Talk:Ayyubid dynasty

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for all questions posed. The only opposition is discounted per WP:LLMTALK and as no proof is brought for the allegations of speculation. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

---

This RFC is about three questions about the origin of the Ayubbid dynasty that governed the Sultanate of Egypt. It is agreed that the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin. The three questions are:

1. First, some Ayyubid rulers sponsored genealogies claiming noble Arab descent; Iranica explicitly describes these as politically motivated fabrications. Should these fabricated genealogies be mentioned?
2. Second, the historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group, which Iranica describes as originally of Arab descent and subsequently Kurdicized, as documented context for Ayyubid origins. Should this historical background be mentioned?
3. Third, Minorsky's hypothesis, included by R.S. Humphreys in Iranica's Ayyubids entry, that the Rawādīya Kurds may descend from this Kurdicized Arab lineage, clearly attributed and framed as speculative. Should this hypothesis be mentioned?

Please provide your brief answers in each of the Survey sections. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose.Their Kurdish origin is a settled historical fact, and adding these speculative theories is just WP:UNDUE Berf Baran (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey on genealogies showing noble Arab descent

Should there be a mention of genealogies showing noble Arab descent, with a notation that these genealogies are considered to be politically motivated fabrications?

Support. The fact that some Ayyubid rulers sponsored genealogies claiming noble Arab descent is a documented historical fact about the dynasty, not an endorsement of those genealogies. This information is notable enough to be included, even Encyclopaedia Iranica explicitly mentions their existence and describes them as politically motivated fabrications. Omitting this from an Origins section would be the unusual editorial choice. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose for the Origins section. Mentioning self-serving, politically motivated genealogies that sources (including Encyclopaedia Iranica) explicitly describe as fabrications does not belong in the Origins section. Doing so would give undue weight to fictional propaganda over the well-established historical consensus. The prevailing scholarly and medieval consensus (Ibn Khallikān, Boris James, and the article’s current stable wording) is clear: the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin from the Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdishFalconeer (talk • contribs)

• Support inclusion of the fabricated genealogies, explicitly described as fabricated genealogies, as historically important. We should describe what the origins of the Ayyubids are thought, in the early 21st century CE, to be, and what they were said to be. The existence of these genealogies, and their use by Saladin's heirs, provide insight into the racial stratification of Islamic society. This information will be useful to readers as long as we describe it as fabrication. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support This information is long overdue. AytWaygher232 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey on the background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group

Should there be a mention of the historical background of the Rawwādid/Rawādīya group in the Origins section of the Ayubbid dynasty article?

Support. This is not a mere interpretation or minority view we are talking about. Encyclopaedia Iranica's Rawwadids entry presents the Arab origin and subsequent Kurdicization of the group as established historical fact. This background is not tangential, it also provides the Origins section with useful context. Without it, both the genealogies and Minorsky's hypothesis appear without foundation, and a reader encountering the section for the first time would lack the framework to understand either. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose This level of detail on the Rawwādid/Rawādīya background does not belong in the Origins section. The Encyclopaedia Iranica (Rawwadids entry, Andrew Peacock) describes an Arab family (Rawwādids) that became Kurdicized through intermarriage with a local Kurdish tribe (Rawād), while the Ayyubid line itself is tied to the Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya Kurds. Boris James (2006) is clearer and more recent on this point: the Rawâdiyya were Hadhbâni Kurds who took the name through service to their masters (“des Kurdes hadhbâniyya qui prirent le nom de leurs maîtres”), not through direct blood descent from the earlier Arab dynasty. Including a full “Arab origin + Kurdicization” backstory in the Ayyubid Origins section would: •  Violate WP:UNDUE by giving excessive weight to pre-Ayyubid dynastic history that belongs in the separate Rawwadid article. •  Overcomplicate the core, well-sourced fact: the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin from the Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya, originating near Dvin (supported by Ibn Khallikān and modern consensus). •  Turn a concise Origins section into a tangential discussion on 8th–11th century Tabriz politics. The current stable wording already handles the name origin appropriately (“served as Auxiliaries to the Rawwadid dynasty, hence they took the name…”). That provides sufficient context without dragging in the full Arab-family-to-Kurdicized-dynasty narrative, which is not required for understanding the Ayyubids’ own origins. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support - Important to providing context of who the Ayyubids were and how they rose to power. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support The background of the Rawadiyya is directly relevant to the Origins section because medieval accounts connect the Ayyubids with this group. Peacock's Encyclopaedia Iranica entry describes the historical Rawwadid ruling family as originally Arab and traces it to Rawwad ibn al-Muthanna al-Azdi. It also explains that the family later became Kurdicized in Azerbaijan through intermarriage and close ties with Kurdish groups. Vladimir Minorsky, Ahmad Kasravi, C. E. Bosworth and Andrew Peacock have all discussed this background. Several Turkish academics believe the same, Zeki Velidi Togan also connected the Rawwadiyya genealogy to Rawwad ibn al-Muthanna al-Azdi and described the family as becoming Kurdicized. İsmail Yakıt discusses the same interpretation in his article “Selahattin Eyyubî'nin Nesebi” in Belleten. Ramazan Şeşen likewise presents the Ayyubids as belonging to the Rawwadiyya branch of the Kurds and traces this branch to Rawwad ibn al-Muthanna al-Azdi, whom he identifies as a Yemeni Arab. According to Şeşen, his descendants later mixed with the Kurds and became Kurdicized. AytWaygher232 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey on Minorsky's hypothesis

Should there be a mention of Minorsky's hypothesis, noted to be a hypothesis?

Support. Minorsky is among the foremost authorities on the medieval history of the Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Kurds and Iran. His hypothesis appears not as a footnote nor is it treated as fringe but as a substantive part of Iranica's Ayyubids entry, authored by R.S. Humphreys, one of the leading historians of the medieval Islamic world. The inclusion of a hypothesis by such authorities in such a source is itself evidence of its scholarly relevance. Presented with clear attribution and framed explicitly as speculative, consistent with how Iranica itself frames it, this material imposes no undue weight on the Origins section as already stated in the past by an wikipedia administrator active in the topic area. Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose – Mentioning Minorsky’s hypothesis in the Origins section is still undue weight, even if framed as a hypothesis. While Minorsky was a respected scholar, his idea remains highly tentative — as Encyclopaedia Iranica itself makes clear (Humphreys): “perhaps”, “tempting to think”, and crucially “If Minorsky’s speculations are sound…”. This is not presented as a core or established part of the entry, but as a cautious aside. It has not become mainstream consensus in the 70+ years since it was proposed. The reliable scholarly consensus (Ibn Khallikān, Boris James 2006, and the current stable article) is straightforward: the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin from the Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbâniyya tribe. Adding an old, speculative hypothesis into the Origins section would: •  Elevate a “maybe, if sound” idea to the same level as the primary sourced narrative. •  Violate WP:UNDUE. •  Risk misleading readers. The past admin comment Dunav references does not override due weight considerations or the need for proportional coverage in the lead Origins paragraph. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral - This is only a hypothesis by a distinguished scholar and may or may not be helpful in understanding the context of who the Ayyubids were and how they achieved power. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Minorsky's view should be included because he did not simply dismiss the Ayyubid claim of Arab descent. He suggested that it may contain a “kernel of truth” or “preserve a historical folk memory” connecting the family with the originally Arab Rawwadids, who later became Kurdicized. AytWaygher232 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:KurdishFalconeer if not in the Origins section, where should these alternative narratives be mentioned? Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Excuse the drive-by comment, but KurdishFalconeer's responses appear to be LLM-generated. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Al Ameer son why do you think so? Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Call it a hunch Joe. The structuring, the detail, the bold lettering—clear signs of chatbot-generated response, even if edited to some degree. We should not be using LLMs for either editing or discussions. —Al Ameer (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and have collapsed KurdishFalconeer's responses per WP:LLMTALK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Finally, the Arab component of this article is being highlighted instead of being completely stonewalled or hidden. Several academics describe the Ayyubids as Arabized, or as having Arab origins before becoming Kurdified through intermarriage (and eventually becoming Arabized again), and some Ayyubids even made such claims in their own writings. This is not a myth as has been treated for a long time, it is a genuine aspect of history that deserves to be highlighted. Hopefully this will inspire more neutrality on other pages. Just wanted to put that out there. --AytWaygher232 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi there can somebody remove the misinformation that the Ayyubids were Arab in the “Origins” section. There is no evidence for it. Can someone revert back to its original Kurdish one ? ~2026-40199-44 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See also the "RFC on Origins of Ayyubid dynasty" section, above. Day Creature (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe the relevant content was also decided by the extensive discussion above, so I recommend you read that first. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Based of what I’ve read majority were against this theory being added yet it’s been added ? Since when Wikipedia became a place for propaganda Ehdhdhdh (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can somebody remove this absurd and baseless claim ? “In later periods, members of the Ayyubid dynasty sponsored genealogies showing that they were not Kurds, but rather descended from noble Arab lineages, including the Banu Umayya. While these genealogies are generally regarded as politically motivated constructions, the historian Vladimir Minorsky argued that they reflect an underlying historical reality. He suggested the Rawadiya Kurds to be descendants of the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī, who governed Tabriz in the early 9th century, and whose lineage became Kurdicized in Azerbaijan. These groups later emerged as a principal clan within the Hadhabani confederation, with one branch eventually settling in Dvin. According to this view, the later Arab genealogies of the Ayyubids preserve a genuine, though distant, memory of Arab origins”. this part has no basis but rather a theory pushed by Arab nationalists to discredit Kurds and their history. This part is located in the “Origins” part of the History section.

All major historians both modern and medieval, both Western and Islamic agree on the Ayyubid state being Kurdish. Such claim that they were of Arab origin is nothing but a theory and has no place being in the Origin part of the History section.

All historical sources such as

Morton, Nicholas (2020). The Crusader States and Their Neighbours: A Military History, 1099–1187. Oxford University Press. p. 163

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saladin

The biographer Ibn Khallikan wrote, "Historians agree in stating that [Saladin's] father and family belonged to Duwin. ... They were Kurds and belonged to the Rawādiya [sic], which is a branch of the great tribe al-Hadāniya": Minorsky (1953), p. 124

The medieval historian Ibn Athir relates a passage from another commander: "...both you and Saladin are Kurds and you will not let power pass into the hands of the Turks." Minorsky (1957):

Ibn Iyãs, Bada'i' al-Zuhür fi Waga'i' al-Duhur, ed. Muhammad Mustafa, vol. 1-A, p. 242: "When Şalah al-Din Yüsuf became the sole ruler of Egypt and the Levant, he disbanded the motley armies that were in Egypt which consisted of Slavs, Maşmuda Berbers, Armenians, the Shanatira of the Arabs, and a faction of Zanj slaves. He dissolved all these factions entirely and established in Egypt new military forces consisting specifically of Kurds. Their number reached twelve thousand heavy-mounted Kurdish warriors (shuğ an al- Akrad)."

All well established institutions including Britannica, Oxford and Cambridge agree that Saladin was a Kurd. Such theory claiming that he was of a distant Arab descent shouldn’t be included here as this pushes an a false narrative and falsify history. Saladin belonged to the Rawadiya family which served both the Rawwadid and the Shaddadid Kurdish states but was its own branch of the Hadhabni Kurds as stated by Minorsky itself

Can somebody fix and remove such absurd claim please ?

It is well known that the Ayyubid state were referred to by their contemporaries as In medieval Islamic sources, as the "Kurdish regime/dynasty" (Arabic: دولة الکردية, romanized: Dawlat al-Kurdiyya),

Here are more sources

Bajalan, Djene Rhys; Karimi, Sara Zandi (2017). Studies in Kurdish History: Empire, Ethnicity and Identity. Paris: Taylor & Francis

Cahen, Claude (1940). La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades et la principauté franque d'Antioche

Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi al-Fawaris Abd al-Aziz al-Ansari al-Khazraji, History of the Kurdish and Turkish Empire (1176–1200). Partial English translation from the Arabic with annotations by Fahmy Hafez. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1985.

If the claim they were of “Arab” origin true they wouldn’t be refer to as such but rather as a an Arab dynasty. Arab nationalists even claim Shakespeare was Arab but this is far from reality. Do we go and put this theory that Shakespeare was Arab in his Wikipedia ? And call him an Englishified Arab? No. Such claims have no bases and are theories the same goes for the Ayyubid the Arab origin theory should be removed as it’s rejected.

Can somebody fix it please as I have provided all sources proving Arab origins as false ~2026-40148-86 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: See the response to the previous edit request concerning this and the outcome of the recent RfC. Please do not repeatedly create edit requests asking for the same change. Day Creature (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have provided every source debunking such absurd claim. However it’s very clear someone here is trying to push an Arab propaganda agenda. Minorsky’s hypothesis has no basis as I have provided in the sources above. If needed I can provide more sources. Such false attributes must be removed if you truly believe in historical accuracy and not pushing an agenda. The recent rfc can’t provide any other sources other than some false theory of a Russian scholar. We reject Minorsky claim of a median descent for the Kurds but sometime accept this absurd claim of his ? If this isn’t pushing an agenda against the Kurds nothing else is. Someone must remove these recent edits ~2026-40262-08 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You may disagree with the outcome of the recent RfC, but it represents the current consensus. Changing that consensus will likely require another RfC. Casting aspersions by making evidence-free accusations of agenda pushing is frowned upon here. Day Creature (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Forgive my accusation. But such RfC consensus without a doubt have people with agendas behind it. Such claim weren’t made during the Ayyubid reign nor Saladin’s time infact all of Saladin’s contemporary’s have called him a Kurd and not Arab or a Kurdifed Arab. I would like to request for another unbiased RfC as such baseless claim is only a consensus amongst people against Kurds not a consensus of Islamic or Western Scholars of this era nor Saladin’s time. Even if it should exist it shouldn’t be here especially in the Saladin’s Wikipedia article as Saladin was very clearly aware of his Kurdishness. For such claim another Wikipedia article should be made but either an edit is a must as this has no basis Ehdhdhdh (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As an Amazigh, I personally believe the Ayyubids were a mixture of Arabs and Kurds who formed confederations. Even Ibn Wasil, the Ayyubid court historian, mentions that some Ayyubids said they were originally Arabs.

Al-Malik al-Amjad al-Ayyubi also wrote that his family had married Kurds but was not descended from them. So this was clearly a discussion even in medieval era.

My own view is that they were a mixture of Arabs and Kurds, possibly a confederation, but I am not a qualified academic. The Ayyubids were also highly Arabized and actively promoted the Arabic language. which has been downplayed on this article too AytWaygher232 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

“I personally believe” thus leaving it as just a speculation. Al-Malik al-Amjad al-Ayyubi Himself had a Kurdish name “BahramShah”. Secondly the Ayyubids didn’t promote Arabic language just like the majority of Kurds today they could speak Arabic.

According to Persian Historian (imad al-din Isfahani) "when I had a meeting with the Great Sultan Saladin I Asked about his mother tongue And he began to Speak an ajami( None Arab) language that even me nor his bodyguards Didn't understand it."

According to ibn athir:

In 1174 When nur al-din tried to invade the Ayyubids territory the Ayyubids household gathered Up and spoke Ajami among themselves Until Najm Al-din Ayyub (ancestor of all Ayyubid rulers) decided to go to Damascus and solve the problem diplomatically with The Zengids but he died on his way do to a horse fall."

Source :Al-Fatḥ al-Qussī fī al-Fatḥ al-Qudsī

The last Ayyubid remnant was in HesnKeyf under the name “Melikan/Hesnkeyf Emirate” to this day this city is Kurdish in Turkey and a part of Kurdistan.

vast majority of Ayyubid sultan had Kurdish/Iranic names. An Arabized dynasty would be the Almoravid and the Almohad were none of their leaders had Arabic names. The origin of the Rawadiya clan is the Kurdish town of Rawanduz in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Even if this Arab origin should be added. It should very clearly be pointed out it is just a THEORY. Ehdhdhdh (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a talk page. I’m just discussing and sharing my own view about the possible confederation aspect, not trying to force it into the article.

You’re also confusing two different people called al-Malik al-Amjad.

The al-Malik al-Amjad relevant to the genealogy discussion is al-Malik al-Amjad al-Hasan ibn al-Nasir Dawud, who wrote the genealogical work. He is not Bahramshah.

Several scholars have also linked the Arab origin of the Rawadids to the ancestry of the Ayyubids, including a number of Turkish scholars and some Arab scholars.

Also, several Ayyubid figures either rejected being identified as Kurdish or supported Arab genealogies. A lot of the Arab influence around the dynasty has been left out of the article or resisted for a long time, even though academics do discuss it. So I’m glad an RfC finally happened.

At the same time, many modern discussions give a lot of weight to Ibn al-Athir, even though he never personally met Saladin and was not part of the Ayyubid court. AytWaygher232 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Again the Rawwadid were Kurdified Arab. They were as Arab as the Sayyuds in Pakistan. If one to ask any Rawwadid descendants in Rawanduz today they all say they are Kurds and not “Arab”. Also only Arab and Turkish “scholars” discuss this purported Arab origin thus proving is not but a propaganda to discredit the Kurds. The last capital of the Ayyubid dynasty was in Kurdistan, all the major Ayyubid generals were Kurds, and all of Saladin’s contemporary agree they were of Kurdish origin. Some Ayyubid prince that comes a few decades after the downfall of the Ayyubid and claim they are of “arab origin” isn’t a fact but a fiction with no basis. If such factition origin are to be added, they should only be added in those guys article not Saladin’s or the Ayyubid who were known as “Dawla Al Akrad” and not “Dawla Al Arab”. Also the full name of Al Malik Al Amjad is Al-Malik al-Amjad Bahramshah, thus having a Kurdish name. Is only Arab propagandist who leave it out and to conclude the Kurdish Rawadiya tribe which Saladin descended from isn’t the same as the Rawwadid who became Kurdish and left their Arab origins. And unlike the sources of the purported “Arab origin” of the Ayyubid, Ibn Athir was a contemporary thus proving a Kurdish origin. I have provided all the sources but somehow those who claim to be unbiased are against the changes and their act like they aren’t pushing a propaganda Ehdhdhdh (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can somebody remove this absurd and baseless claim ? “In later periods, members of the Ayyubid dynasty sponsored genealogies showing that they were not Kurds, but rather descended from noble Arab lineages, including the Banu Umayya. While these genealogies are generally regarded as politically motivated constructions, the historian Vladimir Minorsky argued that they reflect an underlying historical reality. He suggested the Rawadiya Kurds to be descendants of the Arab general Rawwād al-Azdī, who governed Tabriz in the early 9th century, and whose lineage became Kurdicized in Azerbaijan. These groups later emerged as a principal clan within the Hadhabani confederation, with one branch eventually settling in Dvin. According to this view, the later Arab genealogies of the Ayyubids preserve a genuine, though distant, memory of Arab origins”. this part has no basis but rather a theory pushed by Arab nationalists to discredit Kurds and their history. This part is located in the “Origins” part of the History section.

All major historians both modern and medieval, both Western and Islamic agree on the Ayyubid state being Kurdish. Such claim that they were of Arab origin is nothing but a theory and has no place being in the Origin part of the History section.

All historical sources such as

Morton, Nicholas (2020). The Crusader States and Their Neighbours: A Military History, 1099–1187. Oxford University Press. p. 163

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saladin

The biographer Ibn Khallikan wrote, "Historians agree in stating that [Saladin's] father and family belonged to Duwin. ... They were Kurds and belonged to the Rawādiya [sic], which is a branch of the great tribe al-Hadāniya": Minorsky (1953), p. 124

The medieval historian Ibn Athir relates a passage from another commander: "...both you and Saladin are Kurds and you will not let power pass into the hands of the Turks." Minorsky (1957):

Ibn Iyãs, Bada'i' al-Zuhür fi Waga'i' al-Duhur, ed. Muhammad Mustafa, vol. 1-A, p. 242: "When Şalah al-Din Yüsuf became the sole ruler of Egypt and the Levant, he disbanded the motley armies that were in Egypt which consisted of Slavs, Maşmuda Berbers, Armenians, the Shanatira of the Arabs, and a faction of Zanj slaves. He dissolved all these factions entirely and established in Egypt new military forces consisting specifically of Kurds. Their number reached twelve thousand heavy-mounted Kurdish warriors (shuğ an al- Akrad)."

All well established institutions including Britannica, Oxford and Cambridge agree that Saladin was a Kurd. Such theory claiming that he was of a distant Arab descent shouldn’t be included here as this pushes an a false narrative and falsify history. Saladin belonged to the Rawadiya family which served both the Rawwadid and the Shaddadid Kurdish states but was its own branch of the Hadhabni Kurds as stated by Minorsky itself

Can somebody fix and remove such absurd claim please ?

It is well known that the Ayyubid state were referred to by their contemporaries as In medieval Islamic sources, as the "Kurdish regime/dynasty" (Arabic: دولة الکردية, romanized: Dawlat al-Kurdiyya),

Here are more sources

Bajalan, Djene Rhys; Karimi, Sara Zandi (2017). Studies in Kurdish History: Empire, Ethnicity and Identity. Paris: Taylor & Francis

Cahen, Claude (1940). La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades et la principauté franque d'Antioche

Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi al-Fawaris Abd al-Aziz al-Ansari al-Khazraji, History of the Kurdish and Turkish Empire (1176–1200). Partial English translation from the Arabic with annotations by Fahmy Hafez. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne, 1985.

If the claim they were of “Arab” origin true they wouldn’t be refer to as such but rather as a an Arab dynasty. Arab nationalists even claim Shakespeare was Arab but this is far from reality. Do we go and put this theory that Shakespeare was Arab in his Wikipedia ? And call him an Englishified Arab? No. Such claims have no bases and are theories the same goes for the Ayyubid the Arab origin theory should be removed as it’s rejected.

Can somebody fix it please as I have provided all sources proving Arab origins as false Ehdhdhdh (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate edit request, see above. Day Creature (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This article needs to be fixed ~2026-40262-08 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~2026-41223-23 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) the rawwadids were not Arab they fabricated their lineage to get legitimacy so they could rule azerbaijan

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I have an objection to the recent rewrite of the “Origins” section because I believe it misrepresents several of the cited sources.

First, the current wording presents Minorsky’s hypothesis regarding the Rawâdiyya and the Rawwadid dynasty as though it were an established historical fact. However, Boris James (Saladin et les Kurdes, pp. 48–49) explicitly states that “plusieurs thèses s’opposent” regarding the origin of the term Rawâdiyya and its relationship to the Rawwadid dynasty. He attributes the view that the Hadhbāni Kurdish auxiliaries adopted the name of the Rawwadids to Minorsky, they adopted the name of rawwadid dynasty they served, not because they were descendant of the rawwadids. but also discusses alternative explanations (including those of Vanly) without endorsing a single conclusion.

Second, the current text generalizes the Ayyubids’ Arab genealogy. Encyclopaedia Iranica states that “some of them sponsored genealogies” claiming Arab or Umayyad descent, not that the dynasty as a whole claimed such ancestry. The qualification “some of them” should not be omitted.

Third, the Encyclopaedia Iranica article on the Rawwadids also distinguishes between the Arab Rawwād family and the Kurdish Rawād tribe.

For these reasons, the older version must be restored, a more neutral summary that reflects the sources more accurately. For example:

The Ayyubids were of Kurdish noble origin. Their progenitor, Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb ibn Shādhī, belonged to the Rawâdiyya, a branch of the Hadhbāniyya Kurdish tribal confederation. The family originated near Dvin in northern Armenia, where the Rawâdiyya formed part of the political and military elite. Boris James notes that several competing theories exist regarding the origin of the name, while Minorsky proposed that Hadhbāni Kurdish auxiliaries adopted the name of the Kurdicized Rawwadid rulers whom they served. Other scholars suggest the term preserve the older Iranian name Rawând, attested in pre-Islamic Iranian and Armenian toponymy and onomastics. James further suggests that both terms may have circulated simultaneously, creating a confusion that was “symbolically beneficial” for both the dynasty and its Kurdish tribal followers.

I believe this wording better reflects the cited sources and complies with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE by distinguishing established facts.

@Robert McClenon

@ Al Ameer

@R Prazeres KurdishFalconeer (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@KurdishFalconeer: My quick two cents is that I'm not comfortable with the revised language added after the RfC (and some other much older related changes as well). It presents a skewed view not in line with the consensus of the reliable sources, the vast majority of which do not bother to mention any potential and very distant Arab origin for the family. I have not been able to turn my attention to this partly because I'm focused elswhere, but hope to do so in the next few days. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

the current wording misuse Minorsky and ignores recent works of Boris James on such topic.

Minorsky does not state that the Rawâdiyya were genealogical descendants of the Rawwadid dynasty. Rather, he proposes a possible historical connection between the two. Following Ibn Khallikān, he first identifies Saladin’s family as belonging to the Rawâdī, a branch (baṭn) of the Hadhbānī tribe, and notes that Ibn Khallikān could trace the family’s genealogy no further than Shādhī. He then explains that Kurdish tribal names were sometimes replaced by the names of ruling outsiders:

“There is always some uncertainty about the names of the Kurdish tribes as the original tribal name is often replaced by the names of the outsiders who succeeded in taking the leadership of the tribe.”

Minorsky therefore suggests that some sections of the Hadhbānī came under the service of the originally Arab Rawwadid family. However, he repeatedly frames this as speculation, using phrases such as: “In my opinion…” “the clan to which Saladin’s family belonged was somehow connected with the Rawwadi family…” “It is possible…” “there may have been successive waves…” “is likely to be explained by some particular connection…”

At no point does Minorsky state that the Rawâdiyya were blood descendants of the Rawwadid dynasty.

Boris James (2006, pp. 48–49) likewise does not present this as an established fact. He explicitly begins the discussion by stating:

“Plusieurs thèses s’opposent quant à l’origine du terme Rawâdî et quant au lien qui existe entre le sous-groupe hadhbânî du même nom et la dynastie.”

(“Several competing theses exist regarding the origin of the term Rawâdî and the relationship between the Hadhbānī subgroup of that name and the dynasty.”)

James then explains that the most generally adopted interpretation is Minorsky’s, explicitly attributing it to him:

“D’après V. Minorsky, cette famille devenue kurde avait à son service des Kurdes hadhbâniyya qui prirent le nom de leurs maîtres : Rawâdiyya.”

In other words, James summarizes Minorsky as proposing that Hadhbānī Kurdish retainers adopted the name Rawâdiyya from the Kurdicized Rawwadid rulers whom they served. This is an explanation for the origin of the name, not a documented genealogical descent.

James immediately continues by discussing alternative interpretations (including Vanly’s), before offering his own tentative suggestion that both Rawwâd and Rawând may have circulated simultaneously, creating a confusion that was “symbolically beneficial” for both the rulers and their tribal troops.

For these reasons, the current wording doesn’t accurately reflects either source. Neither Minorsky nor Boris James states that the Rawâdiyya were descendants of the Rawwadid dynasty. Both present the relationship as a matter of scholarly interpretation, and they were not genealogically connected. and James explicitly emphasizes that several competing theories exist. If Minorsky’s hypothesis is included, it should be clearly attributed to him and presented as one interpretation among several, rather than as an established genealogical fact. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

My quick read of the RfC above is about whether or not that information should be included, not whether other persectives should be sidelined. I haven't read into the issue (I was traveling abroad while the RfC was happening), but from a quick read of the article section now, the current text might devote a little too much space to Minorsky, but I think the main fix is to simply add the perspectives and arguments of other (especially more recent) scholars. A plurality of perspectives is usually what we do on Wikipedia to address debates with WP:NPOV implications. R Prazeres (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I have several concerns with the recent rewrite of the Origin section because it clearly misuses the sources.

The section gives undue prominence to speculative reconstructions over the well-established historical account of the family’s origins.

The historical consensus is straightforward: the Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin, belonging to the Rawâdiyya, a branch of the Hadhbâniyya Kurdish tribe, and originated near Dvin. This is the account given by medieval authors such as Ibn Khallikān and is reflected in modern scholarship, including Boris James.

2. Boris James does not present Minorsky’s reconstruction as established fact, along with Minorsky never claimed that Rawadiyya Kurdish clan had kin relationship with the Rawwadid dynasty.

Boris James (2006, pp. 48–49) explicitly begins his discussion by stating:

“Plusieurs thèses s’opposent quant à l’origine du terme Rawâdî et quant au lien qui existe entre le sous-groupe hadhbânî du même nom et la dynastie.”

In other words, several competing theories exist regarding both the origin of the name Rawâdî and its relationship to the Rawwadid dynasty.

James then presents what he calls the most generally adopted interpretation, explicitly attributing it to Vladimir Minorsky:

“D’après V. Minorsky…”

According to James’s summary of Minorsky, the Kurdicized Rawwadid family had Hadhbâni Kurdish retainers in its service, who became known as the Rawâdiyya after their masters.

Importantly, this is not the same as saying that the Rawâdiyya were genealogical descendants of the Rawwadid dynasty. James attributes that explanation to Minorsky as one scholarly interpretation within a broader debate. He immediately continues by discussing alternative explanations (including Vanly’s interpretation) before offering his own tentative suggestion that both Rawwâd and Rawând may have circulated simultaneously.

Presenting Minorsky’s reconstruction (and misusing his works as claiming the Rawadiyya were decsandant of Rawwadid dynasty that ruled Azerbaijan) as an established historical fact therefore misrepresents both James and Minorsky.

Encyclopaedia Iranica is also more qualified than the current wording suggests.

The Rawwadids entry distinguishes between the Arab Rawwād family and the Kurdish Rawād tribe and discusses the uncertainty surrounding their relationship rather than treating them as identical.

Likewise, the Ayyubids entry does not state that the dynasty collectively claimed Umayyad descent. It states that some Ayyubids sponsored genealogies claiming Arab or Umayyad ancestry after the dynasty had become established. Omitting the qualification “some” changes the meaning of the source.

The Origins section should summarize established origins, not foreground speculative historiography.

The detailed discussion of competing theories regarding the Rawwadids, the etymology of Rawâdî, and later political genealogies is valuable historical material, but it must not be included in the Origins section.

The Origins section should primarily explain the family’s well-attested Kurdish tribal background.

For these reasons, I believe the section should be revised to reflect the cited sources more faithfully and in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I propose revising the Origins section to distinguish between what the cited sources establish about the Ayyubids’ origins and the competing interpretations concerning the origin of the name Rawādiyya.

The Ayyubids were of Kurdish tribal origin. Their progenitor, Najm ad-Dīn Ayyūb ibn Shādī, belonged to the Rawâdiyya (Rawadiya), a branch of the Hadhbāniyya (Hadhbani) Kurdish tribe. The family originated near Dvin in northern Armenia. The Rawâdiyya branch of the Hadhbāniyya served as auxiliaries to the Rawwadid dynasty and took the name of their masters, becoming known as the Rawâdiyya.^[1][2]

Several theses oppose each other regarding the exact origin of the term Rawâdiyya. It may be the Arabic eponym of the dynasty that was later “Iranianized” in a Kurdish environment, or it may derive from the older Iranian term Rawând, attested in Iranian and Armenian toponymy and onomastics. Boris James notes the competing explanations and suggests that both terms may have circulated at the time, creating a confusion that was “symbolically beneficial” for the rulers and their tribal troops.^[1]

The Rawâdiyya were part of the political-military elite of the region.^[1]

The proposed wording therefore does not remove the Rawwadid connection. Rather, it presents the connection in the form in which these sources actually discuss it, while avoiding turning a disputed interpretation into an established genealogical fact.

I believe this better reflects WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V, while retaining the relevant scholarly interpretation rather than excluding it. KurdishFalconeer (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)