Talk:Sanhaja

Are the Zanhaga related/synonymous?

Noting the Arabic dialectal ji'im & ge'em equivalences, as well the Latinate jay & gee equivalences it would explain many pre-Colonial European maps and books about the Maghreb & Sahara that show the Zanhaga or Zanhagum Land in Western Sahara. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 06:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I suggest that the contents of the article Znaga be merged with this one as they appear to relate to the same people.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are sure then I support.--Inayity (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Slavery

Some of the first people captured by European slavers were Sanhaja, they later turned to them as slave suppliers. Cant remember where i read this but Thornton, or Basil Davidson. Or Maybe John O. Hunwick :West Africa, Islam and the Arab World: Studies in Honor of Basil Davidson Paperback – February 1, 2007 --Inayity (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal without explanation

Pappé Could you provide a reason why you removed sourced information? its really annoying when you revert with no explanation.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zirid Dynasty.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

@LeRobert93: There are many modern reliable sources that explain why some Berber leaders used genealogical traditions as a means to reinforce their legitimacy, and we probably should mention it somewhere, but not how you did it (using old sources to present a baseless old myth -the Himyari myth- as a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Bitton: Hi M.Bitton, I think you got it twisted a bit. First, I talked about the historians who confirmed all of them that Sanhaja is an arabic term (it does not exist anywhere in other language), and that they are sons of Sanhaj. My modifications weren't totally talking about some berber leaders who claim being Arabs, I spoke only about Ziri Ibn Munad who told that he was arab, but 99% of my editting is based. I brought a genetic studies, the haplgroup E is a yemeni haplogroup. I'm sorry but you deleted all my edittings for one reason which is not even relevant. I am open to debate if you will, I think my editting should be restored. I really don't understand how big resourceful parts talking about different subjects were just deleted by one "reason" which was mentioned in one single sentence. I am open to debate with our two reliable resources. even though I never find any source contradicting my sayings.

baseless old-myth ? come on, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Hawqal, Maya Schtzmiller (a recent historian), those are baseles old myth.

For your information, almost those same historians denied that berbers of Zenata could be Arabs, they only reported Sanhaja and Kutama. So why would they choose only two single tribe, forgetting about Zenata who were warriors, Masmuda the rebels in Berghwatas, .... ?

Sanhaja is an arab word in all arab dictionnaries, can you please show me one single defintion of this term in other language?

Historians and not only ziri said that sanahaja are sons of Sanhaj, from french researchers also (I gave the proof), I don't see what does not make a sens ...

So according to you, Historians who all of them claimed that sanhaja are sons of Sanhaj were looking for setteling their supremacy and legitimacy ?

I don't agree, the only myth is the myth of a one common berber origin. cf. (The myth of berbers origin of Maya Schtizmaller).

please do consider the effort, it is really bad to delete big huge amount of proved information for a reason non understable ...

Still open for a debate, spent more than 10 years reading history. You are welcome for a debate or at least answering my questionnings above — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRobert93 (talk • contribs) 13:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to indent and sign your comments.

I know exactly what you added and I stand by what I said: any mention of the medieval claims about the origin of the Berbers, be it Himyari, Palestinian or Ham (son of Noah), has to make it clear to the reader that it's a myth.

The "Maya Shatzmiller" source is about the myth, yet you ignored this fact and cherry picked the medieval sources that were given as examples.

The Himyar source that you cited is also about the myth. Again, you cherry picked the part that interests you and ignored the rest.

The source that you cited about Ziri Ibn Menad does not say what you attributed to it. This is the second time that you misrepresent what a French source say. I trust this won't happen again.

What a source as unreliable as "yemen-direct.com" has to say about science is obviously irrelevant.

The idea that Ubayd Allah conquered the Berbers doesn't make sense and goes against everything we know about the Fatimid's army (see the primary article).

The word "Sanhaja" is the Arabized form of a Berber name (see this reliable source for more info).

Lastly, I suggest you read "Volume 5: Genealogy and Knowledge in MuslimSocieties : Understanding the Past" (a reliable source that discusses the Himyari myth). M.Bitton (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)