
Arabic Mathematics: Forgotten Brilliance? (1999) - lioeters
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
======
namirez
Title is slightly misleading! Most of them are Islamic but not Arabic.
Khawrazmi [1], Karaji [2], Khayyam [3], and Tusi [4] were all Persian. Ibn
Haytham wrote only in Arabic though.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-
Khwarizmi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-
Karaji](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Karaji)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharaf_al-D%C4%ABn_al-%E1%B9%A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharaf_al-D%C4%ABn_al-%E1%B9%AC%C5%ABs%C4%AB)

~~~
jacobolus
It’s a shorthand; “Arabic” or “Islamic” mathematicians were from a wide range
of religions, ethnic groups, regions, etc.

It’s similar to the way we call all of the mathematicians of ~ 500 BCE – 500
CE “Greek”, even though most of the later ones were Roman citizens living in
Egypt or elsewhere.

Or the way we call Mesopotamian mathematics generically “Babylonian”, even
though most of it was from other cities, and some of the relevant developments
lumped in are from before Babylon per se existed, done by people of a
different ethnic group who spoke a different language.

Or the way Soviet scientists are often called “Russian”.

~~~
acqq
The Greeks living in Egypt were actually Greeks, even during the existence of
the Roman Empire.

The Persian mathematicians living in Persia in the times _after the Islamic
conquest_ simply weren't Arabs, exactly like the Greeks weren't Romans _after
the Roman conquest_.

One doesn't get the new ethnicity by being occupied.

~~~
dingoegret
This is not true. They were likely ethnically Egyptian or Phoenician or Libyan
but had Hellenic names. In the same way the Iranian mathematicians in the
article had Arabic names. Culture and language often cross ethnic boundaries
and it's up to historians to piece it all together.

~~~
ignoramous
> Iranian mathematicians

In the middle ages, there was greater Persia and two Iraqs (Iraq al-Arab to
the west and Iraq al-Ajman to the east which is today's western and central
Iran).

If we are being pedantic, either the polymaths in question were Persian (which
they are) or Iraqi Arabs, not Iranians. In fact, Persian empire also
encompassed parts of modern day Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kazakhstan, until they came under the Turcko-Mongol
rule.

Refs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanid_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanid_Empire)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Intermezzo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Intermezzo)

~~~
jacobolus
dingoegret: your sibling comment here is dead.

Anyway, “Persia” (Persis) comes from the Greek version of “Pars”. Persians
call their language “Farsi”, from the Arabic version, “Fars”. These all have
the same origin, and date back millennia.

------
nobrains
Many Islamic (not just Arab. Also Persian and others) scholars were on the
right track about identifying evolution, and far from the evolution denying
general populace today.

See the short "history" section in this article:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution)

~~~
emilsedgh
Wow, I had no idea! "[they] were on the right track" is an understatement.

 _... on what he referred to as the "gradual process of creation." He stated
that the Earth began with abiotic components such as "minerals." Slowly,
primitive stages of plants such as "herbs and seedless plants" developed and
eventually "palms and vines." Khaldun connects the later stages of plant
development to the first stages of animal development. Finally, he claims that
the greater thought capabilities of human beings was "reached from the world
of the monkeys."_

~~~
FabHK
I wonder, though, to which extent that was somewhat idle speculation, similar
to Democritus stating that the world consists of atoms 400 BCE, without really
any evidence for it (let alone a fully formed theory).

~~~
emilsedgh
A bit more from this fascinating topic:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Biology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah#Biology)

It seems like he had a fully formed theory which is pretty accurate.

~~~
FabHK
A bit late now, but FWIW I don't think from the cited quotes one can deduce
that he had anything approaching a fully formed theory; in fact I'd say it's
very similar to Democritus idle musings.

~~~
emilsedgh
Yes. The quotes didn't have any indication of a full theory. However, I find
it difficult to believe that they reached so many accurate conclusions without
a proper base theory.

------
thepete2
The word Algorithm comes from a mathematician named al-Khwarizmi. Many words
that begin with Al (Arabic definite article) are of Arabic origin. Alcohol is
another one :)

~~~
Rattled
I was told of Algebra coming from Al-Jabr meaning "number games". I was
surprised I didn't see this mentioned in the article, until I found the book
mentioned in Al-Khwarizmi's biography [1]. The book's title is "Hisab al-jabr
w'al-muqabala" but no translation is given and Google's translation "Al Jaber
account and interview" is not helpful. Can anyone confirm or deny the
explanation I was given?

[1] [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Al-
Kh...](http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Al-
Khwarizmi.html)

~~~
ComputerGuru
جبر, in transliteration, jabr, is the root of the word and the closest meaning
is to bring (with a possible connotation of doing so against the entities
natural inclination or state) back together parts (in healing).

To my mind, mathematically it would be closest to the literal concept of
integration, but that is calculus and not what is generally considered to be
algebra.

~~~
agumonkey
I associated al-jabr as classification. The 'back'ness felt more like bring
back order by arranging same kinds on same sides.

------
austincheney
I am not sure why this is a surprise. The early Islamic period was a cultural
golden age while Europeans were lost in a dark age. Many contributions from
that period resulted in advancements for mathematics, exploration, literature,
astronomy, and other ares that are still felt today.

------
GSHF2J32nBpb
1- Everyone who writes in the same language is from the same country and
ethnic group.

2- Everyone who wrote in Latin is Italian

3- Newton and Descartes wrote in Latin

THEREFORE:

::: Newton and Descartes are Italian.

Impeccable logic !

Another gem of flawless argumentation is to say "who cares about ethnicity?!
and let's just move on". Well it's been almost two millennia of
misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Why don't we just get this very simple
fact correct and apply the same intellectual scrutiny that we apply to other
areas here as well?

IMHO This is just inexcusable sloppiness and to be honest beneath any human
being with a modicum of culture.

------
lioeters
> Algebra was a unifying theory which allowed rational numbers, irrational
> numbers, geometrical magnitudes, etc., to all be treated as "algebraic
> objects".

> It gave mathematics a whole new development path so much broader in concept
> to that which had existed before, and provided a vehicle for future
> development of the subject.

> Another important aspect of the introduction of algebraic ideas was that it
> allowed mathematics to be applied to itself in a way which had not happened
> before.

------
droithomme
Nearly all of the great "arabic" scholars were not arabic at all, they simply
wrote in the arabic language. Most of then were Tajik or Uzbek ethnicity.

~~~
mda
Arabic, Turkic, Persian, Moors.

------
rohitupadhyay
most of it was mathematics they learnt from translated books from Sanskrit ,
Prakrit ( In India ) and Mandarin(Chinese) . None of it was original Arab work
, most of Arab historians who came along with invaders have mentioned in
detail how learned people were taken in as slaves to translate works in arabic

~~~
mda
What do you mean none of it is original, we are talking about a 400 years of
process here, science always takes inspiration from all prior studies, do not
discredit thousands of scientists that actually inspired western science. Also
they were Muslim scientists different ethnicities, e.g Persian, Turkic and
definitely Arabs as well.

~~~
wornohaulus
He means none of the work is original.. neither the number system.. nor the
additive and series based mathematics.. it's just a translation.. based10
numbers have been inuse in India for thousands of years.. it's like Columbus
finding America..

~~~
mda
It is absolutely not "just a translation", they greatly improved and
introduced new concepts over prior work of Greek and other scientists
considerably. The volume of novelties of Muslim scientists of the time is
huge.

------
Hitton
I don't know if things changed in last twenty years, but I consider at least
basic knowledge of Al-Khawrazmi pretty common, hardly what I would call
forgotten.

------
La-ang
I'm pretty sure 99% of the comments are from Arabs/Persians/Berbers
backlashing one another over who is who. can you stop arguing and move on to
the next article please xD

------
zwaps
Let's not forget that the Islamic world was key (though not alone) in
preserving our scientific and cultural knowledge.

At that time, Islamic society was quite modern and tolerant - and even often
the destination for persecuted religious groups such as the Jews in Spain.

It is absolutely clear that modern Islam is, in fact, much more "conservative"
than it used to be in the beginning. Indeed, the very beginning of Islam was a
radically progressive movement in the region. It freed slaves, it gave rights
to women, it treated with other religions and it abhorred hereditary and even
defacto differences between humans. Many of the things that we now find so
backwards were a) not as strict at the time and b) much more advanced than
other societies in the region. A good example is the difference between the
initial Islamic state and the Persian empire. The Persians didn't even fully
understand that they were dealing with a sort of grassroots movement, and were
constantly trying to find the equivalent of a high status ruler to talk to.
But early leaders in the Islamic world were completely different, living in
normal or even poor circumstances and operating in a much more democratic
manner than was the norm.

Later, these societal properties were the reason that the Arabic world was
able to preserve and advance science and culture. Sadly, this did not last
into this century, but the reasons for this are complex and almost surely
political.

I say this is important to remember because we need to realize that religion
and - further - ethnicity (and of course race) are not ingrained attributes
determining who is conservative. We need to remember that there was a time
when Islam was the paragon of reason and rationality, while Christianity was
the embodiment of fanatic action.

In the end, it is all politics, not the people. We do well to remember these
things, because it keeps us from condemning other cultures, as it so often
happens!

~~~
yters
Islam is largely Arabic, but is it the case that things attributed to Arabia
are mostly Islamic?

~~~
zwaps
Not at all, the Koran is written in the context of Arabia at the time. This is
not a matter of interpretation, the book itself references local customs and
laws. Therefore, our understanding, the practice and everything else in Islam
is crucially shaped by the society in Arabia, and the change it brought to it.
I think it is best read and understood in terms of the Delta - the change - it
meant to convey (but that is my opinion).

On the other hand, however, much of the Arabic language and customs are of
course shaped by Islam. For example, one difficulty of interpreting the Islam
is that the words that are used now convey the connotation that was coined by
centuries of religious practice, and it is difficult to know exactly what they
originally meant. In addition, much like the Bible (translations), it coined
many terms and semantic concepts.

Overall, the question you pose it not answerable in any way. Interpreting the
core - the Koran - does not have a unique solution. And even though Islam has
taken great care to preserve the text, traditions and reasons behind them, it
is not clear cut. For example, the large majority of Muslisms prescribe to the
Hadiths as interpretation and additional norms, but there are also Hadidths
stating that you should not do that, and the Koran is enough. But on that
basis, many more interpretations would be possible. Paradoxically - and in
contrast to Christianity - the Muslisms who rely primarily on the book alone,
are much more progressive than the ones also relying on the traditions.

I don't think your question will find a true answer.

~~~
csomar
> the Muslisms who rely primarily on the book alone, are much more progressive
> than the ones also relying on the traditions.

As an ex-Muslim, the way I see it is: If you were to rely primarily/only on
the Koran, it is because you want to justify and legitimate your own agenda.
The Koran is very flexible and can be either very progressive or very
conservative, strict and violent.

So you make your pick and then find the particular "bayt" that supports your
claims :)

------
jgalt212
At least it's not Muslim Math! /s

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embMAtagQiU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embMAtagQiU)

------
User23
Interestingly, it was the Arabic conquest of the eastern Mediterranean and
North Africa and subsequent control of the sea lanes that cut western Europe
off from the east. Intellectual commerce between east and west was greatly
curtailed after the Byzantines started losing badly. It wasn't until the
Battle of Lepanto that western Europeans started to have more or less free
access to the east again.

There is no denying that in western Eurasia the Mediterranean was the seat of
high culture and learning until about the 17th century.

