Note: This question was submitted by a friend in my absence and without my prior knowledge. I am in affect acting as a respondent to the question. I deny impartiality but hope to maintain objectivity in as much as this is possible in offering all the support I can on behalf of my friends position. Perhaps the best I can hope for is to prove that it is not incorrect (albeit debatable) to say that �diamond is a metamorphic rock�. Having thus provided due candor I now enter this debate.
A mineral may be broadly defined as any substance other than animal or vegetable, (mineral water), but is more narrowly defined as a naturally occurring solid homogeneous inorganic substance of a definite chemical composition and crystalline structure. A diamond, once cut and polished, would loose its status as a mineral where a mineral is so narrowly defined. However, it appears that no one so far would disagree that a raw diamond is indisputably a mineral, by either definition.
Rocks are sometimes defined as, �usually� or �typically possessing two or more minerals�, but in other definitions, �. . . of one or more minerals . . .�
{"A consolidated or unconsolidated aggregate of minerals or organic materials". (Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences). Rocks can be made of a single type of mineral, or more than one mineral.}
http://www.sedgwickmuseum.org/education/glossa ry.html
I found this definition there as well, �Quartzite: a rock made entirely of the mineral quartz.�
These definitions do not exclude diamonds as rocks. Alternatively,
here it states in simple English, �Diamonds are made deep in the earth, where there is an intense amount of pressure and heat that makes the diamond form. (This makes the diamond a metamorphic rock.)�