This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that you read the Muladi article. Muladi (or native Iberian converts to Islam) men never intermarried with Arab or Berber women. However, the vice versa is true. The reason for this was because Muwallads were generally looked down upon as inferior in social status. They were a separate social class. Even though they were higher in social position than the Mozarabs (Arabized native Christians), they were lower in social position than the Arabs and Berbers, and were pejoratively referred to as "the sons of slaves".
If Ibn Hafsun was descended from the Visigothic count, Marcellus, it is highly unlikely that he was of mixed descent. Therefore, Ibn Hafsun could claim as ancestors the Teutonic tribe that invaded the Roman empire in the 5th century to set up a kingdom in Spain which lasted until the Muslim invasion. Thus, he could only claim white forebears.
Look, there are conflicting views regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial origins and i am not stating for a fact that he had only white ancestors. I am only mentioning the possibility of it in the article, and i think that it is relevant. Joyson Noel ( talk) 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the distinctions between the different Muslim groups became increasingly blurred in the 11th and 12th centuries. Ibn Hafsun lived during the 10th century. This, in itself, serves as a refutation of your first point. Secondly, i have nowhere presented any historical absolutes. There are many conflicting opinions drawn by many historians regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial background. And i am trying to emphasize the possibility in the article, that Ibn Hafsun was white. I am only mentionining it as a distinct possibility in the article, not as absolute and irrefutable truth. I will source this statement, if that will satisfy you.
Moreover, it was Fruela II of León, not Fruela I, who married a woman of the Muladi Banu Qasi clan named Urraca. It should also be noted that she was not a Muslim, but a convert from Islam to Christianity.
You cant just simply dismiss the term "White" as meaningless. When i use the term, i use it to identify a member of the Caucasoid race. It does not have to mean anything else, and i have not attached any special meaning to this term. Just check out a general history book and you will find out how many times this term is used. To suggest that this term should not be used to identify them as members of the Caucasoid race simply because it was not formulated at the time, is fundamentally flawed. Also, I believe the ethnic Spanish people, particularly the ethnic Iberian Muslims of Hispanic pre-Islamic origin fall into this category.
You state that a viking was a barbarian to Visigoth, Basque, Ibero-Romans, Muladi, Arabs and Berbers alike, and to talk of 'white' in this context creates a false grouping. So, what do you suggest? Should i classify them as "Barbarians", instead of White? Joyson Noel ( talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Do Levi Provencal and the other sources actually say that it was his "grandfather" who converted? Wasserstein's summary shows his pedigree as Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Umar ibn Jafar islami, the convert. This is found in the writings of Ibn al-Khatib, while other writers, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Askar among them, give the same pedigree, all citing Ibn Hayyan. These would make the convert great-grandfather of Umar ibn Hafsun. If they really say "grandfather" we have another headache to deal with. Agricolae ( talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There are sources which state that it was his grandfather who converted. See this and this. Joyson Noel ( talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I see the origin of the problem. He is frequently called Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far, which would seem to suggest that Ja'far, the convert, was his grandfather, when actually this refers to Umar son of Hafsun, of the Banu Ja'far - the descendants of Ja'far. (Compare Muza ibn Muza ibn Qasi, who was son of Muza, grandson of Fortun and great-grandson of Qasi/Cassius, the convert, his son being Lubb ibn Muza ibn Qasi, then Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi, etc.) The real question is whether the name Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far is historical, and hence this part of the pedigree can be viewed as trustworthy, or if it is simply derived from the forged pedigree presented by ibn Hayyan. Agricolae ( talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You might be correct, but can you find a credible source which states that he was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe. Well, most historians generally agree that his name was Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far. Joyson Noel ( talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Banu Ja'far just means descendants of Ja'far, and that Umar was such is shown by Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., all of which make Umar son of Hafs (corrupted to Hafsun) son of Umar, son of Ja'far. All of these sources are clear that Umar was great grandson of Ja'far, and that it was Ja'far who converted (again, bearing in mind that this is what the original pedigree said, not necessarily the long-lost historical reality, although I think it likely this part of the pedigree is accurate). Given the common usage, you would expect such a man to be referred to as Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far, as per the Banu Qasi example. Agricolae ( talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Ja'far has always been a common Arab name, and there is no reason to assume that might not have been the case in Al-Andalus. Do the historians Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., state that Ibn Hafsun was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe? If so, then please feel free to add it. In my opinion, his descent from a man named Ja'far does not automatically make him a member of the Banu Ja'far tribe. Joyson Noel ( talk) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the term 'tribe' in application to Iberian families of the 10th century is rarely appropriate, and that the Banu X formulation was used more broadly. His descent from Ja'far does automatically make him a member of Jafar's family, so like the Banu Alfons were of Alfonso's family, and the Banu Sanyo were from Sancho's family, and the Banu Mumaduna were of Muniadomna's family, and the Banu Gomez and the Banu Qasi and the . . . . . Thus calling him Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far does not mean his grandfather was Ja'far, any more than Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi was grandson of Cassius. That is the sole point here, and the problem has already been resolved by recasting the troublesome phrasing in the article. Agricolae ( talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, this has nothing to do with the topic in hand. First of all, i would greatly appreciate it if you are more direct and specific as to what your actual point is. The previous discussion that we had was a total disaster for both of us concerned. It went in circles not because i was blaming you all the time and did not want to discuss the issue at hand. This was not the case and i am definitely sure that everyone reading the previous message will totally agree with me. I did not spend the entire time blaming you, or even much of the time in blaming you. Moreover, i did not accuse you of anything that you did not deserve a hundred times over. I accused you of being a liar, distorting my actual points, lacking proper understanding of the Muladi and Mozarab terms, etc, which were well justified.
Considering the great number of things that i would have called you, had we met face to face, i really think that you got away with it.
The problem with you was that you were too keen on refuting me by any means possible, rather than having a proper and civil disourse with me. Your pessimistic and over-sarcastic attitude did not help things either. When i delivered you a fitting response, you were unable to provide me a straight answer. This obviously hurt your ego and out of aggravation, you decided to cancel the discussion.
The only reason that i did not revert your edits on the ancestry section was because i had no problem with your edits as they were properly sourced, and you did not remove the claim by historians that Ibn Hafsun could have been descended from a Visigothic count, not because i am incapable of doing anything, as you incorrectly assume. Joyson Noel ( talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what I wanted you two to discuss the statement itself. By all rights I should block you Joyson, but looking at my message, I can see you thought I meant within 24 hours. I actually meant until you both agreed on the text. Please only argue about the statement below without snide comments and taking potshots at the other editor. I will be reverting Joyson's edit, and the statement should remain that way until you have agreed upon an edit.
Once you have an agreement, please come to me and show me a diff of each party agreeing, and I will make the edit. If anyone breaks this contract, a block will soon follow. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your right, Malniccier. I did think that you meant within 24 hours. But you know what? I am no longer interested. To hell with this article! I have got better things to do, and other articles to edit. This is such a trivial matter, and isn't worth the amount of headache which i am going through. Anyway, thank you for your understanding and for not blocking me. Joyson Noel ( talk) 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, here is my part, anyway. The text under discussion is:
"[he was posthumously crucified outside] Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba, which was the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time."
There are three issues with regard to this. First, Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba is repetitive. The two simplest options to address this would be Cordoba's Mezquita or Mezquita de Cordoba. The latter, in my opinion, fails to provide the geographical context clearly. "De Cordoba" is giving location in this case, but there are circumstances where this may not be the case, leaving ambiguity, and likewise those not familiar with Castilian may not know this is the meaning. That is why I prefer Cordoba's Mezquita. It gives clear location as well as name. The second issue is that it is the second largest mosque in the world. I just don't think this has any bearing on the subject. Sure, on the Mezquita page this is useful information but it says nothing about ibn Hafsun. That it was the premier mosque and religious center of the Caliphate - that indicates the magnitude of the message being sent by crucifying ibn Hafsun and family there. It's relative size compared to other mosques in other parts of the world? No. (When it is pointed out that Darwin is buried at Westminster Cathedral, it is the honor this represents that is noteworthy, not whether Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's or even St. Paul's across town is larger or smaller.) Finally, there is the issue of whether it is worth pointing out that the place is no longer a mosque (not in the phrase above, but put forward as rationale for the above phrase, and in the current version). I think the interested reader can find this out by following the link, and it need not be there to trouble the uninterested reader with the fact that that the use of the building changed 300 years after the dead guy was dangled. Agricolae ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine, i have no problem with your first point, and i totally agree with it. As for your second point, while the size of the mosque may have no bearing on Ibn Hafsun, whats wrong in mentioning that it was the second largest mosque in the Islamic world at the time. It's already mentioned that it was a mosque. The fact about it being the second largest mosque in the Islamic world gives a lot more info about its importance and grandeur to the reader compared to it was just a mosque. Therefore, i dont see how your example of Darwin being buried at Westminster Cathedral, and its comparison with the size of Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's not being mentioned, even serves as a valid arguement against the fact's inclusion. Furthermore, i dont see the necessity of mentioning that it has been a Roman Catholic Cathedral since 1462, as the reader can easily find that out on his own, by checking the Mezquita article. It was never an issue in the first place. I used this fact as a valid justification for the inclusion of the fact that it was a mosque. You initially reverted my edits mentioning about it being a mosque as "irrelevant" in the edit summary, and only added it after reverting my edit for the third or fourth time. Joyson Noel ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is linked from this article, and if the information is not particularly relevant to this article, then leave it out. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In trying to find sources to improve this article I stumbled upon several sentences that matched, verbatim, uncited sentences found within the article. A more directed search revealed additional instances. These are from published sources, not Wiki mirrors. Some may be in public domain (Brill published from 1913 through 1933, and I don't know when the specific volume was published) but no attempt is made to attribute them to their source nor indicate that text has been quoted. Others are direct quotes from sources clearly still covered by copyright. I have removed these items, as directed by the WP:C policy, and am now placing the details here for evaluation, again as per that policy.
Please see history for precise sentences. Those removed begin:
I have made no attempt to determine who is responsible for this text, so there is no agenda here other than protecting WP, but as I have been accused of bias, I encourage the review of this analysis by other parties and replacement restoration of any that are false positives. Please post to that effect here so I know the basis for restoration.
Agricolae (
talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Hafsun was born into the small Black minority in Iberia, yet he managed to play everybody & rule as a Regent for life. He was a political thinker, a military leader. Too bad for the nameless subculture warriors who died fighting for a peasant temporary cause. Socialcred ( talk) 11:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that maybe the fourth source (namely: Houtsma, M. Th. et al. (eds.) (1913-1936) Encyclopaedia of Islam, pp. 981-982)is overused? I don't know if there are other sources which talk about this figure, but if there are then maybe we could utilize it instead? frank ( talk) 11:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest that you read the Muladi article. Muladi (or native Iberian converts to Islam) men never intermarried with Arab or Berber women. However, the vice versa is true. The reason for this was because Muwallads were generally looked down upon as inferior in social status. They were a separate social class. Even though they were higher in social position than the Mozarabs (Arabized native Christians), they were lower in social position than the Arabs and Berbers, and were pejoratively referred to as "the sons of slaves".
If Ibn Hafsun was descended from the Visigothic count, Marcellus, it is highly unlikely that he was of mixed descent. Therefore, Ibn Hafsun could claim as ancestors the Teutonic tribe that invaded the Roman empire in the 5th century to set up a kingdom in Spain which lasted until the Muslim invasion. Thus, he could only claim white forebears.
Look, there are conflicting views regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial origins and i am not stating for a fact that he had only white ancestors. I am only mentioning the possibility of it in the article, and i think that it is relevant. Joyson Noel ( talk) 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the distinctions between the different Muslim groups became increasingly blurred in the 11th and 12th centuries. Ibn Hafsun lived during the 10th century. This, in itself, serves as a refutation of your first point. Secondly, i have nowhere presented any historical absolutes. There are many conflicting opinions drawn by many historians regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial background. And i am trying to emphasize the possibility in the article, that Ibn Hafsun was white. I am only mentionining it as a distinct possibility in the article, not as absolute and irrefutable truth. I will source this statement, if that will satisfy you.
Moreover, it was Fruela II of León, not Fruela I, who married a woman of the Muladi Banu Qasi clan named Urraca. It should also be noted that she was not a Muslim, but a convert from Islam to Christianity.
You cant just simply dismiss the term "White" as meaningless. When i use the term, i use it to identify a member of the Caucasoid race. It does not have to mean anything else, and i have not attached any special meaning to this term. Just check out a general history book and you will find out how many times this term is used. To suggest that this term should not be used to identify them as members of the Caucasoid race simply because it was not formulated at the time, is fundamentally flawed. Also, I believe the ethnic Spanish people, particularly the ethnic Iberian Muslims of Hispanic pre-Islamic origin fall into this category.
You state that a viking was a barbarian to Visigoth, Basque, Ibero-Romans, Muladi, Arabs and Berbers alike, and to talk of 'white' in this context creates a false grouping. So, what do you suggest? Should i classify them as "Barbarians", instead of White? Joyson Noel ( talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Do Levi Provencal and the other sources actually say that it was his "grandfather" who converted? Wasserstein's summary shows his pedigree as Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Umar ibn Jafar islami, the convert. This is found in the writings of Ibn al-Khatib, while other writers, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Askar among them, give the same pedigree, all citing Ibn Hayyan. These would make the convert great-grandfather of Umar ibn Hafsun. If they really say "grandfather" we have another headache to deal with. Agricolae ( talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There are sources which state that it was his grandfather who converted. See this and this. Joyson Noel ( talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I see the origin of the problem. He is frequently called Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far, which would seem to suggest that Ja'far, the convert, was his grandfather, when actually this refers to Umar son of Hafsun, of the Banu Ja'far - the descendants of Ja'far. (Compare Muza ibn Muza ibn Qasi, who was son of Muza, grandson of Fortun and great-grandson of Qasi/Cassius, the convert, his son being Lubb ibn Muza ibn Qasi, then Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi, etc.) The real question is whether the name Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far is historical, and hence this part of the pedigree can be viewed as trustworthy, or if it is simply derived from the forged pedigree presented by ibn Hayyan. Agricolae ( talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You might be correct, but can you find a credible source which states that he was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe. Well, most historians generally agree that his name was Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far. Joyson Noel ( talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Banu Ja'far just means descendants of Ja'far, and that Umar was such is shown by Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., all of which make Umar son of Hafs (corrupted to Hafsun) son of Umar, son of Ja'far. All of these sources are clear that Umar was great grandson of Ja'far, and that it was Ja'far who converted (again, bearing in mind that this is what the original pedigree said, not necessarily the long-lost historical reality, although I think it likely this part of the pedigree is accurate). Given the common usage, you would expect such a man to be referred to as Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far, as per the Banu Qasi example. Agricolae ( talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Ja'far has always been a common Arab name, and there is no reason to assume that might not have been the case in Al-Andalus. Do the historians Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., state that Ibn Hafsun was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe? If so, then please feel free to add it. In my opinion, his descent from a man named Ja'far does not automatically make him a member of the Banu Ja'far tribe. Joyson Noel ( talk) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the term 'tribe' in application to Iberian families of the 10th century is rarely appropriate, and that the Banu X formulation was used more broadly. His descent from Ja'far does automatically make him a member of Jafar's family, so like the Banu Alfons were of Alfonso's family, and the Banu Sanyo were from Sancho's family, and the Banu Mumaduna were of Muniadomna's family, and the Banu Gomez and the Banu Qasi and the . . . . . Thus calling him Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far does not mean his grandfather was Ja'far, any more than Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi was grandson of Cassius. That is the sole point here, and the problem has already been resolved by recasting the troublesome phrasing in the article. Agricolae ( talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, this has nothing to do with the topic in hand. First of all, i would greatly appreciate it if you are more direct and specific as to what your actual point is. The previous discussion that we had was a total disaster for both of us concerned. It went in circles not because i was blaming you all the time and did not want to discuss the issue at hand. This was not the case and i am definitely sure that everyone reading the previous message will totally agree with me. I did not spend the entire time blaming you, or even much of the time in blaming you. Moreover, i did not accuse you of anything that you did not deserve a hundred times over. I accused you of being a liar, distorting my actual points, lacking proper understanding of the Muladi and Mozarab terms, etc, which were well justified.
Considering the great number of things that i would have called you, had we met face to face, i really think that you got away with it.
The problem with you was that you were too keen on refuting me by any means possible, rather than having a proper and civil disourse with me. Your pessimistic and over-sarcastic attitude did not help things either. When i delivered you a fitting response, you were unable to provide me a straight answer. This obviously hurt your ego and out of aggravation, you decided to cancel the discussion.
The only reason that i did not revert your edits on the ancestry section was because i had no problem with your edits as they were properly sourced, and you did not remove the claim by historians that Ibn Hafsun could have been descended from a Visigothic count, not because i am incapable of doing anything, as you incorrectly assume. Joyson Noel ( talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what I wanted you two to discuss the statement itself. By all rights I should block you Joyson, but looking at my message, I can see you thought I meant within 24 hours. I actually meant until you both agreed on the text. Please only argue about the statement below without snide comments and taking potshots at the other editor. I will be reverting Joyson's edit, and the statement should remain that way until you have agreed upon an edit.
Once you have an agreement, please come to me and show me a diff of each party agreeing, and I will make the edit. If anyone breaks this contract, a block will soon follow. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your right, Malniccier. I did think that you meant within 24 hours. But you know what? I am no longer interested. To hell with this article! I have got better things to do, and other articles to edit. This is such a trivial matter, and isn't worth the amount of headache which i am going through. Anyway, thank you for your understanding and for not blocking me. Joyson Noel ( talk) 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, here is my part, anyway. The text under discussion is:
"[he was posthumously crucified outside] Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba, which was the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time."
There are three issues with regard to this. First, Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba is repetitive. The two simplest options to address this would be Cordoba's Mezquita or Mezquita de Cordoba. The latter, in my opinion, fails to provide the geographical context clearly. "De Cordoba" is giving location in this case, but there are circumstances where this may not be the case, leaving ambiguity, and likewise those not familiar with Castilian may not know this is the meaning. That is why I prefer Cordoba's Mezquita. It gives clear location as well as name. The second issue is that it is the second largest mosque in the world. I just don't think this has any bearing on the subject. Sure, on the Mezquita page this is useful information but it says nothing about ibn Hafsun. That it was the premier mosque and religious center of the Caliphate - that indicates the magnitude of the message being sent by crucifying ibn Hafsun and family there. It's relative size compared to other mosques in other parts of the world? No. (When it is pointed out that Darwin is buried at Westminster Cathedral, it is the honor this represents that is noteworthy, not whether Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's or even St. Paul's across town is larger or smaller.) Finally, there is the issue of whether it is worth pointing out that the place is no longer a mosque (not in the phrase above, but put forward as rationale for the above phrase, and in the current version). I think the interested reader can find this out by following the link, and it need not be there to trouble the uninterested reader with the fact that that the use of the building changed 300 years after the dead guy was dangled. Agricolae ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine, i have no problem with your first point, and i totally agree with it. As for your second point, while the size of the mosque may have no bearing on Ibn Hafsun, whats wrong in mentioning that it was the second largest mosque in the Islamic world at the time. It's already mentioned that it was a mosque. The fact about it being the second largest mosque in the Islamic world gives a lot more info about its importance and grandeur to the reader compared to it was just a mosque. Therefore, i dont see how your example of Darwin being buried at Westminster Cathedral, and its comparison with the size of Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's not being mentioned, even serves as a valid arguement against the fact's inclusion. Furthermore, i dont see the necessity of mentioning that it has been a Roman Catholic Cathedral since 1462, as the reader can easily find that out on his own, by checking the Mezquita article. It was never an issue in the first place. I used this fact as a valid justification for the inclusion of the fact that it was a mosque. You initially reverted my edits mentioning about it being a mosque as "irrelevant" in the edit summary, and only added it after reverting my edit for the third or fourth time. Joyson Noel ( talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If it is linked from this article, and if the information is not particularly relevant to this article, then leave it out. -- Bejnar ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In trying to find sources to improve this article I stumbled upon several sentences that matched, verbatim, uncited sentences found within the article. A more directed search revealed additional instances. These are from published sources, not Wiki mirrors. Some may be in public domain (Brill published from 1913 through 1933, and I don't know when the specific volume was published) but no attempt is made to attribute them to their source nor indicate that text has been quoted. Others are direct quotes from sources clearly still covered by copyright. I have removed these items, as directed by the WP:C policy, and am now placing the details here for evaluation, again as per that policy.
Please see history for precise sentences. Those removed begin:
I have made no attempt to determine who is responsible for this text, so there is no agenda here other than protecting WP, but as I have been accused of bias, I encourage the review of this analysis by other parties and replacement restoration of any that are false positives. Please post to that effect here so I know the basis for restoration.
Agricolae (
talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Hafsun was born into the small Black minority in Iberia, yet he managed to play everybody & rule as a Regent for life. He was a political thinker, a military leader. Too bad for the nameless subculture warriors who died fighting for a peasant temporary cause. Socialcred ( talk) 11:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that maybe the fourth source (namely: Houtsma, M. Th. et al. (eds.) (1913-1936) Encyclopaedia of Islam, pp. 981-982)is overused? I don't know if there are other sources which talk about this figure, but if there are then maybe we could utilize it instead? frank ( talk) 11:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)