Talk:Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir

Kurdish/Arab?
Any specific info on his ethnicity would help. Considering how fiercely endogamous the modern Yazidi are I think it would be good to clarify whether or not he has partial Arab ancestry. 76.118.92.242 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good point. Was thinking something similar just now. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir. 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/20080320070927/http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi to http://www.yeziditruth.org/yezidi_reformer_sheikh_adi

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) 08:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Muslim and Yazidi
There have been several disputes on his religious adherence, whether he is Yazidi or a Muslim. It is already mentioned in the article that he was a disciple of a muslim scholar and wrote about the Sunna. But he is probably better known for being a Yazidi saint who established his own sect which later would become known as the Yazidi. I'll remove there fore the mention that he was a muslim from the first phrase and leave the mention that he was a student and disciple of muslim scholars. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I left the Muslim part in the lead, but adapted the lead in order to give his role for the Yazidi more importance. Any comments in the discussion to settle this issue would be welcomed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the neutrality-template to the article and also have added that he was a Yazidi saint. Dortana (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Revert by Dortana
Can you explain why we should use a reference which is ambiguous in its statement?
 * The source is not ambiguous. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World is a reliable source — Dortana (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I said the statement was ambiguous. Find a better source, until then I am going to revert back to a stable version per Consensus. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)