The Arabs left Zaila in 1540

[mohammdov]

I see you're full of cuqdad or perhaps this your arabist side? Even then you really giving your fellow arabist a bad rep especially when you lie about history to further your so called narrative. Here is the text i referred to for anyone interested.

It's funny you mention mokha that had a third of it's citizens being somalis. I guess somalis simply by being residents they were also the rulers of mokha according to your logic.

This has nothing to do with the matter I am talking about. I am talking about the demographic structure of Zaila, and I previously mentioned to you that Zaila is an Arabic word
The ruler of Mocha was not Somali, and I do not know how Mocha became a Somali city. The Somalis in Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.
You are only trying to evade the facts.
That Arabs have the greatest role in spreading Islam and bringing civilization to the Horn of Africa

 

[Step a side]

Amir Nur came from the Harla hereditary landed nobility. He had no association with Marehan.

No one knows his lineage. What we do know for certain is that rulers before him and the once after him were all from 3 competing Karanle lineages all connected to Gureys great grandfather who birthed Garad Adas, Garad Ibrahim and Garad Gasasle (Imam Mohamed of Awssas line).

 

[Al Adnani]

There was Arab presence in Zeila up to the 19th century, however with the exception of the emir of mocha there has never been an Arabian ruler of Zeila, mostly Turks, some afars, and Somali

 

[Garaad diinle]

This has nothing to do with the matter I am talking about. I am talking about the demographic structure of Zaila, and I previously mentioned to you that Zaila is an Arabic word
The ruler of Mocha was not Somali, and I do not know how Mocha became a Somali city. The Somalis in Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.
You are only trying to evade the facts.
That Arabs have the greatest role in spreading Islam and bringing civilization to the Horn of Africa

Aging playing coy i see. You really starting to learn from habashisteven. How convenient of you to disregard ibn battutas eye witness report of zeila and it's overwheliming black berber/somalis inhabitants. I guess it doesn't serve your narrative so surely you wouldn't bring it up would you.

Oh and about mohka here is a map from the 18th century showing the large somali presence in mokha They even had their own quarter.

You've mentioned demographic here do i really need to explain to you that if a group of arabs live among somali much like how somalis were living among the arabs in mokha that wouldn't mean that the city belonged to arabs. Also about the name zeila that you keep crying about a lot of somalis cities had two name. Are we supposed believe that for example a port city such as bossaso which was also called bandar qasim was also an arab port city simply cause it had an arab name? Mind you there were no arabs living in that port.

 

[Al Adnani]

This has nothing to do with the matter I am talking about. I am talking about the demographic structure of Zaila, and I previously mentioned to you that Zaila is an Arabic word
The ruler of Mocha was not Somali, and I do not know how Mocha became a Somali city. The Somalis in Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.
You are only trying to evade the facts.
That Arabs have the greatest role in spreading Islam and bringing civilization to the Horn of Africa

There were some permanent residents in Zeila that were Somali, not just shepherds. They were dir and Isaaq.
“"There are basically some settled Somals, but Gadabursi and Habr Awal in particular who achieved modest fortune through happy speculations, settled in the city or live there for at least part of the year as permanent or occasional agents of their wild brothers...” this source is from the 1700s. [Harar P.Paulitsckhe, 49]

 

[Riftvalley]

The source I mentioned to you now mentions the case of Zaila and that the Arabs in the city were subjected to Bedouin raids. Why are you trying to make the Oromo and Somalis different they were the same thing View attachment 313259
Why do you think it moved to Awsa, where the Afar live, and not to another land where the Somalis live? If they are the ones who own Adal and Harar, why did they choose the land of the Afar?
The reason is because the Afar there were farmers and were more peaceful, unlike the Somalis and Oromo who were very nomadic and attacked Harar and Zeila.

There are actually sources which indicate the reasons why the walls were built: to ward off the Oromo (in Harar) and the Abysnian threat to Zeila and other Muslim provinces. There are no sources which say anything about walls being built against Somali nomads apart from one colonial revisionist source you are quoting as gospel.

Somali nomads would have most likely been part of the mujahideen defending the cities, just as they were part of the Adal wars. When Imam Ahmed challenged the ruler of Zeila and was chased all the way to Hubat, the governor of Zeila was accompanied by larger number of Somalis according to the Futuh. It is absurd to say Somalis were seen as the same as Oromo Pagans of the time. Here are some sources discussing and describing the reasons for the fortifications:

https://hal.science/hal-04224979/document

Harar as the capital city of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dīn (first half of the 16th century): from its emergence to its fortification
Amélie Chekroun

“
The first mention of the construction of the city wall appears in docu- mentation during the government of Emir Nuˉr. The latter placed the legitimate sultan [i.e. a descendant of Saʿd ad-Dˉın] under guardianship as early as 1551-1552. Nuˉr then ruled Harar and the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın until his death in 1567-1568. Emir Nuˉr is primarily known for killing the Christian King Galawdéwos in 1559, which is cited both in textual sources and in oral tradition, and specifically within the Galawdéwos chronicle (Solomon Gebreyes, 2019: 56-58) and the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉ k:
He is the one who led the second conquest as well as the one who killed the king of the H· abasha. He fought the king named At·naˉf Sajad, killed him and cut off his head. He went down with that head to the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın and I saw it myself with my own eyes. (Mercier, 2020: 41)
But Emir Nuˉ r is also known for giving Harar its present shape. In the same pe- riod, what historiography calls “the great Oromo migrations” began. Though the time frame and modalities of the migrations remain obscure (cf. Ficquet, 2002), these “migrations” saw the installation of Oromo populations who pro- bably came from southern regions of the country into the southern and eastern

half of the Christian kingdom and into Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın territories. The Oromos supplanted the existing populations present in the medieval period and in particular the Muslim populations under the domination of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın Sultanate, including those surrounding the city of Harar. The Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉk explains that the construction of the walls was undertaken in large part in order to defend against the newly arrived Oromo who were plundering the region:


There came an exceptional famine in our country. [...] The Jaˉla [i.e. Oromos] plundered the people of all regions. [...] The Jaˉla [i.e. Oromos] plundered (takhat·t·afa) the area and preyed (kharraba) on the region (balad) of Sˉım, Shawaˉ, Nujub, Jidaˉya and Dakkar and most of the land of Harjaˉyaˉ. The survivors built fortifications (al-·hu·suˉ n) and dug trenches (al-khandaq). (Cerulli, 1931: 53; Mercier,

In response to the Oromo attacks, it seems that a general fortification of the region took place. The regions mentioned here are also found in other textual sources of the time. These are some of the main territories under the authority of the Sultans of Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın. Some of them are mentioned as early as the 13th century in the Dhikr at-tawaˉrˉıkh, the so-called “Chronicle of Shawah.” These annals of some Ethiopian Muslim territories in the 12th-13th century, written in Arabic at the end of the 13th century, mention many Islamic territories, including Shawah and Jidaˉyah that the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉ k says were fortified in the mid-16th century. Shawah and Jidaˉyah, but also Dakar, Harjaˉya and Sˉım, are found in many Arabic and Geʿez sources of the 14th and 15th century (see Chekroun, forthcoming) up to the writing of the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉ k and the mention of their fortification. These regions do not only appear in the textual sources after the collapse of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın, but also just after their fortification.
The ambiguity of the quotation from the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉk implies that, in addition to Harar, all the localities mentioned and that were attacked by the Oromos were fortified. Moreover, Harar is not explicitly mentioned in this list. No precise date is provided in this text, however, in Harar, these fortifications seem to have been decided upon before the death of Emir Nuˉ r and after his return from his war against the Christian king [i.e. after 1559-1560 and before 1567-1568]. Furthermore, the same text mentions the presence of a gate and a ditch surrounding the city in the 1570s within a description that leaves no doubt about the presence of fortifications surrounding the city:
They even arrived at the city of Harar and besieged its people for several days. Fighting took place between them at the entrance to Harar, until the city gate was filled with corpses and the Jaˉla turned back. The wazˉır was wounded by about twenty blows from the blades and collapsed in the ditch. God Almighty saved him; he was brought back to the city of Harar and lived. (Mercier, 2020: 44)

Harar as the capital city of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın 37
Other textual sources confirm this period of fortifications. Shortly thereafter, the port city of Zaylaʿ, under the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın Sultanate authority, was also adorned with protective walls. A fragment of a chronicle in Arabic from the late 16th century explains that this construction was carried out at the behest of the city’s governor, the jaraˉd Laˉduˉ , by a man from Yemeni origin, a Qurashˉı:
And he began [the construction] of the walls [darb5] of Zaylaʿ to protect it, and this happened on the day of Wednesday, the fifth of the month of safar of prosperity. This was by the hand of ʿAt·iya b. Muh·ammad al-Qurashˉı, who was in charge of the construction of the walls by the governor of Zaylaʿ at that time, who was the jaraˉd Laˉduˉ . The sultaˉn Muh· ammad b. sultaˉn Nas·ˉır was then in al-H· abasha [i.e. Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia]. The jaraˉd Laˉduˉ died in the land of Awsah in the village of Waraˉbah on Friday, the 26th of the month of shawwal in the year 996 [i.e., September 18, 1588]. (Cerulli, 1931: 89)
The decision to build walls “to protect it” probably took place between 1575 and 1577. According to the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉk, Sultan Muh·ammad b. Nas·ir b. ʿUt·maˉn b. Badlay ruled over the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın between 1572/3 and 1577. He went on an expedition against the Christian kingdom towards the end of his reign. This expedition was a bitter failure for the Muslims who notably suffered a part of their troops deserting to the Christian side. During the sultan’s absence in 1575/6, a man named Mans·ur b. Muh·ammad b. Ayyuˉb moved to Harar to fight the Oromos (Cerulli, 1931: 162-163; Paulitschke, 1888: 509). Christian sources confirm the date of this Sultan Muh· ammad’ expedition. The Short Chronicle, a compilation of short notices regarding the history of Christian Ethiopia from the legendary reign of Menilek I to the modern period, states that in the 13th year of S ́ard· a Dengel’s reign (r. 1563-1597), i.e. in 1576, Muh· ammad arrived in Christian territory and that “in the 14th year, [S ́ard· a Dengel] marched against Muh· ammad, gave battle to him in the valley of the Wabi River, chase him off, and wintered at Zah· on-dour” (Basset, 1881: 117). As for the chronicle of S ́ard· a Dengel’s reign, it notes that “the king of Adal, called Muh· ammad” arrived in Christian territory in the 13th year of that king’s reign. He killed the “chiefs of the Muslim (malasaˉy) tribes” and their families. Even if they were Muslim, because they were Muslim vassals of the Christian king, this was seen as an attack on the Christian kingdom. In 1577, the following year, S ́ard·a Dengel decided to attack Muh·ammad, whom he found on the side of the Wabi, a river south of his kingdom. After more than a month of fighting, Muh· ammad was betrayed by one of his own, captured, and killed in the Christian camp (Conti Rossini, 1907: 56 and 59). Thus, between 1575 and 1577, while the Sultan of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın was


fighting the Christian king and the Oromos continued to attack the sultanate’s territories, the governor of Zaylaʿ decided on the construction of protective walls just as Emir Nuˉ r had decided a decade earlier in Harar.

continued

 

[Riftvalley]

The author continues:

Thus, it appears that the fortification of (or at least some of) Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın’s urban sites was a common strategy and more or less simultaneously directed process during the second half of the 16th century in response to the arrival of the Oromos and the various upheavals the region experienced during this period (Mercier, 2022a). It should be noted that the urban sites of Awfaˉt,thesultanatethatprecededthatoftheBarrSaʿdad-Dˉıninthe13th-14th centuries, also show remains of impressive fortifications. For instance, the archaeological site of Nora, dated to the 14th century, revealed a massive wall

Harar as the capital city of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın 39
that blocked access to the city to the north (Fauvelle, Hirsch & Chekroun, 2018: 256 and Fig. 6). The cities of Awfaˉt were thus fortified and probably because of their position, which was close to Christian territories. On the other hand, Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın’s urban sites would have been fortified only at the extreme end of the sultanate’s history in order to defend themselves not from Christian attacks but from the new Oromo threat and epidemics. Does this mean that no fortifications existed or were needed in the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın before the second half of the 16th century? It is difficult to assess such a question. First, Harar had only been an important political center for a few decades by the 1560s, and these periods were rife with political instability. The sultans may not yet have had time to adorn their new capital with city walls. Second, the first capital of the Barr Saʿd ad-Dˉın was the city of Dakar where the sultans remained for more than a century. No description of this city is recorded and its archaeological site has yet to be identified (Chekroun, 2015). It is possible that this city was fortified as early as the 15th century, although the brief excerpt from the Taʾrˉıkh al-muluˉk mentions Dakar in the list of places attacked by the Oromos when fortifications were built in the 1560s.

 

[The alchemist]

No such thing as attacks by Somali nomads. You see, the cities across Somaliland and into modern Ethiopia were not walled and there was no evidence of conflict or destruction, except Zeila under a specific condition, that had nothing to do with nomadic people coming in and being destructive. This was noticed by people who did archeological work on the entire region. Meaning, the notion that nomads were just crazy bandits who came and messed things up for civilized foreigners was not true, for two reasons. It was Somalis who lived and ran practically everything everywhere relevant, plus the subsistence economy was always complex, dealing with all types of intermediaries, nested within an economic model that pre-existed the Islamic period, also spearheaded and facilitated by none other than, you guessed it, Somalis.

Anyway, here is the actual evidence from cities along the trade routes, pastoralists resting and prayer and congregational spots, that debunks this notion that Zaila had to fortify because of conflict-prone "nomads" (useless term, by the way) because anywhere outside Zaila was peaceful, evinced by the archeological attestation:

Another aspect which needs reassessment is the analysis of conflict in the medieval history of Somaliland. Traditionally, this history has been directly related to the clashes between the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia and the successive Muslim polities to the south and southeast of the Horn. However, this almost continuous state of war does not find, so far, any correlation in the archaeological evidence. To this moment, evidence of conflict is scarce in Somaliland: the overwhelming majority of the settlements studied so far do not have walls and their abandonment seems to have been progressive and pacific. - Torres Rodriguez, Jorge de (2022)

The state of preservation of the structures varies. Some have been very well preserved and their walls are still standing more than two meters in height, while others are much more eroded and the walls remaining are just about 50 cm in height. Between the different sites no significant differences in size and quality of the houses have been observed: the buildings in small settlements are often as carefully built as those in big towns such as Abasa or Amud. Significantly, almost none of the sites recorded contains walls or any kind of protection, the exception being the main port of Zeila (which, according to 19th-century travellers was defended by walls but are no longer extant today), the fortress of Derbi Cad and a small bastion located by the Incipit team in the city of Abasa in 2018 (Torres et al 2018). Such a lack of fortifications contrasts with the almost permanent state of war between Christians and Muslims described by the medieval chroniclers, and might point to a relatively peaceful coexistence between nomads and urban dwellers in the region. Same author.

Now, it is true they emphasize the Christian part but think about the natives, the Somalis. The fact that there were no volatile, intra conflicts also is an even bigger marker of synergy. This picture of nomadic savages outside Zaila is a lie that was never supported by the physical reality when one checks the inhabited and used areas; why did all the built places not have fortifications without any evidence of a struggle or damage from conflict? Because it was always a lie. A racist one at that.

I have a lot of criticisms of these Spanish archeologists, but on this point, they were correct because it is a material fact, not something you can explain away. This picture of anything run by Somalis heavily described as anarchic and lawless, even in the entire economic zones run by pastoralist traders, was bogus and spread by orientalists, further pushed by Ethiopianists, and adopted by people sympathetic to that anti-Somali ideology, that needed to construct a lie to undermine and/or claim the strength and legitimate positions of the history of Somalis. None of this is ever supported by the evidence, as history is on our side.

People have to understand that much of the attack on Somali history is a current political uprooting of the region. It is a way to say: "You have fewer legs to stand on. We are the natural dominants." It is convenient for Ethiopians who want to expand, as an example, because they can force a false narrative, which they do concurrently, that all the coasts were theirs, all the way down to Konfur (their previous kings said this...)

What did the Zionists tell to the Palestinian natives? The region was Ottoman, then it was British... To us they want to say, it was Arab, and other other, some vague non-existent people, all lies, so they can come tomorrow and say, the region was always ours, or it was historically contested equally between us and them, and they won it fair and square then imposing a might is right narrative. People have to understand that the geopolitical ambitions of other nations are what drive their constructivist false, historical assertions. It is deliberate and malicious.

 

[awsaleban667]

Previous Arab leaders in Zeila commissioned the building of a wall around the port city of Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali restlessness. Somali nomads are generally lawless and anarchic. Arabs also arrived in Zeila at different intervals. Similar fortified walls were constructed in Mogadishu and Harar to keep out the lawless nomads.

I appreciate you bringing that up. As I mentioned before, Somali nomads entered Zeila after the collapse of the Adal sultante. The nomads took advantage of the weakened state and invaded. The Arabs in Zeila were overwhelmed by the nomads, so they departed.

Enrico Cerulli debunks your hotepism. It was a conflict between reer magaal and reer baadiyo

 

[awsaleban667]

The source I mentioned to you now mentions the case of Zaila and that the Arabs in the city were subjected to Bedouin raids. Why are you trying to make the Oromo and Somalis different they were the same thing View attachment 313259
Why do you think it moved to Awsa, where the Afar live, and not to another land where the Somalis live? If they are the ones who own Adal and Harar, why did they choose the land of the Afar?
The reason is because the Afar there were farmers and were more peaceful, unlike the Somalis and Oromo who were very nomadic and attacked Harar and Zeila.

Dankali were literally mentioned as savages I have the quotes don’t make me bring it

 

[awsaleban667]

This has nothing to do with the matter I am talking about. I am talking about the demographic structure of Zaila, and I previously mentioned to you that Zaila is an Arabic word
The ruler of Mocha was not Somali, and I do not know how Mocha became a Somali city. The Somalis in Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.
You are only trying to evade the facts.
That Arabs have the greatest role in spreading Islam and bringing civilization to the Horn of Africa

Al Umari says they spoke Somali in Zayla keep crying

 

[Zak12]

Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.

They did have ships though. How did you think Somali traders reached Aden?

 

[awsaleban667]

That Arabs have the greatest role in spreading Islam and bringing civilization to the Horn of Africa

“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization. This is the case with them quite generally. Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess.” -Ibn Khaldun

 

[Zak12]

Enrico Cerulli debunks your hotepism. It was a conflict between reer magaal and reer baadiyo
View attachment 313279

Unfortunately, some people here cannot wrap their heads around the idea that Somalis were both nomadic and urban. Urbanized Arabs had to deal with bedouin raiders aka their fellow Arabs so it stands to reason that sedentary Somalis also had to deal with nomadic ones.

Its also funny that people equate Somali nomads to Oromos when the fact of the matter is that Somali nomads were in Hararghe for nearly a thousand years and the urban dwellers never felt the need to built huge walls to protect themselves against them yet when the Oromo did come, then Harar's walls were built.

“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization. This is the case with them quite generally. Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess.” -Ibn Khaldun

Yep, this is what I'm talking about. Ibn Khaldun is as Arab as you can be but since he was an urban dweller, he still looked down on the nomadic Arabs. You can see the same attitude that Ottoman Turks had on other Turks whom they viewed as uncivilized nomads.

 

[canjeeroiyoshah]

Boggles the mind as to why Somalis would try to discredit their own history.

 

[The alchemist]

The Somalis in Zaila did not have ships, so they were just shepherds.

There were no ships on the Somali coasts but Somalis made good boatmen and sailors. Where is the logic in that?

“The Monthly Record.” The Geographical Journal, vol. 2, no. 6, 1893, pp. 546–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1774046. Accessed 6 Oct. 2023.​

By the way, for the rest, ignore the underhanded insulting characterizations. These Western Orientalist conflicted weirdos were butthurt we did not treat them above us. So when they say "averse to manual labor" - it means Somalis rejected working like slaves for these Cadaan trespassers, which they would have gotten plenty in Habash highland lands or India. Their characterizations of us directly reflected how "useful" they saw us to their needs. So if people did not act subservient, they would start calling you lazy. It's the old European man's way, entitled and avaricious in trying to make others inferior and servile.

 

[johnsepei5]

It seems Somalis do nothing but dwell on the past
1970 that
1600 that
Focus on the future

 

[Three Moons]

Anyway We all know that Zeila had belonged to Mocha since 1611, and that the governor of Mocha was the one who appointed the ruler over it, but there are no longer any civilized residents there

What 17th century source states that Zeila was a dependency of Mocha? It’s seems to be completely based on the words of Richard Burton in the 19th century, when Zeila was a shadow of its former self, so I’m interested what primary sources you base this on? The Sheriff of Mocha’s right to appoint a local ruler was to make sure his commercial interests were guarded. In return Somali merchants had their own quarter in Mocha and more impressively were the only African group to have a trade settlement outside the continent, where they brought livestock, gum, slaves and the highly lucrative coffee beans with their own ships to what was at that point the richest commercial city on the Arabian peninsula. If they had denied the Sherif this ‘right’ the Somali merchants would have most likely lost their privileges to trade in that city.

The world view of an Englishman like Burton and others at the time could not differentiate between unique local agreements and traditional customs from their own imperialist way of doing things. Take the Sultanate of Tajura for example, it was paying tax to the city of Zeila, and the Englishman that had an audience with their Sultan automatically assumed that Tajura was therefore controlled by Zeila, and not independent, when in-fact that agreement secured the traders of Tajura a guaranteed place at the markets of Zeila.

I’m really getting bored of having to address the same anti-Somalist viewpoints that keep being regurgitated in a bot like fashion in what is probably the 700th topic on this subject, but you should be aware that the main threat beyond the Abyssinians and the Portuguese to Zeila was traditionally the city of Aden and the King of Yemen. The Adal Sultanate specifically maintained a permanent garrison in Zeila to make sure Aden had no funny ideas about landing in the city. The following excerpt is from a book published in the year 1760;

A Universal History From the Earliest Accounts to the Present Time · Volume 15’ p. 625

“ZEILA is seated in a spacious bay, just without the straits of Babel Mandeb, and, from its situation, seems to be the Avalites of Ptolemy. It retains still some noble relics of its ancient splendour. The houses are built of stone and mortar, the streets wide and regular; its haven is very commodious, and well frequented. It is populous, and carries on a considerable commerce, it being the place through which the greatest part of the merchandises, which are carried into the Abyssinian empire, commonly pass, as well as those which are consumed in the kingdom of Adel; the revenue of which is so considerable, that its kings are often at war with those of Aden about it; upon which account the former keeps constantly a strong garrison in it.”

Remember, Adal had only collapsed 26 years prior to this publication in the year 1734 under what is today incorrectly called the ‘Aussa Imamate’ (an example of neologism as the state was always known as either Adal or Zeila) and a lot of the information therein was drawn from European individuals that had travelled throughout the region in the 16th and 17th centuries.

If the Arabs or Turks or the Chinese were the main historical inhabitants of cities like Zeila, this would have been pointed out quite comfortably, the same way the suppliers of Adal’s army were also clearly described as being ‘Turks and Arabs’ but neither were considered the main population of Zeila who are illuminated with great detail;

“INHABITANTS.-The natives are stout and war-like, and fight with great intrepidity against the Abyssinians, as well out of zeal for their religion, as in hopes of plunder; the former being all staunch Mohammedans, and the latter a pusillanimous sort of Christians, in no way equal to them either in valour or discipline. The Abyssinians, especially in the remote parts, are wretchedly armed; whereas the Adelites are furnished, by the Turks and Arabs, with a variety of fire-arms. Their complexion, along the northern coast, is of a tawny brown; but further towards the south they become black. Their dress chiefly consists of a piece of cotton-cloth, which covers them only from the girdle to a little below the knee, all the rest of their body being naked; except the king, and nobles of both sexes, who wear a kind of loose garment, which covers the whole body, and a cap over the head. “

Notice the description about their skin-color, ranging from a tawny-brown to black (dark skin) which is perfectly compatible with the range of skin colours found among the Somali people? Notice also the description about the attire of the commoners, which is nothing like the traditional Arab attire, but is an unmistakable reference to the lamagoodle attire of the Somali people?

Therefore we have a pattern from Ibn Battuta’s journey in 13th century Somalia to as late as the 1760s, of an incredibly uniform and consistent body of literature and descriptions about the Somali coastal cities and their inhabitants, which at its core remained unchanged all the way in to the 19th century when textual evidence was accompanied by pictorial evidence.

 

[Three Moons]

It seems Somalis do nothing but dwell on the past
1970 that
1600 that
Focus on the future

You act like we don’t have a current crisis that has historical roots. You act like these goons next door aren’t trying to twist history to claim our ports, our seas, our mountains, our cities, our peoples through political deception or outright displacement. The future brings us back to the past, from there our people will find the strength once more to prevail.

 

[awsaleban667]

It seems Somalis do nothing but dwell on the past
1970 that
1600 that
Focus on the future

"The Past resembles the future more than one drop of water another." - Ibn Khaldun