IS IT TRUE ? IS IFAT HABESHA EMPIRE ?
- Thread starter sldksdldsk
- Start date
Somali historians is the source legit ?
We should look at history in an honest non partisan way. The history of both Ifat and Adal needs much more research and sources aren't there many. Ifat was founded probably in Zeila or around that area, then they conquered Show which was Habesha territory. We just have some weak hints (not evidence) that point to a somali origin or to a Habesha Muslim(Argobba)
Somali hypothesis: the Walashma dinasty founded Ifat which later became Adal. The Walashma claimed Arab lineage through Aqeel Ibn Abu Taleeb but it's also well known that somalis also claim Arab lineage through Aqeel. This may suggest that they had Somali origins and because of that had the same exact Arab origin myth that other somalis have. But it could also be the other way around so maybe they weren't somali and somalis adopted the fake Arab lineage after them. The second hint of Somali origin is that Yusuf Al kawneyn was their ancestor according to tradition. Al Kawneyn is also the ancestor of many somali clans and he is credited with the expansion of Islam in Somalia.
Habesha Muslim hypothesis:
When it comes to the Walashma dinasty Most scholars that i know never explicitly state their ethnicity but some say they spoke an ethio-semitic language so they would have been Habesha muslims. The issue is that there's no evidence of what language they spoke, we just don't know for sure but it's plausible because the Harar had a semitic speaking population (Hararis) and there we know Argobba (Habesha muslims) lived in that area.
My final judgement is that both Ifat and Adal were multiethnic and may have had mixed Somali, afar, habesha muslim roots just like most royals in Europe were mixed (the English royal house has German origins for example )
Somali hypothesis: the Walashma dinasty founded Ifat which later became Adal. The Walashma claimed Arab lineage through Aqeel Ibn Abu Taleeb but it's also well known that somalis also claim Arab lineage through Aqeel. This may suggest that they had Somali origins and because of that had the same exact Arab origin myth that other somalis have. But it could also be the other way around so maybe they weren't somali and somalis adopted the fake Arab lineage after them. The second hint of Somali origin is that Yusuf Al kawneyn was their ancestor according to tradition. Al Kawneyn is also the ancestor of many somali clans and he is credited with the expansion of Islam in Somalia.
Habesha Muslim hypothesis:
When it comes to the Walashma dinasty Most scholars that i know never explicitly state their ethnicity but some say they spoke an ethio-semitic language so they would have been Habesha muslims. The issue is that there's no evidence of what language they spoke, we just don't know for sure but it's plausible because the Harar had a semitic speaking population (Hararis) and there we know Argobba (Habesha muslims) lived in that area.
My final judgement is that both Ifat and Adal were multiethnic and may have had mixed Somali, afar, habesha muslim roots just like most royals in Europe were mixed (the English royal house has German origins for example )
Last edited:
Coming to the source on the tweet. Zeila was temporarily occupied by Christian Ethiopia at various points in history and we have Arab sources saying it was a Christian Abyssinia city and other saying it was inhabited by Barbars (somalis). Zeila was most probably a Somali city that had Habesha elements because of trade and some periods of time were it was conquered by Habeshas
In conclusion I think it's completely wrong to say Habeshas have nothing to do with Ifat and Adal, they contributed a lot (Hararis and Argobba) just like Somalis. The ethnic origin of the rulers of Adal and Ifat is not clear and anyone saying they were somali, harari, habesha Muslim or whatever doesn't have hard evidence. The hard to swallow pills for all horners is that these very interesting and important Kingdoms belong to all the people's who lived in that area so Somalis, Harari, Argobba (habeesha muslim) and Afar
There's hard evidence to say this. It may be true but any ethnic identification of the ruling dinasty is without evidence
1)I may need confirmation from DNA experts on sspot but I'm pretty sure Hararis are not ALL mixed with Somalis and Oromos. They are still legit Habeshas which is by the way a not a race or ethnicity. Amharas are heavily mixed with oromos and ayaa cushites but they are they are Habeshas. If mixing with Cushites makes u non habesha then nobody is HabeshaHarari are a mix of Somali, Oromo and Habesha so no. And Argobba are a extreme small minority compared to Somalis so also no. I still see their contributions but Majority rules plus the Walashma Dynasty was Somali.
2) Argobba are small today but we don't know their numbers back in the middle ages. Harla people are extinct now but we know they had considerable numbers back then. It may be the same for Argobba.
3) still no evidence that the Walashma were Somalis, spoke Somali. We have to rely on Arab and Ethiopian chronicles, if you can bring me one Arab source that says they were "barbar" aka Somali then I'll retract my staments. I'm talking about the RULERS, we have evidence of Zeila being Somali majority but we don't have any evidence on the rulers. I think it's s bit weird for an entire Somali dinasty to have zero mention of their qabil.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not siding with the amxaaro, I'm saying there is no conclusive evidence to identify the Walashma dinasty's ethnic identity. We have only hints and that may suggest they were somalis or at least had common roots with somalis
Harari are mostly habesha with some Somali and Oromo influence and genes with some foreigner (Middle East, Indian, Turkey, North African, etc.) admixture as well, for the most part, they identify as habesha and Ethiopian which many here may not know lolHarari are a mix of Somali, Oromo and Habesha so no. And Argobba are an extreme small minority compared to Somalis so also no. I still see their contributions but Majority rules plus the Walashma Dynasty was Somali.
According to them ifat empire wasn’t Somali
@Shimbiris you seem very knowledgeable when it comes to Somali history
@Shimbiris you seem very knowledgeable when it comes to Somali history
Ignore it and just explain this for me
Apparently it wasnot the fully case
What I mean is that ifat conquered shewa who was Muslim area but happened to lose to habshesa so they ended paying tribute to them however places like zeila and Berber wasn’t since they stopped habshes reaching or conquering that place but they’ve failed for shew tho
Arabsiyawi
HA Activist.
Technically speaking, Somali history is an extension and a part of « Ethiopian » history. The same way Eritrean history is.
I know it may sound mad but it is true. Obviously some of it is completely detached to it but most is, in a way or an other.
I know it may sound mad but it is true. Obviously some of it is completely detached to it but most is, in a way or an other.
Garaad diinle
This is a blatant lie and an attempt at historical revisionism by the habashi nothing out of the ordinary. The first capital of the walashama was called ifat and awfat by old arabic sources but never yifat. In fact al-maqrizi 14th century egyption historian writes awfat when he talks about the muslim sultanate in the horn of africa.
In regard of the ruling family they were somalis descended from aw barkhadle a somali sheikh. The walashama and issa somalis are both descended from him. Never believe anything that comes from a habashi christian mouth.
In regard of the ruling family they were somalis descended from aw barkhadle a somali sheikh. The walashama and issa somalis are both descended from him. Never believe anything that comes from a habashi christian mouth.
Ifat was a weak state which tried to remain sovereign but ultimately paid tribute to & was defeated by the Abyssinian emperors. Not something I would proudly claim as part of Somali history tbh. It's only relevance to me is verifying the origins of the Walashma dynasty.
From the text above we can see that local written, and Arab genealogies of the Walashma dynasty point to them being descended from Aw Barkhadle who was a Somali scholar. We also must acknowledge most ruling Muslim dynasties from West Africa to Asia proclaimed to be Descended from the Prophet or his tribe. This was to bolster their right to rule using the veneration of the prophet Muslims had. Her source even somewhat notes this.
Now let's finally address her point that some of Ifat's rulers were born and raised in an Ethiopian court. The source they get this claim from is from a book called Church and State in Ethiopia written by Taddesse Tamrat in 1972. He references this claim from Al-Marizi's book on Ethiopia's history.
Me and a friend found the latin translation of Al-Maqrizi book (he did most of the legwork looking into this) and it mentions that the children were held captive there for 8 years, they weren't born there. Even being held captive they withheld obedience to the emperor and would later wage a bitter conflict against abyssinia. They mention that source with the objective of saying there children are of Ethiopian Habesha origin which is false.
It's important to note tho that Al-Maqrizi never visited the Horn first hand, he reportedly wrote this book while in Mecca. His book is also the only source anywhere that states this.
link to the latin translation of Al-Maqrizi's book, the english version is impossible to find online
From the text above we can see that local written, and Arab genealogies of the Walashma dynasty point to them being descended from Aw Barkhadle who was a Somali scholar. We also must acknowledge most ruling Muslim dynasties from West Africa to Asia proclaimed to be Descended from the Prophet or his tribe. This was to bolster their right to rule using the veneration of the prophet Muslims had. Her source even somewhat notes this.
Now let's finally address her point that some of Ifat's rulers were born and raised in an Ethiopian court. The source they get this claim from is from a book called Church and State in Ethiopia written by Taddesse Tamrat in 1972. He references this claim from Al-Marizi's book on Ethiopia's history.
Me and a friend found the latin translation of Al-Maqrizi book (he did most of the legwork looking into this) and it mentions that the children were held captive there for 8 years, they weren't born there. Even being held captive they withheld obedience to the emperor and would later wage a bitter conflict against abyssinia. They mention that source with the objective of saying there children are of Ethiopian Habesha origin which is false.
It's important to note tho that Al-Maqrizi never visited the Horn first hand, he reportedly wrote this book while in Mecca. His book is also the only source anywhere that states this.
link to the latin translation of Al-Maqrizi's book, the english version is impossible to find online
Last edited:
Trending
-
-
-
Why do we make the mentally ill in our community famous- Started by Geeljire lotus
- Replies: 30
Latest posts
-
-
China Simulates Full Attack on Taiwan and surrounds island with land forces
- Latest: The truth seeker
-