Talk:Ibn Khaldun/Archive 1

message: Strange is that the scientists generally no Arabs were and this applies both to the scientists in Islam and in science. And if there is an Arab under them, then he is gearabiseerd. Nevertheless the owner of CHARIA (Islamic legislation) came from their middle. And this comes because the Arabs are ignorant and have had never knowledge. Even those whom Arab grammar products has made expatriate. First Sibawayh were from the Persian realm and then Al-Zajaaj, these two were AJAM (everyone who is no Arab). The expatriate have made grammar for the Arabs and learned them the Arab language, art, laws and opvoedkunde. The meesten which Al-Hadith after to products have told of origin no Arabs. Then the Islamic scientists were not almost all Arabs. The Arabs could not write, note and not to express. And all those scientists who and have explained products have noted Islamic leathers and Arab grammar and have kept no Arabs of origin. Science was conducted by the Persian scientists, whereas the Arabs for competing with were concerning the power. The Arabs have ternauwernood interfered with science. The industry was carried out by the Gearabiseerden. When the Arabs devastate Egypt and the power there got, the Egyptenaren have kept themselves busy with science and Egypt was the country of science and industry. To these gearabiseerden which kept themselves busy with science were: SAAD ADDIEN ATAFTAZI, IBN ALKHTIEB, NASR ADDIEN ATTUSIE. The work of other gearabiseerden has been destroyed. ...
see what the ather arabs saied about ibn khaldun : the did read a few of waht ibn khaldun deed write:
عجبت كيف تسألني عن هذه الخرافة؟ ونسيت ما قلته أنت ونقلته عنّا في صفحة من صفحات كتابك انّه (أي محمّد الحسين) لا يرضى عن الرجوع في تأريخ الشيعة إلى ما كتبه إبن خلدون (البربري) الذي يكتب وهو في افريقيا وأقصى المغرب عن الشيعة في العراق وأقصى المشرق، إنتهى.فهل نقلت الأسطورة الخرافية إلاّ عن إبن خلدون أو أمثاله؟ وهل وجدتها في شيء من كتب الشيعة؟ إذاً فارشدنا إليه أرشدك اللّه، هذا وقد قرأت في كتابنا (أصل الشيعة وأصولها) الذي نوهت أنت عنه في هذه الصفحة.
but that is not allthing the arabs claim also :
-the berber komed from yemen.
-berberlanguage is a yemenitic dialect.
-ibn khaldun is a yemenitic.
-averroes is  a arab. 
-the arabs broucht the civilation to north afrika . (you may ask ibn khaldun bout it).
here you can find that the berber are victims of counterfeiting of their history because the Europeans have said that they are berber, whereas they are old Arabs.
*http://www.akbarlibya.com/AF/AF4.htm
Aziri 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Taha Hussein may not be stupid, but (like 99.999% of the world) I doubt he ever read the entire Kitab al-Ibar.  If he had, he would know - just as you should now know - that Ibn Khaldun says clearly and directly that he was an Arab and his ancestors came from Yemen. If you think Ibn Khaldun was such a big liar, why do you want him to be Berber anyway? - Mustafaa 19:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Most of the scientists were no Arabs :

message: if you are so searly that he was an arab. you can bleave to think so. and is also for my if i think that he was a berber. BUT because his oringine , such as i saied, is unknouwn we can just write what there is saied. 
and that is so :" the origine of ibn khaldun is uncertain, that arab claim that he was an arab from yemen , his familly was in sapain, and he is born in tunisie. but other berber claim that he was a berber, because according to them (the berber) there is no proofs that ibn khaldun realy was from yemen. such as taha hussein and mohamed chafik and others. and the other important reason is that he did writed very negatieve about the arabs. Aziri 11:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain this one thing to me: Why are you claiming that Ibn Khaldun lied about his ancestry?  Or if you understand Arabic better: لماذا تقول أن ابن خلدون كذب لما قال أنه عرب في كتابه؟ It's not "the Arabs" that claim he was Arab; it's IBN KHALDUN that claims he was Arab! Can you read? - Mustafaa 19:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Moved from  Wikipedia:Translation into English:
*Article: :de:Ibn Khaldun 
*Corresponding English-language article: Ibn Khaldun
*Worth doing because: The German article—which is featured-quality—has a much better biography and summary of his works. 
* Originally Requested by: —No-One Jones 02:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: What about moving this article to 'ibn Khaldun al-Hadrami'? I talked to some of my friends and some recongized the 'al-Hadrami' name, but not the 'Ibn Khaldun'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, Ibn Khaldun is by far the most common "short form", but I'm not necessarily opposed to such a move AnonMoos 04:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I think quotes would be better of moved to the dedicated site. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're quoted here to make a particular point, not just be general quotations (I would assume). AnonMoos 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikuquote 

message: Many of the Arabic transliterations used in this article are funky ASCII-based non-standard transliterations, which need to be replaced by more appropriate transcriptions (using diacritic letters if thought necessary, but NOT using the ASCII "^" character, or using capital "A" as the transcription of a long vowel) -- accompanied by the original Arabic-alphabet text in a few cases. AnonMoos 04:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic transliterations

message: I've removed the "quotations" section because it was quite
obvious chosen for racist reasons. Obviously these quotes
were put by Arab-haters, and probably Persian "nationalists".
The Persian quote in particular is amusing, since it is not
one quote, but sections of different paragraphs put together
to bolster Persian pride.
Is this the game to be played now? Scoure Ibn Khaldun's
works for any bits of praise or denigration of certain
groups?
When will a Greek come over and start putting in quotes
of Ibn Khaldun praising the Greeks?
And what of quotes denigrating blacks and northern Europeans?
Once again racial "nationalists" ruin Wikipedia.
MYLO 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your deletions has been reverted. We do not go around wikipedia and delete everything that someone might consider racists .--CltFn 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed quotations 

message: Why does the arabic script not include Abū Zayd? I only see ʕAbdu l-Rahman ibn Muħammad ibn Khaldūn al-Haḍramī.
Yom 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected that.Jidan 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: a word to those who decided to give him a Tunisian nationality...you guys do realize Tunisian as a nationality by itself only developed very recently, just a few decades ago. Please don't falsify facts, he was an Arab, Tunis only became a nation-state centuries after he was born, no one can give that as his nationality. MB 14:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tunisian from the city of Tunis.--CltFn 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: He was from the city of Tunis  = Tunisian.--CltFn 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense he was not Arab , you do not seem to know anything about him, read his book , he was not arab by a long shot.--CltFn 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish you were right. This guy has humilated the arabs like no one else. But when someone writes that he is an arab and even bothers to trace his arab ancestory back to adam. Then you simply have to believe him. Ibn khaldun himself said that History is not about what is right and wrong. Its about what is most probable and less probable. So please stop vandalizing his page. Jidan 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunisian, now, huh? 

message: thumb|right|200px|From the book: "The Golden Age of Persia", by Richard Nelson Frye (Page 150)
I think this scan can be helpful to settle down this dispute. Amir85 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im sorry, but what will settle the issue is if you take enough arabic lessons to know the difference between Ajam ( عجم, non-arab) and fars(فرس, persian). Why should ibn khaldoun use both words in the same sentence when they both mean the same thing????? Jidan 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the image again.  The quote is verifiable, and that's all there is to it. --ManiF 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not exactly the issue here. I believe MB and Jidan are both saying that this passage is a mistranslation. I have seen on one website discussing this passage mention that the author probably did not literally mean Persians and instead meant to include other non-Arabs. Sorry, I can't remember which site, but if that turns out to be verifiable then it could also warrant an aside in the article about it. Nobody is arguing that the passage isn't verifiable (I think), but it's possible that other verifiable information about the passage's accuracy is being neglected. –Tifego(t)06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Until they can bring up an equally verifiable objection to the quote, they don't have much ground to dispute it, but please don't assume bad faith of them all. I think it's not entirely impossible that the word "Persian" is being taken too literally here, although I don't know anything about it myself. I did see some reference to this outside of Wikipedia. But again, you essentially win (whatever this argument is about) by default unless that other view can be verified and is notable. No need to bring up their motives or your respect for scholars. –Tifego(t)07:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have moved my response, and your response to it, into that other article, because it is off-topic here. –Tifego(t)23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To reiterate on this topic, there is no argument left here that I can see, until more information is presented. So there is no need to argue. It's my opinion that whoever is continually removing that quote from this page should stop for a while, and take the time to find a good, convincing reason why it should not be there. –Tifego(t)00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it's a quote of a quote of a translation. (Specifically, a quote of R. Frye's quote of F. Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldūn's The Prologomena) –Tifego(t)07:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that should be made clear in article, right? The way it stands it appears as if the whole thing is a quote by Ibn Khaldun. AucamanTalk 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is pretty clear already that it's just a translation of what he said, because it says "Translated by F. Rosenthal" after it. –Tifego(t)00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What? I don't understand what those links are for. They appear unrelated to what was being discussed above. –Tifego(t)19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Golden Age of Persia 

message: Who exactly are you quoting?  F. Rosenthal or R. Nelson??? AucamanTalk 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's a quote of a quote of a translation. (Specifically, a quote of R. Frye's quote of F. Rosenthal's translation of Ibn Khaldūn's The Prologomena) –Tifego(t)07:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that should be made clear in article, right? The way it stands it appears as if the whole thing is a quote by Ibn Khaldun. AucamanTalk 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is pretty clear already that it's just a translation of what he said, because it says "Translated by F. Rosenthal" after it. –Tifego(t)00:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What? I don't understand what those links are for. They appear unrelated to what was being discussed above. –Tifego(t)19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not clear

message: In the translation by Frank Rosenthal, (published by the Priceton University Press, 1967), there are several citations for Persians. Here is the list of those citations from the Index of the book, sorted in the same order given in the Index.
#Their dead (of Copts and Egyptions) were buried with their possessions of gold, silver, precious stones, and pearls. When the dynasty of the Copts ended and the Persians ruled Egypt, they searched the graves for such objects and discovered them. They took an indescribably large amount of such objects from ordinary graves, and from pyramides, which were the royal graves. Muqaddimah, p.303, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
#Al-Mas'udi and many other historians report that Moses counted the army of the Israelites in the desert. He had all those able to carry arms, especially those twenty years and older, pass muster. There turned out to be 600,000 or more... The Persian provinces of the two Iraqs (footnote: Mesopotamia and north-western Persia adjacent to it), Khurasan, Transoxania, and the region of Derbend on the Caspian Sea were much larger than the realm of Israelites. yet, the Persian army did not attain such a number or even approach it. The greatest concentration of all Persian troops, at al-Qadisiyah, amounted to 120,000 men, all of whom had their retainers. Muqaddimah, p.11-12, 1967 edition.
#Where are the sciences of the Persians that Umar ordered to be wiped out at the time of the conquest?.Muqaddimah, p.39, third paragraph, 1967 edition.
#But in the provinces of the non-Arab Iraq and beyond to the East, no trace or source of (Arabic language) has remained. Even scientific books have come to be written in the Presian language, which is also used for teaching Arabic in class.Muqaddimah, p.295, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
#As far as our historical information goes, these sciences (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, physics, metaphysics, and astrology) were most extensively cultivated by the two great pre-Islamic nations, the Persians and the Greeks (Rûm)...The Chaldeans and, before them, the Syrians, as well as their contemporaries, the Copts, were much concerned with sorcery and astrology and related subjects of powerful (charms) and talismans. The Persian and Greek nations learned these things from them. Muqaddimah, p.372, paragraphs 6 and last, 1967 edition.
#Among the Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persian dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to the Greeks from the Persians, when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians. However, when the Muslims conquered Persia and came upon an indescribably large number of books and scientific papers, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas wrote to 'Umar bin al-Khattab, asking him for permission to take them and distribute them as booty among the Muslims. On that occasion, 'Umar wrote him: Throw them into the water. If what they contain is right guidance, God has given us better guidance. If it is error, God has protected us against it. Thus, the Muslims threw them into the water or into the fire, and the sciences of the Persians were lost and did not reach us.Muqaddimah, p.373, 2nd paragraph, 1967 edition.
#Thus, the founders of grammar were Sibawayh and, after him, al-Farisi and az-Zajjaj. All of them were of non-Arab (Persian) descent. They were brought up in the Arabic language and acquired the knowledge of it through their upbringing and through contact with Arabs. They invented the rules of (grammar) and made it into a discipline (in its own right) for later (generations to use). Most of the hadith scholars who preserved traditions for the Muslims also were Persians, or Persian in language and upbringing, because the discipline was widely cultivated in the Iraq and the regions beyond. Furthermore, all the scholars who worked in the science of the principles of jurisprudence were Persians. The same applies to speculative theologians and to most Quran commentators. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus, the truth of the following statement by the Prophet becomes apparent: If scholarship hung suspended in the highest parts of heaven, the Persians would attain it. Muqaddimah, p.429-430, 1967 edition.
#The group that has lost control of its own affairs thus continues to weaken and to disintegrate until it perishes. God alone endures. This may be illustrated by the Persian nation. In the past, the Persians filled the world with their great numbers. When their military force was annihilated by the Arabs, they were still very numerous. It is said that Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas counted (the population) beyond Ctesiphon. It numbered 137,000, including 37,000 heads of families. But when the Persians came under the rule of the Arabs and were subjugated, they lasted only a short while and were wiped out as if they had never been.One should not think that this was the result of some persecution or aggression perpetrated against them. The rule of Islam is known for its justice. Such (disintegration) is in human nature. It happens when people lose control of their own affairs and become the instrument of someone else. Muqaddimah, p.117, last paragraph, 1967 edition.
#When the dynasty becomes senile and weak, it begins to crumble at its extremities. The centre remains intact until God permits the destruction of the whole dynasty. Then, the centre is destroyed. But when a dynasty is overrun from the centre, it is of no avail to it that the outlying areas remain intact. It dissolves all at once. The centre is like the heart from which the (vital) spirit spreads. Were the heart to be overrun and captured, all the extremities would be routed. This may be observed in the Persian dynasty. Its centre was al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon). When the Muslims took over al-Mada'in, the whole Persian empire dissolved. Posession of the outlying provinces of the realm was of no avail to Yazdjard (Yazdegerd III).Muqaddimah, p.129, 2nd Paragraph, 1967 edition.
#Therefore, it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass and to whose laws it submits. The Persians and other nations had such norms. The dynasty that does not have a policy based on such (norms) cannot fully succeed in establishing the supremacy of its rule.Muqaddimah, p.154, 3rd Paragraph, 1967 edition.
#The first type of rational politics may concern itself with the general interest, and with the ruler's interest in connection with the administration of his realm, in particular. This was the politics of the Persians. Muqaddimah, p.257, 4th Paragraph, 1967 edition.
#The Persians who fought in close formation used to employ elephants in their wars. ... In this connection, one may compare what happened at al-Qadisiyah. On the third day, the Persians pressed the Muslims hard with the elephants. Eventually, some outstanding Arabs counter attacked, infiltrated among the elephants, and struck them on the trunk with their swords. The elephants fled and turned back to their stables in al-Mada'in. This paralysed the Persian camp, and they fled on the fourth day....Rustum sat upon a throne that had been set up for him there. Finally , the Persian lines became disordered, and the Arabs penetrated to his throne. He abandoned it and went to the Euphrates, where he was killed. Muqaddimah, p.226, 1967 edition.
#The Persians made no one king except members of the royal house. Further, they chose him from among those who possessed virtue, religion, education, liberality, bravery, and nobility. Then, they stipulated in addition that he should be just. Muqaddimah, p.234, 1967 edition.
#One compare here the story that al-Mas'udi tells in the connection with the history of the Persians. In the days of King Bahram bin Bahram, the Mobedhan, the chief religious dignitary among the Persians, expressed to the King his disapproval of the latter's injustice and indifference to the consequences that his injustice must bring upon the dynasty...(Mobedhan tells a story  about a pair of male and female owls, where female owl asked as a pre-condition for marriage the gift of twenty villages ruined in the days of Bahram). The King was stirred out of his negligence by that story....After consultation with the Mobedhan, the King ordered the farms to be taken away from the intimates of the ruler and be restored to their owners...As a result, his days were prosperous, and his realm was well organized.Muqaddimah, p.238-239, 1967 edition.
#Poetry is not restricted exclusively to the Arabic language. It exists in every language. There were poets among the Persians and among the Greeks.Muqaddimah, p.456, Last Paragraph, 1967 edition.
Heja Helweda 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting some of those should go in the article, or are you giving them as evidence of something? (If evidence, of course it can't hurt, but the ball wasn't on your side.) –Tifego(t)02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I just quoted the whole citations so that people can make sure whether the quotes in the article really exist in Muqaddimah or not. In any case, I suggest to remove all ethnic references from the Ibn Khaldun article, since there are other numerous quotes and paragraphs about Arabs, Greeks, Chaldeans, Israelites, etc in that book.Heja Helweda 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I don't know enough to make or argue for this proposed change myself, so you or someone else would have to do it. Alternatively, someone could add quotes for all of those others you mentioned (of the ones that are significant) to make it more balanced, unless all of them are unimportant. –Tifego(t)03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persians in Muqaddimah 

message: Substituted at 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment