Talk:Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad

message: :"The Abyssinian king (negus) Yeshaq (1414-1429) expanded his kingdom's political and commercial  interests into  the trade  routes  and domains of the  Somali Kingdom  of Ifat,  centered in  Zeila."-Somalia: background information for Operation Restore Hope, 1992-93, page 16
:"The rulers of Somalia found help from the Yemenite king and soon founded, in the region of Harer (in eastern Ethiopia), the Adal Sultanate.-The encyclopedia of Christianity: Volume 5 - Page 117
The first source states that the Ifat Sultanate, wich was founded by the Walashama dynasty, was Somali. And the second one imply that the Adal Sultanate was founded with the help of the Yemenite king, and the Adal Sultanate was ruled by the remnants of the Walashama dynasty. I have an other source for you, showing that Zeila and Ifat were ruled by Somali-Arabs:
:"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.". 
Here is an other:
:"In due time these converts 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
But remember I'm not saying that the Sultanates of Ifat and Adal were Somali, but the rulers were Arabized Somali or Somalized Arabs. Runehelmet (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had requested specifically a source stating sultan abubaker is somali sort of like the Nur ibn Mujahid source which states his clan..but your incorrect adal and ifat were not arabized somali or somalized arabs although some of the leaders like emir nur were somali even imam ahmed's ethnicity is disputed..on walashma some sources say hadiya founded them in the shewa region so therefore is disputed its better to just leave it as it is. Baboon43 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You are trying to say that the sources I gave were incorrect? You are making an original research. Do you have any sources wich states that Adal and Ifat were not ruled and inhabitated by Somali-Arabs? Because I have it and if you want it to read just scroll up. You like to say the word 'dispute' but its not. There are always people saying the opposite, but the mainstraim historians see Ahmad Al ghazi as a Somali. You have sources wich states that Walashama was founded by a man in Shewa? That would be interesting, because it's accepted that the dynasty was founded by Umar Walashma, an Arab immigrant from Arabia. You are plain denying the facts, just read the sources again, but slowly and try to be neutral. Neutrality is a fundamental rule of Wikipedia, you cant be chauvinistic. These sources are clarifying the fact that the rulers of Ifat and Adal were Somali-Arabs. If you think not, could you show me sources that states that the rulers were not Somali-Arabs?Regards. PS: Please stop reverting, its not very fruitful. Runehelmet (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  quote a source that specifically states abubaker is somali or it cant be included that he is in the article..i think you can do your own research on adal and ifat i dont really need to get into that here...i have a feeling you know this info already and just want to extend the discussion but ill give you the benefit of the doubt..now you say they were somali but why do academics believe they spoke abyssinian or arabic? here's a source scroll down to yifat its after sawa (shewa) topic but also read shoa too since your curious about the amhara thing.   ..im just trying to tell u its disputed but the academics seem to believe that it was most likely ethiopians not somalians so its not really a dispute but i personally think somalis should atleast claim ifat but yea dont give me counter sources im not here to argue im just telling you that its not black and white. Baboon43 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You may feel what you want but I'm here to put some facts in order. I'm not saying they were Somali but Somali-Arabs. As the previous sources stated that the rulers of Zeila and Ifat(Ifat and Adal Sultanate) were Somali-Arabs. And they may speak Arabic or Abyssinian(I dont think that's a language), but does that state anything about their ethnicity? As I proved some sources, could you give me some as well? The language source you gave me is unattainable.
"i think you can do your own research on adal and ifat i dont really need to get into that here" Perphas you may be forgotton that the Adal and Ifat Sultanate were centered in respectively Zeila and Harrar. If you say that you don't 'need to get into that here', you may stop this discussion. And I have an intereseting fact for you;there is no demonym Ethiopian, Ethiopia knows more then 70 ethnic groups. Perphas this source could refresh your memory:
"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."Runehelmet (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source says abyssinian and amharic in brackets but they claim the sultanate was semitic not somali so if there's conflicting sources and you dont have a source stating that abubaker is somali than it cant be put in the article..the language source is attainable maybe you need to google the exact words on google books the exact quote you can search is "the yifat people either spoke abyssinian"..so if you claim they were arab than still you cant put that in for abubaker..its too complex unless you have direct quotes stating the ethnicity..perhaps you may have forgotten that harar's native people are a semitic group and also that if your going to say somalis spoke amharic that still is awkward and we cant put that in the article there's no academic basis to that and one more thing the source says ifat evolved from shoa sultanate thats why they believe semitic ethiopian or arabic were spoken therefore people were semitic and not mention somali cush language. Baboon43 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Dear friend, I never said that Somalis spoke Amharic. I already gave you sources, historians are not giving ethnic backgrounds per individual. If the Dynasty is Somali-Arab then why should they list each single person of that dynasty apart? You may ask "Do you have any sources for that?", Yes I have just scroll up(again). And I dont see any awkwardness that Somalis are speaking Amharic, if thats its true. Yes Yes yes... The native people of Harar are semetic, but we are talking about the Rulers. The Dynasty was Somali-Arabic:"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". You are talking about languange, I'm talking about ethnicity. A Han Chinese speaks French, does that makes him French? Runehelmet (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Walasma Dynasty itself is not somali only so it cant be claimed by one ethnic group..hararis are of walashma background as stated here on page 174 first paragrpah  here's a source that states the argoba claiming walasma therefore ifat let me give you a source that states ifats cultural identity was argoba therefore a semitic dynasty because argoba themselves claim arab ancestry as do walasma source  if link doesnt work google "argobba and their walasma rulers were the vanguard" ..some facts you might want to know is that semitic hararis were all over siad barres government in all parts of top admin levels from military to other administrations like being representatives of the nation of somalia so i think its good you read history of somalia instead of assuming things..dont go around reverting my reliable source input in other pages just cause i reverted you here.  Baboon43 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

text: First of all this is an enclyclopedia. If I find something that's not reliable and/or fit for the page I can remove it, even if you were my personal friend(but we could have a friendly relation). And by the way that page is in my watchpage. I can tell you I'm more interested in the pre-modern history of the Horn region, but it's nice to know, thank you (even though it is not fruitful in this discussion). Now back to the topic. 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. Runehelmet (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity of the Dynasty