Talk:Adal Sultanate/Archive 1

Copyvio
An anonymous user replaced the text with content from http://www.awdaldevelopment.org/Html/history.htm. I have reverted the edits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Early History of Adal?
This article makes no mention of Adal's origins, foundations, or anything else before the 1500s. I show Adal on my map of the because I saw a sourcemap on www.WorldHistory.com that showed Adal in Africa in 1086 AD. When was Adal founded, and whom did it replace? Thomas Lessman (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Adal Sultanate was founded by the Walashma dynasty, whose first known member lived in the mid-13th century. Dating the existence of this polity before the 13th century is assuming on scanty or no evidence: believe me, I've looked & the evidence in the 13th century is both minimal & hard to come by -- & even worse for previous centuries. See such sources cited in the related articles, written by experts like Taddesse Tamrat, Richard Pankhurst, & so forth.


 * Further, dating its foundation to the 7th century is laughable: that forms part of the "Dark Ages" of Ethiopia, when the history of the more important -- & firmly Christian -- country of Axum is mostly guesswork & surmise. To overrule the expertise of these experts -- & the implications of others like Stuart Munro-Hay & Yuri M. Kobishchanov -- with the random comment of some nameless BBC journalist just because he wrote more recently than they is simply untenable if not amazingly silly. -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure Causteau means well, but there's absolutely no information on Adal before the 13th century, much less the 7th. There's also plenty of evidence against it. Al-Ya'qubi discusses the coastal area of what would have been Adal in the late 9th century and makes no reference to it. Al-Mas'udi describes the port of Zeila as belonging to the king of al-Habashah (Ethiopia) in the 10th century, as does Ibn Hawqal and the cartographer Muhammad al-Idrisi in the mid 12th century. It's only in the 13th century that Adal appears in the historical record and we have no reason to believe it existed before then. A BBC article hardly trumps centuries of academic research.


 * Also, that map is very inaccurate for the time. It overestimates Ethiopia's control to the West and most likely to the North as well (it includes Beja lands that had become independent in the 9th century. There were Christianized Beja rulers of much of the North under the Zagwe dynasty known as "Belew," but they did not rule nomadic Beja lands). Moreover, Adal was never that large, even at its height during the Ethiopian-Adal War. It was allied with a number of states in the region, but it was itself of medium size and never stretched as far as Northern Afar lands or what is now Eritrea. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, Yom. Causteau does indeed mean well. I won't pretend to know more about the topic than I.M. Lewis and co., but don't you find it a little strange that a BBC article (nameless or otherwise) would place the foundation of the Sultanate of Adal all the way in the 7th century as opposed to much later? Why not the 9th or even the 10th? Why specifically the 7th? At this point, I'm wondering where they and the MSN Encarta Encyclopedia got their information from. At any rate, I won't challenge the edit. Causteau (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A coincidence of two people being sloppy? Although the BBC is known for its accuracy, & the Encarta attempts to be accurate this is an edge example, a situation where few would notice; it's something that a fact-checker could skip & not worry about being caught out. As Yom explains above, there's too much evidence against accepting this earlier date. However if you are convinced that both are building on research that is not well known, I encourage you to investigate, & if there is evidence for the earlier date please share it. -- llywrch (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline
Trying to piece together the late history of Adal has left me confused. The info box on this page indicates the end of the Sultanate to be 1555. However, later in the article (section Invasion of Ethiopia) has: "In 1577, the capital of the Adal Sultanate was moved from Zeila to Harar"; so, was 1555 not the end of the Sultanate?

The Harar article indicates it became the capital of the Sultanate in 1520 (the capital having being moved from Zeila), and that in 1577 the capital was again moved from Harar to Aussa. The Aussa Sultanate article, calls this move in 1577 a final split of the Adal Sultanate into two pieces, the Imamate of Aussa and the Emirate of Harar.

With that I thought that perhaps the 1555 date comes from the end of the Walashma dynasty, and some other house ruled over the remnant of Adal until the split in 1577. But then both Walashma dynasty and Barakat ibn Umar Din say the last Walashma sultan was defeated in 1559, and the latter article makes 1555 the date of Barakat's ill-fated invasion of Dawaro.

So, my impression (which may be completely wrong) is:
 * the 1577 statement in this article is probably in error and should read "[...] was moved from Harar to Aussa", and
 * 1555 is wrong and should be either 1559 or 1577 depending on whether Adal is considered to have fallen with the Walashma dynasty or not.

Whatever the case, some clarification from someone who knows would be good. Cheers—Ketil Trout (&lt;&gt;&lt;!) 23:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

NOT original research
It is from a book dont revert my work thank you and zeila was never a capital of adal the firtst capital is DAKKAR http://books.google.ca/books?id=YeKwW3vzQMUC&pg=PA283&dq=first+capital+of+adal+sultanate+dakar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sW25T_epA-Px6AGe2tzwCg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=first%20capital%20of%20adal%20sultanate%20dakar&f=false

& another source stating it was dakkar than harar

http://books.google.ca/books?id=WdtyAAAAMAAJ&q=dakar+capital+of+adal&dq=dakar+capital+of+adal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yW65T8kRoZ3oAfnfkP4K&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA

ANOTHER stating that it was first DAKKAR your recent input even makes it obvious zeila was never a seat of the capital but an emirate under the ifat sultanate.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=l4WUdKWGcYsC&pg=PA203&dq=first+capital+of+adal+sultanate+dakar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sW25T_epA-Px6AGe2tzwCg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=first%20capital%20of%20adal%20sultanate%20dakar&f=false

ZEILA was the seat of the previous ifat sultanate not the new ADAL.

also adal became the Aussa sultanate in 1577 when its capital switched to the afar region from HARAR...all of my input was right it just needed sourcing "In 1577 the residence of the Adal sultanate moved to the oasis of Awssa in the Afar"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=HGnyk8Pg9NgC&pg=PA32&dq=adal+sultanate+years+in+power&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EHK5T9bUE5DG6AHu7JnpCg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=adal%20sultanate%20years%20in%20power&f=false

The current date is incorrect it was during the reign of sulieman the magnificient of the ottoman empire when imam ahmed was helped by them so it could not have been the date that is current so please stop taking random sources and actually read into the timeline of the events..Ifat existed 1285-1415 and adal from 1415-1577 source below

http://books.google.ca/books?id=mhCN2qo43jkC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=adal+sultanate+1415-1577&source=bl&ots=yUSwbajhJi&sig=2Igr8qvZbwGNDC1eFITM98yuAgs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xZC5T53cJsee6QH5mpmbCA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adal%20sultanate%201415-1577&f=false

so ill correct this. Baboon43 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zeila was indeed the original capital of Adal. The cited work from I.M. Lewis (the Somalist and Ethiopianist scholar) states this plainly too. It also asserts the established fact that Adal actually reached the height of its prosperity in the 14th century (the 1300s), while the polity was still based in Zeila :
 * "'With Zeila' as principal port, through which cannons were imported from Arabia for the Imaam's armies, and trading in slaves, ivory and other commodities with Abyssinia and the Arabian Peninsula, Adal reached the summit of her prosperity in the fourteenth century.'" Middayexpress (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

they moved from zeila and formed adal because the abyssinians killed the last ifat sultante so how can zeila be a capital of adal its suppose to be dakkar because that is where they settled..zeila was an emirate under ifat sultanate..its like saying the harar emirate is part of the adal sultanate than becuz harar emirate broke away from aussa. Baboon43 (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this. Middayexpress (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

that source you gave is just saying that the descendents of adal existed in zeila but there was no adal sultanate..the adal sultanate was established after the fall of zeila..take a look at this source Baboon43 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia states the same thing that the Somalist and Ethiopianist scholar Lewis does. Namely, that "Zeila[...] was originally the center of Adal power" . Your link asserts that Zeila was the "focal point of the Ifat Sultanate". Adal already existed as an entity before its original capital was moved from Zeila to Dakkar, where Sabr ad-Din established a sultanate. That's why your link alludes to him building "a new capital called Dakkar, east of Zeila". Middayexpress (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Fage & Ethio-Semitic
The scholar J.D. Fage speculates that Ethio-Semitic languages may have been spoken in the Ethiopian parts of the Ifat and Adal Sultanates, by both the rulers and the general populace. Fage's argument in support of this hypothesis is mainly based on the fact that the names of the rulers of said polities may have been of Ethio-Semitic derivation. However, several factors undermine this overall claim, factors which a user has removed under the erroneous pretext that they are redundant. First, the leaders of Adal themselves all possessed and claimed Arab genealogies, not Ethio-Semitic ones (c.f. ). That was also what traditionally their extraction was asserted to be. Adal conquered Abyssinia, it wasn't itself Abyssinian (though it was certainly a vassal at some point in its history). Hence, the name "Futuh al-Habash" or the "Conquest of Abyssinia" for the Ethiopian-Adal War. Second, according to the UNESCO General History of Africa, only the reign names of the rulers may have been Ethio-Semitic. Their actual personal names, on the other hand, were likely Muslim/Arab as is often the case, and thus in line with their genealogical traditions (c.f. ). So an Ethio-Semitic affiliation for the rulers on this basis is debatable. Middayexpress (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * there's a diference between Adal and the Adal sultanate..Al Umari says ifats language is abyssianian and arabic not just names of the royals so revert it back. your removal of reliable sources is a violation of wikipedia policy..your also misrepresenting the sources another violation of wiki policies. Baboon43 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Al-Umari says that the language of Ifat (not Adal specifically) was 'Abyssinian and Arabic'. He says nothing about the ethnicity of the people. It's Fage who cites this Al-Umari passage to support his own argument that the Muslim rulers of Ifat and Adal "in the Shoan region at least" may have been Ethio-Semitic . I also didn't remove any reliable sources (c.f. ). As can be seen in the link posted earlier, you did. At any rate, please see our WP:NPOV and WP:CIV policies. Middayexpress (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DONT misrepresent the sources it says clearly "regarding the early sultanate of Shoa and the Walasma dynasty of both Ifat and Adal, indicate that some sort of Ethio-Semetic was spoken by the early Muslims in these areas". Than it says this may be because "early Islam in the shoan region at least, had its first roots among the Ethio-Semetic speakers of the area, who later formed and ran the sulanate of shoa and consequently the walasma kingdoms Ifat and Adal". In the article you put something else that said that the rulers all of a sudden spoke semetic when they were in the shewa region and than spoke another language when they werent which doesnt make any sense. Your mentioning of genealogies in the language section is also out of topic. The subject is about language not genealogies..if you havnt noticed ethio-semetics trace arab background..Abyssinian is not based on ethnicity the reason it is called "Futuh al habash" is because CHRISTIAN abyssinia was invaded by muslims thats the only difference..abyssinia is refered to as christian in historical documents not muslim. Baboon43 (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Before proceeding further, kindly familiarize yourself again with Wikipedia's WP:CIV and WP:TALK policies; especially their statements regarding how to communicate with other editors. Moving on, I never wrote that "the rulers all of a sudden spoke semetic when they were in the shewa region and than spoke another language". What I did actually write is the following: "J.D. Fage proposes that Ethio-Semitic languages may have been, in the Shewa region of modern-day Ethiopia at least, the primary mode of communication for the Muslim rulers and inhabitants of the Ifat and Adal Sultanates." This assertion is entirely supported by Fage's book, a work that makes a much more conservative claim than what you are attributing to its author. Fage does not suggest that all or even most of the inhabitants of Ifat and Adal spoke Ethio-Semitic languages. He repeatedly points out that he is specifically referring to those inhabiting the Shewa/Shoa region (and, secondarily, other parts of Ethiopia) as possibly having spoken Ethio-Semitic languages :


 * "It is most probably that the rulers of Ifat and their sedentary subjects inhabiting the eastern foothills of Shoa spoke Ethio-Semitic."
 * "The implication of all this is that early Islam, in the Shoan region at least, had its first roots among the Ethio-Semitic speakers of the area."
 * "This linguistic factor may have provided another dimension for the basic cleavage between the sedentary Muslim communities in the Ethiopian interior and the nomadic peoples of the vast lowlands between the plateau and the coast, who were predominantly speakers of Eastern Cushitic."


 * On its face, this is a fairly logical conclusion on Fage's part since none of the inhabitants of Djibouti and northwestern Somalia -- where the first capital of Adal, Zeila, was situated -- are presently or have traditionally been documented in the past as being Ethio-Semitic speakers, whereas those in the Shewa region of modern-day Ethiopia largely are Ethio-Semitic speakers. But then again, you did intimate in this earlier discussion your personal belief that "the habasha AMHARAS controlled somalia so somalis themselves have habasha in them"; so perhaps one should not be surprised here.


 * The reason that the Ethiopian-Adal War was called the Futuh al-Habash or "Conquest of Abyssinia" by the very man who chronicled it (namely, Shihab ad-Din (an Arab)) was because Abyssinia as a whole was being conquered. Abyssinia was historically a Christian kingdom, not a Muslim one. Moreover, Ethio-Semitic speakers (Abyssinians) do not traditionally trace descent to Arabs; none of their ancestors spoke the Central Semitic Arabic language as a mother tongue. Though most are actually of Cushitic Agaw origin, they trace descent to migrants from Southwest Asia who spoke Semitic languages belonging to the separate South Semitic cluster. Also, Ibn Khaldun described the Walashma dynasty, which first inhabited the kingdom of Damot and later governed Ifat and Adal, as being of distinct origins from the Abyssinian/Ethiopian rulers : "Ibn Khaldun relates how Damut was attacked and conquered by the Negus of Christian Ethiopia and how a race called Walasma' lived in it, which then emigrated further east and settled in Ifat where it formed another sultanate." This should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article, as it is historical testimony.


 * Lastly, the reason why the Arab-origin genealogical traditions of the rulers of Ifat and Adal are cited in the language section is obviously because they directly contradict Fage's hypothesis, cited in that same section, that those rulers may have spoken Ethio-Semitic languages (and thus been Abyssinian). Per WP:NPOV, we can't very well cite Fage's claims vis-a-vis the rulers while ignoring what they themselves traditionally asserted with regard to their own background. Note that the sentence was also taken from the same UNESCO General History of Africa work which discusses Fage's argument that the rulers of Ifat and Adal may have been Ethio-Semitic speakers on the basis of reign names ; so it is germane to the discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also have few WP's to hand out nevertheless..Fage is talking about the whole of the ifat and adal sultanate not just shewa he refers to shewa becuz the first muslims of africa were in ethiopia therefore the shewa region..you are also ignoring fage's quote that i mentioned above and seem to only look at your own selective quotes..amharas DID control parts of somalia its facts not personal beliefs..


 * Ethio-Semetics not only trace descendent from ARABS especially the argobas and hararis but also trace ancestry to WALASMA p.174 . so i think your not aware of the different types of ETHIO-SEMITICS that trace arab background you focus mainly on tigray and amharas and assume the word habasha or ethio Semitic is always refering to them..Ethio refers to the nation and semetic are those tribes within the nation of ethiopia just as if Semitics exist in somalia they are somali Semitics...here's another source ethio-semetics claim arab background ..also the semitic gurage were part of Adal during the war of imam ahmed as mentioned here  also the "Zay people" who live on the island that imam ahmed conquered speak Semitic and is identical to the harari language of harar which was the capial of the ADAL SULTANATE. Baboon43 (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fage's quotes above clearly indicate that he is specifically referring to the Ethiopian parts of Ifat and Adal as possibly having been inhabited and ruled by Ethio-Semitic speakers, not the parts in modern-day Somalia (including Adal's original capital, Zeila). The passage you quoted in part indicates the same thing and reads as follows in its full context : "Again, the names of the princes in the Arabic documents published by Enrico Cerulli regarding the early sultanate of Shoa and the Walasma dynasty of both Ifat and Adal, indicate that some sort of Ethio-Semitic was spoken by the early Muslims in these areas. The implication of all this is that early Islam, in the Shoan region at least, had its first roots among the Ethio-Semitic speakers of the area."


 * Besides the continued, unhelpful WP:SHOUTing, the rest of your post is largely off-topic (e.g. the fringe notion that Amhara ruled Somalia). It is really neither here nor there whether or not Ethio-Semitic speakers in general claim Arab background (which, in any case, they don't; only some of the Muslims ones, like many other Muslim peoples in the Horn, do). They must specifically trace their origins to the Walashma, the actual rulers of Ifat and Adal, for it to be relevant here. None of your links indicate that they do. In fact, this one indicates on the page that you directed me to that only the Harari do (your self-professed ethnic group): "When the Harari trace their dynasty, they go back to the Walasma". If you like, we can mention this in the wiki article alongside Ibn Khaldun's historical assertion, quoted in the post above, that the Walashma were a race unto themselves, distinct from the Abyssinian/Ethiopian neguses. Middayexpress (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that i posted about amhara ruling somalia and when i reply to your OFF TOPIC comment you say that im off topic or is it that you forget what you write on this talk page after a few days? firstly you refuse to acknowledge that dakar is the first capital of adal sultanate. secondly your adding unrelated things like "Arab genealogical traditions" in the language section and lastly you take my paraphrasing of the academic source under the language section and change the words of what it actually meant in the reliable source. Im not interested in adding anything at the moment the current article is POV because you changed my words and added irrelevant things in sections that they dont belong in so dont change the subject..Ignoring academic sources and rewording it the way you want will not help this article be accurate..understand my point you CANT add things like adal claims arab descendent than say that fage claims they are ethio semitic when i told you that ethio semitics claim arab. Oh so your logic is since its only "some of the muslim ones" its irrelevant and shouldnt be mentioned that ethio semitics claim arab background? and Yes since you like going OFF TOPIC my professed group is harari and i already know your group you dont need to profess anything Baboon43 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's get cause and effect straight here. I obviously brought up the fact that you are Harari (Harar being the third capital of Adal) and that you've stated in the past that you believed, despite nary any evidence to suggest it, that "the habasha AMHARAS controlled somalia so somalis themselves have habasha in them", to highlight your perspective on this issue. You volunteered that information on your ethnic background in the first place; no one forced you to do this. And you did this ostensibly because you deemed it relevant to Adal-related discussion. As such, there's no point in complaining about it now when I in turn brought it up in this other Adal-related discussion. By contrast, I have never volunteered any information on my ethnic background/made it your business, much less in relation to Adal. So claiming to know it is tantamount to making unwarranted, off-topic assumptions. See the difference?

Moving on, it's not I who refuses to acknowledge what Adal's actual first capital was but clearly you. As can be seen in the extensive discussion above, that original capital was in Zeila, not Dakkar; Adal's headquarters were only later moved to Dakkar (c.f., ). Adal's golden age was, in fact, during its initial Zeila period. Given this, you'll have a difficult time proving that it is irrelevant; especially when Fage himself asserts that the Adal state was initially run from Zeila : "In eastern and southern Shoa there emerged the states of Ifat, Adal and some smaller principalities that controlled the main trade-routes from Zeila, the most important port for those parts of the Horn of Africa."

The disputed parts of the article are now actually true to their cited sources, whereas this was previously not fully the case. This is all documented above, step by step. Your assertions that Ethio-Semitic speakers as a whole claim Arab descent are still not supported by the links you produced. For one thing, that broad designation would also include largely Christian groups like the Tigray and Amhara, who generally do not claim descent from Arabic-speaking peoples.

The real outstanding issues here are thus certain key, historical testimonials that have yet to be added to the article. The first such testimony I already mentioned: Ibn Khaldun's assertion that the Walashma were a 'race' unto themselves, distinct from the Abyssinian/Ethiopian neguses. This would have made the Walashma something other than Abyssinians/Habesha.

The second outstanding historical testimony involves the actual toponomy of Adal. According to the same scholar Fage in the same work that you picked out, this place-name originates in Zeila, which was the original seat of Islamic dispersal in the Horn of Africa :

"There is no doubt that Zeila was also predominantly Somali, and al-Dimashqi, another thirteenth-century Arab writer, gives the town its Somali name Awdal (Adal), still known among the local Somali. By the fourteenth century the significance of this Somali port for the Ethiopian interior had increased so much that all the Muslim communities established along the trade routes into central and southeastern Ethiopia were commonly known in Egypt and Syria by the collective term of 'the country of Zeila'.

Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin."

Perhaps now you can appreciate why Fage's assertions regarding the Ethio-Semitic languages as being the primary mode of communication for many peoples inhabiting Adal pertains specifically to the Ethiopian interior, not to Zeila. Middayexpress (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * no you dont seem to understand the sources that you list but i hope this source that i will give you will make it clear for you that academics believe they spoke ABYSSINIAN or ARABIC this is ifat the father of adal now i personally dont agree that they spoke abyssinian but i looked at recent studies, and Semitic groups occupied large parts of somalia which is why harar is semitic..the hararis didnt pop out of nowhere and became natives of the former capital of Adal for nothing..so this source would show u that somali was occupied by amhara and not only that but ifat may have spoken amharic or arabic atleast that is ALL parts of ifat in this source its called yifat but its obvious they are talking about the same ifat they mention zeila and such. scroll down to yifat should be after sawa if it doesnt show when you click search google the exact words you can search is "the yifat people either spoke abyssinian"..also sawa means shewa sultanate but i dont know why they have such horrible spelling but yea this source tells u what i was trying to explain to you said on the other source..accademics say ifat came out of shewa thats why they say its abyssinian but yea thats why i was trying to tell you that the FIRST MUSLIMS IN AFRICA SETTLED IN THE ABYSSINIAN TERRITORY so thats how they made the connection and these people later founded sultanates spoke their language...also that same source says when the last sultanate of ifat was killed in zeila it meant the end of ifat and his children 10 of them went to yemen than it says kingdom of adal began and it shifted eastward although it doesnt mention dakkar specifically you get that its no longer zeila since ZEILA is occupied by amharas from that point on but yea sources that i listed to you which you ignored state it was dakar...since you also dismissed the argoba claiming walasma therefore ifat let me give you a source that states ifats cultural identity with argoba therefore a semitic dynasty because argoba themselves claim arab ancestry as walasma..source on last paragraph  by the way im not here to duel with you on talk pages im here for accuracy on wiki..im not here to make things up or claim things. Baboon43 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's good to hear because I'm not here to duel with you either. I'm here to actually improve the article. Perhaps we can work together, then; but you'll first have to lay off of the condescending remarks.


 * For instance, you write that I apparently "dont seem to understand the sources that you list". This is ironic since that link of yours above does not state anywhere that Amharic was spoken in Somalia, let alone that the Amhara ruled it. You do realize that the actual Semitic speakers that lived in Somalia are still there, right? They're a known quantity and are called the Benadiri. They also traditionally spoke Arabic, a Central Semitic language, not any languages from the separate South Semitic branch that the Ethio-Semitic languages are linguistically classified as.


 * That comment is even more so ironic given the fact that you keep equating Arab descent with Abyssinian descent, when not one of the sources you linked to does that. For one thing, Fage states that the Walashma dynasty was originally founded by actual Arabs, not by Abyssinians. The Walashma in Ethiopia may have eventually adopted the Ethio-Semitic languages of their Abyssinian neighbors, but they weren't originally Abyssinian according to their own traditions : "there were also other non-Mahzumite principalities of Arab origin already established in the Ethiopian region. One of these was the Kingdom of Ifat, whose thirteenth-century ruler, 'Umar Walasma, claimed descent from the family of the Prophet Muhammad through Abu Talib."


 * Regarding that Braukämper link above, the author's suggestion that a mysterious Semitic-speaking people may have built most of the stone edifices northwest of Hargeisa is definitely inaccurate.


 * For starters, ancient Arab, Greek and Chinese sources (i.e. actual historical documents) all indicate that a people called the "Barbar", "Barbaroi" or simply "Berber" inhabited northern Somalia and engaged in extensive trade. In fact, they named the entire region Barbara after the Berbers that lived there. They called Abyssinia Al-Habash after the Habesha who lived in that separate region. These Berbers also were not a Semitic-speaking people, but rather a Cushitic-speaking people and the ancestors of modern Somalis. We know this because they are described as pastoralists and as practising certain customs that are originally associated with Cushitic nomads.


 * Furthermore, there are elaborate stone monuments throughout Somalia, not just in the northwest where Braukämper claims that the fabled Harla may have lived. In fact, a Somali-British archaeological expedition in 1975 led by Neville Chittick found numerous equally and sometimes even more elaborate structures in northeastern Somalia; particularly in a place called Damo near Cape Guardafui.


 * Braukämper also claims that Somalis couldn't have built those structures because they "were predominantly a nomadic people who possessed no tradition of stone architecture, and state organization". Besides being patronizing, this is also factually incorrect. Somalis are actually traditionally divided into two social strata: reer magaal (cityfolk) and reer miyi (countryfolk) (c.f. ). The reer miyi indeed are not known for stone construction. Instead, they build portable tents similar to those of the Tuareg and other peripatetic Afro-Asiatic peoples of the continent. The reer magaal, on the other hand, have a well-documented tradition of elaborate architecture and commercial enterprise (see this). Moreover, Somalis actually do have many different examples of state formation, such as the Warsangali Sultanate (a polity whose establishment predates Adal). In rural areas, Somalis have their own traditional judicial system called Xeer, which over the centuries kept the peace. Seeing as how most Ogadenis are of nomadic background, it's perhaps understandable why the Ethiopianist Braukämper was not aware of this.


 * If you refer to the Ethiopian Studies page, you'll read that much of that multi-disciplinary field of study originally used to focus almost exclusively on the country's Semitic speakers, with little knowledge on or interest shown in the area's other Afro-Asiatic groups (much less the Nilo-Saharan ethnic minorities). Though this is changing, there are still unfortunately some lingering instances of this chauvinism in the Ethiopianist literature. I also don't think that Braukämper was aware of the sprawling Megalithic Cushite complex, which once extended all the way into northern Tanzania and which left behind elaborate stone ruins (c.f. ). Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, in future, for the sake of orderliness and actually resolving the issue, kindly focus on one or two points at a time. Please also remember to quote the passages from the sources that you think support your argument, as I've done with mine per WP:TALK. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No its not resolved till editors start taking the fact that Dakar is the first capital of Adal sultanate..over at DR you said i have an agenda to bring the capital closer to harar which is ridiculous..at its height adal sultanate was situated in harar and it controlled most parts of somalia including ZEILA so I dont see the point. It seems you believe its a tug of war between somalia and ethiopia which is again ridiculous..I wouldnt care if the capital was in puntland if its facts than I would put it in the article..before i came on this article it said imam ahmed was situated in zeila when he launched a war into abyssinia which further distorted history. Baboon43 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as already quoted, Adal reached its height during the 14th century (1300s), when its capital was still based in Zeila ("With Zeila' as principal port, through which cannons were imported from Arabia for the Imaam's armies, and trading in slaves, ivory and other commodities with Abyssinia and the Arabian Peninsula, Adal reached the summit of her prosperity in the fourteenth century" ). Even then, Adal only controlled the northwestern part of Somalia, where the eponymous Awdal region is today situated. The Sultanate of Mogadishu held sway in the south-central regions, whereas the Warsangali Sultanate (which is actually older than Adal) controlled the northeast. At any rate, the actual conclusion of the dr/n discussion was "to have the article include both viewpoints that the sources state", which the page does now. Middayexpress (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong at its height it controlled parts of ethiopia and somalia and that was during the imam ahmed wars when its capital was in HARAR..zeila served imam ahmed and harar it was a puppet port for the king of adal "IMAM AHMED"..do you understand difference between a port and a capital? i think your not getting that..capital means administration center not where you import goods..adal timeline is dakar than switched to harar by sultan abubeker and than thats when imam ahmed takes over harar by killing abubeker so where does zeila come in as capital? dont mix port and capital...if zeila was a capital of an emirate than it should have its own article called Adal emirate before the rise of the sultanate..which was situated around zeila..actually your link says harar was the capital than it says adal EMIRATE existed under a large ifat sultanate..this emirate became a sultanate when ifat collapsed so since this article is about the sultanate not the emirate why is zeila included? in the infobox as an emirate? the main article paragraph should include that it evolved from adal emirate situated in zeila for information purposes but it should not say that zeila was the capital..by your logic we should include ifat as well and just combine both sultanates just because they had connections than that would mean combining the older shewa sultanate too....how does the current article include both viewpoints right now? Baboon43 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken about Adal controlling much of present-day Somalia during Imam Ahmad's reign. It controlled the Awdal region, as I wrote (which includes Zeila). However, its rule did not extend much beyond that northwestern section of the country. We know this for a fact because the influential Somali Ajuuraan State actually held sway then in the south-central regions, alongside the Sultanate of Mogadishu's Somali-Arab Muzaffar dynasty. The latter polity was an ally of Adal's according to J.D. Fage : "there is no doubt that, by the middle of the fifteenth century, the sultanate of Mogadishu was considered in Christian Ethiopia to be an important Muslim area which inspired and actively supported the militant campaigns of Adal against the Christian empire." More importantly, this fact is confirmed by actual historical testimony from Emperor Zara Yaqob himself (from the same page): "Zara Ya'qob's mention of Mogadishu as an ally of Adal is an important confirmation of the early Somali involvement in the protracted frontier struggle."
 * Moving on, you are correct in noting that the passage I quoted in my last post from the Ethiopianist and Somalist scholar I.M. Lewis does not state that Zeila was the capital of Adal. Elsewhere on the page that it was exerpted from, though, Lewis asserts that "at the time of Imaam Ahmad's campaigns the capital of the Muslim Sultanate of Adal was Harar. Originally, however, Adal was based on the port of Zeila'." You have previously argued that by this, he does not mean that Zeila was the actual capital of Adal. However, I later pointed out in the dr/n discussion that Lewis does, in fact, mean that Zeila was the Adal state's actual capital since he says as much in another major work of his, where he goes into a bit more detail :
 * "'Many centuries of trade relations with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyarite kingdom and these eventually developed into the two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, where local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled. The kingdom of Zeila, centre of the Adal Sultanate, is mentioned under this name first by Al-Yaqubi, then in the second half of the 10th century references occur in al-Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal, and al-Muqaddasi. Later descriptions come from Ibn Said, Maqrizi, and Abu'l-Fida. The Adal Sultanate with its capital Zeila thus appears to date from the 9th or 10th century and its history from its origins is the chronicle of a series of wars with Abyssinia.'"
 * Also :
 * "'Islam must have been introduced into Somaliland not long after the Hegira (622 ad). In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti).'"
 * So that's actual historical testimony as well which identifies Zeila as the original capital of Adal, and apparently as early as the 9th century. Given this, perhaps we should rename the article to simply Adal state to make clear that Adal's history spans from its first historically-attested capital in Zeila to its later transfer of headquarters to Dakkar and then to Harar and its eventual dissolution after the Futuh. Middayexpress (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

zeila or dakar is capital???????????
Your recent source says adal sultanate existed in the 9th century which is incorrect. The sources you list mix up shewa and ifat with adal mainly because they all have roots of walasma..so if adal sultanate existed than where is shewa in the 9th century? are you saying adal had its own separate sulatan as well as shewa? that source paints shewa as adal and ifat..renaming it adal state would make it more confusing for the reader when there is another article called ifat sultanate
 * "these Political entities from the 9th century onwards. The first to emerge was the sultanate of Shoa founded by a dynasry called mahzumi in 897. Its decline paved ther way for its annexation by the Ifat sultanate in 1285. expansionist Christian kingdom in the north eventually led to the vanishing of Ifat and the surfacing of another, the sultanate of Adal.

The north expansion by the Abyssinians is when they sacked zeila and took over which meant the fall of Ifat which led walasma royals to flee to yemen so since they couldnt re-establish themselves in zeila anymore they went to dakar and founded adal sultanate. Now i believe I posted a source above somewhere saying that zeila was under abyssinian rule when imam ahmed took over harar and he took zeila back.


 * "When the Adalite armies invaded Ifat in 1531, they met resistance from the Amharic general Islamo, who was able to bear the brunt of the fierce Muslim invasion for only a very short period." Baboon43 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been established by now that the modern sources vary somewhat in interpretation. On the other hand, the actual historical sources are more straightforward on the issue, so that's perhaps what we should be focusing on. That said, several of the quotes I just produced allude to historical testimonies. One of them explains that Al-Yaquti mentions in the 9th century that Adal had its capital at Zeila. That's about 300 years before the Ifat sultanate was founded, so he's clearly not referring to Ifat but to Adal itself.

Please also note that later, during the 1400s, the Egyptian historian Al-Maqrizi wrote a manuscript where he actually lists the seven provinces of Abyssinia. The latter states included Ifat but not Adal, although Adal was a known quantity at the time and was written about in Abyssinian chronicles. It was also situated further east from those states :

"'Adal, one of the Mussulman States (kingdoms) in East Africa that played an important part in the wars between Islam and Abyssinian Christendom. Makrizi[...] enumerates the following seven Islamic States in Southern and Eastern Abyssinia, which he designates as mamalik bilad Zaila: Ifat, Dawaro, Arayabni (Arabaini, Arababni), Hadya, Sharkha, Bali, Dara. From Abyssinian chronicles, other States are known which stood on the same footing as the above, one of them being Adal. -- Adal ('Adal) is situated to the farthest east of those States, and is approximately identical with the present 'Côte française des Somalis'. The inhabitants are partly Somali, partly 'Afar (Danakil).'" Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's problems with that source you brought up. E.J brills encyclopedia calls the emir of harar (talha) "king of adal" see List of emirs of Harar..so basically he is saying adal existed all the way till the end of the 18th century when amhara invaded harar which is not true..talha is part of the foundation of the emirs of harar when harar broke away from adal and formed emirate of harar led by `Ali ibn Da`ud. so when did adal start and when did it end? since source says king of adal existed in 1647 under talha. another thing, the source also doesnt know the existence of dakar at all! claiming abubaker shifted his capital from zeila to harar because he CLAIMS turks might have been trying to take over the coast!!!!! Baboon43 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to there since Brill does not mention the Emir of Harar. He mentions Imam Ahmad, who of course was very much active during Adal's existence. Brill also indicates that the 14th century King of Adal, who was based in Zeila, attempted to halt the Abyssinian Emperor Amda Seyon's advance toward the city. The only place where Brill does actually mention Adal after its demise is in reference to the Amhara King Sahle Selassie, who "even in the 19th century, before England, France and Italy took possession of the Abyssinian littorals[...] called himself King of Adal". As such, Brill doesn't actually refer to Sahle Selassie as King of Adal; he just notes that that's what Sahle Selassie labeled himself. The rest of my post references actual historical testimonies from Al-Yaquti and Al-Maqrizi, as well as Abyssinian chronicles. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * its in another section in the encyclopedia..he mentions king of adal "talha" refusing to invade abyssinia due to rebel pressure because he says it is impossible source also dakar doesnt exist according to e.j brill by claiming that turks and adal might have been in conflict when they were actually allies pushing abubaker to switch capitals from zeila to harar. Baboon43 (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On the page linked to above, Brill calls Abu Bakr, who reigned shortly prior to the rise to prominence of Imam Ahmad, the "Sultan of Adal". He also writes that Abu Bakr "removed to Harar the seat of his government, thus putting it in close contact with Shoa and Abyssinia". This is what is indicated as well in this wiki article ("In 1554, under the initiative of Sultan Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad, Harar became the capital of Adal"). Brill also states that the Turks supported Adal: "Ahmed b. Muhammed Gran, who, supported by the artillery and the troops which the Turkish pasha of Zeila had sent him, penetrated into Abyssinia up to its northern frontier, ravaging the country repeatedly, and even burning the famous cathedral of Axum". Middayexpress (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * dont skip my point why is talha king of adal there is NO adal in 1647. it looks like the term Adal is loosely used anytime that region is mentioned. the stuff about abu bakr is in another section.  e.j brill seems to think there was an emirate of zeila during abu bakr's reign and that abu bakr just left zeila because he was tired of the seaside view or perhaps scared of the turks! basically dakar doesnt exist according to this source and adal-turks were about to get into a bloody battle. why dont we list a source that actually goes indepth on adal instead of this skim through encyclopedia that has so many errors! it even claims that the last king of harar was killed in battle when that is NOT true. im thinking about your consideration to change it to adal state but wouldnt that come into conflict with ifat sultanate article? so that article would have to be called ifat state as well so maybe another wording for adal might be better than STATE. Baboon43 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the point about Emir Talha is somewhat irrelevant since he ruled after Adal's demise. That new Brill link is certainly very interesting, though. He indicates that the chronicle of Harar is the document that "counts the first Emirs, who were still residing in Zaila, as Emirs of Harar also. The first, to be mentioned in the chronicles, is 'Omar Walashma who may have reigned about 1150." This is basically what I had thought because, if you'll recall, Fage also stated that "Zeila was certainly the point of departure for the numerous Muslim communities and political units in the Ethiopian region, most of which, just like the Somali clan families of Darod and Ishaq, had persistent traditions of Arab origin." Brill thus appears to use the terms "Emir" and "Sultan" interchangeably since he refers to 'Omar Walashma himself as such. That said, I would like us to do two things at this point: a) cite the actual historical testimonies mentioned earlier from Al-Yaquti, Al-Maqrizi, etc.; and b) rename the article to "Adal state" or just "Adal" since Al-Yaquti mentions in the 9th century that Adal had its capital at Zeila. That's about 300 years before the Ifat sultanate was founded, so he's clearly not referring to Ifat but to Adal itself ( "In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti)"). Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that E.J. brill thinks there was an emirate in adal based in harar and brill doesnt know of dakar..that is a big error simply jumping from zeila to harar and totally skipping the fact that zeila was ransacked by abyssinian forces..brills claims abu bakr wanted to be competitive by aligning his state with that of shoa so he moved to harar when infact that wasnt the case..maybe this source can point out what adal means.

"'The etymology of the name 'Adal', which was occasionally used to denote the whole of the East African Horn, has not yet been sufficiently investigated, and the word appears in a considerable number of different versions (Adal, Adel, Adail, Adaiel, Adela ,Adem, and others. As long as Adal was part of Yifat, it was scarcely mentioned by the Arab authors.'"


 * perhaps this source makes it clear the area was always called adal but the ruling sultanate was Ifat. Thats probably why talha is called emir of adal when he was only emir of harar. Than source goes on to say for the first time abyssinian emperrors start calling walashma rulers king of adal instead of Ifat around 1439..also mentioned in the source. Baboon43 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As quoted earlier, there's actual historical testimony from the 9th century by Al-Yaquti indicating that the Adal kingdom specifically had its capital at Zeila : "In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti)". This is about 300 years before the Ifat sultanate was founded; so clearly, Adal existed as a state prior to the advent of the latter polity.


 * Brill does recognize that Adal's capital was moved to Harar by Abu Bakr since he states as much. Whether or not he means from Dakkar is unclear because he doesn't say from where exactly. At any rate, Brill's assertions regarding the early Adal state based in Zeila all reference actual historical testimonies from Al-Yaquti and others, so it's not like they're coming from him personally. Please also note that Brill uses the terms "Sultan" and "Emir" as well as "Sultanate" and "Emirate" interchangeably. This is why, for example, he refers to Abu Bakr alternately as "Sultan of Adal" and Emir of Adal. This is apparently a common practice too. Case in point, from the Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia:


 * "'The Adal sultanate (also called an emirate or state) was located in the southeastern part of the Horn of Africa east of the Ifat sultanate. In 1298, Marco Polo made one of the earliest western references to Adal in his Travels. Adal is a term that was sometimes vaguely used to refer to the Muslim population in the lowlands east of the highland Christian empire. Adal included much of the Awash River basin north to Lake Abbe on the current Ethiopian-Djiboutian boarder and the lowlands between Shoa Province and the port of Zeila in present-day Somaliland near the border with Djibouti. Zeila, which was inhabited by Arabs, Somalis and Afars, was originally the center of Adal power.'"


 * With that said, I think it's more appropriate for the infobox to indicate the broad term "monarchy" as the Adal state's government type as opposed to sultanate. If we also consult the relevant Template:Infobox Former Country, it indicates that the eligible values for this particular infobox parameter include "Monarchy", "Constitutional monarchy", "Principality", "Republic" and "Socialist republic".


 * So given the above, I think we should rename the article to "Adal state" or simply "Adal" and indicate in the lede the various ways that the polity is interchangeably referred to. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Brill doesnt know Dakar was a capital at all. If you read the source 34 it said "In 1521 the Emir Abu Bakr transferred his official residence from Zaila to harar. He was probably forced to do this by the advance of the Turks, who at that time under Selim I were occupying Yemen". so basically brill thinks abu bakr was fleeing from the turks because they were in yemen which is just ridiculous Baboon43 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the deal is there. However, as I wrote, Brill's separate assertions regarding the early Zeila-based Adal state all reference actual historical testimonies from Al-Yaquti and others, so they're not coming from him personally. Please comment on those historical testimonies quoted above, as I'd like for us to cite them. There's also more key historical testimony from Al-Maqrizi regarding the origins and initial place of arrival of the Walashma that we should probably mention : "Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma.3 According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat also. But Maqrizi gives us no information on the rulers before 'Umar Walasma; nor does the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty, despite the long genealogy it gives for 'Umar, who in fact assumes the characteristics of a legendary figure." Middayexpress (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * are you refering to the Jeberti which it states they settled first in the abyssinian territory and also the term jeberti is loosely used to refer to muslim in the horn. Baboon43 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Jeberti page actually states that one of the oldest settlements of the early Muslim migrants or Jeberti was in Negash, not the oldest or only such settlement. It further mentions the 9th century Muslim settlement of Zeila, which it correctly indicates that Al-Yaquti describes (as quoted a while ago). In any event, the quote in my previous post alludes to actual historical testimony from Maqrizi. It's Maqrizi that indicates that 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta), a region which he also says belonged to Zeila. He's talking about a territory; the only people mentioned there are the Hashimite ancestors of the Walashma themselves. Middayexpress (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No renaming the article adal state will just complicate matters..its better to just create a separate adal emirate article and mention in both articles that term adal is loosely used to refer to that region in ancient texts even when that region was under ifat sultanate. Baboon43 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. As quoted earlier, Al-Yaquti mentions as far back as the 9th century that the Adal kingdom had its capital at Zeila. And that's about 300 years before the Ifat sultanate was founded. Middayexpress (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You know an emirate is a kingdom right? before or after ifat it doesnt matter the fact is that it was centered around zeila which wasnt a sultanate. Baboon43 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure it matters. Refer again to the quote above dated 13:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC) from the Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia. It explains that the Adal polity was referred to interchangeably as a "sultanate" or an "emirate" or simply as a "state". That includes by I.M. Lewis himself, as also shown in my post above dated 17:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adal than ifat than adal again is not feasible as mentioned in other articles adal emirate was located under ifat and adal is loosely used to refer to the whole region sometimes..adal state would mean u have to include emirates all the way until harar emirate which was technically in adal region..the article would have to mention all politics relating to walasma rulers in adal which i think would be problematic and the current date would also have to be changed. aussa and harar emirates would have to be added so if you agree to that than change it to adal state. Baboon43 (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's unnecessary because actual historical testimony from Yaquti mentions as far back as the 9th century that Adal was an independent polity based in Zeila. That's several hundred years prior to the establishment of the Ifat sultanate, so Adal as a state does not owe its existence to Ifat. Also, the modern scholar who we cited as describing Adal as an emirate when it was still based in Zeila (viz. I.M. Lewis) also referred to it interchangeably as a sultanate. Per the Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia, this flexible naming convention is the norm with regard to Adal. The Harar emirate, on the other hand, is generally agreed to have emerged from the ashes of Adal i.e. after the fall of the Adal kingdom. As such, it is not comparable to the Zeila-based Adal state, which was the first phase of the Adal polity itself per Yaquti. Middayexpress (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * your suggestion is not feasible ifat controlled zeila it was centered around it..the ifat sultanate established in zeila and new adal sultanate in dakar have no connection other than being descendants..with the fall of ifat centered around zeila rose dakar and only during imam ahmed was it able to be reconquered from the abyssinians so you cant claim adal emirate is the same as the adal sultanate because they are not so i suggest you make a separate emirate article for adal. if you wont accept my proposition that all things containing adal must be put in this article "adal state" than its better to just leave it as sultanate. The old emirate and the new sultanate can not be referred to as the same just because they are called adal, when i have given you sources as to why new sultantes were created..zeila was only the administrative capital during ifat after that it lost that position to dakar harar and later to aussa. Your point on a kingdom of adal before ifat is also irrelevant because that kingdom has nothing to do with the current sultanate..you also mentioned that walasma descendents first settled in zeila but that doesnt mean they ruled in zeila and even if they did, it doesnt mean adal sultanate was in zeila it means ifat was in zeila as this source states king of ifat conquered shewa . Baboon43 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken in several respects, all based on actual historical documentation. First, the Adal kingdom itself was initially based in Zeila according to 9th century testimony by Al-Yaquti. That is around 300 years prior to the advent of the Ifat sultanate: "'Many centuries of trade relations with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyarite kingdom and these eventually developed into the two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, where local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled. The kingdom of Zeila, centre of the Adal Sultanate, is mentioned under this name first by Al-Yaqubi, then in the second half of the 10th century references occur in al-Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal, and al-Muqaddasi. Later descriptions come from Ibn Said, Maqrizi, and Abu'l-Fida. The Adal Sultanate with its capital Zeila thus appears to date from the 9th or 10th century and its history from its origins is the chronicle of a series of wars with Abyssinia.'" "'Islam must have been introduced into Somaliland not long after the Hegira (622 ad). In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti).'"

Similarly, during the 1400s, the Egyptian historian Al-Maqrizi wrote a manuscript where he actually lists the seven provinces of Abyssinia. The latter states included Ifat but not Adal, although Adal was a known quantity at the time and was written about in Abyssinian chronicles. It was also situated further east from those states :

"'Adal, one of the Mussulman States (kingdoms) in East Africa that played an important part in the wars between Islam and Abyssinian Christendom. Makrizi[...] enumerates the following seven Islamic States in Southern and Eastern Abyssinia, which he designates as mamalik bilad Zaila: Ifat, Dawaro, Arayabni (Arabaini, Arababni), Hadya, Sharkha, Bali, Dara. From Abyssinian chronicles, other States are known which stood on the same footing as the above, one of them being Adal. -- Adal ('Adal) is situated to the farthest east of those States, and is approximately identical with the present 'Côte française des Somalis'. The inhabitants are partly Somali, partly 'Afar (Danakil).'"

Also, although that modern Secret Castle link above indicates that "Ifat king 'Umar Walasma defeated and annexed Shoa" in 1285, actual historical testimony from Al-Maqrizi further indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region and from there later expanded into the hinterland to occupy Ifat as well :

"'Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma.3 According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat also. But Maqrizi gives us no information on the rulers before 'Umar Walasma; nor does the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty, despite the long genealogy it gives for 'Umar, who in fact assumes the characteristics of a legendary figure.'"

So the actual historical documentation is pretty clear about the primacy of Zeila as the first headquarters of the Adal state. Given this, you need to make a final decision about whether or not to rename the article to either Adal or Adal state. If you have any objections to the page move, please base them exclusively on actual historical testimony as I have. Middayexpress (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think other editors need to be involved here but its better the way it is than to move it as i said above it will complicate matters and if it becomes Adal than it has to include all kingdoms all the way down to 1887 fall of harar emirate because adal is used for the area as well not just the sultanate. also by my list of kings of harar you see clearly adal was a man Baboon43 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that, but reference to Adal by Yaquti actually precedes Abdal's reign by about two centuries. Middayexpress (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What would be the year for this adal article? would it be the same as adal sultanate 1415-1577?? when does it start when does it end. Baboon43 (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If the wiki article were renamed to Adal State or simply Adal, the start of the Adal polity would be the 9th century, as indicated by Yaquti. Also have a look again at I.M. Lewis' quote on this matter from 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC). Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * thats even older than the ottoman empire..if a state is intact from the 9th century all the way to 16th century than it would be more powerful..if adal was under the rule of abyssinians or ifat than including the concept of the state being referred to as adal is not feasible..its like an english state would be made into an article while it is under the roman empire. i believe the reason walasma is used in many texts including the abyssinian ones is because they believe wali asma was an abyssinian so any ruler after him was to them a descendent therefore they thought they had a right to adal. I'll take a look at I.M. Lewis later. Baboon43 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most states of long-standing go through various periods of highs and lows. Adal's peak is generally acknowledged to have been in the fourteenth century, as quoted some time ago. However, actual historical sources clearly place its start at least as far back as the 9th century, in coastal Zeila. That again is about 300 years prior to the advent of the Ifat sultanate, so it's a cart & horse situation. Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Its peak was when it was situated in harar and controlled most parts of ethiopia and somalia during imam ahmeds reign..several sources say this..there seems to be no need to rename this article when a new article can be made referring to the 9th century all the way to the 14th because the motive here is to bring forth sultanate backgrounds..as much as i would like to see a full history of zeila even when it was under amhara rule your proposition does not convince me so lets just leave it as it is until more editors discover this page and better ideas can be formulated. Baboon43 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Adal reached the height of its prosperity in the 14th century (the 1300s), while the polity was still based in Zeila : "'With Zeila' as principal port, through which cannons were imported from Arabia for the Imaam's armies, and trading in slaves, ivory and other commodities with Abyssinia and the Arabian Peninsula, Adal reached the summit of her prosperity in the fourteenth century.'" Zeila was also in the historic Barbara region, which was inhabited and ruled by the Barbar/Berber, ancestral Cushitic-speaking peoples from whom the Somalis primarily descend. The Habesha lived in and ruled the separate Al-Habash region to the west, as they still do. This was consistently affirmed by ancient Arab, Greek and Chinese authorities. Only much later did the Abyssinians, such as Amda Seyon and his men, make advances toward Zeila. However, their march toward the city was resisted by the actual Somali-Arab rulers of Adal that were based there : "'Many centuries of trade relations with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyarite kingdom and these eventually developed into the two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, where local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled. The kingdom of Zeila, centre of the Adal Sultanate, is mentioned under this name first by Al-Yaqubi, then in the second half of the 10th century references occur in al-Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal, and al-Muqaddasi. Later descriptions come from Ibn Said, Maqrizi, and Abu'l-Fida. The Adal Sultanate with its capital Zeila thus appears to date from the 9th or 10th century and its history from its origins is the chronicle of a series of wars with Abyssinia.'" Also : "'Islam must have been introduced into Somaliland not long after the Hegira (622 ad). In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti).'" Middayexpress (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Language
The assertions as to the language spoken in Ifat (not Adal) that are cited herein appear to be inaccurate. For starters, it's the Fage book, not Braukämper's work, that contains Al-Umari's reference to the local language spoken in Shewa. The former also states that Al-Umari wrote that "Abyssinian and Arabic" was spoken there, not "Arabic or an Ethio-Semitic language" as suggested in the wiki article. This is an important distinction because it could mean that, while the local populace in Shewa spoke an Ethio-Semitic language (as many still do), the Walashma rulers themselves were mainly the ones who spoke Arabic. In fact, the latter is precisely what the 19th century Ethiopian historian Asma Giyorgis indicates was the Walashma's spoken language. Although this work of his is relatively recent, it's still closer to the actual Adal period than our own era is, so it's more valuable in that respect. Here's what Asma Giyorgis writes about the Walashma's language (including, interestingly, their physical appearance), in addition to the original inhabitants of Ethiopia :

"'These Muslims are not regarded as Muslims. Their chief and military leader was called Walasma. Walasma in Arabic means Wala Eslam. They resemble the Arabs in complexion; they are light-coloured. Their language is Arabic, and it is similar to Ge'ez. They were the first Muslims to penetrate Habasa. The original inhabitants of Ethiopia, the children of Ityopis, were Saba, Noba, Balaw and Kalaw.'" Middayexpress (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no language called abyssinian and no the rulers didnt just speak arabic if you stay in the ethiopian region you form a new language thats mixed with the local and arabic in this case. walashma may claim arab background like somalis and others but they adopted the region they may have been arab originally but intermixing made them people of the region..even the argobas have an identity separate from arab even though they claim to be arab descendants. but yea it looks like they started off with arabic and than formed some other language depending on the regions their ancestors moved to..why did you remove similar to geez? Baboon43 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It goes without saying that Arabic is similar to Ge'ez since they both belong to the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic family. That's what Asma Giyorgis' expression "similar to Ge'ez" means. At any rate, it's Fage himself that interprets Al-Umari's reference to "Abyssinian" being one of the languages spoken in Ifat as a likely allusion to Ethio-Semitic languages. And Fage obviously does this because Ethio-Semitic languages like Ge'ez are what the Abyssinians are believed to have spoken (at the time, anyhow). Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

kings and queens of shoa/adal/ifat/harar
looking for ways to include this list in article or separate article

source* http://www.hararconnection.com/kq.html Baboon43 (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That webpage appears to list the Kings and Queens of Harar from the 10th through to the 19th centuries. However, many of the listed rulers had nothing to do with the Adal state since Harar and other parts of the interior were only later annexed by Adal, and since the Adal state obviously did not last until the 19th century. As such, the list belongs on the relevant Harar page. Middayexpress (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * that is incorrect harar was apart of adal it just wasnt a capital until abubaker decided to make it one plus did you read the list it includes the walasma rulers like wali asama based on harari chronicals wali asma is a muslim amhara king who ruled adal including harar and several sources state the walasma had an amhara culture even though they claimed arab background like so many ethnic tribes..and adal actually means abdal who was a king that ruled the area in 1058..yes adal didnt last till the 19th century that is why the rest are on harar from ali bin dawud 1658 harar emirate begins but it remained the last element of adal but the only problem is it isolated itself. so basically the list mixes in the emirate and adal rulers because they both ruled the city. Baboon43 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No historical sources identify the Walashma as Amhara or Abyssinian, including the Harari chronicle (see my quote above from 14:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)). They identify them as Arab, including the chronicle of the Walashma dynasty itself (c.f. quotes from 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)). Middayexpress (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually im not refering to walashma dynasty im refering to the man called wali asma..Harari chronicles refer to him as an amhara but muslim king of harar and most likely adal but im not sure if he is the same that founded the dynasty though. oh and you might want to take a look at this because it doesnt matter if you have arab background your characterized by your cultural identity mostly. "During such interaction, the Walasma were influenced by Amhara cultural traditions and upon returning to the Muslim Argobba escarpment slopes they introduced the fanfare and pomp which went along with kingship or lordship in the highlands, and Amharic quickly took up momentum as a language of Walasma administration of the Argobba population.". excerpts from the book "Tradition and Transformation: The Argobba of Ethiopia" By Abebe Kifleyesus p.117 Baboon43 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actual historical testimony from Al-Umari has already established that the Walashma rulers in the Shoa region spoke "Abyssinian and Arabic". So yeah, some sort of Ethio-Semitic language would have been spoken in that part of Ethiopia alongside the Arabic mother tongue of the Walashma (the latter of whom were Arabs according to both Maqrizi and their own Walashma chronicle; c.f. post from 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)). Middayexpress (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No if someone moves into abyssinian territory and speaks amharic and than these people start moving towards somalia they are refered to as amhara simply because they speak amharic..not only that but they move in with a massive amhara population so my point is cultural identity is what people are characterized. There are amharas and oromos that look arab but they call themselves amhara so what do you say about these people? Baboon43 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting that the 19th century Ethiopian historian Asma Giyorgis already indicated what the Walashma's own spoken language was as opposed to that of the locals in the landlocked Shewa region they later expanded into. Although this work of his is relatively recent, it's still closer to the actual Adal period than the modern Abebe Kifleyesus book from our own era is, so it's more valuable in that respect. Here again is what Asma Giyorgis writes about the Walashma's language, their physical appearance, and the original inhabitants of Ethiopia :

"These Muslims are not regarded as Muslims. Their chief and military leader was called Walasma. Walasma in Arabic means Wala Eslam. They resemble the Arabs in complexion; they are light-coloured. Their language is Arabic, and it is similar to Ge'ez. They were the first Muslims to penetrate Habasa. The original inhabitants of Ethiopia, the children of Ityopis, were Saba, Noba, Balaw and Kalaw." Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didnt forget anything and i was the one that put that source in the first place..light colored doesnt mean anything because there are light habasha, would you say those are walasma that assimilated? There is no ethnic group that only speaks arabic in that region now and even if they did back than they were most likely bilinguals..an academic pointed out that the people of the horn have a fetish of believing they were of arab or jewish background when ethnic groups existed before them in those regions anyways lets not dwell on this issue my point was that some of these kings listed should be included in the article im sure there are academic sources if searched for on these individuals. Baboon43 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of the quote was to show that historical authorities much closer to the period in question (the Middle Ages) believed that the Walashma spoke Arabic. This would make perfect sense since, even if we ignore the Walashma's own self-proclaimed Arab ancestry, Maqrizi himself indicated that they were of Arab Quraysh or Hashimite origin, not Abyssinian origin (who spoke Arabic, not Ethio-Semitic languages). Asma Giyorgis' references to a) the Walashma as a whole "resembl[ing] the Arabs in complexion", b) penetrating the Habasa/Habesha region from elsewhere and being the first Muslims to do so, and c) encountering there the "original inhabitants of Ethiopia" including Saba, collectively further confirms Arab origins for the Walashma. This should probably be mentioned in the article, especially since Asma Giyorgis has already been partially referenced. What King list are you referring to? Middayexpress (talk)

precedent and succession
ifat sultante should be added in the precedent side of the infobox, it sort of is already and also for succession emirate of harar and aussa sultante..ill have to make an emirate of harar article though. also aussa was briefly technically adal sultanate until it self destructed so i think it should be added as the final capital not harar. adal transformed from a sultanate of all the muslim regions to a sultanate controlling its ethnic region making it aussa (afar) sultanate which led to its vassal state harar to break away and form its own ethnic based harar emirate therefore kingdoms began to isolate themselves based on ethnicity leading to their demise when the abyssinians conquered them in the later half of the 19th century. this source explains the transformation from adal to afar only sultanate Amir umar-din adam, who assumed office in 1672-3, was the last Adal ruler of Awssa. Not long after his accession the old Adal state, over which he had presided, crumbled, and the Afars, as we shall see, gained absolute supremacy over it" p.382 same source p. 392 "The collapse of the Adal sultanate, and the beginnings of Afar rule. Muslim Adal, which had for two centuries assumed for itself the mission of spreading Islam in Ethiopia, transformed itself into a semibarbarous state dominated by those Dankali nomads whom the Semitic or Semiticised aristocracy had always regarded only as wild plunderers of caravans" Baboon43 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A Harar sultanate page seems like a good idea, given the already existing Afar sultanate one. However, the Ifat sultanate shouldn't be added to the precedent side of the infobox because, as discussed extensively above, historical sources indicate that the Adal kingdom actually preceded it by a good 300 or so years. Further, that passage quoted above is a reference to Enrico Cerulli's opinion about what brought about the fall of the Adal sultanate; namely, raids by Oromo and Afar warriors. Most sources, however, indicate that Adal's decline in fact began with the end of the Conquest of Abyssinia/Futuh al-Habash and was only later crystallized by incursions from the countryside and the ensuing split into the Afar sultanate and Harar city-state. At any rate, here's the actual link to the page where it is quoted . Do you have any historical testimony stating that Aussa was the final capital of Adal? Cause most mainstream ones clearly indicate that it was Harar, including the Pankhurst book that you just linked to ("the town of Harar, though abandoned for far-off Awssa in 1577, survived as an independent city-state" ). It also describes the succeeding Afar sultanate in Awssa, ruled by Kedafu's Mudaito dynasty, as "more sophisticated" than the preceding Aussa Imamate founded by the aforementioned Adal exilees: "The end of Adal rule thus marked the beginning of a new, and more sophisticated Afar state, which, despite many serious difficulties, was to survive into the European colonial period". Middayexpress (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was against the move to adal state for that reason and this article is not about the kingdom its about the sultanate and surely the ifat sultanate dates before adal and if you say it dates after adal than im not sure what your talking about because after ifat the most powerful empire in the region was adal..even if you say its adal ifat than adal again its still technically before adal anyways what matters is that it should be in the infobox it doesnt have to say precedent..harar emirate starts 1647 so harar was under adal from aussa and under afar empire for a while before it broke away ill have to look for that source. Baboon43 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you are comparing apples and oranges and keep overlooking material that has already been quoted. It is historical sources (not me) which indicate that the actual Adal kingdom/sultanate -- interchangeable terms per the Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia and I.M. Lewis -- started as far back as the 9th century. The Ifat sultanate arose later and was to the west of Adal.
 * "' The Adal sultanate (also called an emirate or state) was located in the southeastern part of the Horn of Africa east of the Ifat sultanate. In 1298, Marco Polo made one of the earliest western references to Adal in his Travels. Adal is a term that was sometimes vaguely used to refer to the Muslim population in the lowlands east of the highland Christian empire. Adal included much of the Awash River basin north to Lake Abbe on the current Ethiopian-Djiboutian boarder and the lowlands between Shoa Province and the port of Zeila in present-day Somaliland near the border with Djibouti. Zeila, which was inhabited by Arabs, Somalis and Afars, was originally the center of Adal power.' '"
 * "'Many centuries of trade relations with Arabia began with the establishment of commercial colonies along the coast by the Himmyarite kingdom and these eventually developed into the two small states of Zeila or Adal in the north and Mogadishu in the south, where local dynasties of Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somali ruled. The kingdom of Zeila, centre of the Adal Sultanate, is mentioned under this name first by Al-Yaqubi, then in the second half of the 10th century references occur in al-Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal, and al-Muqaddasi. Later descriptions come from Ibn Said, Maqrizi, and Abu'l-Fida. The Adal Sultanate with its capital Zeila thus appears to date from the 9th or 10th century and its history from its origins is the chronicle of a series of wars with Abyssinia.'"
 * "'Islam must have been introduced into Somaliland not long after the Hegira (622 ad). In the late 9th century Muslims were reported living along the coast by the Arab geographer al-Yaquti, who also mentioned the Adal kingdom with its capital at Zeila on the north coast (just south of the modern Djibouti).'"


 * The common link between Adal and Ifat is thus that they were both for a period ruled by the same Walashma dynasty, although Adal at least had other rulers prior to the Walashma. Maqrizi indicates that the ancestors of 'Umar Walashma first settled in a region that was already Zeila-controlled.


 * "'Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat also. But Maqrizi gives us no information on the rulers before 'Umar Walasma; nor does the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty, despite the long genealogy it gives for 'Umar, who in fact assumes the characteristics of a legendary figure.'"


 * Adal also did not split up into two separate polities based in two separate cities until after 1577, when it eventually broke up into the Harar city-state and the Aussa imamate. Middayexpress (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * source 54 is flawed another source says adal was a state within the larger ifat sultanate and this source says it has nothing to do with ifat and also it says harar was always under abyssinian rule which is ridiculous..source 55 doesnt say it was a sultante in zeila it just says adal was based there and that same source has dates mixed up it says zeila was used for cannons for the imam in the 14th century than switches back to 16th century again that is a major error the source is trying to say adal was at its height during the imam's wars and zeila was used as a principal port to bringing in cannons therefore adal was at its height when it was based in harar..so zeila the puppet port was used to sell slaves and bring in cannons from the ottoman empire but adal was administered in harar at its height.


 * & About aussa when Adal collapsed in 1577, the seat of the Sultanate shifted to Awsa in the desert region of Afar (now around the town of Asaita). This time, Harar became a walled city vassal to the Sultan of Awsa. But in 1647, under the leadership of Amir Ali Ibn Dawud, it cut itself from the Sultan of Awsa and became an independent Emirate. I have already given a source above stating the last adal sultanate was overthrown by dankils(afars) in aussa. anyways the point is sometime in aussa adal shifted to being afar empire..so until adal sultanates stopped ruling it was technically still the adal sultanate but once that ended harar became a city under aussa. as long as it was in harar i dont see why it would collapse the only reason it collapsed is because of the isolation of aussa. Baboon43 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream perspective is that a) the fall of Adal began after it was militarily weakened following the Conquest of Abyssinia; b) its decline was finalized by Oromo/Afar raids; c) the state subsequently split up into the Harar city-state and the Aussa imamate; d) the Aussa administration was established in 1577 by Imam Mohammed Jasa/Gasa, a descendant of Imam Al-Ghazi (not the Walashma). As I understand it, what you're basically saying is that the Aussa imamate is a continuation of Adal; though not a mainstream view, this has been argued by some.

"'Wagner maintains that religious leaders had a greater influence in Harar, being at the margin of the Muslim World rather than in the center. The Fath Madinat Harar[l03] claims that Harar was founded as a city of saints,[104] by Imam Abadir 'Umar ar-Rida, the most popular saint of Harar, who was then said to have ruled even over the Ala and Nole Oromo, the Somali and the Argobba, who in their turn had accepted Abadir's saints as chiefs under his religious supremacy. Abadir's successors, according to this legend, had also been saints, until at one time Harar became part, of a political domain ruled by the secular Walasma dynasty, whose rulers were known under the title 'sultan', Wagner continues that in Harar (as well as in Adal and later on in Awssa) this type of secular rulership was always contested by religious leaders who accepted the title 'imam' instead, the most famous ones being Ahmed Gragn and his descendent Mohammad Gasa, who moved the capital 1577 from Harar to Awssa,[105] while Ahmed Gragn's direct successor, Amir Nur b. Mugahid, received his legitimation to the throne not by his descendance from a royal family, yet rather by the fact that he committed himself 'to enforce the religious law and to carry on the holy wars'.[106]'"

Also note that Aussa didn't pass straight from Gasa's Adal dynasty to the Mudaito dynasty; it was actually ruled in the intervening years by a few Yemeni sultans :

"'The Afar embraced Islam in the 14th century and this may have been a factor in the appearance of more centralised and hierarchical forms of government in the sultanates of Tadjura, Raheita, Biru, Gobhat and Aussa, whose rulers were called Amoyto in the south and Dardar in the north, but are commonly referred to as sultans. These sultanates appear in Ethiopian history during the reign of Emperor Amda Seyon (1312-1342), who fought many battles in the eastern lowlands, and Afar were part of Gragn's army when it invaded the northern highlands. Aussa Sultanate was a vassal of the Adal Emirate based in Harar, from where Gragn set off in 1540. Not long afterwards, Oromo pressure forced the Adal Sultan to move his seat to Aussa, where his descendants were to rule for a century. The Adal dynasty was followed by an interlude of four Yemeni sultans, before an Afar named Kaddafo seized power and founded a native dynasty that governed the fertile region of the Awash River inland delta until 1975. The other sultanates were dismantled in the imperialist scramble and the land of the Afar was divided between Italy, France and Ethiopia. Only Aussa retained its integrity and a degree of autonomy within Ethiopia until the demise of the imperial regime in 1974.'" Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is adal existed at one point in aussa before the yemenis or afars hijacked it..the yemenis could not have done as much damage to adal as did the afars but the oromo factor has already been weighed in, the oromos were viewed as outsiders by adal as they were new to the area, so it should be made clear in the article that some form of adal was alive in aussa before arab and afar take over. Afars were active in adal infact it was an afar who built the walls of harar according to harari chronicals but emir nur takes credit for this because it was built during his reign but once adal went o the aussa it was hijacked by radical afar nationalists..The yemeni sultans may have played a minor negative role on adal but the dankils are the main factor for the fall of adal administration in the regions aside from oromo infestation because it happened in aussa territory even your source says the descendants led for a century before yemenis came into aussa (source 59) so tell me are these descendents of the imam, afar sultans or adal imam's? i believe i posted a source above that said the last adal ruler in aussa was one by the name of "imam selman" also aussa sultanate should be put in succession section of the infobox.Baboon43 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Oromo infestation"? lol Interesting choice of words there (it's usually called a migration or invasion). Moving on, I'm not sure what source you're referring to because you didn't include any quotation marks around or links to the material. In any event, as a descendant of Imam Ahmad, it's safe to assume that Muhammad Gasa/Jasa would have shared a similar lineage. Moreover, as Pankhurst noted, the Afar Mudaito dynasty established a more sophisticated administration and ruled for a longer period than its predecessors. Ergo, why the Aussa/Awssa sultanate is today synonymous with the Afar sultanate. Afars defined it, it was in their traditional territory, and they formed a significant part of the earlier Adal sultanate too. Middayexpress (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

capital
This source seems to say that Harar was capital centuries before adal sultanate rose around the time of Abadir Umar Ar-Rida. "Abadir was instrumental in forming the confederation of Muslim states called Zayla, which stretched from Shoa (south of Wello) to Somalia (including Djibouti), and had Harar as its capitol." Baboon43 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Harar was not the capital of Adal until it moved from Dakkar (its second capital), as already demonstrated above. Al-Yaqubi wrote in the late 800s that Adal kingdom had its capital in Zeila . That would make landlocked Harar in the Ethiopian interior Adal's third capital. Middayexpress (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Im well aware of that seeing it was me that told you Dakkar was a capital but no we still dont agree on dakar being 2nd it was first but since the article makes sure zeila was an emirate at that time its fair enough..zeila was not the strong hold for muslims it was actually deeper in the abyssinian territories such as shoa sultanate..the first muslims in the region rose out of abyssinia and created their own empire but the ifat sultanate invaded them..i have had extensive discussions with you on Adal and its various meanings as the whole region was called Adal & renaming it Adal state would of been better if all muslim kingdoms were included all the way until 1800's..aside from that i brought up abadir sources because its conflicting as i did not know abadir was influential at that time..i hope editors look into this.. Baboon43 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You contradict yourself again when you write that Zeila was an emirate when Adal had Dakkar as its headquarters yet somehow "Harar was capital centuries before adal sultanate rose around the time of Abadir Umar Ar-Rida". At any rate, it's already been repeatedly demonstrated, notably in the post above from 17:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC), that a) "emirate" and "sultanate" are used interchangeably with respect to Adal, including by I.M. Lewis; b) Zeila was Adal's first capital (not Dakkar let alone Harar), as explicitly asserted by Al-Yaqubi; and c) by this Al-Yaqubi is referring to modern Zeila in the present-day Awdal region of Somalia. These are the facts. Middayexpress (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have given you many sources above all to no avail simply because you believe everything should take place at zeila..at one point you told me ahmed gurey launched his war from zeila anyways i dont want to get into a long extensive discussion on this..the article will have more value when more editors participate..if you read the source above it says harar was capital so i was just mentioning that & i have told u evidence shows the ethnic group that ruled adal are not around they were a different ethnicity & hararis are last remnant of that group..there's also Aw abdal east of harar so zeila is not the only awdal..the sources i have found contradict yours so why should i believe your sources over others? Baboon43 (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not me that says that Zeila was the center of Adal, but historical sources. This is the main difference between our two approaches. Anyway, as you know, the natives of Harar (i.e. the Harari) are believed to have originally been Sidama speakers. Ethiosemitic languages were only later adopted from more northerly migrants, who were absorbed. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * why do my sources contradict yours then? & explain clearly why i should accept this source instead of others..maybe in that region there were sidama speakers and the so called harla were in somaliland and they migrated. as mentioned when abadir arrived harla were dominant in that region maybe they got rid of the sidama at that point Baboon43 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to be specific about what exact material you're referring to because we've covered a lot of ground. At any rate, the Harla probably did originally have a presence in Somaliland because the Yibir and Midgan do, and the Harla's extinct language may have been related to those groups. The Yibir are also mentioned in the Futuh, by the way; they were part of Adal's army. Middayexpress (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Midgan is deregotary in harari im not sure if it is according to somali but based on my research all tribes have midgan and the original term was ancient agriculturalists & i guess it was negative at that time and perhaps a group formed out of that and began to call themselves midgan..its well known names given by others can sometimes be a source of identity. Well on sources i have found it says ifat occupied adal and before that were shoa sultanate who are much older in the horn around 9th century..therefore ifat invaded shoa and put an end to them..basically this source says ifat was the sultanate in the adal territory which stretches from zeila to harar.so seeing those sources say that then how can i take you al yaqubi source seriously? al yacoubi could of just been refering to ifat because the whole eastern region of the horn is called adal and zeila was influential capital of the ifat Baboon43 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The oldest documented Muslim polity inland was the sultanate of Shewa whose dynastic family, the Makhzumis claimed to have originated in 896c.e they ruled until 1295, when they were deposed by the walashma dynasty of yifat or ifat"-History of Islam in Africa p.228 .."The population of the leading principality of Yifat included some of these Cushitic-speaking nomadic groups as well as sedentary agriculturalists of Semitic speech, such as the no-longer-extant Hararle and the Harari (whose language has survived in the city of Harar)"-History of Islam in Africa-p.228..quote most likely is typo of harla.."In al mas'udi's and al Idrisi's account, Zeila was an Abyssinian Christian city and the adherents of Islam in it were few and were considered tribute paying communities to the Abyssinians"-The invention of Somalia-p.8 Baboon43 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So the term 'Midgan' exists in Harari? Interesting. The 'Midgan' group I was alluding to there is the Madhiban. They are an occupational caste who primarily inhabit the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia. It's this group's Cushitic dialect that Enrico Cerulli studied and found similarities with the Harla language (Af-Harlaad) spoken by the Harla community of the upper Fafan valley.

We've already gone over elsewhere the politically-inspired and factually inaccurate nature of that Invention of Somalia book. It's written by a group of disgruntled southern Somali scholars who resent the historical socio-political dominance of northern Somalis. So they attempt to turn the tables, as it were, and depict northern Somalia as backwards and basically a step behind 'civilized' southern Somalia. For instance, the author of that particular article you quote, one Mohamed Haji Mukhtar (who is Rahanweyn), claims that "despite the Somali belief that Islam was introduced in the northern region of Somalia as early as the time of the Prophet Muhammad, we lack evidence to support the claim." This is a disingenuous statement, for Mukhtar himself notes in his earlier Arabic Sources on Somalia that Zeila was an important early Muslim center on the northern Somali coast :

"'Al-Maqdisi (d. 990) in his Ahsan al-Taqasim fi' Ma'rifat al- Aqalim (on World Regional Geography), pointed very clearly to the existence of Muslim centers along the coastal strip of Somalia, and mentioned Zeila as the biggest Muslim center in the Autal (Awdal) land. As well, al-Yaqubi (d. 905) in his al-Buldan (The Countries) was the first Arabic writer to mention Zeila as a Muslim center in the Berber coast.'"

The book is filled with half-truths, distortions and omissions of that sort. The fact is, every early Arab geographer that commented on Zeila's main religion indicated that it was predominantly Muslim; from Al-Yaqubi in the late 800s to Ibn Batutta in the 1300s.

Regarding Al-Yaqubi, I.M. Lewis is correct in noting that he is referring to Zeila specifically since the Walashma established the Ifat Sultanate in the 1200s, whereas Al-Yaqubi wrote his material several centuries earlier. Also bear in mind that other historical testimony from Al-Maqrizi indicates that the forefathers of 'Umar Walashma (and thus the ancestors of the Walashma Dynasty) first settled in the Zeila-controlled Jabarta region, and from there later expanded into the hinterland to occupy Ifat as well :

"'Both Maqrizi and the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty give a Quraysh or Hashimite origin for 'Umar Walasma. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of 'Umar Walasma first settled in Jabara (or Jabarta) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat also. But Maqrizi gives us no information on the rulers before 'Umar Walasma; nor does the chronicle of the Walasma dynasty, despite the long genealogy it gives for 'Umar, who in fact assumes the characteristics of a legendary figure.'" Middayexpress (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

ahmeds wife del wanbera
ifat sultanate rulers sometimes married those from eritrea and seeing ahmed grans wifes name is BATI del wanbera it could be possible she was half tigray "A famous ancestor of this tribe, Cabdallah, came from Tigray land to the Harar plateau in the time of sultan Sa'd ad'Din II of Adal, who was a contemporary of emperor Dawit I. The sultan gave his daughter in marriage to the immigrant and their male children were called Qur'ai, the females receiving the name Ba'tiah"-Notes on the Islamicization Baboon43 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bati was a female royal title, like the Somali Boqorad or the Abyssinian Woizero. It wasn't her actual name . From Rita Pankhurst:


 * "'Del Wanbara - literally 'Victory is her seat' - held the title of Bati. A contemporary of Sabla Wangel's, she was the daughter of Imam Mehefuz, governor of Zayla, a port on the Gulf of Aden close to what is now Djibouti. He was also the de facto ruler of the state of Adal. She married Imam Ahmad and, ignoring the protests of his soldiers, accompanied him on his expeditions of conquest in the Christian highlands. At times she had to be carried on their shoulders up and down steep and rocky mountain slopes, twice in a state of pregnancy. She gave birth to two sons - Muhammad in 1531 and Ahmad two years later - during campaigns in the mountains of Tigre.'" Middayexpress (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

slanted history
biased pro abyssinian academics like richard pankhurst & others have distorted history about the history of muslims in the horn. The more adal is connected with walasma the more likely abyssinians can lay claim over the empire. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

adal=harla kingdom
i found a source that states adal sultanate was based on the harla people, pre somali peoples as well as the various somali clans. harlas played more of a major role then somalis in the Ethiopian-Adal war..although harla were originally located at shores in somali region places like zeila hargeisa..by the time of imam's wars they were more inland around harar and pushed further down to ethiopian territory because of the conflict..the disastrous outcome of the war led some to settle in western ethiopian territories and some converted to christianity like those on the island sof zay..linguistic ties proves this is true as well as historical accounts. Baboon43 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The link asserts that the "Muslim Sultanate of Adal [was] based on the Harla and other pre-Somali peoples of eastern areas as well as various Somali clans". Adal extended from northwestern Somalia to eastern Ethiopia, so that obviously doesn't rule out Zeila. The link also doesn't state that the Harla played a larger role in the Ethiopian-Adal war. In any case, it could not since the chronicler Shihāb al-Dīn's Futuh al-Habash ("Conquest of Abyssinia"), which documents the war as it actually happened, makes it clear that the bulk of Adal's army was composed of Somali clans. Middayexpress (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * somalis may have composed a bulk of adal army (some sources say afar) but recently academics are shifting towards harla as the main force or ruling aristocracy in the empire..official language being harla..note here that harla and somali clans are differentiated in this source . Baboon43 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Futuh is the only comprehensive historical source on the Conquest of Abyssinia, and it is clear that Somali clans like the Harti and Marehan formed the nucleus of Adal's army. On the other hand, the affinities of the Harla language are unknown because no one speaks it anymore nor is there any written attestation left of the language. Perhaps you are also unaware that in the Futuh the Harla are clearly distinguished from the Harari as well. Middayexpress (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * how are they clearly distinguished from the harari? Baboon43 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Harla are mentioned as a distinct group, with their own military contigent in the Adal army. Middayexpress (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * are you saying hararis were not involved in the war? ok sticking with the "Futuh" why is there no mention of the Silt'e? & which tribe do they belong in the "Futuh"? as i had previously mentioned they claim to have left harar during the wars. When you read Futu7ul-7abesha, the author, Shihabud-Din A7mad ibn 3Abdul-Qadir bin Saalim bin 3Uthman, also known as Arab Faqih writes that the people of the Harar were the Harla. Among the people of the Harla, he mentions for example Amir Hussein al-Gaturi, so the the name stuck as a last name with many of the indiginous people. you also have the Adish family mentioned in the book as the Harla, and also they exist till today in Harar. You also have the Abogn family that exist till today in Harar, also Khalaf, etc. Fat7 Madinat Harar" by an author Ya7ya ibn Nasrullaah where it talks about 405 Arabs came to Harar from Makkah in the year 612 after the Hijrah, led by Shaykh Abadir, also with him was his sons, 3Umar Qutbud-Din, 3Aliyy Feeq, A7mad ibn 3Umar among others. Also, Aba Yazeed Bastamiyy, Shaykh Isma3eel Jabartiy, Shaykh Asla7ud-Din, Sufi Ya7ya, Shaykh 3Uthman 3Arabi, and Shareef Yusuf al-Akwaan. When they reached Harar, the author reports that the ppl of this region were the Harla and Gaturi. The ppl of the land explained to them that 25 years prior, the land was devestated with famine and the people who ruled were the Gaturi people. The Harla and Gaturi are ethnically the same ppl, but 2 tribes that spoke the same language and had the same culture, and customs. Baboon43 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

let me also point out that the "futuh" never mentions a "harari"..harla lived in harar but once the walls werr put up and emir nur destroyed genealogy..the inhabitants began refering to themselves as harari to ease clan fighting. their language obviously stayed intact..a simple mixture of adal residents oromo,somali etc & therefore miraculously you have a new ethnic group with a different linguistic background is inconceivable. if we can stick with the madinat source, which says prior to heavy arab/islam influence there were harlas. a harari/somali speaker can identify the dialect of benadiris as similar to harari language. Baboon43 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Futuh indeed mentions the Harla in contradistinction to the Adare/Harari (c.f. ). The Benadiri also speak Benadiri Somali, a dialect of Somali (not Harari). Middayexpress (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * the link you have pointed out refers to an old and respected elder it doesnt say they were an ethnic group. im also quite aware benadiri speak somali but my point was that when spoken its similar to harari if your a multilingual speaker..the futuh was reviewed by mohammed hassen & even he says adare or harla aristocracy.
 * "All the four Wazirs appointed by Imam Ahmad were members of the landed Adare (Harari) and Harla hereditary nobility". Of the fifty or so Amirs appointed by Imam Ahmad between 1527 and 1537, the overwhelming majority were members of the hereditary landed Adare or Harla aristocracy'.'"-p.179 Baboon43 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Benadiri Somali most closely resembles the Northern Somali dialect. In his review of the Futuh, Hassen likewise distinguishes the Harla from the Harari . We also already know that some of the Adal officials were drawn from the Harari and Harla, as they were from the Somali as well. Note : "The civil war which characterized Adal society at the beginning of the sixteenth century was the struggle between the Walasma dynasty, whose power base was the Somali nomads, and the hereditary provincial administrators, whose power base was the sedentary Adare and Harla population." Middayexpress (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * so why is this information not in the article? anyways my point was that he labels harla as the aristocracy..keep in mind he says adare OR harla which means one of the two because obviously one didnt exist at the time...as mentioned when abadir reaches harar only gaturi, harla greet him no harari...harari as an ethnic group solely living in the city only, didnt exist until the walls were put up correct? Baboon43 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what Hassen asserts is that the four wazirs/provincial administrators that Imam Ahmad appointed were all drawn from the sedentary Adare (Harari) and Harla hereditary nobility. This means that they weren't selected from the Harari or Harla peasantry, but instead from their aristocratic class. By contrast, the Walashma Dynasty's power base was among Adal's Somali population. In short, what they're saying is that when Adal was centered in Zeila (i.e. under the Walashma Dynasty), most of its administrative officials were Somali; when the polity eventually relocated from Dakkar to Harar, most of its administrative officials were subsequently drawn from the Harari and Harla elite. On the other hand, the Futuh states that the bulk of Adal's army during this later period was still composed of Somalis, including Imam Ahmad's in-laws. Shihāb al-Dīn, for example, indicates that : "Then he [the imam] tied a red standard to a spear and entrusted it to his brother-in-law Mattan bin 'Utman bin Kaled, the Somali, their chieftain, their knight, and the most courageous, the bravest of them all. There rallied to him one-hundred-and-ten knights and three-thousand infantry, along with the tribe of Harti, the tribe of Jairan and the tribe of Mazra, all of whom were Somalis." Middayexpress (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)