Talk:Adal Sultanate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name

Why is the title called "Adal Sultanate'? I did some searching using Google Books to get a more accurate name use and this one is used less often than "Kingdom of Adel" ('Adel" not "Adal"). at about 7,450 results; while ""Adal Sultanate"" comes up with only 323 results. If there's a difference between a "kingdom" and a "sultanate", then the term "Sultanate of Adal" ("Adal" not "Adel" in this case) gets 1,320 results. However, if we use a normal Google search, 'Sultante of Adal" (once again not "Adel" but "Adal") comes out on top with 228,000 results. It also appears that the term "Adel/Adal" is ancient term referring to the Horn of Africa and possibly of Somali orgins.[1][2] Anyways, I plan to make a major expansion to this article about its early history (such as how it was originally a province of ifat) and add missing sources. If anyone wishes to help, you are free to join. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Adal wasn't originally a province of Ifat (please see above). It was actually founded before Ifat as a sultanate. Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That literally does not answer my question. Anyways, I spent 10 minutes reading the "Fage & Ethio-Semitic" discussion earlier and boy was it a waste of time. This, "Baboon43" continuously dodged questions and made stuff up. Could you please kindly explain for what you mean, since many sources state that it was a province that grew out of it. AcidSnow (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure it does. See for instance my post dated 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ar first I thought I had accidentally confused, but it turns you still don't understand what I am talking about. I was talking about the Ifat sultanate and the name for this country not Adal sultanate speficly. But thanks for informing me about the Afar succesion. What ethnicity were the Walashma dynasty? They appear to be Somali. As for the Harar dynasty, did they claim independence or did they succeed after the Ottomans annex the region.

Anyways, was the city only Somali and Harari during this period? Because the Amhraics clearly immigrated there recently and the Oromos came after the invasion. In fact, the Somali region is just a short drive from the city. AcidSnow (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I realize that. It's just that you suggested that Adal was originally a province of Ifat, so I pointed out that Adal was actually founded as a sultanate before Ifat. Middayexpress (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That does not make any sense really, Middayexpress. Various source state that Adal was part of Ifat and became a distinct nation or a direct successor state in this case since it was the same people, dynasty, etc. Anyways, should this article be changed to the "Kingdom if Adel" or the "Sultanate of Adal"? AcidSnow (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate of Adal is more standard. Middayexpress (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Midday, I am still pretty sure that "Adal" and "Ifat" are the same thing. Though if "Adal" came first and rebranded it self as "Adal" or if it was a province of "Adal" (this seems to be what it is so far) is still the question. AcidSnow (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Map

What I meant to truly say was that the map was made by this man named James Dahl who created it based on the battles fought during the Adal-Abyssinian war spearheaded by Ahmed Ibn Ibrahim, it's a map of the sultanate at a very short-lived peak when it was not necessarily even ruled by the Walashmas but more so by Ibn Ibrahim and his allies. Also- what did you mean by "fixed language"? But in any case the old map is still HIGHLY inaccurate and if you truly do want to delete this map then just don't replace it with the old one. No map is better than taking a map that you consider inaccurate and replacing it with one that is inaccurate. Oh yes and here's some of Dahl's work- Check 'em outl - the man does his due diligence and is not even from the Horn and made that map based on the Futuh-Al-Habashi, I believe. I'm currently in the process of getting him to source each and every acquisition of the sultanate during this short-lived period. So please don't get me wrong- the sultanate was in no way that spread out across the Horn region for a prolonged period of time, it was only for a short-lived instance of a few years at most. You can surmise most of this from the Futuh-Al-Habashi tbh. Awale-Abdi (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of those maps are indeed quite inaccurate. The 1540 one [3], however, is as well. For instance, it gets the Ajuraan Sultanate's borders all wrong; the polity's northernmost limit was Mareeg and its eastern terminus was Qelafo. The Adal Sultanate likewise did not reach Bari. It also did not border the Funj Kingdom, a Nilotic polity. Additionally, Limmu-Ennarea was one of several independent Sidama kingdoms. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do concur that I actually found a lot of those points on the map odd. I had no idea that they'd reached the Bari region (I'm seriously going to order the conquest of Abyssinia book and see all of this thoroughly for myself soon) & I think the Ajuran was perhaps farther north than I expected, I think James perhaps missed on other sultanates such as the Warsangali, no? Btw, I'm not at all calling you out here but could please give me some sources (quoted, if you would) for those Ajuran borders? But isn't the current map too "inaccurate"? I say this in the sense that I don't think the Adals ruled all of what is now Djibouti, if you have info to the contrary; please do share some.Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Adal didn't rule all of Djibouti because part of the territory was uninhabited. It did, however, at the time rule most of the inhabited areas. The Ajuran borders are per the Somali Studies stalwart Lee V. Cassanelli (please see the border link above). Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The author of the maps had this to say:

"Most historical maps have Adal stretching to what is now Majertinia and south to the Shabelle. Modern maps tend to minimize this.

A lot of this territory though was made up of statelets that were under Adal hegemony but were quite independent, and the power the Sultan wielded over these statelets was far from absolute. "

So it's "inaccuracy" lies in that it includes what would generally have been loose vassal states and considers them fully parts of the larger states like the Sultanate of Adal.Awale-Abdi (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's plausible as far as Adal is concerned, but not so much the Ajuraan Sultanate. Though powerful in its own right, it had no vassals north of Mareeg or west of Qelafo. Middayexpress (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we make a new one at the height of the conquest? This map should show the empires stretch from Berbera in northern Somalia to Massawa in central Eritea. The map should also be color coded to show the areas captured and it's year. What do you guys think? AcidSnow (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Adal was at its height in the 14th century (1300s), when its capital was still based at Zeila. The 1500 map shows its realm just prior to the Futuh, when the kingdom's headquarters were at Dakkar. Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I see, so what should be done? AcidSnow (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the 1500 map? I believe you said it was ok. Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is, I just thought there should be a map depicting the conquest. AcidSnow (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. But at which point of the Futuh? Middayexpress (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I never read it lol. I would assume at the peak of the conquest if it's mentioned in it. AcidSnow (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be near 1529. Middayexpress (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's when the conquest began. They controlled all of Abyssinia expect for parts of the Tana lake and it's surroundings at 1536. The occupation lasted till 1543 when Ahmad was killed. Adal then returned mostly back to it's previous territories. AcidSnow (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page

I have understood most of the pointless "discussions" that were made by both you and the banned user. However, there are things that I want to have cleared up and make sure are correct:

1. The Walashma Dynasty had nothing to do with the the Amharics people other than ruling near by regions.

2. The Walashma Dynasty, like all other Somali Dynasty's and clans claimed "Arab genealogy" even though they were ethnic Somalis.

3. The rulers spoke Arabic and Somali in both Ifat and Adal and not "Abyssinian/Ethio Semitic".

4. Zeila was the was the capital of the Sultanate prior to its move to Dakkar and later Harar.

5. Zeila was never "Christian" at any point in its history espacily after the 800s.

6. The military's power came mostly from the Somalis as did the Aristocracy. However, there were also Afars, Harla, and Hararis among the aristocratic as well.

If any of these wrong could you please point them out, Midday? AcidSnow (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Adal wasn't JUST Somali there were others who lived in the kingdom, like the Harari and Afar. Even if the majority was Somali it wasn't consider a Somali kingdom, it was consider mostly a multi-ethnic kingdom. It was a kingdom of Islam, all ethnic muslim groups fought together against the non-muslims. Ifat was also the same too. The dynasty was multi and it was founded by Omer Walashma who was an Arab that came from hijaz. So stop claiming Adal and even Ifat Somali AcidSnow. Harari234 (talk) 1:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was "just Somali". I have already pointed out to you multiple times that in all practices it was. The ruling dynasty, the army, aristocrats, and so on were predominately Somali. The founder himself, Sultan Omar, as well was a Somali. You can deny history all you want but it changes simply nothing. You might want to wait to gain consensus before you continue to edit war. AcidSnow (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The ruling dynasty was multi-ethnic meaning the sultans would've been half of an ethnic group, mostly or would have a descendent. Sultan Omer was Arab, not Somali. The army wasn't only Somali, it was a combination of Afars, Somalis, Hararis, and other muslim groups. So was the aristocrats, you even wrote it down yourself. What your doing to the Adal and Ifat pages is that your claiming them for Somali, even though it was multi-ethnic. To tell you the truth Imam Ahmed was half Harari and half Somali, Emir Nur of Harar was mostly Harari and a bit from the Darood clan (Somali). You may deny this, but this is the truth. Harari (talk) 20:10 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol, read books on this subjects or at least the respective articles as you are flat out wrong! As for the aristocrats it almost entirely Somali; which if you had payed attention instead of knit picking you would have noticed. Though, as I stated myself there were some individuals that weren't Somali. Nonetheless, they were far from the majority. AcidSnow (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right that it was the majority, but like I said Adal and Ifat was multi-ethnic. The other ethnic groups like the Harari and Afar who lived in the kingdom did large roles as well. Clearly what your doing is claming Adal and Ifat Somali, so I suggest maybe you should read a book or research more about this subject as well. Harari234 (talk) 24:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind providing a source that states he is half Harari and Somali? I have never found such a claim till now. 13:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow and Harari234, I think it would perhaps be best if the first phrase simply noted that the Adal Sultanate was a Muslim multi-ethnic state since this is what the Futuh al-Habash itself indicates. This historical testimony is far more authoritative than any modern speculation, which is often all over the place. Shihāb al-Dīn was Al-Ghazi's personal biographer, and he was an actual eyewitness to Adal's conquest of Abyssinia. As such, his testimony is the final word on the period. Shihāb al-Dīn explicitly identifies many of the sultanate's leaders and troops as belonging to various Somali groups. However, he also notes that the Afar, Harla and other local Muslim groups also played an important part in the Futuh. Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

All empires that have existed were multi-ethnic. But that doesn't change who formed it, ruled, etc. Take a look at the Spanish Empire and the Ottoman Empire. AcidSnow (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good point. Middayexpress (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that in Adal each region would have a majority, for example in the Harari region Hararis were the majority in the Somali region Somalis were the majority and in the Afar region Afars were the majority. Even in the Futuh al-Habash it didn't say that the majority of the kingdom was Somali, it said that the Somalis, Hararis, Afars, and other groups did important jobs and that they lived in the kingdom. Also the dynasty was multi-ethnic, meaning the sultans would've been half of an ethnic group, mostly or would have a descendent. In Futuh al-Habash where did it say that the Somalis formed the Adal Sultanate. Harari234 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No they weren't "multi-ethnic", let alone "half of an ethnic group". AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Batutta, Umari, Walashma

The passage on Ibn Batutta's visit to Zeila is WP:SYNTHESIS. Batutta visited in the 1300s, when Zeila was no longer Adal's capital. He also did not describe the inhabitants as indicated in the edit. What he wrote in classical Arabic (not English) was that the inhabitants were Berbers, which a few modern scholars have mistranslated [4]. Similarly, the commentary on why Fage (who is actually relaying what Al-Umari wrote) is wrong as to the main spoken language in Ifat is synthesis since the references don't mention this in connection with the sultanate. Same thing with the Semitic loanwords in the northern dialect of the Somali language, most of which are actually from Arabic (not Ethio-Semitic languages, whose own speakers originally spoke Agaw languages). The Walashma's phylogeny is likewise off-topic in the language area and already better explained on the relevant Walashma dynasty page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Same thing with the Semitic loanwords in the northern dialect of the Somali language, most of which are actually from Arabic (not Ethio-Semitic languages, whose own speakers originally spoke Agaw languages). The Walashma's phylogeny is likewise off-topic in the language area and already better explained on the relevant Walashma dynasty page. "

Completely incorrect. The Semitic loanwords of Ethiopian-Semitic are not the same as Arabic ones are clearly differentiated, they are noted by a linguist at the University of Naples. Please do take a look at this very recent paper that notes them:

https://www.academia.edu/5529034/2013_Strata_in_Semitic_loanwords_in_Northern_Somali

^ The Loanword bit was very correct and I did source it, I don't even understand what you're on about with this bit. Did you even read the paper or my source?

"Similarly, the commentary on why Fage (who is actually relaying what Al-Umari wrote) is wrong as to the main spoken language in Ifat is synthesis since the references don't mention this in connection with the sultanate."

I never said Fage was wrong, I was merely stating that Fage also posits that Hadiyas/ the Hadiya Sultanate was Ethiopian Semitic. Read the book- with little proof he claims that the Hadiya (an infant would tell you there were Highland East Cushitic speakers), Bali and Dawaro and Ifat people are all Ethio-Semitic. Henceforth his position should be taken with a grain of salt.

"The passage on Ibn Batutta's visit to Zeila is WP:SYNTHESIS. Batutta visited in the 1300s, when Zeila was no longer Adal's capital. He also did not describe the inhabitants as indicated in the edit. What he wrote in classical Arabic (not English) was that the inhabitants were Berbers, which a few modern scholars have mistranslated"

I am well aware of that... And I shared two references where the correct "Berber" or "Bebera" designation is utilized... However he does very clearly state that they are Camel and Sheep herders and where did I state that Zeila was the capital of Adal at the time? It was a part of Adal/Ifat which is what I was getting at... It's inhabitants were clearly predominantly Somalis, are you saying Battuta was incorrect in calling them Berbers (same word used for Somalis in Mogadishu) or that he said they herded camels and sheep? If not then it is relevant to their language designation... < If you disagree, then lets add a ethnicity section or cart this over to the Adal ethnicity section.

Other sources for Battuta's mentions: Beyond Price: Pearls and Pearl-fishing : Origins to the Age of ..., Volume 224, page 145Medieval Sourcebook:Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354, Fordham University Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I will reshare the "Berber" bit using the book source of the two above, I hope to get no argument from you in that case and I will restore the linguistic paper's presence. It is a legitimate paper. Awale-Abdi (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you'd write that :) Look, the loanword and Batutta material is WP:SYNTHESIS. The Adal Sultanate isn't mentioned in any of those links. And yes, most of the loanwords in Somali in general (not just northern Somali) are from Arabic, not any Ethiosemitic language. In fact, they were even greater in the past, not that that is even relevant here. As for Batutta, here's what he actually wrote; note in particular I.M. Lewis, the Somali Studies doyen:

• "Ibn Battuta referred to the two cities' inhabitants as Barbara or Berbers to distinguish them from the Zinj or Zenghi, the blacks, who inhabited the coast and hinterlands south of the Shabelle river" [5].

• "As to the occupants of these settlements, Ibn Battuta noted that the ruler of Mogadishu was from Berbera and his speech was not Arabic or Persian, but Mogadishu, while the occupants of Mombasa and Kilwa, he noted were Zanj, extremely black, with cuttings in their faces..." -- The Rise and Fall of Swahili States by Chapurukha Makokha Kusimba, p.58

• "This distribution gleaned from oral tradition is supported by the descriptions of the early Arab geographers who refer to the Hamitic peoples (the Galla and Somali) of the north and centre by the classical name 'Berberi', and distinguish them in physical features and culture from the Zanj to their south." -- I.M. Lewis, A modern history of Somalia: nation and state in the Horn of Africa, 2nd edition, revised, illustrated, (Westview Press: 1988), p.20

This is in keeping with the earlier Periplus of the Erythraean Sea:

• "Rhapta is described as a place inhabited by big-bodied men. Many authorities remark that there is no specific mention of negroid people in the Periplus or of any distinction between the fair-skinned people of the Somali coast and the dark-skinned people south of the Juba. The implication is that Bantu-speaking people had not at this stage moved north of Rhapta. The phrase 'big-bodied' has also been taken to refer to Cushitic-speaking people (there are survivals of Cushitic languages in East Africa). The 'man- eating savages' of Ptolemy, if not simply a confession of ignorance (such as 'here be monsters'), could indicate a people living around Cape Delgado distinct from the people north of them. This could be the first reference to Bantu- speaking people, who were beginning to move into the area.(45) Roland Oliver has suggested that the East coast of Africa was colonised by Indonesians in the first five centuries AD and that they introduced bananas, coconuts and outrigger boats, which resulted in an increase in the population of the region and the consequent expansion of Bantu-speaking peoples as far as the Juba River." [6]

Leave a (on-topic) response if any here. Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is going on? AcidSnow (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. lol Middayexpress (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You guys are both saying that both Zeila and Mogadishu were Somali but still bickering lol! AcidSnow (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. The difference is in the links. One set is based on an inaccurate translation of Batutta, while the other is based on an accurate translation of his work, one that is also in line with the earlier Periplus. Middayexpress (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree... I don't get why we're arguing... Here is my point:

• The inhabitants of Zeila in the 14th century are "Berbers" according to Ibn Battuta, yes? He also notes they were camel and sheep herders... They were basically Somalis. Hence is that not relevant to the linguistic make up of Ifat during the 14th century? Why can't I merely add that to language section? Just explain that to me. And again... Did you read that paper? Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"You guys are both saying that both Zeila and Mogadishu were Somali but still bickering lol!"

No... We're arguing over whether to add that a large portion of the people of Ifat were Somali speakers or not. I'm basically saying that since Ibn Battuta confirms the people of Zeila's identity at the time (Berbers) then we should add that the people of Ifat in Zeila during the 14th century (a time when the Ifat-Adal rulers ruled Zeila whether or not they used it as a capital) were Somali speakers (speakers of the Somali language) in the language section of this thread. I'm not even remotely arguing with him about how Somali the people from Zeila to Mogadishu are. What is truly retarded about this argument is that Middayexpress is fixated on the etymology of the word "Berber" and explaining it to me rather than udnerstanding what I just told you about what the people of Zeila being Berbers (in a period when the Ifat ruled it) means for the sultanate's linguistic make up. I added in the Ifat page that Battuta's mentioning of Zeila's demographic reaffirmed the Somali speaking presence among the Ifat but Middayexpress just removed that. Now I want to know why. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Side note: I understand if you removed it cos of how the word Berber was written and how that was a secondary source however you and I both could EASILY share a better and clear source where the word Berber used to describe the inhabitants of Zeila hence would you just allow me to re-add the Berber mention but with a better source? If so then enough of this... Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Abdi. What exactly is your issue with this Midday? AcidSnow (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It was largely synthesis, as explained. Batutta also did not describe the Berbers as was suggested, but instead quite differently; the difference is in the (mis)translations of his work. This was also shown above, citing the Somali Studies doyen I.M. Lewis. The fact is, no historical authority suggests that Ifat was largely Somali-speaking. Only two figures asfaik have left historical testimonies on the sultanate's spoken language(s): Al-Umari and Asma Giyorgis. Al-Umari is the older of the two, and he wrote that the people of Ifat spoke "Abyssinian and Arabic". However, by that time the kingdom was centered in Shewa, so this is not unusual. For his part, Asma Giyorgis wrote in the 19th century that the Walashma themselves spoke Arabic, which is in line with their claimed genealogy (a genealogy also attributed to them by Al-Maqrizi by the way). Both of these actual historical testimonies on the Sultanates' main languages are already noted. So is the suggestion that given the ethnic extraction of many of Adal's rulers, soldiers and constituents, Somali was likely a widely spoken language in the kingdom. Middayexpress (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

":It was largely synthesis, as explained."

You once again fixate on something else... You yourself shared another source calling them "Berbers" and I and you could share more reliable "non-synthesis" sources where he calls the people of Zeila (not a large portion of the Ifat but at least one city) Berbers hence Somalis. Also, I added the whole source about the extraction of their soldiers... I'm just saying let me also point out that inhabitants of cities like Zeila were predominantly Somali. Do you have an issue with that?

"For his part, Asma Giyorgis wrote in the 19th century that the Walashma themselves spoke Arabic, which is in line with their claimed genealogy (a genealogy also attributed to them by Al-Maqrizi by the way)."

Are you really going to talk to me about the genealogy of the family? When I myself shared many references for their genealogies both the Hasani nisba which traces them to Aw Barkhadle (which claims the Somali saint who initially set the ground work for Wadaad Writing was a descendant of Ali) and the Aqeeli genealogy which essentially traces them to him via Isma'il Al-Jaberti (Darod clan ancestor). If you're saying the dynasty was Arab then you're saying you and I and Acidsnow (I'm assuming you're Somali Acid? :) ) are Arabs based on the fact that we too have genealogies that trace us to Arabian tribes (mostly Hashemites). Barely any of the genealogies in the Horn are really legitimate (in how they trace back to Arabs, at least) and they don't even have a genetic basis (as you and I both know- Horners and Somalis are not recent arrivals (700 AD~) to the Horn region by any means).

I agree with you about what Umari says, at the time they were centered in Shewa which was Ethio-Semitic speaking but my point is simply- let us off-handedly mention that Ifat subjects such as those in Zeila for one were Berbers/ Somalis. All of this argumentative stuff you keep posting about the information Battuta shares or not, he clearly calls them Berbers and you are not even denying that. Awale-Abdi (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

While your links do describe the inhabitants as Berbers, they don't physically describe them in the same way as I.M. Lewis, Said Sheikh Samatar, David D. Laitin, etc. (i.e. the traditional Somali Studies translation). Batutta also didn't say that Zeila was part of Adal. It may or may not have been during the time of his visit, as it was intermittently an independent city-state after the Sultanate moved its headquarters to Dakkar and then later to Harar. As for the Walashma genealogy, as pointed out, it is off-topic in the language area; that's why it's not mentioned. It's instead already covered on the relevant Walashma dynasty page. Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@AcidSnow, I don't recommend sharing your (actual) ethnic background. Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

" As for the Walashma genealogy, as pointed out, it is off-topic in the language area; that's why it's not mentioned. It's instead already covered on the relevant Walashma dynasty page."

I won't fight you on this bit much but I was merely stating that he bases them speaking Arabic seemingly on the assumption that they were "Arabs" and you and I both know they were clearly not. But lets leave it at that... Awale-Abdi (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who you're referring to there by "he". At any rate, this is the Walashma genealogy per both the chronicle of the Walashma and Al-Maqrizi. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

References; "native" names

It is misleading to claim that Somali was an "official" language of Adal sultanate and then give its "native" name as Cadaal, in post-1970 orthography. Are we to understand there are contemporary records giving the name as سُلطَنَه عَدَال, and the latinized spelling is simply a modernized rendition of that? Or is all of it just modern Somali and has nothing to do with the period? And, more to the point, why is nothing here referenced in the first place? --dab (𒁳) 16:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

From Wadaad writing I take it that Somali wasn't written before the 19th century anyway, so any claims regarding Somali names or Somali as "official language" in the 16th century seem to be moot anyway. The statement being simply false would also be an excellent explanation for the absence of references. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's established in the Futuh Al-Habash (an historical document written during the Adal Sultanate period) that various Somali groups formed the core of the Sultanate's leadership and particularly its army, in addition to Muslim Afars, Hararis, and others. Unless these populations spoke other languages as recently as the 1500s, it follows that their idioms were among the Sultanate's common languages. Similarly, the 14th-century historian Al-Umari wrote that the people of the Ifat polity in Shewa (Adal's predecessor) spoke Abyssinian (Ge'ez) and Arabic. Additionally, the 19th century Ethiopian historian Asma Giyorgis indicated that the Walashma (one of Adal's ruling dynasties) spoke Arabic. This is explained under the language tab. Regarding the writing of Somali, the various Somali sultanates left written records well before the 19th century (here's one such old stone tablet [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

you misunderstood. I do not dispute, of course, that Somali would have been spoken. I addressed claims that Somali was in some was an "official language", plus I pointed out that the specific Somali forms quoted in the article lack a reference. Nothing in your comment explains your restoration of the form Cadaal in the article, for example. You show a lo-res jpg of a stone tablet of which you claim that it is written in Somali and that it predates the 19th century. This is very interesing, and if you have references for it, it would be a welcome addition to the Somali language article, but I fail to see what it has to do with this article, or the points I raised. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

upon research, it turns out there is no written Somali prior to 1900. There is "wadaad Arabic", which supposedly is Arabic interspersed with Somali loanwords or names, but no records unambiguously in Somali. It isn't even clear what the boundaries or distribution of Somali dialects as distinct from generic Lowland East Cushitic would have been prior to the 19th century or so.

So, if you want to help, you are very welcome to put together a transcription of your stone tablet, complete with a list of precisely which words in it are in Somali (of course based on secondary literature, not original research). If you do this, you would greatly help the development of the Somali language article, but it will probably not pertain to the Adal Sultanate page unless it turns out your tablet either dates to the 16th century, or is in some way about the Adal Sultanate. Unfortunately, there is no way I can tell from the small jpg file you showed me.

In fact, there does not appear to have been a notion of a single "Somali language" prior to the birth of Somali nationalism around 1920. This is, needless to say, the normal development in any country's national history and not at all remarkable. It is, therefore, completely misleading to make any claims about the Somali language in this article. I accept, of course, that the population of the Adal Sultanate would have spoken East Cushitic or early Somali dialects, but any claim regarding the linguistic situation in 16th-century Somalia will have to be closely based on citations of secondary literature. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. For one thing, Lowland East Cushitic is proposed to have split around 5500 BCE i.e. well before 1900 CE [8]. Also, the Somali language was indeed written prior to 1900. Per the Somali Studies doyen Bogumil Andrezewski, various such historical manuscripts exist. Sheikhs just preferred to write in the Arabic language as they felt that it was more religiously appropriate, but some nonetheless also used the Arabic script to write qasidas and other religious literature in Somali, as well as to translate documents from Arabic [9][10]. Lastly, what actual common languages were spoken in the Adal Sultanate is certainly relevant, as the template parameter in question is the common languages (not official languages) parameter. Since Adal's first capital was in Zeila in northwestern Somalia, and since many of the polity's leaders and troops are explicitly identified as belonging to various Somali groups in the Futuh al-Habash (Conquest of Abyssinia) and other historical documents, that clearly includes Somali. The Futuh's chronicler Shihāb al-Dīn thus indicates that: "Then he [the imam] tied a red standard to a spear and entrusted it to his brother-in-law Mattan bin 'Utman bin Kaled, the Somali, their chieftain, their knight, and the most courageous, the bravest of them all. There rallied to him one-hundred-and-ten knights and three-thousand infantry, along with the tribe of Harti, the tribe of Jairan and the tribe of Mazra, all of whom were Somalis" [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Language

As explained countless times here [12] and elsewhere. Original research is being inserted into Adal related articles that pertains Somali keyword insertion. The current line in the article about Somali language being used as official is clear wp:synth. Zekenyan (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not orginal research, but it's not like you will listen anyways. AcidSnow (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, AcidSnow. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Somali Studies stalwart, Lee V. Cassanelli [13]: "Until this century, the peoples of the Somali Peninsula never came under the control of a single political authority. However, there periodically emerged throughout Somali history regional sultanates whose leaders claimed authority over many clans and over large tracts of territory. Examples include the medieval sultanates of Adal, Ifat, and Harar on the eastern fringes of the Ethiopian highlands; the Ajuraan sultanate in the sixteenth century (discussed in chapter 3); the Majeerteen sultanate in the extreme northeast, which arose in the eighteenth century; and the nineteenth-century sultanates of Hobya and Geledi." The medieval Futuh al-Habash is even more explicit about the centrality of the Somali constituency within the Adal Sultanate's leadership and forces. Middayexpress (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The language of the Adal Sultanate was NOT Somali. The kingdom had its own language very similar to the Kushitic Saho languae spoken by the Irob people in Tigray and the Saho people in Eritrea. The Adal language was similar to the Afar language as well. Arabic was used as second language (lingua franca). Ghirmai Ado-Umar Zekenyan the source you used to explain the origins of the name "Adal" isn't reliable nor does it even explain its origins. Also Zeila was the capital from 1415 to 1420 while the transfer of the capital marked the Imamate of Aussa. AcidSnow (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you care about whats reliable or not based on your activities. As far as the dates thanks to Awale Abdi's correction of the dates I realized the information was incorrect. Zeila is only the capital during Ifat. Ifat was destroyed by Abyssinians and Zeila was occupied, You know very well my addition was well sourced so stop removing data. Adal Sultante was founded in Dakkar by Sabraddin after the fall of Ifat sultanate [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] What is your issue with Aussa being included? Oh thats right you think the sultanate was somali... You do know Jassa was of Afar descent, and that he was related to Imam Ahmed right? Zekenyan (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay as I don't use Wikipedia as often as I use to. Also please stop with the baseless accusations against me. Anyways, a simple Google search would show that Zeila was the capital of Adal prior to the transfer to Dakar. Surprisingly, this is the exact source you removed! In regards to your concern about Aussa being a capital of Adal, the move actually created a distinct polity that marked the end of the Adal Sultanate. This is something that I did previously informed you about. Instead of responding to it, you choose make a false claim for my reasoning. Not only this, the Imamate of Assua wasn't Afar nor does it seem likely that Jasa was either. May I see your source for this claim? However, there could be a chance your referring to the Mudaito Dynasty. Nonetheless, this would also be incorrect since the dynasty was formed and founded the Sultanate of Aussa in 1743. This sultanate is disinct from the former and was in fact formed well after the fall of the Imamate at some point after 1672 (almost 71 years later).

As for this this compromise you guys have mentioned, I did read something about it but wasn't aware that it involved the etymology at the time. This is why I never edited any section related to the ethnicity of the dynasty as a whole. However, you did use a unreliable source to explain the etymology which nonetheless justifies my edit. This is because it violates Wikipedia:Fictitious references since it not only is a blog but also doesn't mention anything on the etymology you added! This is also another issue that you never responded to (see the original post of this section). I highly recommend that you to take the time to response to this. AcidSnow (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Adal was the name of the region in general thats why your finding contradicting sources, adal sultanate and adal itself is two different things. It was not the name of the sulatanate. The sultanate is called ifat thats the name of the actual kingdom, its the region that's called adal. the ifat sultanate began calling themselves king of adal after Dakar move that's why its called adal sultanate. You just want it to say it was in somalia thats why your arguing a view point here. You do know dakkar is in the somali region right? But i dont think you consider ogaden somali so your not happy with this. Its already in the article that adal was situated in zeila but whats the use of including it in the infobox which will further confuse people because of the dates. My aussa source is very clear it even mentions how adal states stopped taking orders from the sultan and it ceased to exist. Why didnt you say anyting about my sources regarding the walasma dynasty? Would you like to admit here that they are sound? Walasma page was full of original research therefore explain to me why you did not remove anything on the walasma page? I was making progress on that page I even got an Admin involved but I decided to leave it alone because you guys were so worked up about it, for me it was not an issue I was a new editor trying to establish myself on Wikipedia. If zaila is added back it needs to have better wording not like "emirate". Zekenyan (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Adal didn't simply exist as a separate region, it was in fact it's own separate emirate (see here: [19]). This is something that I was already well aware of. However, this doesn't change the fact that Zeila briefly served as capital of the Adal Sultanate until the transfer to Dakar (I am well aware that it's located in the Somali region of Ethiopia). The Walashma Dynasty which ruled Ifat prior also already controlled the Adal emirate, so it's unsurprising that they would once again declare themselves the "Kings of Adal"! Mentioning it in the infobox won't confuse the readers as the distinction is already made in the article. Not only this, but it's crucial to mention that it was the capital during its brief stint as an emirate since that what it returned to! The dates won't confuse anyone either, so I am not sure why you insisting that they will. Nonetheless, you have been breaking this consensus for quite some time (please see the various sections of this talk page).

In regards to the Ogedan clan, they are ethnic Somalis which is something I don't even need a source for since its common knowledge. I am not sure as to what this has to do with anything, so please stop with these baseless accusations. I have already warned you about them in this discussion (see here: [20]).

It's not surprising that the rules of Harar wouldn't take orders from Aussa as the transfer of the capital created a distinct polity that marked the end of Adal. This is something that I have already informed you of (see here: [21]).

Anyways, what are these Walashma sources your talking about? Are you referring to the sources that you used to claim that the dynasty was Argobba? If this is the case, then another user as well as I have already shown you that these sources are fringe and all cite (if my memory serves me correct) the same original theorist as well, so it's quite clear that they weren't "sound" in this regard. Not only this, but I have mentioned this to you numerous other times but you have nonetheless ignored it. Because of these action you are expressing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. As for the page itself being "full of original research", only two paragraphs are without citation; with of one of them having verifiable info with in it. In regards to me not removing, I have been gone for over a year and anyone could have removed it if they wanted to. More importantly, this also has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am also quiet calm actually. Though, I don't think I can say the same about you since you keep making attacks and baseless accusation against me (see here for example: [22]).

Also, can you please explain why you're not responding to key parts of the discussion? Can you please reply to these issue:

1. Do you have a source that claims that the Imamate of Aussa being Afar (link to where this comes up: [23])

2. Your source for Imam Jasa being Afar (link to your claim: [24])

3. Please explain why you used a fictitious for the etymology (link to your edit: [25]). By the way, "Adal" means "justice" in Arabic. AcidSnow (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Im sure you can see the various sources that even say Aussa was the last seat of the Adal sultanate therefore dont remove it. Im not convinced about zeila but Its not an issue for me if you insist on including it here. if you would like to come to terms on not inhibiting each others edits then we can. I rather do that then having editors be in conflict. As far as the other points in this discussion I am not going to dwell into this here. Q 1 and 2 are irrelevant because no edits are being made for that. #3 is a consensus established position. Zekenyan (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2016 (UT

I really hoped that you would respond to the major points that I made Zekenyan, but your reasons for not doing so are quiet clear I must say :). Anyways, I have already shown you that transfer to Aussa created a distinct polity so I am not sure what your current issue is. You claim that I can "see the various sources" that support you edit but you have only provided one. Per WP:BURDEN I am not obligated to go look up sources for you either. Other than that, your only other argument is the bizarre belief that my edits are simply motivated because I "think the sultanate was somali". I have already disproved this and at the rate you're going at I am tempted to report you at the Administrators' noticeboard. However, it wont be necessary since you have already been blocked for the use of multiple socks!

As for the etymology, my issue isn't with the consensus per se rather how you completely made up the origins of "Adal". I highly recommend that you explain as to why you choose to do it. Questions #1 and 2# aren't irrelevant because "no edits are being made for that" but actually are quiet relevant. In fact, you're the one that brought it up. This isn't the first time that you backed away from providing a source for your bizarre claims. So it seems that you simply made it up once again. AcidSnow (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 I am about to revert your edit , Can you tell me why you removed that part of history? did you know that it was there well before you started your distributive edits. Don't remove valid content, your edit removed a helpful part. Wikipedia is built upon WP:REFERENCES and WP:NPOV - please do not remove links that potentially add information to the encyclopedia. don't remove useful content.Somajeeste (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Ethiopia template is appropriate here due to the history linking both states, specifically the impact of the war on both parties. Adal did not extend to Somalia, I am happy to see sources stating the territory of Adal extended beyond borders of Somaliland. Kzl55 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not against inclusion of Ethiopia template on Adal-absynia section, and i didn't remove anything i just add somalia and your definition of Somalia is my be different but you can see Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Eritrea articles are down there inclusion of Somalia is necessary as other parts involved, From NPOV .

why are you suggesting inclusion of Somalia is redundant. ? what is your prove.? Somajeeste (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You did remove both Ethiopia and Somaliland [26], as well as Eritria [27] which is most certainly disruptive editing. Do you have any sources proving that historic Adal extended beyond the boundaries of Somaliland? If so, then you should cite your sources. If not then you should not be adding Somalia. Kzl55 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Adal Sultanate's official language was Somali. The fact that Somali tittles were historically used for dignitaries such as Garaad, and that the majority of the tribes with which the royals dealt with without envoys being Somali demonstrates this reality. Harari loan words are uncommon in Somali, however the same cannot be true for Harari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.MedrTesgaye (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 Jun 2023 (UTC)

Somalia

user:Kzl55Somalia as any other parts involved was included, well before your start annoying edits, check the history with reference on it [28], if you keep doing your distributive edits, you risk me bringing down a lot of trouble on you. I don't have other choice but to report you. please DON'T REMOVE IT!!!! Somajeeste (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to make threats. Your edits have been nothing but disruptive. As mentioned above you have removed both Ethiopia and Somaliland [29] as well as Eritrea [30] for absolutely no reason. You have also included Somalia without providing any source proving the territory of historic Adal extended beyond boundaries of Somaliland.

If the reason behind your assault on Somaliland pages, and in this case its inclusion in the article is based on the tired argument about de facto/de jure status, then I have linked you to a previous discussion on the subject User talk:Kzl55#Adal Sultanate, where you can clearly see that there is Wikipedia precedent in the case of Dál_Riata (right above your 23 April edit, you must have seen it.)

So again, that is why I have reverted your edits which removed Somaliland, Ethiopia and Eritrea for no reason and inserted Somalia instead. Do you have any sources supporting that historic Adal extended beyond Somaliland? If so please share, otherwise please refrain from making any further disruptive edits.Kzl55 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Again you're mistakenly wrong, this was the history [31], before you start butchering the article, territory of historic Adal empire stretch from Berbera in northern Somalia to central Eritrea . as Somaliland status you are arguing something doesn't belong here , you see that fact that this talk page headline mention WIKIPROJEC Somalia. i don't understand what you trying to prove by removing Content that belongs here, you're making vandalism and POV editing.. which is not accepted here. Therefore, I strongly advise you to stop that or risk being topic banned. i hope that makes sense for you.Somajeeste (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You refuse to understand that the de facto argument does not work here. Somaliland is included as per Wikipedia precedent (for example Dál_Riata.) Now if you are saying that historic Adal extended beyond Somaliland's borders into Somalia then either provide sources or revert your edit.

You still did not explain [32] and [33], clearly disruptive edits. Kzl55 (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the geographic extent of Adal [34], [35] and [36]. Kzl55 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

anyway here is reference for (History of somalia template) to be included as it mentions Adal sultanate Stretching from Cape Guarhdafui [37] (present day Puntland Somalia) to Hadiya. and i wonder why you didn't find it. anyway I therefor, included like any other part involved. Somajeeste (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is that it was based around Zeila [38], [39] and [40]. Please cease the disruptive edits. You were warned multiple times. Kzl55 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content. Reverted back to previous version. Kzl55 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The history doesn't belong to somaliland clan stop this misinformation. The adal kingdom it's a somali heritage Ahmed suuri (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adal Sultanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423062326/http://www.mbali.info/doc328.htm to http://www.mbali.info/doc328.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Elagoon please read the material. Saturnet (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Headings structure

Yesterday I reverted this edit: [41], which was made a few months ago by an obvious IP sockpuppet, in evasion of a block, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc.. Their edits as a rule have been incompetent and disruptive, and several editors, including me, have been going through their edit histories and doing cleanup.

The edit to this article added an extra level of subheaders, creating a "History" section and moving two of the existing main sections under it. My revert was undone today by GenQuest: [42], with the explanation "Better version". That edit also reverted this: [43], which changed the infobox "succeded by" from "Ottoman Empire" to "Egypt Eyalet"; I guess the edit summary applied to both, but I'm not sure. In any case, I'd like to suggest reverting again back to the version of the structure prior to the sockpuppetry, for the following reasons:

• I don't think the sock's version is an improvement. The majority of the article is about history. It's already obvious enough what the sections refer to, i.e. "Kingdom established" and "Rise of the sultanate". I don't think it's really necessary to put them under an extra level of indentation to indicate they are "history". Also, on the mobile phone version of Wikipedia, second-level subheaders are hidden in the table of contents, leaving only "History" instead of the two more specific headers, which I think is less useful than the previous version.

Even if there's a consensus that article requires a separate "History" section to help organize it, this version doesn't make sense, because other sections such as "Abyssinian–Adal conflict", "Collapse of the sultanate", etc., are also clearly "history". It may be that a reorganization of the headings and structure would improve the article, but accepting this poor-quality edit by a blocked user isn't the way to do it...

• The user has disrupted literally thousands of articles with superfluous additions of "History", and edit-warring over them, and contines to do so. Reinstating and approving their edits as being "useful" may encourage them to continue their disruption. While editors may reinstate the edits of blocked users, if they take responsibility for the edits, they should take into account the rationale explained in WP:BMB, and consider whether the value of the particular edit they are reinstating outweighs the overall damage to Wikipedia by allowing or encouraging the blocked/banned user to edit.

I hope that makes sense... --IamNotU (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @IamNotU: Have to disagree. The "History" section is standard in country articles, especially historical countries. I can't speak to the technical problems with cell phone viewing of articles, as that sounds like another issue entirely that needs fixing. I just re-reviewed the heading structure of the article and, respectfully, it looks OK as it now stands relative to historical domain articles, although there is definitely room for improvement. My edit also got rid of information added to the infobox by another editor who added wholly unsourced material to it (r.e.: Egypt Eyelet), as well as several un-needed parameters and a bunch of white-space. You state above [and I paraphrase]: 're-organization may be the way to go, but accepting a poor quality edit is not the way to go.' I agree. However, reverting one edit from hundreds, and a really old one at that, is also not the way to go. (I do understand you want to make a statement about an individual you feel is acting in bad faith.) You should feel free to improve the article and sub-heading structure yourself, or is tracking and reverting this "sockpuppet's" edits the only thing motivating you here? Side-note: I do not see any hint of a sock-puppet of which you are referring to above. Has this person's alleged behavior been been reported to the sp noticeboard? This kind of accusation against an editor needs to be followed up properly or you may find yourself in hot water. All the best. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GenQuest, thanks for replying, and for the explanation. You're correct that it's typical to have a "History" section in such articles, and I'm not in principle opposed to that happening here. First I'd like to address your concern with the sockpuppetry / block evasion: I do not see any hint of a sock-puppet of which you are referring to above. The ANI report I linked above mentions the IP range, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:E405:F700::/64, where there were about a thousand similar edits, all obviously by the same person, beginning in January. They were blocked for a month in March [44] for "block evasion", but returned and continued in April, when they edited this article. You can ask the blocking admin, who is well aware of the situation and has been dealing with this person for the past year or two, though because they're a checkuser, they can't confirm or deny that an IP is connected to a particular blocked account - but it's very obviously the case according to the behavior and WP:DUCK. There are also hundreds of other IPs, and dozens of obviously-related accounts (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sennick4858 and others), tracing back to an indefinite block of this person no later than mid-2018. This isn't about me "making a statement". There are several editors who have been coordinating the efforts to clean up the vast number of articles that have been disrupted, I've put in literally weeks of my own time to help since May, and again the admin is fully aware of the ongoing process, and making further blocks of this person as they hop IPs. We've managed to bring the firehose down to a trickle, but there's still work to be done. As of today, 1,447 articles they edited have been checked, and at least 90% of them required repairs. It's possible that one or two mistakes have been made, but as far as I remember you're only the second person to object to or undo any of the cleanup efforts. If you feel that I've misidentified this IP as having been evading a block, that I or the others are not following policy, or I'm otherwise doing something that I should be in hot water for, then I'd like to get that out in the open right away. I'm happy to follow up with you on my talk page about it.

Assuming that you don't dispute that they were evading a block, my revert of their edit is in accordance with WP:BLOCKEVASION. Obviously-helpful edits like undoing vandalism can be (but not must be) allowed to stand, "but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". In the very few cases where it was clear that reverting would make the article worse, I've let some edits stand. In this case it's not at all obvious to me that the edit was helpful; therefore according to policy it should be reverted.

You can make the same edit again yourself, but you're expected to at least consider WP:BMB in the decision, and you should have independent reasons for making the edit, and take full responsibility for the content. Essentially it's a bold edit on your part. So my question to you is, as the editor responsible, what is your justification for moving just those two sections underneath a new "History" heading? It seems to me that it leaves the article in a worse state, because it's confusing and feels disorganized - several of the other sections appear to be equally as much "history" as those ones. Again, the edit was reverted because the blocking policy says that it should be. If at this point you'd like to improve the structure and organization of the text, and think that adding a "History" heading would help, could you do a little better job of it, rather than just repeating the shoddy edit of a disruptive sock and then pointing out that I'm free to improve the article myself?

"History" sections are common, but there's no standard layout that demands them. Just looking at the other articles in Category:Former sultanates in the medieval Horn of Africa, some of them do, some don't, and for example Ajuran Sultanate seems to do fine without one. It depends on the current state of the article. My assessment was that until such a time as the content could be effectively organized under a "History" heading, it would be better for the readability of the article to leave it with the previous flatter and simpler hierarchy, than to make this particular edit, even without considering the block evasion, but especially with. --IamNotU (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

cities of the adal sultanate section

i think it would be great if we add some of the cities assosiated with the adal or under the adal sultante ie the capital cities and major cities under the adal sultanate some of these are ziela aussa harar which are the capital cities and of course cities like diri dawa and etcetra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Awsa sultanate

Awsa sultanate Maher Al muayiqili (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

Requests the correction of mentioned nations. Particularly that of "somaliland" as the territory belongs to the internationally recognised government of the Federal Republic of Somalia. Anon1648 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition, please be aware that we usually use historical names when referring to historical territories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Major issues with this article

The article contains original research and POV. To begin with the Sultanate was multi ethnic not only Somali and its capital city wasnt Zeila. Adal Sultanate was founded after the collapse of Ifat Sultanate which was based in Zeila but the region of Adal seem to be distinct from Ifat and related with the harar plateau as Cambridge points out [45] yet the article deceptively uses the cambridge reference to assert Adal was Zeila. Oxford source also indicates Adal was located west of Zeila [46] The article uses WP:SYNTH to push the claim that it was based in Zeila despite references stating otherwise. Zeila or siyara is therefore original research for example; this source state Adal Sultanate was founded on the Harar highlands as well. [47]. The article needs work to fix these issues and until I or another neutral editor resolves this, I will be tagging it. I will attempt to improve it in the future though, the leaders do not seem to be Somali either based on the academic work I have come across hence labeling the Adalites a Somali state is in accurate. Magherbin (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Adal sultanate was predominately Somali and the fact it included other ethnic groups is mentioned in the ethnicity section Adal_Sultanate#Ethnicity.

Adal just like Ifat was originally based in Zeila before it moved to Dakar by Sultan Badaly and from there it moved to Harar by Abu Bakr. Thats just well known fact and its mentioned in multiple sources [48][49] [50] and Sayara was the first place of return by Adal sultans return and his brothers .

Not a single source mentions Adal being founded in Harrar, Harrar was a city founded by Abu Bakr in the 15th century according to Richard Pankhurst and not even your source says it, All it talks about is Adals expansion towards the west.

Adal was a province/emirate to the East of the Western Ifat sultanate, before the Walashma Sultans based themselves there on return away from Abyssinian agression. The name Adal itself became a synonymous with Eastern Lowlanders towards the port of Zeila. Ifat was based on around the Showa plateu with it's quarters in Zeila.

Like i explained in the Ahmed Gurey talk section [[51]]

Neutral POV does not mean "Neutral". Read Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#NPOV,_neutrality,_and_false_balance

"NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing POV. All opinions are not equal."

"The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view."

Ragnimo (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Adal and Adal sultanate are two different things, the article states Adal "Sultanate" was founded in 1415 and its capital was Zeila, this is false. Adal Sultanate may or may not be primarily Somali, this is not my point. I clearly stated the leadership was not Somali for ex; Egypt was predominantly Arab with an Albanian dynasty see Muhammad Ali dynasty. Harar plateau/highlands and Harar city are two different things also. Do not remove tags. Magherbin (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2021 (UT

Awdal was an eastern Emirate under Ifat sultanate, until the Sultans based themselves there in 1415 from then on which it became the leading principality. Awdal kingdom itself was founded in the late 9th-10th century [52]. It's not two different things because the emirate was centered around Zeila and the sorounding regions.

Ifat just like Adal expanded from Zeila to conquere western territories of Showa Kingdom which was mainly an agrogoba kingdom, with some harla in their rank. Showa was ruled by inviduals who had close relations with one another and fought wars against eachother.

Walashma was different. Walashma was headed by a native hereditary ruling family who had it's origins in Zeila, so the case of an outside Albanian dynasty for example could never happen. There is a succession amongst local family members, father, son, brother. Same way Hiraab Imamate, Geledi and Ajuraan was ruled by heridetary local ruling families under the name Gareen, Gobroon and Yaqcuub dynasties. Walashma was no different, it's also why the rulers of Walashma was buried in Aw Barkhadle in Somaliland , which is supported by archeology and textual evidence [53], Awbarkhadle was the 2nd capital of Adal called Dakar old name Dogor and Somalis were the ones who kept their lineages [54]

The Cambridge History of Africa, Volum 3 : But there is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and Al-Dimashqi, another thirteen-century Arab writer, gives the city name its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteen century, the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior increased so much so that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and south-eastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of "the country of Zeila".[55]

Oxford History of Islam: The sultanate of Adal, which emerged as the major Muslim principality from 1420 to 1560, seems to have recruited its military force mainly from among the Somalis[56]

2/3rds of it's army was Somali if you leave out the mysterious harla, many of it's leadership and Regional aristrocracy was clearly identified as Somali in Futah.

My apologies for the tags, i thought you were asking for citations. Hope we can resolve this.

Ragnimo (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer a neutral editor to comment on these issues, you've come into disputes with me on multiple articles. I didnt edit this article yet hence there's nothing to discuss here. I'm pointing out the problems with the article and you're still using original research and synthesis to further a point that Somalis were the leaders of the state. You have not addressed my concerns but proved my point. I did not question wheather Zeila was predominantly Somali hence filling the talk page regarding Zeila is irrelevant. Magherbin (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been adressing what you stated above. You said Adal and Adal Sultanate was seperate, which is not exactly true like i explained. You said Adal was founded in Harrar and never based in Zeila, which was also not true far from it. Adal sultanate was originally based in Zeila (Awdal) which was predominately Somali. You made an example use of an Albanian ruler in Egypt which is a false equivocation, Walashma and Sacadadin were hereditary rulers who were local and native to the area with their foundations in Zeila. "In 1285, the local sheikh Umar Walashma conquered Shewa to consolidate the Sultanate of Ifat, which was based out of Zeila, ruled by the Walashma Dynasty, and extended over vast swathes of present-day Somalia and southeast Ethiopia" [57]

Direct mentions of Somalis being leaders of the state is not even mentioned in the Article either.

Ragnimo (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Quit quoting travel guides. Ifat is considered a seperate state from Adal I thnk you've confused the two just like this article. Although Ifat's descendants did launch Adal, they (ifat) leaders themselves were Ethiopian [58] and they spoke Ethio semitic [59]. I've seen you ignore clear reliable references and removing them wherever you find them, this is not the way to edit on wikipedia. If we want to get specific on the Ethiopian semitic ethnic groups that were leaders of the state or "kings of adal", see footnote on p.14 [60]. BTW Ifat (adals predecessor) made Zeila its capital but most sources indicate they were originally from north east of Shewa in the Ethiopian interior [61] Magherbin (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry didn't really notice it was a travel guide, should have looked it up but you can find it different history books that Walashma and Ifat was based in Zeila "At that time the Islamic Sultan of Ifat , based at Zeila , turned sporadic fighting with the " Abyssinian infidels " into a full - scale religious war" [[62]]

That was after Ifat expanded into and conquered showa , the population at Shoa probably spoke Abyssnian or Semetic not the rulers."In the shoa region at least" . The rulers of Walashma themselves however spoke Arabic "The 19th century Ethiopian historian Asma Giyorgis suggests that the Walashma themselves spoke Arabic " "Their+language+is+Arabic,+and+it+is+similar+to"&dq="Their+language+is+Arabic,+and+it+is+similar+to"&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

The people in the lowland to the east spoke Eastern Cushitic as Cambridge puts it "The linguistic factor may have provided another dimension for the basic cleavage between the sedentary Muslim communities in the Ethiopian interior and the nomadic peoples of the vast lowlands between the plateu and the coast, who were predominately speakers of Eastern cushitic"

Adal unlike ifat was not based in Shoa Platue and Zeila but the East Lowlands of Adal around Zeila and Harrar plateu were they were primarily Somali or Eastern Cushitic speakers.

Ragnimo (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The dynasty originated in north east of Showa itself and moved to Zeila, i've just provided a source for that. See above. Adal was an Ethiopian semitic dynasty with cushites in their state as militias etc. Thats what the sources indicate if you research this subject. If you dont have sources indicating they spoke Somali you need to drop it as its original research and synthesis. This is not the place for fringe theories. I'll have to bring this to the noticeboard for fringe if you keep it up. Magherbin (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What source did you provide for that? it conquered showa sultanata and expanded there to Showa platue while being headquartered in Zeila. The whole kingdom stretched from zeila port to eastern showa. Umari himself associates it with both Showa and Zeila for that reason. Ifat itself was the eastern most kingdom which included Awash River Valley. Nothing is said to it originating there. [63]

"The Ifat Sultanate was a medieval Somali Muslim sultanate in the Horn of Africa. Led by the Walashma dynasty, it was centered in Zeila"

"commercial interests into the trade routes and domains of the Somali Kingdom of Ifat , centered in Zeila"[64]

"Once have been the seat of Sabra'ad Din , the Grandson of Sa'adadin who ruled Zaila, the seat of the Ifat kingdom" [65]

Ragnimo (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Providing one source isnt enough, this is clearly a fringe theory and I will be taking it to the noticeboard a you're trying to claim that Ifat was Somali despite the numerous references i cited above. Magherbin (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are several academic sources. Not 1 source. It is not fringe theory, what is fringe theory is you saying Ifat originated in shewa.

Show me 1 or several sources that says Ifat originated in shoa. I'll wait.

Ragnimo (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source by Richard Pankhurst: "Zayla ' , in all probability the principal abode of the sultan of Ifāt , was as such a place of some pomp and ceremony . The chief on formal occasions sat on a throne of iron four cubits high encrusted with precious stones , and was surrounded by" [66]

Ragnimo (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is self published not reliable [67]. As far as Sada mires book claiming the seats was zeila, I already know this. British also occupied Zeila were they Somalis? Empires and states occupy regions this is not new. Drop the Ifat Sultanate claim as this article clearly is the Adal Sultanate, I was just making a point that Ifat's rulers were Ethio Semities as well. Find sources claiming Adal's capital was in Zeila if not it should be removed, do not use wp:snyth by claiming ifat was adal. Magherbin (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Richard Panhurst, Sade mire and Walter Sheldon Clarke are all reliable. You were trying to suggest the Walashma rulers spoke ethio semetic because the Shoa population might have spoke it. When the eastern lowlands into coastal area were including Zeila they were based at spoke Somali or East Cushitic. The Walashma rulers however spoke Arabic according to Asma Gyiorgis.

I actually showed you sources that state Zeila being the capital and original center of Adal sultanate, but since it doesn't fit your POV you just ignored it. Here: [68] [69] [70] [71][72]

I am still waiting on you to provide me a source that says Adal was founded in Harar and Ifat originated in Shoa. Since you are talking about fringe theories and reliable sources. Show me where it say this, without shifting the goal post.

Ragnimo (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources you've listed misinterpret texts. Ahmed was not in Zeila when he launched a war and you need to differentiate a so called "adal emirate" in the 10th century with the adal sultanate of 15th century. Use reliable sources not self published work that contradicts mainstream references. Historians only call it the Adal Sultanate beginning with Sabr ad-Din III, he claimed the title King of adal and launched a new dynasty, this is why its called Adal Sultanate. I already showed you references that explicitly said Adal Sultanate was established on the Harar plateau, [73] they state this since Dakar was located in the interior very near the modern city of Harar. The readers are already confused reading this due to the abundance of errors. Ifat Sultanate preceded Adal Sultanate however the area is known generally/vaguely as Adal since ancient times. [74] [75]. As Chekroun points out "The city of Dakar was the first capital of the sultanate of the Barr Sa’d ad-Dīn founded by the descendants of the sultans of Ifāt in the early fifteenth century.". [76]. This source also states the sultans of ifat became the sultans of adal and established a base at dakar. [77]. Its to be noted Ifat dynasties heirs returned and launched an Adal dynasty in Dakar, they ceased to be called Ifat as explained on p.48 [78]. If the article states it was in Zeila, this is not an adal sultanate page but a regional description of muslims dating back to the 9th and thats out of the scope for the subject being covered. Zeila was likely occupied by Ethiopians Christians hence it would be difficult to return and establish themselves in Zeila anyway. Magherbin (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources you've listed misinterpret texts. Ahmed was not in Zeila when he launched a war and you need to differentiate a so called "adal emirate" in the 10th century with the adal sultanate of 15th century. Use reliable sources not self published work that contradicts mainstream references. There is no misinterpetation of the sources stated things quite clearly. The Adal sultanate was based in the Emirate of Adal and made it it's leading principality which had it's capital in Zeila. Just to qoute them.

Area Handbook for Somalia, Volum 550 by Irving Kaplan: By the early fifteenth century the Muslim emirate of Adal , which had its capital in Zeila and some of its territory in what is present - day eastern Ethiopia

Mukhar Ali: " From Zayla, the headquarters of the Awdal sultanate, Imam Ahmad was able to rally the ethnically ..."

Abdullahi, Abdurahman: "followed by Ifat sultanate (1285-1415 AD) and Adal sultanates (1415-1577 AD) headquartered in Zayla"

Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia by David H. Shinn : "Zeila, which was inhabited by Arabs, Somalis, and Afars, was originally the center of Adal power"

I. M. Lewis, ‎Said S. Samatar : "At the time of Imaam Aḥmad's campaigns the capital of the Muslim Sultanate of Adal was Harar . Originally , however , Adal was based on the port of Zeila" All are reliable mainstream sources and non are self published but academic. Adal's center of power and headquarters was in Zeila initially before it moved to Dakar and then from there to Harar.

Historians only call it the Adal Sultanate beginning with Sabr ad-Din III, he claimed the title King of adal and launched a new dynasty, this is why its called Adal Sultanate. I already showed you references that explicitly said Adal Sultanate was established on the Harar plateau, [79] they state this since Dakar was located in the interior very near the modern city of Harar. The readers are already confused reading this due to the abundance of errors. Ifat Sultanate preceded Adal Sultanate however the area is known generally/vaguely as Adal since ancient times. If the article states it was in Zeila, this is not an adal sultanate page but a regional description of muslims dating back to the 9th and thats out of the scope for the subject being covered. Zeila was likely occupied by Ethiopians Christians hence it would be difficult to return and establish themselves in Zeila anyway.

Incorrect, Adal sultans intitial meeting point was Sayara, then it was moved from Zeila to Dakkar by Sultan Badlay. "The first ruler of the newly named Adal dynasty was Sä'd ad - Din's eldest son , Sultan Säbr ad - Din III . ... Din and his brothers made their way to a place called Sayara , where they were joined by a number of their father's former followers"

Then it was transferred from Zeila to Dakar by Sultan Badlay. [80]

Then Abu Bakr moved the Capital from Dakar to Harar " Sultan Abū Bakr bin Muhammad was a renowned Adal ruler who transferred his capital from Dakar to Hārar in 1520" The Conquest of Abyssinia: 16th Century - Page 9[81]

I already showed you references that explicitly said Adal Sultanate was established on the Harar plateau,

The plateu of Harar includes Zeila and much of the lowland to the East. The text itself states what what i have been saying all along.

And cambridge furthermore explains it "The strategic position of the Harar plateau , through which all the important trade routes from Zeila passed into the Ethiopian interior"

If you still don't see there is an actual map that shows what the Harar plateu and the general regional Adal was besad at, do you see that in the light green aread? [82]

. Zeila was likely occupied by Ethiopians Christians hence it would be difficult to return and establish themselves in Zeila anyway.

Zeila was not occupied by Ethiopian Christians, it is true they followed the Last Sultan of Ifat there and pilaged the area. But they did not stay. The Ethiopians Christians power and aggressions mainly extended to province of IFat which they usurped around Shoa Plateu , which is why the Sultans of Adal moved away to the low lands to the east aways from Abyssinian agression and abandoned Ifat. Adal became the leading province from then on.

And i am going to change back the Ifat sultanate articles as well. In line with what the reliable sources actually say about it in a bit. Also don't make any changes before you discuss them here.

Ragnimo (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just above you mentioned Ifat's roots were in Shoa yet you're asking me a for a reference for statements you made? Here is one [83], this is not about location as that is irrelevant. Demographics dont stay the same, they change due to migrations. Magherbin (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ifat didn't have roots in Showa but in Awdal as Ibn Khaldun put it they were an ethnicity that emigrated from futher from the east and settled there.

Ibn Khaldun relates how Damut was attacked and conquered by the Negus of Christian Ethiopia and how a race called Walasma' lived in it, which then emigrated further east and settled in Ifat where it formed another sultanate.

And as a medieval muslim ethiopian text relates how dynasty from Awdal conquered Shoa Sultanate:

In this text , reference is made to ' Ali b . Wali Asma as having fired Walalah , capital of the Muslim state of Shoa in the year 676 AH . and the successful incorporation of the state under the rule of the Walashma dynasts of Adal by 688 AH .

[84]

Their roots are in Awdal which they trace back to Yusuf Aw-Barkhadle and according to Maqrizi another medieval writer:

According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat.

Ifat kingdom for this reason had a double spatial implementation one in the interior around South showa plateu near Awash river and one in the immediate hinterland of Zeila. Zeila was their capital city and whereas ifat was their leading province at the time before their relocation to Adal as their leading province

One way to solve the problem is to consider that the kingdom had a kind of double spatial implantation, both in the immediate hinterland of Zaylaʿ, a favorite area for nomads, and in the far interior, in the he escarpment of the central high plateau, a sedentary economy zone, irrigated by the tributaries of the Awāš river. The question of the concrete modalities of domination over a space divided in this way remains unresolved, but we can suggest a complementarity between altitudinal zones and the economic functions of populations or specialized groups, some in the production of foodstuffs, others in the caravan trade. One of the solutions, adopted by some authors, has been to draw on the map a vast area joining the modern district of Ifāt and Zaylaʿ, thus encompassing a good portion of the Afar depression.

[85]

I agree the demographics don't stay the same, Many Somalis a living in South Shawa and Harrarghe was assimilated by Oromo mostly and Some by Amhara which is evident. Some Dir and Harla Somalis were assimilated around Awash by Oromos and some by Afar, which is Shown by Haralah's Darood Kombe genealogy and Isa lineage of the later Imamate of Aussa rulers. Ragnimo (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Location section?

User:Ragnimo, articles shouldnt consist of location sections. The introduction explains its territory very well. Magherbin (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't? What rule is this based on? Articles should give people an overview/description. The leed only explains adal at it's greatest extant. The source and section i added explains Adal's original/proper positioning.

Ragnimo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not insert that in the history section? Most articles do not start with a location section. Magherbin (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the history section just be a chronology of events? I feel it's unfitting to describe a location there.

Ragnimo (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Other Ethnicities

@Escorban-Han: Hello Escorban hope your doing well. Recently you’ve constantly been reverting my edits claiming the sources are fake. The Adal kingdom was situated and based in zeila at its zenith it extended as far as Sudan. According to I.M Lewis the inhabitants were predominantly Somalis from Zeila possibly Cisse.[86] [87] [Randall Pouwels (Mar 31, 2000). The History of Islam in Africa. Ohio University Press. p. 242. Aw Barkhadle, is the founder and ancestor of the Walashma dynasty] [I.M Lewis people’s of the Horn of Africa] however multiple other historians such as Pankhurst,Alvarez,Mohammed khier,Al Shamsi disagree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guutaale135 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Afar influence

During its Hay day father Francisco Alvarez the Portuguese explorer notes that Adal was predominantly inhabited by the Afar (Adali/Danakil tribe) he referred to the Afar kingdom as the Afar kingdom,[Narrative of the Portugese embassy to Ethiopia during the year 1520-1527. London Haklut society. 1881. pp. 345–346.]. Trimingham supports Alvarez by stating that Adal was a Afar kingdom established by the Adali tribe, the Adlai established a small chiefdom in Zelia or Zeila and this small Adali chiefdom developed into the Adali (Adal) Empire. Source: Trimingham page 57. Source: Mohammed Kheir Omar, The Dynamics of a unfinished African dream page 18-20.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guutaale135 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All the sources used do not contain what was added to the page. This source Trimingham- Islam in Ethiopia. go to page page 57. And this source Narrative of the Portuguese Embassy to Abyssinia during the Years 1520-1527 No mention to what was written to the page. All that is added to the page is completely made up. With the exception of The Dynamics of a unfinished African dream. Mohammed Kheir Omar which is from a self-publication service

Escorban-Han (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oromo inhabitants

Paul Baxter notes that Oromos had established several kingdoms around the Adal sultanate and were also a major group. The Oromos were converted to Islam by the Adalites in the 1400s and went in to establish several other sultanates. Source: a river of blessing essays in honour of Paul Baxter. The Arab Faqih cited by Brakumper also mentions The Galla (Oroms) as being Muslim’s and inhabitants of Ifat (Adal). Source: Islam in southern Ethiopia Brakumper, Arab Faqih. I hope this is enough to conclude this edit war. Guutaale135 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way @Escorban-han: I’m in my alt acc. Guutaale135 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Adal Sultanate

User:Ayaltimo, where is the references for the edits you restored here [88] Siyara and Zeila were not capitals of this state. Provide evidence for these claims. Magherbin (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The previous user already showed multiple reliable mainstream sources showing that Zeila and Siyara were initially the capital of Adal Sultanate. I'll copy and paste them since you ignored his evidence.

Area Handbook for Somalia, Volum 550 by Irving Kaplan: By the early fifteenth century the Muslim emirate of Adal, which had its capital in Zeila and some of its territory in what is present-day eastern Ethiopia

Mukhar Ali: " From Zayla, the headquarters of the Awdal sultanate, Imam Ahmad was able to rally the ethnically ..."

Abdullahi, Abdurahman: "followed by Ifat sultanate (1285-1415 AD) and Adal sultanates (1415-1577 AD) headquartered in Zayla"

Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia by David H. Shinn : "Zeila, which was inhabited by Arabs, Somalis, and Afars, was originally the center of Adal power"

I. M. Lewis, ‎Said S. Samatar: "At the time of Imaam Aḥmad's campaigns the capital of the Muslim Sultanate of Adal was Harar . Originally, however, Adal was based on the port of Zeila"

Sultan Sabr ad-Din II crossed the Gulf of Aden and established a base in Siyara. [89] Ayaltimo (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Establishing a base doesnt indicate Siyara was a capital, there's not enough sources for these fringe theories. Atleast make sure your references dont contradict eachother. Read the quote you posted from Mukhar Ali and read I.M Lewis. Magherbin (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple references state Zeila was the capital of Adal Sultanate and you claimed it was a fringe theory prior to that which already shows how dishonest you are. Your opinions are irrelevant. Adal Sultanate started in Siyara therefore it was the capital because Adal Sultanate didn't start anywhere else. You are now arguing against logic. Ayaltimo (talk) 11:59, 04 May 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVILITY, Zeila was the capital of Ifat Sultanate which isnt even Somali itself. Adal emirate may have had their capital in Zeila around the tenth century but there's clearly a distinction between an emirate and a sultanate. The sources i've seen mainly speak of the Adal Sultanate which began in the year 1415. Magherbin (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Ifat Sultanate was Somali I've even proved to you on the Ifat talk page. How is Lewis's source contradicting Mukhtar? During the conquest of Abyssinia, the capital was Harar but originally it was Zeila which clarifies Mukhar and Abdullahi sources. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:09, 04 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Magherbin I see you made some contributions without me. I'm very sorry for being busy but I removed some nonsensical edits made by previous trolls. I've reviewed its sources and decided to remove them as they were poorly sourced. I also removed Siyara for being the capital made the page more neutral instead of being called a Somali kingdom. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo, thanks appreciate it. Magherbin (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Siyara can be put as the initial meeting point because that is what is. Also if the content is sourced, discuss or be clear about what the removal reason is in the summary.

Information about populations don't belong in the economy sections, avoid that. Only information about production should be there. And understand the difference between Adal emirate/state which was centered around zeila, and the later 15th century sultanate.

Keep the page balanced and do gradual addition if you must. Ragnimo (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Dont disrupt wikipedia by removing content, none of these kingdoms were Somali. Do you want another RFC to take place again? I have left the introduction paragrpah as Somali but it will be removed if you keep pushing POV. You're still socking on this topic area after several warnings from admins. Magherbin (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed sourced content from the page and added/made major changes undiscussed. Anyways talk about you want to add on here and look at what i explained above.

Also i will remind you to keep this civil and WP:NOPA.

Ragnimo (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo, Ragnimo is editing against consensus kindly revert them. They are not happy about the consensus achieved here it seems. Magherbin (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CON . Consesus is achieved by being clear in your editing summaries indicating reasons and through discussing the matter with all parties involved. Discuss what you want to add and look at what i explained above and in my edit summaries please

Consensus is also reached through detached civil attitude. Personal attacks and accussations should be all left aside. Unless you want all of us to blocked together.Ragnimo (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Magherbin. I just wanted to inform you that I tried to email the moderator about Ragnimo changes but still haven't gotten any response. The reason why I didn't want to revert is because I wanted to avoid an edit war. I also don't understand why you removed Sada Mire sources. I made it clear this was according to her despite her bringing much archeological evidence to showcase that these towns were developed by Somalis. You also have to understand she's not only a historian but an archaeologist. In the same way, you posted Hassen, Mohammed's opinions on the military section can also be removed if you're going with this angle. I'm truly trying my best to neutralize these articles so I don't have any dispute with you. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:12, 04 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo, Both of you push Somali POV hence telling me that you're trying to neutralize the page is abit amusing. Take a look at your RFC vote on the Ifat article, you edit warred in support of Ragnimo before. Emailing a user can be viewed as a form of sock puppetry dont do that. Anyways if what you include is well referenced I wont remove it however if socks are appearing targeting my edits, its not far fetched to state you may be supporting them based on your history hence why should your pov remain while my content are deleted? Hope you understand. Have a nice day! Magherbin (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Magherbin That was the past. You used to push your Ethio-Semitic POV into many articles while removing Somali references which was my problem with you but since you left them alone that's when I realized we can reach a common ground for both opinions to be stated in this article. I have not removed any of your content. That is Ragnimo doing it and he needs to come on here and resolve his dispute with you. When you say socks, you mean Shit233333334 and Sahasu? I'm also dealing with them on various articles and consider them to be extremely disruptive editors. You're not the only one dealing with them. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:11, 04 September 2021 (UTC)

Found maps and a travel document that suggest Adal existed in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s

Maps that mention Adal:

Made in 1688: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g8200.ct000124/?r=0.672,0.291,0.294,0.143,0

Made in 1725: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g8200.ct001445/?r=0.542,0.225,0.275,0.133,0

Made in 1802: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g8200.ct003484/?r=0.672,0.282,0.295,0.143,0

Made in 1804: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g8200.ct002740/?r=0.563,0.26,0.401,0.194,0

There's even a travel document that says "Adal Empire protectorate 1884 ": https://www.facebook.com/Ugaas-ARashid-Ugaas-Rooble-Ugaas-Doodi-102533167970223/photos/177856440437895

That means the date mentioned in Wikipedia in which the kingdom declined is completely wrong. The Adal Sultanate existed even in the 1800s. AbdirahiimYa (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

New Adal Sultanate establishment section proposal

The new section titled "Sultanate established" should go before the "kingdom established" as readers will be confused. The following should be added:

The Adal Sultanate itself was established when Haqq ad-Din II transferred the capital of Ifat Sultanate from Shewa to the Harar plateau an area known as Adal in the fourteenth century. Ethiopian historian Taddesse Tamrat states Adal's central authority in the fourteenth century comprised of the Argobba, Harari and Silt'e people. According to Patrick Gikes, Adal in the sixteenth century designated the ancient Harla and Somali people. Adal was governed by an alliance between Walasma dynasty of Ifat and the Abadir dynasty of Harar. Marriage alliances between Argobba, Harari and Somali people were also common within the Adal Sultanate.

Is there any objections or suggestions on what else to add in this section? Magherbin (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References

No original is better haqaddin did not move capital to harar it was still in zeila as confirmed by hes successor dying in ziela all of this is pure trash,besides changing title to muslim sulatanate the original should stay put. Jasakaly886 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See references 9,10 and 11 in the lede paragraph. Adal is the area known as the Harar plateau. Its common in conflict to die outside of your homeland that isnt a valid argument. Sa'ad ad-Din II died on an island after he fled from the Harar plateau, and the term Zeila back then could insinuate any Muslim region in the Horn, do not confuse it with the port city of Zeila. Logically speaking who would go to war with Abyssinia all the way in Zeila city? Do you know how far that is from the Abyssinian territory? The modern map differs from that of the middle ages. If you're not convinced about Haq's transfer, I wil omit it but the rest will be added, calling it trash is not reasonable. Magherbin (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean Sa'ad ad-Din Islands which is located in somaliland and the island is situated of the coast of ziela he died on that island after escaping ziela which is where Sa'ad ad-Din II lived and its a city inhabited by somalis today tell me why would he live in ziela and die in an island of the coast of ziela in north eastern somaliland any description which pirpously removes somalis from adal and ifat is nothing more then historical revisionism Jasakaly886 (talk)

Rulers led battles it was a tradition, he lost on the Harar plateau and fled to Zeila. Anyways if thats all you're complaining about, I wont add it but the rest are referenced by multiple sources. The article currently has serious NPOV violations which I am trying to neutralize. Magherbin (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats not my dissagreement somalis argobbas hararis as well as afars all conytributed to adal which was a muslim sulatanate youre proposal is biased against somalis since it doesnt include the contributions made by somalis just make a more inclusive title which includes all groups and state the walashma was a combination of all the aforementioned groups including somalis which you yourself agreed thier were marriage alliances also yusuf ibn al kawneyn was born in ziela and has somali roots since ziela is inhabited by somalis thats where my dissagreement lies hope you understand am against both the somali pov which disincludes contributions made by muslim ethnic groups and the bias in favour of a ethiopian bias Jasakaly886 (talk)

Btw sacaddin fled to his capital of ziela which was where the abysinians lauched thier final attack the reason he fled thier was becouse this was the seat of ifat not harar and i dont think harar was a capital until the adals came around Jasakaly886 (talk)

The article only had Somali viewpoint thats the point I was stating about POV. I can move Sada mires genealogical traditions statement into the start of the paragraph if that will suffice. The statement you made about Walasma being a combination needs references, I believe Robert only mentioned Imam Ahmeds marriage alliances with the chiefs but Imam himself wasnt part of Walasma. Perhaps you can find references about the Walasma combination ties with Somalis and other ethic groups as well as look for references about Afar. I can look for the references myself if you would like but it will take me some time due to my tight schedule. Overall its now been improved from before atleast so thats a good start. Magherbin (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not Fringe

User:Ragnimo, you stated robert ferry's/patrick gike's views are fringe [90] [91] yet both beliefs are expressed by several academics. Indicating one is a mainstream viewpoint can be stated in the sentence but omitting other viewpoints leads to bias.

Lets start with Robert Ferry's claim, who backs his statement that the leadership of the ruling Walasma dynasty of Adal were likely Harari people or speakers of the Harari language? 1. Richard Pakhurst states Sultan Umar Din was Harari on p.225 [92] 2. Aklilu Asfaw states Harari trace their lineage to Walasma on p.174 [93] 3. Bahru Zewde states Walasma sultanate were predominantly Argoba and Harari on p.64 [94] 4. Cambridge History of Africa states Walasma dynasty likely planted Argobba/Harari language on p.150 [95]. 5. See also Kassaye Begashaw footnotes stating leadership was Argobba/Harari on p.14 [96]. I can provide more references but i'll end it here however this looks like a dominant view than fringe to me.

The second content labelled fringe theory is also inaccurate as Patrick Gikes is only expressing what numerous academics have already stated regarding possible pre-somali origin just look at the Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article. Some academics state Ahmed belonged to the Harla ethnic group, they're now extinct via assimilation by various clans such as Somalis. The Harla once played a dominant role in Adal as their wikipedia page states as well. Magherbin (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

173.183.161.26 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There are some mistakes that are actually not in history. I am naming one of the ethnicities who resided here.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Talk 03:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Adal Sultanate.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Issues with new content

User:محرر البوق, the Adal kingdom was deleted after a merger refer to [97]. When you're reverted you should propose a draft and gain consensus. We are not going to elaborate on the fringe Adal kingdom of the 10th century on this article. This article should solely focus on the fourteenth century state started by the Walashma dynasty. The information regarding pre 14th century Adal especially the alleged 10th century Adal kingdom which is largely unknown doesnt deserve a separate article due to WP:GNG issues, it should not be linked or conflated with Adal Sultanate, if you want to add information regarding events of Adal region generally there's an article for it called Adal (historical region), this article discusses everything Adal. Shawa sultanate was located in Harar/Adal region it can be confusing because its named Shawa and today a territory named Shewa is outside of traditional Hararghe/Adal in the Oromia Amhara borders. Taddesse Tamrat and many other historians agree about Shewa being located in modern Harar, see [98]. Rightfully the academics all agree that Ifat overthrew the Makhzumi dynasty (shewa) which was occupying Adal itself since Adal is associated with Hararghe, this may indicate that the kingdom was named Adal, Zeila or Sultanate Shewa interchangeably however thats speculation. On the addition of Salih (imam) who was elected leader of the Harla sultanate, he has nothing to do with walasma's Adal Sultanate as he existed prior to its creation. Somalis did not found Adal Sultanate nor Adal kingdom there's no evidence for this infact, the Somalis only came into contact with Adal itself in the 15th century as this source indicates [99] I dont have any issues with the information regarding the Adal Sultans you've mentioned etc. Overall just do not include (pre Sa'ad ad-Din II & Haqq ad-Din II) Adal Sultanate information on this page. Something to note is that the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica has an entry on Adal and it states the earliest mention of Adal is 13th century [100] which contradicts the 10th century claim, this is probably due to the fact of no wide coverage of an Adal Kingdom topic in the mainstream academia. Magherbin (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and you did make valid points. I was not aware that a decision has been made to delete the Kingdom of Adal article and so I apologize for reverting that. I will try to add my content albeit with some changes that you described later as I'm quite busy this and next week.

محرر البوق (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magherbin I have brought back my edits albeit removing most of the information prior to Sa'ad ad-Din II (although i still left a few information which i considered important). Do you approve of these edits? If not let me know what I can do to improve this page. محرر البوق (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The map you've made is inaccurate and I see that you said there is no evidence of Damot being occupied, I suggest you read the source on Adal's area of conquest on p.336 [101]. The claim that Adal didnt extend past the Simien Mountains is not true, it occupied as far as Eritrea under Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, Oxford indicates Islam had been developed under his rule [102]. If you can make a better map covering these areas we can restore your updated map. I restored mentions of Haqq ad-Din II as this is more important than the other content you decided to add thats pre Sad ad-Din. I also restored several cited content you removed. Magherbin (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

The Removal of the line: "But according to Archaeologist Jorge Rodriguez, the Somalis were periphery peoples of Adal and mostly lived on the eastern frontier of the sultanate.[75]"

The source listed deals with areas outside the known borders of the Adal Sultanate and predominantly inhabited by the Somalis (the east). The actual passage from the source reads: "The influence of the Muslim states of Ifat and Adal must have been very shallow: this region is described as "the land of the Somalis" in the medieval texts (Stenhouse 2003, 15), indicating that it was outside the control of Adal and Ahmed Gragn had to conduct several military expeditions to reassure his authority upon the Somali tribes."

The line in question here makes an assumption the author did not even make when referring to Somalis as "periphery" peoples of the region of Adal. Zeila, the largest and most important city in the historical region and capital of the Kingdom was almost exclusively inhabited by Somalis as attested to by medieval geographers such as Ibn Batutta and Ibn Said. Furthermore How could Somalis be periphery to Adal when Yeshaq I of Ethiopia commemorated the defeat of the Adal in battle by naming them as "Somalis"? Moreover, we know for a fact that during Imam Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi's conquest, his army was overwhelmingly manned by Somalis according to the Futuh al-Habash. TriSolar (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Somalis made large scale movements in the horn sometime during the 15th century thats why they're first mentioned in this period, however they arent mentioned during Ifat Sultanate, Adal's predecessor. Jorge is therefore indirectly referring to Yeshaq's era where Somalis are identified through their Harari alias Simur. Here's another passsage from Jorge's article "In this region, nomads seem to have played a minor role: written references to the Somalis date to the 15th century, and the 16th-century texts described them like foreigners (Chekroun 2013, 188) and often troublesome (Stenhouse 2003, 10, 27), although other clans are referred as stalwart allies of the Sultanate of Adal (Chekroun 2013, 188)". Ibn Batuta and Ibn Said do not refer to Somalis in Zeila, and the army being overwhelming Somali has been debunked. FYI Adal Sultanate was a state built around the modern city of Harar not on the coastal area. The term periphery here sums up the text well imo. Magherbin (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Inn Batutta very much refers to Somalis in the Rihla. In fact he states the Somalis (known then as black berbers) inhabited the coast from Zeila all the way down to Mogadishu. Also you’re under the assumption nomad=Somali which is untrue. Sedentary settled populations of Somalis have inhabited the horn a millennia before the formation of the Ifat and Adal polities. The coasts prove this undeniably. Moreover the Futuh mentions the the Great Dir River and refers to rivers using terms such as Webi (Somali term for river). Yeshaq identifies the Adal armies as Somalis in his victory poem as well. All of this illustrates a people very much involved in the hinterland of the kingdoms in question. Al yaqubi also gives Zeila its native Somali name Awdal or Adal and mentions it as a capital of a kingdom during the 9th century, 600 years before ifat. TriSolar (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar Zeila was not the capital of the Adal Sultanate. It was a very important port city no doubt, but definitely not the capital of the sultanate, which was almost certainly around the Harar region (unless you’re talking about the so called “Adal kingdom” which preceded both the Adal and Ifat sultanates). Yeshaq’s chroniclers only lists Somalis as being one of the many people whom the Emperor fought and differenates them from both Ifat and Adal [103], this is completely irrelevant because the hymn does not go into detail about neither Adal nor the “Simur”. Ahmad ibn Ibrahim’s army was not “overwhelmingly” Somali, that is quite simply not true and such a wild claim to make without any evidence. You’re essentially requesting that someone should come here and start POV pushing the article for you. محرر البوق (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Adal Kingdom is so often overlooked when discussing this regions history. Al Yaqubi not only gives the region its native Somali name of Adal or Awdal, but mentions Zeila as its capital. The Somalis are by far the most mentioned group in the Futuh al habash and even 200 years prior to Ahmad’s conquest Somalis were present in the region of Adal as attested to by ibn batutta (Zeila is the largest and most important city in the region) They were not periphery at all. Zara Yaqob even mentions in the Meshafe Milad that Adal allied with Mogadishu (Meqdush). The somali involvement in the wars between the Abyssinians and the Adal/Ifat cannot be overstated. TriSolar (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar Well this article is about the Adal sultanate, not the "Adal kingdom" nor about the entire region of Adal. What the article is doing is stating the opinion of various academics, including ones that believe that Somalis were the peripheral peoples of Adal, and ones that do not. There is no reason to remove a sourced statement just because you personally disagree with it. Please read some of Wikipedia's guidelines about this; WP:NPOV. محرر البوق (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Understandable. TriSolar (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, however my initial issue was with the interpretation of Rodriguez’s work. He himself stated the area he was working was peripheral which we already knew, he never once gave the assumption all Somalis were peripheral to the empire ( a wild assumption with zero basis). However we know the hinterland of the empire most definitely included Somalis. Just because Somalis also lived in the peripheral regions (of course they did considering their presence all the way down to Kismayo) that does not mean they were not present in the kingdom itself (which they were). Regardless, it is what is. TriSolar (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Quick question, are we allowed to add our own interpretations of research on articles (which is what is going on here). TriSolar (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar What to be mean by Somalis lived in the hinterlands? And to answer your quick question, no that is prohibited. See WP:SYNTH. محرر البوق (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hinterland in this case just refers to the well within the borders of the polity. TriSolar (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, why are we acting like it’s an either or situation. For example we can say that a national park has tigers but also say that tigers are also present on the periphery of the national park. Do you agree?

That is all I’m arguing here. We have textual and historical evidence that Somalis lived within the Adal polity (they still do). For example the Futuh using the Somali names of rivers within the region. But we also know that Somalis are also present to the east and south east of the sultanate. The line in this article is an interpretation of research (one the researcher does not make himself. TriSolar (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar The Adalites make it very clear where the Somalis lived. They lived in the territory called "the land of the Somalis" (which is mentioned in Futuh al Habesh), this is where the research took place. Everywhere else is debatable, even Zeila, as Richard Pankhurst states that the town was ruled by Yemeni Arabs and that the nearby Somali nomads raided and sacked the town on numerous occasions, which forced the inhabitants to build a wall around the city to keep the Somalis out similarly to how the Hararis were forced to build a wall around their city to keep the Oromos nomads out [104] see pg 63. And John Spencer Trimmingham also states that Somaliland (again where this research took place), was the original homeland of the Somalis and that the Somalis exclusively inhabited this area. [105] (pg 112/148). I do not have access to this study, so I can only go along with the information presented on the summary and quote, but its pretty clear that Somalis exclusively inhabited this region during the medieval period. محرر البوق (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeila predates any mass movement of Arabs/ Yemeni into the region (after islam). Prankhurst’s conclusion has no basis in the historical record. As I’ve already stated Zeila has been associated with the barbaroi/black berbers since at least the 1st century a.d. to state the town as Primarily Arab almost amounts to erasure. Ibn batutta (and several other travellers and geographers) made it very clear that the inhabitants were of the black berbers (Somalis) I’ll put in batutta’s quote here:

“ I took ship at Aden, and after four days at sea reached Zayla (Zeila, on the African coast), the town of the Berberah, who are a Black people. Who are followers of the Iman al-Shafi.

Their land is a desert extending for two months' journey from Zayla to Maqdashaw (Mogadishu). Their beasts of burden are camels, and they possess sheep which are famous for their butter. The people are dark skinned and most people are rejecters (Shiite people who rejected the first three caliphs.)”

This quote already renders your assumption that Somalis exclusively inhabited Sonaliland in the medieval period wrong and the assertion that Zeyla was an Arab city. not sure where Prankhurst read that it was mostly Arab? Whose account did he base this off of. Also on the presence of walls, many Somali cities had walls from Baidoa to Mogadishu to Merca and Hafun and Berbera. Also once again we know the Awash was called the “Great Dir River” during the time of Ahmad’s conquest. Why would it have a Somali name when Somalis apparently never lived there. Also the term “Webi” is also in use in the Futuh al-Habash. This is Somali term for river. And by the way these are all in modern day Ethiopia (outside somaliland) TriSolar (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar If you're going to use the contemporary reports of medieval geographers/travelers then there is no reason why you should only discuss the opinions of only one geographer, because al-Mas'udi who visited the town in the 10th century describes the town as being "Habesha" costal port and Coptic historian Al-Mufaddal described the town as being inhabited by 7 different tribes. You can read about even more accounts on pg 53 [106]. And there's no evidence that black berbers meant Somali, gonna need a reference for that. Mogadishu and other nearby East African ports were founded by Persians or Arabs [107] [108] pg 132/516 this has recently been proven by a recent genetic analysis of local ethnic groups of this region, [109]. According to J. Spencer Trimingham Somalis had only arrived in this part of Somalia in the 13th century. Hence, it's pretty clear that there is no general consensus on the ethnic composition of this town. Yemeni influence over this town is well documented, your assertion that Pankhurst has no basis in the historical record while he is literally quoting a contemporary chronicle in that same page is not even worth addressing.

And like I said before, you can't just dismiss sources because you personally disagree with them. You are using your own personal interpretation of primary sources to dismiss sources. These are not MY assumptions these are works of several reputable academics and you have absolutely no authority to shrug them off. محرر البوق (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Whew, lots to unpack here but lets go. First of all concerning Al Masu’di, interesting take but a closer reading shows that it was under Abyssinian rule, he makes no comment on the inhabitants other than them being muslims. Al- Mas’udi is just saying the city is under Habesha administration, nothing more. Furthermore the Greeks/Romans predate his account of Zeila by 1000 years in the Periplus of the Erythraen Sea, and they refer to the inhabitants as Barbaroi and the coast as the Barbaroi coast. And just to be clear they also made a distinction between the “Axumites” to the north and their port of Adulis (40 km south of Massawa). Also If there were Arabs there, they would have been called Arabs by the Greeks/Romans. Concerning the Coptic scholar Al-Muffadal all he seems to say is that 7 tribes inhabit Zeila. Ok, and? That means almost nothing. Any guess how many Somali tribes there are. A lot more than 7. Them being in one city isn’t anything special. Arab geographers were very careful separate the Habesha, Black Berbers and the Zinj. An excerpt from Yaqut-Al Hamawi’s Dictionary of countries: (when talking about Zeila).... Sheikh Ouelid el Bacri, who had traveled in many countries, told me the following. Berber is the name of a tribe of blacks, between the land of the Zendjs and Abyssinia. Another Excerpt. “Merca is a town on the coast of the Zanj (Zandschabar), belonging to the Berbers of the Blacks”, not the Berbers of the Maghrib. Regarding Arab founders. Strange how Arab geographers constantly forget to mention them. More from Al-Hamawi: “Mogadishu is situated on the mainland of the Barbar who are a tribe of nomads (urban) not those whose country is the Maghrib, (but intermediary) between the Habasha and the Zunuj.” . I wont bother reposting Ibn Batutta as we all know he said Zeila and Mogadishu were Black Berber cities. Now how do we know that “berber” means Somali. Well aside from the fact that archaeological and DNA analyses show Somalis inhabiting the region for at least 7000 YEARS (Abdullahi, Abdurahman (18 September 2017). Making Sense of Somali History: Volume 1. p. 65. ISBN 9781909112797. ), and all descriptions and accounts of the berbers corresponding perfectly to Somalis (culture, region, customs and language), I’ll give you some sources:

Ross E. Dunn: The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveller of the Fourteenth Century Page 124

David M. Goldenberg, "Geographia Rabbinica: The Toponym Barbaria", Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 1 (1999), pp. 67–69.

Now onto the unfounded “Arab Founder Myth”. This one might be even be easier to dispel. Aside from the fact that Arabs are never associated with the region by historical geographers (as far as I’m aware). The Arab founder myth seemingly first appears in the discredited Kitab Al-Zunuj (Book of the Zanj), a 19th century book with no author. One of the sources you listed has Arab muslims fleeing Abbasids. How could Arabs found a city that was already in existence at least 1000 years prior according to archaeological and textual records (Periplus of the Erythraen sea)(Sarapion) Huntingford 1980, p. 94.

It literally makes zero sense. I’m not sure what Lewis’ argument is but if has anything to do with Muslim Arabs or The Kitab Al-Zunuj we can safely say its unfounded.

Lastly 10th century geographer Al-Maqdisi calls Zeila by its native Somali name Adal in his book Aḥsan al-taqāsīmp. Recent research published in 2020 (listed below) shows that the cities and towns in Somalia including Zeila and Mogadishu were built upon an indigenous network and have their roots stretching back at least 4000 years. And as I already stated, Somalis have inhabited the region for at least 7000 years according to archaeological and genetic evidence.

P.S. Can you upload Trimingham's source I cant seem to find it. Thanks!

Further Readings and Sources

- H. Neville Chittick, "The East Coast, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean", in J. D. Fage and R. Oliver (eds.), The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3: From c.1050 to c. 1600 (Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 183–231, at 194–195 and 198. The account in the Book of the Zanj of pre-Islamic immigration of Arabs from Himyar in southern Arabia, their founding of most of the more important towns of the coast from Mogadishu to Mombasa, and also Kilwa, together with their subsequent conversion to Islam, is uncorroborated by other sources and unsupported by the archaeological evidence and must be dismissed as unhistorical. The suggestion that these families must have come from Siraf to the Somali coast before the eleventh century must therefore be regarded as unproven.

- The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 – Page 198

- The Archaeology of Islam in Sub-Saharan Africa By Timothy Insoll – Page 62

- Gervase Mathew, "The East African Coast until the Coming of the Portuguese", in R. Oliver and G. Mathew (eds.), History of East Africa, Volume 1 (Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 94–127, at 102.

- Mire, Sada (5 February 2020). Divine Fertility: The Continuity in Transformation of an Ideology of Sacred Kinship in Northeast Africa. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-76924-5.

David M. Goldenberg, "Geographia Rabbinica: The Toponym Barbaria", Journal of Jewish Studies 50, 1 (1999), pp. 67–69.

The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveller of the Fourteenth Century Page 124

The History of Somalia – Page 36 by Raphael Chijioke Njoku · 2013

Abdullahi, Abdurahman (18 September 2017). Making Sense of Somali History: Volume 1. p. 65. ISBN 9781909112797. (7000 years!) TriSolar (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, a quote was not formatted correctly. Here it is again. From Yaqut Al-Hamawi: “(When talking about Zeila).... Sheikh Ouelid el Bacri, who had traveled in many countries, told me the following. Berber is the name of a tribe of blacks, between the land of the Zendjs and Abyssinia.”

“Merca is a town on the coast of the Zanj (Zandschabar), belonging to the Berbers of the Blacks, not the Berbers of the Maghrib.” TriSolar (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, that study about Swahili origins you linked to has nothing to do with Somalia. It included zero (0) samples from Somalia let alone makes the claims you do. Not sure why you included it here. TriSolar (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar Trimmingham's source was already provided [110] (pg 112/148). (which makes the claim that southern Somalia was originally inhabited by a bantu people.) Anyways what I'm trying to say is that there is no general consensus that Zeila was a Somali city, most of what you added was your own personal interpretation of primary sources which is prohibited on Wikipedia see WP:PRIMARY. I do not believe that Zeila was a Habesha city, but the presence of Arabs in that city is undeniable. According to Ioan Lewis the city of Zeila was originally an "Arab settlement" and an ethnically mixed city that was inhabited by Arabs, Somalis and Afars.[111] I'm not gonna talk about Mogadishu right now because that's off topic, remember we are talking about Somali involvement in the Adal Sultanate, not elsewhere. Jorge's article clearly states that the Somalis nomads were the periphery not the territory they inhabited. The article cites Adalite text themselves, such as when Somali clans sided with the unpopular sultan Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad during his succession crisis, according to Rodriguez the Adalites describe the Somalis "as foreigners". In that case Rodriguez’s work does state that Somalis were the periphery. محرر البوق (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost every piece of evidence available points to Zeila being a predominantly Somali city. I’m not saying there were no other groups present but Lewis and Trimingham claims of Arab foundations have been proven untrue by the modern research I included in the my earlier reply. Once again I point out in Futuh al-Habash the use of Somali words in places you say they never lived in (Awash valley and the upriver waters of the Shabelle River). Now why would they be known by Somali names if Somalis were not a major presence in the region? Please explain that. Moreover the Somalis are by a wide margin the most mentioned group in the chronicle of Imam Ahmad’s wars by Arab Faqih. And Zara Yaqob mentions in the Meshafe Milad that Sultan Badlay allied with Mogadishu (who we’ve just established as Somalis) against the Ethiopians. Clearly Somalis were integral to the Sultanate both militarily (as levies and allies) and culturally as part of the human landscape. Once again it’s not an either or situation. Just because some Somalis nomads were foreigners in the empire does not mean all were (that is quite the leap in logic and goes against the known historical evidence). Also where in my last reply did I add my “personal interpretation”. Everything I wrote was directly backed with research and was actually just reiterating what they already wrote in the research. Moreover Trimingham’s claim of Bantus originally inhabiting the area of southern Somalia is not backed with any archaeological evidence which now shows Somalis as native to the region for at least the last 7000 years. TriSolar (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@TriSolar Well I just provided you evidence that wasn't the case. Lewis and Trimmingham's statements have been disputed by modern Somali authors, but this does not mean that they have been "proven untrue". J. Spencer Trimingham and Ioan Lewis are both very reputable authors and like it or not their opinions have to be addressed. For example, modern Oromo scholars like Mohammad Hassan dispute some accounts of the Great Oromo Migrations in the 16th century, this does not mean that we take their opinions and dismiss everyone else's. I do agree with you that Somalis played an important role in the Adalite military, which is mentioned in the "military" section of this article. But Jorge does explicitly say that Somalis as a whole (not Somali nomads) played little role in the state of Adal, and states that Adal's influence over the Somalis was "very shallow". (Magherbin provided you with a quote of that). You may disagree with this, but this statement shouldn't be removed just because of that. See WP:BALASP. This article is not saying "Somalis had nothing to do with Adal" or anything like that, the ethnicity section goes into detail about the various ethnic groups that inhabited Adal, including Somalis and makes it clear that Somalis made up a decent portion of the Adalite population, the information that included Jorge's research was a very brief summarized statement, so there is no reason to remove it. محرر البوق (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)