Talk:Aqil ibn Abi Talib

How to summarize Aqil's support for Mu'awiya in the lead

@Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty: our source, Rubin 2009 in Encyclopaedia of Islam 3, writes the following:

Later on he [sc., Aqil] lived in Basra and then moved on to Kufa, and eventually to Syria. He arrived there after abandoning his brother ʿAlī, and joined Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān's (r. 41–60/661–80) court in Damascus. He reportedly declared that while ʿAlī was valuable to him for the next world, Muʿāwiya was valuable to him in this world. More specifically, it is related that Muʿāwiya paid his debts for him, which ʿAlī was reluctant to do. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to defend ʿAlī in the caliph's presence and to criticise the caliph whenever he denounced his brother. The reported debates between ʿAqīl and the caliph revolve around the well-known rivalry between Hāshimīs and Umayyads. Some claim that he joined Muʿāwiya only after ʿAlī's death.

Rubin, Uri (2009). "ʿAqīl b. Abī Ṭālib". In Fleet, Kate; Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Rowson, Everett (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_23073.

This is paraphrased in our article as follows (all sourced to Rubin 2009):

After the victory of the Muslims and the death of Muhammad in 632, Aqil lived in the military encampments of Kufa and Basra for a while, supporting his brother Ali (who ruled from Medina as the fourth caliph, 656 – 661). However, later he abandoned Ali and moved to Syria, joining the court of the first Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I (r. 661–680). According to later tradition, Aqil's change of heart was motivated by the fact that Mu'awiya was more willing than Ali to pay his debts. Whereas he did give up to the Hashimite claims to the caliphate and politically supported the rival claim by the Umayyads, he always defended his brother Ali against any criticism leveled against him at Mu'awiya's court.

This in turn was summarized in the lead as follows:

During the rivalry between his brother Ali (who reigned as the fourth caliph from 656 until his death in 661) and Mu'awiya (the first Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680), he chose the side of the latter.

You removed the summary in the lead, though you did not remove the paragraph in the body of the article, saying that there is difference between how it is inscribed in lead and in the biography section.

Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, the summary should be changed rather than outright removed. How do you suggest we summarize this paragraph in the lead? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma and Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty: To add to this discussion, Madelung on page 264 writes that

Ali refused to give him money from the fay revenue but is said to have offered him money from his personal estate in Yanbu. Aqil then left for Damascus, and was given a large sum of money by Muawiya. This was probably before the battle of Siffin. It is not known whether Muawiya gave him this money because he now was on the pension register of Syria, or simply as a bribe. As noted by Lammens one of Aqil's wives was Mu'awiya's aunt. The reports about his relations with Mu'awiya are anecdotal and describe him as treating the Umayyad and his prominent companions with exceeding disdain. There is no sound evidence that he ever backed Mu'awiya against his brother Ali. Veccia-Vaglieri's suggestion that 'the estrangement between the two brothers probably had political causes' is quite unfounded.

— Madelung, Wilferd (1997). The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56181-7. p. 264.

The current summary in the lead might have missed the subtleties of the issue at the expense of Ali. One alternative is the following: When Ali refused Aqil's request for public funds, Aqil is said to have moved to Damascus where Muawiya, the governor of Syria and Ali's political rival, gave him a large sum of money to pay out his debts. Nevertheless, Aqil is reported to have remained a supporter of Ali and critical of Muawiya's rule. Albertatiran (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran! Thanks for bringing up a new source (I've added the full bibliographical reference to your comment for proper attribution). This puts things a bit in a different perspective, since it's clear that Wilferd Madelung finds the idea that Aqil supported Mu'awiya doubtful. However, I wonder why you ignore the fact that Madelung is explicitly arguing against two other scholars here, who clearly did think that Aqil was politically on Mu'awiya's side (Henri Lammens calling Aqil Ali's "ennemi acharné" or "bitter enemy" and Laura Veccia Vaglieri suggesting that there was an estrangement between Aqil and Ali because of political differences). Combined with Uri Rubin as quoted above, that's three scholars arguing that Aqil did in fact support Mu'awiya against Ali and one scholar being skeptical about this. I've warned you before about using Madelung as a sole source: he is a very great scholar indeed, but not always on the side of the majority of prominent scholars. It would be undue here to base our text on Madelung's POV.

I'd rather suggest changing the article as follows:

Third paragraph of 'Biography' section:

After the victory of the Muslims and the death of Muhammad in 632, Aqil lived in the military encampments of Kufa and Basra for a while, supporting his brother Ali (who ruled from Medina as the fourth caliph, 656 – 661). However, later he may have abandoned Ali, as he moved to Syria in order to join the court of the first Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I (r. 661–680). According to later tradition, Aqil's change of heart was motivated by the fact that Mu'awiya was more willing than Ali to pay his debts. While he may have given up the Hashimite claims to the caliphate and politically supported the rival claim of the Umayyads instead, he always defended his brother Ali against any criticism leveled against him at Mu'awiya's court.

Lead:

During the rivalry between his brother Ali (who reigned as the fourth caliph from 656 until his death in 661) and Mu'awiya (the first Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680) Aqil first chose the side of his brother, but later may have deserted him in favor of Mu'awiya.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Hi! I see your point. These sources seem to agree that Aqil moved to Damascus for financial reasons. So I'd like to suggest adding a few words to that effect to what you have written. A couple of options are listed below. It looks very good otherwise. Thanks!

During the rivalry between his brother Ali (who reigned as the fourth caliph from 656 until his death in 661) and Mu'awiya (the first Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680) Aqil first chose the side of his brother, but later may have deserted him in favor of Mu'awiya when the latter offered financial incentives to Aqil.

During the rivalry between his brother Ali (who reigned as the fourth caliph from 656 until his death in 661) and Mu'awiya (the first Umayyad caliph, r. 661–680) Aqil first chose the side of his brother, but later may have deserted him in favor of Mu'awiya when Ali refused his request for public funds.

 Done

I chose the first option, since we don't mention anything about the public funds thing in the main body of the article. I also changed it into "as the latter offered him better financial incentives", which sounds slightly better to my ears. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Claims of ancestry by Somali clans section

Lies Sitauted by Apaugasma

@ApaugasmaThis individual claims that “Saamale” claim ancestry to Aqil, this is false, as they are 100 percent of east african origin however this is what they have claimed in british somaliland book and many others https://bakipress.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/the-ethnic-origin-of-the-somali-people-and-clan-system/ Beni Dawud (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Even more proof that Saamale have not claimed lineage to Aqil.

https://postimg.cc/9DBMnPJT@Apaugasma Beni Dawud (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Now Onto Darod

Most notably, only one of the Somali tribes traces its ancestry to Aqil ibn Abi Talib, and that is the Darod. Their forefather is Dau’d bin Ismail bin Ibrahim Al Jabarti Al Aqeeli. Darod’s father was an exiled Sufi sheikh who escaped the northern Somali coast and climbed a tree. The natives, the Dir and Hawiye tribes, looked up and saw him, confused by this. Later, Darod married into the Dir tribe, marking the birth of Al Darodi, which is one of the major Somali tribes.

Now, the validity is up to you, as the Aqeel Hashimite Council has declared Darod a descendant of Aqeel. Additionally, in the 10th century, Al Masudi wrote down that Darod is a modified version of Dau’d.

References:

https://aqeleyoon.wordpress.com/ https://archive.org/details/olomnasb_ymail_2_201611/page/n345/mode/1up Beni Dawud (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

@Beni Dawud: this revision of the 'Claims of ancestry by Somali clans' section is based on several reliable sources, including three books by Ioan Lewis, whom our own article describes as "the foremost scholar on Somali history and culture". For a convenient overview of the most important points, see Lewis 1961, pp. 11-12 on Google Books.

The new revision (diff) is based solely on one source, Yusuf ibn Abd Allah Jamal al-Layl's al-Shajara al-zakiyya fi ansab Bani Hashim ('The Righteous Tree in the Lineage of the Banu Hashim'). But who is Yusuf ibn Abd Allah Jamal al-Layl? Given that his book was published in 2012 in Riyadh, and given the title, I'm assuming that he is a Saudi expert in traditional Arab genealogy?

Wikipedia neutrally represent the points of view given by reliable sources. Traditional Arab genealogy builds on a non-academic frame of reference in which centuries-old sources are taken at face value, and in which supposed lineages are constructed and reconstructed along changing political, economic, and diplomatic lines. As such, works on traditional Arab genealogy are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, except in some cases as a primary source. Instead, Wikipedia relies on the analysis and interpretation found in academic sources, which have been vetted by the scholarly community. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

If you are not familiar with academic scholarship, it may be hard to find appropriate sources to use on Wikipedia. I suggest you start by reading Lewis' books, such as Lewis 1961, Lewis 1968 and Lewis 1994. From there, you will slowly become familiar with other reliable sources as cited by Lewis. Please do not add anything to Wikipedia unless you have read it in such a reliable source. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Listen here man, I am from somalia and theres one tribe that claims arab lineage and it is Darod go look through traditional british sources and they claim the same story in that book, now, Lewis is the same person who said somalis are arabized gaalas, I can link you that source, now we can reach another agreement stop mentioning saamale and somalia in aqil if you dont accept the sources I gave you. Beni Dawud (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Yusuf ibn Abdallah Jamal Al Layl see

He is a credible source regarding lineages and an expert.

There are other authentic sources that support the claim of the Darud tribe of Somalia such as; The Genealogical Trees of Adnan and Qahtan by Al-Sayyid Ali Abd al-Karim al-Fadil Sharaf al-Din, and Aqeeliyon by Sheikh Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Rajhi Al-Aqeeli

Then we reference Darood tribes arab origin such as;

List of sources

1. Rima Berns McGown, Muslims in the diaspora, (University of Toronto Press: 1999), pp.27-28 2. Islam in Somali History Fact and Fiction revisited , the Arab Factor 3. I.M. Lewis, Peoples of the Horn of Africa-Somali, Afar and Saho, (The Red Sea Press: 1998), pp.140-142. 4. Somaliland Society (1954). The Somaliland Journal, Volume 1, Issues 1-3. The Society. p. 85. 5. I.M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), pp.128-129 6. I.M. Lewis, Peoples of the Horn of Africa: Somali, Afar, and Saho, Issue 1, (International African Institute: 1955), p.18-19 7. Roland Anthony Oliver, J. D. Fage, Journal of African history, Volume 3, (Cambridge University Press.: 1962), p.45 8. I. M. Lewis, A pastoral democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa, (LIT Verlag Münster: 1999), p.131. 9. I.M. Lewis, “The Somali Conquest of the Horn of Africa”, Journal of African History, 1 (1960), p. 219 10. A. Bashar. (1958). the Arab Tribes Lost in Africa. Translated from Arabic originate, Vt. Cairo Egypt. Retrieved April 1964. PP 15-58 11. A. Masudi , Aqeleyoon. (early manuscript achieves from (956) CE, Cairo, Egypt

I would also add that Darud is the only somali tribe that claims this specific arab lineage. The main somali tribes such as Dir, Hawiye, Isaaq have never claimed to be descendants of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib, rather they claim to be descentants of Samaale who they considered to be their oldest common Somali forefather. The Macrobian (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello The Macrobian! I am aware that the Darud tribe claim descent from Aqil, and this is covered in the current revision of the article. However, your statement that "Darud is the only somali tribe that claims this specific arab lineage", which is also what is stated in Beni Dawud's proposed revision of the article, is directly contradicted by the sources currently cited in the article, such as Lewis 1961, pp. 11-12:

Ultimately all Somali genealogies go back to Arabian origins [...] it is their proud pretensions to noble Arabian origins which unite all the Somali clans and lineages into one vast genealogical system. In this genealogy, which is shown below, [showing Aqil ibn Abi Talib at the head of the tree] every clan family has a place and with the exception of the Daarrood all are linked agnatically.

Please see the table at p. 12 for easy reference: Somali clans who trace their ancestry to Samaale or Sab regard Samaale and Sab themselves as descended from Aqil ibn Abi Talib, with the exception of the Isaaq (whom other clans represent as descended from Aqil but who themselves claim ancestry from Ali ibn Abi Talib). Compare for this also Bader 2000 p. 85:

Les Samaale disent ainsi descendre de la tribu mecquoise de Quraysh par l'intermédiaire de Hill, fils de Mohamed Yow, fils de Mohamed 'Abdurahman, fils de 'Aqîl, fils de Abu Tâlib, fils de 'Abd al Muttalib, le grand-père du Prophète Mahomet.

Do you know of any reliable source that contradicts Lewis 1961 and Bader 2000, and states that only the Darod claim descent from Aqil? If so, could you please quote from that source here? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just rewrote the section to hopefully make things a little clearer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again! I provided three arabic sources and 11 references supporting my argument. Please read them thoroughly.

The geneology of Lewis is an extemely flawed colonial source based on a survey on local people from British Somaliland.

I.M. Lewis is not a reliable source. (Read below)

Quotes

His book is based primarily on field research carried out in Somaliland between September 1955 and June 1957 under the auspices of the Colonial Social Science Research Council and financed from Colonial Development and Welfare funds. I am grateful to the Council and to Sir Theodore Pike, Governor of the Somaliland Protectorate during my stay, who through the good offices of my friend Dr J. H. M. Beattie readily accepted my research scheme and gave me every support and encouragement. I owe a similar debt to the Protectorate Ad- ministration as a whole and should like to thank especially Mr P. Carrel, Mr J. G. S. Drysdale, Mr Abdulrahim Abby Farrah, Mr E. H. Jones, and Mr M. Wilson. To Mr J. M. Watson, then Director of Natural Resources I take the opportunity of pointing out here that my Peoples of the Horn of Africa (Ethnographic Survey of Africa: North Eastern Africa, Part I) International African Institute, London, 1955, was written from a survey of the literature on the Somali before I went to Somaliland and when indeed I had little prospect of going there. To some extent the terminology and findings of that book differ from those recorded here.

I am familiar with Somali tribes and their intricate clan system. I can assure you that not all somali clans share the same geneaology. Claiming a noble Arabian lineage is not unique to the Darood clan . The Isaaq clan claim to be descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the younger brother of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib.

However, all 15-20 million Somali people cannot possibly descent from the same man who lived during the 7th century. These Somali clans (Hawiye, Isaaq, Dir) are extremely proud of their somali heritage and would strongly disagree with this viewpoint. It is also historically and culturally inaccurate to argue that all these clans actually claim to be descendant of Aqeel ibn Abi Talib. In fact the majority of Somali people do not claim Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib. The only clan that is culturally known for making this claim is the Darood tribe. All the historical figures in somali history who claimed this lineage, such as; Ahmed Gurey, Nur Ibn Mujahid, and Sayyid Abdullahi Hassan belonged to the Darood. The Macrobian (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be true that Ioan Lewis was not reliable as a scholar, but the only way to establish this in accordance with Wikipedia's standards is to cite sources that explicitly contradict Lewis on this matter. If he was wrong in 1961, surely other scholars must have written as much by now. In the absence of such reliable sources contradicting Lewis (indeed we have Bader 2000 p. 85, as well as Mukhtar 2003 p. 62 scholars have perceived a homogenous nation consisting of two genealogical groups, Sab and Samale, both descendants of Aqil ibn Abi Talib confirming Lewis' view!), we have to follow whatever scholars such as Lewis, Bader or Mukhtar write, because Wikipedia follows what recognized experts write even if we as Wikipedia editors personally believe that such experts are wrong. For more context on this, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: it's all about what the sources write.

As for the content, Lewis and other scholars in the field do not regard Somali genealogies as historically tenable. They believe that Samaale and Sab are purely legendary figures (about Darod they are less sure, and so they call him "semi-legendary"), and that any supposed descent (including that of Darod) from Aqil ibn Abi Talib or other early Muslims is entirely fictional. They do recognize that different Somali clans at different times make different claims with regard to their clan's or other clans' lineage (see Abbink 2009 pp. 1–2 on that). Because of this, it's perfectly possible that since Lewis' field work of the 1950s, some or all clans belonging to the Samaale line have revoked their earlier claims about Samaale having descended from Aqil ibn Abi Talib, and now claim Samaale to have been purely Somali (again note though that Bader in 2000 and Mukhtar in 2003 were still writing that the Samaale claim descent from Aqil). That would be highly relevant to mention in our article, if we had a source written by a subject expert confirming this. If you know of such a source speaking of the Samaale revoking their claims of descent from Aqil, please cite and quote it here. It would greatly improve the article. If not, there's unfortunately not much that we can do about it. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We can debate this like men, Isaaq have a seperate one, but only Darod claims Aqil Beni Dawud (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Lewis claims somalis are arabized Gaala? Do you agree with his opinon now onto saamale he was first said to be zumali ram naag im british somaliland Beni Dawud (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)