Jump to content

Talk:Al-Farabi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.83.133.187 (talk) at 19:47, 16 September 2007 (→Ibn Sīnā Quote on Origin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good article:Review

This article should be improved more. Therefor I put an On Hold tag on it.

During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 13, 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Expand lead per WP:LEAD.
2. Factually accurate?: You should add reliable sources wherever I put citation needed.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, Of course.
4. Neutral point of view?: No problem.
5. Article stability?: Fine.
6. Images?:No problem.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

accuracy tag

I have a Persian translation of History of Islamic Philosophy(by Henry Corbin) . I compared this article with it and found contradictions about his father's name and birth's year. There may be another contradictions too. So I added accuracy tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information from Corbin's book but I can't determine the exact page because I don't have the English version.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to his father's name was already mentioned in the intro. Now you have added it twice - in the same sentence. The name "Tarkhan ibn Uzalagh" has no historical reference and goes back to Ibn Khallekan (see the reference to Encyclopaedia Iranica and to Prof. Dimitri Gutas (who is an authority on Farabi's biography)). Ibn Khallekan's records are considered bias by many leading historians specialized on al-Farabi, because Ibn Khallekan's only purpose was to redicule the eralier biography given by Ibn Abi Osaybe'a. Ibn Khallekan, who stubbornly tries to prove that Farabi was a Turk (thus contradicting Farabi's closest student Yahya bin Adi and his friend Ibn al-Nadim), even invented the nisba "al-Turk". Ibn Khallekan's work is not ment to be a biography of Farabi, but has the sole purpose to claim a Turkish origin for Farabi - this is basically the only toppic of his work. It happens that many scholars (see the sources mentioned in the text) have simply copied Ibn Khallekan's notes, but only a very few have systematically analyzed his work and have compared it to older biographies or direct quotes from his contemporaries (ibn al-Nadim) and closest friends (Yahya bin Adi). As the distinguished scholar Prof. Mohsin Mahdi points out, Ibn Khallekan pruposely falsified and altered older sources in order to prove his claims. For example, he purposely falsified the words of Ibn al-Qifti who had reported that Farabi had a Sufi garb ("be-zeyy ahl al-tasáawwof"). He took these words decades later and changed them to "Turkish garb" ("be-zeyy al-atrak"). Ibn Khallekan also fabricated many other legends and stories about Farabi. See also Peter J. King's biography of al-Farabi, in which he rejects Ibn Khallekan's evidently biased work and focuses on Ibn Abi Osaybe'a and Farabi's contemporaries, such as Ibn al-Nadim. Another excellent biography of Farabi was published by M. Galston (Politics and Excellence: The Political Philosophy of Alfarabi, Princeton, 1990). I will leave the tag in the article. But you should explain what else you criticize in the article. However, Farabi's name should be mentioned as "Abū Nasr Muhammad ibn al-Farakh al-Fārābi", because this the name all historical sources agree on (even ibn Khallekan). The version you have mentioned is based on Ibn Khallekan's heavily criticized work, and does not appear in any older sources (ibn al-Qifti, ibn al-Nadim, Ibn Abi Osaybe'a, etc). 82.83.153.144 10:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Thought

I found a source which recognized him as Aristotelianism. There is written Neo-Platonism in the article. In Iran and Arab countries he have been recognized as Mashsha'ee as well as Avicenna versus Hikmat al Ishraq(i.e.Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi).--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can't put Muslim philosophers in western categories correctly because some of them like Al-Farabi and Avicenna changed what they learnt from Greek philosophy. These are the main categories of Islamic philosophy:
  • Mashsha'ee:Philosophers like Al-Farabi and Avicenna derived something from Aristotle, Plato, Porphyry and Ptolemy and added something to it.
  • Hikmat al Ishraq:Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi used former methodology to some extent and added some part of Iranian pre-Islamic philosophy to it.
  • Falsafa Nabavi: Corbin introduces a kind of Esotericism thought as falsafa nabavi which typifies by Twelvers and Ismaili's ontology and theology.
  • Irfan: Corbin recognizes Sufis theology especially Ibn Arabi's theology as a kind of philosophy. However it doesn't use logic in its methodology.
  • Transcendent Theosophy or Sadraism:Mulla Sadra innovates a new form of philosophy. This is a separate kind of ontology which is based on the Existence in stead of Essence. It's not well known outside of Iran but it's dominant form of philosophy in Iran after 16CE.[1]

You can find more information about them in History of Islamic philosophy.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I propose moving Contributions to lead. The lead is too short.(WP:LEAD#Provide an accessible overview)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several technical words like absolute being(Vajeb Al-Vujud) in Works section which needs internal links. (WP:MOS-L)

Bibliography

There should be a bibliography of his works.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

{{{overcom}}}|}}

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Origin

I believe currently the article falls heavily on the theory that Al-Farabi was of Persian origin, this seems to contradict many of the third party sources out there. Please see:

Despite the article stating that a significant number of scholars consider Al-Farabi to be of Turkic origin, it seems more space is devoted to proving his supposed Persian origin. I the origins sections section needs to be rewritten to correctly reflect the academic support behind each of the claims. --A.Garnet 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this part of the article is fair and well written. It focuses on important scholarly references, such as the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam, and it explains why leading scholars criticize the Turkic origin theory and the roots of this claim. At the same time, it also mentions the large number of authors who do recognize Farabi as an ethnic Turk, while at the same time pointing to the fact that all of these scholars copied from the same source that is heavily criticized by leading biographers of Farabi, most of all by Dimitri Gutas, probably the most important biographer of Farabi. The number of authors and the number of tertiary, non-authoritative sources (such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is a general encyclopedia written by non-scholars) does not really disprove the opinion of leading scholars or professional literature. I think that everything is fine with that section. 193.170.48.2 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the pov-section tag. The article at present does not reflect the large number of sources out there which refer to Farabi as being of Turkic origin. Rather, it devotes more space to dismissing those sources on the back of Gutas and Encylopedia Iranica. Imo, the whole discussion on his origin should be trimmed, it is the mans work, not his roots, that should be the main focus of this article. --A.Garnet 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Dimitri Gutas of Yale University (Ph.D. Yale 1974) ist an expert on Arabic and Greek philosophy, an expert on al-Farabi's teachings, and he is one of the very few who have independently done a reasearch on al-Farabi's origin. Your statement that there are many scholars who support a Turkish origin of Farabi is correct. But that's only quantity, not quality. Many of the scholars listed in the article only copied the work of others, on both sides, either supporting a Persian or a Turkish origin theory. D. Gutas is one of the very few listed (and he may be the only one mentioned in the text) who have actually done some research on Farabi's origin and have not simply copied some older source. Unless you can prove that the other scholars mentioned have also done an extensive research on his origins, I do not believe that you have a valid point to object Prof. Gutas' observation and conclusion. The current version of this article slightly favours the Persian origin theory, but this is in accordance with Prof. Gutas' research, and in accordance with all classical sources except ibn Kallekan. And Prof. Gutas has proved that ibn Kallekan's work is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.187.23 (talk) 21:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

A great example of WP:SYN here:

Earlier than any extant biography of Farabi, Ibn Sīnā states in his book "Al-Shifā":[13]
since the Turks and Africans live in harsh territories which are not suitable for the cultivation of intellectualism, consequently they are far away from knowledge and thus obliged to serve the people of the city of virtue ...[14]
whereas Avicenna held extremely high opinion of Farabi and considered himself Farabi’s successor."

I suggest to delete the biography section, which is in a miserable state (not just wp:syn above), completely now. And then we can add some info in a wikilike way from scratch, first on the talk page. DenizTC 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ibn Sīnā Quote on Origin

The way it is worded I don't see how this quote and the following comments-

Earlier than any extant biography of Farabi, Ibn Sīnā states in his book "Al-Shifā":[13]
since the Turks and Africans live in harsh territories which are not suitable for the cultivation of intellectualism, consequently they are far away from knowledge and thus obliged to serve the people of the city of virtue ...[14]
whereas Avicenna held extremely high opinion of Farabi and considered himself Farabi’s successor."

refute the Turkic origin theory. It could be either of the following - 1. Ibn Sīnā knows that Farabi is Persian/ not a Turk and mentions this information to prove his theory about people living in harsh territories 2. Ibn Sīnā does not know Farabi's origin and concludes that he is not Turkic simply because he is a 'civilized' scholar he holds in high esteem.

Either way there is no definite information and the harsh territory reference is somewhat tasteless for an encyclopedic entry - not to mention unscientific. I believe if the proof is explicit it can stand alone without referencing what Ibn Sīnā though about other cultures at the time. Regards... --68.85.99.144 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the quote should be removed because it is original research and has no encyclopedic value. Nevertheless, the Persian origin theory should be prominent, because those who claim that he was Persian have actually done a detailed research. Not the quantity of sources proves a theory right, but the quality. D. Gutas' excellent analysis of primary sources is authoritative. The sources which claim a Turkic origin for him are usually neither primary nor secondary sources, but tertiary works by people who are not interested in Farabi's origin and do not elaborate their claim. Encyclopedia Britannica is not always correct, and most of all, it is not a scholarly work. It does not even cite its sources, and many times it contradicts itself in different articles. -82.83.133.187 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Farabi&oldid=158339200"