Talk:Quda'a

Qudaa and Yaman

@ImTheIP: To answer the question left in the edit summary, the Quda'a and the Yaman are not the same. The Quda'a, particularly the Banu Kalb, was a major or the major component of the Yaman in Syria and the Syrian army. The Yaman was formed, most likely after Marj Rahit (684) by an alliance between the Quda'a, the Qahtan (Himyar and Hamdan) tribes of Hims which had opposed the Umayyads at Marj Rahit, the Judham of Palestine which had also opposed the Umayyads at Marj Rahit, and the south Arabian tribes allied with the Umayyads at Marj Rahit, such as the Kindah, Ghassan, Tayy, others. Before the formation of the Yaman confederation, the Quda'a most likely were considered part of the north Arabian group of Ma'add until they changed their genealogy to a south Arabian one for political reasons. The alliance was formed in opposition to the Qaysi tribes of Syria and the Jazira. They were later allied with the Taghlib of the Jazira, who formed part of the Rabi'a group (not the Yaman). In Iraq and Khurasan, the Yaman was mainly represented by the Azd and they were allied with the Rabi'a (there represented by the Banu Bakr, the Ijl, others) against the Mudar, mainly represented by the Tamim and the various Qaysi tribes. Probably the most informative source about all of this is: Crone, Patricia (1994). "Were the Qays and Yemen of the Umayyad Period Political Parties?". Der Islam. 71 (1). Walter de Gruyter and Co.: 1–57. doi:10.1515/islm.1994.71.1.1. ISSN 0021-1818. S2CID 154370527.

--Al Ameer (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Abdulalw: These edits are not an improvement. The article already deals with the confederation’s supposed (and semi-legendary) ancestral affiliations adequately: the tribe was likely affiliated with the Maadd in either the pre-Islamic or very early Islamic period and switched to “Himyar” for political reasons during the Second Fitna, forming the “Yaman” alliance with the genuinely South Arabian tribes. Family tree websites are not reliable sources and cannot be used and the other Arabic offline source you introduced may or may not be reliable, but is not verifiable and in any case does not serve as the “ace in the hole” that negates all previous debate by the medieval scholars and modern historians over the centuries. The unsourced flag is nonsense and this tribal group and its varying components would have used different banners throughout the centuries as well. Lastly, you continue to refer to yourself as a member of this tribe, which is fine, but Wikipedia does not give you added credibility for that. If you intend to contribute further to this project, please familiarize yourself with our policies about original research and reliable sources. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Genetic test are serious evidence of means to tell a lineage when people can make a lineage map out of it. It serves of adding factual information and not only it clears what's right and wrong but also confirms genalogical and historical sources who provided it in the past. Going against it means it's against a new found evidence to support a claim to someone's lineage and tribe and negligence of this fact is also against historical sources who claim certain lineage of other's people tribes. It is undeniable that Adnanites, including Quda'ah, are on J-L222.2 while Qahtanites are on BY8. In fact, i send you an several images to prove this claim.

Now, talking about from historical perspective, the list of linking Quda'ah to Ma'add is significantly larger, stronger, and has been accepted unanimously that Quda'ah belongs to Ma'add in pre-Islamic times. In fact, Ma'add's Kunya was called Abu Quda'ah because he is his first son. And as stated as hadits ; هشام بن عروة، عن عائشة، إنها قالت: سمعت رسول الله، ﷺ، يقول: قضاعة من معد، كان بكر ولَدَه وأكبرهم، وبه كان يكنى.

(Translation: It was narrated from hadith of Hisham ibn Urwah, from Aishah, that she said: I heard the messenger of Allah SWT say: "Quda'ah is from Ma'add; he was the eldest of his children and the greatest among them, and he was nicknamed by him."). I can stated more sources about this. The only way you have issue with i said here is if you come from the same tribe as me and can't handle the fact that Quda'ah doesn't belong to Himyar but rather Ma'add and you have personal agenda with this. Alliance doesn't mean shared the same lineage. Genetic just corrected this and give legtimacy what's right and wrong on historical sources. Otherwise, you have to explain to me how my ancestral lineage comes from Hejaz in pre-Islamic times, and proven so genetically through my Y-dna (and thousands of others), and move to South as time goes by and match the claim of the tribe's belonging. There's literally complain about you from many people that control Quda'ah wikipedia page has personal agenda both in English and Arabic. ~2026-65342 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

And talking about the flag, The flag was desingned by someone who has created many Arab tribes flag in North Africa. His design has printed and widely used amongst many Arabs in North Africa. And me and him are the one who design it with the approval of people who belongs to Quda'ah bin Ma'add tribe. A lot of people who are on this project are belong to Quda'ah tribe with long and clear lineage. You can check this further this on X @FGC8812. And there's no excuse for not allowing to used this flag when Banu Tamim in Arabic wikipedia page are allowed to use their contemporary flag. ~2026-65342 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I recommend you actually review Wikipedia policies, in particular original research and reliable sources.

This article is about an ancient tribal confederation which consisted of several tribes, related or not. While always room for improvement, the article adequately deals with the medieval debate and the tribal politics regarding its supposed belonging to the Ma’add and/or Himyar. The article makes clear that Quda’a had been affiliated with Ma’add and for political reasons ‘switched’ its lineage to Himyar, eliciting a lasting controversy among genealogists. So, yes Quda’a were ‘originally’ Ma’add, but claimed to be Himyar (and should be noted these were semi-mythical origins to begin with). A modern DNA study does not change these medieval political stances, not to mention that such a study is of extremely limited use for determining the precise ancestry of a massive, millenia-old confederation of diverse composition, even if some vestiges of this confederation or its sub-tribes exist today. With that said, if the genetic studies source is actually reliable, per English Wikipedia’s standards, and verifiable, then no issue in adding this perspective somewhere in the article. The modern family tree websites are not admissible. And the user-generated flag (that you say is your own creation) is not admissible either (see wp:flag). What goes in Arabic Wikipedia, does not necessarily pass here and we do not allow policy violations because such violations exists elsewhere. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Once again, not presenting genetic result of this tribe is dishonest when the Arabic wikipedia page on the "Genetic testing" section claims of "Quda'ah bin Himyar" on it's wording when the the genetic subclade is J-L222.2, an Adnanite one, and it isn't even clearly reiterated. Not to mention, Quda'ah sub-tribes such as Nahd, Juhayna, Bali, Udhra, Kalb, and Tanukh are on J-FGC8812 and part of J-L222.2. Again, it shows clear biasness on the page is clear no matter how you frame this or deny it, that fact is clear, unfortunately. Furthermore, the genetic test IS reliable when the company itself is one of the biggest in the field and have done test (and transparant on their results) for Al Saud, descendants of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab (Whose from Bani Tamim), Hashemite of Jordan, etc has been published for the public to see. Please do check it yourself to FamilyTreeDNA company. A reminder, my edit doesn't delete one single sentence of previous edit, but rather adding further information and FACTS. My edit doesnt abolish the claim to Himyar in early Islamic times for political reasons but rather, it gives undeniable evidence that the correct lineage of Quda'ah belongs to Ma'add. And that information shouldn't be withold by any circumstances. A new and factual information is still a fact no matter how you perceived it and it deserves to be told because facts don't care about anyone's feelings.

For medieval sources and beyond, i can even give almost 150 sources (Credit goes to Quda'ah bin Ma'add telegram group for consistently publishing these sources) tying Quda'ah to Ma'add in both Arabic and English sources. Such as;

1. قال ابن خَلْدون الحَضْرَمِيّ: في كُتُبِ الحُكَماءِ الأَقدَمِينَ مِنْ يونان؛ مِثلَ بطليموس، وهروشيوش، ‌ذِكرُ ‌القُضاعِيِّينَ والخَبَرُ عن حُروبِهِم، فلا يُعلَم: أَهُم أوائلُ قُضاعَةَ هؤلاءِ وأَسلافِهِم أو غَيرُهُم؟ ورُبَّما يَشهَدُ لِلقَولِ بأنهُم مِنْ عدنان: أنَّ بِلادَهُم لا تَتَّصِلُ بِبِلادِ اليَمَن، وإنَّما هيَ بِبِلادِ الشّامِ وبِلادِ بني عدنان. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ - العِبَر، ودِيوانُ المُبْتَدَأِ والخَبَر، في تاريخِ العَرَبِ والبَربَر، ومَنْ عاصَرَهُم مِنْ ذَوِي الشّأنِ الأكبَر، تـ سهيل زكار، طـ دار الفكر: (جـ٢ صـ290). (Ibn Khaldun al-Hadhrami said: In the books of earlier sages from the Greeks, such as Ptolemy and Hero of Alexandria, mention is made of Quda'is and reports of their wars, so it is not known: Are they the ancestors of this Quda'ah or their forebears, or others? And it may bear witness to the claim that they are from Adnan that their lands do not connect to the lands of Yemen, but rather they are in the lands of the Sham and the lands of Banu Adnan. Source: Al-Ibar, wa-Diwan al-Mubtada wa-l Khabar, fi Tarikh al-Arab wa-l Barbar, wa-man asarahum min Dhawi al-Sha'n al-Akbar, ed. Suhayl Zakkar, Dar al-Fikr edition: (vol. 2, p. 290))
2. قُضَاعة مَعَدية لا قحطانية ❒- قال الشرقي بن القطامي: «‌لم ‌تَزَل ‌قُضاعَةُ على نَسَبِها في مَعَدٍّ في الجاهِليَّةِ وأَوَّلِ الإسلام، إلى أنْ أَحدَثَت حِلْفًا بينَها وبينَ أهلِ اليمنِ أيامِ ابنِ الزبير وبني مروان؛ وذلكَ في غاراتِ عُمَيْر بن الحُباب السّلمِيِّ على كَلْبٍ وغاراتِ حُمَيْد بن حُرَيْث بن بَجدَل الكلبيِّ على فَزارَة، فلم تَزَلْ كَلْبٌ واليمنُ يَشُدّونَ ذلكَ الحِلْف» اهـ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ - الإنباه على قبائل الرواة: (صـ32). (Qudha'ah a Ma'addite and not Qahtanite lineage ❒- Al-Sharqi b. al-Qutami said: “Qudha‘ah has remained on its lineage in Ma‘add throughout the pre-Islamic era and the early days of Islam, until they formed an alliance between themselves and the people of Yemen during the time of Ibn al-Zubayr and the Banu Marwan; and that was during the raids of ‘Umair b. al-Hubab al-Sulami on Kalb and the raids of Humayd b. Hurayth b. Bajdal al-Kalbi on Fazarah. Thus, Kalb and Yemen continued to uphold that alliance” [end of quote]. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ - Alert on the tribes of the narrators: (p. 32).)
3. قال أبو عبد الله المصعب بن عبد الله بن ثابت بن عبد الله بن الزبير القرشي: «وقد انتَسَبَ قُضاعَةُ إلى حِمْيَر، فقالوا: "قُضاعَةُ بنُ مالكِ بنِ حِمْيَرِ بنِ سَبَأ"، وأُمّه: عُكْبُرَة، امرأةُ مِنْ سَبَأٍ خَلَفَ عليها مَعَدّ؛ فوَلَدَت قُضاعَةَ على فِراشِ مَعَدّ. - وزَوَّرُوا في ذلكَ شِعرًا، فقالوا: يا أَيُّها الدّاعِي ادعُنَا وَأَبْشِرِ .. .. وَكُنْ قُضاعِيًّا وَلا تَنَزَّرِ قُضاعَةُ بنُ مالكِ بنِ حِمْيَرِ .. النَّسَبُ المَعروفُ غَيرُ المُنْكَرِ وأشعارُ قُضاعَةَ في الجاهِليَّةِ وبعدَ الجاهِليَّةِ ‌تَدُلُّ ‌على ‌أنَّ ‌نَسَبَهُم ‌في ‌مَعَدّ» اهـ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ - نسب قريش، طـ المعارف: (صـ5). (❒- Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Mus‘ab b. ‘Abd Allah b. Thabit b. ‘Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr al-Qurashi said: “Qudha‘ah has claimed descent from Himyar, saying: ‘Qudha‘ah, son of Malik b. Himyar b. Saba’,’ and their mother was ‘Ukbrat, a woman from Saba’ whom Ma‘add later married; so she bore Qudha‘ah on Ma‘add’s bed. - And they fabricated poetry in that regard, saying: O caller, call us and give glad tidings .. .. And be a Qudha‘i and do not hesitate Qudha‘ah, son of Malik b. Himyar .. The well-known lineage, not the denied one And the poetry of Qudha‘ah from the pre-Islamic era and after it indicates that their lineage is in Ma‘add” [end of quote]. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ - Nasab Quraysh, Dar al-Ma‘arif edition: (p. 5).)
4. The Bili tribe, mentioned by Burckhardt, appears likewise to bear evidence of descent from Adhbeël. According to native tradition, they are Ishmaëlites from the stock of Kuzá'ah the son of Ma'add, the son of Adnân, the son of Ishmau'-ël (Genesis Elucidated: A New Translation, from the Hebrew Compared with the Samaritan Text and the Septuagint and Syriac Versions, with Notes by Sir John Jervis and White Jervis)

Quda'ah bin Ma'add Y-DNA samples from Theytree, A Chinese Company. Abdulalw (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

48 hours of no response btw. I'll give you 24 hours to reply. Otherwise, i'm gonna change it back. Abdulalw (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not how things work here. You need to gain consensus for disputed changes. What you presented above is meaningless: the information in the article already agrees that this tribal confederation had been previously affiliated with Ma’add then switched to Himyar for political expedience. Unlike the primary sources you listed above, the sources used to support the article currently are modern, secondary, scholarly sources. This article is about an ancient/medieval group that hasn’t been active as a confederation for over 1,000 years and all these supra-ancestries (whether to Adnan or Qahtan) are mythical, semi-legendary claims at best in any case, so I’m not sure what value a modern DNA study has here—seems like irrelevant quack science. And the family tree websites you presented are not admissible at all. You are trying to impose a singular viewpoint on the article by changing the infobox with poor sourcing—but that’s not how it works (maybe on a blog or something similar but not here). There is nothing more to discuss. —Al Ameer (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm curious about what you're about to say but i didn't expect to be downright abysmal but i'll refute your points, again.

1. "What you presented above is meaningless: the information in the article already agrees that this tribal confederation had been previously affiliated with Ma’add then switched to Himyar for political expedience." You just recycle your point like it's something i refuted. Nobody is denying this at all if you even bother to pay close attention to what i said and edited. I didn't change anything, including information in this regard, EXCEPT adding another information. Again, if you don't like a "newfound" facts and mask it as "Wikipedia policy and regulation" , It isn't my issue but yours. It becomes my problem when you keep deleting the information just because you don't like the facts.
2. "Unlike the primary sources you listed above, the sources used to support the article currently are modern, secondary, scholarly sources." I can also provide secondary sources for my claim as well but that's not point because the difference between what i added and what's before that isn't about that. Sources such as Robert G. Hoyland's "Arabia and the Arabs: From Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam", M.J. Kister's "The Encyclopaedia of Islam", and even Sarah Bowen Savant & Helena de Felipe's "Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past" can proof my claim that Quda'ah has always been known from Ma'add and was change to Qahtan for political reason and social legitimacy rather than actual lineage. But the fact is, the lineage is still the same and still goes to Ma'add and genetic proof this. Which is your main problem to what i edited.
3. "so I’m not sure what value a modern DNA study has here—seems like irrelevant quack science." Well, this just proves what i said about your bias and ignorance even further isn't it? Can't even bothered to do basic level research about DNA but making assumption about it anyway. If you can't even bothered find a connection of how genetic, genealogy, and history are intertwined in symphony, and in this context of Arab tribal connection, then nothing is going to help you because of your personal bias gets in the way.
4. "You are trying to impose a singular viewpoint on the article by changing the infobox with poor sourcing" Well, look who's talking here? Trying to blame me when you can't accept a "new" and factual information when you're passed an inaccurate information in Arabic version this Wiki is something else. Several person already know about your bias take but masked it as something else and you blocked a few of them already. It's fine and i don't take it personal. But i know you do.

I know you're going to blocked me, which i know is something you like to do often. Whether it's from me or someone else, Quda'ah bin Ma'add will be come to light as the correct lineage and unanimously agreed as the truth of this tribe. It will be imprinted fully on this Wikipedia page and pass all your "modern, secondary, and scholarly sources" and Wikipedia rules and regulations as time goes by. It might not happen today, but it will be tomorrow because it is the fact. And your personal bias won't save you from it. This is the last time i'll reply on this matter. Best wishes. Abdulalw (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record, these are the changes you introduced, which I deemed problematic and reverted:

1. Adding "Bani" to "Quda'a". Neither "Bani" nor "Banu" are commonly used in the English sources when referring to this tribe.
2. Revising the "Type" parameter in the infobox from "Ma'addite / Himyarite", which reflects the historical complexity of the subject as articulated in the article, with "Ma'addite / Adnanite / Ishmaelite". I'm not opposed to scrapping the parameter altogether since it's of limited value, but you cannot remove "Himyarite" and keep "Ma'addite", disregarding the historical debate. Further, Adnanite and Ishmaelite are rarely used when describing the Quda'a, and in any case are redundant with "Ma'addite", as far as traditional Arab geneaology is concerned.
3. Adding a flag you or your friend(s) created. Our policies, which you seem to scoff at, do not allow for such user-generated flags especially where the flag/banner would have changed over time.
4. Using family tree websites , which are not reliable sources, particularly for application in an article about a medieval tribal group that has not been active for a millenium and when the subject itself is characterized as much by actual patrlineal descent as it is mythology and politics. Worth keeping in mind that over centuries tribes merged, split up, dissipated, assimilated, switched allegiances and ancestors too, so pinpointing a tribe's lineage to one ancient semi-legendary ancestor is quite a stretch for a modern-day genealogist or scholar, including the Ghaythan bin Jaris you cited (found nothing about him in English sources and you provided no links for verification.

I have no personal bias regarding the "correct" lineage of this or any other tribal group. It's laughable to even suggest it, as you have throughout this discussion and in your edit summaries. You were only reported for edit warring after five reverts over a two-day period. You will not be blocked if you do not engage in violations like edit warring or casting personal aspertions. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)