Misleading info in Idries Shah wikipedia article
slp
fact, incorrect information coming from Sutton, who appears to be
sadly misinformed about the lines of descent from Mohammed. The
wikipedia entry reads, in part,
"Sutton, in a 1975 article on Shah, opined that Graves had been trying
to "upgrade" Shah's "rather undistinguished lineage", and that the
reference to Mohammed's senior line of descent was a "rather
unfortunate gaffe", since Mohammed's sons all died in infancy.[11][20]
"
A Sayyid/Sayid/Sayed/Said does not trace his line of descent from any
of Mohammed's sons, but from Mohammed's grandsons via his daughter,
Fatima, which is how Idries Shah would have traced his lineage.
Sutton is embarrassingly wrong about "Mohammed's senior line of
descent". Being a descendant of Mohammed is really only a big thing
in the West, although there is supposedly an obligation from Mohammed
upon all his descendants concerning spiritual things and I don't
remember the details or where I read that right off-hand. That
obligation is of more concern within sufism, from what I understand,
but again, I don't know the details, not being subject to that
obligation as far as I know.
More on the subject here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid
More on the various titles according to which grandson they descend
from -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif
Eric T
news:91d0ef39-a6ad-4b87...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Thanks, Scott. Have forwarded your message to an editor.
With good wishes,
eric.
Eric T
news:91d0ef39-a6ad-4b87...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
An editor had inadvertently missed out the key word "male" used in the
source. It should have read: "Mohammed's senior male line of descent".
Cheers,
eric.
slp
> "slp" <slp.pear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:91d0ef39-a6ad-4b87...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > This below from the wikipedia article is quite misleading, and is in
> > fact, incorrect information coming from Sutton, who appears to be
> > sadly misinformed about the lines of descent from Mohammed. The
> > wikipedia entry reads, in part,
>
> > "Sutton, in a 1975 article on Shah, opined that Graves had been trying
> > to "upgrade" Shah's "rather undistinguished lineage", and that the
> > reference to Mohammed's senior line of descent was a "rather
> > unfortunate gaffe", since Mohammed's sons all died in infancy.[11][20]
> > "
>
> > A Sayyid/Sayid/Sayed/Said does not trace his line of descent from any
> > of Mohammed's sons, but from Mohammed's grandsons via his daughter,
> > Fatima, which is how Idries Shah would have traced his lineage.
> > Sutton is embarrassingly wrong about "Mohammed's senior line of
> > descent". Being a descendant of Mohammed is really only a big thing
> > in the West, although there is supposedly an obligation from Mohammed
> > upon all his descendants concerning spiritual things and I don't
> > remember the details or where I read that right off-hand. That
> > obligation is of more concern within sufism, from what I understand,
> > but again, I don't know the details, not being subject to that
> > obligation as far as I know.
>
>
> > More on the various titles according to which grandson they descend
>
> An editor had inadvertently missed out the key word "male" used in the
> source. It should have read: "Mohammed's senior male line of descent".
>
> Cheers,
> eric.
BTW, I believe that descent from Hassan or Hussein is considered to be
the male line of descent of Muhammed. Hassan is the oldest, and
Hussayn the youngest. As Idries Shah was a Hashemite, he would have
been descended from Hassan, which would be the senior male line of
descent from Mohammed.
In Western lineages this would not be so, but the descent from
Mohammed is a Middle Eastern lineage and the rules are different for
determining lineages there, just as the rules for determining lineage
are different among the Jews. In the Middle East, lineage is at
least partly recorded in the names that people are given, although not
solely this way.
Among Muslims, Sutton's statement is sheer idiocy, because, in
Mohammed's case, the male line of descent is considered to start with
Hasan and Hussayn, his grandsons. By Western standards this is not
so, but by Middle Eastern standards it is so. Middle Eastern
genealogy is a much more complicated thing than Western genealogy,
from what I understand, and Westerners make big mistakes in it by
assuming descent is determined in the same way as it is in the West.
And by the way, Sutton reverses himself on the problem of Mohammed's
lineage later on in that same article, acknowledging that there is
descent via Hassan and Hussayn, if I remember correctly.
And that is what I meant by "incorrect information". Sutton's
statement about no senior male line of descent for Mohammed is false
because that is not how it is figured in the Middle East, from what I
understand.
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid and scroll down to
the section, Indication of Descent, it gives a little bit on how the
naming indicates descent.
Scott
jaye...@my-deja.com
> the section, Indication of Descent, it gives a little bit on how the
> naming indicates descent.
>
> Scott
Hashemite does not mean descended from Hassan, who was indeed the
older brother. Rather, Hashemite applies to all descendants of Fatima.
The Shahs are descended from Hussein, the younger of the prophet's
grandsons.
More precisely, the Shah family claims descent from Ali Reza, the
eighth Imam, whose father was Musa al-Kazem, the 7th Imam. He was the
son of Ja'far al-Sadiq, the 6th Imam, who was the son of Muhammad al-
Baqir, the 5th Imam, whose father was Ali ibn Ḥusayn, the 4th Imam,
who was the son of Husayn, the *younger* of the prophet's two
grandsons, and third Imam, who took on the imamate when his brother
Hassan was poisoned.
No one else in the world speaks of a "male line of descent from
Mohammed":
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22male+line+of+descent+from+Mohammed%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=NQu&q=%22male+line+of+descent+from+the+prophet%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
And even assuming that Fatima's sons were meant, Hussein was the
junior, not the senior, son.
J.
J.
slp
> > the section, Indication of Descent, it gives a little bit on how the
> > naming indicates descent.
>
> > Scott
>
> Hashemite does not mean descended from Hassan, who was indeed the
> older brother. Rather, Hashemite applies to all descendants of Fatima.
> The Shahs are descended from Hussein, the younger of the prophet's
> grandsons.
>
> More precisely, the Shah family claims descent from Ali Reza, the
> eighth Imam, whose father was Musa al-Kazem, the 7th Imam. He was the
> son of Ja'far al-Sadiq, the 6th Imam, who was the son of Muhammad al-
> Baqir, the 5th Imam, whose father was Ali ibn Ḥusayn, the 4th Imam,
> who was the son of Husayn, the *younger* of the prophet's two
> grandsons, and third Imam, who took on the imamate when his brother
> Hassan was poisoned.
>
> No one else in the world speaks of a "male line of descent from
> Mohammed":
>
>
> And even assuming that Fatima's sons were meant, Hussein was the
> junior, not the senior, son.
>
> J.
>
> J.
You say no one else in the world speaks of a male line of descent from
Mohammed? One should never say "never" when Google is available.
Emphasis in quotes below is mine.
"Why was the hereditary institution of the Imamate in Shi'ih Islam
limited to the *male lineage of Muhammad* and Fatimih? " --
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/ravian-bilani/women-house-justice
"A minority of prominent Muslims believed that the leadership should
stay in the *direct male line of Muhammad*, which would have meant
that the new leader would have been the prophet’s closest male
relative. This would have been Ali ibn Abi Talib..."
-- http://firstchurchbloomington.org/templates/cusbloomington/details.asp?id=28065&PID=604476
However, it does appear that I misread and that most would not say
"male" line of descent from Mohammed but say the male line of descent
from Hasan or Hussayn, or the male line of descent from Mohammed's
great-grandfather. So I apologize.
Idries Shah descends from BOTH Hasan and Husayn, it appears. Guess we
are both right.
Anyway, here is the relevant wikipedia articles that show the Shah
family descends from both Hasan and Husayn, and regarding the usage of
the name, al-Hashimi, as to how it indicates whom they descend from.
The wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemi, when it says that the name
Hashemi, and Hasemite indicate descent from Hasan? The title "Sayyid"
is used to indicate descent from either Hasan or Hussayn, but Hashimi
and Hashimite indicate only descent from Hasan, and it also indicates
descent from Muhammed's great-grandfather, because Ali, the father of
both Hasan and Hussayn, was also the great-grandson of Hashim ibn Abd
al-Manaf, Mohammed's great-grandfather. Hussaini or al-Hussaini
indicates descent from Hussayn; Hashimi or al-Hashimi indicates
descent from Hasan.
"Family origins
Ikbal Ali Shah was born into a family of Musavi Sayyids (descendants
of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and also through
Musa al-Kadhim, the great-great-grandson of Husayn ibn Ali and seventh
Imam of the Twelver Shi'a sect of Islam)"
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirdar_Ikbal_Ali_Shah
Musa al-Kadhim is also a descendant of Hasan ibn Ali, being the great-
grandson of Hasan's daughter and the great-grandson of Husayn's son.
Musa al-Kadhim ( aka Musa al-Kazim) was the son of the 6th Imam, Jafar
al-Siddiq, and his second wife
"Following his wife's death Al-Sadiq purchased a black slave of
African origin, Hamidah Khātūn (Arabic: همده خاتون), freed her,
trained her as an Islamic scholar, and married her. She bore Mūsá al-
Kāżim (the Twelver Imām-designate) and was revered by the Shī‘ah,
especially by women, for her wisdom." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%27far_al-Sadiq#Marriage_and_offspring
& http://smma59.wordpress.com/category/musa-al-kazim-ibn-jafar-as-sadiq-arabic-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85/
Jafar al-Sidiq's father, "His father, Muhammad al-Baqir (the fifth
Shi’ah Imam), was much happy and pleased by the birth of his son. His
mother, Umm Farwa, was the grand daughter of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr,
who was the son of Caliph Abu Bakr Siddiq." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%27far_al-Sadiq#Marriage_and_offspring
regarding Muhammad al-Baqir. "His father was the previous Imām, ‘Alī
ibn Ḥusayn, and his mother was Fatimah bint al-Hasan. --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Baqir
"Fātimah bint al-Hasan ibn ‘Alī (Arabic: فاطمة بنت الـحسن بن علي) was
a daughter of Hasan ibn ‘Alī, wife of ‘Alī ibn Husayn (fourth Twelver
Imām), and mother of Muhammad al-Bāqir (fifth Twelver Imām)." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimah_bint_al-Hasan
For Ali ibn Husayn, see here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_ibn_Ali
By the way, both Sutton's and Graves' scholarship is, shall we say,
less than impeccable, and I for one would take anything that either
one of them says about Idries Shah with a grain of salt. See here for
an assessment of Robert Graves scholarship. I have read others come
to similar conclusions about his plagiarism and his, umm, tendency to
be poetic with the truth. --
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_selections/classics/article2305623.ece
Curiously, the above link mentions that Graves apparently used the
same method of translation and writing with his other translations
that he did with the Khayyam manuscript of Omar Ali Shah. That is, he
had someone else do the translations, and he worked from their crib-
notes. Hmm. It seems that most of the publicity debacles around the
Shah brothers seem to always come back to Robert Graves.
Scott
jaye...@my-deja.com
> Hashimi and Hashimite indicate only descent from Hasan, and it also indicates
> descent from Muhammed's great-grandfather, because Ali, the father of
> both Hasan and Hussayn, was also the great-grandson of Hashim ibn Abd
> al-Manaf, Mohammed's great-grandfather. Hussaini or al-Hussaini
> indicates descent from Hussayn; Hashimi or al-Hashimi indicates
> descent from Hasan.
I read that differently:
The Hashemites[2] trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf
(died c.510 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet
Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the
descendants of the prophet's daughter, Fatimah. --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites
Hashemi (Arabic: هاشمي) (or transliterated as Hashmi) is a clan of
the Meccan tribe; Quraysh, (Arabic: قریش ) to which the Islamic
Prophet Muhammad belonged -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemi
On the other hand, the most notable Hashemites, ruling Mecca for much
of its history and ruling Jordan today, were indeed descended from
Hassan. There is quite a good overview here:
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.html
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/rfamily_hashemites.html
> regarding Muhammad al-Baqir. "His father was the previous Imām, ‘Alī
> ibn Ḥusayn, and his mother was Fatimah bint al-Hasan. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Baqir
Yes, there would seem to be a (female) family connection to Hassan as
well, through Fatimah bint al Hasan.
> By the way, both Sutton's and Graves' scholarship is, shall we say,
> less than impeccable, and I for one would take anything that either
> one of them says about Idries Shah with a grain of salt. See here for
> an assessment of Robert Graves scholarship. I have read others come
> to similar conclusions about his plagiarism and his, umm, tendency to
> be poetic with the truth. --http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the...
>
> Curiously, the above link mentions that Graves apparently used the
> same method of translation and writing with his other translations
> that he did with the Khayyam manuscript of Omar Ali Shah. That is, he
> had someone else do the translations, and he worked from their crib-
> notes. Hmm. It seems that most of the publicity debacles around the
> Shah brothers seem to always come back to Robert Graves.
In this case, Graves worked with a crib which Omar Ali-Shah had made,
supposedly based on an ancient Omar Khayyam manuscript in the Shah
family's possession. Both Idries and Omar Ali-Shah vouched for its
existence. When Graves, having come under fire from critics, asked
them to produce the manuscript, they reneged on earlier promises to do
so. Comment on the Graves/Ali Shah translation:
One scholar, Bowen, travelled to Afghanistan and with the help of
Khalilullah Khalili (an Afghan poet that Octagon some years later was
to publish some quatrains by) sought out the head of the Shah family
in Afghanistan, who was supposed to have passed the manuscript on to
Idries Shah's father:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=%22Professor+Khalili+sending+his+car+to%22++intitle%3Atravesty&btnG=Search+Books
http://books.google.co.uk/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=%22Omar+Ali-Shah%27s+forebears+originally+belonged.%22+intitle%3Atravesty&btnG=Search+Books
http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&q=%22bright-eyed+courteous%22+intitle%3ATranslation&btnG=Search+Books
Bowen proved to the general satisfaction of scholars that Omar Ali-
Shah's translation was based on a translation by Edward Heron-Allen.
Even the errors matched, apparently.
J.
slp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid ?
I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
transfer properly with copy & paste.
If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
Scott
P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
opinion.
Scott
On Nov 21, 3:31 pm, jayen...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> > Hashimi and Hashimite indicate only descent from Hasan, and it also indicates
> > descent from Muhammed's great-grandfather, because Ali, the father of
> > both Hasan and Hussayn, was also the great-grandson of Hashim ibn Abd
> > al-Manaf, Mohammed's great-grandfather. Hussaini or al-Hussaini
> > indicates descent from Hussayn; Hashimi or al-Hashimi indicates
> > descent from Hasan.
>
> I read that differently:
>
> The Hashemites[2] trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf
> (died c.510 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet
> Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the
> descendants of the prophet's daughter, Fatimah. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites
>
> Hashemi (Arabic: هاشمي) (or transliterated as Hashmi) is a clan of
> the Meccan tribe; Quraysh, (Arabic: قریش ) to which the Islamic
> Prophet Muhammad belonged --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemi
>
> On the other hand, the most notable Hashemites, ruling Mecca for much
> of its history and ruling Jordan today, were indeed descended from
> Hassan. There is quite a good overview here:
>
> http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/hash_intro.htmlhttp://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/rfamily_hashemites.html
>
> > regarding Muhammad al-Baqir. "His father was the previous Imām, ‘Alī
> > ibn Ḥusayn, and his mother was Fatimah bint al-Hasan. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Baqir
>
> Yes, there would seem to be a (female) family connection to Hassan as
> well, through Fatimah bint al Hasan.
>
> > By the way, both Sutton's and Graves' scholarship is, shall we say,
> > less than impeccable, and I for one would take anything that either
> > one of them says about Idries Shah with a grain of salt. See here for
> > an assessment of Robert Graves scholarship. I have read others come
> > to similar conclusions about his plagiarism and his, umm, tendency to
> > be poetic with the truth. --http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the...
>
> > Curiously, the above link mentions that Graves apparently used the
> > same method of translation and writing with his other translations
> > that he did with the Khayyam manuscript of Omar Ali Shah. That is, he
> > had someone else do the translations, and he worked from their crib-
> > notes. Hmm. It seems that most of the publicity debacles around the
> > Shah brothers seem to always come back to Robert Graves.
>
> In this case, Graves worked with a crib which Omar Ali-Shah had made,
> supposedly based on an ancient Omar Khayyam manuscript in the Shah
> family's possession. Both Idries and Omar Ali-Shah vouched for its
> existence. When Graves, having come under fire from critics, asked
> them to produce the manuscript, they reneged on earlier promises to do
> so. Comment on the Graves/Ali Shah translation:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F-lH8aQ9-HsC&pg=PA314&dq=%22This+t...
>
> One scholar, Bowen, travelled to Afghanistan and with the help of
> Khalilullah Khalili (an Afghan poet that Octagon some years later was
> to publish some quatrains by) sought out the head of the Shah family
> in Afghanistan, who was supposed to have passed the manuscript on to
> Idries Shah's father:
>
jaye...@my-deja.com
> So what is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid?
>
> I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
> transfer properly with copy & paste.
>
> If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
> remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
> a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
>
> Scott
>
> P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
> never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
> doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
> opinion.
>
> Scott
I see the table you meant now. Generally speaking, al-Hashimi simply
means "related to Hashim":
It does not mean descended from Hassan.
We seem to have established to our mutual satisfaction that the claim
that the Shahs are on the senior male line of descent from the prophet
or even from Hassan is not tenable.
I don't see how it is possible to blame Graves for the Omar Khayyam
debacle. Graves revised Omar Ali-Shah's translation for him as a
favour, from his hospital bed, taking the story of the ancient family
manuscript on trust. Graves' own reputation, and income from his
writings, suffered considerably as a result.
J.
slp
> On Nov 22, 3:26 am, slp <slp.pear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So what is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid?
>
> > I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
> > transfer properly with copy & paste.
>
> > If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
> > remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
> > a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
>
> > Scott
>
> > P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
> > never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
> > doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
> > opinion.
>
> > Scott
>
> I see the table you meant now. Generally speaking, al-Hashimi simply
> means "related to Hashim":
>
>
> It does not mean descended from Hassan.
>
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLpmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA143&dq=al-Hashim...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aXNmAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLdtAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> We seem to have established to our mutual satisfaction that the claim
> that the Shahs are on the senior male line of descent from the prophet
> or even from Hassan is not tenable.
>
> I don't see how it is possible to blame Graves for the Omar Khayyam
> debacle. Graves revised Omar Ali-Shah's translation for him as a
> favour, from his hospital bed, taking the story of the ancient family
> manuscript on trust. Graves' own reputation, and income from his
> writings, suffered considerably as a result.
>
> J.
What could have been a reasonable discussion by both sides on its
merit became emotional and acrimonious when Graves started publically
referring to the Khayyam scholars as homosexuals. I posted a link to
this sometime back here in alt.sufi, although I can't guarantee the
link to it still works, as some of the sites have now gone to making
access to their archives commensurate upon paying a fee.
As far as Graves own reputation, it was not that great among scholars
to begin with. Apparently he sometimes would copy large chunks of
others' work without crediting them, he disparaged those who couldn't
understand his poetic approach, and some scholars found some of his
work to be in error. He opened up a new way of looking at things for
a lot of people, but apparently he did it via plagiarism and sloppy
scholarship. And these accusations have nothing to do with the Graves/
OAS translation of Khayyam, but center around his other works such as
*The White Goddess*. And they have found from what and whom he
copied.
Given what they have found out about Graves other published works, one
could make a reasonable case that he took the easy way out and copied
other Khayyam translations and then presented them as his and OAS's
own work.
Scott
slp
>
>
>
> > So what is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid?
>
> > I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
> > transfer properly with copy & paste.
>
> > If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
> > remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
> > a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
>
> > Scott
>
> > P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
> > never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
> > doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
> > opinion.
>
> > Scott
>
> I see the table you meant now. Generally speaking, al-Hashimi simply
> means "related to Hashim":
>
>
> It does not mean descended from Hassan.
>
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLpmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA143&dq=al-Hashim...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aXNmAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLdtAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> that the Shahs are on the senior male line of descent from the prophet
> or even from Hassan is not tenable.
>
Your reply above is incredibly manipulative and close to an outright
lie.
Where the hell did you ever get the idea that we have established that
the Shah's are not descended from Hassan when you agreed that the
ancestor of Shah, Musa al-Kadhim, is descended from both Hassan and
Hussayn? Or are you saying that you are an authority on Middle
Eastern genealogy and Muslim genealogy to deny that Musa al-Kadhim
does not descend from both Hasan and Hussayn? Or are you saying that
the wikipedia article on Ikbal Ali Shah is lying when it states that
he descends from Musa al-Kadhim?.
I never agreed with you on that. The only thing I said was that I had
misread some stuff and that MOST would not speak of the senior male
line of descent.
And since when are you such an authority on the Middle Eastern
languages to ignore those who are? What are your credentials on that,
anyway? I am quite certain I can find a number of specialists on the
topic who will tell you that you are being incredibly simplistic and
are avoiding the issue.
You know, I believed Eric when he said that you were quite good with
the scholarship and research. I appear to have erred in that respect.
Scott
slp
>
>
>
> > So what is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid?
>
> > I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
> > transfer properly with copy & paste.
>
> > If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
> > remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
> > a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
>
> > Scott
>
> > P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
> > never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
> > doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
> > opinion.
>
> > Scott
>
> I see the table you meant now. Generally speaking, al-Hashimi simply
> means "related to Hashim":
>
>
> It does not mean descended from Hassan.
>
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLpmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA143&dq=al-Hashim...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aXNmAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLdtAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
Hasan and Husayn are both descended from Hashimi via Ali, the grandson
of Shaiba ibn Hashim, aka Abd al-Muttalib. The general usage of names
to indicate the particular line of descent from the Prophet is that al-
Hashimi indicates descent from Hasan, al-Hussaini indicates descent
from Hussayn, even though they both descend from Shaiba ibn Hashim.
Take a logic pill. Idries Shah is a Hashimi via Hasan. He could also
put Hussaini in his name, because he is also a Hashimi via Hussayn.
Because both Hasan and Hussayn are descendants of Hashim. Which is
why he has the name Hashimi in his name. Having the name al-Hashimi
does not in itself indicate that one descends from Hasan or Hussayn,
UNLESS THE PERSON IN QUESTION ACTUALLY HAS THEM AS AN ANCESTOR!!! And
a lot of people in the Middle East do. Those people who descend from
Hasan use Hashimi to indicate that. Those people who descend from
Hussayn use Hussaini to indicate that. They also use Sayyid to
indicate descent from Hasan and Sharif to indicated descent from
Hussayn, although apparently modern usage is starting to change to
using Sayyid to indicate descent from either one.
Idries Shah has both Hasan and Hussayn as ancestors. I gave you the
links to the lineage in one of the previous posts in this thread.
Unless you think that the wikipedia article on Ikbal Ali Shah is
incorrect when it names his ancestor.
Scott
slp
>
>
>
> > So what is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid?
>
> > I'd post the appropriate excerpts but it is in a table and it doesn't
> > transfer properly with copy & paste.
>
> > If azo is still in Caravansarai, you might ask him about it. If I
> > remember correctly what he said years back, he is a Sharif, and we had
> > a brief conversation on the *sayyid-ness* of Idries Shah.
>
> > Scott
>
> > P.S. Thanks for the links on Khayyam manuscript controversy. I had
> > never knew what Elwell-Sutton's sources were for that. It still
> > doesn't change anything about Graves reliability, though, in my
> > opinion.
>
> > Scott
>
> I see the table you meant now. Generally speaking, al-Hashimi simply
> means "related to Hashim":
>
>
> It does not mean descended from Hassan.
>
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CLpmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA143&dq=al-Hashim...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aXNmAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLdtAAAAMAAJ&q=al-Hashimi+%22arabi...
>
The above links have nothing to do with Middle Eastern or Muslim
genealogy, and nothing to do with with the lineage of Mohammed, which
is what the subject under discussion has become, using Idries Shah as
an example.
I would suggest that you should perhaps talk to Yosy over in
Caravansarai about how naming conventions are used in Semitic cultures
to preserve a record of ancestry before you go any further, and then
do some research on how naming conventions are used in Muslim
genealogy.
Scott
<<snip>>
jaye...@my-deja.com
Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you.
Based on the descent which we outlined above, from ‘Alī ibn Ḥusayn and
Fatimah bint al-Hasan:
Musa al-Kadhim, the ancestor of the Shah family,
1. Is on a female line of descent from Mohammed, through Mohammed's
daughter Fatimah.
2. Is on a female line of descent from Hasan, the elder son of
Fatimah, through his daughter.
3. Is on a male line of descent from Husayn, the younger son of
Fatimah.
Neither of these is logically compatible with the claim that Musa al-
Kadhim is on the senior male line of descent from the prophet, or even
on the senior male line of descent from Hasan. Hasan had four wives,
and he had sons by them who had children of their own. One of Hasan's
male lines of descent is given here:
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/rfamily_hashemites.html
It is the line of descent of the Hashimite rulers of Jordan. Fatimah
bint al-Hasan is not on it, and by the patriarchal system her line is
outranked by all those of Hasan's sons. It cannot be the senior line
of descent from Hasan.
As far as I can see, Elwell-Sutton's comment was not without
justification, and you are doing him an injustice.
That is unless you redefine the "senior male line of descent from the
prophet" to mean "the male descendants of the *younger* son of the
prophet's daughter", or say that the senior male line of descent from
Hasan passes through Hasan's daughter Fatimah, rather than through
Hasan's eldest son, making the progeny of Hasan's daughter "senior" to
the family of the King of Jordan, who are descended from one of
Hasan's sons.
J.
jaye...@my-deja.com
I don't see how such a case could reasonably be made, given that it is
flatly and consistently contradicted by both OAS and Graves, both in
their respective introductions to the published translation, as well
as their letters to various magazines after publication, and also by
the entire secondary literature on the incident, as well as the extant
correspondence between Graves and the Shah family.
J.
jaye...@my-deja.com
> Take a logic pill. Idries Shah is a Hashimi via Hasan. He could also
> put Hussaini in his name, because he is also a Hashimi via Hussayn.
> Because both Hasan and Hussayn are descendants of Hashim. Which is
> why he has the name Hashimi in his name. Having the name al-Hashimi
> does not in itself indicate that one descends from Hasan or Hussayn,
> UNLESS THE PERSON IN QUESTION ACTUALLY HAS THEM AS AN ANCESTOR!!!
I don't really understand what you are saying here.
But the article you quote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid
clearly says that if people "are descended from more than one notable
ancestor or Shi'a Imam, they will use the title of the ancestor from
whom they are most directly descended." In the Shah family's case,
this is, as we both agree, Musa al-Kadhim.
In practice and according to the Sayyid WP article, descendants of
Musa al-Kadhim thus take the surname Al Mosawi or Musavi, both of
which have their own entries in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mosawi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musavi_(name)
Another notable descendant of this line, and thus a distant cousin of
the Shahs, was Ayatollah Khomeini.
The linked articles list a few more that have some degree of
notability.
Note that Khomeini, like any other Musavi Sayyid, shares the same
genealogical pedigree with the Shahs, up to Musa al-Kadhim, i.e.
descent from Hasan's daughter, Husain's son and so on, as we worked
out above.
J.