Talk:Muladí

muwalladin
"The term muwalladin is used in Arabic up to this day "

This does not exist in the Arabic Wikipedia And The rest of the Versions Wikipedia.

Arabs not use that term, Except in the Middle Ages

I am an Arabian and I did not hear this term no once in My life.

We do not use it now.

Goodbye.

--Samer154 (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your life experience does not count as an authoritative source. Carlstak (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "muwalladin" may not have a history in Algeria, but it does in Yemen (albeit of recent currency), for example. The Arab world is a vast region. Carlstak (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Carlstak I think that your Words is not true, all Arabs They were Using that term but I speak on Our epoch --Samer154 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Click on the link after the words "for example" above. Read the webpage, which says explicitly that "The term Muwalladin is the plural of Muwallad and has appeared only since the late 1970s in Yemen." That is certainly in our epoch. Carlstak (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic Iberian Muslims living in the Iberian peninsula
It's redundant. Why do we have to say "Iberian Muslims ... living in Iberia"? If we remove the first "Iberian", we wind up with the crazy phrase "ethnic Muslims"! So what do we do, we reword to remove the redundancy and to make sure the word "ethnic" modifies an appropriate noun. Srnec (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported information about Islam and Arabs
I edited the information and took out racism allegations by Arabs against Muladis because they were uncited. There seems to be a very real disinformation campaign in this topic. I am going to change it back, unless someone can provide citations to prove these allegations. You are welcome to debate the topic here. --AmmariKhan (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I provided the citations, dude. Most of the material was provided by me from the book, "Some aspects of the socio-economic and cultural history of Muslim Spain 711-1492 A.D" by S.M. Immamudin which i borrowed from the local library in my neighborhood. I assure you that there is no disinformation campaign on my part. I revert vandalism by accounts and anonymous IP's on a regular basis, and i admit that i sent it in haste without thinking carefully or taking a proper look at your edits. A quick look at the massive deletion of info did make it seem like vandalism. So, i apologize for that. I hope there is no longer any hard feelings from your side. Everyone makes mistakes. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing this article with what can only be described as racial bigotry against Arabs and Muslims. It is an established fact that Muslim Spain was far more tolerant in its religious sphere than the succeeding Christian conquests by Ferdinand and Isabella. Remember, both Muslims and Jews lived in peace in Muslim Spain, while during the Reconquista Muslims and Jews were isolated for massacres. Also it is disinformation to quote from books entitled 'Islam and dhimmitude' written by two Zionist authors. Just because you provide a biased source does not make it correct. This article should be impartial to both Arabs and Spanish people. I have done the best I am able to keep racism and bigotry out of this article. --AmmariKhan (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no racial bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims and any fair person will agree that i have nowhere projected info in a biased manner. You are way out of your line making false unsubstantiated accusations towards me like that. I have derived info from reputed and credible sources. Just because Bat Yeor is Zionist, that does not make her unreliable anymore than an Arab historian would be unreliable because he is Baathist. She is a reputed and recognized historian on the Middle East and Islamic history. As for Thomas Glick, he is a reliable source in his own right, and S.M.Imamudin is a credible Muslim historian. Yet, you have deleted these references, plus many online references (such as http://libro.uca.edu/martyrs/martyrs.htm), without any proof that they are unreliable and biased other than your word for it. On the other hand, it seems to me to you have your own bias and are simply removing or manipulating info that you find unsavory. You have recklessly reverted my edits, deleted my references, and projected your bias into the article (deleting sourced info and replacing it with unsourced statements such as "There is no evidence that forced conversions to Islam took place" )and manipulation of sourced info (by adding "allegedly" to heavy drinkers while this fact was well known and documented) and removal of sourced info ("The Muwallads complained of the taxation of their lands as if they were still Christian.") That clearly violates WP:NPOV, my friend. As such, you are under no position to revert my edits as you have no proof that they are unreliable and biased. Since i feel that it will be impossible for us to achieve consensus on our own or avoid an edit war, i have restored the article as it was and opened a Request for Comment in order to get some more editors in here to discuss the issue. Please do not revert my edit unless consensus has been reached to do so. Likewise, if it turns out that the consensus agrees with your argument, I will respect that. Joyson Noel (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joyson Noel. Please stop with your POV attempts. You seem to want people to think that the Moorish AL Andalus was a paradise of tolerance. Reality was and is much more complex. Please stop! The Ogre (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Muslim Spain tolerant? What are you talking about? "Delicious image of the Caliphate of Cordoba a thousand years ago. But those who could in a jump of magic approach it would find the battlements of its walls filled by the skulls of northern Christians and Andalusian rebels. Muslims troops beheaded dead, wounded, or imprisoned enemies; they loaded their heads on carts and they distributed them through the cities of Al-Andalus as victory trophies." "The king of Seville, Al-Mutamid, had adorned his garden with the heads of his enemies turned into pots." "The cruelties that the emirs and caliphs made scare. In 807 took place the massacre of the Moat of Toledo, in which hundreds and hundreds of inhabitants in the city of the Tagus were slaughtered before the eyes of the young son of Al-Hakam and future Abd alRahman II, who had a nervous twitch in his eye for the rest of his life due to the terror caused by the executions he witnessed. ” (...) “The boy who witnessed the massacre of 807 ascended the throne. Dozens and dozens of Christians suffered martyrdom in his days." etc. Claudio Sanchez Albornoz "De la Andalucía islámica a la de hoy." 2007 MetalRocks (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is much improved since the debate above. But I have reservations about citing an author (Bat Ye'or) who writes under a pseudonym, whose work is controversial and political, and who claims to have coined the neologism "Dhimmitude" (which is also part of the title of the cited work). It is certainly stretching a point to call Bat Ye'or "a reputed and recognized historian," unless you mean "reputed to be a conspiracy theorist" and "recognized as a controversialist." The article would be improved by replacing the Bat Ye'or cites with cites from a less assailable source — maybe one that is actually about Iberian history. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 22:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

After Islamic Rule
So what happened to the Muladis after the Christians conquered all of Spain?

they faced the fate of all muslims in spain either go or be killed.Alhanuty (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration
The article reads:
 * Arabic: مولدون‎ trans. mūwallad, pl. mūwalladūn or mūwalladīn

I have only rudimentary knowledge of Arabic, but the Arabic word provided seems to be closer to mūwalladūn than mūwallad. I also wonder whether the Arabic is spelled correctly or would be clearer with diacritics.

There is no article on the Arabic Wikipedia to refer to, so I am asking/hoping for expert intervention. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 22:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Muwalladun or Muwalladin is the plural form of Muwallad.
 * Buhadram (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

transliteration??

 * Muwallad is derived from the root word WaLaD (ولد), a direct Arabic transliteration of waw, lam, dal.

That's a strange use of the word 'transliteration'; from what to what is it transliterated? I might suggest


 * Muwallad is derived from the root W-L-D (ولد = waw-lam-dal).

—Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muladi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008170454/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1380&lang=en to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=1380&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Problems with new title
The change of name of this page to make room for a biography might be problematic: Is the Arabic word muwallad used just for Al-Andalus? if it's not, as I suppose, the page title would be at odds with its current focus, which is Spanish and Portuguese Medieval History. In fact, there is no guarantee that the people called muladís in Spanish historiography are the same ones that would be called muwallad in Arabic. --Jotamar (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No reply in 8 months. I propose to rename the page to Muladis (Al-Andalus). --Jotamar (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No reply again. Well, I'm being bold and I'm renaming it. --Jotamar (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You've renamed it, but Muwallad still redirects here. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., has an article on Muwallad that begins with the basic definition and etymology and then has two sections, a long one on usage in Spain and a short one on the word in Arabic linguistics. Although the intro suggests that the word could be used of any "mixed" people, the article does not mention its use for any other than the Muladíes. (I think the current title is quite ugly.) Srnec (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what do you propose? --Jotamar (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move Muladi so it can redirect here. Move this page to either Muwallad or Muladí. If the former, adjust text of article as per EI2 to address concerns about scope. Srnec (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for the move was that Muwallad wasn't a good name for the page, as I tried to explain in previous posts, and nobody has argued against it so far. Other than that I'm open to different names. --Jotamar (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have argued against it. As I said, the EI2 article says the term means "mixed breed" and was extended to humans to mean "half-Arab" and also to Arabic linguistics to mean "non-classical". It devotes a section to the latter and a longer section to the case of al-Andalus. It does not mention any other case of muwalladun among people. In any case, I have no strong preference for one or the other of Muladí/Muwallad. Srnec (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. "If the former, adjust text of article as per EI2 to address concerns about scope" I see no good reason whatsoever to adapt the text. The content is fine as it is, a perfectly delineated scope (an ethnic classification related to Medieval Iberia), deserving its own article and framed that way by plenty of sources. The title was fine as Muladi, as it now is too with Muladis (Al-Andalus). Otherwise, the move to Muwallad making the case of more common usage (e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam) (ignoring if the topic's scope transfers seamlessly to begin with) looked like a clumsy edit at best. If someone actually makes a compelling rationale of which is the most common name in English-language sources for that ethnic classification employed to explain Medieval Iberia, go ahead, we can discuss the "title" (but that's not the case now). And yet it still would not be an argument to hijack the scope ("the content").--Asqueladd (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The history section need a serious of reformation
The history section need a serious of reformation, i think it should be removed as a whole and re-written by an expert, it contains a lot of suspicious content which needs to be checked from the cited source, as well as give a very misleading portrayal of several things. Chafique (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)