Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry Proof

Please point out incorrect or missing information.
Forum rules
To post on the forum please PM James Dahl for posting rights. This is sadly necessary due to spam bots.

Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry Proof

Postby Historyguy » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:36 am

The proof I saw mentioned on other places it made sense.
Image

it makes the clear distinction of comparing him to arabs who tried to establish a dynasty but failed because they were arab, but Yusuf Al Kownayn was native (Somali) that's why he was able to make his dynasty.

Sources are included, Harari Historians kept the knowledge and history.
"He was accepted due to his native and family background"
It's even mentioned in an Egyptian book, in egypt (source 3)
that he was NOT ARAB this is groundbreaking evidence. If the arabs acknowledged he was not arab, and the Hararis acknowledged he was not arab,
why do you think so, and other mis informed somalis? Somali oral tradition states he is a Somali man. the Arabs and the Hararis concur he was a "native man"
Even if he was ogadeen like people claim, ogadeen claim to be from jeberti whose an arab. So that doesn't make any sense. He was not Ogadeen, he was not Arab. But a Somali from a different clan. The ogadeen claim started in the 1980s.
Don't listen to lies, listen to facts.

Since darood is out of the picture for the walashma dynasty the other two options are Dir and Hawiye, there were no Hawiye in Zaylac, or Awdal, except for maybe Karanle on the other side of the empire, there were no hawiye in zaylac. The thing you wrote about Yusuf and Isaaq being brothers is false, Isaaq was an 88 year old man, and Yusuf was at least 26, what kind of age gap is that, and also Yusuf al Kownayn was Somali, Kownayn was a nick name meaning " the universal" due to his proficiency in many languages, due to his multi linguisism he spread the faith of Islam in the horn with ease.
where he was born (zaylac), I have to deduce he was Dir, as oral tradition states, so this source i provided gives some insight to his origin.

Include that in your "yusuf al kownayn fake abtirsi"
Historyguy
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby James Dahl » Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:38 am

You can annotate entries with your own notes while you're signed in
James Dahl
Site Admin
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:19 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby Historyguy » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:20 am

What are your thoughts on this ground breaking evidence. Surely you must have an opinion. By the way, the Yusuf Barkanti Abtirsi you have linking him to the Ogadeen clan is false. Walashama/Yusuf Al Kownayn was never Ogadeen.
Historyguy
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby James Dahl » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:40 pm

Shoa was an Argobba sultanate, not an Arab one, though I believe they claim Arab origins like everybody else in the Horn of Africa.

The cited document doesn't mention the Dir clan, but according to traditions (and his tomb) Yusuf al-Kawnayn left no descendants, and his genealogy and various other evidence shows that he lived much later in history than the Adal Empire (the 1600s or so, after the area was part of the Ottoman Empire).

When the Ottomans ruled Zeila, the governor of the town was appointed by the Sharif of Mecca, the first Somali governor of Zeila was in the 1700s when Xaaji Sharmarke (an Isaaq) became governor.

The theory therefore suffers from some serious flaws.

The only genealogy ever provided for Cumar Walashmac that matches historical and documentary evidence is the one to Mudane Muqabul Ogaden. You can reject that as a fabrication if you would like to do so, but without an actual argument as to why that isn't the case, I don't see why I should.
James Dahl
Site Admin
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:19 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby Historyguy » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:25 am

James Dahl wrote:Shoa was an Argobba sultanate, not an Arab one, though I believe they claim Arab origins like everybody else in the Horn of Africa.

The cited document doesn't mention the Dir clan, but according to traditions (and his tomb) Yusuf al-Kawnayn left no descendants, and his genealogy and various other evidence shows that he lived much later in history than the Adal Empire (the 1600s or so, after the area was part of the Ottoman Empire).

if you think he left no descdentants then why do you have his (albiet false) abtrisi and children as yusuf al barkanti, without sources :lol:
When the Ottomans ruled Zeila, the governor of the town was appointed by the Sharif of Mecca, the first Somali governor of Zeila was in the 1700s when Xaaji Sharmarke (an Isaaq) became governor.

The theory therefore suffers from some serious flaws.
what does the ottomons and zaylac have to do with yusuf al kownayn, that happened much later in history. your lies are falling apart james dahl
The only genealogy ever provided for Cumar Walashmac that matches historical and documentary evidence is the one to Mudane Muqabul Ogaden. You can reject that as a fabrication if you would like to do so, but without an actual argument as to why that isn't the case, I don't see why I should.


you did not provide historical evidence, what happened is someone made up an abtirsi to "yusuf al barkanti" which is just yusuf al barkhadle but bastardise, and he was never called barkadle but kownayn, so someone merged aw barkhadle and kownayn together again looool

I would like to see this historical evidence showing he was ogadeen.

you will cite cerulli who will say " barkanti" which is just a bastardazation of BARKHADLE, he confused aw barkhadle and al kownayn together, again i do not see how that makes him ogadeen.

so what someone did was make up an ogadeen abtirsi with no source.. and you put it on your site. Again show FACTS

I showed PROOF he was not descdent from ANY ARAB but was a NATIVE of the LAND,

EGYPTIANS said he was not arab

HARARIS SAID HE WAS NOT ARAB

but james dahl you want to change history in 2014 saying he was ogadeen jaberti?

laughable

again show your sources and I will refute your very weak claims. You need to check your facts.
Historyguy
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby Historyguy » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:32 am

Also Yusuf al kownayn was alive before the turks came to help ahmed gurey and all that. I have sources showing zaylici students going to syria to study ISLAM and comming back to spread the deen, there was no mentioning of OTTOMONS ON THE SOMALI COAST AT THAT TIME.

yusuf al kownayn, early walashama dynasty etc.
this will all BEFORE OTTOMONS ON SOMALI COAST,
remember Yusuf Al Kownayn and Shiekh Isaaq converted pagan somalis into ISLAM, this was BEFORE TURKS CAME, in that region etc.

Why are you listening to colonial sources which have no basis? Quote cerulli i dare you, the italian man who never went to zaylac or awdal, and confused aw barkadle and yusuf al kownayn as the same man, and basatardaize them together as "al barkanti" :lol:

Again I would like to see SOURCES, for your ridiculous claims based on NOTHING

stop talking out of your ass james dahl. End of the day I showed you a proper source indicating he was not arab, nor had any arab origins, but you are still acting like a fool. He was not darood nor will he ever be,
The walashama dynasty was never darood, let alone ogadeen. James Dahl again is talking out of his ass, without showing sources, first he says yusuf al kownayn has no children, then he says the walashama dynasty was ogadeen and from him, This guy is a fool. I will refute all his lies quickly :lol:

Ogadeen did they even exist at that time, i dont know, but they were not relevent i past history. I dont know what their history is, no body cares, but all i know is the truth, they were never Walashma, they were geel jire NOMADS, they couldn't even read, they used to trade dates to isaaqa and give away their camels :lol: this walashma lie is the funniest thing ive read since 1998
Historyguy
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Yusuf Al Kownayn was not Arab or has any Arab ancestry P

Postby Awale » Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:29 am

Historyguy wrote:The proof I saw mentioned on other places it made sense.


This is not proof of anything. I in fact have this historical document in my possession (James is well aware of it as well & here's a link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ARnU ... JMU2c/view) & some historian of some sort writing a document and in that document without a source or explanation implying that al-Kowneyn was native is not irrefutable proof of anything. Besides, James is correct. This guy is not the ancestor of the Walashma. I don't know what James means with this 1600s claim but al-Kowneyn's non are "Arab" origins are made clear by his obviously fraudulent genealogical claim to Arabian origins:

Yusuf ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullahi ibn Isma'il ibn Musa ibn Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Hamza ibn Qasim ibn Yahya ibn Hussein ibn Ahmad ibn Quwayib ibn Yahya ibn 'Isa ibn Muhammad ibn Taqi Al-Hadrama ibn 'Abdul ibn Hadib ibn Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Musa ibn Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Hassan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib

"This genealogy is just another blatantly fraudulent one. In fact, it like the Darod clan one falls apart very early. How? Well, there is no Ali ibn Hassan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hassan is a very very famous figure within Islam, grandson to the Prophet, son of the Prophet's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib who himself as I've stated is a sort of mega figure within Islam. Therefore Hasan's comings and goings and the children he had are very well attested in history. Guess what?

He indeed never had a son named Ali. In fact, one oddly suspicious thing about Yusuf bin Ahmad's genealogy is that it practically mixes up the descendants of two separate brothers. It was Hussein not Hassan who had a son named Ali who in turn had a son named Muhammad who in turn had a son name Ja'far who in turn had a son named Musa and so on and so forth. But the Barkhadle/ Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn genealogy is fervently claimed by those who carried it on to be a Hassani one and not one descended from Hussein.

It actually wouldn't even matter if it was a Hussein based genealogy because even if you followed it as a Hussein descended genealogy; it still fails. "Hadib" whose name is emboldened in the genealogy above never existed. This is another completely fraudulent genealogy. It's frankly disappointing how easily it fell apart. It's supposed to be a Hassani nisba (genealogy) but it falls apart the moment you go one son down from Hassan himself.
"


Just look at the man's genealogy and look into the history of the people he claims descent from and it's pretty clearly a fraudulent genealogy like other ones in the region:

http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/0 ... re-of.html

As for why he was definitely not the Walashma's ancestor, you imbecile, it's because according to his genealogy this guy was alive around the same time as 'Umar DunyaHuz "Walashma/Wilinwili" (essentially during the 12th Century, if I recall correctly). Yet he's supposed to be his ancestor by about 5 generations? Link to 'Umar's supposed trace back to Kowneyn as noted down by Enrico Cerulli:

http://oi60.tinypic.com/dwbc7l.jpg

A generation on average equals 25 years. Alive during the same century as active and not seemingly very old men yet one is the other's great great great great grandfather?! Right... This is partially why even a source as rudimentary as Wikipedia notes that the Hasani nisba for this dynasty traced back to him is a fabled one only supported by some Harari historians, as well as a few oral traditions according to I.M Lewis:

https://books.google.ae/books?id=P5AZyE ... &q&f=false

It's an impossible origin.

Great "Historyguy" you are though... Apparently the only proof you need to know that he's not "Arab" is one little document where the author shares no explanation for his implication that Kowneyn was likely "native" and then you don't know enough to come to this conclusion via his genealogy alone, which is fraudulent, and you don't even realize that their origin from him is a fabled one less accepted than the Aqeeli nisba which even Ibn Khaldun shared:

https://books.google.ae/booksid=tw0Q0tg ... &q&f=false

The only Somalis who claim ties to Aqeel ibn Abi Talib and indeed the only Horn Africans other than Jabertis (Who are Islamized Tigrinyas who tie themselves to Isma'il al-Jaberti and the Darod clan ancestor for God knows what reasons) are indeed Darods. I'm not as trusting of some oral traditions as James is (although I'm not as dismissive as some are) but he certainly knows his shit better than you do. Doubt you'll see this reply given how old your messages were but you still needed to be schooled.
Awale
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:55 pm


Return to Corrections, Additions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Evelynscupe and 1 guest

cron