Talk:Hammudid dynasty

Berber?

These sources say Berber.[1], [2][3] And we have Ali ibn Hammud al-Nasir @Alhaqiha and Kansas Bear: Doug Weller talk 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

And when the book by Watt was introduced as a source, Kansas Bear wrote "The Hammudid dynasty was a Berber<ref>William Montgomery Watt, Pierre Cachia, ''A History of Islamic Spain'', (Edinburgh University Press, 2001), 92.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Arab

There are different sources which claim differnt things. The most probable thing is that those arabs were berberised, and many history books say te same. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HAc_AQAAIAAJ&q=hammudid+Berberised&dq=hammudid+Berberised&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn77r0pHNAhVrKMAKHcL7BZkQ6AEINTAB, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xyWAMAEACAAJ&dq=hammudid+Berberised&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn77r0pHNAhVrKMAKHcL7BZkQ6AEIMjAA, or the first alinea of this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_M%C3%A1laga. Maybe we ca leave it at berberised arabs. It includes both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This book appears reliable. Whereas this book, is a copy of Wikipedia and can not be used to reference Wikipedia.

In contrast to this quote, "The fall of the Umaiyads and the rise of the strongly Berberized Hammudid dynasty brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight for the first time." -- The Shuʻubiyya in al-Andalus: the risāla of Ibn García and five refutations, James T. Monroe, Abū ʻĀmir Ibn Gharsiyah, page 9.

Perhaps you can explain this edit, where you changed referenced information without explanation, discussion or even adding a reference? Even to the point of edit warring! I am not against any changes on any article as long as there are academic sources to support such changes. Oddly, most changes made to this article have been done without edit summaries, talk page explanation(s) or even source(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kansan Bear, I changed that information because I saw this. 1. I didn't see any explanation for it's removal, but now I can see that you reverted it from another person because he didnt give an explanation in the first place. Strangly enough, I have read that in many books, so I guess the person who inserted that piece in the first place didnt insert any sources 1 (Last alinea). "The fall of the Umaiyads and the rise of the strongly Berberized Hammudid dynasty brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight for the first time." -- The Shuʻubiyya in al-Andalus: the risāla of Ibn García and five refutations, James T. Monroe, Abū ʻĀmir Ibn Gharsiyah, page 9. This article also says that the hammudids were strongly berberised, as you can read the title.

Most of the time giving explanations doesn't really help. I have given many summeries for the changes I made on different pages, but I feel people don't really read them and don't really care about them. Im going to do a research about the berberised arabs as I have shown, and when I can find good academic sources, you can tell me wether it is good enough?? Have a nice day!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC) 

That is not an explanation as to why you removed referenced information, with no edit summary. Not to mention, not starting a discussion on the talk page and instead engaging in edit warring.

• "Most of the time giving explanations doesn't really help. I have given many summeries for the changes I made on different pages, but I feel people don't really read them and don't really care about them."

So your recourse is edit warring? Changing referenced information without adding a source? Sounds like a good way to get blocked.

When someone(IP) removes a reference and/or referenced information, my recourse is to restore that information. And to present something as historical fact when the academic source states "claimed" is disingenuous.

• "This article also says that the hammudids were strongly berberised, as you can read the title."

Apparently you missed the part that says "..brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight..", which means the Monroe source indicates the Hammudids were of non-Arab origin. That is the contrasting element of the source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the non-Arab element here is the fact they represent a the unassimilated "New Berbers" that were used by Almanzor. They have been recently immigrated into the area and were used in service. I would just go with 'Berberised' Arab, the reason the author says Arab is from my the reading of her work is that they are "supposed descendants of the Idrīsid dynasty of the Maghrib" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Bosworth calls them Berberised Arabs, and I personally do not have any particular POV about the matter. What I have issue with is Alhaqiha's removing, changing, using unreliable sources with no explanation, even to the point of edit warring(August 2015!). If this pro/anti Berber editing nonsense continues I will contact an Admin and have them systematically protect all these articles for an extended period of time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

How they are Berberised?

In which way this dynasty is Berberised? There language? There culture? There heritage? There art? How they are Berberised? Please explain what is the cultural and language influence on this dynasty from the Berbers? Please explain that for me before you delete my edits. Tajotep

Dear Kansas Bear, thank you for your advice. As you see I'm discussing a lot of topics on the Talk page, I do not want to be in an Edit War as you said, and I hope you will discuss with me as well.

First learn to sign your posts. Second, Bosworth calls the Hammudids Berberised Arabs, check the source in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Shia?

Per @Al-Zaidi:'s edit warring the Hammudids were Shi'a.

• Ignác Goldziher & Bernard Lewis, Introduction to Islamic theology and law, page 218. Page 218, makes no mention of the Hammudids at all nor their supposed Shi'a leanings.
• Peter C. Scales states:
• page 94, "Al-Qasim has been described by Ibn al-Athir and Al-Nuwayri as shi'ite, although both do add that he made no show of his beliefs". So this sentence negates itself. Which user:Al-Zaidi has cherry picked to add into the article.[4]
• page 94, "It is interesting that this information comes from two Middle Eastern writers. The only reference made to this in a Hispano-Muslim source is in the Jadhwat al-Muqtabis, but al-Humaydi refutes this saying that: it has been said of him that he was a shi'ite; this report is unfounded..." Scales refuting both al-Athir and Al-Nuwayri, again this was ignored by user:Al-Zaidi.
• page 94, "Were the Hadmmudids shi'ite? If not where would the story come from, of the shi'ite tendency? It would seem highly unlikely that they were shi'ite." Again this was ignored by user:Al-Zaidi.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

And, user:Al-Zaidi's removal of "Berberised" is referenced by Bosworth, page 15, "..or were Berberised Arabs like the Hammudids of Algeciras, Ceuta and Malaga." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Kansas bear states: "So this sentence negates itself." It doesn't negate itself. Arab scholars know what that sentence means: a pro-Alid, i.e. a general shiite, and either a Zaydi (9/10), or a Twelver Shia practicing taqiya —Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two dozen more "Middle Eastern writers" that state that the Hammudids were pro-Alid Shiite and Idrisid Zaydis, which is very different from twelver Shiism. However, Scales does not reference them. The sources are all in Arabic so even if I were to reference them on the page, Kansas Bear would just rollback the edit anyways. If Kansas Bear could read Arabic sources he would realize that Scales cherry picked al-Humaydi to refute al-Athir and al-Nuwayri and ignored several other corroborating primary sources and every intellectually honest Arab scholar who has written on the subject. It is similar to what is done with regard to the Zaydi Idrisid dynasty. It should be noted that Kansas Bear has set aside the overwhelming literature, primary and secondary, that state that the Idrisids were pro-Alid Zaydis, in favour of two references that allegedly claim them to be Sunni (See Kansas Bear's rollback [5]): the primary source cited is in Arabic and it does not state or describe the Idrisids as "Sunni" but if I remove the reference to the primary source, chances are Kansas Bear will roll it back; and the secondary source cited is simply intellectually dishonest. Given Kansas Bear's recent actions, I will remove myself from contributing to these pages any further. Unfortunately, the public is poorer for it. —Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to the "Berberised" edit, Kansas Bear relax, this was caught in a rollback edit. I was going to re-input it but you rolled it back before I could.—Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• " and the secondary source cited is simply intellectually dishonest."

Since it does not state what you want. I have dealt with this same type of mentality before, concerning Idrisids being Sunni. Strange how they all sound the same.

• The Shu'ūbiyya in al-Andalus: The Risāla of Ibn Garcia and five refutations., transl. James T. Monroe, page 14;"The Hammudids were a half-Berberized Alid dynasty and they were suspected of Shi'ism by the orthodox Andalusians."

Any reliable sources used stating they were Shiites, will be balanced by what other reliable sources state(ie. Scales). --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Kansas bear states: "Since it does not state what you want." Honestly, I expected a bit more academic integrity from you on this point. It is not a matter of what I want, it is a matter of academic integrity. Yes, I know what you have faced with regard to the Sunni claim on the Idrisids. In this matter you are dealing with polemics which is not concerned with the actual facts but identity. I will demonstrate this point with regard to the Idrisids being both Zaydi and Sunni: From their foundation to the tenure of their rule over North Africa, the Idrisids were Zaydi, an archaic, attenuated form of Shi'ism. However, after a few centuries, the Idrisids did eventually become Sunni, Malikis for the most part, that is also a fact. Now, what you have faced: Idrisids being Sunni, is ignorance of these facts. The people you have faced are not only ignorant of these facts but also the difference between Zaydi or archaic Shi'ism and Twelver Shi'ism. Twelver Shi'ism causes many Sunnis great anxiety and a collective crisis of identity steeped in the Sunni-Shia debate and whenever they see or hear "Shi'ite", they assume Twelver Shi'ism and produce what you faced Idrisids being Sunni, and the secondary source cited, which is simply intellectually dishonest. However, I say this not because this secondary source does not say what I "want" but because of the facts: the Idrisids were Zaydi and then they became Sunni-Maliki. What I "want" doesn't quite matter. This same principle applies to the Hammudids: they were Zaydi, held a soft policy on display, and after a few centuries, their descendants also became Sunni Malikis. Facts, not wants. Al-Zaidi (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

With regard to "balance", I hope you can appreciate that not every opinion is equal. However this point is beyond Wikipedia: it is too academic to be dealt with here, and therefore, I acknowledge that you are limited to whatever sources are available to you and the public, and given what you have faced on the Idrisid page, it is not worth pursuing. I wish you all the best as custodian of these pages. Al-Zaidi (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Honestly, I expected a bit more academic integrity from you on this point."

Coming from an editor that has violated Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, Wikipedia:Original research, and chosen to ignore a source that they do not like, that sounds like a compliment.

• ":With regard to "balance", I hope you can appreciate that not every opinion is equal."

We as editors are required to use reliable sources to write articles, we can not decide which opinion is "more equal" than others. And considering you were the editor that brought Scales into this, clearly you need to learn what the definition of "academic integrity" means.

The source brought forward for the Idrisid being Sunni was published by Cambridge University Press, while I express my own doubts, there was nothing I could do as an editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• ":while I express my own doubts, there was nothing I could do as an editor."

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Now I understand your position. It seems then that we have been talking past each other the whole time, which led to ad hominem remarks. Given the restraints on you as an editor, such as the Cambridge fiasco, I see that you have tried your best, and I defer to your custodianship. As for the Cambridge book itself, I have a book published by Oxford University Press that refers to the Idrisids explicity as "Shiites of Fes"; Cambridge v. Oxford, go figure. With regard to Scales, it was the only source at the time that I could find that was in English and accessible to the public and had Al-Athir's and al-Nuwayri's references to al-Qasim as Shi'ite. I have a book published by Princeton University Press that refers to the "Shiite inclinations of the Hammudids". Al-Zaidi (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)