Talk:Kutama

Major cleanup needed
This article seems accurate -- though in need of references, citations, and copy editing -- on the role of this small Ishmali convert community from which the Fatamid dynasty created an important military unit in the period 900 - 1100. Included even in that section is a lot of unverified claims and Amazigh nationalist propaganda content. The bits on the role in the "21st century role" of this small (thousands) 10th century mountain community is just nonsense. How are Agadez Niger Tuareg communities part of this? They speak a Berber language, that's how. And that's what most of this essay is about: a vehicle for contemporary Algerian ethnic conflict. Needs a tear down from someone with some academic background in 10th century Arab history.T L Miles (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And look at the edit history: the nonsense content is almost entirely down to two edits by one editor on one day, who also edited Berber people, Algeria and then disappeared. see this.  A later editor, who correctly identified this as a cut and paste job from a nationalist website, tried to rewrite the content to get around the plagiarism, while ignoring that equally blatant problem that the source from which it was plagarised is entirely unreliable. T L Miles (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

September 2020
A quick question regarding the Kutama leader al-Hasan ibn Ammar.:

As far as I know, the Kutama general who held the Wasita title (a title that was created specifically for him) was "Hassan ibn Ammar al-Kutami", who obviously was not Arab. Having checked the linked article, I see what appears to be synthesis of material (biography of al-Kalbi, etc), with only the last part applying to the "al-Kutami".

Since you created the article, could you please go through it and let me know if I'm missing something? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi M.Bitton, good point, I was somewhat misled by my own memory. Ibn Ammar was closely associated with the Kutama, but was himself definitely an Arab (Kalbid). Will change the article accordingly. Constantine  ✍  06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Actually, this edit made the current article worse without addressing the raised issue of the linked article. "Ibn Ammar al-Kalbi" was indeed an Arab, but it was "ibn Ammar al-Kutami " (a Berber leader of the Kutama) who was appointed as Wasita.


 * 1. The two cited sources say:






 * 2. The fact that we have two leaders named "Ibn Ammar" who were active at the same period is probably at the root of the confusion, especially since very little is known about the early years of "ibn Ammar al-Kutami", except that he was a Berber (a Kutami) who rose through the ranks of the Kutama army and was the first first person upon whom the Wasita title was bestowed.


 * Can you spot the issue in the linked article which seems to combine the biographies of two different people? M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I would have sworn that I found a source identifying the Kalbid with the wasita when I was writing the article. I'll check my sources again, and if I am wrong, I will correct it right away. Thanks again for pointing this out M.Bitton, if true, this is embarrassing. Constantine  ✍  17:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here it is: Brett, p. 320 "Ahmad was given command of the fleet which arrived at Tripoli a year later in Dhu'lHijja 359/October 970, while his cousin Hasan ibn 'Ammār took charge of the army which he led to the relief of Fustat/Mist in Rabi' I 361/December 971" establishes this Ibn Ammar as a Kalbid, and at p. 418 writes about al-Aziz's death that "Alongside the prince and the princess were the Chief Qādī, Muhammad ibn al-Nu'mān, and the veteran commander Hasan ibn 'Ammār al-Kalbi, the last of the old Ifriqiyan aristocracy, who reportedly received the dying man's last instructions". This is as explicit as it gets. Likewise Kennedy, p. 318 on the same event ("After the battle, Berber reinforcements, led by al-Hasan b. Ali, called Ibn al-'Ammar, arrived from Ifriqiya"), and later, in pp. 327-328 ("Immediately after the death of the caliph, the Kutama shaykhs made it clear that their allegiance to his son was dependent on their being given control of the government. Accordingly, al-Hasan b. ‘Ammar was made wasita"), where it is clear that it is the same person as no other person of that name is mentioned (cf. also the index entry). With two of the most reputable Islamic scholars identifying the two as the same person, I am obliged to follow them. Lev simply, and unhelpfully, calls him "the Kutami chief", Daftary likewise writes that he was "their chief" and nothing more, and unfortunately I don't have Halm's second volume.
 * I know that in older sources, the nisba al-Kutami has led to identifying the wasita as a Berber, but I suspect that this may be a sign of partisan affiliation rather than an ethnonym? Indeed, the appointment of an obscure Kutama whom no-one until then had heard of (which in turn is unlikely if he was a senior commander), as wasita, would be pretty unusual, TBH, especially since the Kutama were not exactly renowned for their Arabic education, an absolute prerequisite for such a position. I am open to other sources, but so far I don't see a need to change it. Constantine  ✍  18:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also Brett, in his more recent Fatimid Empire: "On his deathbed al-ʿAzīz appears to have mandated his Qadi, Muhammad ibn al-Nuʿmān, together with the doyen of the old Ifrīqiyan aristocracy Hasan ibn ʿAmmār, to ensure a smooth succession. Victor over the Byzantines in Sicily and in battle with the Carmathians at Fustāt, head of the Kalbid clan in Egypt and last of al-Muʿizz’s old guard, Hasan was an obvious candidate for the regency. At the bayʿa, the ceremony of homage to the new Caliph, he made his bid for power when the chiefs of the Kutāma, the Friends of the Imām, demanded his appointment as Wāsita in place of the Kātib ʿĪsā ibn Nastūrus". I hardly think that Brett would double down thus on this description if this identification were not relatively unambiguous. Constantine  ✍  18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For Kennedy's source: the Kutama shaykhs made it clear that their allegiance to his son was dependent on their being given control of the government. Accordingly, al-Hasan b. ‘Ammar was made wasita. cannot mean anything other than al-Hasan b. ‘Ammar was one of the Kutama (putting them in control).


 * Other sources:










 * So far, the only source that is at odds with the other sources is Brett's. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not so. Kennedy, as noted, identifies the two men (again, if you doubt it, look at the index entry). For the others, as stated previously, formulations like "leader of the Berber troops" does not mean that Ibn Ammar was a Berber. The person who brought a strong Berber contingent east in 971 of course was a "leader of the Berber troops", but both Kennedy and Brett make clear that this was a Kalbid. Again, I am aware of some sources calling the wasita a Berber, but one has to put them into balance. De Lacy O'Leary for example is completely outdated, he wrote at a time when Isma'ili/Fatimid studies were in their infancy not even begun as a separate field (this began with Wladimir Ivanow and Marius Canard); it is like using Du Cange to write about Byzantium. Gibb was an excellent scholar, but the same more or less applies to him (many of the older EI2 articles I consult are outdated in some aspect or another, until the 1980s, for example, the relationship between the Qarmatians and the Fatimids was completely misunderstood). Remember that the first truly modern, comprehensive histories of the Fatimid state, making extensive use of all available sources, started being produced from the 1980s onwards, and Brett is one of the pioneers here, along with Halm and Madelung. Lev, Cortese and Daftary are respected scholars in the field, but mentioning someone in passing while writing in a much broader context they are apt to overlook something (I've found a number of errors/inaccuracies in detail in Daftary, for example, which makes sense given the very high level of abstraction he has to work in for such a comprehensive work as his); this, of course, also applies to Kennedy, so we are left with Brett. Brett has focused his work on the administration, prosopography, politics, etc. of the early Fatimid state, this is his particular field of study. I am holding out until I can see what Halm writes, whose scholarship I trust very much. Constantine  ✍  06:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that can lead us to conclude that al-Kalbi and al-Kutami are the same person. All we have is reliable sources attributing the Wasita title to one or the other.


 * If Brett attributes it to al-Kalbi (an Arab), Yaacov Lev attributes it to al-Kutami (see first quote), while leaving no doubt that the person he's referring to is a member of the Kutama (a Berber):




 * The fact that he mentions him again in his book (State and Society in Fatimid Egypt) and in the Wasita entry in the Encyclopedia of Islam (the reference to anyone who wants to know what the word Wasita means) adds even more credibility to his claim.


 * Bernard Lewis, another heavyweight, also attributes the Wasita to al-Kutami in the Encyclopedia of Islam.


 * Sadly, I don't have access to Halm's book, though the German wikipedia article on Hassan ibn Ammar al-Kutami appears to be based partly on it.


 * There isn't a lot more that can be said at this stage, so I'll restore the sourced/neutral version and tag it as disputed to attract more input. M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll probably be able to get my hands on Halm pretty soon (about a week or so), so we will know what he thinks; if he gives a view in line with Brett, then I'd consider the matter settled, and add a note to the article on Ibn Ammar that the wasita is sometimes considered a Kutama Berber. In any other case, I will split the Ibn Ammar article in two, pointing to one another and stating that the exact identity is unclear/disputed. Constantine  ✍  23:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we'll have no other choice but to present the matter as disputed, since it's not up to us to decide who's right and who's wrong, but first, let's give the other editors a chance to have their say. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have managed to access the relevant pages of Halm's book. Here's what he thinks (translated from German into English):

M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * great, then I will split the article as soon as possible. Thanks a lot for bringing this up! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)