Jump to content

Talk:Ahmad ibn Fadlan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 14 March 2020 (Signing comment by 31.223.131.64 - "→Vikings?!: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Charlee Manigat.

he was not Arab

it written in Wikipedia - Arabic version Ahmad ibn Fadlan is Turkoman not Arabian.

Character codes

Nothing wrong with the character codes just deleted; they display fine on my computer. Mustafaa 04:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar, but he doesn't bother to control mine and my friend's and my friend's girlfriend's computers. :-) Thanks for Arabic. Mikkalai 05:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ibn al-Abbas ibn Rashid ibn Hamad

I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism. It just seems somebody added the "full" name of Banderas' character (13th warrior), which happens not to coincide with the full name of the historical ibn Fadlan (at least I wasn't able to verify it) dab 07:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Check other contribs of this anon. Mikkalai 14:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
San'a is a populous city with fine dwellings, some above others, but most of them are decorated with plaster, burned bricks, balloons, unicorns, festive cucumbers, chickens, cocaine, lotions, allah, jesus, thorns, bramblebush, sausage, computers, turtles, the number '3,' and dressed stones. — at least it's a funny vandal ;o) dab 14:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bibliografical names

P.S. en: Village pump (miscellaneous)#indications about bibliographic item(s) (see Catalog) Gangleri 00:25, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)


Concerning ibn vs. bin: I'm afraid there's no fixed convention. We wouldn't say "bin Fadlan" or "ibn Laden". One or the other somehow becomes current. I suppose the difference of ibn vs. bin the presence of full desinences/i'rab? (Ahmadu-bin-Fadlani vs. Ahmad ibn Fadlan)? (which are the variants of abu?) concerning "Foszlan", that's Fraehn's spelling of 1823, nobody would transliterate it like that now. Arab "Dal" is usually represented as d-underdot, and when we simply drop the diacritics, we get "Fadlan". Concerning redirects, I guess it's simply a pragmatic questions of which names are current... If you get more than a couple of google hits, it may be worthwhile to create a redirect. dab 20:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fadlan ISN'T fictious?

And here I am thinking that M. Crichton had pubilcally admitted that he had made up all of his references because it was a work of fiction. Maybe he lied about that and all those references do exist. Really. There is some sarcasm here, but it is in the foreward of the edition of eaters of the dead that I have. Of course, I could be mistaken about the names, but I will check and get back to this. <unsigned>

Crichton's is mostly fictious. This article is about the real one. mikka (t) 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that the original manuscripts that record this journey are in fact hoaxes themselves (the suppliers name being a clue). Unfortunately, I'm no expert on this. However, it might warrant further research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrimpurstala (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Fadhlan was a kurd

The articles misinterpretation of Fadhlans ethnicity as an arab is very common, thus almost anyone from the "muslim world" is labeled as an arab mutch thanks to their arabic names wich they are known by. In this case, ibn Fadhlan, he even bears the kurdish tribal name of Fadhlan also known as Fazlan/Fazlun tribe of the Shadad (modern Shadlu) confederacy. The Fadhlans came from Southern Kurdistan but today they are found in northern Kurdistan and in the kurdish populated Khurasan.

Pleace cite a source for ibn Fadlan being a Kurd. If you are basing your claim on the similarity of his family name with the name of a Kurdish tribe, without any hard sources, that is original research --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Source: "The Kurds: A Concise Handbook" by Prof. Mehrdad R. Izady

Name

According to: the Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History Vol 14 The Russian Movement in World History by Marshall T. Poe and Medieval Russia: A Source Book, 900-1700 by Basil Dmytryshyn

His name was simply Ahmed Ibn-Fadlan (Fadlana in a russian transliteration). The name at the top of this article is from the movie the 13th Warrior. I will leave it because it's in such nice arabic, but I will make note of the error near the top of the page.

In the Risala, he gives his own name as Ahmad ibn al-'Abbās ibn Rashīd ibn Hammad ibn Fadlan. Please do more thorough investigation next time. Also, the main article space is an inappropriate place for "notes" of error. Either correct the mistake or raise the issue in the talk page.--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source now that cites his name as such. Why doesn't my schools russian encyclopedia include his full name? Any ideas? I will be more careful of ettiquite in the future.
Ahmed ibn Fadlan is the name by which he is traditionally known. Many Arab writers from the Middle Ages are known to scholars either by an -eke name (al-Tabari, al-Khwarazmi) or by a family name (ibn Faldan, ibn Rustah, ibn Khordadbeh) that may or may not be their personal patronymic. I can't tell you why your encyclopedia editors chose to refer to him as Ahmad ibn Fadlan rather than by his full name. That was an editorial decision on their part. Nevertheless the full name as given in this article is correct. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malik or Mulk

Mulk means country or land, and Malik means king. Is there any reliable academic source to distinguish between these two, in the title of his book? ila mulk al-Saqaliba makes more sense. Alefbe (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malik means King, Maalik means Owner and Mulk means Possession. ila mulk al-Saqaliba should be Ila (to) malik (king, ends with a small pause
which makes it king-of) al-Saqaliba (a name of a kingdom), إلى ملكْ الصقالبة

Volga Vikings?

I'm russian, but I've never thought about myself as a descendant of vikings :) Why do you think that the people whom ibn Fadlan met were vikings? As far as I remember, he didn't call them 'vikings', he called them 'rus' (at least, in russian translation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.s.matveyev (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ahmad ibn Fadlan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

All knowledge on the subject is derived from the 30 page accountin the MS. The part on the Rus should be discussed in greater detail in the main article. What is lacking is a more detailed account of the itinerary, once we have that, the article will be essentially complete. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This section is bizzare. It blames future conflicts caused by incompatible beliefs on a person who was basically acting as a missionary? Assuming that is even valid, how would the christian missionaries not be equally at fault? Why don't we have a similar section on every missionary or advocate of any moderately controversial belief system?

As it stands the section reads like "He had the gall to spread Islam into areas that were rightfully christian, therefore he is to blame for the conflict." The rebuttal later in the paragraph doesn't really help.

I have removed it. The sources and implications aren't bad per se, so I guess it can be rewritten in a way that talks about his actions and the long term effects instead of being weirdly accusatory.

67.188.148.150(talk) 01:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not concerned with such comparisons. What does concern me is that the only controversies surrounding him I've ever been aware of revolve around the accuracy of his descriptions as compared with the peoples he was chronicling. There's only one source for this apparent controversy. Unless there are more WP:RS discussing this as being an issue, I'd consider the content to be WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is childish. [3] Of course there is published literature on this point, and the job of Wikipedia is simply to summarize that. But instead, many people decide to just rant about the first thing that occurs to them when they hear about a topic they have no expertise on for the very first time. The point is that the mission was invited by the Bulgar king, but that the Bulgar king cared nothing about Islam, for him it was merely a deal of getting financial support in exchange for letting the Arabs preach.
From Hermes (2012): "what was ultimately sought by Almish had more to do with politics and money than with spirituality and religion. As a growing number of scholars have observed, there seemed to be a political agreement between the Bulghar king and the Abbasid caliph. With this arrangement, the former would receive financial and military help in exchange for paying religious-political homage to the Abbasids." (followed by details on the 'growing number of scholars' referred to)
Google books is available to everyone. Why is it so, so difficult to just report on what has been written by the people who actually studied the subject? --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not vandalism?

In December of last year User:Dbachmann butchered this article. He deleted entire paragraphs, not just words or sentences. He did all of that extensive deletion almost without writing anything in the edit summery. Can somebody explain to me how is this not vandalism? He mutilated the article without even caring to justify.--HD86 (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EoI 3

@Nabataeus: @Kansas Bear: @Wikaviani:

Aḥmad b. Faḍlān b. al-ʿAbbās b. Rāshid b. Ḥammād, known as Ibn Faḍlān, wrote a travelogue recounting his personal experiences as a representative of the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Muqtadir (r. 295–320/908–32) during the embassy sent to the Turkic king of the Bulghār, also referred to as the king of the Ṣaqāliba, which left Baghdad on 12 Ṣafar 309/22 June 921. Apart from what can be gleaned from his travelogue, nothing appears to survive on the life of Ibn Faḍlān that can clarify with certainty his origins, ethnicity, or education, or the dates of his birth (...) -- Zadeh, Travis (2017). "Ibn Faḍlān". In Fleet, Kate; Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Rowson, Everett (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (3rd ed.). Brill Online. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_30766. ISSN 1873-9830.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eol is right that nothing could be clarified with certainty. I remember something I read long time ago that Ibn Fadlan was called by a Rus "you Arabs are fools" which made the author consider him, based on that statement, an Arab. I think it should be this way; "He is described as an Arab, however, considering the scarcity of information, nothing could be said with certainty on his origin or ethnicity." Along the line. Nabataeus (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A check of all sources concerning his ethnicity in this article is in order. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kansas Bear. Saying that he has been described as an Arab, because someone said "you Arabs are fools" would give a WP:UNDUE weight to this origin while EOI 3 supports that nothing is known with certainty about his origin.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I am going by the current article, which the claim is sourced (hence described), not that we should include that "He is described as an Arab" just because someone said to him "you Arabs are fools". Maybe I was not explicit enough, my bad. Anyway, I think Kansas is right, the sources need to be checked; Muslim heritage and Al Rahalah are not really that reliable. Nabataeus (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checked them one by one:
Source #1,[[4]] a blogspot. Definitely non-RS.
Source #2,[5] translated/edited by Paul Lunde and Caroline Stone. Both have the right credentials. No page number. Reliable source.
Source #3,[6] owned by The Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation (FSTC). For more information: [7] Doesn't look reliable to me.
Source #4,[8] translated/edited by Richard Nelson Frye. No page number. Reliable source.
Conclusion: We need page numbers for source #2 and source #4. "Source" #1 and #3 should be removed. Do you gentlemen agree? We can continue after that.
- LouisAragon (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4 sources (numer 1, 2, 3 and 4) supporting an Arab ethnicity :
  • Number one is "a travel resources for families looking for nice, clean places that are child-friendly in Egypt. We provide reviews and information about Restaurants, Parks and Gardens, and Tourist attractions.", sounds unreliable for this topic.
  • Number 2, Penguin random house UK claims "We champion the world's most brilliant voices, bringing them to life in compelling and dynamic ways for audiences everywhere. In addition to books, ebooks and audiobooks, we also play a part in blockbuster films, TV shows, radio, theatre productions, live events and social media. Our books shape the broader cultural life of our society and inform the national conversation. Our brands - from Ladybird to Penguin - accompany people of all ages on their journey of discovery of the greatest stories, the smartest thinking and the best ideas. Leading one of the most important creative sectors in the world, we are proud of our past and ambitious about our future.", does not appear to be a historical source.
  • Number 3, Muslim heritage, can be reliable if the author has specialization in medieval Islamic history. The author is said to be FSTC (The Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation is a British not-for-profit, non-political, and non-religious organisation founded in 1999 by a group of philanthropic historians, scientists, engineers and social scientists. It is dedicated to researching and popularising the history of pre-Renaissance civilisations, especially the Muslim civilisation, that have had an impact upon the scientific, technological and cultural heritage of our modern world.), may be reliable.
  • Number 4 is by Ibn Fadlân himself, but the claim "akin to Ibn Batutta. Ibn Fadlan was an Arab missionary sent by the Caliph in Baghdad to the king of the Bulghars" seems to be a passing remark.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I said above that #1 and #3 are not reliable. Nabataeus (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the FSTC source is more reliable than the Penguin one, since it's supported by historians. I have not been able to find out Caroline Stone's specialization, but Paul Lunde is a contributor of Muslim Heritage and can speak Arabic, don't think this is enough to make him a reliable source.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why Paul Lunde and Caroline Stone would be unreliable? They both authored/co-edited the 2nd source;
"Historian and Arabist Paul Lunde studied at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies and specializes in Islamic history and literature. He is the author of Islam: Culture, Faith and History. With Caroline Stone, he has translated Mas‘udi’s Meadows of Gold and—forthcoming this fall from Penguin—Travellers From the Arab World to the Lands of the North, a collection of travel accounts. Lunde is a longtime contributor to this magazine, with some 60 articles to his credit over the past 33 years, including special multi-article sections on Arabic-language printing and the history of the Silk Roads, and the theme issue “The Middle East and the Age of Discovery” (M/J 92). He lives in Seville and Cambridge, England, and is working on an Internet project to map pre-modern Eurasian cultural and intellectual exchanges. He can be reached at (...)"[9]
"Paul Lunde studied at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies and specializes in Islamic history and literature. He is the author of Islam: Culture, Faith and History and is working on an internet project to map pre-modern Eurasian cultural and intellectual exchanges."[10]
"Caroline Stone has edited and written numerous books and articles, principally on textile history, medieval history and literature, Islamic culture and literature, and the cultural and economic relations between Europe and the Orient in the pre-modern era. With Paul Stone, she is translating a collection of the writings by the Arab geographer Mas'udi for Penguin Classics."[11]
- LouisAragon (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, i did not see the part where it's said that he has specialization in Islamic histoy.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion : His Arab ethnicity is reliably sourced and can remain in the article. Can be balanced with a EOI 3 quote.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Wikaviani.
I was able to pinpoint the correct page number(s) of Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness: Arab Travellers in the Far North as well as "Ibn Fadlan's Journey to Russia: A Tenth-century Traveler from Baghad to the Volga River through Amazon. Btw, this is what R.N. Frye has added inside the very same book (p. 8);
  • "We do not know the background of Ibn Fadlan, except that he was considered Arab, learned in the laws and customs of Islam, and a confidant of the Caliph."
Anyways, we solved it. Thank y'all for your input.
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. Ibn Fadlan was frequently called by the Rus as an Arab. "ask that Arab".. "you Arabs are fools" and the like. I think the source above is similar to what I read, he is considered Arab not because his origin is known, but because he is described as such. Nabataeus (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings?!

Where in his writing is there ANY mention of "vikings"? If you take vikings for an ethnicity - they were not an ethnicity. If you take "vikings" for what they were - raiders... He was describing traders not raiders. And they weren't from Volga region, they were visiting, so why call them Volga "vikings"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.131.64 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan&oldid=945564976"