Talk:Ghassanids

Ghassanid families today

Can someone please verify the families mentioned as Ghassanid? Skatewalk 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Levant based on our oral traditions & family trees we are the Ghassanids the Great Grandsons of King Solomon & Queen Sheba (Balkis Queen of the Sabeans):

In the city of Al Karak in Jordan, some tribes are descendants of the Ghassanids. These tribes are the Suheimat, Dmour, Adaileh, Imbaydeen, Bawaleez, Karakieen, Soub. These families are now known as the Ghassasinah, they live in Karak. They have formed a single tribe called the "Al-Ghassasinah" which is considered the largest tribe in the city of Karak.

Many Christian families of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine trace their roots to the Ghassanid dynasty, including Abla, Abou Haidar, Al Ashkar, Al-Khazen, Al-Zoghbi, Aranki, Atiyah, Ayoub, Ammari, Aridah, Azar, Babun, Batarseh, Barsa, Barakat, Baqaeen, Bayouth, Bisharat, Chakar, Chalhoub, Dibh, Fares, Farah, Farhat, Farhoud, Gharios, Ghanem, Ghanma, Ghannoum, Gholmia, Ghulmiyyah, Habib, Hazboun, Hanna, Hamra, Howayek, Haddad, Hattar, Haddadin, Hbeish, Hellou, Hilweh, Ishaq, Jabara (Jebara or Gebara, Gibara), Kakish, Kandil, Karadsheh, Kawar, Khazens, Khoury, Lahd, Maalouf, Madi, Madanat, Makhlouf, Matar, Moghabghab, Mokdad, Musharbash, Nasir, Nawfal (of Tripoli), Nayfeh, Naber, Nimri, Obeid, Oweis, Rached, Rafeedie/Rafidi, Rahhal, Rebeiz/Rbeiz/Rubeiz, Saab, saad,Saah, Salama, Saliba, Samara, Sawalha, Samawi, Sarkis,Sayegh,Saig, Shammas, Sharabsheh, Sheiks Chemor, Semaan (of Kaftoun), Sfeir, Smeirat, Sweiss, Sweidan, Tyan and Youssef. The religious backgrounds of these families tend to be either Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic and Maronite Catholic, despite the Ghassanids' initial affiliation to Non-Chalcedonian Syriac Orthodox Christianity. They are identified by being Christian families with South Arabian names.

One of the seven clans of Bethlehem and the largest by number of families, al-Farahiyya, are also descendants of the Ghassanids, with Farah having emigrated from the wadi musa in the early sixth century. Another clan is the al-najajreh, who were not ghassanids, but very closely related, being from the ancient yemeni city of Najran.

In an Arabic article by the historian Habib Gamati, in al-Mossawer Magazine, Dar al-Hilal, Cairo, Egypt, dated February 19, 1954, and titled: "Tarikh Ma Ahmalahu Al-Tarikh Fi Galaat Al-Showbak"/"History Of What Was Abandoned By History At The Fortres Of Showbak [south Jordan]", it is affirmed the Rihani/Rayahin family is a Ghassanid clan or tribe. This is in contrast to what Frederick G. Peake writes in his book "A History Of Jordan And Its Tribes", Coral Cables, 1958, who inaccurately refers to the Rihani's as crusader settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.244.184 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

None of your claims are backed by anything but oral tradition. In fact, highly questionable oral tradition. It is highly unlikely that only Christian families descend from the Ghassanids, and that the families/tribes you listed are descended solely from Ghassanids over a millennium in the past. Your claims seem more Christian Arab political propaganda than historical facts. I have removed the entire section listing the tribes; all future repostings will also be deleted pending provision of reliable sources. SaSH172 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the above comment is correct, it is mostly by oral tradition. However, some families in the list can trace the movements of their families in a way that correlates with the areas in which the Ghassanids where known to have ruled. For example, some families from the cities of Salt and Madaba in Jordan have lived for long times in the Mountain of Houran, named after the last Ghassanid King. Given this and the fact that they are Christian appears to somewhat give some credibility to the claim, although of course it is not a proof.

Recognition

Statement: Some of the claims to contemporary recognition, particularly of the alleged head of the family, are not what they seem. The last sentence, "2019 was recognized as such by the government of Lebanon by Presidential decree 5,800/2019", for instance, is not correct. The government recognised an NGO, nothing more.

Response: It is a matter of corporate and international law. All dynastic orders are registered NGOs to have legal standing, including the Order of St John in England, and even those in Spain under the Monarchy. Malta has sovereignty by convention, however, is also an IGO with the United Nations and relates as such with other nation-states. If one were to make inquiries to all non-ruling dynastic houses, one would find their house orders are all registered as a foundation or an association in the civil legal system of the kingdom or republic. Even being under the patronage of His Majesty the King, they don’t have a different legal status as a juridical personality. In other words, non-ruling Royal Houses and Orders of Chivalry have to be incorporated as regular associations/foundations to “exist” in the domestic law. For example, see the article from Spain: https://monarquia.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/la_nobleza/Santa-Santiago-Calatrava-Montesa-Alcantara/20121019030000009046.amp.html

For the claimant for the House of Ghassan, all official documentation between the government and the family uses the royal forms of address, and the other Arab monarchies, like Jordan, as well as Israel, do likewise. In 2023, Princeton University invited Prince Gharios El Chemor to speak at the event “The Future of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Towards a Global Consensus that the UDHR Embodies a Civilizational Vision that the World’s Diverse Peoples, Faiths, and Nations Should Strive to Fulfill – An International Consultation among Senior Religious and Academic Leaders” at the prestigious Princeton University, sponsored by the James Madison Program of the Princeton University. The high-level event gathered only religious and academic leaders debating contemporary challenges while commemorating the 75th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The event was part of the G20 Religious Forum (R20). It was promoted by the Nahdltual Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim organization, the Center for Shared Civilizational Values. https://www.awazthevoice.in/india-news/haji-syed-salman-chishty-joins-spiritual-and-academic-gathering-with-global-leaders-25971.html https://civilizationalvalues.org/2023_12_17_real-clear-politics/

Refer also to the Maronite Church in Lebanon which has kept the history of the family, especially during the Ottman occupation. The Maronite Church recognizes the family. The Ghassanid Gharios branch was in the mountains as practicing, and protesting Christians, until forced to leave. Contact The Most Reverend Payl Mattar, Maronite Archbishop of Beirut, as well as Professor Dr. Abbot Antoine Daou, one of the top modern Maronite historians. See book by Father Ignatios Tannos El Khoury, “Sheikhs El Chemor rulers of Akoura (1211-1633) and rulers of Zgharta-Zawyie (1641-1747)” (1948) and https://royalheraldsite.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/affidavit-professor-dr-antoine-daou.pdf

Aramco

from the Aramco article. It seems there are a lot of questions about these Ghassanids- more questions than answers.:

Yet even for that dimly-illuminated, legend-enshrouded age, literary sources, when used judiciously and with extreme care, can shed light on a few key figures—such as al-Harith ibn Jabala of the Ghassan tribal confederation. [....] Scholars admit, however, that *any attempt to reconstruct Ghassanid history rests on exceedingly shaky ground until we reach the year 529,* when al-Harith ibn Jabala succeeded his father as head of the Bani Ghassan tribal confederation. [....] For the historian, perhaps the most frustrating problem in studying the Ghassanids is the relative lateness of the Arabic sources. [....] Coupled with the obvious fact that poets everywhere are creative artists and not academic historians, this makes it almost impossible for modern scholars to extract reliable historical data from the polished lyrics of the pre-Islamic bards. [....] The key Arab and Persian historians wrote long after Ghassan had ceased to exist, and though each used all written and oral sources available, their results sometimes *differ radically*. [....] Unfortunately, little is known about Ghassanid society, in al-Harith's time, or for that matter, in any other time, since most of the clans and tribes were nomadic, with no permanent capital other than an encampment at Jabiya, south of Damascus.

Palestine?

Is this page a propaganda page meant to assert the Arab authority over Palestine??? Juanita 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why makes you say that? Tewfik^Talk 00:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Faulty links

I removed links in the last paragraph that are related to families since none of them actually links to where it is supposed to (one took me to a city in Cuba and another to a prominent Saudi Businessman!). Please do no put the [[ ]] just anywhere.

yemenites arent arabs! Michael 23:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Yuber^(talk) 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

lol yemenites are considered 'pure' arabs (qahtanite) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.69.64 (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@68.232.69.64 That's a medieval legend. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Improper lead sentence

This sentence should not be re-added without a reliable source that explicitly backs up the claim:

...and the Holy Land where they intermarried with Hellenized Roman settlers and Greek-speaking Early Christian communities.

Otherwise, WP:V allows it to be removed. Moreover, a sentence in the lead is supposed to summarize stuff that comes later in the article (WP:LEAD), but this fact about intermarriage just seems to come out of the blue. If a source can be found, then I still think it should be moved into the body of the article. nadav (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghassanids and Islam

Didn't the vast majority of Ghassanids later convert to Islam. So why does the article seem to focus on Christian families as being the only Ghassanids today? And I am deleting that section since it clearly contradicts with what is earlier in the text, and is completely unsources. I also had the chance to phone a couple of elders from the Hawayek family who disagreed with the Ghassanid conotation. One denied they are an "Arab" family (instead prefering "Phonecian"). If this is related to Ghassanid Christianity, please put in a seperate religious section as opposed to one of the Arab civilisation. Otherwise bring valid sources. Pink Princess (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people that state themselves as Phoenician are Lebanese Maronites.

I AM A DESENDANT OF SOUTHERN HURAN SYRIAN ORTHADOX HERITAGE CURRENTLY LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, I CAN RELATE TO THIS TOPIC BECUASE I WAS TOLD MANY STORYS BY ALL PAST AND PRESENT ANCESTORS THAT WE WERE OF THE TRIBE CALLED GHASSANIDS BEFORE THE INTERNET WAS IN EXISITANCE.. AND WAS TOLD MANY STORYS THAT WAS PASSED DOWN IN TIME WHICH I CAN RELATE TO IN THIS TOPIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.1.250 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is good, but how does that relate in any way to my point? Is there any proof that any of that ridiculously long list of Syrian and Lebanese families decend from Ghassanid families. There are no sources whatsoever, and the two elders I spoken to disagree with that label - one barely understood what Ghassanids were. If it is based on an oral source, then it is automatically disputed right here, if there is written, sourced proof, then could you kindly bring it. Also don't write in capitals, that platform of writing usually connotates you shouting, which makes you out to be more of an angry teen troll than a valid contributor. I am removing the section yet again, and will keep doing so until you provide valid proof for that claim past what seems most like historic revisionism aimed at reinforcing the Arab pride of those particular families. I am Arab myself, and I greatly respect our great civilisations like the Ghassanids and all their greatness. However, it is insulting to our history to copy those idiot Persian and Assyrian Nationalists by making such ludacris claims and claiming the entirity of the greatness of the Ghassanids just for a few families based on tribalism or religious sectarianism. We are better than that and the Ghassanid's memory should not be disrepected like so. Sallam Akhi. SaSH (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that my capital letters implicated shouting, that wasnt my intent. Although, I can assure you that these stories passed down the chain of history are true, well for my genealogy in particular. I can't vouch for other families names because it was wasn't in my interest to do so as I never asked/told. As for written evidence, my great grandfather and grandfather were very much traditional, there only means of communication were via verbal communication passed down from generation to generation. To give you a insite, my father and his siblings were the first to live out side of houran, in particular Mouarbi. So there was any fisical hard copy of family records "evidence". But I am not here to change or gain any historical articles but I am here to share my knowledge of histriy with the world that was pasted down to me, which I give credit to the organization Wikipedia for allow us to do so.

My history as per my knowleged goes as follows;

- my surname is Shdid, meaning strong, tough or tight - we are from roman and greek descendants that migrated to Syria, houran - we are Orthadox till this day. And many of our distance relatives likewise, - majority of our tribe ( ghassanids) deflected the Islamic crusade. - we were called tribe ghassan - most of the shdid family migrated between Lebanon and Syria during season of drought and poverty. And we disbursed amongst near by contries, some passing away during the journey.

This story was repeated by a few people one of whom was samara from houran, isra and a senior Abou-shdid of no relation to my self that told Me the same story. They don't have access to digital media but were told the story from ancestor.

This being said I think that it would be incorrect to state that the ghassinids were other than Christians as this was their original status. Even to this day.

Source 1

Source 1 in no way verifies the claims made in the opening sentence of the article. It also seems like a rather unreliable source that is critiquing Islam. Most other sources in this very article talk about the Ghassanids being purely desert-dwelling Bedouin tribes. Any Wikipedia pros: I would really appreciate direction on challanging sources and claims - I know out-right deletion is vandalism. NB: Please discuss here if you wish to revert the article. I will just revert back otherwise. SaSH172 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ghassanids were not Bedouin, they were South Arabians from the kingdom of Saba who moved to the Levant and were then Hellenized. They were also Monophysite Christians prior to their arrival to the Levant as per sourced material. Can you point out a source that says they were Bedouins? Bedouins were a separate entity, the Ghassanids were hellenized Arabians while bedouins were not, in fact the Ghassanids protected Roman caravans from Bedouin attacks.

Also it is not Wikipedia policy to revert pre-existing sourced material before discussion and consensus has been made. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. "Bedouin" is the most accurate term to describe them today - the use of "Arab" prior to Islam and the Abbasids refered to a nomadic desert-dwelling ethnic group. "Arab" today (according to the Wikipedia article) refers to a pan-ethnicity of anyone who speaks the Arabic language - regardless of ethnic origin. The Yemenite origin is problematic. Not only is it highly unlikely given the fact that the people of Yemen where not Arabs, most Bedouin tribes claim such descent. So, ironically, it makes them exactly what you claim they are not - Bedouins. Regarding the fact that they were supposedly Hellenised, please provide a source (source 1 is just a tirade against islam by an unrecognised author, with the Ghassanids likely used to justify theproblematic teachings of the religion. Even if fails to mention anything about their Hellenisation). Neither source 1, source 2 or the ARAMCO article claim any sort of Hellenisation. The ARAMCO article claims one of the Ghassanid leaders had/attempted an affair with a Byzantine princes, but was killed for it. Finally, regading religion, yes they were Christian, but most converted to Islam, as per sourced articles. As I said I would appreciate help with sourcing on Wikipedia - most sources in article related to Middle-Eastern history have been completely misrepresented, or are otherwise completely inaccurate. SaSH172 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the extra source you added. I would like to dispute it's reliability - a book about the meaning of various Arabic words is hardly a reliable source for history. A better, more authoritive source is required. This ARAMCO article (http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198302/the.king.of.ghassan.htm) is more specialised, and does not mention Hellenisation - at least not at the initial establishment of the Kingdom. I would also like to mention that I did not remove sourced material - only corrected the misrepresentation of the source. You were the one who initially reverted. Your edits will be reverted until consensus is reached. SaSH172 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are removing sourced material and replacing it with unsourced material, I suggest you stop reverting as you have no consensus for your edits.

If you can find relevant reliable sources that support what you are asserting I encourage you to present them here for discussion. The sources already presented in the article are scholarly, I do not see a tirade against Islam within. It's well established that the Ghassanids were Hellenized, they learned byzantine greek language and culture as the Byzantine vassal state and intermarriage was practiced between Ghassanids who converted to Byzantine Christianity as opposed to the Ghassanid Monophysite Christianity. Many Ghassanids even lived within the Byzantine empire and not Ghassan. Both source 1 & 2 state the Ghassanids as a hellenized people. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have provided evidence to support my claim. As I have stated twice here, I do not know how to insert the sources. Source 3 page 308 and 468 also disagree with sources 1 and 2. I still hold that source 1 and 2 are both unreliable due to the fact that they are not specialised on the subject. Learning a language does not equate to aquisition of the cultural identity - it could have been done due to purely pragmatic reasons -asArabs in Saudi now overwhelmingly speak English. Relaible sources are also required to substantiate your claims. I am happy to keep reverting your edits until I can get a senior editor to oversee a solution to this dispute. SaSH172 (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No Source you provided asserts the claim that Ghassanids were Bedouins and not South Arabian Christians. Specialization on the subject is not a requirement for WP:RS. Language is a part of culture, and to your point, Saudi speaking English would be anglicized in that nature, just as a population that speaks Arabic such as Sudan is Arabized. Your reverting of sourced content without coming to a consensus is against wikipedia policy and I don't think you understand this. I suggest you contact an administrator if you are interested in dispute resolution as you are handling it the wrong way. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have explained the difference between the usuage of the word "Arab" today, and that in late antiquity. The Ghassanids where culturally and ethnically far closer to the people described as "Bedouins" today as they were to those described as "Arabs," who can include Arabised Black Africans in Sudan. And all sourses I provided explicityly show they are not South Arabians, who are completely removed and seperate from Arabs/Bedouins in terms of laguage and culture. Please review Source 3, page 309, second column. You have also failed to provide any better sources regarding their supposed Hellenisation. I am happy to discuss the reliability of the sources here with you further, though I feel we might have reached a stale-mate - would you agree? I am happy to contact a moderator and start conflict resolution. In the mean-time, since it was you who first reverted the article, and since we both have conflicting sources, I see it only right to keep the article as it is until we resolve the conflict of opinions. SaSH172 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ghassanids were from Saba, a South Arabian kingdom, they were not Nomadic Bedouins as they were a sedentary Arabian population until they migrated to the Levant. All sources state a southern arabian origin for the Ghassanids, I am not sure which sources you are referring to. And actually it was not me who made the first change it was this IP address [[1]], was that you editing from an IP?

I think we should keep it as it was before the chain of edits until a consensus is formed. Especially because the current source cited in the lead does not state the Ghassanids were Bedouin or that they mostly all converted to Islam.

I have contacted an administrator you are free to contact someone as well. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They were not sedentery, and the fact they are from Saba does not mean they were not Arabs - most Bedouin tribes today make the exact same claim. What is known is they they were most definately not from the South Arabian culture as you claim. Have you actually read any of the sources I have posted? The proposed use of "Bedouin" is to distinguish them from "Arabised" Arabs, which they were not. You again failed to provide proof past their oral tradition of origin from Yemen (same as Bedouins today). Source 2 explicitly states they converted to Christianity late. Conversion to Islam is mentioned in later sources. I did the first edit to correct the misrepresentation of the sources, I think it might have been before I logged on. SaSH172 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No sources presented refer to the Ghassanids as Bedouin. But it does refer to them as Monophysite, which you removed from the lead... The first edit you made did not correct the misrepresentation of the sources, it made an assumption that by Arab = Bedouin, which is an assumption we can not make. The sources state the Ghassanids were a Arabian Monophysite group, while sources also state they were Hellenized. not Bedouins.

This source, http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198302/the.king.of.ghassan.htm, you posted, states the Ghassanids descended from the Azd who had origins in Yemen "belonged to a clan of the south Arabian tribe of Azd, believed to have arrived in the Syrian desert about A.D. 250-300". It also says this about the Ghassanids, "Unlike many pre-Islamic Arab tribes, the Ghassanids were not pagans but monophysite Christians—members of what later came to be called the Syrian-Jacobite church."

There is no mention of Ghassanid conversion to islam in any sources I see, there was a point in history when some Ghassanids defected and converted to Islam, but that does not mean most of them did, they by in large remained Christians in the levant. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have filled a dispute resolution form. Thanks for contacting an Administrator, though the Dispute Resolution page says they cannot solve disputes. I will not explain my etymological choice of Bedouin - I have stated that multiple times already. Regarding most now being Muslim, you are correct in there being very little sources about it. It was an assumption that most Arabs in the Levant did convert to Islam, as with the other population of the area. There are no sources saying that either most converted or most remained Christian, so I am happy for a compromise - changing "most" to "some". It is interesting that there is a dispute between my sources - Source 2 still says they converted quite late (5th and 6th CE). I am personally leaning more towards the published book than the ARAMCO article. SaSH172 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick thought. Regarding what type of Arab they are, would simply labelling them as Qahtani Arabs suffice? We will avoid the can of worms of the changing definition of "Arab," the ridiculousness of labelling them the same as the completely different ethnic group of South Arabians/Yemenites, yet at the same time acknowledge their supposed origin in Yemen - just as many Bedouin Tribes today claim to be Qahtani? This compromise obviously does not consider the Hellenisation claims. SaSH172 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They were from south arabia, the most neutral way to phrase it is just as how they are referenced in literature, South Arabian Christians, the Qahtani were from South Arabia in Ma'Rib in modern day Yemen, an inhabitant of Arabia is an Arabian. The Hellenization is supported by reliable sources and is also supported by modern Levant Christian claims to Ghassanid origin. Many of these Levant Christians that claim this origin are Greek orthodox, a testament to their Byzantine past. Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A comment about sources

• Nazer, Abdul (2012). Sense and Sensibility in Islam: Linguistics, Context and Rationality. — This is published by Xlibris Press, a vanity press, and may not be considered a reliable source.
• Al-Mansouri. Terrorism, the Origin and the Sources: An Anthology of Poetry Ambigrams and Political Oratories. — This is published by Trafford Press, a vanity press, and may not be considered a reliable source.
• bury, john. History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I. to the Death of Justinian, Part 2. — This is in the public domain in the United States, which generally means it's very old (probably published before 1923).

Instead of arguing over these sources, maybe you can find better sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree if we are able to find better sources I would encourage that. The topic of Ghassanids does not have the most research done on it so finding sources is difficult. I will continue searching for reliable sources. In the mean time I believe the article should remain as it was before the dispute started. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to reply, I have been busy lately. Thank you Malik Shabazz for your thoughts. Can I ask for your thoights on my other sources,linked above? Otherwise, I agree with you assessment completely. Lazyfoxx: I disagree with changing the article to it's state before the dispute. I believe it is highly inaccurate as explained previously. I will only accept my version or a compromise until the dispute is resolved. SaSH172 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not modify the sourced version before the dispute to a unsourced version just because you agree with, I added a "citations needed" tag to address readers that there is dispute within the wordings, this suffices until you find sources that call the Ghassanids Qahtanite over South Arabian, or insist that they were not Hellenized, which contemporary definitions say they were. Lazyfoxx (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable, as judged by admin Malik Shabazz. My two remaining sources are more reliable by virtue of not being explicitly judged as unreliable. I have just been unable to place the sources in the text, which I will attempt now. I believe we should have the text based on the most reliable sources available. Reverting to the less reliable sources is vandalism, which I will report. SaSH172 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What are you using those two sources you added to the lead to claim? I can find nowhere in either sources where it labels the Ghassanids as Qahtanite or Polytheistic? Please provide page numbers and or specific quotes from the sources that justify the edit. Also I used one of the sources you found and fixed the "Migration from Yemen" section to reflect the literature, the section also has uncited statements in it which I made clear. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources you used are "Family Sites" which are in no way reliable. They are just sites where various Christian families make blind, unsupported claims. Furthermore, you have removed some of my sources with no discussion, which I believe is vandalism. I will report this to admins, and keep reverting this article to my last edit. I will remove Qahtanite for the time being, as well as Bedouin, but I will state that they were nomadic and Arab, as per Wikipedia Synthesis guidelines (which I was unaware of previously). Since discussion here is yielding no meaningful results, so I'll only be reverting your article vandalism from now on, until third party and/or admin input allows for more constructive discussion. SaSH172 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. It is perfectly logical to cite familiy sources as sources, because the sentence stated "families CLAIM descent".

2. The ghassanids were not Nomadic Arabs, stop trying to use synonyms to express your viewpoint that they were Bedouins, this is not how wikipedia works. I also see you reverting the edit "other bedouins" which again implies you are stating the Ghassanids were bedouin.

3. You have done nothing on this article but not follow the rules ;aid out on wikipedia.

4. Do not revert edits of mine that are constructive, such as adding the picture description for king Al-harith, or my edits sorting the jumble of information in the roman empire section to the corresponding sections. The picture description should be used as priority when describing a thumbnail in an article. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that the ghassanids were Nomadic based on the Saudi Aramco site is erroneous. A source used much throughout this article "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, by Shahid" has a whole chapter devoted to the "Nomadic myth" surrounding the Ghassanids. It is in no way accurate to describe them as nomadic arabs.

• An excerpt from the source, "No doubt some Arab pastoralists roamed about the region, but Sergiopolis itself was protected by the powerful Ghassanid foederati, a sedentary group who were zealous Christians with a special relationship to the saint."
• It is further written, "Whatever their level of pastoralism before they crossed the limes, it would have been diluted or compleely shaken off by service in the Roman army and attachment to Christianity, an urban religion. If they had been semi-sedentary in the fourth century, they would have become completely sedentarized by the seventh, after being subjected for three long centuries to the twofold sedentarizing influences emanating from the Roman army and the Christian church." Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lazyfoxx, glad to see you actually engaging in discussion as opposed to just edit-warring with no reliable sources. That source does indeed say they were sedentary. In fact, it goes further to say they were never really nomadic - moving from urbanised living in Ma'arib in Yemen, to Najran in Saudi Arabia, then to Mecca and Medina, also in Saudi Arabia, before finally settling in the Levent. Furthermore, it gives good explanation as to why they are thought of as Nomadic, namely the Umayyad Arabs building their structures right on top of the Ghassanid ones. The article makes an interesting claim too that even the Umayyads weren't nomadic. The Saudi Aramco World article seems to base the claim on lack of archaelogical finds, which is explained by your article. I don't really have a problem with it's reliability either (unlike your "sources" thus far), so I am willing to accept they were not nomadic. SaSH172 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oral tradition and contested sources

This article should describe the historically-known Ghassanids. If appropriate sources can be found to verify the various oral traditions for their origins and their descendants and cultural heirs, these could be described in the article - as oral tradition. Until appropriate sources are produced, I would suggest a bold edit to remove the inadequately-sourced comments. I don't think that one or two vanity publications are suitable sources for this nor for anything else much, nor are blogs, and nor - with all due respect - is your family tradition. Bury is a respectable source, but definitely out of date. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, I agree completely. Sadly, such biased original research, and and the desire to associate oneself with bygone ancient kingdoms and empires are sadly endemic features of Middle-Eastern cultures and historical narratives. I will attempt to remove all unsurced materials, or those citing blatantly unreliable sources. SaSH172 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Arabs/Hellenisation

Virtually all sources state that the Ghassanids are Arabs. I believe it is both inaccurate and biased of user Lazyfoxx to remove that. Also, it does not mention anywhere in the sources stated that they merged with the Greek/Roman speaking populations. If it does, can I please request exact page-numbers.quotes for it. SaSH172 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, source 3 does mention that claim, but I cannot find any mention in sources 1 and 2. Furthermore, source 3 "Sufi Trails in Palestine" is hardly a reliable, authoritative source on the subject matter. SaSH172 (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for constant updates. User Lazyfoxx also removed sourced content saying they were Arabs. SaSH172 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You've made your opinion apparent. Sash, you clearly do not show an understanding of Wikipedia rules, as you try to ignore them to push your view onto an article without consensus. Your edit history shows you have a history of over-emphasizing a viewpoint on Arabs. The Ghassanids were an Arab people, yes, the lead links to their initial stated origins in the Azd tribe. It is redundant to say a group of Arab people before saying Azd because the Azd tribe were in fact from Arabia and Arabs.

Second, modern historians agree on the fact that the some Ghassanids merged with the Greek-speaking Byzantine population of the Levant, your idea that the all Ghassanids remained a "purely arab" people is outlandish, if this were true there would still be Ghassanids today in the Levant speaking a South Arabian dialect of Arabic and following Monophysitism, which there isn't. The Sufi Trails in Palestine is a reliable source supported by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, that details the origins of the Deir Ghassaneh town in Palestine while noting history of the Ghassanids within. Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem is one of the the lowest forms of arguement. If I had time, I could easily go through your edit history and start mud-slinging - lets keep this civil, unless you want personal attacks complaints. You seem to have a major problem with any sort of mention that they are Arabs or Arabians - you deleted a statement which simply said the Lakhmids were fellow Arabs. It is clear you are the one pushing an agenda around here. You have constsitently failed to provide any reliable sources to state they were Hellenised. No one is convinced simply becayse you say so. Provide reliable sources please. You also produced sham internet sites just to prove your point, without quoting any existing sources, an example of Orignal Research. You also misused source 1 and 2. I have requested that you provide me page numbers/quotes which explicitly says they were Hellenised, and you have not done so. I do not believe stating they were Arabs is in any way redundant - it will save people clicking on Azd Tribes - as most people do not know what/who the Azd are (including myself before this). You also deleted sourced material that they were Arabs, something contradicting Wikipedia rules, which I am currently seeking admin action on. I am also disappointed that virtually no constructive action has been taken to stop your obsessive reverting of the article - it seems only the 3RR rule seems to be enforced with any seriousness around here. SaSH172 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no form of ad-hominen by me, do not falsely accuse me of things because you do not get your way. Any editor can see by your history that you have a trend of over-emphasizing an viewpoint on Arabs that is usually unsourced and does not seek consensus.

2. No I did not misuse source 1 & 2, they represent sources for the first part of the sentence, while source 3 represents the latter part of the sentence stating some Ghassanids merged with Levantine populations.

3. And just because you do not think it is redundant does not mean it isn't redundant, you already tried to get the Ghassanids labeled as a myriad of labels such as Bedouin, Qahtanite, Nomad, etc. without accurate sourcing or seeking consensus for changing the article to your views, this justifies constantly reverting you. This is wikipedia policy which you clearly do not understand. I have removed your synthesis from the article such as the word "fellow" relating them to the Lakhmids, and the word "other" next to Bedouins suggesting the Ghassanids were Bedouin. Among other acts of synthesis and deconstructive editing you made throughout the article such as removing the picture description from the Al-harith thumb. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Point 2 is synthesis. Please review Wikipedia:Synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Your constant focus on my editting history (which, like virtually all your claims, is completely unbacked) is an example of ad hominem. It shows you lack any valid points to counter my arguement, so you resort to brining up unrelated things to discredit me. This is your final warning to refrain. SaSH172 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not making coherent sense, how is point 2 synthesis? I think you are confused. Also do not say things like "virtually all your claims, is completely unbacked" that does sound like a personal ad hominem attack on me, also saying things like "this is your final warning to refrain", that comes off as threatening, please stop. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is rather obvious from your discussions on this page that most of your claims go unsourced. It is that behaviour that I am refering to, not your nature. You have explicitly commented on me as opposed to the subject matter on noless than three occasions. And it was a warning, not a threat, of me submitting a user conduct complaint/artbitration. Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." SaSH172 (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your editing is consistent with battleground tactics so I would encourage you to stop. I asked you how is point 2 synthesis, you rather reply on me then answer the question. I will answer it for you, point 2 is not synthesis, the first part of the sentence is referenced by 2 sources, the second part is referenced by the 3rd source. This is not synthesis. Synthesis would be coming to conclusions from sources like you have done to justify the Ghassanids as Bedouin or Nomadic previously. It is important to review an editors history when they are editing from a specific point of view such as you have. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure about policy on that that. Maybe they should have been listed seperately? I.e. source 1 and 2 after the comma at the end of the first half of the sentence, then source 3 after the full stop. Regardless, I find source 3 unreliable. Since we disagree, I'll try getting a thrid opinion. The Bedouin part was synthesis, but the Nomadic part was not - it was explicitly mentioned. Though the source you provided to say it was a myth was far more reliable than my source, going as far as explaining how the myth arose. Regarding reviewing editor history, wikipedia policy is (in my opinion) contrary to what you say. As I understand it, review of editor history is only undertaken by admins in arbitration, otherwise it counts as personal attacks. By the way, thanks for helping reach a consensus on the "Arab" at the start of the sentence. I am glad we are getting somewhere. SaSH172 (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the contested reliability of source 3, I changed my mind. I'm not going to persue a third opinion on the source. I won't have the free time fully partake in the dicussions here as I have university finals coming up. Also, I think we have a good compromise on the article so far, with Lazyfoxx agreeing to put Arabs in the first sentence, so I will be happy with this article if the requested edit is done.

Lazyfoxx, a suggestion might be to check out the sources on the article Battle of Yarmouk where the Muslims Arabs first invade the Ghassanid Kingdom. There seems to be some good sources with detailed accounts by both sides, so maybe you can find more and/or better sources to say the Ghassanids were Hellenised at the time. Take care. SaSH172 (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Please change "were a group of descended from Azd" to "were a group of Arabs descended from the Azd tribe" Consensus reached here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Ghassanid_Page_Protection Thanks. SaSH172 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. SaSH172 (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanids and Islam 2

The aticle claims that the majority did not accept Islam, joining the Melkite and Syriac comminities in the Levant. The citation is source 2, though quickly reading through it, not such claim is written in the source. I suspect misuse of sources. Can someone please corroborate these claims by providing the page number where the claims are made? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.237.137 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

After a quick search I discovered, Pg. 469 specifically talks about Ghassanids joining Melkite Syriac communities, hope that answers your question. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can't access the pages on most free previews available (including the citation I read throught). Do you have any links to show that page? Also, does it specifically say that most did not accept Islam? SaSH172 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Whenever the book discusses Ghassanids, it also discusses that the majority did not accept Islam, it also makes a point that Jabala "king of all Byzantine Arabs" treated the "Muslim ambassadors well but did not accept Islam as some Muslim historians claim". It also discusses that at the time of the Muslim conquest Ghassanids were divided with some being Chalcedonian Christian and some being Monophysite Christian. It states that the remnants of the Ghassanids were dispersed throughout the Levant and Asia Minor where those that remained Christian joined Melkite / Syriac communities. Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghassanids. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120083356/http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org:80/history/ to http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org/history/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

picture?

The tower of the Ghassanid king Arethas son of Jabala

Ok, the picture says that this is the tower of Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, but that picture is of Qasr al-Hayr al-Gharbi (what remains in situ), and Qasr al-Hayr al-Gharbi was built by Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik? What is correct here? Huldra (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

removing poorly sourced trivia

Information about someone supposedly living in California is supported with Arabic website citations. Even if this is true, and I say it is dubious, it is just trivia.

Declanscottp (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuity

In the last paragraph of the "Legacy" chapter, there is a conspicuous rupture in the chronology which jumps from 1747 to 2022. What did the dynasty do in the meantime? Were they attributed any royal or elevated status? Or did they later "rediscover" their royal role - if so, on what basis? Oudeístalk 17:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

One state?

Was it a unified state, in the form of a hierarchcal kingdom with a single, recognised king, or more of a tribal alliance? Is the use of the term kingdom justified? Which periods of their history does it cover, realistically? Arminden (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)