq

now, i am not an expert on this man, nor will i try to be. I do not know whether he was arab or persian, but i do know that the majority of iraq was persian/iranic (due to the sassanid empire nad parthian empires). therefore, we cannot assume one is arab just because they lived or died in a nation that is TODAY arab. lets just keep this in mind.Iranian Patriot 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the key question is what would he have regarded himself as? WLD 13:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alhazen or Alhacen?

The name variant Alhazen, what is most used, is in all probability wrong and invented by Friedrich Risner, the editor of the 1572 Alhacens optical treatise (David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler, p. 210, David C. Lindberg, Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages, p. xxxiii). In all medieval manuscripts (again Lindberg) the variant Alhazen never occurs, so it is in my opinion wrong to say that the latinized variant of his name is Alhazen. --Aethralis 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The name seems a bit odd in any case. If you look at the Wikipedia article on Arabic names, the construction Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham is roughly "The father of Ali the Hasan son of the Haitham". This makes his kunya "father of Ali", as a substitute for his ism, and his nasab is "son of the Haitham" (which is also a bit odd), but I'm a bit lost as to whether the al-Hasan is a description (laqab) of his son, or of himself. Possibly, there is a missing comma, so it should be something like "Abu Ali, al-Hasan Ibn al-Haitham" or roughly "The father of Ali, the Hasan son of the Haitham". My knowledge of arabic is pretty much non-existant, so I don't know what al-Hasan actually translates to, as it would normally be a description of some type - the wise, the beautiful, the submissive, etc. Overall the format doesn't look quite right, and seems to be missing parts. If an arabic speaker can explain, that would be useful. WLD 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
A. Mark Smith, Alhacens Theory of Visual Perception, vol 1. Introduction and Latin Text (American Philosophical Society, 2001), p. cxxv writes: "Alhacen’s full name is Abū ‘Alī al-Haṣan ibn al-Haṣan ibn al-Haytham, "al-Haṣan" being his given name. Assuming that the "c" is soft, the "h" is aspirated, and the stress is on the second syllable, then "Alhacen" constitutes an accurate Latin transliteration of "al-Haṣan"." He also states (p. xxi) "There is, however, no support whatever within the manuscript tradition for that choice [Alhazen]. The only forms to be found in the manuscripts themselves are "Hacen", "Alacen", "Achen", and "Alhacen", this last being the most common." He also confirms that Risner is responsible for the inaccurate name Alhazen. --Aethralis 09:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd be happy for the article to be moved to Alhacen, with redirects to it from Alhazen and the current name, and other variants. By the way, the article opens with an English transliteration of the Arabic name which omits the "ibn al-Haṣan" given in your reference. Assuming the reference is correct, it'll need adding in. WLD 09:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Double checked. The reference is correct. --Aethralis 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Mesopotamia

Basra is a city located in Mesopotamia (iraq) NOT Persia persia is Iran ,can't you read maps Aziz1005 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On Attraction Between Masses and Evolution

I haven't heard anything about Alhazen writing about Newton's gravity equation. Could someone give a source on Alhazen writing about attraction between masses. I think this may be an error.

Also, I hadn't heard that he had written about Evolution. Can someone give a source for this?

The other contributions I read about in the article seem familiar to me; but when I read the line on attraction between masses, it seemed to me that someone was implying that Alhazen knew Newton's gravity equation, which I hadn't heard about before.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.237.76.116 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Alhacen's heliocentrism?

I have recently looked for sources supporting and criticizing a number of myths appearing in discussions concerning the History of astronomy. If you know of any sources related to these myths, please add them to the discussion at Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions. --SteveMcCluskey 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading Ibn al-Haytham's The Configuration of the World, I see no reason to question his geocentrism. I have moved the claim that he advocated a heliocentric view to a footnote.--SteveMcCluskey 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

I reworded a sentence. It said that he: "eventually realized that the problem cannot be solved." There isn't any evidence of this, and the reference given in the article doesn't suggest this. In fact, the reference says: "Whether ibn al-Haytham suspected that the problem was insoluble or whether he only realised that he could not solve it, in (sic.) an interesting question which will never be answered." The distinction is an important one, so I reworded it to say that he gave up on the impossible task. Andy Ross 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Book of optics?

Most probably the illustration of Ibn_al-Haytham#Book_of_Optics (Latin Ibn Haithem's book.jpg) is wrong as the repro clearly states "Vitellonis Thuringopoloni opticae libri decem". This being the book of optics by Witelo. See [6] → Aethralis 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded another image Image:Alhazen's book.jpg. You can use it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the upload. I also changed the description of the Latin Ibn Haithem's book.jpg to "Witelo's book". → Aethralis 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

As a member of the Good Article Wikiproject I think this article has reached good article criteria. So please nominate it here if you agree with me. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be nominated, but I might be a bit biased here (since I wrote half of it), so I would prefer if other people would comment on and/or nominate the article instead. Jagged 85 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the process of nomination. You're the best person to nominate it because you've written half of it. Of course, try to build consensus before nomination. There isn't any bias. Then another person who hasn't participated in the article will review and assess it. En Sha Allah--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I've just added the article to the nomination list. Jagged 85 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iraqi"?

Shouldn't it be "Mesopotamian" or "Persian" or something? — Omegatron 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iraq" has always been the Arabic name for Mesopotamia. Jagged 85 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Quick Fail

I'm going to quick fail this article's GA nomination since the only image on the page (from Iraqi currency) does not have source information of fair-use rationale (currency is always assumed to be fair-use). And, I'm not sure on whether fair-use allows a depiction of a person in their infobox to come from fair-use currency. Might want to look into that (WP:FUC. I also took a very quick look at the article, and I can tell you that I thought that the article was very quote-heavy and that the external links section is too big. I would also highly recommend using citation templates for the citations, since they seem to be fairly inconsistent. This is just my opinion, but I'd recommend looking into those before renominating the article. I didn't want to quick-fail the article without giving a little advice. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've begun re-organizing the references, and will try to work out the other issues soon. Jagged 85 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tone

While this article is very informative it smacks of boosterism. What evidence is there of the subject's religious affiliation? At the time he was born, Iraq was in transition from being predominantly Christian to being predominantly Muslim. Also, much of the article is devoted more to citing non-authorities grandiosly proclaiming his greatness. What does it matter if the writers of children's books pronounce him to be the greatest scientist? What does it matter if multi-cultural instruction manuals declare his greatness? Statements by scientists in his field(s) are far more persuasive and show the others to be signs of insecurity. There are places for Islamic cheerleading. This isn't it. JoeFriday 09:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For example: although his contributions to optics and the psychology of vision are worthy of commendation, the claim (by Khaleefa) that he is the founder of psychophysics certainly rests on very shaky foundations. Khaleefa's paper is unconvincing on this point and was clearly never intended to by read by psychophysicists. This claim is slipped into the last paragraph and cites a book review for support. It diminishes the remarkable contributions made by Weber and Fechner to make such a claim with so little evidence. Famousdog 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Was Ibn al-Haytham a Shi'a Muslim

Was Ibn al-Haytham a Shi'a Muslim? A repetitive, persistent edit insists that he was, but the editor refuses to add a citation. I don't know whether this man was Shi'a, but I do know that adding new info to a Wikipedia article requires a citation that complies with WP:VERIFY. Can someone with more knowledge of this topic shed some light on the subject? Further, should this new addition contain a citation? Kindest regards, Verum (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Given where he lived and the circumstances under which he lived, makes it impossible for him to have been a Shi'a. Yes, there is a guy who insists on making all the scholars of the Islamic era (particularly the pre-Safavid Persian scientists) Shi'as. Omar Khayyam and Abu Bakr Al-Karaji were the first casualties of it. He insists that they were Shi'as, although they bore the names of four caliphs (Rashidun), without having a credible source. Like I said given the life and times of these figures it's very unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinevitski (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the same way

I saw that it was mentioned by several contributers here in the discussion that " we cannot assume a person to be Arab if the country he was born in is Arabic today"

Well in the same we would say that we CANNOT assume someone to be Persian if the country he was born in is NOW Iranian/Persian. As we already know during that time ,nowdays Iran, was part of the Abbasid empire & it was not only ruled by Arabs but also huge no. of Arabic tribes where living there, so everyone thas was born there does NOT necessarily need to be Persian, like in nowdays Iran more than 40% of its population is made by Azeri Iranians & they're not cosidered as Persians, same thing apply for many Muslim scietists that are assumed to be Persians JUST becasue they where born in NOWDAYS Iran.193.6.158.33 (User talk:193.6.158.33) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad citations

Why are there citations to review of a book instead of the book itself? look at 69 1n 37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangestand (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA renomination

Now that most of the problems mentioned above in #GA Quick Fail have been fixed (besides the image, which may have to be removed), I am thinking about renominating this article for GA status. Before doing so, I'd like to know what other users here think about it? Jagged 85 (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For a start a Good Article needs to be NPOV, which at the moment it certainly isn't. Al-Haytham was clearly a genius, but he was not the all-knowing superhuman that this article paints him out to be. He made many incorrect statements (e.g. the lens as receptive organ rather than retina) in his works and many discoveries are attributed to him that were made earlier by other scholars (Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy). The rubbish about psychophysics by Khaleeda needs addressed. I suggest this article presents a more balanced picture before attempting GA status. Famousdog (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems you've already addressed some of these issues with your last few edits to the article. I've also just made a few edits to the Psychology section clarifying the views of Khaleefa and Howard, pointing out that Howard did not actually claim that Ibn al-Haytham discovered binocular vision or motion perception (but just improved on them), and that Khaleefa acknowledges that his view is a minority view (the majority view being that Fechner is the founder of psychophysics). Jagged 85 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Much improved, thank you. However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that al-Haytham contributed "several concepts" that are now part of psychophysics. I don't agree. Khaleefa's arguments regarding psychophysics are just plain wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the term, an overly narrow definition that limits psychophysics to the optics of the eye and a confusion of psychophysics with psychology. Al-Haytham made a definite contribution to visual psychology but his contribution to visual psychophysics is minimal, if not zero. I think this new section needs toned down as well. Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychophysics

Khaleefa doesn't really acknowledge that his view is a minority one. Instead, he is arguing (I would argue on the basis of flawed logic, poor scholarship and very little evidence) that the majority of researchers are wrong, which is quite a different matter. In addition, Taha (1990) is a book review and is, as far as I can tell, unobtainable. I suggest that this reference is removed until a copy can be located! Do you have a copy of this paper, or are you citing Khaleefa's citation? Famousdog (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

non-euclidean geometry

unless someone can find any credible sources by serious scholars, and more then one, here that he somehow he knew anything about non-euclidean geometry, that claim will be altered or removed, since i cant find any sources that claim that he is, everything i ve read says Nikolai Lobachevsky and János Bolyai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

analytical geometry???

someone want to tell me how this guy pioneered analytical geometry, since analytical geometry didnt exist till Rene Descartes had founded it as a branch of mathematics more then 6 century after this guy existed?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

law of inertia:discovery

i have changed the wording of the discovery of the law of inertia being made alhazan. I have yet to see any evidence that he used any experimentation to prove the law of inertia, which Galileo did. Galileo used a series of experiment with objects sliding down inclined planes), realized that the analysis of Aristotle was incorrect because it failed to account properly for a hidden force: the frictional force between the surface and the object. The firctional force is the key discovery in the law of inertia. Therefore without experimentation or any concpets around inertia any early attempts at the law of inertia are philisophical in nature and do not constitute a scientific discovery, but mear speculation, although a very correct guess at it. If there is evidence to the contrary, please provide the proof.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please, introduce, at Other Languages, the Romanian version [[ro:Alhazen]] . Thanks !
Nicolae Coman (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to edit protected page

{{editprotected}} This page requires editing to change the reference to [[Boston]] (a redir page) to [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]] (the substantive article on the city of Boston). I believe this to be an uncontroversial edit (basically just good housekeeping) so I'm not requesting a consensus before making the request. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 Not done The page is a redirect, not a disambiguation page. WP:R#NOTBROKEN. Happy‑melon 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn good article

Hey, I just came across this article. As an aspiring physicist, I'm ashamed to admit I hadn't heard of this guy, but now that I have, what a prolific physicist he was! Anyway, my main point is that I can't believe that this article doesn't have Good Article status, let alone featured article status. It seems really well written, and does just make me want to go find a copy of Book of Optics and learn more. There are bags of sources, and although I haven't checked their reliability, I'm sure they're fine. Should we be looking towards nominating this article for GA or even FA? Deamon138 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated it for GAN (see top of the page). When the review comes, please help it succeed by fixing any problems that come up if you can! Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Deamon, I really appreciate you nominating this article. I'll try help out with whatever needs fixing once the review gets under way. Best wishes, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks. Here's hoping it passes this time. Deamon138 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Birth/Death Year

I don't know that most sources say he died in 1039. Both the Britanica and Encarta sources at least say circa 1040. I think his death date at least is up in the air. However, while the birth date given in the Britannica source is c. 965, I believe all the other sources say 965 too (i.e. without the "circa") so putting his birth year as 965 seems reasonable. However, this can't be reconciled if his age at death was 76. If born in 965, in 1039 he could only have been 73/74. If he did die at age 76, he would have to have died in 1041/42. Something doesn't add up here. Deamon138 (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is some inconsistency regarding his year of death. In this case, I think we could write his year of death as 1039/1040 or, if he really did die at the age of 76, then 1039-1041. Jagged 85 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm well if the year of his death could be 1039, 1040, or 1041, then it would be best to put it as (965-c. 1040) since that is the mean of the three numbers. Wikipedia:DATE#Dates_of_birth_and_death seems to say we should use the circa part when we aren't sure of the exact date, but have a vague idea of when abouts it was. Deamon138 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a problem converting from AH to AD? Also, do Arabs and Persians count their age as being 0 at birth, as in the West, or as being 1 at birth, as in the East? kwami (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

eye movement in reading

Wasn't he the first documented person to examine it? I read this in a PhD dissertation (the lit review section). Tony (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't read what someone's written below so I have no idea if that answered your question, but my answer is, if you have a source, then go for it! Deamon138 (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

بایستی این سوال از اعراب پرسیده شود که ایا از نظر انها علمای امروز عراق نظیر ایت الله سیستانی و شیرازی عرب اند؟ایا ایت الله موسس عرب بوده؟اگر انها این افراد را عرب می دانند دیگر بحثی در مورد ابن هیثم و ابن سینا و ... نیست,ولی هیچ فرد عاقلی شکی ندارد که قلب وعلم و حکمت و هدف امثال حایری یزدی درخدمت ایران بوده نه دیگران

Suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, --pbroks13talk? 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

For some reason the Image:Ibn haithem portrait.jpg has disappeared. Anyone know why, and can it be fixed? Deamon138 (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignore: this has been fixed. Deamon138 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Theology

I removed mention of Sunni Islam and Mu'tazili. A. I. Sabra, who is apparently the reference on the history of optics and of medieval Islamic science, calls him a Shi'ite. The two sources mentioning him as a Sunni are the infinitely less qualified and less reliable Sardar, who mentions Ibn al Haitham as a Sunni along with other well-known Shi'ites in an non-scholarly article, and Laurence Bettany who has 29 google hits. Peter Edward Hodgson, as well, is not qualified enough to be taken as a reference on Ibn al-Haitham and his faith, especially when Sabra says otherwise. Neutrality45 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding in the talk page. It seems like you are putting far too much authority on a single source (A. I. Sabra) at the expense of several other reliable sources (Ziauddin Sardar, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Peter Edward Hodgson, Laurence Bettany) which clearly disagree. Besides, I have doubts whether Sabra even affiliated him with any particular religious doctrine, which Sabra never refers to in any of the other books and articles of his I've read. In that case, have you actually confirmed what Sabra actually stated in the cited source? I've confirmed nearly all the other sources regarding his religious affiliations (whether Ashari, Mutazili or Ismaili) but don't currently have access to the Sabra reference that supposedly refers to him as Shi'ite. In that case, I'll have to revert your edits until someone can confirm what exactly Sabra stated and possibly quote it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham → Alhazen — More results in google + better known name in English and western sources + shorter without "al" & "Ibn" — Wayiran (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. But I'm open to being shown that Alhazen has been discarded by the academic community for a while now, because I wouldn't know. What I do know is that I've read about Alhazen more often than Ibn al-Haytham. Srnec (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. But I like to draw attention to a fact that is also stated in the article (with citation) - Risner is the author of the name variant "Alhazen"; before Risner he was known in the west as Alhacen, which is the correct transcription of the Arabic name. Also recent scientific literature prefers the name variant Alhacen. So my support goes to 'Alhacen' not 'Alhazen'. → Aethralis 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but there is no need for the names to be literally correct. There are many exampleas like George Washington or Jamal a-din Asadabadi, whose correct name is "Asadabadi", but in english sources he is known as "Al-Afghani", which is used in wikipedia too, however it is ABSOLUTELY wrong! But as it is more common in English, it is preferred! --Wayiran (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disagree

I dislike the outcome, irrespective of google hits and such (one generally doesn't use google to find articles on WP anyways). We should follow some article naming standard for Moslem-sphere early medieval scientists, Al-Khwarizmi has Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, Al-Buzjani has Abū al-Wafā' al-Būzjānī, Al-Biruni has Abu Rayhan Biruni. The names Al-Buzjani, Alhazen, Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarizmi and their fellow islamic scientists, will be unambiguous just until WP reaches such a level of knowledge that other persons sharing their names will occur. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

C.f. Al-Tusi! Said: Rursus (☻) 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the outcome. The name "Alhazen" is not only an inaccurate Latin transliteration of his name ("Alhacen" was a more accurate Latinization of his name), but that name is also no longer used in current academic literature dealing with Ibn al-Haytham. Most modern-day scholars of the 1990s and 2000s refer to him as Ibn al-Haytham. The name "Alhazen" or "Alhacen" is now only used in reference to the Latin translations of his work, not to the man himself. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham's influences?

Ibn al-Haytham's optical studies were influential in several later developments, including the telescope, which laid the foundations of telescopic astronomy,[1] as well as of the modern camera, the microscope, and the use of optical aids in Renaissance art.[2]

I have rm'ed the above to talk because it makes a claim that does not seem to be supported by reliable sources. This claim has also been copied/pasted through a whole series of articles releated to Ibn al-Haytham. It has the following problems:

  • Source Marshall, O. S. (1950), "Alhazen and the Telescope", Astronomical Society of the Pacific Leaflets 6: 4 does not look like it is an "academic and peer-reviewed publication" (WP:RELY) and another editor who has read the source (see:Talk:History of the telescope#Ibn Al-Haytham) characterized its jist as "not regard Alhazen as the originator of the telescope".
  • Two such sorces do not constitute "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV).

There needs to be some clear scholarly references to back up such a "statement of fact". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

parabolic mirrors

Rm'ed mention of parabolic mirrors to talk for clearification since this source[8] states that Ibn Al-Haytham did not apply theory of conic sections to optics. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

basra in iran............!!!!

can any one tell me how is that basra in persia/iran --Bayrak (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


It was at that time. --Wayiran (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No Bayrak, It is an Iraqi city but was under the rule of Persia in that time. To not confuse people, the name should stay as (Basra, Iraq). The Persia part is already mentioned in his Biography. Same as all the other articles. Mussav (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

His name and born place.

This article is in an on-going Edit war, we need an unbiased Admin. There are few things should be mentioned.

A. The name, his name is fully Arab, Ali is an Arabic name, Hasan is an Arabic name, Al-Haytham is and Arabic name and Persians can not even pronounce his name properly, they call him Haysam or haytsam not Haytham. so how come his name is Persian?

B. This is already discussed but I want to add some more info. Arab called this region (between the 2 rivers) Iraq from the very beginning (I'm talking about the land not the dynasty). Mesopotamia is just a Greek name. And of course The Buyid dynasty came after the Abassid dynasty so sure it was called Iraq by Arab in that time. I think the best solution is to keep it as (was born in Basra, Iraq and then under the rule of the Buyid Persian Empire). Mussav (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

His name is also used in Persian, regardless of origin. Also, there was no state called Iraq at that time, do not change the page's original wording without consensus, which is what you're doing. The page originally said "Basra, in Buyd empire, in modern-day Iraq" and that's how it should remain unless you can get a consensus here for a new wording.--Sina111 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Using Arabic names is different, observe that you are leading to the Persian Language's page. Absolute false info.
And who said we are talking about Iraq state or Iran state? Didn't you read? The land was called Iraq (The LAND), I'm not talking about neither the state nor the Empire in that time. Arab used the word Iraq for the land between the 2 rivers from the very begining. Mesopotamia is just a Greek word. Also Note that Abbasid and Buiyd Empires came after the Ummayed empire. I know it hurts Iraqis but remember what the Ummayed's leader Al-Hajaj said about the Iraqi people? the people of Iraq are.. etc etc (It's not good words, I dont want to mention them but you know what I'm talking about). so it was called Iraq in that time. and also not only this land was called Iraq, Iran was called Iraq too, the Persian Iraq. Mussav (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a geographic region called Iraq at the time, but it wasn't co-extensive with the modern nation state which the Iraq article deals with. So, as far as his birthplace is concerned, I think the best solution would be to write "Basra, in present-day Iraq, and then part of the Buyid confederation", or something similar. As for the name, it's Arabic. Spacepotato (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The Arabic or Persian name is not a big deal. However the concern is that Iranians have simply had Arabic names. If Haytham is Arabic, then "John" can be Hebrew instead of English! Look at the page of this Iranian poet, his name is Arabic originally, but "Persian" is mentioned, because it is Persian too.--Raayen (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Overall, Spacepotato's proposal sounds good to me. Buyid confederation is not accurate though, the Buyids were dynasty of Persia, and their domain was called Buyid Persia. --Sina111 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay but Basra is modern? And what's wrong with saying Iraq without the (present day) sentence? Iraq's page has history info of Iraq which include the history of Mesopotamia, Abbasid Dynasty... etc. The borders maybe new by the western but the land is the same minus or plus few parts. It's right that it was part of Buyid dynasty in that time but what about before that period? saying present day Iraq and it was part of Buyid dynasty... you made it sounds like Iraq has no history before the Buyid Dynasty, This is prejudice. There is an interesting thing going on here, see the Geber's page, you made a big deal with the bing (part of Ummayad) sentence. you dont want to say that Iran was part of he Umayyad Dynasty, you only said under the rule of Ummayad which I think its more accurate IMO. so what's make you think that it's right in Geber's page and wrong here? Mussav (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
So what is your comment? Mussav (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A. A. The name, his name is fully Arab, Ali is an Arabic name, Hasan is an Arabic name, Al-Haytham is and Arabic name and Persians can not even pronounce his name properly, they call him Haysam or haytsam not Haytham. so how come his name is Persian? My name is Mohammad, so what? There are many words as "Loanword" from some languages in other languages. When a word becomes a loanword, then it becomes a part of the destination language. Suppose the word "Paradise" in engish is from Persian "Pardis", and the word "din" (دین) in arabic, is from Avestan language. See you are shocked! Because you feel that "din" is a pure arabic word, as you have "adyan" (ادیان) or (متدین), But it is actually an Iranian avestan word. When the word has been taken as the "loanword" in arabic, it has become a part of arabic, so its not strange that it has followed rules of Arabic language to make ادیان or متدین ! The same thing is also about some names in Persian. The name "Ali" in Iran is looking like to be more Persian than Arab! With its extensions there are many names like "AliReza", "MohammadReza", "AliMohammad" and many others. "Hasan" is also vastly used in Persian. The name "Ibn al-haytham" in some Persian dialects is pronounced correctly as the word <ث> is present in Persian. As the example we have the name "کیومرث" , In Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, which is equivalent to "adam" in semic religions (He is known to be the first human being on earth in Iranian myths). It has the word "ث" and in correct pronunciation the "ث" is pronounced as "th" in english or "ث" in Arabic. But besides all these the term "ابن هیثم" is always being written as "ابن هیثم" in Persian irrespective of how it is pronounced, Since the first days. Even in Persian wikipedia the article is having it as "ابن هیثم". --Wayiran (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The way people pronounce the words is not important at all, but the important thing is that the word is in use in Persian since the first days in the form of "ابن هیثم".


B. This is already discussed but I want to add some more info. Arab called this region (between the 2 rivers) Iraq from the very beginning (I'm talking about the land not the dynasty). Mesopotamia is just a Greek name. And of course The Buyid dynasty came after the Abassid dynasty so sure it was called Iraq by Arab in that time. I think the best solution is to keep it as (was born in Basra, Iraq and then under the rule of the Buyid Persian Empire)

I don't understand why "THEN under Buyid Persian Empire", I mean why "THEN"? Basra was a part of "Buyid Persia" AT THE TIME OF his birth, and not then. Yes, it can be written as "was born in Basra, in Buyid Persia, in today Iraq." --Wayiran (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


A. The Arabic name are used in Iran but it doesn't mean that it's originaly Persian. Your name is Arabic. Ali is Arabic name as well as Hasan, and you are using it just like you said. and The way people pronounce the words is not important at all? sounds to me not a rational comment at all.
B. First we call the City (Basra) then the land/region (Iraq) then the Empire (Buyid). Iraq is the name of the LAND of the region between the 2 rivers.... the Land not the country. How many times we said that Arab used Iraq as the name of the land bewteen the 2 rivers, Mesopotamia is just a Greek name. so by saying Present day Iraq you will make it sounds like we are talking about Iraq republic which it's wrong. the accurate way is to say Basra, Iraq (which it's the name of the region), then Part or under the rule of the Buyid. you used then under the rule in many Iranian articles, for example Geber, You said he was born in Iran then under the rule of Ummayed not then part of Ummayed. any way saying Basra, Iraq and directing Iraq to Iraq's page is not wrong, the Iraq page has a full info about the country's/Land's history including Mesopotamia's, Abbasid Empire's.. etc history info. Mussav (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A: It is not important that the origin of the word/name is Arabic or Persian. See Moses, Joseph or Jacob which in the beginning part, the name is written in many different languages irrespective of the origin of the word and irrespective of how it is pronounced in the original language. The same thing is applicable in this case, from the first day, Alhazen was called as "ابن هیثم" in Persian, irrespective of its origin. It might be pronounced in most parts of Iran as "Ebne Heysam", so what? Iranians (Persians) pronounce it as "Ebne heysam" and Arabs as "ibn al haitham". What is the importance of difference in the pronunciation of his word, in mentioning his name in the beginning part or not? "Joseph" has been used first in Arabic literature, or in Hebrew? Why is the Arabic translation there in the beginning part? Because irrespective of its origin, it is in use considerably in Arabic. As I remember even the first use of the word "Moses" was in Greek sources, and then in Hebrew!
B: Ok, first call the city, then the region, and then the empire. But don't use "Then a part of Buyid Persia", because it was a part of it, at that time, not then. Is there any problem with my English? --Wayiran (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
A. Because we have Christian Arab who use the original names (Hebrew) unlike the rest of the Arab We don't call the Prophets by the Hebrew names like Jesus, Moses or John... we call them Isa, Musa and Yahya..etc so it's important to write their names in both pronunciation so the reader won't be confused. But in here this is a different matter, you are using our original Arabic names.. Nothing Persian about it. Even your country mate admits it.
B. Then does not only means after, it works as (at the same time) [9]. So I think then is the accurte way to say it after all.
Please don't edit the page until we get an agreement. The page stays as the last consensus.

Any way about saying Basra is Modern you are making it sounds like Kuwait or something like that. Basra is a historical city that was exists for centuries. Mussav (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

in what language is the above comment? moreover, in the infobox i see Region: Iraq (Mesopotamia) and Egypt. i do not understand this. what is a region? a pre-historic name for the word country?--Xashaiar (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Arabic. You dont know what the region is? Mussav (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
your first problem: you don't know that you are in the english wikipedia. your second problem: you do not know that wikipedia is an encyclopædia and as such any term and/or word must be used carefully. this is indeed what the other editor above is trying to say. and your original problem is that you are trying to put the word iraq in this article. this does not make any sense. --Xashaiar (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have anything useful to say I'll be happy to hear it and discuss it with you, but if you go around offending people then It's better to not to say anything. I don't need you to teach me what the encyclopedia is.
About Iraq? Iraq is the name used by Arab for the land between the 2 rivers. we didn't call It Mesopotamia we call it Iraq. observe that, in that time it was officially named Iraq (The Buyied Empire came after the Abbasid Empire, which it was officially named Iraq during that time). We should change it from "Modern day Basra, present day Iraq". to Basra, Iraq then part of Buyied Empire (If you make it like that, we'll make sure that Iraq as whole was part of Buyid Empire not only Basra). Mussav (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
1. i already told the viewers of this page a useful thing (i,e. fact), namely Region: Iraq (Mesopotamia) and Egypt does not make sense. 2. on being offensive: to teach you something useful is not offending you (ali the son-in-law of muhamad the prophet of islam said famously what is the price of being taught a word...). 3. it is not important what you call (or called) between the rivers, it is important what reliable sources say as wikipedia is essentially a mirror of those mainstream media. 3. your last point on using Basra, Iraq then part of Buyied Empire has two problems: a: "then" is the wrong word (purely english-language concerns). b: iraq did not exist as an official name of a country. --Xashaiar (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
1. Iraq and Egypt are the names of the lands not the countries and I'm not the one who wrote it, it was written from a very long time before I joined wikipedia. 2. the reliable sources do mention Iraq and Egypt you can check them out by yourself. 3. TBH, I have no problem with removing the then part but the Geber's page should be edited as well (you used then in Geber's page).
Finally I said it several times but I have no problem for repeating it again, Iraq is the name of the land not the country (and I gave few proves above, remember Al-Hajjaj the Umayyad leader who was the leader of Iraq region? he said alot of things about Iraq and you can dig the internet for his quotes. he said Iraq no other name... so if we make this clear the Umayyad Dynasty called it Iraq then the Abbasid Dynasty came and also they called it Iraq and even before Islam the Arab who lived in Mesopotamia called it Iraq). and the reason why we are directing it to Iraq's page, because it has a full information about Iraq's history (Mesopotamia, Abbasid Dynasty.. etc). Everything is mentioned above. Mussav (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay I have removed the "then" part in both pages. Mussav (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
no, you are making the same familiar troubles. please do not change unless you know what you are doing. in the article of geber you have used wrong words. the discussion here is still on-going. --Xashaiar (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What exactly I did wrong? Wasn't Iran in that time part of the Umayyad Dynasty, just like Iraq was part of Buyid Dynasty in their time? I want your suggestion about the "then" part. Mussav (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
it seems to me you are not going to recognise (and appreciate) the differences between (all in the period of time the person alhazen had lived) a country called persia, a dynasty called buyid, an ethnicity called persian or arab, a local name for a region between two rivers called iraq,..., are you going to include all?--Xashaiar (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the same thing. First the City which it's Basra (and remove the modern part because Basra was exists for centuries), then the region part which it's Iraq (Iraq was the name in that time), then the Empire (which it was the Persian Buyid empire), this is for the location. his ethic is already mentioned somewhere else. Mussav (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
no i do not agree. it should be something like (965 in basra, persia-...). it says everything. the country which was persia, the city which was basra, iraq is totally irrelevant. a "modern day/contemporary iraq" can be added somewhere.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be rational. If you say Basra, Iraq, part of the Persian Buiyd Empire then you will make the possession of Basra and Iraq for the Persian Buiyd Empire. modern day/contemporary iraq? It seems you haven't read anything of what I've said above.Mussav (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
my comments are not irrational. let's see what others have to say. i just wrote what i thought is correct.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope for un-biased opinion. Mussav (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
yes, that's the correct approach. we wait for the opinions of others. we must follow consensus.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mussav needs to follow consensus, there was no consensus to remove his name in Persian. The name is Arabic, yes, just as Jakob is Hebrew, the origin of the name has nothing to with its usage. The transliterations are there to help with referencing from different languages which are relevant to the subject.--Sina111 (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple manner. Which it's obvious a false info. Read the discussion above to know everything. Mussav (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to to it. But this is not how [WP:CONS]] works, you had no consensus for the changes.--Sina111 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay let's do a consensus and lest hope for un-biased people. Mussav (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed

I guess I'll add my two cents to this debate. To resolve the issue of whether his name should be given in Persian, it would be useful to provide a source for it, and maybe one for his Arabic name as well. As for the Iraq issue, the land of Mesopotamia (as it was known to the Greeks and Romans) was indeed called "Iraq" at the time by the Arabs. However, instead of linking the word "Iraq" to the Iraq article, which deals primarily with the modern nation of Iraq, it would be more useful linking it to another article like the History of Iraq, which deals with the historical region rather than the modern nation. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

link to history of iraq? are you serious? the link should be either at worst to Mesopotamia or at best to buyid for trivial historical reasons.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jagged for your suggestions. As for the name, I don't think there is a link about his name but this thing is very obvious. Persian cannot pronounce his name properly because his name is a fully Arabic; with a letter that they can not pronounce. For example Haytham, they say Haytsam or Haysam. I kinda agree with you for linking it to the History of Iraq. And Xashair, Yes it should be linked for History of Iraq, the Mesopotamia article ends in Islamic conquer of Mesopotamia. It should be Basra, Iraq (which it links to the History of Iraq), a part of Buiyd Empire. Mussav (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

be carefulf, do not spread hate. otherwise here is what you need to know.
  1. persians do not need to pronounce arabic names (which is so obvious a task that even all reading wikipedia arab or not, according to you, should be able to do it! ). persian did the following, among other things
    1. the grammar of arabic language was written by the persian Sibawayh.
    2. they did most for the developement of science in medieval islam. so that according to the persian kharazmi's classification of sciences the two main branch of sciences, i.e. quranic science and ajami(persian)-sciences were all developed by persians. here are some examples apart from that of the persian Sibawayh :
      1. exegesis of quran is an entirely persian phenomena: the first by persian tabari and the last serious one by tababaei also.
      2. mathematics, medicine, philosophy of that period is a totally iranian tradition. in this branch, called "ajam science" the situation is so serious that the most prominant arab scholar ibn khaldun in his Prolegomena to Study of History that "arabs have the least aptitude for the arts". this is a quote form the most arab person in the history. should i quote him more? if you need tell me.
now you are telling who persians are???? here is my first-round answer: "let pronunciation of names be works of arabs, but creating names the work of persians!".--Xashaiar (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Spread hate? We are discussing things in a civil matter. Science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, arts or exegesis of quran have nothing to do with anything here. Persians have a different language than Arab, We don't understand you at all. Maybe you can understand us because of the Arab conquer of Persia, you mixed with Arab and converted to Islam, but we Arab don't understand a word of yours. the grammar of the Arabic language was written by the Persians? Not sure about this point but guess what? the Arabic numbers came from India so are we and India have the same language? the English roman letters are used in all Europe (or most of it) is that means they have the same language? you driven us far from the main point. Hasan, Ali and Haytham are pure Arabic names came from the Arabic language, what Persian about his name? The Usage? You are suing an Arabic name. Mussav (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean by we? yes the relation is that when you say "cannot pronounce his name properly because his name is a fully rabic; with a letter that they can not pronounce. for example haytham, they say haytsam or haysam." it is obviously something against persians. moreover, since alhazen was most likely persian, his name should come in persian language and not arabic. you say we are mixed with arabs? this kind of statement are very well classified as ..., but even in that case: how long you the arabs have been around? why when talking about history you are short of time? what about few 1000s more of history? maybe the indian numbers you mentioned was not properly transfered to arabs because otherwise you knew who should be, if any, called the mixed or maybe you mean you are not able to count properly? do you understand? this is style of your discussions. you are most likely able to click on a link, right? the references above tell you very well about grammar of arabic language. and you say you are not sure. this is like saying day is night. you are making the same mistakes in logical implication: same numbers implies same language. are you serious in finding the analogue of this implication in what i said? what the previous comment was trying to teach a normal person was: persians developed whatever they needed. i mentioned many examples, would you like more? would you like more quotes from ibn khaldun? would you like more from the spanish ibn rush on arab contribution to the language of their religion called arabic? you mention pure arabic names. what the hell is this term. arabic language, people, iraqi..., are relatively new. the point is about, for the 1000th times, about historical accuracy. history is not few hundred years. do you get this obvious point?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Alhazen is a nickname, an alternative name for his real name because you and the people of Europe can not pronounce his name properly, and besides Alhazen means sad person in Arabic language. How long you the Arabs have been around? huh this is a wired question? you mean in the world? in Mesopotamia? where exactly? You think we came from a bubble? Arab have an ancient history, Arab came from southern of the Arabian peninsula... maybe your question is when you reached Mesopotamia?... well, I don't think there are actual scripts say when is the first time Arab reached Mesopotamia, some sources say in the Ubaid dynasty and some say in the Akkadian dynasty and that's for sure before the raise of the Persian Empire. About the numbers it seems you didn't get the idea, we know the numbers and we know how to account but how we write it is a different thing. Yes the Arabic letters/grammars may looks the same of the Persian but it's not the same language. I gave you an example of the English roman letters. Its different languages, it doesn't matter how you write it. Iraqis are new? This is the most hilarious thing I've ever read. The nation name is Iraq which it was the Arabic name of the land of the 2 rivers for centuries. The people of Iraq are Assyrians (Yes they do exists), Babylonians (Yes they do exist, Read this: Recent DNA (Y chromosome) studies conducted by the National Geographic Magazine on the bones of ancient Babylonians and living people from Babil have shown that the modern peoples carry the same ancient Babylonian genetic material.[10] - so Nashat Akram is Babylonian. :p), Arab (sure Arab lived for centuries before the Islamic conquer of Mesopotamia, as I said before there is no actual scripts say when Arab reached or inhibited Mesopotamia), Persians..etc. so if the country's name changed from Iraq to lolo or whatever, the people are the same people who lived and inhibited Iraq for thousand of years. Mussav (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
since there is no actual script, hence you could not read and write, hence your theory is a home-made story.. hence what should i say? what are you talking about? ..you write "they are exists" what language is this? aren't you bayrak? maybe you should read more talk less--Xashaiar (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
First, I'm sorry for my Grammar. People do mistakes, but you should be grown-up and don't make fun of other people. When I said there is no actual source, It was based on my knowledge about the question you asked, and that doesn't means there is no source, maybe some one else have the knowledge and can prove it. Okay Please let's discuss the main subject. If you have anything useful to add I will be happily discussing it with you but it should be about the main point, let's leave the random subject in a side.

Back to the main subject, I say It's very obvious that his name is Arabic (Persians can not pronounce his name properly and they use an alternative name) and I agree with Jagged on directing the page to the history of Iraq like this Basra, Iraq (Directing to the History of Iraq's page), a part of the Buiyed Empire. let's hope for unbiased opinion. Mussav (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to remove "Muslim scientist" title


I think that "Muslim scientist" is inappropriate here. It should be removed or exchanged for "Arabic scientist". However, I do not believe that such renaming is possible here because of the level of political rage involved in "discussion" on this page, as though claiming that a thousand year long dead man was Persian and not Arabic and vice versa can somehow change his status and raise/diminish the status of opponents involved in this argument. So lets just remove it. Muslim or islamic "science" is strongly percepted as studying theology and "holy" books, and not as science which is based on the Scientific Method which is acclaimed to be invented by this genius man. Indeed, immediate application of Scientific Method to religion destroys irrational beliefs which are the basis of any religion. Here I will argue on the basis of "Theology" section of this article that this man can not be called an "Islamic scientist" in the sense of being an "Islamic theologician". Before that, however, I will address another possible defensive argument of those who would like to refer this great man as an "Islamic scientist". Some call "Islamic scientist" anybody who was born, lived, and worked within the space of certain culture, in this case, islamic culture. This is wrong. Here is the simple analogy

Neither of these statements are true in SPIRIT since neither of these men was a really dumb-headed believer in personal god of a respective brand. Moreover, some of these men were/are strong atheists. So naming somebody "name of faith scientist" is misleading and confusing.


OK, lets now get to the info on the man's religious belief and his contribution into theology as stated in the article. I assume that what is here is the strongest evidence of his contribution into Islam. I dont think that he was an atheist simply because it would be to hard to become one being indoctrinated in religion from the childhood, and it could be too hard to just physically survive as open atheist at that time.

Theology Ibn al-Haytham was a devout Muslim,[54] though it is uncertain which branch of Islam he followed. He may have been either a follower of the orthodox Ash'ari school of Sunni Islamic theology according to Ziauddin Sardar[116] and Lawrence Bettany[117] (and opposed to the views of the Mu'tazili school),[117] a follower of the Mu'tazili school of Islamic theology according to Peter Edward Hodgson,[118] or a follower of Shia Islam according to A. I. Sabra[119] (specifically the Ismaili branch).[120]

Ibn al-Haytham wrote a work on Islamic theology, in which he discussed prophethood and developed a system of philosophical criteria to discern its false claimants in his time.[121] He also wrote a treatise entitled Finding the Direction of Qibla by Calculation, in which he discussed finding the Qibla, where Salah prayers are directed towards, mathematically.[100]


There are two references in this section. First, "Ibn al-Haytham wrote a work on Islamic theology, in which he discussed prophethood and developed a system of philosophical criteria to discern its false claimants in his time". It is very interesting. I didnt read it, but I think that the system which this scientist has developed based on Scientific method was really effective in filtering out "false prophets". I also think that the man just didnt go further an did not analyzed the remaining "true prophets" with the same rigour for the sake of his mind, faith, and mere life. Needless to say that use of scientific method leads to the uninspiring conclusion that there are no such a thing as a "true prophet" in religious sense. Anyway, no major theologic ideas produced by this man are stated here. Second note is about Finding the Direction of Qibla by Calculation. Is it religious? I think it is a scientific treatise with a small deviation to religion. No doubts that the same method would allow to find right direction to Mecca, Medina, Bagdad, Rome, and London.

Ibn al-Haytham attributed his experimental scientific method and scientific skepticism to his Islamic faith The Islamic holy book the Qur'an, for example, placed a strong emphasis on empiricism.[122][123][124] He also believed that human beings are inherently flawed and that only God is perfect. He reasoned that to discover the truth about nature, it is necessary to eliminate human opinion and error, and allow the universe to speak for itself.[72]

This is also great and revealing. First he pays tribute to his culture which allowed him to become what he was. It in effect shows that his attitude toward religion was sceptical. Because no sound application of EXPERIMENTAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD to any faith can result in conformation of that faith. It also shows that the man could do subversive work toward Islam, which he might not be sincerely acknowledging for himself, though i doubt it. Look carefully: "strong emphasis on empiricism" means emphasis on experience. "To eliminate human opinion and error and allow the universe to speak for itself" is a strong blow to faith since any faith IS the accumulated human opinions and errors and use of Scientific method will reveal it. As there are no factual basis of religious beliefs, this is really subversive and anti-religious thing.

He wrote in his Doubts Concerning Ptolemy: Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.[8]

In The Winding Motion, Ibn al-Haytham further wrote that faith (or taqlid "imitation") should only apply to prophets of Islam and not to any other authorities, in the following comparison between the Islamic prophetic tradition and the demonstrative sciences:

From the statements made by the noble Shaykh, it is clear that he believes in Ptolemy's words in everything he says, without relying on a demonstration or calling on a proof, but by pure imitation (taqlid); that is how experts in the prophetic tradition have faith in Prophets, may the blessing of God be upon them. But it is not the way that mathematicians have faith in specialists in the demonstrative sciences.[125]

Ibn al-Haytham described his search for truth and knowledge as a way of leading him closer to God:

I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge.[126]

And so on. The man was carefully drawing distinction and laying the borderline between science and religion while remaining a faithful muslim in exressions. It is a very wise and clever strategy to survive, work, and propagate your work in low-tolerance societies. Ergo, whoever this man was, he was not a blind follower of the faith, but a careful proponent of science which would later completely eliminate the need in religion. So i'm waiting for comments to remove the "Muslim scientist" label Rvfrolov (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you're not going to get anywhere making statements like "neither of these men was a really dumb-headed believer in personal god of a respective brand" particularly when you are making grammatical errors in the very sentence itself. "Neither" indicates a choice of *two* not five. Also, Richard Dawkins is not a Christian, so I'm not really sure how your "analogy" applies. Also, Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who paid for the distribution of Bibles among the poor, so I would say that he was one of your "dumb-headed believers in a person God of a respective brand". A suggestion: if you wish to sway persons to your position, consider your audience and don't use inflammatory language. Many will not appreciate you using such hateful language in reference to persons of faith, even if they don't share said faith. I would protest the usage of hate-based language toward atheists, because I respect them as persons and their right to be an atheist wholeheartedly. An aside observation... what exactly is a "strong atheist"? That is akin to referring to a woman as "strongly pregnant". Someone is either an atheist or they are not.
The fact that Ibn al-Haytham was a Muslim (this word is capitalized, by the way) is very important among Muslim peoples. In fact, the article smacks of boosterism for Ibn al-Haytham for the express purpose of lending credibility to the history of Islam's contributions to the world at large. The fact that he is called a "Muslim scientist" is a cause for concern, because his religion is irrelevant. In fact, this adds support to the fact that the article is a love letter to Islam's influence in the world. In that manner, I support your contention. What is next, we label someone the "Gay scientist"? The point is, the article is more about singing the praises of Islam's contribution to the field of science than an accurate portrait of the scientist himself.Supertheman (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes 'first true scientist' article

Note #5 links to an article titled "The 'first true scientist'" on BBC's website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7810846.stm The Note says "January 2008, but the article is dated 4 January 2009. I tried to edit the notes but I can't figure out how to do this correctly as the notes section isn't full of text but rather has "reflist|2" in brackets. twfowler (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Marshall was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Power was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ibn_al-Haytham/Archive_1&oldid=1140408167"