The Arabs left Zaila in 1540

[Maakhri from dhahar]

Ibn Batuta writing in 1331 says the towns people are black and their land people extended all the way to Muqdisho. He complains about the stench of camels being slaughtered in the streets. Who do you think they were getting the camels fromand why is the majority of the town black Somalis a few centuries before the collapse of Adal?I assume all the Arabs were in hiding in when Ibn Batuta came.

ولهذا المسجد ( جامع دمشق المعروف بجامع بني امية ) ثلاث صوامع إحداها بشرقيه وهي من بناء الروم وبابها داخل المسجد وبأسفلها مطهرة وبيوت للوضوء يغتسل فيه المعتكفون والملتزمون للمسجد ويتوضئون والصومعة الثانية بغربية وهي من بناء الروم والصومعة الثالثة بشماله وهي من بناء المسلمين وعدد المؤذنين به سبعون مؤذنا وفي شرقي المسجد صومعة كبيرة فيها صهريج ماء وهي لطائفة زيالعة السودان .

This mosque ( the Damascus Mosque, known as the Umayyad Mosque ) has three chambers, one of which is to the east and is built by the Romans, and its door is inside the mosque, and its bottom is purified and houses for ablution in which those who seclude themselves to the mosque wash and perform ablution. The second chamber is to the west and is built by the Romans, and the third chamber is to the north and is built by Muslims. The number of muezzins in it is seventy muezzins. To the east of the mosque is a large chamber containing a water tank, which belongs to the Zaila’a a sect of the Sudan ( blacks ) .

As you can see, Ibn Battuta in 14th century says that the Zayala’a ( people of Zeila ) are a group of the Sudan ( blacks ) and not Arabs, and that the Zayala’a ( students of Zeila ) in the Damascus Mosque had a section called the Zayala’a section / corner.

 

[awsaleban667]

As you can see, Ibn Battuta in 14th century says that the Zayala’a ( people of Zeila ) are a group of the Sudan ( blacks ) and not Arabs, and that the Zayala’a ( students of Zeila ) in the Damascus Mosque had a section called the Zayala’a section / corner.

This is huge thanks walaal

 

[Bahal]

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

They're not Somali is my guess.

 

[Khaem]

They're not Somali is my guess.

They're either ajnabi or "Somali" who claim he's of Arab roots like @mohammdov

 

[Maakhri from dhahar]

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.

I'm not sure what his goal is in this thread, by trying to distort the Somalis history .

Is this a new way to have his separatist region (SL) recognized by Arab countries and Ethiopia ?

But it is clear that his intentions are not innocent.

 

[Maakhri from dhahar]

How convenient of you to disregard ibn battutas eye witness report of Zaylac ( Saylac ) and it's overwheliming black berber/somalis inhabitants.

زيالعة = سيالعة = سواملة
Zayaalica = Sayaalica = Sawaamila
زي ا ل ع ة
سي ا ل ع ة
سو ا م ل ة
ع ( Cag ) = ( Lug ) ل

ل = م
مي maya = Laa لا
" ليس من البر الصِّيام في السفر " = " ليس من امبر امصيام في أمسفر "

عن كعب بن عاصم الأشعريّ قال : سمعت رسول الله - صلَّى الله عليه وآله وسلَّم - يقول : لَيْسَ مِنْ ‏امْبِرِّ ‏امْصِيَامُ فِي ‏امْسَفَرِ .
قلت : أراد " ليس من البر الصِّيام في السفر " ، وهذا لغة الأشعريّين يقلبون اللام ميماً فيقولون :
رأينا أولئك امرجال ( يريدون الرِّجال ) ومررنا بامقوم أي : ( بالقوم ) وهي لغة مستفيضة إلى الآن باليمن .

{الصِّرَاط}
يوجد لها أربع قراءات: وهي السِّين والصَّاد والزَّاي والإشمام (المضارعة)
السراط: بالسين، على الأصل؛ لأن العرب تقول: سرطتُ اللقمة سرطاً، و: زَرَدتهَا -زَرداً، أي: بلعتُها بلعاً، وهي قراءة ابن كثير وأبو عمرو ويعقوب وابن عباس وابن الزبير وقنبل ورويس

الصراط: بالصاد، لغة قريش، وهي اللغة الجيدة، وعامة العرب يجعلونها سيناً،

والزاي ( الزراط ) ، لغة لعذرة، وكعب، وبني القين

وهي قراءة ابن كثير، ونافع، وأبي عمرو وابن عامر وعاصم والكسائي وأبو جعفر المخزومي والأعرج وشيبة وقتادة.
الزراط: بالزاي، وهي لغة قيس، وقراءة حمزة وأبي عمرو
الإشمام أو (المضارعة): وهي قراءة حمزة وأبي عمرو

ومثله: صندوق و زندوق و سندوق
​

 

[HabarSteven12]

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.

Your statements are intellectually dishonest and lack historical objectivity. Sultan Mohamed commissioned the building of a wall around the port city of Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali restlessness. Previous Arab rulers built a wall in Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali nomads as well. If Somalis have historically inhabited and ruled Zeila, can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in the historic town prior to the 19th century? You claim Somalis practically ran everything in Zeila. Can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in Zeila prior to the 19th century?

This notion that Somali nomads had nothing to do with all the walls built throughout the Horn of Africa is intellectually dishonest. A huge wall was constructed in Mogadishu to ward off Somali nomadic incursions. It was documented by the Italians when they first arrived in the city. The Adal sultanate was military-exhausted after years of conflict with neighboring Christian Abyssinia. The Arab leaders in Zeila were overwhelmed and didn't have the resources to ward off the Somali nomadic invasion.

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.

 

[Step a side]

Your statements are intellectually dishonest and lack historical objectivity. Sultan Mohamed commissioned the building of a wall around the port city of Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali restlessness. Previous Arab rulers built a wall in Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali nomads as well. If Somalis have historically inhabited and ruled Zeila, can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in the historic town prior to the 19th century? You claim Somalis practically ran everything in Zeila. Can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in Zeila prior to the 19th century?

This notion that Somali nomads had nothing to do with all the walls built throughout the Horn of Africa is intellectually dishonest. A huge wall was constructed in Mogadishu to ward off Somali nomadic incursions. It was documented by the Italians when they first arrived in the city. The Adal sultanate was military-exhausted after years of conflict with neighboring Christian Abyssinia. The Arab leaders in Zeila were overwhelmed and didn't have the resources to ward off the Somali nomadic invasion.

The old wall you on about in Mogadishu had 4 gates one of whom is literally named after my Murusade

A wall surrounds all the city and opens itself to the outside through four doors (gates):

one towards the sea on the north east side going to Itala and Obbia (Adala and Hobbiyo);

the Gardens door (possibly near the Arba‟- Rukun mosque and garden);

the Market door, from which are the roads leading to the interior and, particularly, to Afgoi, the Scidle and the Dafet (Afgooye, Jowhar and Dafet);

and finally, the Mursola door to the south, leading towards Gesira, Merca and Brava (Jesira, Marka and Baraawe) - by Italian colonial officer Stefanini in May 1913

In somalia

books.google.ae

 

[The alchemist]

Your statements are intellectually dishonest and lack historical objectivity. Sultan Mohamed commissioned the building of a wall around the port city of Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali restlessness. Previous Arab rulers built a wall in Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali nomads as well. If Somalis have historically inhabited and ruled Zeila, can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in the historic town prior to the 19th century? You claim Somalis practically ran everything in Zeila. Can you demonstrate a single Somali ruler in Zeila prior to the 19th century?

This notion that Somali nomads had nothing to do with all the walls built throughout the Horn of Africa is intellectually dishonest. A huge wall was constructed in Mogadishu to ward off Somali nomadic incursions. It was documented by the Italians when they first arrived in the city. The Adal sultanate was military-exhausted after years of conflict with neighboring Christian Abyssinia. The Arab leaders in Zeila were overwhelmed and didn't have the resources to ward off the Somali nomadic invasion.

I wrote my text based on undeniable objective, descriptive evidence observed from careful archeological work on the broad region. My takes merely reflect the echoes of those objective facts. I have no time for you. Go and argue with the wall.

I will not discuss history with unworthy people of low integrity and knowledge.

 

[HabarSteven12]

I wrote my text based on undeniable objective, descriptive evidence observed from careful archeological work on the broad region. My takes merely reflect the echoes of those objective facts. I have no time for you. Go and argue with the wall.

I will not discuss history with unworthy people of low integrity and knowledge.

We are discussing the origins of the historic city of Zeila. You started rambling about other cities in Somaliland, which has nothing to do with the topic. I demonstrated a source showing how Sultan Mohamed commissioned the building of a wall around the port of Zeila as a precautionary measure against Somali restlessness in the 15th century. You outwardly denied the source.

You claimed Somalis ran practically everything in Zeila. I asked you to provide just a single Somali leader who ruled Zeila prior to the 19th century. You couldn't provide a single Somali ruler. You are intellectually illiterate when it comes to the history of Zeila. Sxb hit the books.

 

[Riftvalley]

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

You guys gonna ignore this study?

 

[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.

And ignore this one as well?