The notorious hotep is back. You are once again peddling historical inaccuracies. The first contemporary mention of the word Mogadishu was by Yaqut in 1228. He says they are Muslims, distinguished from the nomadic Barbar in the country round about, and are termed foreigners; they are not black in color. That passage clearly shows the Arab presence in Mogadishu.Here we go again. Ibn Batutta, who visited the city himself said that the ruler of Mogadishu was a Berberah who spoke a non-Arabic tongue, of the same stock as the people of Zeila. In his description of Zeila, he says that it is a "town of the Berberah, who are a negro people. Their land is a desert extending for two months' journey from Zayla to Maqdashaw." In case there is any doubt who the Berberah are, there is only one dark-skinned ethnic group that inhabits the lands between Zeila and Mogadishu, and it definitely isn't the Arabs.
This is a DIRECT eye-witness account saying that Mogadishu was ruled by non-Arabs. Meanwhile, there is NOT A SINLGE primary, first hand, eye-witness account saying that Mogadishu was EVER ruled by Arabs, NOT ONE. The census collected by the Italians, show that Gibil-madow tribes outnumber Gibil-cad Benadiris, and that cadcads only formed 20% of Mogadishu's population in the colonial period.
Gibil-Madow Benadiris
I saw recently that @Jacko made this post: Before Italians came to Mogadishu, it only consisted of 2 districts: Xamar Weyne (literally old Xamar) and Shangani, those neighbourhoods were almost entirely Benadiri or Arab. Italians planned and built the rest. Italian census for their...www.somalispot.com
But let me guess, I "failed to read these sources with a critical eye" Tell me the mistakes I made when I read these sources. Does "negro Berberah" actually mean "blonde Arab" in this context? Does what Ibn Battuta says contradict the "consensus of historians", thus making him incorrect. Give me the bullshit reason you cannot accept this unmistakeabley clear evidence I provided you.
View attachment 306783
You are misrepresenting what Ibn Battuta said about the people of Mogadishu. Ibn Battuta never explicitly stated the word Somali when describing the inhabitants of Mogadishu. You have reached a premature conclusion based on the misunderstanding of the words Barbara and Maqdishi. The word Barbara is often interpreted as meaning Somali. The word Barbara actually indicates a Bantu tongue (of the form of Swahili, which survives at Barawa), especially in view of the way that it seems to be in contrast to Barbara and in view of the Bantu names for some features of the town like Mnara and Shangani/Shingani. Maqdishi is the language of the Barbara people and a bantu tongue.
The word Barbara is also used to describe a geographical region. It was used to describe the Arabs in the past. Read the passage below. "When the power of these people became enfeebled, the Barabar (Arabians of the neighboring country) who had come to live among them, (rose and) overpowered them, driving them out."
Mogadishu was founded and established by Arabs. The first tribes of Mogadishu were the Banu Qahtaan. Somalis were not urban people until later in history. Somalis were not even allowed inside Mogadishu after nightfall. Heavy restrictions were placed on nomadic movements in the town of Mogadishu. You disregarded all the manuscripts that literally prove the first tribes of Mogadishu were the Banu Qahtaan.
Your strongest evidence is a person describing the inhabitants of Mogadishu as Barbara and that has been refuted on numerous occasions. The word Barbara is not specific to Somalis, but you guys keep regurgitating that ridiculous assertion. Name just a single ancient or medieval stone structure built by Somalis in Xamar. I have demonstrated extensive and comprehensive primary sources that prove Arabs founded and established Mogadishu. You disregarded my strongest evidence showing the first tribes of Mogadishu were the Banu Qahtaan, and that is well documented. You have not demonstrated a single primary source that shows Somalis founded and built Xamar. You keep adding your own distorted interpretation to statements made by historians and scholars.