Why would any Arabic writer would write sa7ib Hawiye, it doesn’t even make sense in Arabic. Sa7ib can mean ownership in this context like Sa7ib dukkaan (store owner). It’s clearly mentioning him as the ruler or governer of Hubat. Pankhurst isn’t wrong on that one. Have you ever studied Classical Arabic ?
Hubat is never spelled that way in the text ever only Hawiye is written that way. Can you even read Arabic Hubat doesn’t have a ي or a ب
I can read and I speak Arabic. Spelling at that time and even this document are not standardized the way MSA is today and if you are an Arabic speaker translate what that sentence meant then because Pankhurst translation for it makes the most sense.
cause you can ask any Arabic speaker this makes zero sense especially as the Futuh constantly mentions leaders as Qa’id, Garaad, Sultan,Émir etc. Nobody uses Sa7ib to denote a leader of a tribe or a people nor does the sentence even say the tribe of Hawiye.Can you read? I never said the Qadhi and the Ameer were the same. Spelling not being standardized doesn’t make an author randomly switch from writing هوبت to writing هوية. Hubat is consistently written that way except that instance keep coping.I can read and I speak Arabic. Spelling at that time and even this document are not standardized the way MSA is today and if you are an Arabic speaker translate what that sentence meant then because Pankhurst translation for it makes the most sense.
الامير صاحب هوية
If you believe this is what it says, translate it into English?
You are grabbing at straws at this point. Second translation error that you mentioned Pankhurst made in the OP, you were correct but it doesn’t mean it’s the same Abu Bakr. One Abu Bakr is an Emir and the other Abu Bakr is a scholar in the land of Abyssinia that is Hawiye according to you or according to Pankhurst from Hubat
The hatred they have for somali history kulaha
Did you even read this thread before replying bro???
I did walaal. The Abu Bakar in question is the relative of Imam Ahmed and both are from Hobat. If you have read the Futuh you would have known this. Nothing to do with Ajuuraan as you hypothesised. I came to correct you not @awsaleban667 who is by the way doing a great job!
Neither are from hubat, imam ahmed is from a place called Za'ka while abu bakr being the governor of hubat as pointed out by @awsaleban667 is a mistranslation, it actually calls Him Sahib/lord of Hawiya. (If you've read the thread ofc).
The futuh never claims that either of abu bakr or imam ahmed are from hubat.
My ajuran hypothesis seems to be stronger than whatever claim you've made up there, they're still hypothesis tho.
No they weren't, when I'm talking about bilad al hawiya i mean the accounts of al idrisi and ibn sa'id who made it clear that it was in southern somalia (based on shabelle river).
How much does this so called hubat province extend to? Futuh keeps distinguishing za'ka (imam city) from hubat.Za'ka is daakhato, babile hobat province
Abun, ibrahim (father or imam) and mahfuz aren't related nor did the father of imam rule hubat.These are all credible academics
When Garad Abun suceeded to rule Adal after Mahfuz, Garad Ibrahim moved from Sim to Hobat for 3 months, while the son of Mahfuz ruled Sim. Then when Garad Ibrahim and Abun were martyred they were replaced by Emir Abu Bakr and Imam Ahmed respectively since Imam Ahmed use to return to Hobat during his beef with Walashma
1. Hawiye is mentioned as a tribe with infantrymen and a country. To assume the Hawiye being spoken about is from South Somalia is a view no academic holds, purely because the somali clans called onto the war like dir = gurgure, madigan (masare), barsuug, darod = jidwaq, harti, MX, Geri etc are all western somalia clans or specifically mentioned via location otherwise. It took them days to get to Harar living in the Ogaden region, anyone coming from the South would take even longer. Hirabu did not run all the way to Koonfur but stayed among the Imams extended kin. The Hawiye mentioned by Ibn Said was centuries prior and it refers to a land of Hawiye (Idrisi), a coast of Hawiye (Dimashqi) and a tribe of Berbers in Merca (Saidi). You are making false equivalences to assume a 300 yr old reference is the same reference as the Futuh. They are even spelt slightly different, with the Futuh having more accurate spelling which suggests the Futuh was more familiar with the clan than the outset.
Haye bro, believe whatever you want as I'm not here to convince or anything anyways.
I know if i responded to you, you'll just repeat the same thing again and again which i honestly don't want to engage in.
Its actually revisionism to deny the sulaalat. Saying those men are not related is like saying Sultan Abu Bakr, Sacadudiin, Badlay, Al Kownayn etc had nothing to do with each other. Ppl can dispute his tribal background with their own suggestions if they have manuscripts or documents, never seen one from them but folks surely do love this topic yet never prove themselves, but denying his immediate and extended family members is unheard of. Like i said Ahmed Gurey is not Siad Barre. One came to power in a coup as an unknown officer, the other was a descendant of rulers, married into ruling families and left sons and brothers who ruled after him. You're going against Occams Razor to find inconsistencies and yet you're unable to draw an alternative view of what we know. You are against the seed of my standpoint so all you seek is to make history "unknown". News flash, this was less than a millenia ago. Even Shami a Harari of Turkish/Arab origin could access ottoman and portugese records while you are misreading badly translated english versions of a Futuh unoriginal copy. Humble yourself!
I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here Za’ka being the Imam’s city doesn’t imply the Imam’s hometown it could have just been his base latter on Harar is referred to as his city numerous times
On the other hand however Mohammed Hassen is the farthest thing from a credible source case in point in the above section he refers to Imam Ahmed’s father as Ibn Al Ghazi however Al Ghazi was a title and not a part of the Imam’s lineage. The Imam’s father was a Garaad as was his older brother but there is nothing to imply he was from Sim.
This is in fact false There are two different Abuns. The one who is referred to as brother is Wazir ABBAs’s father Abun ibn Ibrahim while the other is Abun ibn Adish. Wasan Sagad also never killed Abun ibn Adish because Sultan Abu Bakr did.
Not the same, they're saying it's his city cuz he's the ruler of it at this point, right?I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here Za’ka being the Imam’s city doesn’t imply the Imam’s hometown it could have just been his base latter on Harar is referred to as his city numerous times
Even the man you were praising pointed out your revisionism lol, @Step a sideOn the other hand however Mohammed Hassen is the farthest thing from a credible source case in point in the above section he refers to Imam Ahmed’s father as Ibn Al Ghazi however Al Ghazi was a title and not a part of the Imam’s lineage. The Imam’s father was a Garaad as was his older brother but there is nothing to imply he was from Sim.
Mohammed Hassen in general chock full of errors for example he calls Wazir Abbas, who was the Imams nephew, his uncle.
Not to mention that he pushes the laughably bad Harari theory claiming without even a shred of Evidence that Garaad Kamil and Emir Mujahid and consequently Nur ibn Mujahid were Harari/Adare.
