Talk:Ishaaq bin Ahmed

Removals of sections based on unreliable and/or primary sources

Hello Dabaqabad! You reverted [1] five edits by me, with the edit summary Unexplained removal; sources are reliable. I tried my best to explain in my edit summaries, but of course more space may be needed for a proper explanation. So here goes:

• My edit here removed the statement that Sheikh Ishaaq belonged to the Banu Hashim subclan of the Quraysh and was a descendant of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Prophet Mohammed's son in-law and Fatimah, his daughter, which is based on the following source: MENAFN. "Somaliland: History of Sheikh Isaaq Bin Ahmed Bin Muhammad (AL-HASHIMI)". menafn.com. Retrieved 2021-03-24. This is a newspaper article which cites no sources, and is not reliable in this context. If you insist it is reliable, we can take it to WP:RSN.
• My edit here removed a paragraph based on the following sources:
  1. يحيى, بن نصر الله الهرري. مناقب الشيخ أبادر- متحف الشريف عبد الله في هرر.
  2. Zaylaʻī, ʻAbd al-Raḥmān Shaykh Maḥmūd; زيلعي، عبد الرحمن شيخ محمود. (2018). al-Ṣūmāl ʻurūbatuhā wa-ḥaḍāratuhā al-Islāmīyah = Somalia's Arabism and Islamic civilization (al-Ṭabʻah al-ūlá ed.). Dubayy. ISBN 978-9948-39-903-2. OCLC 1100055464.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. نور, مكتبة. "تحميل كتاب تحفة المشتاق لنسب السيد إسحاق لعبدالرحمن دبة pdf". www.noor-book.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2021-08-08.
  4. TARIIKHDA SH ISXAAQ QAYBTA 1AAD Full Barnaamij, retrieved 2021-03-24
  5. Lewis, I. M. (1994). Blood and Bone: The Call of Kinship in Somali Society. The Red Sea Press. ISBN 978-0-932415-93-6.

1. looks like a WP:PRIMARY source, which should not be used for evaluative statement. If it is a secondary source, can you clarify who its author is and what his academic credentials are? We can take it to WP:NORN if you want.

2. Googling عبد الرحمن شيخ محمود زيلعي [2] yields only a page that says he writes on history, and links to his book. Can you clarify who this author is and what his academic credentials are? We can take it to WP:RSN if you want.

3. looks like a primary source, which should not be used for evaluative statement. If it is a secondary source, can you clarify who its author is and what his academic credentials are? We can take it to WP:NORN if you want.

4. is a Youtube video, which are generally not reliable (see WP:RSPYT). We can take it to WP:RSN if you want.

5. is a reliable source, but there is no page number and searching through it does not verify the statement for which it is used here.

• My edit here removed a section based on sources 2. and 3. above, and on الغرباني, محمد بن أحمد. صورة لمخطوطة الغرباني التي تتحدث عن سيرة وحياة الشريف إسحاق بن أحمد الرضوي. pp. 95–96., which is an incomplete reference and which looks like a primary source (a photographed manuscript? clarification would be needed).
• My edit here removed a section based on the last named source (the photographed manuscript?). It's hardly credible that this manuscript would contain the translation? Where does the translation come from?
• My edit here just formatted a ref and should not have been reverted.

Please discuss these sources one by one. As suggested, we can also go to WP:RSN and/or WP:NORN for specific sources. An alternative option is to ask for a third opinion. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Apaugasma:,

1. I made a typo with that source my apologies I meant to cite Sharif Mubayd’s book (I will explain in detail).

2. Abdulrahman Sheikh Mohamoud Zayla'i is a Somali historian and writer. He has written dozens of articles in Somali and Arab newspapers and websites, participated in local and international conferences and meetings, and his books are in international libraries such as Yale University Library, Harvard University, as well as public libraries in Helsinki and London. His most notable works include that book I referenced as well as an article on China-Somalia relations [3], as well as being the author of مانديق فى القاهرة (Maandeeq in Cairo), and حياة وذكريات احمد حسن عوكى (Life and Memories of Ahmed Hassan Awke). His works have also been featured on Arabic Magazine ([4]) while he is also on Arabic Wikipedia ([5]).

3. It is not a primary source rather a secondary source written by Abdulrahman Ali Mohamed - Dube was his nickname and Dube Ali Yare was his moniker see . He was a member of the Somali National League and active in British Somaliland politics. Travelled to London with two prominent sultans of the Isaaq clan and Michael Mariano (politician) to petition the British government to return the Haud region from Ethiopian jurisdiction. See the source below, there is also a photo of him with the delegation members on google which I can provide if you’d like.[6]

4. Is a video series from ARABSIYO News, the author of a recent Somali biography of Sheikh Ishaaq - (Dheemankii Lagu Maamuusay Maydh: Sheekh Isxaaq Ibnu Axmed). Maxamed Cabdi Daud also has a video series that is viewable on YouTube on the same topic. That would be better suited or just his book itself as a source.

5. Page 103 holds that the widely held notion amongst Isaaqs that Sheikh Isaaq is a descendant of Ali ibn Abi Talib although I.M Lewis thinks this is just tradition.

The translation is from me (which is allowed, see WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:RSUE). The manuscript is from Mohamed ibn Ahmad Al Ghurbani who was a non-Somali sheikh of Sayyid lineage writing this text in Yemen in the early 20th century. It also has been turned into a print version. Ghurbani based his book on a manuscript of Sheikh Mohamed Hassan who accompanied Isaaq ibn Ahmed in Maydh. Returning to Dube his book regarding Isaaq is based on Ghurbani’s earlier summary. I hope that clears things up regarding Dube and Ghurbani. The name of the Ghurbani transduction and Mohamed’s text is العسجد المنظوم في التاريخ والعلوم. Link: [7]

Regarding other Somali texts that mention the Arab origins of Isaaq ibn Ahmed. The Sharif Mubayd of Barawa who claimed Alawi descent, wrote a 20th century text containing a geneaology of Isaaq and then divulged mostly into Sufi praises of him. He is mentioned in a poem of another Sheikh in Renewers of the Holy Age, page 97. ثمرة المشتاق في مناقب الشيخ إسحاق للشريف مبيد أبي بكر النضيري البراوي. Link: [8]

Another 20th century text is from Sharif Aydurus who was the mayor of Mogadishu. He mentions Isaaq as an Arab migrant who first arrived in Zeyla and is buried in Maydh. ٢٣٤ بغية الآمال في تاريخ الصومال. Link: [9]. Again another 20th century text that mentions Isaaq as an Arab migrant is from Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi. His book كشف السدول عن تاريخ الصومال ، وممالكهم السبعة - تأليف / الشيخ أحمد عبدالله ريراش الصومالي. Here is a link regarding who this author is.[10]

There is explicit reference to Alawi origin of Isaaq ibn Ahmed in

مشكلة الحدود الصومالية - الإثيوبية ودور القوى الدولية فيها ٦٧..١٣٩٨هـ/٤٨..١٩٨٧م written by سليمان حاج عبدالله فارح, published by Saudi Arabia’s Umm Al Qura university, page ٢, الفصل التمهيدي. Link: [[11]]

I hope that resolved this misunderstanding

Many thanks,

Dabaqabad (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow Dabaqabad, that's a very thorough and interesting explanation! Thanks for that. You're clearly somewhat of an expert on this topic, and it's always good to see that someone takes an interest in pitifully neglected subjects such as this. However, as well-acquainted as you are with the subject, I think that your approach to sources at this moment is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, and would need to change for you to contribute here in accordance with policy.

I will begin by quoting #5 above, Lewis 1994, pp. 103–104 (who is renowned internationally as the foremost scholar on Somali history and culture):

Similar traditions are conserved by the Isaaq in regard to their ancestor Sheikh Isaaq. His descendants trace their ancestor's pedigree to 'Ali, the son of Abuu Taalib, who married the Prophets's daughter Faatima. Stories similar to those which attach to Sheikh Daarood describe Sheikh Isaaq's arrival from Arabia at the ancient Somali port of Zeila in the northwest of the ex-Protectorate and near the border with Djibouti. [...] Again, as with Sheikh Daarood, there are a number of published hagiologies in Arabic which describe not only the Sheikhs's movements and life and works in Somaliland but also his peregrinations in Arabia before his arrival among the Somali. These works contain a mass of unlikely circumstantial detail and repeatedly insist on the validity of Sheikh Isaaq's pedigree, a feature which itself suggests that the genealogy is suspect. As in the case of Sheikh Daarood, the names in the Arabian sections of the genealogy are also unconvincing since they represent those current at the time of the Prophet rather than, as one would expect if the genealogies were historically genuine, medieval local Arab names. And although in this case there is little divergence between the dates recorded in the hagiologies and those conserved in oral tradition, there are again strong grounds for doubting the authenticity of the genealogical claims made. Thus it seems that the traditions surrounding the origins and advent from Arabia of Sheikh Daarood and Isaaq have the character of myths rather than of history even although there is every reason to believe that one aspect of Somaliland's long contact with Arabia has been the settlement over the centuries of parties of Arab immigrants. In this this respect the Daarood and Isaaq legends represent historical fact. But quite apart from this, their real significance in Somali culture lies in the fact that they validate, in a traditional Somali idiom, the Muslim basis of Somali culture.

Ref: Lewis, Ioan M. (1994). Blood and Bone: The Call of Kinship in Somali Society. Lawrencewill, NJ: The Red Sea Press. ISBN 0-932415-93-8.

This sums it all up, really. The late 19th-century/early 20th-century works by Sharīf Mubayd, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Ghurbānī, Sharīf Aydurus, Aḥmad ʿAbd Allah Rīrāsh al-Ṣūmālī, etc. were either publishing the hagiologies Lewis 1994 speaks about or directly drawing upon them to write uncritical histories. As Lewis 1994 notes, the stories about Sheikh Isaaq's arrival from Arabia have the character of myths rather than of history. Yet our article currently presents these stories as historical fact, which is of course due to the historiographically uncritical nature of its sources. This is quite obviously also true for Zaylaʻī 2018 (#2), the title of whose book Somalia's Arabness and its Islamic Civilization clearly echoes Lewis 1994's words their real significance in Somali culture lies in the fact that they validate, in a traditional Somali idiom, the Muslim basis of Somali culture.

There are two relevant Wikipedia policies here, the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT part of WP:NPOV and the WP:INDEPENDENT part of WP:RS. From the first perspective, the fact that sources are either directly contradicted or completely ignored by the world's foremost expert on the topic (and by other well-respected academic scholars) makes them wholly WP:UNDUE to cite. They are written from a very specific POV and agenda (validating the Arabic & Islamic basis of Somali culture) which is directly exposed and rejected by expert scholars in the field. The second problem is independence. All of these writers (and that also includes #3 Dubbe Ali Yare and #4 Maxamed Cabdi Daud) have very strong vested interests in their subject matter, and are writing specifically to promote a certain cultural and political point of view rather than to treat a subject in a dispassionate and academic way. That means that from Wikipedia's point of view, they are not reliable.

As a last point, I should also say that for every individual author which you've discussed above, my criticism of them lacking WP:WEIGHT and WP:INDEPENDENCE may be incorrect. The way for you to show that would be to point us to established academic scholarly sources (such as Ioan Lewis, but of course other well-respected scholars would qualify too) that cite them approvingly (thus establishing that they have due weight), or to show us in some other way that they do in fact have academic credentials (which would establish their independence). However, please do note that having academic credentials neither means that university libraries hold their books, nor that they are covered in magazines or websites like Wikipedia, nor even that they have a PhD or a position at some university, but rather that they are widely cited by respected scholars, or that they have published in highly reputable scholarly journals and/or with university presses or other well-respected academic publishers.

In the mean time, I suggest that we base the article on Ioan Lewis' works. That would reduce them to a stub, but I suspect that from the perspective of established Wikipedia policies this subject is not a candidate for much more than a stub. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Apaugasma:,

I.M Lewis has been accused of being an orientalist so I would take anything he says with a pinch of salt when it comes to his history-related content. The point regarding the several published hagiologies does not encompass Ghurbani due to the fact that the manuscript was not published until turned into a print format in the 21st century after “Blood and Bone” was already authored by Lewis in 1994. His analysis and observation therefore is unfair to apply to Ghurbani. While I.M Lewis’ point regarding Somalis and a tendency to dramatize origins is fair, this does not account for Ghurbani, a non-Somali who had other Yemeni clans of Banu Hashim roots attesting to the veracity of his text regarding Sheikh Ishaaq. The manuscript has the seals and statements of several Yemeni sharifs/sayyids and even communication between Ghurbani and the Imam Yahya of Yemen. Ghurbani is not a member of the Ishaaq clan nor is he even Somali so it is an independent source.

In the work he cites several sheikhs that precede him by decades and in some cases centuries their apparent mentions of Sheikh Ishaaq, which I will work to find in the coming months as these texts are arduous to go over. Lewis took many important Somali authored manuscripts he came across in Somaliland back with him to Britain and there is even material regarding Sheikh Ishaaq but the Ghurbani text does not appear as one. There is a published compendium of Somali-written Arabic material gathered with most of the hagiologies above noted there by John Hunwick and Rex Sean. “The writings of the Muslim peoples of northeastern Africa, Part 1”. Lewis is mentioned several times as the holder/procurer of many poems and texts.

I’d like the early life, poetry and lineage sections to return under the label “attributed” and “attested” respectively as a fair compromise. If you’d like I will provide the attestations and seals as mentioned above those are credible which is where the credibility behind the attribution and attestation derive from.

Many thanks,

Dabaqabad (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean with your concerns about Ioan Lewis being an 'orientalist' in the sense coined by Edward Said (i.e., being prejudiced about non-Western cultures supposedly being inferior), but a great many 'orientalists' (in the primary and original sense of an expert in Oriental studies) have been accused of this, and mere suspicions and accusations are quite meaningless from Wikipedia's point of view. What counts here is that Lewis is the foremost expert in his field, is universally cited as such, and has received no criticism from other established experts. You'd have to be far more specific about 'has been accused' (by whom?) for us to question the reliability of such an expert. Rather, Lewis will be our primary point of reference.

Now what Lewis writes most definitely also applies to Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Ghurbānī. Seals and statements from Yemeni sayyids/sharifs, communication between al-Ghurbānī and Imam Yahya of Yemen, etc. etc., would count as primary sources for the 19th- and early 20th-century relations between certain factions in Yemeni and Somali society. As secondary sources about the ancestry of Sheikh Ishaq, they are utterly unreliable. In fact, they precisely show how non-independent al-Ghurbānī really was: the fact that he had communications with the Yemeni head of state makes it abundantly clear that there was something at stake for him in establishing the sayyid/sharif descendance of the Isaaq clan.

Moreover, the arduous work of going through the sheikhs cited by al-Ghurbānī would be a strong example of original research, which is in itself really great, but which is strictly prohibited here. Please don't do this, because your results won't be published here.

More generally, stop arguing that we should use what from Wikipedia's perspective are unreliable sources. Just take this as a rule: if your secondary source is cited and discussed by Lewis or equivalent sources, or if it cites and discusses Lewis' and other respectable scholars' views, it may be reliable. If not, it doesn't even make a chance, and it is better to not waste time in proposing it.

A good example of a source brought on by you that is eminently reliable is Rex Sean O'Fahey's Arabic Literature of Africa, Volume 3. The Writings of the Muslim Peoples of Northeastern Africa. Its entry on shaykh Isḥāq b. Aḥmad (as Brill would transliterate it) should be a great source for mentioning that he also wrote poetry, if indeed it does mention that (we would need page numbers!). Unfortunately, I don't have access to it.

As for restoring the removed sections, we could not do that based upon reliable sources. It won't be possible to do much more than mentioning that he wrote poetry (as well as the names of a few works), and that there have been claims in late sources of a descendance from Ali (per Lewis 1994 quoted above). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ioan Lewis’s view isn’t the only one. He just denies Sheikh Ishaq’s genealogy based on the assumption that because hawiye and other clans claim lineage to Arabia too that it is false. But he is merely lying and assuming, he isn’t even from Somalia or Yemen unlike the other sources that OP mentioned. The only people who believe him are Dir when they try to claim Sheikh Ishaq for themselves. Ismail7Hussein (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello @Apaugasma:,

On page 62 of Studi sulla letteratura agiografica islamica somala in lingua araba it states:

"Nella città etiopica lo šayḫ Imad al Din, maestro nelle scienze teologiche e mistiche, era in punto di morte: ai suoi discepoli che gli chiedevano di indicare un successore, lo šayḫ Imad al Din fece il nome di Isḥāq. Quest'ultimo, che già aveva avuto miracolosamente notizia di questa investitura, si recò ad Harar dove fu sancita la sua successione al maestro locale"

Translated, it means:

"In the Ethiopian city [Harar] the šayḫ Imad al Din, a master in the theological and mystical sciences, was on the verge of death: to his disciples who asked him to indicate a successor, the šayḫ Imad al Din mentioned the name of Isḥāq. The latter, who had already miraculously received news of this investiture, went to Harar where his succession to the local master was sanctioned."

With "šayḫ" meaning "Sheikh". Being a disciple of and then succeeding a scholar would mean being a scholar by default.

Hope that clarifies it.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dabaqabad! Thanks for putting up this quote here. There are two things here:

1. In Islamic mysticism, the title of shaykh is handed over from master to disciple, and refers to a mastery of mystic knowledge and exercise, not to any scholarly activity. An Islamic scholar is rather someone who has written works on the Islamic sciences, which does not seem to be the case for Ishaq ibn Ahmad (which would be surprising anyway, since he probably never existed).
2. This seems to be either a quote from a primary source, or a description by Gori 2003 of a primary source. It is not Gori 2003 (the secondary source that we need) stating in his own voice that Shaykh Ishaq was an Islamic scholar, or a mystic. We should never infer such things from (descriptions of) primary sources: this constitutes original research.

I will take this opportunity to note that I also have some doubts about your edit of 14 October. We are citing Gori 2003 for the sentence "Most Arabic hagiologies are in agreement when it comes to the lineage of Sheikh Ishaaq, tracing his lineage to Ali bin Abi Talib". Unfortunately, I don't have access to Gori 2003, but I would be most surprised if he wouldn't agree with Lewis in rejecting the authenticity of this lineage. If so, the way we are citing him right now would be misleading and WP:UNDUE. I'm leaving this note here on the talk page so other editors with access to Gori 2003 can check it, and perhaps one day when I have more time I will try to gain access to that source. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. You're right. His semi-legendary status certainly does not help either.

2. That is actually his words; he claims himself that two notable Arabic hagiographies that he quotes and that attribute this alleged lineage to Sheikh Ishaaq are "almost all the same". To quote the very page I cited:

"Tutte e due le fonti sono dunque concordi nel ricollegare lo sayh Ishaq alla discendenza di Husayn, secondo la linea dei 12 imam dello sciismo duodecimano, per tramite di un suo antenato di nome Yahya. Tra Ishaq e questo Yahya suo predecessore sono trascorse, sia per le Manaqib che per le Amgad 13 generazioni: anche i nomi dei singoli individui che separano Ishaq da Yahya sono quasi tutti gli stessi nelle due opere."

Translated it means:

"Both sources therefore agree in reconnecting the sayh Ishaq to the descendants of Husayn, according to the line of the 12 imams of Twelver Shiism, through his ancestor named Yahya. Between Ishaq and this Yahya, his predecessor, 13 generations have passed, both for the Manaqibs and for the Amgads: even the names of the individuals who separate Ishaq from Yahya are almost all the same in the two works."

Given the semi-legendary nature it would be a good idea for the language of the sentence you quoted to be slightly changed to reflect that, which I will do as well. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for those quotes on the agreement of the hagiologies (which –I'll merely repeat for a good understanding– are, for this purpose, primary sources: whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context; the fact that the reliable sources in this case are the ones who analyze them and are secondary to them, makes them primary) with regard to the lineage. However, it is not this (that Gori tells us that the primary sources agree on the lineage) that I doubted (and which I agree should be reflected in the text). It's rather that we are now saying that the primary sources agree on the lineage, citing Gori for that, and then follow that up by, "However, according to I.M. Lewis, etc.". But if Gori actually agrees with Lewis that the lineage is not likely to be genuine, that should rather be "However, according to scholars, etc." (and then we should also add a ref to Gori again at the end of that sentence, to the page where he expresses his view on this). Furthermore, in the following sentence, "which is covered by Alessandro Gori" again suggests that Gori himself somehow supports the historicity of that lineage: this should be "the lineage as given by the hagiologies is as follows" (or something along those lines).

On Wikipedia, explicitly attributing points of views to their authors in the main text is only done when, and signifies that, different scholars have different POVs on the question, but unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. I think the explicit attribution and wording in our article does make it appear contested, which should not be the case if Gori and Lewis (and other major scholars) agree (remember, it is only their POVs which matter, not the ones of the hagiologies themselves). But this is all, perhaps, a minor point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Arab/somali

Hi guys, this is merely a misinformation to anyone who's searching somaliland, somalis in Somaliland are not arabs 197.231.201.226 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)