Talk:Walashma dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

walashma talk

runehelmet, you seem to agree here Talk:Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad that they be called just muslim so stop your flip flopping. Baboon43 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That was about Abu Bakr, not about the Walashma dynasty. If you just took time to read the given source you would stop humiliating yourself.Runehelmet (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

you said THEY were muslim u didnt say he is muslim so make up your mind dont come here with random sources..if walashma was somali im sure the first editor would include that but he didnt..i have done enough research on walashma so i should know they were arab descendants that settled in the shewa region and than later formed a dynasty that spoke semitic..just because they have arab background doesnt make them somali..apparently some users on here dont understand that there are other ethnic groups that trace arab background other than somalis..before i came on these articles here even arabs were painted as somali on articles that you and midday have on watchlist that is not write dont distort history for perhaps chauvinism as you call it. the walasma came from the state of damut as refugees they boasted arab background as this source clearly states [1] and how state of damut was around shewa [2] Baboon43 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all don't lie, I never said they were muslim. And I don't use randomsources. Those sources you call random call the Walashma dynasty Somali-Arab. You never read the source, you never commented on the source, you just did nothing but reverting and pushing your own sources witch is clearly contradicting with the mainstraim academic sources. And even your given sources are contrary to your statement. And you are right they came from Arabia, but interrmarried with the local Somalis and established a dynasty called? The Walashma. And the Walashma were not refugees. They inhabitated Damut and were conquered by the Negus, so they fled to Ifat and founded an other Sultanate. You keep talking about a Semetic language. My friend, I'm talking here about the ethnicity of the Dynasty. Why are you not commenting about the sources I gave? And could you cite the citations in the future instead of linking them, that would be more easy to follow, as nearly all of your links are directing me to a preview of a book. You can't relie on an other editor, as this is an enclyclopedia, it is never finished.

Here are those 'random' sources:Runehelmet (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Many centuries of trade relation with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coas by the Himmyrati Kingdom and these eventually developed into two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, gradually local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled.".

"In due time these converts[Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera"-Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara page 62

your exact quotes "I have read your sources, and I must say that it's conflicting with other academic sources. The best solution in this issue is to drop it down and call it a Muslim ruler, I hope we are agreed that they were Muslims. Regards"...if walasma is somali than why isnt adal and ifat claimed as somali a sultanate since you say they were arab somali or somali arabss..somalis have destroyed many ethnic groups to be the dominant force today including the mayans by the way somalis also say hararis are somali even though they are semitic they claim they were somali that became arab or something like that but thats not how ethnicity works so what is your response to that? did the somalis give up their empire to other ethnic groups later on? or was it always somali even though many ethnic groups were mentioned in the futuh al habasa such as malasay mayans harla and others..we know the truth somalis swallowed up these ethnic groups...and why does my source say walasma was a distinct race and no mention of somali is there? also this source [3] clearly defines ethnicity "Ethnicity itself may be defined by region, "race",religion or culture; characteristically how-ever,ethnicity is defined by language".Baboon43 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My response: Fringe theory. I'm not representing the Somali people nor going into discussion at such a ridiculous comment "Somalis have destroyed many ethnic groups..". Your credibility is very low. You may think that happended and/or is happening. And Ifat and Adal were ruled by the dynasty(as mentioned in the given citation, read my friend, read), wich was Somali-Arab. You may be proud of your ethnic background, but that must not damage the credibility of this enclyclopedia. I'm not going to discuss this strange and outrageous comment of yours, I will ignore this so we can discuss on a decent way, without insulting other ethnic groups. And why are you involving the Mayans in this discussion? And again you did not commented on my citation. Why are you not doing it? Please in your next comment only response to the given citation, so we will avoid other awkward situations. Runehelmet (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PS:About the quote;Where do you say I'm saying that the Dynasty is Muslim and not Abu Bakr. Nowhere? I think so. If you read the quote slowly you will see it by your self. Runehelmet (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

whats my ethnic background? dont redirect your possible personal thoughts and think that i have an agenda on here..your distortion of history for chauvinism as you call it will just make wikipedia less credible when actual encyclopedia's will give facts...how is that an attack on an ethnic group? im stating facts which you obviously is unaware of by the way if your offended by that comment you must have a dog in this fight that might be the reason you go around articles spreading POV and until i came on here you were getting away with it without any objection..its mentioned here clearly "the walasma family belonged simply 'to the same race [of the Habasha]..[4] also my source clearly states walasma is a distinct race not somali arabs or whatever.."Ibn Khaldun relates how Damut was attacked and conquered by the Negus of Christian Ethiopia and how a RACE called Walasma lived in it. which then emigrated further east and settled in ifat where it formed another sultanate" [5].........so there is a conflicting RS its better to leave it as muslim by the way if your accusing me of being a muslim ethnic group that doesnt exist so stop your accusations and there was no such thing as somali arab there is nobody that said that in those days..if a person speaks a specific language only he is characterized as such... you are talking about the modern state of somalia. and its funny you ignored that an ethnicity is by language spoken and went on to discuss my other statements i find that odd Baboon43 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You called yourself a Harari, mister. And I don't think you have an agenda here but I know it. You are binding the facts to your will giving irrelevant sources, and those sources are even supporting my false claims. And it's not a fact, if it was a fact then there would be tons of books about the so called destruction of other ethnic groups by the Somalis. And I know what Ibn Khaldun said, but he did not said that they were not of Somali-Arab stock. He called them a race, but what kind of race? And by the way in the modern antropology there are no human races. And I never called you 'an muslim ethnic group' I don't like if you keep adding false info. And again ethnicity is not decided by language alone, I already told you that in the other talk page, It seems you forgot that(again), how odd? And dear Baboon, why did you not commented on the given source? To reach a consensus you need to comment on the sources, not adding dozens others. You know what I find odd? That you keep adding irrelevant sources about the language, and ignoring the other. Runehelmet (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

i have never told you im harari but you have proven that your somali based on your edits but atleast i rely on reliable sources for my edits unlike you whom wants to set wiki up for a POV..you do know wikipedia can be edited by anyone right? i did comment on that source i told u its conflicting with my source that calls them habasha which you ignored. its better not to demean yourself Baboon43 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But does that change the fact that you are a Harari? But that is not the case here, we are not here to discuss the ethnic backgrounds of editors. And you don't need to retaliate by saying I'm Somali based on my edits? That is just a weak argument. So your comment on my source is that it's conflicting with the yours. But let shall we take a look at your sources. You are using links, but it is not possible to reach it. You are sending me to a preview book, and showing the page that is not included in the previewed edition of the book. Therefore I asked you to citate them and give the corresponding title and page number. And the subject of your sources are not relevant to the case, you keep saying that they spoke a Semetic language, but we are talking here about the ethnicity. Language is not the sole criteria for an shared ethnicity. You know why I ignored your sources, because I could not reach them, not a single one. And I'm not setting up a Wiki for a POV, If i wanted that I could simply create a Wiki by myself. So you have other comments on the sources? Runehelmet (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are not here to discuss ethnic backgrounds of users but you and midday have a hobby of that, its funny that you now want to flip the convo when its obvious..two somalis with POV stance are inputing anything they like and in the mean time distorting history by labeling everyone somali including arabs and ethiopians..i can get down to your specific clans if you want me to but on the topic dont side swipe my sources claming its a preview or you cant view it just because you dont want to admit the fact that walasma dynasty is disputed. by the way have you not looked at what your buddy was told about commenting on users background? its not allowed on wikiBaboon43 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What a nice hasty generalization. You may call it 'POV stance'(wich is incorrect, what do you mean with Point of view stance?). You like to go the other way around, just like you are accusing me of. Your way of discussion is not worthy to be in a talk page of a respected enclyclopedia, with your personal attacks and Fringe theories, you won't reach an agreement.

It is a preview, just like all the books in Google.Books.... "by the way have you not looked at what your buddy was told about commenting on users background? its not allowed on wiki" Do you see me commenting on your background? And about that, if you mean user Middayexpress, he showed you a wikipedia rule page perhaps this one?. You keep ignoring things, that is not good. And did I said he was my buddy? And who said I'm not your buddy? I'm trying to have a decent conversation here, but you keep talking off-topic and impolite. And once more you did not commented on the given source. I think the discussion is ended here. You keep ignoring the sources, therefore I stop in this needless discussion. The Walashma dynasty was Somali-Arab, as said in the sources. If you are handeling in a chauvinistic way, that does not mean that every editor on this Wiki are doing the same. Thank you for your time. Runehelmet (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

walashma were not arab somali they were actually abyssinians but the article was left as just a muslim family so there would be no dispute but you came along and put in somali so i have added POV tags because thats what your pushing that way. Baboon43 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying that they were not Arab Somali, but saying all the time 'no' is making a yes-no discussion. But If I have the corresponding sources, how could I be pushing POV? You can take a look on the citations, but no you don't want that, you keep saying no,no and no. How is that leading us to a consensus? You are going through this discussion like the popular Dutch proverb; Een kat in het nauw maakt rare sprongen (A cat in problem will jump eccentrically his way out). So you could begin with giving atleast a comment on the given source. Runehelmet (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your pushing POV maybe another editor can comment on this discussion because its going nowhere right now. Until than the POV tags stay capish? Baboon43 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you an answer to its going nowhere right now; If you keep refusing to stay on topic, yes it will lead us to nowhere so the solution always starts at your initiative. And could you tell me why I'm pushing POV? Saying I am, without any arguments is just an empty statement. Runehelmet (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there's no consensus to your change but you insist you simply dont care about that we'll see what other editors have to say about this. This article remained muslim family until you just came along and started painting everything somali Baboon43 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So your mentality is to maintain anything and don't change a thing, that's present in the enclyclopedia? Then you can quit to be a Wikipedian. And making personal attacks is not leading us to a consensus. If there is info needed to be updated, it should be changed, just like you change the Adal page, do you hear me saying that you pain everything harari? And once again you don't comment on the given source, you just ignore it and says that I'm insisting things? You should read this. If you read well, you can see that the template in this article is not legitimate to maintain. Runehelmet (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My mentality is that I dont agree with you and I have given you many reasons above with sources. Do you not understand what consensus means? Telling other users to quit editing is against wiki policies so I advise you to look through the rules. I dont paint everything harari but I have seen your edits and your painting many things as somali and that is POV. You seem to think anything arab can automatically be painted as somali which is just ridiculous. That source says arab somali but you got rid of the arab part and went ahead with somali just as the other article on umar arida was like before i came along Baboon43 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please give me a citation when I told you to quite editing on Wiki. And even when I said that, it is not against the rules. If someone vandalize Wiki, he/she should stop editing. We call that blocking. And give me a link where you see me editing, what seems arab put I paint it Somali. And about the Somali-Arab part. If Arabs come to Somala and integrate they are Somali, it is like saying that for example, that Ahmed Aboutaleb is a Morrocan, but he is Dutch-Moroccan, but we all say he is Dutch, for though he is integrated in the Dutch culture. So what are your current critics? And don't do any personal attacks again...And I noticed you like to use the word POV, but in those contexts POV is not bad. A human being has always a Point of View. I know what you mean with that, but I'm just saying that the way you use it is actually bad. And in the future give some sources for your statements, not just yelling around stuff, citate if you want me to show what I've done (bad things or good things).

PS: I never edited on the Umar Ar-Rida article Runehelmet (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Walasma were not somali if you look at the adal wiki page you would see that they are not. They didnt go to somalia they went to shewa and integrated into the local abyssinian culture. The nation of Somalia did NOT exist back than and there were other ethnic groups which is why if harar joined somalia their identity would disappear..dont go around adding tags on articles just because i put a tag on this one lets not play that game maybe its time for you take a wiki break anyways tag stays on till you can bring an actual source identifying them as somali as that one is not RS enough. Baboon43 (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, if you remove a tag without any verification, it should be restored. Do you see the irony here? Don't make some fringe theories, claiming that the Somali people did not exist at that time. I'm not playing a game, as I checked that article I noted that you removed the tag without adding any references, so you are telling me that I should move my back to any issues regarding to users I did not encoutered? Do you have a source which states that the Somali people did not exist in the 14-16th century?Did they fell from the sky at some point? I must say, it is an interesting theory, Fringe, but interesting. You know you have a unique mentality, I'm not playing dodgeball, there is no such a thing as action-->reaction(in this case). Can you tell me why the current source it is not RS enough? And by the way, using an other Wiki page is not an reliable source. Runehelmet (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I didnt claim somali people didnt exist maybe you should re-read what i posted anyways..that source is not RS because the actual book on walasma does not state they were somali..they were actually arab at first than abyssinian but gradually their descendants mixed in with local population depending on where they settled argoba harari afar or somali regions..there's no online preview of the book though but if u think your source is RS, provide atleast several sources stating they are somali. Baboon43 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"The nation of Somalia did NOT exist back than and there were other ethnic groups which is why if harar joined somalia their identity would disappear" Here you go, your own citation. And may I ask you what the acronym 'RS' is? I have no clue what you mean with that, perphas validity? And if you copy and paste my quotes, you could easily find the book and continue to read it. It does have a online preview, I don't posses the book. And I provided 'some' sources. Perphas you could check them?

PS: What are you implying with the actual book on walasma, there are dozens of books that are discussing the dynasty and its members. Runehelmet (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

dont remove tag..you dont seem to understand the things i have mentioned above so until other editors can be involved dont remove the POV tag also you have no consensus for your changes so i suggest u rever it back to its original state. Baboon43 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perphas you don't understand a thing here, you don't even give a single argument why the given sources are delusive. You don't even response properly to my questions, how will we reach a consensus if you just ignore me and only pop up when I remove the illegitime tag? Runehelmet (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Walasma is claimed by more than one ethnic group not just somali if you go read the futuh al habasa you will see that there were other tribes in those regions or you can simply read the talk in abu bakr's article by the way you seem to think its a somali-ethiopian war when somalia did not exist back than it was called adal and it was led by many muslim ethnic groups in the region..the concept of somalia as a united nation is more recent..there's no preview online for the book that explains in depth about walasma family. Baboon43 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the people who are living there but who where ruling the state. Claiming and proofing are two different things my friend. And excuse me, where did I said that it was a Somali-Ethiopian war? Oh no, I was thinking it... Like you know what other people are thinking. "the concept of somalia as a united nation is more recent", Did I said it was a Somali state? And besides there were many Somali states in the medieval era, it don't need to be a fully unified state to be clasified as 'a Somali state'. And the books I gave are fully accessible. And you are beginning with "Walasma is claimed by more than one ethnic group..", I don't know about you, but saying that it is claimed by many ethnic groups does not help, not at all. And I think(or just let me say:I know) you are just making that up. Do you have any sources wich states that the Walashma is claimed by more than one ethnic group. And if you are thinking that there were no Somali states, you should look more to the East of the Horn region, if you know what I mean. And why don't you answer me with some arguments that the Walashma were not Somali? You don't? So let's remove the tag as there is no discussion. Only yelling awkward things won't help you, nor me. So if you are suggesting that the Walashma is not Somali, what were they then? If you don't know, than give a source wich states that they were not 'ethnically' based. If you respond again in a useless manner, I'm afraid I just won't reply, as it is just a waste of time and energy and remove the tag, untill you give some solid proof for your theories (including that the Somalis did not exist in the middle ages) Runehelmet (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to cut off discussion will just make matters worse so i suggest u stick to the topic and not go overboard as i said earlier 3rd opinion is needed because the discussion is going on a merry go round and i have given u many sources claiming walasma is claimed by many ethnic groups shall i re-post them again? Baboon43 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired listening to your nonsense(no offence), as you are directing us to nearly every subject that is not related to the current one. And yes it would be fine if you post your sources that said that it is claimed by other ethnic groups, but I'm afraid that it won't help, because adding a source that says that the Walashma is claimed by more ethnic groups, is not giving the ethnic background of the Walashma itself, it is just saying:'It is claimed by more than one ethnic group'. Great, fine to hear that, but what will it provide? The identity of the dynasty? Nope. And actually I'm not 'threatening' to cut off the discussion, as this is not worth to be called; an discussion. Runehelmet (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop being uncivil and personal attacks on users wont get you anywhere that aside, start reading my posts by the way the tag is not illegitimate because there is a serious POV issue on this article when things are labeled somali when they are not.. Wali Asma is an amhara he was in Abyssinian territory when he launched the sultanate of shoa those are the facts ill quote from the book when i get my hands on it in the mean time i want you to go to the library or google it and buy the book [6] also this source states Abyssinian emperor appointing wali asma as leader [7] and this source states walsma took amhara culture so if they were somalisized arabs why didnt they take the somali culture? based on your logic these were somalis that acted like amharas..walasma may have had arab roots but they were characterized as amhara because that was their cultural affiliation [8] Baboon43 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm discussing here in a proper manner, I don't know what your problem is. Critizing your way of discussing is not, and I repeat, not a personal attack. Did you know that insulting an other user of attacking you, is actually in fact a personal attack? "by the way the tag is not illegitimate because there is a serious POV issue on this article when things are labeled somali when they are not" Hmmm.. but you are not saying anything about the fact that it is sourced? The source I gave says explicity that the dynasty was Somalized Arabic. And giving links to a book without a review is not giving a solid proof of your claim. Could you citate the source and give the title of the book, the pages being used, the authors and the date of publication. Tha's a fully cited source that could be used. You could give the citation, rather then saying it, and linking it, or else tha's a case of a original research. And by the way, removing the given content during the discussion is not civil and against the rules. I don't like when you just ignore the given soures and inputting links to restricted books. No title, no author, no anything, just a link and your statement and calling it a 'POV issue, point of view? Sorry mister, but I'm only using books, or is that also a 'serious POV issue'? Runehelmet (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? from the links i sent you cant find page and author? Baboon43 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the citations, as I told you, you must insert the quotes here with the page and author. I'm not saying you must re-read my post, but to read it again and complete your burden as a editor. I think you know exactly what I meant with:"Could you citate the source and give the title of the book, the pages being used, the authors and the date of publication.", not that I can't the author in the link, but to insert it here. And for a fact, yes I can't find the page, as it is directing me to the front page, not the page(s) being used as a source. So citate your source in the future. If you don't know how, here you can find how you can cite your source. Regards. Runehelmet (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

source 6 is the link to the book which i dont have yet but when i get it ill send you the pages..i sent you that link because you asked which book im talking about..and source 7 title: "The ethiopian borderlands" page 40 by Richard Pankhurst..source 7 clearly states that they were amharisized now that conflicts with your source does it not? and source 8 ill give you later Baboon43 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you citate the source, about that they were amharisized? Not only saying that they were amharisized, but also a full citation. Runehelmet (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry not source 7 but 8 says "During such interaction, the Walasma were influenced by Amhara cultural traditions and upon returning to the Muslim Argobba escarpment slopes they introduced the fanfare and pomp which went along with kingship or lordship in the highlands, and Amharic quickly took up momentum as a language of Walasma administration of the Argobba population.". excerpts from the book "Tradition and Transformation: The Argobba of Ethiopia" By Abebe Kifleyesus p.117. Baboon43 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good source, but we are not here discussing the influences. Ofcourse where they influenced by surrounding cultures and languages, but what where they before they were influenced, and how does this influence transform them into an Amharic dynasty? For example; did the British royal house turned Dutch after the Glorious revolution? Even though it was ruled by a Dutchman? We call the British royal house 'British'. And the given sources states that it happened during the interaction between the Walashma and the Amharas, thus explaining that the Walashma and the Amharas were not of the same stock. And the source also states that they only adopted the Amharic language in the administration of the Argobba peoples. Influencing is not amharizition, does the source states what their native language and orign was?

"But the fourteenth-century rise of a Walasma dynasty in the Harar region, led by large numbers of people who were clearly of Ifat origin"- Roland Anthony Oliver and J. D. Fage, The Cambridge History of Africa: From c. 1050 to c. 1600- page 150. I think that this soure clearly states what their origin were. "In due time these converts[Somali-Arabs] even established the Muslim sultanates of Ifat, Dawaro, Adal, and dahlak and put pressure on the highland Ethiopian Christians by controlling trade through the main seaports of Suakin, Aydhab, Zeila, and Berbera"-John Middleton, Encyclopedia of Africa south of the Sahara- page 62 Runehelmet (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well like many groups in east africa walashma claim arab as their source but harari chronicals say wali asma was an amhara it could be because he was influenced by amhara culture as my source points out..im not sure if it is referring to the dynasty or not though but the man called wali asma is an amhara based on harari documents and he ruled harar and im guessing adal as he is listed as one of the kings of harar. somali arabs would not be influenced by amhara unless somalis didnt have a culture back than anyways the point is people refer to you by your cultural identity back than and it is not clear as more research needs to be done but leaving it as muslim noble family is the right thing to do until several sources list them as somali. Baboon43 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

" Well like many groups in east africa walashma claim arab as their source", it is nice to know if groups are claiming that Arab is their origin, but what do we gain from that knowledge? We are not talking here about the influences, but about the ethnicity. And as I stated before;Influencing is not the same as the original stock of the dynasty. And if we are talking about influencing;How is it possible that a group(amhara) is influencing the dynasty, wich you claim was amhara, if they are the same? How is it possible that for example that the Afar people were influencing the language of the Aussa Sultanate? "somali arabs would not be influenced by amhara unless somalis didnt have a culture back than" Do you have a source that explicite points out that Somalis did not have a culture 'back then'? Every people had a culture, it would be absurd if a people did not have a culture. No culture means no people and vice versa. Please do not inpute some fringe theories, that would hurt the progress of this discussion. And I have several sources, but you still ignore them, that is not great. Runehelmet (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

original stock of the dynasty is arab..amhara influenced walasma because they were in shewa territory as midday posted in adal sultanate they are said to be the first to penetrate habasha territory so that means they mingled with amharas..aussa sultanate was an afar sultanate it was led by walasma member but than it was taken over by afars after they abandoned harar..and i will ignore the culture part because you obviously dont understand me..no country existed named somalia so arab alone is enough. Baboon43 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Baboon43 asked me to weigh in on the discussion. If one consults my extensive chat with him on the Adal Sultanate talk page, it is clear that the Walashma were of Arab origin. However, there likely was some degree of both Somalization and Amharization in the northern Somali and Ethiopian Shewa regions, respectively. With regard to Abyssinian influence on the Walashma once they settled in the Ethiopian interior, J.D. Fage mentions that the names of the princes in the Arab documents pertaining to the early Shewa sultanate and the Walashma dynasty of both Ifat and Adal suggested Abyssinian affinities. By the same token, we need only look at the titles of the rulers in Zeila to see that the influence there was primarily Somali. An example of this is Garad Lado, who built the strong wall around Zeila. Garad/Gerad is a common Somali regal title, used as far back as the late 1200s by the rulers of the Warsangali Sultanate, among others. The implication of all of this is that the Walashma were eventually absorbed and influenced by the populations wherever they settled. This would have made them both of Arab origin and ancestors to many people in the region -- much like how the Darod Sheikh Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti or the Isaaq Sheikh Ishaq ibn Ahmad al-Hashimi were of Arab origin, yet still at the same time the patriarchs of many Somalis in the area. There's no contradiction there. Fage explains the situation well [9]:

"There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'. Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin."

Middayexpress (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@Baboon, "and i will ignore the culture part because you obviously dont understand me..no country existed named somalia so arab alone is enough" Did I said that there was a Somali republic back in the middle ages? Was there a Amhara region? No, so if I had your mentality I would say:There was no Amhara coutry, so the amhara people did not exist. Do you see that it does not make any sense? What do I don't understand? Tell me. And I would also like you to explain this:"somalis have destroyed many ethnic groups to be the dominant force today including the mayans by the way somalis also say hararis are somali even though they are semitic they claim they were somali that became arab or something like that", as you ignored me earlier. Runehelmet (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned that to prove a point so i wont get into it because its off topic. Baboon43 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic identity largely irrelevant in 15th century Horn of Africa

While it looms large today, people couldn't care less at this time. The irony of debating whether a dynasty was Arab or Somali is that all Somali clans claim to be Qurayshi Arabs, and have a nisba to Abi Taleb to prove it. Ingoman (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

walasma had amhara culture therefore the dynasty is more ethiopian then somali but wali asmas arab background is noted..this is one of the main cases the abyssianias make as their argument for saying the whole of a ifat/adal is therefore theirs. Baboon43 (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, there were some habesha Muslims who lived in the land in question, but they were not Amhara they were Gurage. The Walashma were neither. 216.19.185.124 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

well it looks like you have to read up on history..gurege were nothing more then an extension of the current harari which at that time were called harla..the gurege only recently developed into a separate ethnic group..the adal war and oromo invasion weakened the semitic gurege-harari lines Baboon43 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You have shown incredible ignorance here, first by claiming Walashma are Amhara of all people, then by claiming Hararis are the ancestors of Gurage and that Xarla of all people are their ancestors. The Xarla still exist, by the way. Then you have the temerity to claim I haven't done enough research, perhaps I should read books written by yourself, since that's clearly the only place I'm going to find any literature supporting your hypothesis. Ingoman (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

well sorry but you cant push POV by claiming everyone is somali on articles and yes you do need to read history not come here with original research..yea according to you everyone exists harla, imam ahmeds family what else? perhaps even his sword is in your possession Baboon43 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"on the eve of Islamic state expansion: on the one hand, there was a cushitic speaking cluster, which we refer to in the following as Hadiyya-Sidama, and on the other hand, there was a Semitic-speaking cluster of the Harala-Harari" [10] Baboon43 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)