Talk:Ibn Hawshab/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Karaeng Matoaya (talk · contribs) 10:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article in the next few hours. Cheers, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments on specific passages

I've done some copyediting myself for minor grammar issues, hopefully you don't mind.

• "Origin and conversion to Isma'ilism"

This paragraph has a single source, IMO it would be better to just have a single inline citation at the end that stands for the whole section instead of having the same citation at the end of each paragraph.

Hmmm, I prefer to add references after sections or statements that are relatively self-contained. Plus, now I have Halm, this will be expanded a bit.

• "Pro-Fatimid accounts hold that this was the chief dā'ī Firuz"

Where was he the chief dā'ī of, or was he the chief dā'ī of the entire Isma'ili project?

Good question. Clarified.

• "in the domains of the Yu'firids"

If the Yu'firids ruled all of Yemen, as the text seems to imply, this phrase fits better in the first sentence: "The two missionaries arrived in Yemen, then ruled by the Yu'firid dynasty of local Abbasid governors, in the late summer of 881." Incidentally, the fact that the Yu'firids were "local Abbasid governors" should accompany the first mention of them.

Excellent point. Done, plus some rewriting (I finally managed to track down my copy of Halm and added a few details from there)

• "Proclaiming the imminent appearance of the messiah (mahdī)"

I'm not sure if the source is doing this as well, but I don't think the mahdī should be defined as the messiah, because "Messiah" (al-masih) is already a term in Islamic theology. I think this would be better as "proclaiming the imminent appearance of the Mahdi, the messianic figure of Islamic eschatology,"

Good idea.

• "As in other areas of the Abbasid Caliphate, this call soon attracted many followers, aided by the widespread millennialist expectations of the period, which coincided with a deep crisis of the Abbasid Caliphate (the Anarchy at Samarra, followed by the Zanj Rebellion), and with the dissatisfaction among many Twelver adherents with the political quietism of their leadership."

This sentence might be a bit long to parse. I think it would be better if it was split to "...attracted many followers. This was aided by the..."

Good suggestion, I've rewritten and reordered this a bit further.

• "Bayt Fa'is at Jabal Tukhla; Jabal Tays, where he appointed Abu'l-Malahim as governor; as well as Bilad Shawir, Ayyan, and Humlan"

I'm not sure what these places are (fortifications? villages? trading towns?) so it might help to clarify that in a word or two.

Done.

• "where he appointed Abu'l-Malahim as governor"

What relationship did Abu'l-Malahim have with Ibn Hawshab?

Other than Abu'l-Malahim being a da'i, none.

• "The fortress of Bayt Rayb on Jabal Maswar became the residence and main stronghold (dār al-hijra) of Ibn Hawshab."

My understanding is that Ibn Hawshab's first offensive campaign was the capture of Abr Muharram, and he then captured Bilad Shawir, Ayyan, Humlan, etc. So when (relative to these two campaigns) did he capture (or build?) Bayt Rayb, and why did he make it his headquarters over the other places he had captured?

Added some details, reordered the structure here to give a clear idea of the sequence of events.

• dār al-hijra

The religious significance of this term should be mentioned.

Good point, done.

• "only to be forced to abandon it after a month."

Why did this happen?

Not explicitly stated, but probably not enough men to hold it. His position was not that strong, as subsequent events proved. So the first capture of the city was opportunistic, and temporary as a result.

• "Notably, he sent his own dā'īs to"

Instead of "notably," I think a better transition would be to clarify that this happened after his conquest of Yemen: "Once established in Yemen, he sent..."

Rewritten.

• "perhaps, as Wilferd Madelung suggests, because of doubts about Ibn al-Fadl's loyalty."

What was the cause of these doubts?

Not mentioned. Madelung justifies this by Ibn al-Fadl's later behaviour.

• "For the first time after coming to Yemen 25 years earlier, the two men met at Shibam"

Contextually this happened in 906, but I would like it if the date was explicitly mentioned.

Late 905 rather, but mentioned.

• "Ibn al-Fadl was the most active in the following years, campaigning across the country; but when he raided al-Bayad, Ibn Hawshab had to support him."

Who is he campaigning against when he and his colleague control all of Yemen? (If it's the Zaydis, they should have been mentioned earlier.)

"With the exception of Sa'dah in the north, Zabid on the western coast, and Aden in the south, all of Yemen was now under Isma'ili control". Still, clarified a bit.

• "Both Sana'a and Shibam were briefly lost to the Zaydi imam al-Hadi ila'l-Haqq Yahya in 906"

His appearance is a bit abrupt; I think the article would be clearer if his activities (which according to the Al-Hadi ila'l-Haqq Yahya were ongoing in Sa'dah since 897) were mentioned earlier on. Just from reading this article, I thought Sa'dah was still under Yu'firid control in 905.

Explained, I've added a note on his appearance in 897. I've also explained the political landscape a bit better, I must say that the principal sources, Madelung and Halm, do not do it justice.

• "Shibam was recovered before the end of the year, and Sana'a in April 907."

Was this by the same two who had held it before?

• "Instead, the city fell to the Yu'firid As'ad ibn Ibrahim, before being taken again by Ibn al-Fadl in August 911"

Where are the Yu'firids based in now, having lost Shibam? And is As'ad ibn Ibrahim the Yu'firid ruler, or some other Yu'firid (general, commander, etc.)?

• "in the previous year"

What year is this? The Fatimid Caliphate article says 909, but the context of this article would imply 910. IMO either the year al-Mahdi revealed himself or the year ibn al-Fadl renounced his allegiance should be specified.

Done.

• "a letter documenting his descent from Ja'far al-Sadiq"

Who Ja'far al-Sadiq is should be explained within the article.

Done.

• "Al-Mahdi evidently expected that the movement that had brought him to power in Ifriqiya would soon sweep eastwards to Egypt, where his forces would meet up with his Yemeni supporters. For this reason, he had sent to the Yemeni faithful a letter documenting his descent from Ja'far al-Sadiq; this letter caused much unease and dissension, for not only was the claimed genealogy patently false, but al-Mahdi took pains to clarify that he was not the expected messiah, but merely one imam in a line of imams that was to continue into the future, thereby sorely disappointing all millennialist expectations vested in his person."

This is, in my opinion, too detailed an explanation about Ibn al-Fadl's potential motivations for an article about Ibn Hawshab, a person who didn't participate in this rebellion.

Indeed. But it does show what al-Mahdi's expectations were of his agents in Yemen, and of his relations with the Isma'ili community there. So instead of removing it I've shifted it to a footnote.

I've re-edited it extensively in the meantime, trimming it down in the process.

• "Later Isma'ili tradition ascribed to him two early Isma'ili theological treatises, the Book of Righteousness and True Guidance (Kitāb al-Rushd wa’l-hidāya), which survives only in fragments, as well as the Book of the Sage and Disciple (Kitāb al-ʿĀlim wa’l-ghulām), more usually ascribed to his son Ja'far."

What are these books about?

Added.

General comments

• This article would greatly benefit from a map of medieval Yemen, even a very simple MSPaint one with dots for the mentioned locations over a blank map. I like to imagine I know a fair bit about Middle Eastern geography, but I struggled to follow the text, especially because so many of these places don't yet have Wikipedia articles for them.

• Excellent point, done.

• The situation in Yemen under the Yu'firids prior to the coming of ibn Hawsham, as well as the general situation of the Abbasid state in the late ninth century, could use some expansion. In the same vein, the situation in Yemen after his death could also use some expansion, especially since his son Ja'far seems to have been a significant figure in the history of Isma'ilism.

• Done.

• It might be good to include the sources by which we know ibn Hawshab's life; Iranica mentions a biography by his son Ja'far.

• Added & clarified.

• His name in Arabic should be included: أبو‎ القاسم‎ الحسن‎ ابن فرج ابن حوشب ابن زاذ‎ان النجر الكوفي (Abu'l-Qāsim al-Ḥasan ibn Faraj ibn Ḥawshab ibn Zādhān al-Najjār al-Kūfī) and منصور اليمن (Manṣūr al-Yaman) if my Arabic is right. (Edit: The order of the Arabic words has become all mangled for some reason when I copy-pasted from Word.)

• Done. Yes, the WP editor doesn't work well with the Arabic alphabet, this is a persistent bug.

• Several sources (including Daftary) mention that ibn Hawshab was supposed to be the senior dā'ī over ibn al-Fadl, but as far as I can tell there isn't any reference to this hierarchy in the article and they are largely portrayed as equals. Is there a reason for this?

• The reason was that this was not mentioned by Madelung and Halm. Daftary is a fine resource, but sometimes I've caught him making some judgments that are not entirely supported by his sources. Nevertheless, Brett also uses this distinction, so added.

Source check

• I can't read German and don't have access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, but the first two paragraphs of the EoI entry have been accurately cited, and so have the two instances of Daftary. This gives me confidence that there are no major sourcing issues.
• No issues with the two existing images.

Conclusion

Once these points above have been addressed, this should be a pass.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karaeng Matoaya, thanks for this very thorough review! Will address these points over the next few days. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karaeng Matoaya! Phew, this was a much more extensive process than I had thought would be necessary. Thanks a lot for your insightful comments, they prompted me to overhaul the article top to bottom, much to its benefit. Please have another look at it and let me know if there are still outstanding issues. Constantine ✍ 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for the overhaul—this is now a truly impressive article which would leave any reader very well-informed on tenth-century Yemen, and I can find no issues left to speak of. This is a pass. Y

(A much-deserved) kudos! --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Karaeng Matoaya, truly a lot of the credit also goes to you. I am looking forward to having more reviews from you in the future ;). Keep safe, and be well, Constantine ✍ 08:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)