Talk:Saladin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saladin article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Maintenance An editor has suggested that this article may benefit from an appropriate infobox, or the current infobox could be updated. The template to use is {{Infobox biography}}.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Saladin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Urdu language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
2005-2006


Contents

[edit] Kurds, Turks, and names

So, now that we can all see that his father's family was Kurdish, I hope this will stop the endless disputes about his ethnicity. However, it is entirely possible that his mother was a Turk. But, since we don't know anything about his mother or her family, we cannot speculate (maybe Ayyub had a Kurdish wife and brought her with him to Tikrit? Maybe she was Arab, or Persian, who knows). If his brothers seem to have Turkish names, perhaps that is because Ayyub was in the service of the Turks. I don't know if modern Kurds purposely avoid giving their children Turkish names, but obviously the situation was much different in the 12th century. We also cannot speculate on Ayyub's reasons for giving his children the names he gave them. So, can all parties agree that the question has been solved to the best of our abilities? Adam Bishop 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about avoiding, Muslims all around the world use Arabic names as they tend to think anything Arabic is/can be Koranic - therefore Islamic. Names used by Saladdin's siblings were pagan Turkic names which at that time would not be used by non-Turks. Also Saladdin's mother being Turkish, father being Kurdish would still make him "Turkic".

What makes Saladdin 'Saladdin' is not his ethnic background but his personality.He could even be Greek, Asyriac or even Hebrew who happened to have Turkish named siblings and have fought for Muslims. I just think some people just can't take the fact that he could be Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L Rothen (talk • contribs)
How do you know those names wouldn't be used by non-Turks? Are Kurds not allowed to give their children supposedly Turkish names, at any point in history, ever? And we don't know anything about his mother, or even if he had the same mother as his brothers. It is not so radical and disturbing that he could be Turkish...the world would not collapse because people couldn't handle such a disturbing revelation. We just do not know. We do know that his father was a Kurd and that no contemporary or near-contemporary claims him as anything but a Kurd. Adam Bishop 14:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with L Rothen. Khan is a widely used name which came essentially from the Juan Juan Mongols, yet it used by South Asians also as a name and a title. Does this signify Turkic ancestry also?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan King (talk • contribs) 20:21, February 24, 2007
Personally, I feel that people are using specific examples to verify a rhethoric. I have a feeling that a Kurd having a Turkish name at that point will have been almost like a German having a French one - possible, perhaps, but not very likely without at least some familial connections. Again, such names as Khan and languages like Latin, Hebrew and Arabic are special cases. One can not judge common names by the merits of special cases. Obviously, I do not know anything - most likely, nobody knows this or will know it, ever. But I would recommend against using special examples to underbuild rethoric, since this is hardly an encyclopaediatic approach.

- Anon, 8th of June, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.103.87 (talk)

Saladin's father had six sons of whom only one had a Turkish name:

  1. Nur ad-Din Shahanshah (died 1148)
  2. Salah ad-Din Yusuf (1137-1193)
  3. al-Malik al-Adil Sayf ad-Din Abu Bakr Ahmad (1145-1218)
  4. al-Malik al-Mu'azzam Shams ad-Dawla Turanshah (died 1181)
  5. Taj al-Muluk Abu Sa'id Buri (died 1184)
  6. al-Malik al-'Aziz Sayf al-Islam Tughtekin (died 1197)

All the rest are Arabic names, some accompanied by a Persian name. Turanshah is not a Turkish name, it is Persian and has nothing to do with Turks. Associating Turan with Turks is a modern concept, created by Turkish nationalists in the early 20th century. Both, Turan and Shah are Persian words. Shahanshah is also a Persian title, so is the name Buri (distantly related to the names Bors and Boran, both being Iranic - or precisely - Sarmatian names). It is possible that Saladin's father had more than one wife and that one of them was Turkish (which would explain the Turkic name of one of his sons). But the given facts only point to a Non-Turkic origin. --82.83.154.91 01:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Börü, Böri means "wolf" in Ancient Turkish inscriptions. --Essedra 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak argument. "Buri/Bori" may also be related to the Iranian name "Bur/Bor", as in Bors (which has an Iranian Scythic origin) or Boran/Puran. 82.82.131.168 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The eagle was a sybol of the Seljuks.ok?So Saladin and his family adopted Turkish culture.Why are you all rejecting the real?But the history isn't fake and it tells us the true everytime..

bilecikli 22:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The eagle was/is also a symbol for Polish culture, for Russian culture, for Albanian culture, for German culture, for Sumerian culture, for Hittite culture, for Byzantine culture, for Romanian culture, for Italian culture and so on[1]. The eagle is an extremely common symbol in heraldry and does not prove a thing in this case. JdeJ (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean all of the "eagle symbols".I said the eagle symbol which is using by Egypt now.It comes from Seljuks.bilecikli 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Still, I'm not sure that using such a common symbol tells us much. JdeJ (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with bilecikli. Saladin must be Turk! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanlikartal (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Oh God, no more Turkic nationalists in wikipedia, please.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.176.101 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


HOW, i ask HOW could Saladin be turkic? Thats not possible, the turks were just about to come in to middle east at his time. Would his father just grab a turk and marry her like that? No. If you know kurdish culture, (and this culture was waay more stronger the past 50 years, so imagine how it would be at his time). Kurds first marry one from their tribe. Secondary marry one from an "allied" tribe. The third option is very rare and you MAY be allowed to marry anyone else so long he/she is a kurd. And were does the other-people-option come in? I dont see it.... but nowadays people doesnt care so much.

Well, now that you have seen some kurdish "marrying-traditions" i will come to my point. Saladins father was a kurd, and so was his mother. Many people even today have turkic names but that doesnt make them turks. Usually when kurds named (maybe today to, on the country) their children they named them after someone "great". example, "Ali", they heard that this "Ali" was a great man so they took his name.

There was even a time when kurds named their kids HITLER because they heard that he was a "great" man(according to what they had heard, he conquered almost all Europe, and that made him great). --Kurdalo (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

While I (and most of us) agree that Saladin was a Kurd, your argument is a) original research and b) very weak. Turks had been in the area for a quite a while. Alp Arslan beat the Byzantines at Manzikert two generations before Saladin was born. Both the Seljuk Turks and the Kurds at that time were strongly influenced by Persian culture, and would quite probably laugh about the modern prejudices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

okay stephan clearify your words here, i didnt understand so much exept that you said the turks were already there. Yes i know, but i said they were just about to come in to middle east. They had some guys there, but still just arrived there. And persian culture? What do you mean i dont get it really. Kurds had kurdish culture, turks had turkic culture, and persians had persian. But they were muslims (mostly) and therefore had a muslim culture that connected them somewhat. --Kurdalo (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as for the Turks, they were in the area in force. Cultures are not disjunct. I drink Indian tea, eat French bread and Italian Pasta, and ride an Austrian Bicycle with an English saddle. Much of the Muslim culture at the time was inherited from Sassanid Persia, and Persia remained a major cultural center under the Muslim rule. Both Kurds and Turks shared many aspects of that culture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

that could be so. i dont know how you mean by owning an austrian bike then you are living like an austrian?culture=lifestyle, culture is not material things. if I own an computer made in japan, then it doesnt mean that my culture is japanese. and i think that it was rather persia who got affected by muslims/arabs. because muslims/arabs conquered persia (duuh!). Even today half of the persian language has turned into arabic.

example of muslim ties that connect them thogther: when a kurd salutes to annother, he says "merhaba". when a turk salutes to annother he says "merhaba". when a persian salutes to annother he says "merhaba". The word "merhaba" is of arabic origin and spread through islam. --Kurdalo (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But just like the Roman's conquered Greece only to take on much of their culture, Islam conquered Persia and took over much of its culture in return. See e.g. Islamic Architecture#Persian_architecture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

yes i understand you well know, just like the turks invaded midle east and absorbed alot of kurdish,armenian/christian/laz,arabic culture and made a new out of it. They absorbed language as well, i heard that 60-70% of it is european, kurdish, arabic and persian languages. --Kurdalo (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with argument or "rationalization." It has everything to do with scholarly research. If your scholarly reference to Saladin being a Greek beats someone who claims is is a Scot, then he is a Greek! :) Student7 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Not true, actually. It would have to beat or at least reasonably balance the standard claim that he was indeed a Kurd. He is obviously more likely to be a Vulcan than a Ferengi, but that does not mean we put Vulcan in the article ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Saladin

in war against crusades the page shows that he had no mercy and excuted prisoners with happiness?! can you check the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xainoo (talk • contribs) 05:38, October 13, 2006


"Most of this renown for chivalry and mercy is more myth than fact, when judged against the oppression of Christians and minority sects in Egypt and mass executions of prisoners of war and enslaving of other prisoners." Vandalism?

-sakredfire


I have the source on the event of Saladin having joy on his face while the Templars and Hospitallers were executed.

Here is the quote from Saladin’s secretary himself, Imad ad-Din, from the Ibid, page 138. This occurred two days after the Battle of Hattin.

“He (Saladin) ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis and a certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.”

Saladin was an honorable man, but like so many men of his day, was also capable of brutal acts of violence. Mk26gmls 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


The fact that you think "the Ibid" is the name of a particular reference is rather amusing.


Why does the above quote from Imad ad-Din keep being deleted from the article on Saladin? What is the problem with this quote? It is documented in several sources. In the book Saladin, The politics of the Holy War by Malcolm Cameron Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson, they quote Imad ad-Din again on page 265 that Saladin had second thoughts about the Templars and Hospitallers being allowed to live. Hence the executions of 2 days after the battle. Some of the captives that were already sent to Damascus were killed there after the execution order was received from Saladin. Imad ad-Din wrote that since they could get no ransom for them nor would they be put to use in captivity, they were killed on Saladin's orders. Imad ad-Din then tells his readers that Saladin enjoyed the executions. This isn't from a Latin scribe. Noted in Saladin by Lyons and Jackson, they cite also; Sana 349 sq.; cf. Fath 28. Mk26gmls 19:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


In addition to the quote above, I believe this quote by Baha ad-Din from the Ibid, page 101, also shows Saladin in a different light. I propose that this quote be added to the article. It was made before Saladin recaptured Jerusalem.

While I (Beha ad-Din) was standing thus Saladin turned to me and said: "I think that when God grants me victory over the rest of Palestine I shall divide my territories, make a will stating my wishes, then set sail on this sea for their far-off lands and pursue the Franks there, so as to free the earth of anyone who does not believe in God, or die in the attempt."

He of course never got his chance with defending his conquests and dying so soon after Richard's departure from the Holy Land.Mk26gmls 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The context of these quotes is somewhat misrepresented. Salah-al Din enjoyed killing the Templars and Hospitallars because they killed his men, not because they were Christian. He wanted to pursue the Franks and called them Godless not due to their religion, but due to their behavior which was at odds with their religion. When did Saladin percecute the Copts? How about the Jews? Be more objective, pretty please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sakredfire (talk • contribs) 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


Sakredfire

The only one here not being objective is yourself. How are the quotes misrepresented? Where did I say Saladin executed prisoners because they were Christian? I did not say that. Maybe your own bias is making you see things that aren't there. In regards to the Coptic Christians and Jews in Egypt, I am not aware of any persecution by Saladin of either group. On the contrary, he used them in his administration. In "Saladin - The Politics of the Holy War" by Lyons & Jackson, pg 56, a quote by 'Al-Makhzumi wrote that clerks in the Dwan al-Harb were usually Jews, while taxation clerks were usually Christian Copts. He added: "as Christians and Jews were unable to share rule with the Muslims, they shared with them in the general running of affairs, providing tax clerks, army clerks and doctors. I can only think that this is an affliction sent by Almighty God to test the Muslims"'.

Sorry you are having problems in dealing with Saladin's executions. Saladin not only executed members of the military orders, but other crusaders as well on numerous occasions. That is all the quotes listed above show. Most likely, even though we don't have exact numbers of deaths during this period, I would venture to say Saladin killed far more Muslims than Christians in his life time. Saladin was a very respected man, very generous and gracious at times, but like most men of his day, could be violent and ruthless.

Question for you: Saladin's executions at Hattin and Richard's executions at Acre. Is there a difference? Now be objective, pretty please.Mk26gmls 13:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I guess you're right. I just think people need to hear more about heroic Muslims in this day and age. I feel bad for the way people are starting to portray them, so I try to teach people about the good things that have come from Islam, even though I'm not Muslim myself. But wishful thinking does not lead to good scholarship I guess.

--Sakredfire 04:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Divan of Ibn Sana Al-Mulk

The Dîwân of Ibn Sena El-Mulk (or Ibn Sana Al-Mulk) definitely calls The Ayyubid state as "Turkish State". Let's look what he says:

"The Arab nation has glorified with the Turkish State The Crusader's quest has been ended by the son of Ayyub"

This is the beginning of the Qasidah (a type of poem which is written when the poet intends to praise a statesman or holy people, Tr: Kaside) that is written and brought to Saladin after the war of Aleppo.

His Dîwân is published in Turkish, French and Arabic in Turkey and Beirut. But I don't know any English editions.

Also, Ibn Khaldoun, In his Muqaddimah, classifies Ayyubids And Mamelukes as one Turkish State. He adds, "After Saladin, The Turkish state has encouraged science. Cario has been one of the greatest centre of knowledge." Page 778.

All is translated by me. Because i don't have neither The Dîwân, nor the Muqaddimah in English. Someone can verify these in English.

As far as we know, the roots of his father's ancestors goes back to Yemen. If we look his ethnicity, then we can call him an Arab. But we know his familiy has migrated to Azerbaijan, where Turks and Kurds lived then. The historians at their time counts him Turkish (as his mother was a noble Turkish women, all of his brothers had Shamanistic Turkish names: Bori Turanshah, Tugtigin) and his state as Turkish State. Which seems to be related to the military and administrative style of Saladin and his state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.213.178.151 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The beyit should be "The Arab nation has been glorified..." you missed the word "been" there 81.213.225.230 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)non-user


This is English translation of Moqadameh bu Ibn khaldun

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm

it would be helpful if you show your source.
All the Arab Historians (like Ibn Athir ) who lived in the same age as Saladdin insisted that Ayyubid family were Kurdish.This is what Ibn Athir wrote" he saladdin was from ravadi family and they were the best of kurds."
If you show me a link to "Alkamil fi Tarikh" of Ibn Athir which is encyclopedia of islamic history I will show you,the exact place of this sentence.(and remember Ibn Athir lived in the same time of Ayyubid in Egypt)
About your sentence:

all of his brothers had Shamanistic Turkish names: Bori Turanshah, Tugtigin

first they were titles not names, then Turanshah is a classical iranic name which is composed of two Iranic word Turan and Shah.About other names which only mentioned by Sharafnameh which is written in 400 years !!! after Saladdin,and having these titles does not prove anything.Shahbaz one of the Espahbodan of Tabarestan in time of Barkyaroq choose the title of IlArsalan which is turkish name. Ahamidilian was an Arabic dynasty who was founded by Ahmadil son of Ibrahim ,whose grandfather was vahsudan which had a iranic name, and his son was Aq sonqor which is a turkic name.Rumi slajuqs used names like Keyqobad or keykavus which are iranic names.And why you forget the uncle of Saladdin
Shirkuh whose name is a popular kurdish name even today.
Then this sentence

The historians at their time counts him Turkish (......)and his state as Turkish State.

Actually all historian stated that that he and his family were kurdish origin,that is why for all these years Ayyubid were considered as kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.10.106 (talk) 13:55, February 15, 2007
I can't believe people still argue that he was Turkish. Sometimes you got to wake up from the dream. :::Ozgur Gerilla 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Map

The map is wrong!!! (The Middle East, c. 1190.) There should be Croatian-Hungary kingdom instead of K. of Hungary. Croats and Hungarian only had common king (at that time) with separate nationality and separate parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.64.233 (talk) February 26, 2007

I don't think so. The Hungarians took Croatia from the Byzantine Empire. It was very much the Kingdom of Hungary, ruling Croatia as a vassal. Tourskin (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The firs poster is right- Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia entered personal union with Kingdom of Hungary in 1102 (Pacta Conventa)- Croatia was kingdom from 925., and independant state since 879. Both kingdoms (Croatian and Hungarian) had their own parliaments, and Croatian kingdom had viceroy. Also check dates when dates when Croatian kingdom and Hungarian joined Habsburg empire- you'll see Croatian kingdom joined earlier than Hungarian... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.50.195 (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the article?

OK guys, what happened to the article here?Mk26gmls 16:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin is Turkish

Saladin is Turkish Commander. Saladin his mother and father is Turkish. StANDby007 13:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

how is those name of Saladin (mother)?

from which country and from which city descend did it?

and from where, points you. which her no Kurdish origin had separates Turkish origin was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.54.210 (talk) April 26, 2007

Saladin Mother was not Turko-Mongol, Saladin Mother was truely Kurd.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.171.17 (talk) April 27, 2007

What is the proof? Being from Tikrit? Or you want to believe that there were an important Kurdish personality in history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.158.32 (talk) July 22, 2007

[edit] Correction.

Thank you for your ongoing workout information. I would like to correct your Image: Ayyubid.png for the "Jerusalem" part which supposed to be Red as it was under Salahuddin kingdom!, since you're mentioning Salahuddin's History and glorey, not after he dies, because this what history is, as far as I know and verybody does!

I would appreciate you correct your image: Ayyubid.png so other people, muslims or other relogions understand and have clear picture about Salahuddin glory, not to forget the reader's satisfaction, which I believe is your ultimate goal as Wikipedia!

Thank you always!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.114.19 (talk) May 18, 2007

[edit] The origin of Saladin

Saladin had %50 Arab and %50 Turkish origin. Some kurds assert that he was kurdish, it's because they are trying to make a fake history of themselves. Essedra 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

50-59 gives you 109%! Do you have any reliable source that says he was 50% Arab and 50% Turkish? Do you know that at that time there was no Turkey? Do you mean Turkic? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you know some of those people who you mentioned as Turkic used to called theirselves Turk, so many years before Turkey, even in Arabic states, look for Baibars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.158.32 (talk) July 22, 2007

[edit] Family?

I've been looking for the man's family, but it seems the Englishspeaking part of the internet is totally devoid of such info. Maybe it'd be appropriate to add something about his children here. You can read "divided among his sons", but no where are these sons named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.46.221 (talk) July 1, 2007

You are welcomed to add content if you got sources. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment

The article is in many aspects an assertion of the supposed “greatness” of Saladin, an alternative view of him is missing that is why in a couple of days, I will incorporate a section in the article that reads “Reassessment” dawn on a number of revisionist works in the academia such as:

Saladin and His Admirers: A Biographical Reassessment, P. M. Holt Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1983), pp. 235-239

Saladin Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz State University of New York Press; [1st ed.] edition (December 1972)

Cheers, --Suhrawardi 01:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SALADIN IS A TURKISH WARRIER AND STATESMAN

Saladin is a Turkish warrior and statesman.

First the descriptin of nation changes often by time. Sometimes the description of a nation means people that live in a country, sometimes means people that believe in same religeon, sometimes means people that has same origin, sometimes means people that has same culture. In the time of Saladin, nation meant people that believe in same religion that is Islam.

The reality of Saladin was Turkish was accepted by the world untill 16. century but later 1-2 man said Saladin was Kurdish to create a nation in the region of the Middle East, but that was not real, that was only a form distorted of a thought. That thought was said after 350 years of Saladin was dead without a real prof.

If we need to examine the origin of Saladin then we have to make that with scientific eye. Then we have to consider all the conditions and realities of that term. Genetic come from father half and mother half. That means %50 from father, %50 from mother. Saladin’s mother was Turkish, Saladin’ s father’s mother was Turkish, too. That was prooved by the scientific circle. And The wife of Saladin was Turkish, too. That means if we dont know the origin of Saladin’s father’s father or if we know Saladin’s father father was Kurdish or Arabian, That never can’t change the reality of Saladin was Turkish. Saladin’s father’s mother was Turkish means Saladin’s father was half Turkish (%50) and Saladin’s mother was Turkish too means Saladin’s was carrying Turkish blood more than %75, and Saladin’s wife was Turkish too means Saladin’s sons were carrying Turkish blood more than %87,5 and that was very high level. Those means Ayyubids were TURKISH, SALADIN WAS TURKISH.

Saladin accepted an eagle the symbol of his state, and eagle means the symbol of the Turkish states. Saladin was a commander of Seljuks that was a Turkish state, and Saladin speakt Turkish.

Saladin’ s brother’ s names was Tuğtekin, Şahinşah, Böri, Turanşah that is ancient Turkish names. Does a Kurdish family give the Turkish names to their children ?

AS A RESULT, SALADIN WAS A TURKISH WARRIER AND STATESMAN.

SALADIN WAS TURKISH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.216.244 (talk) July

15, 2007



Yes, actually many kurds have turkic names. But you can go on saying that we was a turk.

The whole world knows and has agreed that he was a KURDISH WARRIOR AND STATESMAN! Keep on living in your small world full of Atatürk-propaganda.

(Atatürk was originally from Macedonian/Greece) --Kurdalo (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] al-Dīn

Why is this guy "al-Dīn" while Nur ad-Din is "ad-Dīn"? -- 129.78.64.102 07:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No reason, really. I suppose there is an official Wikipedia policy about this somewhere, but they are both pronounced the same anyway. Adam Bishop 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Same reason why we have Adam and Alan. Those two names will look similar to a foreigner, which, with all due respect, I assume you are to Middle-Eastern names. But now that you mention it, Salah din means "Repairer of the Religion" whilst Nur-ad-Din means "Light of the Religion". Saladin repaired Islamic fortunes in the East whilst Nuredin brought the "light" or the "spark" to initiated the Islamic counter-crusade or Jihad (Struggle)against the enemy. Tourskin (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think he was asking about the difference between al- and ad-. In this case there is none. And "salah" means "righteousness" does it not? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference between the Al-Din and the Ad-Din has to do with the pronounciation in Arabic. It is always written Al-Din in Arabic, but always pronounced Ad-Din. The reason is there are two groups of letters in Arabic, sun and moon letters. The sun letters will be pronounced 'ad-din' and for example 'ash-shams' for sun. The moon letters will keep the sound of the 'al' in front of them. I hope that helps. ----Nicole Bovey

[edit] The "Saladin in media" section has become trivial and ridiculous

I'm going to be bold and dramatically trim the trivia section. I don't think we need to list every instance in which the name "Saladin" is used in popular literature, movies, games, etc.... A book which names a character "Saladin", but represents him in a historically inaccurate manner is not describing the Saladin of this article, and thus it does not belong here. The same goes for video games. Basically, this section is just junking up the article and is very unencyclopedic. Per WP:TRIVIA, please feel free to re-add the information if it can be incorporated in the main body of the text. AlphaEta 17:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This is not a Saladin fansite

The article is full of POV and needs cleaning up. Saladin was a great warrior and conqueror and the archetype of knightly chivalry. But he was no freedom fighter, as the article seeks to depict him. The original invaders of Jerusalem after the Romans were the Muslims. The Crusaders were seeking to recover Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land from the invaders. If you dispute this, fine, but it's one POV versus another. Either make the competing POVs clear or depict the Crusades neutrally. Also, Saladin is NOT regarded as the great national hero by the Muslims. He is the Muslim hero for Europeans. If any figure from that era is the great hero to the Muslims, it's Baibars. — J M Rice (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you clean it up then? (It may take more than a viewing of Terry Jones' show though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And Kalavun as well. Saladin was in third behind Baibars and Kalavun until the Arabs picked up the notion from earlier European writers. I don't advise watching Terry Jone's video as it is horribly inaccurate. ResurgamII (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If you feel there are POV problems with this article, I think it would be helpful if you could either (a) explain what they are in more detail or (b) actually fix them. I've read this article over thoroughly and don't see any POV problems. The {{fansite}} tag is totally inappropriate, so I'm removing it. I'll leave the other one for a bit to see whether it stimulates any action. JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to think of history

sorry I am no scholar of history but from my readings from diffrent sources, it was my understanding to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, one can not judge Saladin with todays terms, but compare him to others during his era. The crusaders killed many cristians on their way to the Holy Land, and also a lot of Jews, Who acctualy flew to muslim lands. When the crusaders enetered Jeruslem they killed more than 125,000 muslims, their bodies floated in blood, the only reason to stop the killings was due to the rotting and fear of diseases to flourish in the city. When Saladin opened the city again he garinteed safe passage to crusaders back to Eruope , Some were able to pay ransom, and it is mentioned that him and his brother -Imad Addin and his sons- freed some from their own money. I will try to dig in my books to bring refrences for all this. One nice part was that when Richrad, the english king was injured or was sick- ia m not sure- Saladin sent his private physician who was Ibn Mymon who was jewish to cure his enemy!. Omar Aref, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.133.197 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Omar, Muslims destroyed Churches, Salah din had the great cross of Jerusalem beaten and paraded for two days in Jerusalem, 100,000 Christian Armenians were slaughtered at Antioch in 1268. Baibars and countless other Islamic rulers claimed to have a piece of the true cross to give them leverage in negotiations (lies of course, especially Louis' crusade into Egypt), whilst Muslims in Moorish Iberia also participated in Massacres of Jews. Whats your point? As a Christian of the Middle East, I know very well that both sides have commited crimes. No, you and I are certainly are no scholar since you fail to mention these points. Salah din was a chivalrous man at times, and at other times such as after the Battle of Hattin he was cruel, demonstrated by his execution of many of the prisoners. Whatever you include in this article, add in your references, and be prepared to defend your point. Tourskin (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
What the Antioc massacre in 1268 as to do with Saladin ? What's your point telling that muslims slaugthered a lot of people, who deny it ? Like Omar said, on cannot judge Saladin with today's terms. Saladin, nor any other person of theses times. Backwardes 22:03, 19 february 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death

When I was doing microbiology in school a couple of years back, a well known lecturer (reputable source) gave us a pop quiz - a middle eastern man ate with a group of travellers. A few hours later, he took a fever, and later on died. What bug did he contract? As it turns out, the answer to the question was typhoid, and the man was Saladin. Anyone can corroborate this? it'd be a good addition to how he died, if it's true. Squiggle (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Baha ad-Din (and Lyons and Jackson), he was eating with a group of pilgrims, but felt sluggish and had little appetite, and had been ill all winter previously. He then developed a "bilious fever", and lay sick for 12 days before he died. It doesn't seem like eating suddenly made him sick. There isn't much information about his death, everyone is concerned with ending the Third Crusade, and then, oh, by the way, he was sick and died. Is this consistent with typhoid? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi-Kurdish

Mussav, the problem is not about Iraq, the problem is that the sentence already says he is from Iraq. Now, it is also bizarre that you want to say he is an Iraqi Kurd, which, whether or not it is a valid designation today, is meaningless in the 12th century. He wasn't any particular nationality of Kurd, he was just a Kurd, from Tikrit, as the sentence clearly states. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adam on this one. The text makes it clear that he was born in Iraq, and so it should. However, the terms Iraqi-Kurdish, Syrian-Kurdish or Turkish-Kurdish are all modern concepts as the border between these states were drawn less than 100 years ago. In the days of Saladin, most Kurds lived in the same country, the caliphate. JdeJ (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is strange that the text mentiones "he was born in Iraq", it is more suitable to say modern-day iraq or in the modern republic of iraq. Iraq at the time of Saladin did not include Tikrit, instead there were two iraqs, Iraq Ajami (khuzestan in modern Iran) and Iraq Arabi which streched from north of Basra to Baghdad, perhaps even Samarra, but not Tikrit. I also agree that the term "iraqi-kurd" is irrelevant as it has no historical ground, even today it is a problematic term as it does not coincide with the Kurds internal socio-culturall subdivisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.3.14 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reston and Grousset

Al Ameer son, it's great that someone is finally updating the article, but I'm not sure the latest edits are really an improvement. Reston is an especially bad source for the crusades; Grousset is alright but he is very old. There must be newer sources we can use? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'd like to see Reston go as a source altogether. His work is a historical dramatization. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kurd vs Turk

Rather than expose the rest of us to the Kurd vs Turk war. Could you discuss it, then (most probably) get a third opinion. Then (most probably) go into arbitration? I don't think there is any way of determining his original nationality at this late date. Leave it the way it is now even if it is wrong. The rest of us don't care. It is irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Better yet, explain why there are differences of opinion in a paragraph and the different resources that support "your" side. Let the reader decide if s/he can! Student7 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reasonable source claiming that Saladin was Turkish. This seems to be an anachronistic application of the modern principle/legal fiction that Turkey is an ethnically homogenous modern nation state, going back essentially to Ataturk and, with various degrees of intensity, upheld by the Turkish government ever since. Regardless of how one sees this concept, applying it to a 12th century leader seems to be utterly pointless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Stephen. A number of contemporaries describe his as Kurdish. He is simply not a Turk. There is no dispute; no arbitration or extra paragraph is necessary. This has nothing to do with the current state of affairs between the Turks of the modern state of Turkey and the Kurds: Turks should neither be offended that he is not Turkish, nor should Kurds claim any particular pride, as his dynasty was in no sense a "Kurdish empire." And let neither side think we are favouring the Kurds and disdaining the Turks - Turkish and Kurdish editors have both been guilty of vandalizing this article (though I do not doubt that Turkish and Kurdish editors have also edited it constructively). However, any and all edits to the article which change his ethnicity to Turkish are to be considered vandalism and reverted. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Checking my private library, I find:
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I made the revert just prior to this thread, I should explain - the edit in question had changed one instance of Kurdish to Turkish, without changing the other further down, and made the article disagree with its references without supplying new ones. To me that looks like an unconstructive edit. As ever the standard in wikipedia is not to judge truth but verifiability. Bazzargh (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the other users above, I don't see the case for any disagreement here. Every source I've ever come across describe Saladin as Kurdish and I would be very surprised to find a single scholarly non-Turkish source describing him as Turkish. As long as all the sources describe him as Kurdish, it's rather natural that this article reflect that view. And even if, and that's a big 'if', a source describing him as Turkish would be presented, I don't see how that would be enough to hold its own against the vast number of neutral academic sources supporting his Kurdish origins. However, that debate is premature as no sources suggesting a Turkish origin have been presented. JdeJ (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

So...is it Saladin, or a "Jewish philosopher" as the anon keeps claiming? (Maimonides perhaps?) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a dig into the history of the image and, well, there isn't any, and both users involved seem to have left, so unless anyone recognizes it it has no provenance at all. How about this [2] (cropped appropriately). At least we know who that's supposed to be! Its already in the commons, but in a much worse scan: [3]. There's the series of Doré engravings as well, but they're murkier and I don't know of a PD source. Bazzargh (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I had another look and found it. See [4], and look at the cover of Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz's 'Saladin', ISBN 1597400750 (note the ISBN given by google books is wrong - that's the first of the 'see also' books on the last page). The book didn't get its cover from here, it was published in 1972. Its clear from the larger image that he is not wearing a tallit, as I guess the anon thinks, but a gorget. Unfortunately, the page that would identify the original source of the image is not part of the preview, but I think this is enough evidence for now to keep the picture. Bazzargh (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The movie, "Kingdom of Heaven," is NOT a historical source.

The following assertion from the article, which is already tagged for lack of reference, seems taken directly from the move "Kingdom of Heaven" instead of any historical fact:

"Saladin captured Raynald de Chatillon and was personally responsible for his execution in retaliation for previously attacking Muslim pilgrim caravans.[citation needed] Guy of Lusignan was also captured but his life was spared."

I propose this be removed from the text, unless someone can support it with a citation--it's removal will have no impact on the rest of the section.

65.175.60.130 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)CAllenofDC

While KoH dramatized this scene, it can be sourced e.g. to Runciman's History of the Crusades (page 759 in my German Omnibus edition - that's the middle of Book 10, Chapter II). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's probably where Kingdom of Heaven got it from, but it goes back to French, Latin, and Arabic sources who were present (or heard about it later). Of course, they all say different things about it, which is exactly what we might expect when dealing with witnesses and rumours for the same event! The Battle of Hattin and Raynald of Chatillon articles and talk pages have the stories and the sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In Warriors of God, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James R. Reston, the passage reads

The Sultan passed it [Rose Water Sherbert] to the King who gulped it wildly and then passed the bowl to Chatillon. "You did not ask my permission to give him water", the Sultan said quietly, with an undertone of menace in his voice. "Therefore, I am not obliged to grant him mercy. This was a point of honor. In Islamic custom a captor who offers his prisoner food and water must spare him. Now Saladin said to Chatillon, "Drink, for you will never drink again". After the capture of the rich Muslim caravan, the imprionment of his sister, Chatillon's disrespect for Islam after his pirate's raid on the holy sites of the Red Sea and his threatening Mecca and Medina and his many breaches of solemn truces, Saladin had made another vow that contemplated not mercy but justice.

pp.66 --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Reston...since he idolizes Saladin, tends to fill in the blanks with his own imagination, and, in this case, jumbles every story together without bothering to critically examine them, he's not a good source. But yeah, that is the basic series of events. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)