The issue of ethnicity of the scholars, like Abu Ali ibn Sina’s was not particularly popular among the Muslim society before the period of modernism, it was religious affiliation in this society more important, that’s why people were identified themself primarily just as Muslims; Since the ethnic and racial identity was not essential at that period. That was the reason at this time all Muslims and all civilized inhabitants of the world can be proud of the legacy of such great personalities. The question of ethnic and national affiliation arose on the "initiative" of European states; under the influence of the ethno-nationalistic views they spread, as well as a result of their support for projects regarding national and ethnocentric states, the goal of which was colonial domination (based on the principle of "divide and rule") and strengthening their position in the countries of Asia and Africa. This effected on and led to the state policy Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as well, also the aspirations of the Turkic nationalists. Without any scientific justification and mainly on the basis of nationalistic motives, subordinated to this goal, mainly incited by the West at the beginning of the 20th century, they actively sought to attribute many famous personalities from among Muslim scientists and writers to the Turkic ethnic group.

It is strange that, despite the fact that the ethnicity of Ibn Sina and many other prominent scholars of the Middle Ages has been precisely established by reliable and indisputable research, as well as by scientists who treat this issue dispassionately and realistically, some representatives of the "scientific thought" of the Turkic-speaking countries stubbornly strive to attribute him to their people, without having any real scientific or historical basis for this. More stranger is the situation, characterized by the fact that the ethnicity of this scholar is attributed to themselves even by the peoples who came to the territory of Maverannahr and Khorasan several centuries after his death.

As noted, the ethnic, specifically Iranian (Tajik) origin of Avicenna has been reliably sources, Avicenna’s books, in his autobiography, his followers and proven by modern authoritative orientalist researchers such as S.E. Bosworth, A.J. Arbery, Henri Corbin and many other world-renowned scholars. The list of works with specific arguments in favor of the Iranian-Tajik origin of Avicenna is huge and their summary is contained, even if someone with lack of deep knowledge can find it mass media, in Wikipedia (in Russian and English). In this direction, irrefutable arguments were also specifically presented by the major Tajik scholars, Muhammad Asimi, and Academician Dinorshoev M.D.

Based just on the research of the above-mentioned scientists and directly taking into account the statements of Ibn Sina himself, one can cite many arguments that testify to the Iranian (Tajik) origin of the thinker. For the sake of specificity, we consider it necessary to list several facts, each of which serves as a convincing argument in favor of the fact that Ibn Sina was an ethnic Iranian Tajik and was brought up in the favorable environment of Persian-Tajik culture.

1 - It is reliably known that Ibn Sina knew only two languages, namely his native language, which was Persian Tajik and his academic language, the Arabic. Thus, in his book "Isharat wa tanbihat" ("Instructions and Advice") he writes: "However, in the languages ​​that we speak (italics ours - M.M.), there is no universal negation in the form in which we have described it, and in order to limit universal negative judgments (in the field of logic - M.M.), words are used that express additional meanings corresponding to the expression of this kind of absoluteness. In Arabic, for example, they say: "La shay'un min J - B" ("Not a single J is B"), and by this they want to say that not a single thing inherent in J is inherent in B. In literary Persian they also say: "Hedj J B nest" ("Not a single J is B"). The use of such an expression means that it contains necessary things and represents one of the varieties of absoluteness, the condition of which is the subject".

In the books of Ibn Sina, devoted to the solution of various questions of logic, many other similar examples are given exclusively from Persian and Arabic. It was in these two languages ​​that he wrote his works devoted to various branches of science. And in particular, in these languages ​​his works were composed, through which he made a huge contribution to the development of philosophical and medical sciences.

Consequently, by Avicenna's own admission, he knows only two languages ​​- his native language - Persian (Tajik) and Arabic. And other languages ​​(in particular, Turkic) are unknown to him!!! And after such a clear admission by the thinker himself, can he be listed among the people of Turkic origin or at least among the experts of Turkic dialects?

Moreover, in none of Ibn Sina’s works is there the slightest hint of any connections (including ethnic and linguistic!) with the Turks, while many of his works, in particular his encyclopedic work “Danishname” (“Book of Knowledge”) were written in his native Persian language.

2 - Ibn Sina's father, Abdullah, by the thinker's own admission, was from Balkh and was a follower of the Ismaili (Batini) teaching. Fearing persecution from the ruler of Balkh, a descendant of Turkic slaves, Sultan Mahmud (998 - 1030), who came to power, he moved to Bukhara during the reign of the Samanid emir Nuh ibn Mansur (976 - 997). And Ibn Sina's mother, Sitara-Banu (a name that spoke of her Tajik origin, since the word "Banu" (a highly respected and noble woman) was added to the names of aristocrats of purely Iranian (Tajik) origin), was from the village of Afshana, where the thinker's family lived and where he himself was born.

By the way, even today, a thousand years after the era of Avicenna, the inhabitants of the village of Afshana still continue to speak Tajik. And the toponym "Afshana" comes from the Avestan word (close to Sanskrit) apAsana - "the extreme land", which has nothing in common with the Turkic dialects, which has been deformed over many centuries.

And the followers of the Ismaili school of Islam, to which belonged representatives of the autochthonous Iranian (Tajik) population of Khorasan, were distinguished by their hostile attitude towards the alien Turkic rulers who threatened the foundations of their national independence. This is confirmed, for example, by the words of Nasir Khusraw (1004 - 1088), a prominent Tajik poet and philosopher, one of the Ismaili preachers, a contemporary of Ibn Sina, who also came from Balkh. Thus, Nasir Khusraw said:

The Turks in front of their men in Khorasan used to be humiliated like women in palaces.

Isn't it shameful for men, noble by birth, to selfishly bend their backs, worshiping the Turks? And as Nasir Khusraw said: «Should I humiliate myself like you, O ignoramus, In the hope of filling my food sack? The nomadic Turks were my servants, How can I be a Turkic servant?».

Therefore, Ibn Sina's father, being a Tajik Ismaili, and not wanting to serve a Turk and a slave by origin, Sultan Mahmud, moved to Bukhara, where the Tajik royal dynasty of the Samanids directly ruled, and entered government service. History does not know of a single Turk who was a follower of Ismailism in that era or even several centuries later.

3 - Now let us cite another quote from the book "Ilahiyat" ("Metaphysics") - the final part of "Kitab ush-shifa`" ("Book of Healing") by Ibn Sina, in which his attitude towards the Turks is clearly revealed. He writes: "... Those people who are far from mastering virtue, like the Turks and Negroes, should be slaves (servants) by nature." At first glance, such a statement from Ibn Sina, with his inherent humanistic and cultural characteristics, sounds strange. Nevertheless, here the thinker expresses an opinion common in his era, and this statement of his clearly indicates that attributing Turkic origins to him is a ridiculous and absolutely groundless undertaking.

4 - That is, based on the arguments drawn from the works of Avicenna himself, the conclusion about the Tajik origin of his parents is clearly suggested. After all, it is logically and morally impossible for his mother and father to be Turks, and their own son Abu Ali Hussein ibn Abdullah ibn Sina, allegedly brought up in the spirit of Turkic culture, considered them "far from virtue" and people who "by nature should be slaves." Such a statement would be an expression of unforgivable cynicism and a violation of high moral principles in relation to his own parents.

5 - The fact that Ibn Sina's father, Abdallah, belonged to a noble Iranian (Tajik) family is also evidenced by his family name - "Sina". This word goes back to the Avestan Saena ("falcon"), a symbol of fravashi, a good spirit, including everything that was and everything that will be, as well as the army of Ahura Mazda. Thus, in the Avesta (Farvardin Yasht, 97) it is said: "I praise the fravashi of the righteous Saena - the son of Akhush Stut, who appeared first on this earth with his hundred followers." This family name was widespread among noble Iranian families. Thus, the famous German linguist Just in his book "Iranian Names" mentions twenty-two noble Iranian dignitaries who bore the name Caena - Sina. According to this researcher, this family name was borne exclusively by Iranian (Tajik) noble families.

6 - The fact that the inhabitants of Bukhara were ethnic Tajiks and spoke Farsi (while many of the surrounding residents spoke another Iranian language, namely Sogdian) is evidenced by many medieval historians, in particular the author of a unique and encyclopedic work on the history of Bukhara, Muhammad an-Narshahi (899 - 959). He writes: “Qutayba bin Muslim built a cathedral mosque in Bukhara in the year 94 Hijri (713). He ordered the people of Bukhara to gather there every Friday. In the early days of Islam, the people of Bukhara read the Quran in Parsi (Farsi) and could not learn Arabic. When [during prayer] it was time to perform ruku’ (prostration - M.M.), there was a man who stood behind the worshipers and said (in Farsi - M.M.), “biknita niknit” (bow down, bow down), and when it was time to perform sajdah (bowing down) he would shout: nikuniyya nikuni (bow down, bow down).”

Irrefutable arguments in favor of the Tajik origin of Ibn Sina's parents are also the notes of famous medieval Arab geographers and travelers of the 9th - 10th centuries, such as Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal and Makdisi. These authors testify that the population of the vast territory of Khorasan and Mawarennahr speaks exclusively Iranian languages. In the cities, people communicate in Farsi (Dari, Tajik), and in the villages, the Sogdian dialect of Iranian languages ​​is also widely spoken.

These authors do not contain any references whatsoever to the existence and circulation of Turkic dialects here. For the nomadic Turkic tribes of that period mainly lived north of the Yaxartes River (Syr Darya), and in the oases and cities of Maverannahr and Khorasan they were encountered mainly as hired warriors or slaves. In other words, Khorasan and Maverannahr in that period and even after the fall of the Samanids up until the Mongol invasion were truly areas of purely Tajik culture, and the presence of the Turkic component in this territory was insignificant and did not manifest itself at all in the area of ​​cultural and scientific creation.

7 - Ibn Sina, with his extensive and thorough knowledge in all areas of scientific thought of his era, could have remained in the service of the Karakhanid Turks who had captured Bukhara or of Sultan Mahmud, a Persian speaking descendant of Turkic slaves who had won power in Khorasan (gaining it from Samanids), but, brought up in the spirit of Tajik (Iranian) culture, he preferred to leave for Khorezm, the population of which, according to the description of Abu Rayhan Biruni in his book "Asar al-bakiya" ("Monuments of Past Generations") "belongs to the flourishing tree of the Persian peoples." And after the threat of a Turkic invasion loomed over Khorezm, he preferred to serve various Iranian rulers of that era. And until the end of his days (unlike Biruni, who was forcibly drawn into the service of the Ghaznavids), he never once served the newly-minted Turkic rulers. For he, a pupil of ancient Iranian scientific traditions and the elegant environment of Tajik culture, was alien to the customs of the nomads (“far from virtue”) who poured from Dashti Kipchak into Mavarennahr and Khorasan, subjecting the indigenous population of the region to cruel persecution and robbery.

8 - Ibn Sina, both by origin and spiritually, is closely connected with the Tajik ethnic group and Tajik culture. He, like his contemporaries Abu Rayhan Biruni and Nasir Khusraw, made a huge contribution to the enrichment of such an important component of the Tajik (Persian) language as its scientific terminology. On this basis, in the following centuries, prominent scientific works were written in this language (in particular, the works of Nasir ad-din Tusi, Jalal ad-din Rumi, Abd ar-Rahman Jaami, etc.), which served as a reliable basis for the development of world scientific thought. In addition, he is considered the founder of the genre of philosophical rubai (in Persian), which reached its peak in the works of Omar Khaym and other classics of Persian-Tajik literature.

These and many other arguments serve as an irrefutable argument in favor of the fact that Ibn Sina had no relation to the Turkic ethnic groups, was not familiar with their language, and therefore, he did not write a single work in these languages. Therefore, it is strange to observe someone who persistently, without any basis and stubbornly calls him a Turk. It is known that such attempts have nothing to do with reality and are subordinated to political and geopolitical goals. S.E. Bosworth and other world-famous scientists see the reason for the "Turkification" of the entire Islamic and Persian cultural and scientific heritage over the past centuries in the spread of a nationalistic wave under the influence of targeted Western projects, which are based on the excessive idealization of ethnic characteristics. Some newly formed national states claimed an exclusive historical ethnic identity, while their role in the history of Muslim countries was mainly limited to invasions and robberies, and in the development of the scientific cultural heritage of these countries they had a negative rather than a positive influence. The pan-Turkic movement, which arose mainly under the influence of Western political projects, belongs first and foremost to this type of nationalist wave.

This explains the aspirations of a certain part of unprepared, ambitious and superficially thinking "scientists" from the Turkic-speaking "scientific circles" (of which, unfortunately, there have been many in recent decades!) to attribute to their people such Persian-Tajik scientists as Abu Ali Ibn Sina, Abu-Rayhan Biruni, Jalal-ad-Din Rumi, Nasir ad-Din Tusi and many others. In doing so, they, succumbing to the influence of their Western "puppeteers", with their unfounded "arguments" that are far from scientific and historical reality, deceive their own people; and even themselves (apparently with pleasure) succumb to such flattering deception.

We greatly respect Turkic people, living with us for the centuries; nomadic civilization is specific and rich civilization. Nevertheless we identify ourselves as different people, with different origin. Tajiks are not ancient Uzbek, their language is also not “old Uzbek” (as our neighboring nation wrongly understands!), Tajiks are strong, well-spread nation, and they are consisting of half of neighboring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, and they live in north of Pakistan and west of China as well.

So, subordinating ourselves in Central Asia, former Khorasan and Mavarannahr (ancient Eastern Iran), especially the Soghdians, Bakhtrians, Khwarasmians etc. (people with Iranian origin) to the people with Altaic origin, the Turkic nomads only, who came to this region relatively later on from Altay, Dasht-i Kipchak and Siberia was considered a sign of ignorance for the Khorasani Iranian Tajiks, who were at that time by their believe Ismailis, one of whom was Ibn Sina's father.

Of course, we understand that such great personalities as Ibn Sina belong to all of humanity, the contributed to the world civilizations. But all we need to understand is that we are as a Tajik rightfully proud of having given the world such great personalities as Firdausi, Ibn Sina, Biruni, Nasir Khusraw, Omar Khayyam, Nasir ad-Din Tusi, Jalal ad-Din Rumi and many other bright lights of science and literature. We should be proud, and we are proud, that others strive (albeit groundlessly and unsuccessfully) to attribute our scientific authorities of the past to their people and are proud of them. But historical justice demands that the authority of these world-famous sons of our people should not become the subject of cheap nationalistic speculation, but serve the fraternal union and unity of all peoples, as they themselves desired.

Dr.Muhammadsalam Makhshulov - Leading Researcher at the Avicenna Studies Center of the IPPJ named after A. Bagouddinov of the NAST.