Talk:Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Ambiguous

The article is well written, congrats to the author (assuming its his/her own research), just a note of concern however, exactly what does this line in the 5th paragraph mean?

"While the Portuguese expedition were victorious in most of their engagements with Ahmad's forces, da Gama allowed himself to be trapped by Ahmad somewhere north of the Tekezé River, where he was killed along with all but 140 of his troops."

perhaps its just me but the sentence suggests the Portugese general da Gama ALLOWED himself to be captured. Does it assume the Somalis were unable to capture him? or was this some selfless act by an invading European, giving up his life so that his troops may be saved? Both seems doubtful and strage at best, kindly clear it up.

franz fanon

The source I had at the time stated in vague language that da Gama was maneuvered into a poor tactical position by Ahmda Gragn, who was then able to decimate his troops and kill him in the process. Since then, I've gotten my hands on a translation of Castanhoso's account of the Portuguese expedition (which is commonly accepted as the best account of these events), & learned that what actually happened was more complex. My intent in the next few weeks is to contribute this material to Wikipedia under the relevant articles. -- llywrch 19:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Split?

Though the article isn't big enough to warrant a split right now, I think that we should have two separate articles. One for the Ahmed Gragn, and one for the invasion of Ethiopia by Adal. The two are obviously distinct even if they are so closely related. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV (Talk) 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

let's discuss the Added info

I agree there is the possibility that Ahmed Gurey could have been a Afar and i have no problems with that being mentioned. from the added info:

1. He has a nephew Muhammad bin Ali, whose mother was the Imam's aunt; Muhammad was the Sultan of the Somali tribe of Zarba.

if the Mother of a Sultan of a Somali tribe is the sister of Ahmed Gurey's Mother or Father how is this not a Somali connection?

2. The Futuh mentions one Ibrahim bin Ahmad as a ruler of the Adal Sultanate for three months, whose name suggests that he may be the Imam's father. This Ibrahim is described as one of the Belew people and previously having been the ruler of the town of Hubat.[8] The possible connection between the two is strengthened by the fact Hubat is later mentioned as one of the power bases of Imam Ahmad (the other being Za'ka).

^^to claim this part regarding the connection between the Belew people and Ahmed Gurey and then at the same time claim the following

Then there are numerous occasions where the Futuh supplies evidence for an argument from silence. There are numerous passages in the Futuh where Imam Ahmad and the Somali people are mentioned together, and never once does 'Arab Faqih mention the ethnic connection.

which ethnic connection was made in Futuh between Ahmed and Adalites that justifies the isolation of the Somali people?

3. Further, the Somali warriors are described as having fled during the Battle of Shimbra Kure; had the Imam been Somali, would the Futuh which otherwise praises the Imam at every turn, would this embarassing detail have been mentioned?[10]

Pure speculation and personal interpretation of the text, the Futuh also mentioned the amount of destruction Ahmed's army caused and that's not praising someone's legacy, not to forget the many times these Same warrior were praised in Futuh

4. Somali forces contributed much to the Imam’s victories. Shihab ad-Din, the Muslim chronicler of the period, writing between 1540 and 1560, mentions them frequently. (Fatuh al-Habasha, ed. And trs. R. Besset Paris, 1897.)

it looks very POV to me RoboRanks 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding; I only now saw your post. I have numbered your points so I can reply to them in one block rather than to each one individually, to keep your text cohesive & readable.
1. The Futuh can be fairly understood to indicate that Muhammad bin Ali's father was Somali; however, Mohammad's mother -- Ahmad Gragn's aunt -- might not be. There is no way to logically prove that his mother was Somali on the basis of his father's ethnicity. People marry outside of their ethnic or kinship group all of the time, & it was likely the case here.
2. I was merely raising the possibility of the Imam being Belew. I readily admit that these are tenuous facts, & I only mention them because I do not know of any discussion of the information the Futuh provides.
As for the statement about the silence of the text about the Imam's relationship to the Somali people -- all I can say is that it is very obvious. There are many scenes where Ahmad Gragn appears with one or more Somalis, & IIRC not once does the Futuh say something like "the Imam spoke to his fellow Somali brethern"; however, at the same time, not once does is there a statement like "although a stranger, the Somali welcomed the Imam".
But I would like to point out one detail in this section: it is an argument from silence, which is the weakest basis of logical reasoning. All we can say is that the author of the Futuh neglects to tell us the Imam's background: whether he was Somali, Afar, European -- or from Mars. There could be any number of reasons why this information was omitted. I thought I had a good quote from one of Said Samatar's books about Imam Ahmad that might explain this silence, but when I went to use it I found that I has misremembered it. What I had hoped Dr. Samatar had written was something along the lines that our ignorance of what his nationality is possibly an irrelevance to both the author of the Futuh as well as Imam Ahmad himself; in their eyes this was a Muslim war, not an ethnic one -- & perhaps the Imam deliberately obscured this information with the goal of uniting his followers by religion, not divide them by the complications of ethnic rivalries. I think this is a respectful way to handle this omission. (Know of a way this could be said without it appearing to be either POV or original research?)
3. The author of the Futuh is fairly harsh about the Somali followers being unreliable during his first invasion of the Ethiopian Highlands. He describes how they pleaded to be released from the jihad so they could go home, how at one point they deserted the Imam (& he had to send a trusted lieutenant to bring them back at sword-point); their behavior in the Battle of Shimbra Kure was only one more black mark. To soften this account, I tried to insert a bit of my POV to explain why they insisted on being allowed to return home when the Imam needed them: they were raiders, unused & unfamiliar to a pitched battle.
BTW, the Futuh provides little information about ethnic backgrounds of the Imam's followers after this point.
4. As I wrote above, Shihab ad-Din does mention the Somalis frequently. Unfortunately, it is not always in a positive light. Seeing how the author is always quite open about his opinions & attitudes of the people in this history, & how he praises the Imam, I can't help but wonder if he would do so if Imam Ahmad was Somali. They are a very proud people, & would be far less than happy to read that their kinsmen fled the field at Shimbra Kure. Then again, if it could be shown that the Imam was Somali, Shihab ad-Din's account there becomes rather interesting -- was the Imam a very critical person? -- & begs for a historian's attention to help us understand.
But the Futuh is not a well-known book; there are few studies about it to my knowledge. The book you cite that passage from was published over 100 years ago. IIRC, you said that you were going to read it so you could respond to these additions; I look forward to seeing if I missed something -- or misunderstood what I read. Maybe together we can figure out how to use this new translation. -- llywrch 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that Didier Morin, in his Dictionnaire historique afar identifies Ahmed Gragn as a Belew (Arabized Beja from Northern Ethiopia) gpretty strongly based on the Futuh, but I'm not sure of any other analyses of the Futuh for ethnic data. He, citing Lewis (1980) states that there were two Ahmad Gragns/Gurays, the famous one (whose appelation "gragn" is originally Amharic and not Somali according to his linguistic reasoning), and another called Ahmed "Guray" b. Husayn al-Somali (see Ahmad Girri bin Husain in the Futuh, pp.43, 49, 76, 82, chief of Habr Maqdi, identified by Lewis as Habr Magadle and by Pankhurst as Habr Makadur), chief of the Habar Magadle (connected with the Marrehan). Lewis further connects the "left-handed" meaning to the Beja form Ahmed-talhab, which does not have negative connotations as it does for Christian Ethiopians and Muslims in general (compared to pre-Islamic Beja legends where the king of animals, the lion, is referenced as left-handed: talha-b). He further refers to Ahmed Gragn's wife, Bati Del Wambara, who takes refuge in Mazaga (of Daka), a Belew fief, as well as noting that the Imam camped among the Belew in Tigray before pillaging Axum. Dil Wambara(=Wembere, the "a" referring to the first order, not a long "a"), according to him, is not an Amharic name which would be connected to "Dil wember," meaning "throne" or "victory seat," but rather an Amharic attempt to emulate the Afar Dele-wan-badha; the consonant "dh" is in fact usually reprsented as "r," such as in "Hanfare" for Afar "Hanfadhe". It should be noted that the Futuh states that of the Belew that the first Belew who migrated to Adal (Balaw `Abd Allah) in the time of Sa`ad ad-Din married one of his daughters and that every son she bore him was called Ura`i and every daughter Ba`tiya=Bati (p.191). This is in reference to a Balaw from the Mahawara tribe named Ura`i Abu Bakr, so it may just represent one group's tradition, since the Sultan Ibrahim is identified as Balaw, but it may mean that Bati Dil Wembere was a Belew from Northern Ethiopia, given her first name and seemingly Amharic (or Afar?) father's name (or is it just another element of her first name?); this seems to be venturing into the realm of OR, though. I'll provide more information when I have more time. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen Morin's or Lewis' book, but I did receive a copy of the 4th edition of I.M. Lewis' A Modern History of the Somali today, & have spent a few hours reading it. To my surprise, I found that he had written the following (p. 26 n.5):
According to one legned popular in Ethiopia, Ahmad Gragn was the issue of a Coptic priest and a Muslim harlot. A recent writer has more seriously suggested that the Imam may have belonged to a section of the Beja tribes."
While I only mention the first half of Lewis' passage for entertainment purposes (it only illustrates how hated the Imam was by the Christian Highlanders; as a comparison, if one were to ask the random Iraqi what they thought president George W. Bush's ancestory was, I doubt it would be much different), the second half does prove that the scholarly consensus is not unanimous in favor of Ahmad Gragn being of Somali ancestory. And I will repeat one point I said above: despite the uncertainty of his origins, the Futuh make it clear that at least some Somali can accurately claim to be related to him. -- llywrch 05:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV article: A hero for whom?

Perhaps unintentionally the title and introduction of the article contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policy. When a reader opens the page the first thing she or he sees is the title exalting the person as "al-Ghazi" (Ghazi is the equivalent of "hero for Islam" in Arabic, a person of great bravery who performs extraordinary and praiseworthy deeds for Islam) and the monument with the statue in memory of Ahmad Gragn. There was no mention of Ahmad ibn Ibrihim's invasion of Ethiopia in the first paragraph (I have corrected this), only that he had fought against Ethiopian emperors. It was by reading further down that one could get a clue that from the point of view of the Ethiopians Ahmad Gragn was an invader that slaughtered his way through their country killing thousands of Ethiopian people and destroying their homes and churches. Since the façade of the article places undue weight on Ahmad Gragn being perceived as a hero, the article is pejorative towards the Ethiopians as it is. The article should be renamed "Ahmad Gragn" or "Ahmad ibn Ibrihim". leaving the hero title out; unless this is corrected, the article is violating the NPOV policy. Xufanc (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


For your clarification, Ghaazi/غازي means one who performs 'ghazw/غزو'(meaning: military expedition), which he performed many of against his former tributory masters (whom Adal paid trivuory taxes to as a vassal state) and in their lands. It does not mean 'hero', as the word "batl/بطل" would have been used instead, and lets bear in mind he was referred to as al-ghaazi in futoohaat-al-habasha. All these definitions can be found/researched in reliable Arabic-English dictionaries such as Mawrid and Hans Weher. MuhammadBinTimothy (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

not an invader as they like to say

imam ahmed was nationally ethiopian because he lived in present day ethiopia so the whole "invasion" shouldnt be included also ahmed is technially the first to try to unite the abyssinian muslim and christians by attempting to become king of abyssinia..now since there's people coming on this page and putting in harari constantly i have found a source stating he is harari hopefully this stops the edit wars. i will add it in when i get the time http://books.google.ca/books?id=uD8OAQAAMAAJ&q=ahmad+ibn+ibrahim+al+ghazi+harari&dq=ahmad+ibn+ibrahim+al+ghazi+harari&source=bl&ots=YkUurZqRP-&sig=jSpGTOXdF5Q58bpdyMh5DsyKBEk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fxJFULTUErO60QHbnoHoCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg Baboon43 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Most sources identify Al-Ghazi as Somali, not as Harari. As R.S. Whiteway writes with regard to Imam Ahmad in his translation of Castanhoso's historical The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia: "he was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis" (page xxxiii [1]). Al-Ghazi was also not nationally Ethiopian because the country Ethiopia did not exist back then. Abyssinia existed and he wasn't a part of that polity. Per his own chronicler, Shihab ad-Din, Al-Ghazi was part of and lead the Adal Sultanate army which conquered large parts of Abyssinia. Ergo, Futuh al-Habash ("Conquest of Abyssinia"). Middayexpress (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Point is some sources say he is harari so i added that in. Baboon43 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Not in the right place, though. Fixed that. Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
@Baboon, the source you given states that:"The bitter memories of foreign imposition left a century earlier by the jihad of Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, the Harari sultan and warleader" Does this states explicitly that he was of Harari origin? This could also mean that he was the Sultan of Harar, wich was also the capital of the Adal Sultanate. And I could not find any other sources, claiming that he was a Harari. For instance, it is accepted that Stalin was of Russian origin, but there are also some sources claiming that he was Jewish or any other non-Russian ethnic groups. Those views should be added, but not replace the wide accepted view. The main accepted ethnicity of Ahmad is Somali, thus it is added in the lead, but the other suggestions should also be added, but in the corresponding section. It is not not neutral if we are keeping the mainstream view and putting the other claims and suggestions in the ethnicity section. Runehelmet (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It means he's harari and harari chronicals view him as a harari not somali, i should know that..and no the original article didnt list him as somali in the opening but again you like to paint everything somali..most sources are sure of emir nur as being somali and so nobody denies that but imam ahmed is disputed some claim he was tigray (balaw tribes) or afar, harari etc..you said most sources paint him as somali well that was put in the article already but there are points against him being somali and they are major because there is no confirmation..there is an ethnicity section because there is a dispute on his background..what other article do you see that has an ethnicity section on it? original article opening has no somali in it and the first line of the ethnic section has this as following, "Adal was a multi-ethnic state comprising Afars and Somalis, as well as the ancestors of the modern Harari, and, after the reign of Sa'ad ad-Din II (1403/15), Belews (Arabized Bejas). Ewald Wagner postulates that, in fact, "the main population of Adal may have been of Afar stock. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ahmad_ibn_Ibrihim_al-Ghazi so if you dont want to use my input source stating he is harari you can use the one that is on the original article. Baboon43 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not disputed, the only issue here is that you deny everything that doesn't seems to please you. Calling it disputed is a heavy description. It is widely accepted that he was a Somali, and yes there are other claims, but they are outside the box. So removing the accepted view in the Somali and Ethiopian studies, for one single source is very undue weight. Runehelmet (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree about undue weight. I think it's OK to mention that the one particular source says he's Harari (and I think it borders on parenthetical) but I don't think this warrants removing "Somali" from the lede. And one minor issue, the wording says "sometimes also as a Harari," which implies he was both Somali and Harari (which may or may not be the case, but I don't think it's what was intended). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
@rune why are you ignoring the link? this article had more information in it but some editors didnt like what was written so they came along and started removing information they deemed they didnt like..i have had the same issues with you for the last 3 or 4 articles and the lead wasnt removed because of that single source it was removed because a section of the article questions his ethnicity..what is the point of putting in the lead that he is somali than an ethnic section discussing he might or not be. Baboon43 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
@ gyro can you take a look at the link http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ahmad_ibn_Ibrihim_al-Ghazi Baboon43 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a Wikipedia mirror; see WP:CIRCULAR. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
harari site dedicated to harari history says the following "By the 15th century Harar became the capital city of a powerful empire covering an area amounting to two-third of today's Ethiopia. This is, as it were, the first major attempt by an [East African/ Abyssinian] monarch to create a unified or greater Ethiopia by means of feudal conquest. His name was Imam Ahmed Ibrahim al-Ghazi, best known as Ahmed Gragn. The nation-building efforts of Ahmad Gragn are accentuated by his efforts to introduce local administrative structures whereby, however, Islamization of the populace was at the heart of his policy". http://haraca.com/Heritage.html Baboon43 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
As Rune explained, the term "Harari" could just refer to a resident of Harar. It does not necessarily refer to one of the Harari language speakers within the city limits. The former would include Al-Ghazi, the latter would not. Further, that link above is a WP:SPS/self-published source and also seems to equate being from the Horn with being Abyssinian ("East African/ Abyssinian"). Per Runehelmet's and Gyrofrog's explanations, it is therefore undue weight to remove "Somali" from the lede. Middayexpress (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
@Baboon, I did not ignored your source, in fact I took the citation and explained how you interpreted it. But do you have specific sources stating explicitly that he was a Harari? Then I would have no problem to add it, but not to remove the main view of his ethnic background. And I noticed you added in the Harari people article, that Ahmad was a Harari, please don't insert it without giving a clear source of his[Ahmad] ethnic background. Runehelmet (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
i dont see how he can be called harari for simply being in harar and if he is than atleast his ethni background would of been mentioned "Both probably were destroyed during the 16th c. incursions of Ahmed Gragn, the Harari Muslim warlord who ravaged the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia"-Annales d'Ethiopie page 215. Baboon43 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Amharic-English Dictionary: H - N., Volume 1 [2]: "harärənna [...] person from Harar"; "harärawi[...] man from Harar". Middayexpress (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
so what do you call the ethnic people? if you read burtons books he calls them harari and separates them as a distinct race.."Harari or ge sinan ("people of the city"), as they call themselves, are the oldest ethnic group in Harar. At Burton's visit they were in the majority, but have now been outnumbered by Amhara"-Explorers journal page 138. Baboon43 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Already explained: "Harari" refers to both the Harari language speakers within Harar as well as to people from Harar in general. Since Al-Ghazi was not a Harari speaker, references to him being "Harari" in the literature are most probably simply allusions to him being one of the people from Harar [3]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
He lived in harar so why would he not be able to speak the language? there's also no source indicating the language he spoke, thats up for debate anyways there were ethnic groups back than that dont exist anymore so its complicated..the ethnic groups that exist today may have assimilated those groups and also it is a fact that new ethnic groups formed after the ethio-adal conflict depending on the region they had settled in, the term somali can be used to refer to the nation as most nationalists would argue harar is somali including the harari people. the oromo also use the same tactic to claim harar and its people by their political "oromia" state concept. Baboon43 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"He lived in harar so why would he not be able to speak the language?", you are not always able to speak the native language of the region you live in, there are many Han Chinese in the US, but some of them can't speak English. And I would like to cite WP:OR, as you make your own theories and conclusions, based on a vaguely source. So if you believe that "there is no source indicating the language he spoke", how could you say undoubtedly that he was a Harari? And you also said that he could be a Tigraye, why do you only foccus on the Harari part? I bet you know good why you only keep concentrated on one sentence, that even doesn't states explicitly what his ethnicity was. Runehelmet (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
academics say he might of been a tigray not me but harari chronicals say he was harari not a somali so that is why the academics are probably not referring to him just being from harar and its not just one sentence i sourced 3 i suggest you stop accusing me of pushing an agenda here as you did on the other article. Baboon43 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Baboon, but you clearly have an agenda here, you are inserting all your Fringe theories in this respected online enclyclopedia for instance. You sourced three, of one is a mirror site, the second is a selfpublished and the third is not stating it explicitly. So you got any other sources as it is your burden to proof it? And per WP:Consensus, you should not add Ahmad in the "notable Hararis" in the Harari people article, I will remove it until you give a solid proof/citation, regarding the Harari hypothesis.Runehelmet (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
knowing the subject which im editing is not "having an agenda" & i did not use the mirror site to source the input..i suggest you look at the sources and dont bring discussions from other article talk pages here. Baboon43 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The newworldencyclopedia is a mirror site. User Gyrofrog explained it well. And I suggest you must add sources as the current three are not classified as a reliable source. Runehelmet (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43: Like I wrote, allusions to Imam Ahmad being Harari are almost certainly references to the fact that he lived in Harar (i.e. was a "person from Harar"), not that he was a native Harari speaker. This is because Al-Ghazi was conversant in Arabic and didn't actually understand Ge'ez, an Ethiosemitic language closely related to Harari. There's a book called the Anqasa Amin that was written during Imam Ahmad's lifetime and which is actually addressed to him. Enbaqom, an Arab monk, wrote the original manuscript in Arabic so that Al-Ghazi would understand it; it was later translated into Ge'ez:

  • "The Anqasa Amin is an apologetic work based almost entirely upon Enbaqom's memory of the Qur'an[...] He appears to have written first in Arabic, specifically for Gran, and then to have translated it into Ge'ez". [4]
  • "There are two closely related questions that I would like to mention here, namely, the question of the original language of the Anqasa amin and of the addressee of the book. The editor is of the opinion that the book was addressed to Gran and, consequently, the original language must have been Arabic since Gran undoubtedly did not understand Geez". [5] Middayexpress (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Harari was written in arabic the language was used with arabic script not geez infact the territory around harar on the adal map is called "arabini" but aside from that why is he referred to as somali if thats the case? are you saying he was an arab? the hararis claim they are of arabic background as well so this does not help also during siad barre rule of somalia it was hararis that were sent to represent somalia in the arab league because they were well versed in arabic. Baboon43 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Harari was perhaps written in the Arabic script but wasn't an Arabic language. Urdu is for instance written in the Arabic script but is not Arabic. "why is he referred to as somali if thats the case?" So you are saying that the medieval Somalis couldn't be bilingual? And why do you involve some politicians that happen to represents Somalia in the AL? But I won't go deep into that without seeing any source. You are only adding text, but where are the citations? You could write an entire story, but it won't be useful until you add some sources. Runehelmet (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
where is the source that says he spoke somali or he was bilingual? midday has brought in a theory claiming he was arab when the lead says somali so unless your agreeing the lead should say arab, i dont see the point of this discussion..@rune reps at AL is known im sure you can probably get oral sources but i just used it as an example. Baboon43 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Oral sources? Are you sure? I will just pretend I didn't read that. I said, and I'm citating myself:"So you are saying that the medieval Somalis couldn't be bilingual?" It was a question not a statement. And yes I have a source telling that Somali rulers were bilingual. User Middayexpress told that he spoke Arabic not Ge'ez, that doesn't make him Arabic. I speak Arabic, but I'm not an ethnic Arabic(by the way, there is actually not an ethnic group called "Arabs", it's a panethnicity) and using the fact that Ahmad lived in Harar(not his whole live) to proof that he was Harari is very weak. There are thousands of Morrocans living in Amsterdam, but are they ethnically Dutch? Runehelmet (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
stating "ahmed ibrahim" spoke somali please give that source & ill also add sources stating he might be afar or tigray when i get the time. Baboon43 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Enbaqom wrote the Anqasa Amin in the actual Arabic language, not in the Harari language using the Arabic script. Somalis as well have written the Somali language in the Arabic script for centuries; it's called Wadaad's writing. They've also written Arabic proper using the Arabic script for centuries (c.f. [6]). At any rate, I never said that Al-Ghazi was Arab. I said that he "was conversant in Arabic". This means that he spoke it well, like many Somalis from the period did and others still do today (Arabic is the other official language in Somalia). What Imam Ahmad didn't understand was Ge'ez, per that link. Middayexpress (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Some sources about the bilinguality of the Somalis in the middle ages:
  • "When Ibn Battuta visited Mogadishu in Ad 1331, he noted that the Sultan of Mogadishu “is in origin from the Barbara [a non-Arab native], and his speech is Maqdishi [the language of Mogadishu], but he knows the Arabic tongue"-Heather Marie Akou, The Politics of Dress in Somali Culture page 15
  • "The sultan spoke his native Somali in addition to a little Arabic."- Valerie Hansen and Kenneth R. Curtis, Voyages in World History, page 320
  • "Ibn Battuta noted that Sultan Abu Bakr had skin darker than his own and spoke a different native language (Somali), but as brothers in faith, they prayed together at Friday services, where the sultan greeted his foreign guest in Arabic(...)"- The Earth and Its Peoples, Brief Edition, page 313 Runehelmet (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Lead can remain somali but the sources indicating he might of been another ethnicity must remain and since adal had a bulk of hararis and other groups its debatable. wp:circular does not apply here because i only used that source on the talk page the source i list is different i suggest runhelmet look at my sources. Baboon43 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Source number five and seven is the vague one and number 6 is the selfpublished site. So you should remove or replace those sources or the template will stay. Runehelmet (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
simply saying it is vague is an excuse its RS one of the sources is an encyclopedia and there's no self published source. Baboon43 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
About the vague one, please see the comments above. An excuse for what? It has been putted out of the context. Runehelmet (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
its not put out of context because otherwise it would simply say adal leader or harar leader instead of harari. & as i have said earlier hararis refer to him as harari ethnically so i dont believe its a representation of the word harari meaning "one who lives in harar"..lets not rely only on google searches and dismiss information as "fringe theories" im sure there are information available elsewhere.."The somalis also had different legacies. Their nomadic disunity was combined with a rather interpretation of popular Islam compatible with an individualistic, pastrol free life. But they also cherished the memory of Ahmad Gragn, the Harari holy warrior, as if he were a muslim Somali" [7] Baboon43 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That is some student's dissertation, not a reliable source. And the term "Harari" refers to both people from Harar in general and native speakers of the Harari language, as shown. It would, for one thing, be rather difficult for Al-Ghazi to be "Harari" in the ethnic sense when that very identity was apparently created later, by his nephew Nur ibn Mujahid (c.f. [8]). Middayexpress (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
i believe the ethnic group existed before emir nur but there were clans and emir nur is credited for destroying genealogy and by the wall that was put up, the harari ethnic group began to be restricted solely inside the walls..The original term of Harar is the whole province and Gey was the city but this changed after amhara conquered the region renaming the city harar and the province hararghe and ahmed is said to be born within the province of harar at a place called hubat..it can also just be referred to as ancestors of hararis in the article. emir nur spoke harari even though he was a somali by ethnic origin so maybe the definition of harari could very well be broadened as the term harari is "people of the city". & wp RS says the dissertation is reliable. Baboon43 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The student paper is a WP:SPS/self-published source, not an r/s. No evidence has been advanced to suggest that Emir Nur spoke Harari. What has been established is that he created the modern Harari ethnic group as we know it by a) bringing together the various constituent populations that combined to form the modern Harari people, and b) calling that coalesced population the "Harari" for the first time. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No i went to wp rs [9] they said its reliable beacause it was used to obtain a phd...harari chronicals says emir nur spoke harari there are many quotes still used today that he would tell the people of harar. emir nur destroyed genealogy because he regarded himself as a harari and inorder to quell the tribal disputes he bagan to confiscate the citizens family tree and destroy them. "Their populations, speaking a Semitic language akin to Harari, either took refuge in Harar or were submerged by the waves of incoming Oromo. [10] Baboon43 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You missed the part where an editor indicated that "as long as what it's sourcing is not controversial it's probably fine." Needless to say, the idiosyncratic notion that Al-Ghazi was ethnically Harari is controversial. In fact, this dissertation appears to be the only source which explicitly suggests that Imam Ahmad was from the Harari ethnic group. Per WP:REDFLAG, however, exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources. That obviously would not include this student paper. Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That quote above from R.A. Caulk is also a small fragment of a larger passage, which is actually about how Harari language speakers from other Muslim towns west of Harar emigrated to the city as late as the 18th century. That's several centuries after both Imam Ahmad's and Emir Nur's lifetime: "The amirate of Harar was a remnant of the once powerful Muslim kingdom of Adal which had disintegrated in the generation after the death of Ahmad Gragn in 1543. Threatened by raiding bands of the migrant Oromo (Galla) and internal dissension, the rulers of Adal moved their residence down into the plain of Awssa on the lower Awash in 1577. There they sank under a host of enemies. By the eighteenth century, Afar pastoralists had replaced the Adal state in Awssa with a sultanate of their own. The Muslim towns west of Harar on the plateau with their terraced fields were abandoned. Their populations, speaking a Semitic language akin to Harari, either took refuge in Harar or were submerged by the waves of incoming Oromo." Middayexpress (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

simply saying somali for example on a source is not good enough either since some sources would even list harari as a sub clan of somalis so unless a direct subclan is mentioned its hard to know what the term somali may mean..i believe in R.A. Caulk he assumes the start of emirate is when the oromo began to surround the city and that is when emir nur built the wall because by the time of the rule of emir nur the hararis were confined to the walls but that it only became independent when the new dynasty started under ali which broke off from aussa..so just because harar region was under adal doesnt mean the people didnt exist. it could very well be accpetable to include the lines "ancestors of modern harari"..an issue that might arise is that the term harari started with abadir umar not emir nur..i believe emir nur is credited for restricting hararis within the walls but umar may have been the one that formed the harari group out of the ethnic groups that existed like harla etc.."The beginnings of Harari national identity can be traced to the arrival in 1216 of Sheikh Abadir Umar ar-Rida."- African Arts, volume 42 Baboon43 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Few if any sources list Harari as a Somali sub-clan. Many, on the other hand, indicate that the Somali were key in the composition of the modern Harari (which is quite a different matter). Further, that R.A. Caulk passage indicates that Harari speakers in particular emigrated to Harar as late as the 18th century, not all inhabitants of Harar. The city was obviously already inhabited when they arrived because in the passage just before it Caulk discusses Imam Ahmad and Adal. Basically, this means that Caulk is suggesting that Harari speakers are latecomers to Harar, and thus, not the original inhabitants. The term Harari also did not begin with Sheikh Abadir nor does that African Arts passage indicate that it did. It states that Harari national (not ethnic) identity began with the arrival of Sheikh Abadir. The passage then clarifies later that "ethnic Harari consider the city of Harar their traditional homeland and associate their origin to these sanctified early visitors." In other words, it's basically saying that the modern Harari speakers regard Sheikh Abadir and his retinue (who were Arabic speakers, not Harari speakers) as forefathers [11]. This is something that we already know, and the same could be said for the Sheekhaal. Middayexpress (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
emir nur is said to be a hararsized somali who spoke harari language according to tradition..."The first extensive contact between the Harari and Oromo was initiated by an encounter in 1559 between a gada force and Amir Nur, Imam Ahmed's successor. Shortly before his death in 1567, Amir Nur reacted by building Harar's wall as a final barrier between the Oromo and Harari. The Harari who remained behind the new city walls were the sole survivors of a once much wider spread ethnic and linguistic community."-"The political economy of harari-oromo relationships" p.2....the reason abadir is called a forefather is because he organized the people in the region after they were suffering from drought and other famines tribes like harla etc..old harari is the language of most of the agami literature from Harar, ie most of its literature in Arabic script. Sayh Abdalmalik is said to be the author of other hymns as well and is traditionally believed to have lived at the beginning of the 13th cent. at the same time as sayh Abadir.-Encyclopaedia Aethiopica D-HA p.1029 Baboon43 (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We all know that he[Nuur ibn Mujahid] erected the wall to protect the Muslim tribes from the Oromo raiders, wich he gathered in Harar. But nowhere you can find that he is mentioned as the forefather of the Harari people and absolutly not as a Hararized Somali. You made a statement, but you add sources wich contradict your view. Runehelmet (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If Emir Nur was a Hararized Somali, then that would still make him ethnically non-Harari. Also, although Harari was written in the Arabic script for a long time, much like Somali, it too is ultimately not Arabic but rather another, separate Afro-Asiatic language. Abadir Nur for his part emigrated from Arabia, like most of the proselytizers from the early Muslim period (e.g. Sheikh Darod, Sheikh Isaaq, Sheikh Abadir, Sharif Al-Kowneyn, etc.). There are several traditions as to the origins of Harar. The three main ones are that [12]: 1) It was founded in the 1500s by the Walashma Dynasty (who were Arabs, as we've seen) when they moved their headquarters there; 2) Sheikh Abadir and his entourage (who were also Arabs) founded it themselves when they arrived in the 10th century or so; 3) the city was already populated by Christians when Abadir and co. arrived from the Jeddah area, and it only subsequently became Muslim; and 4) Harar was first settled in the 7th century by an early Muslim Arabic community, with others arriving later. So all the traditions that involve Abadir at least indicate that he was an Arab. Middayexpress (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
discussion is not about emir nur or abadir for that matter i was just making a connection..point is harari language existed as early as 13th century because that source indicated that and therefore there's a possibility ahmed gragn could of been harari. Baboon43 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiedia NPOV and Tone

I should not have to explain that "Wrecking and causing much damage" is not professional encyclopedic language. NPOV. You would not find it even in Hitler's and the Khans article, these are colorful terms with bias embedded in the meaning. He invaded, that is it. You can look at other articles of "invasion" and see the standarization of tone, again, this is made explicitly clear in Wiki preferred WP:TONE. Make him sound like a child throwing a fit. I am sure better words are available with less spectacle. --Inayity (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

on your edit about ahmed being a hero for somali nationalists..ahmed is a hero for various people in the horn of africa not just somalis and he was not king of somalia since that country did not exist whereas mansa musa for example was king of Malian empire. Baboon43 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
but in the example of Mansa Musa that Old Mali and modern Mali are not 100% identical. Just like Mansa Musa is a hero for most of West Africa, and the Diaspora. Anyway we edit it to fit the accurate account. --Inayity (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Baboon43 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ethnicity is disputed

you cant come up with consensus to push your POV on wikipedia..the lede cant have somali as explained over at WP:NPOVN Baboon43 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You may call it "disputed", but a disagreement isn't a disputation . As the Ip user said, the consensus is reached just above us. Runehelmet (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
i am not the one that calls it disputed it is the article that does..you can not claim consensus on this issue..I thought it was ok to leave it as the lede but NPOV notice board says otherwise so in that case it cant remain..the RS dont agree as its difficult to tell his ethnicity on that basis you cant come up with consensus and make your on facts..an encyclopedia can not have a specific ethnicity as the lede and then question it in the body paragraph. Baboon43 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean with "the article" calls it disputed? The concensus is not claimed but achieved just above you(again). "an encyclopedia can not have a specific ethnicity as the lede and then question it in the body paragraph", well an encyclopedia shows more than one opinion/view. A popular example:The lede in the Holocaust article says it is an historical fact, but some don't agree with that, so there are paragraphs containing the view of the "non-believers" in the Holocaust. So if the mainstraim scholars accept his ethnicity, it is added in the lede, but an encyclopedia paves the way for other views, just to remove it for a singlular type of source...well, that is what we call an "undue weight". Runehelmet (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not mention it with a caveat? He is believed to be ... --Inayity (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
all the lede does is dismiss the first paragraph. The current format of the article was not meant to include "somali" as it conflicts with the body paragraph..not even the abyssinian leaders have their ethnicity put down as lede even though those articles are less controversial and dont have an ethnicity section..A caveat would of been a good idea if there was no mention of his ethnicity in the body. As most articles it should start off with introduction (title and reign) & body can discuss his history, background etc..another problem with the lede is that it says the army consist mainly of somalis but i have found a source that said mainly of somali and afar so it seems the article is slanted POV and defeats the point of adal being a multi ethnic kingdom but rather an ancient somali-ethio war..The ethiopian term is not used for one ethnic group whereas the somali term is exclusively used for major clans and this individual "ahmed" has no known clan affiliation Baboon43 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's a fact that individuals from Somali clans made up the majority (not the entirety) of Imam Ahmad's army. In his medieval Futuh Al-Habash documenting the Adal-Abyssinian war, the chronicler Shihāb al-Dīn indicates, for example, that 300 Harti soldiers took part in Imam Ahmad's Adal Sultanate army. He describes them specifically as "famous among the infantry as stolid swordsmen" and "a people not given to yielding" (c.f. [13]). In fact, most of Al-Ghazi's entourage was Somali, including his wife and in-laws. He likely was too. R.S. Whiteway thus writes with regard to Imam Ahmad in his translation of Castanhoso's historical The Portuguese Expedition to Abyssinia: "he was certainly not an Arab: probably he was a Somali, for we find him closely connected with many who were Somalis" (page xxxiii [14]). Middayexpress (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are not the architect of Wikipedia. You can't make up how the article should look like. A lede can't dismess the first paragraph, that is just nonsense. The first paragraph says he was interpreted as being an Arab, but most often identified by scholars and historical sources as an ethnic Somali. I don't see how this could be contradicting the lede. And in the future, you should keep your fringe theories to yourself. Runehelmet (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
i advise you not to push POV on this article seeing you removed several citations i added under the disguise of "no consensus" Baboon43 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed those citations with the reasons listed above. "Lead can remain somali but the sources indicating he might of been another ethnicity must remain", why are you "flip flopping"? The lede says he was Somali, but the other section gives us other views, because Wikipedia doesn't exclude the "non-mainstraim" views. Runehelmet (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
so if a historian says probably that warrants putting somali in the lede? this is one of the only articles on wiki that focuses more on ethnicity then actual content..it should be ok to add in he's somali but there's no need for lede "The muslims formed a confederation of Somali and Afar tribes led by Ahmed Gran from Adal. Gran was of somali or Afar ancestry and was said to be a brilliant military strategist".-Adventures in the Bone Trade-p.389.."At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Christian empire was in difficulty. It had to resist a devastating invasion of Muslims, predominantly Afar and Somali".-Unity in Diversity-p.56 ::: @runehelmet the citations i added had nothing to do with the lede Baboon43 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please let us not edit war over it, debate a compromise which accommodates both sides. Personally i cannot fathom why it would be a controversial edit to put Somali, even if weak, i don't get why it is such a massive issue-- either way. --Inayity (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Middayexpress (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
@Baboon, I know the citations has nothing to do with the lede, but you put that in the discussion. It's WP:Undue weight to change the lede for that. I have no issues to put other views, adversely I recommend that. About the undue weight:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Citated from WP:Undue weight. Runehelmet (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the lede because NPOV noticeboard said to do so as i have linked to it above...your removal of citations under disguise of no consensus is not acceptable..The articles format currently can not have an ethnicity as fact in the lede it does not matter if editors agree that it should stay regardless..The articles format is solely for questioning this individuals ethnicity aside from that i have come across you on various articles where you push "somali" to be the lede in an article even if it is not the case. Baboon43 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

his mother

p. 181 review of "Futuh" by Mohammed Hassen [15]

"Imam Ahmad was born probably in 1506. The name of Ahmads mother is not mentioned by Arab Faqih. However, according to one Ethiopian Christian source, she was known as Shamshiy." Baboon43 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That appears to be one Ethiopian rendering, similar to Ahmed "Gurey" vs. "Gragn". Middayexpress (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

al-Ghazi is not his name

al-Ghazi is not part of his birth name, but rather just a nickname. "al-Ghazi" means "the Conquer" which is his most common nickname. His real name, however is "Ahmad ibn Ibrahim". Should this articles title be changed? Will this even affect how many people view the page?

Also, why are there 13 sources that are about him being Harari? AcidSnow (talk) 00:07, 26 April (UTC)

Edit: It turnes that all but 4 of the sources regarding his ethnicity actually state that he was "Harari". Whats more shocking is that six of the original sources actually said he was Somali! I do, however, doubt that he was an ethnic Harari, but rather a "Harari" in the sense that were he ruled from. An example would be George III of the United Kingdom, whom ruled from London and is called "English" by historians, but was actually ethnically German. I have plan to remove those that say he was Harari shortly. AcidSnow (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Edit 2: Seeing how most of the articles refs were fake citations about him being Harari, I plan to nuke this article with refs and pictures actually about him. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a substantial amount of info missing on his rise to power, his conquest of Abyssinia, etc. If anyone wants to assist me, please leave a reply bellow. AcidSnow (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A Fact

zeila the birth place of ahmed gran is in present day somalia and was also inhabited by somalis 500 years ago

afars were part of the kingdom just like the harari's but doesn't make ahmed gran a harari evendo he made harar the capital of Adal

the imam was supported mainly by his own people the somalis

here is an excerpt from the french historian Rene Basset

  • Histoire de la Conquete de L'Abyssinie* (trans. Rene Basset),

http://i2.tinypic.com/t0i0s9.jpg

Rene Basset doesn't address why he calls him Somali, though. Calling someone Somali in passing isn't evidence that it's more likely than being Afar. Harari back then probably didn't exist as an ethnicity, though. Maqrizi notes that Ifat, for instance, spoke Amharic. If you read what I said before, Afars were probably the predominant ethnic group in the kingdom. Either way, being born in Zeila doesn't make him Somali. Zeila was a port city with many ethnicities living in its borders. The current version makes it clear that the common consensus is that he was Somali, though. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

so when did harari start? do you think hararis are a new ethnic group? i suggest you read history by the way ahmad al ghazi was harari not somali or afar. Baboon43 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His was actually Half Harari and Half Somali. Harari234 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2015

He wasn't and please provide a academic source for your claims. AcidSnow (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

For starters, we should move back to a version just prior to the disruption that has recently been going on. AcidSnow (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Gurey of the Habr Makadi of the Gadabursi

There are two main fractions of the Gadabursi, the Habar Afan and Habar Makadur. The latter making up roughly 90%.

In Page 27 of the Futuh Al Habasha: Conquest of Abyssinia it mentions Ahmed Gerri(Gurey) of the Somali and him being of the Habr Makadi/Maqdi. Underneath the page it states that it was the Habar Makadur of the Gadabursi.

Page 43 mentions that the first tribe to reach the Imam was the Habar Maqadi/Makadi/Maqdi and they encamped above the valley of Harar. When looking at British archives and research. This is the Gadabursi country of the Harar Valley, Haraghe Valley or Harrawwa valley.

The strongest evidence is page 82 of the "Futuh Al-Habasha: The Conquest of Abyssinia" which mentions Husain Musa Bin 'Abd Allah Makida, he is of the Habr Maqdi clan. This strongly fits into the Gadabursi genealogy as Husain Musa Bin 'Abd Allah "Makidor".

The Habar pre-fix is removed when doing the "abtirsi(patrilineage)" just like with the Garhajis etc.

Another thing to note is the that he is mentioned as chieftain and the Marehan leader is mentioned as a chieftain. The Somali word for chieftain is Ugaas, which the Gadabursi Ugaasdom being one of the most famous having been established in the 1600's one century after the Adal wars. The female founder of the Ugaasdom was from the Geri clan and her name was Queen Khadija.

Among the sub-clans of the Mahad 'Ase of the Habr Makador or Makador there is a clan called "reer Hiraab" again this confirms that the Habr Makador partook in the Jihad with the Marehan. Also one of the Ugaases of the Gadabursi was named Hiraab.

Among the southern Mandalug the relatives of the Gadabursi whom have been scattered thanks to the Adal wars. Among them in the south is a sub-clan too called Makador. That sub-clan is named "Ahmed Guray". The lineage of them goes as follows "Reer Ahmed Guray - Muse - Makador" again re-affirming the participation of the Habr Makador in the jihad and "Conquest of Abyssinia or Futuh Al Habasha and Ahmed Gerri or Guray mentioned in the book being of the Habr Makador


Of course the Gadabursi relationship with the clans mentioned in the book and proximity to them (especially the Geri, but also Barsuk, Gorgorah, Hawiye) is evident of them joining the wars and upbringing of the Gadabursi youth for generations on the history of Ahmed Guray and the elders having accounts of the war and which subclan Ahmed Guray belonged to of the Habr Makidor (Mahad 'Asse) has never been forgotten among the Gadabursi. The book just re-affirms and proves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbwaanRooble (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

there are no habar in the gudabirsi clan and they are 2 sub clans by the name Madahasi and Makahil without the habar The Madahasi and MakahilBysomalilander (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
:don't twist the name so it suits you (Magadle) not (Makadur) and in the book it is [Magaadi] which of names it closer tob the orignal in the book?Bysomalilander (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
: For the third time lets talk about it .Bysomalilander (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
: not one of your links say what you mean .Bysomalilander (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Magaadi again the name in the book is Magaadi not Makadur and the gudabirsi clan dont have habar name in their lineage and from all Somali historians like DR. SAADIQ EENOW and Prof. Maxamed Cabdi Gaandi who is a known historian from jubbaland says that what you are saying is wrong in his lectors called ISIRKA SOMALIDA even Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur says that your theory is funny in his lectors Bandhigga Buuggiisa "Taariikhda iyo Luuqadda Bulshada Soomaaliyeed" so all these learned professors and all the books about Ahmed Gurey which say that Magadle or Habar Magadle are Isaaq all of them are wrong and you and your new neverheared about before theory is right and you want us to accept this and like i said before don't twist the name so it suits you (Magadle) not (Makadur) and in the book it is [Magaadi] which of names it closer tob the orignal in the book? AbwaanRooble Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f .Bysomalilander (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You say that there is no Habar in the Gadabursi tribe. Obviously you are ignorant on subject. In the Gadabursi clan there are several Habar branches, for example:
Habar Yaasif or Habar Yuusuf (Yusuf Samaroon) , Habar Husein(Mahad 'Ase) , Habar Muuse (Mahad 'Ase) and multiple Habar sub-branches.
Habar Makador and Habar 'Affan are the 2 main divisions of the Gadabuursi. You know the Mahad 'Ase and Makahiil, but you are not aware they are both of the Habar Makador division since they fully outgrew their upper banner it's unheard of to you.
Richard Pankhurst in the book himself in the Conquest of Abyssinia Book mentions the Habar Makadur page 27 as a annotation. So how can it not exist? In I'm Lewis's book "Peoples of the Horn of ::: Africa: Somali, Afar and Saho" he mentions that the Gadabursi is divided in 2 fractions, the Habr Makadur and Habr Affan, Page 25.
Also the "Ethnographic Survey of Africa - Volume 5,Nummer 1 - Pagina 25" and I quote : " There are two main fractions, the Habr Afan and Habr Makadur, ::::formerly united under a common hereditary chief (ogaz)."[16] - AbwaanRooble , 20:31, 14 September 2016
you talk to much and lie to much even your link says habr toljaala which are habar jeclo look at your link or maybe habr toljaala are Gadabursi and the somali world didn't know about that ,next time come up with some kind of (Habr Magaadi =Habr Makadur) prove and don't use isaaq links in books to prove your point and like i said before DR. SAADIQ EENOW and Prof. Maxamed Cabdi Gaandi and Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur are all wrong and you alone are right stop.Bysomalilander (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems you have a hard time accepting the truth. Again it's the same book, which the Habar Makadur is mentioned in along with other Habar clans. I corrected the search engine for you, since you couldn't use it yourself. [17]. - AbwaanRooble - , comment added 15:03 , 1 Oktobor 2016
l love the way you twist the names so just to prove your lie that no one in the world came up with before you . in the orignal arabic text it says MagadiFutūḥ Al-Ḥabashah: Or, the Conquest of Abyssinia in arabic

so now read this very carefully ; how in world is

habr Magadi = habr magadle is wrong

AND WANT ME TO ACCEPT

habr magadi = habr makadi by turning the arabic word from Q to K good try
habr magadi = habr makadR where did this R come from not from the orignal text it end with Y
habr magadi = habr Makadur how how how ????????????Bysomalilander (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It's translated as Habr Maqdi in the Conquest of Abyssinia book or Makadi. No mention of Magaadleh.
Here are the links. [18]
Also refereed to as Habr Makadi or Maqadi by scholars. [19]
And here Habr Makadur mentioned in the Conquest of Abyssinia.[20] - AbwaanRooble - , comment added 11:22:03 , 3 Oktobor 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
can you read English i hope so , read your link [21] it says Probably Probably under the original text so its not in the text and in the real text there is no mention of Habr Makadur even if you try.
your second link is even worse it from a other book called ``An introduction to the economic history of Ethiopia, from early times to 1800`` by Richard Pankhurst so what has this book have to do with the Conquest of Abyssinia our subject . your link Here are the links. [22]
finally Habar Maqadi like you wrote and habar Magadle which is in English not Somalia Magaadleh like you wrote , look carefully Habar Maqadi= habar Magadle just read it like all the other historians have read it which was right and don't come up with a ``Probably?``under the text not in the original book Habar Maqadi=Habr Makadur weak link .Bysomalilander (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It mentions Habr Makadi/Maqdi. As my links show no mention of Habr Magaadleh in the book. Are you blind? At least the Habr Makadur is added as a footnote. How can you argue against that? Where is the mention of Habar Magaadleh in the book? - AbwaanRooble - , comment added 8:02:03 , 8 Oktobor 2016 <


Please read this very carefully Bysomalilander. Wikipedia editing isn't an online tutorial class. If you don't know how to properly cite and research, please don't delete other people's work and instead set about finding other avenues in educating yourself on how to.


The secondary source you keep holding on to is from 1987, and is not even a 1/3 about Ahmed Gurey or the Adal Sultanate.

Somalia: nation in search of a state David D. Laitin, Said S. Samatar - Westview Press, 1987

These author's sourced Rene Besset's 1897-1901 French translation of the "Futuh Al Habasa".

The source you keep deleting:

The primary scholarly source on this subject "The Conquest of Abyssinia: Futuh Al Habasa". This wide-spread english translation is from 2005, is almost entirely based on Ahmed Gurey and the Adal Sultanate. It also has what the 1897 French translation didn't have: modern day scholars of East African history and demographics working on it.

"The Conquest of Abyssinia: Futuh Al Habasa" by Shihab Al-Din Ahmad Arabfaqih (Author), Translated by Paul Lester Stenhouse With the annotation suggesting Habr Maqdi is the Habr Makador.

Edited by Richard Pankhurst, a renowned academic scholar of Ethiopia and East Africa.

To meet the academic standards of currency and credibility, a new sentence was made with reference to this most up-to-date verifiable source.

Bysomalilander you not only did you delete the most up-to-date credible source but also other sources (of different segments and topics), spelling/grammar corrections, and transcriptions. You are a vandal because you didn't just edit this source/section, you tried to destroy everything everybody worked on.

-- User:Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f1 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f (talk • contribs)

Still you have not come up with a single link that says Habr Maqdi is the Habr Makador, not one source and you biased your hole argument on the word under the real translated text which say (Probably) and left out what was overwhelming closer to the truth which is Habr Maqdi is the Habr Magadle of Isaaq.

And to give you a better link that is not only words here is a lecture by Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur who is from south Somalia so you don't think that he is Isaaq or from the north Somalia ``Somaliland`` .

In his lecture the Professor is talking about the Somali history and in one point talks about how every clans claims that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi is from them even the Ethiopians say so with out any proof and then the Professor talks about another leader of Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi by the name Ahmad ibn Ibrahim.

Who is from Habr Maqdi and says by his own words in Somali language there are two main factions in the Isaaq clan Habr Hubushiad and forgets the other faction and says Habr madelah come on people help me which is the faction in the Isaaq clan name and one guy says Magaadleh .

And the the Professor says that's right Magaadleh of isaaq clan which was one of the leaders of Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi and then the Professor says that people confuse between the two men for having the same name and fathers name but that one was Somali Isaaq Ahmad ibn Ibrahim and the other the famous Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi only God knows if is a Somali. this is my translation you will find it between 00:00 to 1:34 minute in the lecture. about what the Professor says in Somali to English Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur watch on youtube in Somali,so like you can see for your self in Somali language that you know Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur says that Habr Maqdi is the Habr Magadle of Isaaq.Bysomalilander (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Who is that? I never heard of him. Probably not a renown scholar or I would have heard of him. He probably wasn't aware of the Habar Makador section of the Gadabuursi as most are not aware. Wikipedia doesn't work on Youtube sources, secondly scholars have agreed the clan mentioned in the Futuh Al Habasha is the Habr Makadi/Maqadi. With Richard Pankhurst clarifying it to be the Habr Makadur - AbwaanRooble - , comment added 8:02:03 , 8 Oktobor 2016 < —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Bysomalilander for the second time, the primary source, the most current translation, "The Conquest of Abyssinia: Futuh Al Habasa" by Shihab Al-Din Ahmad Arabfaqih (Author), translated by Paul Lester Stenhouse, and edited by Richard Pankhurst has as annotation 106:

"Probably the Habr Makkadur, a Somali clan, I.M. Lewis, Peoples of the Horn of Africa, p 25"

What does this mean?

Richard Pankhurst, willingly, picked this particular group and referenced who they were in I.M. Lewis' work when he was perfectly free to choose "Habr Magaadle". Additionally, he and Paul Stenhouse (translator) picked "Habr Makkadur" after going through the original arabic manuscripts and Rene Besset's 1987 french translation. Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f1: Please stop using ---- to separate your cmt's, the correct way is explained here: Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f (talk) brother i have answered you in the best way i could and i explained to you that Probably the Habr Makkadur is not from the original text and that one else came up with this Habr Makkadur only the translator, there are many scholars and academic studies about the book The Conquest of Abyssinia: Futuh Al Habasa throughout the years in Arabic ,English and even Somali and Ethiopian Amharic no one came up with this conclusion only the translator ,who by the way is not a dumb person and have known about the habr maqadi/habr magadle connection so he said Probably .Bysomalilander (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
AbwaanRooble Prof. Cabdalla Cumar Mansuur is a renowned professor in linguistics and anthropology for the last 20 years , and your sentence that ``He probably wasn't aware of the Habar Makador section of the Gadabuursi as most are not aware.`` is true by the way because i never heard about them before our conversation here and i am sure 12 millions Somalis never heard about Habr Makkadur , because the word Habar is affiliated with the Isaaq clan and one Hawiye clan by the name Habar Gidir , and i know youtube is not a valid source in wiki ,just used it to show you what a learned scholar says about this matter that Habr Maqadi/Habr Magadle Isaaq.Bysomalilander (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bysomalilander Did you even bother looking at the reference "I.M. Lewis, Peoples of the Horn of Africa, p 25"? It's right there. For the third time, the translator worked out Habr Maqdi. Richard Pankhurst made the annotation. My question is, why did he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f (talk • contribs) 19:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is of course the chance that this could be incorrect but the problem is that this is the primary source and no other professional english translation/analysis exists. The previous translation of these manuscripts were made in 1897. Renamed user 156yagz5r48a5f1a1f (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Gran

Hello Bysomalilander even though there is every reason to believe more clans took part in the Conquest of Abyssinia, since part 2 of the authors book was never found, I will not allow propaganda to be spread on the article Ahmed Gran. We can reach a consensus and remove all clans from the page Ahmed Gran or we can keep reverting our edits. - AlaskaLava

i agree.Bysomalilander (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of biased sources and questionable claims

This edit by a user which he believes is somehow legitimate and necessary is a retelling of the Ethiopian-Adal conflict that is already thoroughly explained in the well-sourced Invasion of Ethiopia section of the article (which itself is a summary of the larger Ethiopian-Adal War article). The difference is that this time, the contributor has used questionable sources such as this Christian website (Christianity-guide.com) and this other article written by a guy with an Ethiopian name (Agaredech Jemaneh) that's hosted on an Ethiopian website, RealEthiopia.com -- a website which, in its own words:

...was developed with only one goal in mind, to promote Ethiopia as a tourist destination for both international and domestic travellers. RealEthiopia.com is where you discover Ethiopia as it is - the authoritative resource about Ethiopia on the web, covering all aspects of your information need about Ethiopia, whether you are planning to travel to Ethiopia or already live in Ethiopia, you will find engaging and useful content, presented the way you want it.

Here's what RealEthiopia has to say about its content contribution:

The initial content of RealEthiopia.com was developed in effort with external consultants but we also welcome user contributions in the different subjects we cover on RealEthiopia.com, as long as they conform to our content policy, by using our submission form (currently deactivated, please contact us through our contact form for content processing).

In other words, everything is either personally compiled by themselves, or, as in the case of the above article written by one Agaredech Jemaneh, is user-contributed. They don't even require a reference list for verification. All they require is that contributing writers make sure that their work "conforms to RealEthiopia.com's content policy" -- a policy which, incidentally, specificies that RealEthiopia "only allow reviews based on personal experiences."

Moreover, neither Christianity-guide.com nor RealEthiopia.com state where they got their information from since it obviously wasn't the product of any first-hand historical research on their part.

The Wiki editor's latest edit includes this source from a Somali website, which he believes is somehow more reliable although the page clearly states that the article was "sent by" one "Suleiman Nousa Elmi, Noraway" (i.e. it too is user-contributed). The article also does not list any references; in other words, the information here too is unverifiable.

He has also included the highly suspicious claim that Imam Ahmad was decapitated, when sources typically state that it was da Gama who, in fact, was decaptitated, (e.g. "Lake Tana and the Blue Nile: An Abyssinian Quest" by Robert Ernest Cheesman, p.381: "In one of the early battles with Gran's troops de Gama was captured and decapitated...") and often by al-Ghazi himself (e.g. "The Church in Africa: 1450-1950" by Adrian Hastings, p.138: "Da Gama, wounded and captured, was dragged before Gran to behold the heads of 160 Portuguese displayed in front of him before he too was decapitated by Gran himself."). The editor also never cites the exact page number in the source where he got that information from so that users may verify the information for themselves. And per Wiki policies, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

In short, if the editor wishes to contribute a line or two to the article -- which is on Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, not the Ethiopian-Adal War -- to the effect that the war perhaps also served as a proxy for the Ottoman and the Portuguese, he should do so in the properly-sourced section of the article where the war is already discussed; namely, the Invasion of Ethiopia section. He should also do so employing unbiased, reliable sources and a neutral point of view, as opposed to relying on Christian, Ethiopian, Somali, or Muslim sources as I've already explained in my edit summary. Causteau (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The focus of the section i added was the PROXY nature of the war. (which apparently seems reflected in current events of the region as well) And since these wars and related wars have consumed much of the life of Ahmed, it would be appropriate to add it on his article. If you have another case why it does not belong here, let me know. Regarding the sources, you only pointed out half the sources in that section. You omitted western and other sources like by Whiteway's "The Portuguese Expedition" and J. Spencer Trimingham's "Islam in Ethiopia." And other sources by Jeronimo Lobo and Andrew Hess. There is also an input from www.about.com. HOWEVER, even if we had only the Ethiopian and somali sources, i do not think we should catagorically ignore or belittle those African sources. Not much has been written about historical African events compared to outside Africa so we have to consider their input as well. There are two reasons (i believe) why we should not ignore these African accounts. Number one, if we ignore their accounts, we end up having very small sources left. And number two, it is not fair for the African people in general if we conclude only outside sources as "reliable." In any case, it is also unusual to have Ethiopian and Somali sources agree and state the SAME account on such a big event so using these sources from opposing point of views to bolster a similar account is probably more powerful than anything else out there. In general, i will wait for a moderator to check it out and i will restore it later if there is no further issue. So keep discussing here if you believe the section should be removed. Thanks.Jack248 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to "shout". I heard you loud and clear the first few times you mentioned the PROXY war. The fact remains, however, that this is an article on Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi -- not the Ethiopian-Adal War. Again, if you wish to include a line or two to the effect that the Ethiopian-Adal War perhaps also served as a proxy war between the Ottomans and the Portuguese, then the Invasion of Ethiopia section of the article is the place to do it since that is where the war is already discussed. Or better yet, try including that information where it's most pertinent, which is obviously the Ethiopian-Adal War article itself.
The few legitimate sources you appear to have included also either repeat what is already mentioned in the Invasion of Ethiopia section or only discuss the Ottomans and the Portuguese as opposed to the article's namesake, al-Ghazi. For example, you include a statement (which you reference with a work by Whiteway, a source that is already referenced in the article) that goes:

As was the case in many parts of the world of the time, African Christians and Muslims in this horn of African region were getting military and other assistance from external parties. The external states were often motivated by religious, economic and strategic interests. While the Orthodox Ethiopian highlanders received assistance from Portugal, Imam Ahmad and his Muslim forces got manpower and weapon assistance from Arabia and the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

However, this is just a repeat of what is already fully and better explained in the "Invasion of Ethiopia" section of the article:

The Ethiopians were forced to ask for help from the Portuguese, who landed at the port of Massawa on February 10, 1541, during the reign of the emperor Gelawdewos. The force was led by Cristóvão da Gama and included 400 musketeers as well as a number of artisans and other non-combatants... According to Abbé Joachim le Grand, Imam Ahmad received 2000 musketeers from Arabia, and artillery and 900 picked men from the Ottomans to assist him.

The following statement you attribute to the Lobo source likewise literally just repeats the same thing, thereby making its inclusion pointless and redundant; a veritable retelling, as I wrote earlier:

While Arabia sent thousands of fighters to help the Muslim army of Imam Ahmad invade Christian Ethiopians, the Ottomans provided Imam Ahmad artillery and several hundred soldiers.

Moreover, the statement attributed to a paper titled "The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth-Century World War" pertains to dominance in the Red Sea region and does not mention the Sultanate of Adal explicitly much less the actual subject of the article (namely, al-Ghazi):

The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Selim I established Ottoman rule in Egypt, and created a naval presence on the Red Sea. After this Ottoman expansion, a competition started between the Portuguese Empire and the Ottoman Empire to become the dominant power in the region.

You also never cited J. Spencer Trimingham's "Islam in Ethiopia", so I don't see how I could've omitted mentioning it.
Lastly, the Real-Ethiopia.com and Harowo.com sources are inadmissible, questionable sources not because they are "African" as you have somehow deduced, but rather because they are user-contributed, unreferenced (and therefore unverifiable), and too close to the subject in question as I've already very clearly explained in my previous post. The same goes for that Christianity-guide.com website you also included as a source (an advertisement-heavy website which admits outright that it "uses material from the Wikipedia article "Adal"" no less!). In the case of Real-Ethiopia.com, again, they even readily admit that their website is "promotional" in nature:

RealEthiopia.com was developed with only one goal in mind, promote Ethiopia as a tourist destination for both international and domestic travellers.

And per WP:QS:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience.

You can stick around and hope that a moderator will somehow not see the Real-Ethiopia.com, Harowo.com and Christianity-guide.com references for the questionable sources they are or that the "Proxy war" section isn't a POV retelling of the Invasion of Ethiopia section of the article, but I wouldn't bank on it. Actual administrators (as opposed to, say, fellow editors one contacts for support) in my experience tend to be quite fair. Causteau (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary source for the death of the imam is Miguel de Castanhoso who fought at the last battle and clearly states how a teenage Abyssinian captain followed the imam(while he was running) and killed him and beheaded him. Although it seems he had beheaded him after killing him the captain was a horseman thus the conclusionis that he had stabbed and beheaded the imam. Bin Mulat (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Somali clan?

The Akisho, Gadabuursi, and Leelkase articles each claim that Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi (Ahmed Gurey) was a member of those respective Somali clans. None of these articles cite a reference, though. Was any sort of clan affiliation ever documented? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It is presumed these confederated large clans (that is the four major ones) that exist now actually came at that time or later. No one knows his true Soomaali clan. Many different clans claim, with absurd assertions. Soomaali March 13, 2006

I also just notcied that the Ogaden article states he is from that area. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion and Harar both state he is from Harar. Should all these references be removed pending citation? - BanyanTree 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
He's mentioned again in Darod, as a member of that clan. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's false. Though clans probably existed back then, no one knows which clan he was a part of. Futuh al-Habasa doesn't mention his clan, and that's probably the most likely source to mention it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yom (talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's evidence that he was actually Afar (but he could be either), and the quotation has little to do with him, being relevant for the article at Adal instead, so I've removed the information, and added relevant info to Adal. Btw, Futuh didn't apparently didn't even mention his ethnicity at all. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Marehan article has made this claim, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Ibrahim Ghazi was from the Dir clan is an agreed fact amoung Somalis. However, the real dispute that remains is was he a Gadabuursi Dir or Madahweyn Dir(Akisho or Gurgure). Their is a plenty evidence that this Somali hero is from the Gadabursi whose present day homeland is called Awdal (Adal) which is the kingdom Gurey ruled. Futhermore, it is in the Gadabuursi Mandaluug Dir region which the Christian Ethiopians always targeted in the attacks against Ahmed Gurey and today in the Amuud region you will find the ruines of buildings where the ancient Samaroon used to live and it was the hometown of the Somali saint and general Imaam Said Samaroon who was the defender of the western flank of the Somali nation from Amhara intrusions.

Imam Ahmed Gureey could not be from the Darood clan since he lived in the 1500's before even the Yemani ancestor of the Darood(Darood Ibu Ismail Jabarti reached the shores of Somali. Therefore, Gurey was from the Dir Mandaluug or Madahweyn clan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.199.169 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As has already been noted, multiple articles about Somali clans have each claimed that Ahmed Gurey belonged to one particular clan or another. If you do not cite sources for your assertions, how can we distinguish your own claims from those of others? Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahmed Amin Nur was from Marehan, and until today his clan called Ina Nuur is part of Marehan clan in Eithopia. On the other hand anyone, who needs proof about Ahmed Guray could get more information in Eithopia, especaily among the Somali normads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.51.128 (talk • contribs) 02:28, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

I am not Marehan, I am Habir Gidir Hawiiye, but Ahmed Gurey is Marehan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.12.146 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, can you cite a souce for this? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed Gurey was Marehan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.0.147 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, can you cite a souce for this? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed is repeatedly distincted from the somalis and the somalis were reported as retreating when the imam was advancing in the battle of shimbta kure also he was in conflict with them at one time where he chased them till they neared the sea. Ahmad Guray is also descrined differently from the imam ahmad in futuh al habasha. So most probably he was a harla or afar of arab ancestry. Bin Mulat (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmad_ibn_Ibrahim_al-Ghazi/Archive_1&oldid=1136314927"