Talk:Umar ibn Hafsun

Race of Umar ibn Hafsun

I suggest that you read the Muladi article. Muladi (or native Iberian converts to Islam) men never intermarried with Arab or Berber women. However, the vice versa is true. The reason for this was because Muwallads were generally looked down upon as inferior in social status. They were a separate social class. Even though they were higher in social position than the Mozarabs (Arabized native Christians), they were lower in social position than the Arabs and Berbers, and were pejoratively referred to as "the sons of slaves".

If Ibn Hafsun was descended from the Visigothic count, Marcellus, it is highly unlikely that he was of mixed descent. Therefore, Ibn Hafsun could claim as ancestors the Teutonic tribe that invaded the Roman empire in the 5th century to set up a kingdom in Spain which lasted until the Muslim invasion. Thus, he could only claim white forebears.

Look, there are conflicting views regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial origins and i am not stating for a fact that he had only white ancestors. I am only mentioning the possibility of it in the article, and i think that it is relevant. Joyson Noel (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• First, the Muladi article says nothing of the sort. For example "Through the cultural Arabization of muladies and their increasing inter-marriage with the small number of Berbers and Arabs present in Iberia, the distinctions between the different Muslim groups became increasingly blurred in the 11th and 12th centuries. The populations mixed with such rapidity that it was soon impossible to distinguish ethnically the elements of foreign origin from the natives. Therefore, they merged into a more homogeneous group of Andalusi Arabs generally also called Moors." This does not support the model you suggest. Likewise, it is never wise to present historical behavioral absolutes, "this never happened", because there are almost always exceptions. (e.g. I could cite an author explicitly stating that a Muslim man would never marry his daughter to a Christian, yet clearly Fruela I of Leon married the daughter of a Muslim man.) Further, in taking these two data: that Umar supposedly had one Visigoth ancestor and that a Muladi supposedly would never marry anything but a 'white', and then use them to then conclude that Umar had only 'white' ancestry violates WP:NOR unless you have a source that draws this precise conclusion. As to 'white', it was meaningless, irrelevant. To know that he was "All white" tells us nothing about him worth knowing. A viking was a barbarian to Visigoth, Basque, Ibero-Romans, Muladi, Arabs and Berbers alike, and to talk of 'white' in this context creates a false grouping, suggesting some special meaning was attached to being white beyond being Muladi or Mozarab or Viking. I have seen no evidence that this was the case in 10th century Iberia. The sources talk of groups of people by ethnicity, religion, and politics, not 'white'. That there was a distinction called 'white' had yet to be formulated. Agricolae (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the distinctions between the different Muslim groups became increasingly blurred in the 11th and 12th centuries. Ibn Hafsun lived during the 10th century. This, in itself, serves as a refutation of your first point. Secondly, i have nowhere presented any historical absolutes. There are many conflicting opinions drawn by many historians regarding Ibn Hafsun's racial background. And i am trying to emphasize the possibility in the article, that Ibn Hafsun was white. I am only mentionining it as a distinct possibility in the article, not as absolute and irrefutable truth. I will source this statement, if that will satisfy you.

Moreover, it was Fruela II of León, not Fruela I, who married a woman of the Muladi Banu Qasi clan named Urraca. It should also be noted that she was not a Muslim, but a convert from Islam to Christianity.

You cant just simply dismiss the term "White" as meaningless. When i use the term, i use it to identify a member of the Caucasoid race. It does not have to mean anything else, and i have not attached any special meaning to this term. Just check out a general history book and you will find out how many times this term is used. To suggest that this term should not be used to identify them as members of the Caucasoid race simply because it was not formulated at the time, is fundamentally flawed. Also, I believe the ethnic Spanish people, particularly the ethnic Iberian Muslims of Hispanic pre-Islamic origin fall into this category.

You state that a viking was a barbarian to Visigoth, Basque, Ibero-Romans, Muladi, Arabs and Berbers alike, and to talk of 'white' in this context creates a false grouping. So, what do you suggest? Should i classify them as "Barbarians", instead of White? Joyson Noel (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• What I suggest is that this be left out. We don't indicate that Garcia Iniguez was white. We don't give Charlemagne's race. So, what about the race of Umar makes it worth mentioning. I see from your reference that you copied a good part of this word-for-word from your source without indicating that was the case. Anyhow, the whole 'only white ancestors' is still an unsupportable conclusion. The Roman occupation of Spain introduced a range of peoples, including those you would not categorize as 'white'. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians also probably introduced significant non-Caucasian elements. More generally, there was probably a continuum of skin coloration from Northern Europe to the fringes of the Sahara, and to draw a line and say everyone above it is 'white' is unsupportable. Yes, I know for hundreds of years people fooled themselves into drawing just such a line, but it has no basis in science, nor did it exist at the time we are talking about. Yes, I did give the wrong Fruela, but the fact that his wife had converted prior to marriage does not negate the fact that a marriage of a Muslim-born woman to a Christian man could happen, and the implications on a pedigree would be the same no matter whether she converted or not (her conversion would not change her race). In this milieu where you had a range of peoples, and intermarriages between groups did occur, if only rarely, it is completely illogical to conclude that if someone had one 'white' ancestor, then all of their ancestors must have been 'white'. Further, knowing that he is Caucasian tells us nothing about the man but that his skin might have been slightly less pigmented that someone chosen at random from the area, hardly something worthy of encyclopedic notice. That he was a Muladi (if he was) tells us everything we need to know about his socio-political position. That every one of his ancestors was 'white', as opposed to all but one, or half, tells us nothing useful whatsoever, so the inclusion of this particular nugget of wisdom does not help the reader in the slightest. (And while we are at it, quoting that elaborate description of the Visigoths is unhelpful as well - if anyone doesn't know what a Visigoth is, that is why we have the term linked.) Finally, if race is even deemed worthy of discussion, it should be done in a balanced manner, which has not been done here. Given that a contemporary source called him a Sawada, while the oldest source you have found for his Visigoth ancestry is from the 16th century, which is the more relevant source for a historical article? This latter tells you more about how he came to be viewed centuries later (Visigoth) that what he actually was or how he was viewed in his own time (Sawada). It is hardly surprising that by the 16th century, the now-extremely race conscious Iberians had turned him white. Further, after introducing his 'race' by saying that it is subject to debate, the article then starts his "Life" section by stating without ambiguity that he was Muladi. Which is it? Do we know for certain, or is it debated. The whole thing reads like we are to be convinced that in spite of his own contemporary calling him a Sawada, he was really white so that makes it OK. Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont bother writing long essays and arguing with me. The statement is sourced and will remain in the article, as such. I am not trying to say that you are irrelevant and not worthy to debate with. However, i do feel that there is no point in continuing the debate, since the problem has actually been solved. Joyson Noel (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the true spirit of Wikipedia, trying to achieve consensus. Agricolae (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? What the hell are you talking about? There is no need to reach a consensus on anything. As i have said before, the statement is appropriately sourced and will remain in the article as such, irregardless of whether you like it or not. You have added an opposing point of view in the article, and since it is properly sourced, i have no problem with it. Joyson Noel (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus is what I am talking about. There is need for consensus on everything for which there are multiple interested editors, else an edit/revert war is a likely consequence. That is why I have refrained, thus far, from again editing the portions under discussion - so a consensus can be reached. However, "it will remain my way, irregardless of whether you like it or not" leaves me rather dubious as to whether such a consensus is to be arrived at.Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

God Damn it. I know what Consensus is, and i wasn't asking, "Hey i dont know what Consensus is. Could you please explain it to me?" No. And dont put words into my mouth. Your making it sound like i said, "Its my way or the highway", while what i really said was, "Since the statement is appropriately sourced, it will remain in the article as such, irregardless of whether you like it or not." So, on what exactly was a consensus to be reached? Joyson Noel (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"irregardless of whether you like it or not" vs. "Its my way or the highway"? Not much difference from where I am sitting. Anyhow, consensus has yet to be reached on whether, simply because this particular scholar of Latin American racial politics happened to wax poetic about the Visigoths and whiteness, her direct quote (which it is, even though it is not represented as such) merits inclusion in its entirety as it is now, if it could be summarized more succinctly, or if the meat of the issue is implicit in his descent from a Visigoth count and hence the rest can be left out all together. Given the degree to which the whole ancestry issue is unresolved, I would favor the last, but could perhaps be persuaded by an artful rephrasing that provides a little bit of additional context. Likewise to be resolved is the internal inconsistency. The article first details how there is significant disagreement regarding the ancestry of Umar, then immediately contradicts this by stating unambiguously that he was a Muladi, grandson of a convert. The two don't match very well. These are the main problems I see with the first part of the article. Agricolae (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"irregardless of whether you like it or not" vs. "Its my way or the highway" is not different to you. Well, thats not my problem and it depends on the manner in which you perceive it. For instance, had i called you "gay" 50 years ago, it would have been taken as a compliment. Back then being gay meant being cheerful, merry and lively. But if i call you that now, you would quite justifiably be offended by it. It all depends in which context you take it. Also, while there are conflicting views regarding his ancestry in the article, what is certain is that he was a Muladi. A muladi might as well have been of mixed Berber-Iberian descent, not just of ethnic Iberian stock. So, i dont feel that there is any internal inconsistency in the article. I can understand how a reader unfamiliar with what a Muladi is could be confused, but a person familiar with the term would have no reason to be confused by it. Joyson Noel (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is your problem. Communication depends, not on intent, but on perception. "X will remain in the article, irregardless of whether you like it or not" may use different words than "my way or the highway", but both mean that you are dictating what the outcome must be, and that I have no further say. Call them different if you will, but the common outcomes are equally unacceptable, are not conducive to reaching consensus, and you are in no position to mandate it.

Since the intent of an encyclopedia is to explain subjects to a novice reader, it should not require perfect familiarity with a specific Iberian-Arabic racial term to correctly understand an article.

In the Ancestry section it says that having one Visigoth ancestor means that his entire ancestry was white. This is the statement you are so in love with that it absolutely must remain, "irregardless of whether [I] like it or not." One Visigoth ancestor means all white. In defense of this, you brought your familiarity with the term Muladi to bear on the question, writing that "Muladi (or native Iberian converts to Islam) men never intermarried with Arab or Berber women." Never intermarried. Now we are told that anyone "familiar with the term" Muladi knows that they "might well have been of mixed Berber-Iberian descent, not just of ethnic Iberian stock". Perhaps you will clarify how a man whose paternal grandfather was a Christian Iberian convert to Islam can also be of mixed Berber-Iberian ancestry without a Muladi intermarrying with a Berber woman, which never happened. One Visigoth=All White, never intermarrying, yet somehow becoming mixed-race none the less. It is no wonder "a reader unfamiliar with what a Muladi is could be confused", as could one familiar with the term. Agricolae (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how. I am glad that you understood the point which i was trying to relate to you that "Communication depends, not on intent, but on perception." However, your making it look like i am behaving in an arbritary manner while nothing else can be farther from the truth. There is on nothing for a consensus to be reached at. I believe that both points of view (the pro-Visigothic descent and the opposing view) should be mentioned in the article and since it is referenced by a credible source, i am not going to let you simply remove the statement. Please note that they are only being mentioned as points of view, and not actual undisputed facts. Infact, there are so many conflicting views regarding his ancestry, that nothing about it can be verified.

Also, i never claimed that Arabs or Berbers never intermarried with Muladis. I only stated that while Muladi men never intermarried with Arab or Berber women, the exact opposite was true. The Muladi article will back up what i have said. Look, if your not informative about the subject or the term, then dont bother arguing with me. Your wasting both your time and mine. I am sorry to be so rude about it, but that actually is the truth. The term "Muwallad" as they were known by, in Al-Andalus meant mixed-race. They were not only used to describe the ethnic Iberian Muslims, but also the offspring of Arab fathers and Non-Arab mothers who grew up among Arabs and was educated within the Arab-Islamic culture.

Please read the Mozarab article, or to hell with that, I will copy and paste the definition for you. Here it is.

The Mozarabs were Iberian Christians who lived under Moorish Muslim rule in Al-Andalus. Most of the Mozarabs were descendants of the ancient Hispano-Romano-Gothic Christians who became Arabic speakers under Islamic rule. Some were Northern Europeans who had come to the the Iberian Peninsula and picked up Arabic, thereby entering the Mozarabic community. Some were Arab and Berber Christians coupled with Muslim converts to Christianity who, as Arabic speakers, naturally were at home among the original Mozarabs. The Mozarabs of Muslim origin were descendants of those Muslims who converted to Christianity, following the conquest of Toledo and perhaps also, following the expeditions of king Alfonso I of Aragon. These Mozarabs of Muslim origin, who converted en masse at the end of the 11th century, many of them Muladi (ethnic Iberians previously converted to Islam), are totally distinct from the Mudejars and Moriscos who converted gradually to Christianity between the 12th and 17th centuries.

It is quite possible that Umar ibn Hafsun's grandfather was an Arab and Berber Christian. Why not? There is no reason to assume so, but its quite possible. There is no certainty with regards to Ibn Hafsun's ancestry. As such, let the conflicting points of view be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, i am an Indian (not a white supremacist), so on what basis should i love and tacitly support the hypothesis that Ibn Hafsun was completely white. Thats absurd. I just mentioned my opinion in the first message that Ibn Hafsun was possibly white. I didn't claim this as a fact. So, stop trying to distort my position. Your just exposing yourself as a liar.

I am completely aware that the intent of an encyclopedia is to explain subjects to a novice reader, and that it should not require perfect familiarity with a specific Iberian-Arabic racial term to correctly understand an article. So, what exactly are you trying to suggest? The removal of a reliably sourced statement simply because some novice reader ignorant with the term and the overall history of Al-Andalus might be confused. Give me a break.

As for your last statement, "It is no wonder a reader unfamiliar with what a Muladi is could be confused, as could one familiar with the term." Speak for yourself. Due to your own lack of understanding, you have no authority to claim this on behalf of those with a perfect understanding of the term. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is going in pointless circles. Consensus has not been reached, and insisting that there is nothing on which it must be reached is rather belied by the very discussion. The problem is not, as you suggest, my failure to read another Wikipedia article. Since you refuse to discuss the issues but rather insist on blaming me, I will take the alternative approach. Agricolae (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancestral Conversion

Do Levi Provencal and the other sources actually say that it was his "grandfather" who converted? Wasserstein's summary shows his pedigree as Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Umar ibn Jafar islami, the convert. This is found in the writings of Ibn al-Khatib, while other writers, Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Askar among them, give the same pedigree, all citing Ibn Hayyan. These would make the convert great-grandfather of Umar ibn Hafsun. If they really say "grandfather" we have another headache to deal with. Agricolae (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are sources which state that it was his grandfather who converted. See this and this. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the origin of the problem. He is frequently called Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far, which would seem to suggest that Ja'far, the convert, was his grandfather, when actually this refers to Umar son of Hafsun, of the Banu Ja'far - the descendants of Ja'far. (Compare Muza ibn Muza ibn Qasi, who was son of Muza, grandson of Fortun and great-grandson of Qasi/Cassius, the convert, his son being Lubb ibn Muza ibn Qasi, then Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi, etc.) The real question is whether the name Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far is historical, and hence this part of the pedigree can be viewed as trustworthy, or if it is simply derived from the forged pedigree presented by ibn Hayyan. Agricolae (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be correct, but can you find a credible source which states that he was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe. Well, most historians generally agree that his name was Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Banu Ja'far just means descendants of Ja'far, and that Umar was such is shown by Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., all of which make Umar son of Hafs (corrupted to Hafsun) son of Umar, son of Ja'far. All of these sources are clear that Umar was great grandson of Ja'far, and that it was Ja'far who converted (again, bearing in mind that this is what the original pedigree said, not necessarily the long-lost historical reality, although I think it likely this part of the pedigree is accurate). Given the common usage, you would expect such a man to be referred to as Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ja'far, as per the Banu Qasi example. Agricolae (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Ja'far has always been a common Arab name, and there is no reason to assume that might not have been the case in Al-Andalus. Do the historians Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Idhari, Ibn Khatib, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 'Askar and Ibn Khamis, etc., state that Ibn Hafsun was indeed from the Banu Ja'far tribe? If so, then please feel free to add it. In my opinion, his descent from a man named Ja'far does not automatically make him a member of the Banu Ja'far tribe. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the term 'tribe' in application to Iberian families of the 10th century is rarely appropriate, and that the Banu X formulation was used more broadly. His descent from Ja'far does automatically make him a member of Jafar's family, so like the Banu Alfons were of Alfonso's family, and the Banu Sanyo were from Sancho's family, and the Banu Mumaduna were of Muniadomna's family, and the Banu Gomez and the Banu Qasi and the . . . . . Thus calling him Umar ibn Hafsun ibn Ja'far does not mean his grandfather was Ja'far, any more than Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Qasi was grandson of Cassius. That is the sole point here, and the problem has already been resolved by recasting the troublesome phrasing in the article. Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, this has nothing to do with the topic in hand. First of all, i would greatly appreciate it if you are more direct and specific as to what your actual point is. The previous discussion that we had was a total disaster for both of us concerned. It went in circles not because i was blaming you all the time and did not want to discuss the issue at hand. This was not the case and i am definitely sure that everyone reading the previous message will totally agree with me. I did not spend the entire time blaming you, or even much of the time in blaming you. Moreover, i did not accuse you of anything that you did not deserve a hundred times over. I accused you of being a liar, distorting my actual points, lacking proper understanding of the Muladi and Mozarab terms, etc, which were well justified.

Considering the great number of things that i would have called you, had we met face to face, i really think that you got away with it.

The problem with you was that you were too keen on refuting me by any means possible, rather than having a proper and civil disourse with me. Your pessimistic and over-sarcastic attitude did not help things either. When i delivered you a fitting response, you were unable to provide me a straight answer. This obviously hurt your ego and out of aggravation, you decided to cancel the discussion.

The only reason that i did not revert your edits on the ancestry section was because i had no problem with your edits as they were properly sourced, and you did not remove the claim by historians that Ibn Hafsun could have been descended from a Visigothic count, not because i am incapable of doing anything, as you incorrectly assume. Joyson Noel (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(smirk) Do you have it all out of your system now? You're right, your contribution does have nothing to do with the topic. Inappropriate rants aside, the only reason you did not revert my edits is that they were acceptable to you - consensus was achieved, which is the point of the exercise and which was more than was ever going to happen in that discussion (the utter pointlessness of trying to have a discussion with you, made manifest above, is the reason I stopped when I did). Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(grin and trying real hard not to laugh) Oh, what the hell? Hahahahahahahaha!

Actually, i dont have it all out of my system. If i did, then you would be crawling on all fours. Your still egotistical to a fault, and there is nothing that i could do about it. Not that i actually care. Its just that no matter, how much time i waste in explaining things to you, it just will not penetrate that hard little head of yours. And i am no longer interested. As i have stated above, your clear inability to be direct and specific as to what your actual point is (on what consensus was to be reached), coupled with your arrogance and cocky attitude made the discussion a complete disaster from day one. Moreover, you were unable to provide me a straight answer, which of course hurt your ego and propelled you to cancel the debate. Had it been a more honest person, he would have continued the debate.

Moreover, there was no way for you to know that i agreed with your edits at that time. Especially since i only revealed it during the previous message. This proves my point that you quit the discussion out of your inability to provide me a straight answer. You can try tap dancing around the truth all you like.

Oh, yeah. One last thing. When i said, "Whether you like it or not", it wasn't a statement of arrogance that you so misconstrue it to be, it was just that i would never let you remove the statement since it was appropriately sourced. (Ending message with the proverbial finger) Joyson Noel (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(. . . and I am supposedly the one with the grudge?) When Malinaccier suggested we discuss the issue in question, I rather suspect he had in mind that we discuss the disputed text, not your proverbial finger. Agricolae (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write to you for discussing about the disputed text. Wasn't that obvious? Its just that i am a frank person and i like to let people know what i think of them. I never had a grudge or bore any ill will towards you, and its fair to say, that i still dont. You, on the other hand, obviously have a grudge against me, as can be ascertained by checking out this articles history page.

The sole reason for your reversion of my edit is not due to any irrelevancy in the statement. I was just mentioning that it was the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time which was a tiny bit of info about the mosque. It is a relevant statement, given that it is now a Roman Catholic Cathedral and has been since 1236. The only reason that you reverted it was solely because it was done by me. This is bullshit and i'm not going to tolerate that. I see that you have just changed it to "which was a mosque at that time", but i am going to change it anyway. Not to show you who is boss, but simply because my edit reveals much more about it being "the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time", as opposed to "which was a mosque at that time". It does not state anything about the special feature of the mosque (i.e, about it being the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time). Rather, the statement "which was a mosque at that time" does not do justice and could easily lead the novice reader to assume that it was just a normal mosque.

Moreover, off with the sarcasm. Dont think that you are the only smart guy with an attitude over here. I'm ten times more sarcastic and vindictive than you could ever possibly be. The fact that i very often dont make a show of it doesn't render me incapable of being sarcastic. I am here because i enjoy editing and writing articles, not for edit-warring and making enemies with people like you. So, please stop that. If you insist on shoving your sarcasm on other people's faces all the time, then you should not be surprised to get it shoved right back at you. Joyson Noel (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Refocus on topic

Ok, what I wanted you two to discuss the statement itself. By all rights I should block you Joyson, but looking at my message, I can see you thought I meant within 24 hours. I actually meant until you both agreed on the text. Please only argue about the statement below without snide comments and taking potshots at the other editor. I will be reverting Joyson's edit, and the statement should remain that way until you have agreed upon an edit.

Once you have an agreement, please come to me and show me a diff of each party agreeing, and I will make the edit. If anyone breaks this contract, a block will soon follow. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your right, Malniccier. I did think that you meant within 24 hours. But you know what? I am no longer interested. To hell with this article! I have got better things to do, and other articles to edit. This is such a trivial matter, and isn't worth the amount of headache which i am going through. Anyway, thank you for your understanding and for not blocking me. Joyson Noel (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is my part, anyway. The text under discussion is:

"[he was posthumously crucified outside] Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba, which was the second largest mosque in the Muslim world at that time."

There are three issues with regard to this. First, Cordoba's Mezquita de Córdoba is repetitive. The two simplest options to address this would be Cordoba's Mezquita or Mezquita de Cordoba. The latter, in my opinion, fails to provide the geographical context clearly. "De Cordoba" is giving location in this case, but there are circumstances where this may not be the case, leaving ambiguity, and likewise those not familiar with Castilian may not know this is the meaning. That is why I prefer Cordoba's Mezquita. It gives clear location as well as name. The second issue is that it is the second largest mosque in the world. I just don't think this has any bearing on the subject. Sure, on the Mezquita page this is useful information but it says nothing about ibn Hafsun. That it was the premier mosque and religious center of the Caliphate - that indicates the magnitude of the message being sent by crucifying ibn Hafsun and family there. It's relative size compared to other mosques in other parts of the world? No. (When it is pointed out that Darwin is buried at Westminster Cathedral, it is the honor this represents that is noteworthy, not whether Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's or even St. Paul's across town is larger or smaller.) Finally, there is the issue of whether it is worth pointing out that the place is no longer a mosque (not in the phrase above, but put forward as rationale for the above phrase, and in the current version). I think the interested reader can find this out by following the link, and it need not be there to trouble the uninterested reader with the fact that that the use of the building changed 300 years after the dead guy was dangled. Agricolae (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, i have no problem with your first point, and i totally agree with it. As for your second point, while the size of the mosque may have no bearing on Ibn Hafsun, whats wrong in mentioning that it was the second largest mosque in the Islamic world at the time. It's already mentioned that it was a mosque. The fact about it being the second largest mosque in the Islamic world gives a lot more info about its importance and grandeur to the reader compared to it was just a mosque. Therefore, i dont see how your example of Darwin being buried at Westminster Cathedral, and its comparison with the size of Notre Dame de Paris or St. Peter's not being mentioned, even serves as a valid arguement against the fact's inclusion. Furthermore, i dont see the necessity of mentioning that it has been a Roman Catholic Cathedral since 1462, as the reader can easily find that out on his own, by checking the Mezquita article. It was never an issue in the first place. I used this fact as a valid justification for the inclusion of the fact that it was a mosque. You initially reverted my edits mentioning about it being a mosque as "irrelevant" in the edit summary, and only added it after reverting my edit for the third or fourth time. Joyson Noel (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The actual course of edits differed somewhat from this description. A check of the edit history will show who first took out 'mosque' because "The Mezquita is a Roman Catholic Cathedral, not a mosque", and who put it back, a comparison which will reveal the above characterization to be imperfect. Even with 'mosque' back in there, the phrase about its relative size was reinserted - it is that, not that it was a mosque, that is irrelevant.

Why the Mezquita's relative size is irrelevant is that it relates the events of ibn Hafsun to a mosque in the Middle East that neither he nor his dead body had anything to do with. Abd al Rahman did not pick that mosque because it was the second biggest one in the world. Had there been two bigger, he would have used the Cordoba mosque anyhow. Had there not been a bigger one, he would not have gone somewhere else to use the second largest. He was using the central mosque of the Caliphate, and it is that which bore on his choice. That it just happened to be the second largest mosque in the world may be useful information for a page about the Mezquita, but adds nothing useful to a page about ibn Hafsun. If anyone wants to learn such a detail about the Mezquita, they can follow the link to the Mezquita page. (To try that analogy again, no one says "Newton is buried at Westminster Abbey, the sixty ninth largest Cathedral in Europe." They say "Newton is buried at Westminster Abbey, the pantheon of the British nation." It's size relative to other buildings in other places tells us nothing about the honor of being buried there - it is its relevant context that is important. The same applies to ibn Hafsun.)

My preference would be to simply refer to "Cordoba's Mezquita mosque" as the page said before any of this latest round started (assuming we can do that without it violating fair use, as this paragraph was originally plagiarized - maybe "Cordoba's mosque, the Mezquita" would avoid that issue). However, I would be open to a formulation that reflects its relevant context, but relevant to its use as the site for ibn Hafsun's display - not relating it to a mosque in Baghdad or anywhere else that had no bearing on its use for this purpose. Agricolae (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If it is linked from this article, and if the information is not particularly relevant to this article, then leave it out. --Bejnar (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this slight error. I didn't actually check the history page, but rather told this from my own recollection of events. Initially, while in the course of editing this article, i removed the mosque from the name "Mezquita", because it has been a Roman Catholic Cathedral since 1462, and i didn't want the novice reader to have the mistaken assumption that it is still a mosque. Also, the word "Mezquita" itself means mosque in Spanish, so i found that repetitive. After your first reversion of my edit, i said in the edit summary that i would mention that it was a mosque at the time, and then included the info about it being the second largest mosque in the Islamic World at that time. You again reverted it and did not add back the info about it being a mosque at that time, only adding it later after reverting my edits for the third or fourth time.

Let me repeat myself in stating that i am not putting any comparisons of its size to those of the Middle Eastern or North African mosques in Baghdad or Cairo. Its size merely indicates its importance and grandeur in Al-Andalus and the rest of the Islamic world at the time. The importance of a holy place such as a mosque is indicated by its sheer size, among many factors. For instance, the Al-Masjid al-Haram which sorrounds the Ka'aba in Islam's holiest city Mecca is the largest mosque in the world. Therefore, the statement about it being the second largest mosque at that time does hint at its importance, and also depicts the symbolism of Ibn Hafsun's remains being crucified there, in the Central Mosque of the Caliphate. The fact about its size just gives the information to the reader about its importance at that time, as well as the fact that it was a mosque, and hence there is no harm in keeping it.

Also, the Mezquita did not just "happen to be" the second largest mosque in the Islamic world. Due to its strategic location in Cordoba, the seat of the Caliphate, it was meant to serve as the central mosque of the Caliphate and therefore was made for the purpose of being one of the largest mosques in the world. This being the case, it is unlikely that Abd ar-Rahman III would have allowed the construction of a larger mosque anywhere else in Al-Andalus, and history has shown this to be the case. After all, what's so imposing about it being the Caliph's Central mosque in the capital city, if there is a larger one in a neighbouring city of less importance. It defeats the purpose, doesn't it. Hence, by using the phrase "just happened to be", your making it sound as if it wasn't intended to be among the largest mosques in the world, but rather got there by accident.

As for the name, why dont we just call it "Mezquita" rather than "Cordoba's mosque, the Mezquita", as the Mezquita was not the only mosque in Cordoba at the time. Joyson Noel (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The symbolism of it being the second largest mosque in the world hints, but only hints, to its importance to Al Andalus. It is, as you say, that it was the Caliphates central mosque that directly demonstrates the symbolism of the fate of ibn Hafsun's body. I am not saying that it wasn't intended to be really big, that this was some accident, but had one in Baghdad been built that was bigger, the Mezquita would still have been the central mosque of the Caliphate and its use to demonstrate what happens to rebels still would have had the same resonance in Al Andalus. It is it's importance to Al Andalus that directly provides the information most worth conveying, not whether some ruler somewhere else had built a bigger one. The former provides relevant context, the latter is trivia. (As to Mezquita meaning mosque, I suspect most readers of English Wikipedia are not aware of that, so if the information that it is a mosque is to be conveyed, then it needs be made explicit in English.) Agricolae (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism on page

In trying to find sources to improve this article I stumbled upon several sentences that matched, verbatim, uncited sentences found within the article. A more directed search revealed additional instances. These are from published sources, not Wiki mirrors. Some may be in public domain (Brill published from 1913 through 1933, and I don't know when the specific volume was published) but no attempt is made to attribute them to their source nor indicate that text has been quoted. Others are direct quotes from sources clearly still covered by copyright. I have removed these items, as directed by the WP:C policy, and am now placing the details here for evaluation, again as per that policy.

Please see history for precise sentences. Those removed begin:

• Ibn Hafsun's Muladi family . . . . majority of sentence direct quote (last 16 words identical, in order) from E.J. Brill's first encyclopedia of Islam, p. 981 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9JQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA981&dq=%22income+from+his+lands+at+Iznate)

• He rallied disaffected muwallads . . . . most of sentence direct quote (of last 25 words, 23 identical in same order) from Islam and Dhimmitude, By Bat Ye'or, Miriam Kochan, David Littman, p. 63 (http://books.google.com/books?id=n4kTdYgwQPkC&pg=PA63&dq=hafsun+%22taking+their+property+and+subjecting+them+to+heavy+tribute)

Actually, the sentence "He rallied disaffected muwallads and mozárabs to his cause." is not plagiarized, it is the following sentence that is a problem. I have restored the rallied sentence, and provided a footnote to Ye'or.--Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I missed the period separating this from what followed. Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here, in 899, Ibn Hafsun renounced . . . . (only end of sentence removed) direct quote (26 of last 28 words, in order) from E.J. Brill's first encyclopedia of Islam, p. 981 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9JQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA981&dq=%22leader+of+the+Spanish+nationalist+movement)

• According to some chroniclers . . . direct quote (basically all of two consecutive sentences) from E.J. Brill's first encyclopedia of Islam , p. 981 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9JQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA981&dq=hafsun+%22seeing+the+futility+of+his+efforts)

• Following his death, the . . . . after first several words, next four sentences are direct quote from Brill's encyclopedia, p. 982 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9JQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA982&dq=hafsun+%22influence+of+the+sons)

• Modern Archaeologists claim . . . after first word, direct quote (with "church" replaced by "Iglesia Mozarabe" and a parenthetical removed) from Christians in Al-Andalus, 711-1000 Culture and civilization in the Middle East By Ann Christys, p. 103 (http://books.google.com/books?id=XDNShxZAJpwC&pg=PA103&dq=hafsun+%22Archaeologists+claim+to+have+found)

• Ibn Hafsun's daughter, Argentea . . . . after first several words, next four sentences direct quote from Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain by Kenneth Baxter Wolf, pp. 34-5 (http://libro.uca.edu/martyrs/cm2.htm , see paragraph preceeding citation 50. This was cited, but not indicated to be a quote and probably exceeds fair use).

• "Place in History" section in its entirety is a direct quote of a paragraph (with racial terms replaced, e.g. Neo-Muslim with Mullawid) from Islamic And Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages By Thomas F. Glick, p. 214 (http://books.google.com/books?id=cWqmebvcjj0C&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=Mozarabs+could+aspire+to+win+relief)

I have made no attempt to determine who is responsible for this text, so there is no agenda here other than protecting WP, but as I have been accused of bias, I encourage the review of this analysis by other parties and replacement restoration of any that are false positives. Please post to that effect here so I know the basis for restoration. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that a good chunk of the remaining text has stretches that closely match a web site that is not a WP mirror.

http://www.localconnections.biz/visit-malaga/bandit-of-bombastro-2.html

In fact, a look at the original version of this article from 2006 shows an even greater correspondence, although until the above cut and paste material started to appear here, this article had not changed substantially for its first two years. Unfortunately, the web site is poorly documented, so it is more challenging to evaluate in which direction the information flowed. The similarities are more than just coincidence, though, and the site claims to contain the work of a single author, while the code for the page gives a copyright date of 2005-2007, which spans the time this page was created, yet that may be a date for the template or generating software. My gut reaction is that in this case things went in the other direction. Given the sources listed in the newly created page, it would seem unusual for an editor to copy text so closely from a web site, then go to the trouble of digging up and typing out a half-dozen relevant references that were never used. Looking at the history, this would be user Bejnar. Perhaps if he/she is around they could comment. Again, I would encourage another editor to independently repeat this analysis, because if necessary the material will need to be removed/recast, which doesn't leave much of the article intact.

I will add that in the course of tracking this, I of necessity determined the origin of the copyright violations above. They were all by a single editor, so I checked every edit by that editor, and while there were other similar cut and paste insertions from the Lonely Planet Travel Guide and Ryan-Ranson, these have since been recast such that they no longer represent a problem, so if this last bit can be clarified the article will be clean and proper, as long as there are no further infractions. Agricolae (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As the original editor of this article, I can state that I did not use the localconnections.biz article. I did try to do a thorough research job, but the organization and phrasing were uniquely mine, although I did use the Spanish Wikipedia article as a general guide. I was inspired to research and write this article after researching and creating the Aguilar de la Frontera article on 15 June 2006 when I was working on municipalities in Andalucía. I was surprised at the time that there wasn't any article on ibn Hafsun. It appears to me that the Wikipedia was used as one source for the article at http://www.localconnections.biz/visit-malaga/bandit-of-bombastro-2.html. That article's author does not appear to have been very discriminating in the material used. --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I suspected as much, but having once spent time tweaking and arguing over material that turned out to be plagiarized, I did not want a repeat. Agricolae (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Peasant Racism

Ibn Hafsun was born into the small Black minority in Iberia, yet he managed to play everybody & rule as a Regent for life. He was a political thinker, a military leader. Too bad for the nameless subculture warriors who died fighting for a peasant temporary cause. Socialcred (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That is one story of his origin. The other story is that he was a scion of an old Iberian Visigoth Muwallad family. We shouldn't take sides just because we think one version makes for a more compelling story. Agricolae (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Overly relying on one source?

I think that maybe the fourth source (namely: Houtsma, M. Th. et al. (eds.) (1913-1936) Encyclopaedia of Islam, pp. 981-982)is overused? I don't know if there are other sources which talk about this figure, but if there are then maybe we could utilize it instead? frank (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)