Talk:Banu Qasi

Unjustified move

It's evident that Banu Qasi is a much simpler and self-evident title than "House of Banu Qasi". Please, whoever who moved it, read WP:NAME.

I'm moving back. --Sugaar (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest serial edits in this (and other) edits

Do make your point here in order to clarify what your concerns are. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any proof of the origins of the Banu Qasi filiation; in fact, the real existence of the Count Casio is doubtful. Putting policial biased labels doesn´t fit with the Wikipedia principles.188.78.131.18 (talk)— 188.78.131.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with 188.78.131. Count Casio is only mentioned three times besides the mention by Ibn Hazm and aways indirectly. No where does it say that he or his descendants were Basque. Suggested reading: work by Jesús Lorenzo Jiménez,Algunas consideraciones acerca del conde Casio available online. --Maragm (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue the IP editor (serial violation of WP guidelines and policies in this and other articles by now, starting single purpose editing) has added above is not only whether he was Basque or not, which I can agree there is no certainty here, so that we could even agree. The problem here as in other articles, s/he is bulldozing very debatable POVs with no consensus building, etc. as he has been warned. As regards the edits, 188.78.131.18 has not added any reference as he is parroting I should add myself, well be coherent. For a start, what we can say is Cassius may have been a Hispano-Roman according to embellished later accounts and narratives aimed at enhancing their status. Please add verifiability.

Secondly, there was no Spain at that time, thanks for adding accuracy, not info that may confuse the reader. Basques of Pamplona is right, get over it, keep it constructive and stop denying any matters Basque. Stop removing categories, contravening WP guidelines, anyone is entitled to. Furthermore, some members of the lineage do have Basque related names and had synergies with attested Basques of Pamplona. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, don´t be false. You are trying to add biased data without references information and vandalizing every article. There is not any proof of the origins of the Banu Qasi filiation. So, it is utterly illegitimate stating that the Banu Qasi were "Basque" (all the more, since the proper existence of the Count Casio is doubtful).188.78.129.62 (talk) — 188.78.129.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping your accusatory language. You have been warned and blocked once by now. I explained my point by now. Thanks for adding the references you have for the changes you made, or add consensual wording that suits the current state of research, and let's move on. I will add my references when I get round to, you are consuming too much of my time by now, I have other fish to fry. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Problematic text

The 'First rise to prominence' section has the following, "Évariste Lévi-Provençal in 1990 was the first to say that . . . ." Lévi-Provençal died in 1956. I am not sure what the origin of the mistake is, but as it reads the text is obviously erroneous. 50.37.106.79 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Autonym/official name?

Is it known what this kingdom called itself, its official name?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 15:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The term 'Third King of Hispania' was being used metaphorically. Technically, when called this Musa ibn Musa's title was Governor of the Upper March, a frontier buffer region set up to protect the Emirate from the Franks, under a weak Emir at Cordoba. He became so powerful and autonomous that they called him that, but it only took one big defeat for the Emir to regain the upper hand and depose him from the governorship, and force the family into eclipse. Over most of the period they held the formal title Wāli (administrator) of Huesca, which was one of several subdivisions of the Upper March centered on that town, but at various times they also controlled Zaragoza, Tudela, Lleida and even Toledo, which was the main city in the Middle March. There was never a 'kingdom', per se. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Agricolae:, that is very intriguing. Do you recommend any books where I can read more about this state, or even Visigoths converting to Islam in general? Also given your info, do you think the infobox needs revision? Is there any autonym that can be assigned to this state, or is Banu Qasi sufficient in its dynastic designation?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the name for the state is that it wasn't really a state at all. Think about something like Normandy under the early Capetians. Depending on the vicissitudes of the royal family and the ducal family, they could act either as an all-but independent entity, or they could be under the thumb of the crown. In this case it is even more extreme, because their technical title as governor of the Upper March, was appointed, and any time the Emir thought the governor was getting too strong, and when the Emir was strong enough, he would try to revoke the title and give it to a competing family. Amid this, though, the individual families on the Upper March had their own power bases, usually being the predominant family of one of the coras, and no matter how much else they lost, they would retain this core state (or really, estate). It is anachronistic to even talk about the Banu Qasi having a state, yet there has been a tradition among historians of referring to it as such. This all went away upon his death. All but one of the coras were given to other families, and after his sons rose back to prominence, each ruled a different cora and they acted sometimes as allies, but sometimes as competitors, and the same applied to the other families on the March, the Banu Amrus/Banu Shabrit and the Banu Tujibi. So, do you call it a state when it was really just one man's accumulation of extreme power? You get to the 10th century and the King of Pamplona to the north and the Emir to the south take turns swatting them aside, while the different branches of the family fight each other for the remnants. The date given for the 'end' is just when the last of them was ambushed and killed, but any resemblance to a state was long a thing of the past. Anyhow, the best work on the Banu Qasi would be Lorenzo Jiménez book cited here, or if you want a shorter read, the article by Cañada Juste. I don't know anything in English that does more than mention the family in passing. I don't know of a good study on conversion, which really involves two totally distinct subjects - the actual conversion of the Visigoths, vs. the traditions of the Iberian Muslims about their ancestors' conversion, the two being quite different. Agricolae (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

An "Arab" dynasty?

In the very first description reads "Arab", although the Casius family surely are Visigothic or Roman, namely a "Muwallad" lineage. As they seem to have converted to Islam quite early, a "Muslim" dynasty may also be acceptable. Being a non-native English speaker, I would rather suggest this problem and leave it to you out there. Adachika192 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the recent edition 21:20, 15 November 2022‎ by Amr.elmowaled is a kind of response to my suggestion above. The aim is good, but I could hardly agree with the description 'native Andalusian' (which is baldly linked to 'Muladi'). How about 'local', 'indigenous' or 'Visigothic or Roman' ? Adachika192 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they were ‘roman’ or just ‘visigothic dynasty’ since they belonged to al-andalus (muslim identity of iberia) not hispania (roman identity of iberia), both will mislead the reader and make them think that banu qasi were on the side of the christian kingdoms

I have no problem with using the words local or indigenous but certainly “andalusian” should come after them in order to be specific because they were part of al-andalus not hispania Amr.elmowaled (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

1) 'Andalusian' means, for the ordinary Wikipedia readers, 'of the present-day Andalusia', the area quite different to the Banu Qasi 'kingdom'. Beware the sentence appears at the very introductory part. It is simply misleading.

2) On the other hand I understand your critical view to the description 'Visigothic or Roman' (my suggestion is to employ both). How about 'a dynasty with V or R origin' ?

3) The link to the page 'Muladi' is fine and I would like to keep it somehow. Adachika192 (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Since its origin is described as "Hispano-Roman or Visigothic" at the beginning of the first section 'Dynastic beginnings', I deleted the word "Andalusian" and left "Muladi" with a short explanation "local convert" parenthesized. Best Regards Adachika192 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)