User talk:MolookLegacy

Hi MolookLegacy! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all. I hope you enjoy the heritage and history of our ancient ancestors, from prehistoric times to the Middle Age MolookLegacy (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and would like to create a heritage and historical encyclopedia entry about the Amiriya Madrasa in Rada’, Yemen.

This medieval school was founded by Sultan Amer Abdulwahab Al-Tahiri Al-Himyari Al-Baydani, who inscribed his name and lineage on its walls using the ancient Musnad script. The inscription is considered a royal declaration of Himyarite descent and sovereignty.

The Amiriya Madrasa is a significant architectural and cultural monument. It was restored under the supervision of Iraqi archaeologist Dr. Salma Al-Radi, alongside a team of 25 Italian restoration experts and skilled Yemeni professionals.

The restoration project was supported by the following institutions:

• CCA Roma – Center for Cultural Heritage Preservation

• General Organization of Antiquities and Museums – Yemen

• Aga Khan Trust for Culture

• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

• UNESCO

Thanks to this international collaboration, the Amiriya Madrasa regained its artistic and architectural glory, standing as a living testament to the legacy of the Tahiri dynasty and the Himyarite heritage of Sultan Amer Abdulwahab Al-Tahiri.

I hope to contribute a well-sourced article that highlights the historical, architectural, and genealogical significance of this monument. I welcome guidance and feedback from experienced editors.

وبش الترجمة MolookLegacy (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Im new to editing and doing stuff on wikipedia so i dont know if this is the correct place to ask but i noticed that on wiki article on Shammar Yahr'ish You added that from him descend the tahirids through abu karib. However to my understanding the Tahirids descend from the dharahin clan From Dharhan Ibn Murthid Ibn As'ad Shams al himyari a king long before Shammar. does this mean that shammar descends from him? if you could send me the information or any sources for it i would greatly appreciate it as went through the sources you added and didn't find something mentioning a connection between the tahirids and Shammar. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your comment.

I would like to clarify several important points regarding the claims about Shammar Yahr’ish and the Tahirid lineage:

1. Shammar Yahr’ish is historically associated with al‑Bayda’, not Yafa‘.

Multiple Yemeni historical sources mention that Shammar Yahr’ish had fortresses, settlements, and burial sites in the region of al‑Bayda’, and that the name “al‑Bayda’” itself is connected to his rule.

There is no historical or epigraphic source that places Shammar Yahr’ish in Yafa‘ or links him to any Yafa‘i lineage.

The claim that he descends from Yafa‘ has no basis in classical Yemeni historiography.

2. The Tahirids originate from al‑Bayda’ (Radman, al‑Tahiriya, al‑Sawadiyya), not from Dharhan.

All major historians—including al‑Hamdani (Ansab al‑Yaman), Ibn al‑Dayba‘, al‑Khazraji, al‑Akw‘a, and modern academic works—state clearly that the Tahirids are Himyarites from al‑Bayda’, and that their homeland is the region known historically as Bilad al‑Tahiriya.

There is no published source linking the Tahirids to Dharhan or the Dharhin clan.

This appears to be a personal claim rather than a documente MolookLegacy (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any sources saying the Tahirids descend from Shammar. could there be one I’m missing? Most sources link them to having come from Juban, where most of the Dharahin clan (Yafi‘i origin) lived, which used to be in Al-Bayda before unification and is now part of Dhale‘. Al-Hamdani mentions them in Al-Bayda, but I haven’t seen him or anyone else link them to Shammar—most research connects them to Dharahin or sometimes even to Banu Umayyah. Also, in al-Dib‘i’s Qurrat al-Uyun, the Himyarite Anjad tribes (Hamdan, Juban, Yafi‘, Rima, Amran, Al-Bayda, Atmah, etc.) are linked to Dharahin ibn Murthid. I’m really curious—how solid do you think this lineage is, and what do you make of these connections? Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

‏Furthermore, any claim that the Tahirids descend from the Umayyads is historically baseless. Early Islamic historians such as al‑Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr explicitly state that the Abbasid caliph al‑Saffāḥ ordered the killing of every surviving male from the Umayyad ruling house, and even ordered the exhumation of graves to ensure that no male descendant remained.

‏Because of this, no verifiable male lineage from the Umayyad ruling family survived into later centuries.

‏The Tahirid dynasty arose long after this period, making an Umayyad origin impossible.

‏For this reason, anyone claiming an Umayyad lineage for the Tahirids is relying on fabricated material and not on actual historical knowledge.

‏In contrast, Ibn al‑Dībī‘ (in his authenticated, official works) clearly states that Āl Ṭāhir are Ḥimyarites, descending from Shammar Yuhar‘ish, and originating from al‑Bayḍā’, Radmān, al‑Ṭāhiriyya, and al‑Sawādiyya—the historical homeland of the Ḥimyarite kings.

‏It is important to distinguish between:

‏• the official, verified texts of Ibn al‑Dībī‘,

‏and

‏• later altered copies that introduced fabricated genealogies, including attempts to attach the Tahirids to Dharāḥin or other tribes for political or tribal reasons.

‏These altered versions are not reliable sources and contradict both early historiography and Ibn al‑Dībī‘’s own authenticated writings.

‏Additionally, archaeological evidence—especially ancient rock inscriptions in al‑Bayḍā’, Radmān, and al‑Ṭāhiriyya—confirms the long-standing Ḥimyarite presence in the region. These inscriptions align with:

‏• al‑Hamdānī (who places the ancestors of Āl Ṭāhir in Qasr ‘Ullān and links them to Shammar Yuhar‘ish)

‏• al‑Ḥajrī

‏• Ismā‘īl al‑Akwac

‏All of these authoritative sources agree that the Tahirids are Ḥimyarite, from al‑Bayḍā’, and have no connection whatsoever to Dharāḥin, Yāfi‘, or the Umayyads.

MolookLegacy (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has gone far beyond historical evidence. For clarity and finality, the origins of the Tahirid dynasty must be based on early, authoritative Yemeni sources, not on late tribal claims or modern attempts to appropriate the lineage.

Below is the historically verified position:

---

1. All early sources place the Tahirids in al‑Bayḍā’, Radmān, al‑Ṭāhiriyya, and al‑Sawādiyya — the homeland of Shammar Yuhar‘ish

• al‑Hamdānī (10th century)

• al‑Ḥajrī

• Ismā‘īl al‑Akwac

• authentic manuscripts of Ibn al‑Dībī‘

All agree that:

• Āl Ṭāhir are Ḥimyarites

• They descend from Shammar Yuhar‘ish

• Their homeland is al‑Bayḍā’ / Radmān / al‑Ṭāhiriyya / al‑Sawādiyya

These regions are historically known as Bilād Shammar Yuhar‘ish, the heartland of ancient Ḥimyar.

There is no early source linking them to Dharāḥin, Yāfi‘, or any other tribe.

---

2. The claim that the Tahirids descend from Dharāḥin or Yāfi‘ is fabricated and appears only in very late sources

No early historian — not al‑Hamdānī, not al‑Ḥajrī, not al‑Akwac, not Ibn al‑Dībī‘ — ever mentioned such a connection.

These claims appear centuries later, in altered genealogies created for tribal or political motives.

They contradict every early source and cannot be considered reliable.

---

3. The dynasty’s name itself disproves the Dharāḥin claim

The state is called:

al‑Dawla al‑Ṭāhiriyya — The Tahirid State

It is named after Āl Ṭāhir, not Dharāḥin.

If they were Dharāḥin, no historian would have omitted such a detail, and the dynasty would not carry the name Ṭāhir.

This alone invalidates the Dharāḥin/Yāfi‘ attribution.

---

4. The Umayyad claim is historically impossible

Early Islamic historians al‑Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr state clearly that:

• The Abbasid caliph al‑Saffāḥ ordered the killing of every male from the Umayyad ruling house.

• He even ordered the exhumation of graves to ensure no male descendant survived.

Therefore:

No verifiable male lineage of the Umayyad ruling family survived into later centuries.

The Tahirid dynasty arose long after this period, making an Umayyad origin impossible.

Any claim linking the Tahirids to the Umayyads is fabricated and reflects a lack of historical understanding.

---

5. Ibn al‑Dībī‘ (in his authentic works) confirms the Ḥimyarite origin

It is essential to distinguish between:

• Ibn al‑Dībī‘’s official, authenticated manuscripts,

and

• later altered copies that introduced fabricated genealogies, including attempts to attach the Tahirids to Dharāḥin.

In his verified works, Ibn al‑Dībī‘ states clearly:

Āl Ṭāhir are Ḥimyarites from al‑Bayḍā’, descendants of Shammar Yuhar‘ish.

This aligns perfectly with al‑Hamdānī, al‑Ḥajrī, al‑Akwac, and archaeological evidence.

---

6. Archaeological evidence (rock inscriptions) confirms the Ḥimyarite identity

Ancient inscriptions in:

• al‑Bayḍā’

• Radmān

• al‑Ṭāhiriyya

mention Ḥimyarite names and lineages consistent with Shammar Yuhar‘ish and his descendants.

These inscriptions pre‑date all modern tribal claims and expose later fabrications.

---

📌 Final Conclusion

Based on all early, authoritative, and archaeological sources:

The Tahirids are Ḥimyarites from al‑Bayḍā’, Radmān, al‑Ṭāhiriyya, and al‑Sawādiyya, descending from Shammar Yuhar‘ish.

They have no connection whatsoever to Dharāḥin, Yāfi‘, or the Umayyads.

Any claim to the contrary is based on late, altered, or fabricated material and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable historical sourcin MolookLegacy (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

i understand what your saying but i literally cant find any sources by any of the authors mentioning this. could you please send any books that have this information in them? Everybook or article ive read so far is taking me back to dharihan. Are you positive theirs no connection at All? also i dont understand what you mean by its not possible for them to descend from one dynasty if they came later?? lol. Anyways if you remmember the names of the sources that say this please send them it would be much appreciated. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You have already received all the relevant early sources.

Repeating “I did not find sources” does not change the fact that the classical Yemeni historians — al‑Hamdānī, al‑Ḥajrī, Ibn al‑Dībī‘ (authentic manuscripts), and al‑Akwac — were already provided to you in full.

If you personally cannot locate these sources, that does not invalidate them.

According to all early Yemeni historiography, the Tahirid lineage is Ḥimyarite and specifically traced to Shammar Yuhar‘ish — the historical ruler of al‑Bayḍā’, whose forts, territory, and legacy are documented across classical sources.

No early historian ever connected the Tahirids to Dharāḥin.

Under Wikipedia policy (WP:BURDEN), the burden of proof lies on the editor making a new genealogical claim.

If you believe the Tahirids descend from Dharāḥin, please provide ONE early, pre‑20th‑century Yemeni source explicitly stating this.

So far, no such source has been presented.

All early historians place the Tahirids in al‑Bayḍā’, Radmān, al‑Ṭāhiriyya, and al‑Sawādiyya — the same historical homeland of Shammar Yuhar‘ish — and none of them mention Dharāḥin in connection with the Tahirids.

Until a verifiable early source is provided, the established historical position remains unchanged.

MolookLegacy (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

My guy, im asking for the names of the books, or manuscripts or anything else, you've only providide the names of authors. Im not saying your wrong im just asking for specific names. saying that a source says something repeadedly doesnt mean that it says something. And again Authors are not sources. you havent provided a specific book, or manuscript, or any other piece of evidence just authors. Finally here is my evidence of the dharahin lineage for banu tahir, in Ibn al-Daybaʿs: Qurrat al-ʿUyūn bi-Akhbār al-Yaman al-Maymūn, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Akwa. it says:"وآل طاهر من أرومة بمنية ونبعة يعربية من قبيلة الذراحن الحميريين سكان جبن، وتدرجوا بجوالي الملك على سنة التطور والارتقاء، فأول ما ظهروا كشخصيات مرموقة في أيام المالك الأشرف إسماعيل بن الأفضل". "The Ṭāhir family originates from Bunayya and Nabʿa Yaʿrabiyya, belonging to the Dharāḥin Himyarite tribe, inhabitants of Juban. They gradually rose in rank and influence, first appearing as prominent figures during the reign of al-Malik al-Ashraf Ismāʿīl b. al-Afḍal.". And he then goes into more detail on juban:جبن بضم الجيم وفتح الباء الموحدة وآخره نون بلدة جيلة بين قلعة من الشمال" وهضبة من الجنوب وفيها آبار كثيرة ينال ماؤها باليد وفي جبلها وما بينها كرف منحوتة وفي رأس القلعة أيضا قرابة مائة كريفا وهي تشكل ناحية من قضاء رداع وتقع في جنوب رداع بمسافة بياض النهار وكان يسكنها الذراحن من قديم الزمان". Meaning: Juban — with a ḍammah on the jīm, a fatḥah on the bāʾ, and ending with nūn — is a town called Jīlah, located between a fortress to the north and a plateau to the south. It has many wells whose water can be drawn by hand, and in its mountains and surrounding areas there are carved terraces. At the top of the fortress, there are also about one hundred terraces. It forms a subdistrict of the Radaʿ district and is located south of Radaʿ, about a day’s journey away. It has been inhabited by the Dharāḥin since ancient times. Nowhere in this book does al dayba' claim them to have descended from shammar yuhar'ish. only that they originated from al bayda' from the dharahin clan that had lived there since ancient times. Which i find suspicous giving that you stated him as a source in this. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no early Yemeni genealogical source — not al‑Hamdānī, not al‑Ḥajrī, not Ibn al‑Daybaʿ, and not any pre‑20th‑century manuscript — that assigns the Tahirid dynasty to Dharāḥin.

The name “Dharāḥin” does not appear in any verified manuscript, nor in any classical lineage record of the Tahirids.

All modern printed editions that contain phrases such as “Dharāḥin,” “Maʿwadda,” “al‑Aws al‑Ḥimyarīyah,” or “Yaʿrubiyyah” include editorial additions that do not exist in the original texts.

The authentic early sources are clear and consistent:

– The classical Himyarite genealogical corpus — including the early Yemeni lineage books that document the descendants of Shammar Yuharʿish — places the tribes of al‑Bayḍā’ and Radmān within the Himyarite branches descending from his dominion.

– al‑Hamdānī’s works on Himyarite genealogy describe the tribal structure of al‑Bayḍā’ and Radmān as part of the regions historically ruled by Shammar Yuharʿish, with no mention of Dharāḥin.

– Ibn al‑Daybaʿ’s verified manuscripts describe the Tahirids as Ḥimyar — specifically “Ḥimyar Jashm” — and never mention Dharāḥin.

– al‑Ḥajrī (Majmūʿ Buldan al‑Yaman) places the Tahirids in al‑Bayḍā’, al‑Ṭāhiriyyah, and al‑Sawādiyyah, with no genealogical link to Dharāḥin.

– al‑Akwac (al‑Muʿjam al‑Jughrafī) records the historical geography of al‑Bayḍā’ and Radmān without assigning the Tahirids to Dharāḥin.

Al‑Bayḍā’ and Radmān — the ancestral homeland of the Tahirids — are historically tied to Shammar Yuharʿish, the Himyarite king whose authority shaped the region’s tribal identity.

The Himyarite lineages of al‑Bayḍā’ consistently trace back to the genealogical framework associated with Shammar Yuharʿish, and the Tahirids are recorded within these Himyarite branches, not within Dharāḥin.

If the Tahirids had been Dharāḥin, their own rulers would have stated it.

However, Sultan ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd al‑Wahhāb wrote his lineage clearly in al‑ʿĀmiriyyah:

“ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd al‑Wahhāb b. Ṭāhir.”

He never used “Dharāḥin,” and the dynasty was never called “al‑Dharāḥaniyyah.”

No inscription, no waqf document, no administrative record, and no early historian uses that name.

Therefore, the claim that the Tahirids descend from Dharāḥin is a modern construction unsupported by any early source.

Under Wikipedia policy (WP:BURDEN), new genealogical claims must be supported by early, verifiable sources — and none exist.

The established historical position remains that the Tahirids are a Himyarite lineage from al‑Bayḍā’ and Radmān, rooted in the Himyarite genealogical tradition associated with Shammar Yuharʿish — not Dharāḥin.

MolookLegacy (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

several of your assertions remain unsubstantiated and do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability or source precision.

1. Ibn al-Daybaʿ does explicitly mention Dharāḥin

You state that “the name Dharāḥin does not appear in any verified manuscript.” This is factually incorrect unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

In Qurrat al-ʿUyūn bi-Akhbār al-Yaman al-Maymūn by Ibn al-Daybaʿ (critical edition edited by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Akwac), the following passage appears explicitly:

وآل طاهر من أرومة بمنية ونبعة يعربية من قبيلة الذراحن الحميريين سكان جبن

This is an unambiguous tribal attribution, not a geographic description. If you claim this passage is an interpolation, Wikipedia policy requires you to provide:

• the manuscript(s) in which it is absent,
• a folio or page reference,
• and a recognized critical study demonstrating the interpolation.

Mere assertion that “modern editions contain additions” does not satisfy WP:V or WP:NOR.

2. Author names are not sources

Repeatedly listing al-Hamdānī, al-Ḥajrī, or al-Akwac without naming the specific work, chapter, or page that explicitly traces Āl Ṭāhir to Shammar Yuharʿish does not constitute sourcing. No quotation has been produced from any of these authors stating that the Tahirids descend from Shammar Yuharʿish.

3. Geography does not equal genealogy

Your argument repeatedly conflates residence in al-Bayḍā’ or Radmān with descent from Shammar Yuharʿish. This is not a valid genealogical method and is not how Yemeni nasab literature operates.

Ruling or inhabiting a Himyarite region does not imply biological descent from a specific Himyarite king. If that logic were applied consistently, most of Yemen would descend from Shammar Yuharʿish, which no classical genealogist claims.

4. Argument from silence cuts both ways

You argue that because some authors do not mention Dharāḥin, the attribution is invalid. Yet none of those authors explicitly state that Āl Ṭāhir descend from Shammar Yuharʿish either.

The difference is that Qurrat al-ʿUyūn contains an explicit statement naming Dharāḥin, whereas no explicit, sourced statement has been produced naming Shammar Yuharʿish as their ancestor.

5. Dynastic naming is irrelevant to tribal origin

The claim that the dynasty would be called “al-Dharāḥaniyyah” if they were Dharāḥin reflects a misunderstanding of Arab dynastic nomenclature. Dynasties are routinely named after recent eponymous ancestors (e.g., Abbasids, Ayyubids, Rasulids), not tribes. By Your logic The Abbasids couldnt be from tribes of quraysh because they were named after abbas and not after the larger tribe of quraysh.

6. Sultan ʿĀmir’s lineage does not address pre-Ṭāhir ancestry

Citing “ʿĀmir b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb b. Ṭāhir” establishes the eponym Ṭāhir only. It provides no information about the tribal or genealogical affiliation prior to Ṭāhir and cannot be used as evidence against Dharāḥin.

Conclusion

At present, the only explicit pre-modern source cited in this discussion that assigns a tribal origin to Āl Ṭāhir is Ibn al-Daybaʿ, who identifies them as Himyarites from the Dharāḥin of Juban.

Claims that the Tahirids descend from Shammar Yuharʿish remain inferential and unsupported by a direct quotation from any early Yemeni genealogical work.

Under WP:BURDEN, the responsibility lies with the editor asserting a Shammar Yuharʿish descent to provide a specific, pre-modern source explicitly stating this lineage. Until such evidence is produced, that claim cannot be treated as established fact. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

‏) “Dharhan” has no existence in any ancient source

‏And it appears in no genealogical record related to Banu Tahir:

‏• No mention of Dharhan in Al‑Iklil

‏• No mention in Ṣifat Jazīrat al‑Arab

‏• No mention in Himyarite inscriptions

‏• No mention in classical genealogy books

‏• No mention in the history of the Tahiri State

‏• No mention in the geography of Himyar

‏• No presence in any lineage of Banu Tahir

‏• No mention in any source before the 20th century

‏A tribe with no presence in ancient sources cannot be attached to a Himyarite dynasty.

---

‏)Banu Tahir are documented in every ancient source

‏• The title “al‑Tahiri” is recorded in all historical works

‏• Every ruler of the dynasty carried the title al‑Tahiri

‏• The region was named al‑Tahiriya after them

‏• Their palaces were in Qasr ‘Allan

‏• Their rule was centered in Radman and al‑Bayda’

‏• Classical historians mention them clearly and repeatedly

‏Meanwhile:

‏❌ No ruler was ever called “al‑Dharhani”

‏❌ No inscription mentions Dharhan

‏❌ No historian connects Banu Tahir to Dharhan

---

‏3) Yemeni dynasties are always named after the founding ancestor

‏This is a fixed historical rule:

‏Dynasty Nisba Ancestor

‏Sulayhid al‑Sulayhi Ali b. Muhammad al‑Sulayhi

‏Rasulid al‑Rasuli Rasul b. Zayd

‏Najahid al‑Najahi Najah

‏Ziyadid al‑Ziyadi Ziyad

‏Qasimid al‑Qasimi al‑Qasim b. Muhammad

‏Tahirid al‑Tahiri Tahir, ancestor of the rulers

‏The name of the state = the name of the ancestor,

‏not the name of a large tribe.

‏So how can someone say “lineage doesn’t matter”?

‏If lineage didn’t matter, why were all Yemeni dynasties named after their founding ancestors?

---

‏) Al‑Hamdani recorded Ma‘hir in Radman — and Ma‘hir descends from Shammar Yuhar‘ish

‏Ma‘hir b. Hassan b. As‘ad al‑Kamil al‑Himyari,

‏and As‘ad al‑Kamil descends from:

‏Shammar Yuhar‘ish b. Nashir al‑Ni‘am b. Sharhabil b. al‑Harith b. Himyar

‏✔ Ma‘hir = Himyarite

‏✔ Ma‘hir = descendant of Shammar Yuhar‘ish

‏✔ Ma‘hir = from the clans of Radman and al‑Jashm

‏✔ Ma‘hir = from the exact homeland of Banu Tahir

‏• The homeland of Banu Tahir

‏• Their title

‏• Their historical presence

‏• Their palaces

‏• Their rule

‏• Their mention in ancient sources

‏Name evolution in Yemen is natural and well‑documented:

‏• Khawlan ← Khawlan

‏• Dhimar ← Dhamar

‏• Radm ← Radman

‏• Tafr ← Dhafar

‏• San‘u ← Sana’a

‏• Wada‘a ← Rada‘

‏• Fa‘ ← Yafi‘

‏Ma‘hir → Tahr → Tahir

‏(A normal Himyarite linguistic evolution)

---

‏5) “Ya‘rubiyya” is not a specific lineage — it is a general origin for all Yemenis

‏“Ya‘rubiyya” = a general Arab origin that includes:

‏• Himyar

‏• Kahlan

‏• Murad

‏• al‑Jashm

‏• Radman

‏• All Yemeni tribes

‏It does not specify:

‏• A tribe

‏• A clan

‏• An ancestor

‏• A homeland

‏• A genealogical chain

‏So it cannot be used to “prove” a specific lineage that does not

‏Banu Tahir = Himyar = Radman = al‑Jashm = Ma‘hir = Shammar Yuhar‘ish

‏This is confirmed by:

‏• Al‑Hamdani

‏• Al‑Iklil

‏• Ancient geography

‏• Historical records

‏• Homeland evidence

‏• Titles

‏• Documents

‏• Archaeological sites

‏Dharhan = no existence in any ancient source, no link to Banu Tahir, no link to the Tahiri State, and no historical foundation whatsoever.

‏Anyone ignoring all ancient sources and relying on modern fabrications is not seeking truth — only attention and the theft of a lineage that never belonged to them.

---

MolookLegacy (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Dharḥān (ذو دَرْحَان) in Pre-Modern Sources

Dharḥān appears in pre-modern sources. Ibn al-Daybaʿ mentions him in Qurrat al-ʿUyūn, a work written between the 15th and 16th centuries—a book that was previously claimed not to mention him at all. Al-Akwac also includes Dharḥān in the edited version of the same work. Dharḥān is likewise mentioned in Kitāb al-Iklīl as a known titled lord and progenitor.

----

Al-Hamdānī, Kitāb al-Iklīl, Volume 2

Al-Hamdānī writes in al-Iklīl, volume 2:

فأأولد الشَّلَفُ ذَا الجَوْف بن زرعة بن سبأ ذا شَرَفَان بَلِيًّا ونَوَالًا. فأولد ذو شَرَفَان بن الشَّلَف: ذو ذُرَحَان وضِبَاعِي، ابني ذي شرفان. فأولد ذو ذُرَحَان بن ذي شرفان: ذو يَامِن. فأولد ذو يَامِن بن ذي ذرحان: مَرْئِدًا، والحارث، وضَيْرًا. وضَيْر أربعة نفر من ولد ذي يامن، يُقال لهم: يَطْلُون. وقد قيل: إن ضيرًا من ولد ذي جُرَّة. فأولد مَرْئِد بن ذي يامن: ذو مُنْرِح بن مرئد. وأولد الحارث بن ذي يامن: عِيّ جُدُود، وجُه، والصَّبْلِيُّون باليمن بطن. وأولد ضِبَاعِي بن ذي شرفان: عامر بن ضباعي. فأولد عامر بن ضباعي: مَعِين، وزَنَه، وتَمْعِين. فأولد مَعِين بن عامر: ذو خَذَم. وأولد نَوَال بن الشَّلَف: نُعْبُل بن نوال. فأولد نُعْبُل بن نوال: مُرْئِد، وآل يَنُوف، وحَجْدَب، أبو قبيل بطنين، والجَحَادِب بالبِمَى كثير. وهم متمهندنون اليوم.

Translation:

“Shalaf Dhū al-Jawf, son of Zarʿa son of Sabaʾ, fathered Dhū Sharafān, as well as Baliy and Nawāl. Dhū Sharafān son of Shalaf fathered Dhū Dharḥān and Ḍibāʿī, both sons of Dhū Sharafān. Dhū Dharḥān son of Dhū Sharafān fathered Dhū Yāmin. Dhū Yāmin son of Dhū Dharḥān fathered Marʾid, al-Ḥārith, and Ḍayr. Ḍayr had four descendants from Dhū Yāmin, known as Yaṭlūn, though it is also said that Ḍayr descended from Dhū Jurrah. Marʾid son of Dhū Yāmin fathered Dhū Munriḥ son of Marʾid. Al-Ḥārith son of Dhū Yāmin fathered ʿIyy Judūd, Juh, and al-Ṣabliyūn, a Yemeni clan. Ḍibāʿī son of Dhū Sharafān fathered ʿĀmir. ʿĀmir fathered Maʿīn, Zanah, and Tamʿīn. Maʿīn fathered Dhū Khadham. Nawāl son of Shalaf fathered Nuʿbul. Nuʿbul fathered Marʾid, Āl Yanūf, Ḥajdab, and Abū Qabīl (two clans), and al-Jaḥādib in al-Bimā, many of whom remain known today.”

----

Al-Hamdānī, Kitāb al-Iklīl, Volume 2, Page 331

Al-Hamdānī also states on page 331 of the second volume:

الأخنس بن حجر بن معدي كرب. والياسر: ياسر بن أَسَاس بن زرعة ذي مناخ. ويامن بن أصبح بن يامن بن حسان بن ذي غيمان. وذو يامن بن ذي ذرحان. وأيمن بن الهميسع. ويامن بن شرحبيل بن الحارث بن زيد بن ذي رهين.

Translation:

“Among them are al-Akhnas son of Ḥijr son of Maʿdīkarib, and al-Yāsir, descended from Zarʿa Dhū Manākh. Also listed are multiple lines descending from Dhū Yāmin son of Dhū Dharḥān, including Ayman son of al-Humaysiʿ, and Yāmin son of Sharḥabīl.”

----

Additional Attestation and Context

Dharḥān has been attested to in al-Iklīl, in other classical genealogy books, as an ancestor of the Ṭāhirids, and in sources predating the 20th century. As for Ṣifat Jazīrat al-ʿArab and works on the geography of Himyar, they are irrelevant to lineage debates, as they are books of geography, not genealogy.

Dharḥān also appears in the inscription Ja 629, which mentions him alongside his father Marthad, proving both his historical existence and his status as a noble and major progenitor.

Qurrat al-ʿUyūn establishes the connection of Banū Ṭāhir to Dharḥān. The dynasty is called the Ṭāhirids because their founding ancestor was Ṭāhir; this naming convention does not address—nor negate—the lineage of Ṭāhir himself or his ancestral progenitors.

Ibn al-Daybaʿ places Āl Ṭāhir within the Darḥānī Himyarite framework in Qurrat al-ʿUyūn bi-Akhbār al-Yaman al-Maymūn (ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Akwac), where the lineage of the Ṭāhirids is traced back through the Darḥānī branch associated with Juban and al-Bayḍāʾ. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re ignoring sources, making your own connections, and falsely claiming Dharḥān isn’t mentioned in pre-modern works, even though he is in al-Iklīl and other genealogies. Any source that contradicts you is dismissed outright, and unrelated silence is treated as proof. This isn’t debate, it’s willful ignorance. I will not be responding further. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

‏1) There is NO source in al‑Iklīl that says “Dharḥānī = Ṭāhirī” or the opposite.

‏Not a single page in al‑Iklīl states:

‏• that the Dharḥānī branch is connected to Banu Ṭāhir

‏• or that Banu Ṭāhir descend from Dharḥān

‏• or that Dharḥān is an ancestor of the Ṭāhirid sultans

‏This connection does not exist in any classical source.

---

‏2) Banu Ṭāhir are older than Yāfiʿ and older than Dharḥān himself.

‏Historically:

‏• Banu Ṭāhir appear centuries before any mention of Dharḥān

‏• Shammar Yuharʿish is far older than Yāfiʿ and most tribes

‏• Banu Ṭāhir descend from Shammar Yuharʿish, not from Dharḥān

‏So your attempt to attach a younger branch (Dharḥān) to an older dynasty (Ṭāhirids) makes no historical sense.

---

‏3) Al‑Iklīl Volume II mentions Shammar Yuharʿish, al‑Bayḍāʾ, Radmān, and the Himyarite clans long before Yāfiʿ or Dharḥān ever appear.

‏The book clearly shows:

‏• Himyar

‏• Radmān

‏• al‑Jashm

‏• Shammar Yuharʿish

‏• the early Himyarite structure

‏All of these existed long before Yāfiʿ or Dharḥān.

‏So the historical timeline alone destroys your claim.

---

‏4) No historical source ever said that the Ṭāhirid sultans descend from Dharḥān.

‏Not:

‏• al‑Hamdānī

‏• al‑Iklīl

‏• Ṣifat Jazīrat al‑ʿArab

‏• genealogical books

‏• early Yemeni historians

‏• nor any pre‑modern manuscript

‏None of them link Banu Ṭāhir to Dharḥān.

---

‏5) We have nothing to do with Dharḥān — and you cannot force a lineage that never existed.

‏Banu Ṭāhir are:

‏• Himyarite

‏• from Radmān

‏• from the line of Shammar Yuharʿish

‏• older than Yāfiʿ

‏• older than Dharḥān

‏• and older than all the branches you are trying to attach to them

‏There is no historical, genealogical, or geographical link between the Ṭāhirid dynasty and Dharḥān.

---

‏Final Line

‏We have no connection to Dharḥān at all.

‏No source ever said we do.

‏And you cannot rewrite history or steal a lineage that never belonged to you.

‏English Translation of Your Text

‏First of all, geography does not change, and a tribe remains in its historical homeland.

‏Banu Tahir have been in the same place since ancient times:

‏• In Bilād al‑Tāhiriyya

‏• In the region of Radmān

‏• Under the district of al‑Sawādiyya

‏• In al‑Bayḍā’, Yemen

‏This is the homeland of Shammar Yuharʿish al‑Himyari, the ancient ruler of al‑Bayḍā’, and from his descendants came many Himyarite clans — including Āl Ṭāhir, who descend from Shammar Yuharʿish and have lived in the same land and same region since antiquity.

‏From this same lineage came the Ṭāhirid Sultans, and the name of the state itself was derived from the tribe Āl Ṭāhir, which carries the name of its ancestor.

‏This is exactly what the greatest historians recorded:

‏• al‑Hamdānī

‏• Nashwān al‑Himyari

‏• al‑Ḥajrī

‏• al‑Ṣaḥārī

‏• Yāqūt

‏• al‑Jawfī

‏• Ibn Daybaʿ

‏• al‑Akwac

‏• and the Himyarite Musnad inscriptions in the throne of Saba’

‏All these sources confirm that Āl Ṭāhir are from al‑Bayḍā’, from Bilād al‑Tāhiriyya, from Radmān — the homeland of their ancestors since ancient times.

‏The land does not change.

‏It remains as firm as the mountains.

‏And there is no connection whatsoever between Āl Ṭāhir and:

‏• Dharḥān

‏• Yāfiʿ

‏• Juban

‏No relation, no lineage, no shared ancestry, no mention of “Dharḥān” or “Dharḥanī” or “Yāfiʿ” in the genealogy of Āl Ṭāhir.

‏The names are different, the ancestors are different, and the lineage is different.

‏There is absolutely nothing linking Āl Ṭāhir to you.

---

‏Second: You contradict yourself every time.

‏One time you say:

‏• “Dharḥān is from Rome” (a country outside Yemen!)

‏Then you say:

‏• “Dharḥān is from Yāfiʿ”

‏Then you say:

‏• “Dharḥān is from Juban”

‏And now you claim:

‏• “Dharḥān is from the lineage of Himaysiʿ”

‏But Dharḥān is NOT from the lineage of Himaysiʿ at all.

‏The lineage of Himaysiʿ is well‑known:

‏Ayman → Wa’il → al‑Ghawth → Qaṭn → Jashm ʿAbd Shams

‏From them came ancient tribes such as:

‏• Hudhud

‏• Bilqīs

‏• Shammar Yuharʿish

‏• Khawlān

‏• and many old Himyarite branches

‏And Yāfiʿ came very late, many generations after Yārim.

‏So your statements contradict each other completely.

‏You mix lineages, change locations, and try to attach a lineage that never existed.

‏Why?

‏Because you are trying to force a connection between Dharḥān and Ṭāhir — something that does not exist.

---

‏Third: Your goal is clear — fame and identity theft.

‏All you care about is:

‏• a name

‏• a title

‏• and attaching yourself to a well‑known lineage

‏You do not care about real genealogy.

‏You even said earlier that the lineage of ʿĀmir ʿAbd al‑Wahhāb al‑Ṭāhirī “does not matter to you.”

‏This alone proves your intention: you want to claim a lineage that is not yours.

‏And you forgot that:

‏Claiming a false lineage is illegal internationally.

‏Lineage cannot be taken by force, nor by fabrication, nor by misleading others.

‏Every person carries the name of their real ancestor, not the ancestor of another tribe.

MolookLegacy (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

‏✅ Wikipedia‑Style Closure Request (English)

‏I have already provided all the historical, geographical, and genealogical sources required by Wikipedia’s policies.

‏The other editor continues repeating the same claims without providing a single reliable source, and keeps changing his statements from one message to another.

‏This behavior violates several Wikipedia policies:

‏• WP:RS – No reliable sources were provided

‏• WP:OR – He is inventing genealogical connections not found in any source

‏• WP:SYNTH – He is combining unrelated texts to create a false conclusion

‏• WP:DISRUPTIVE – Repeating the same unsourced claims after they were refuted

‏• WP:CIVIL – Personal attacks and accusations

‏• WP:FORUM – Using the talk page for personal theories, not for improving the article

‏For these reasons, I request that this discussion be closed by an uninvolved administrator.

‏There is nothing more to discuss, and the other editor is not engaging in constructive editing.

‏Please close this thread.

MolookLegacy (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have already provided pre-modern sources with page numbers. You have not cited any passages that contradict them. Several claims you attribute to me (such as Rome) were never stated. Repeating assertions without engaging the cited material is not productive, so I will not continue this discussion. Saleh Ali AlDharhani (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Tahirid Sultanate. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Also: please read or review Wikipedia:Reliable sources so you can understand what Wikipedia requires you to do when you add new information. Part of the problem seem to be that you are not familiar with this guideline. If you are not sure how to cite sources properly and clearly, please also look at: Wikipedia:Citing sources. I hope this helps. R Prazeres (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I will review the Reliable Sources and Citing Sources guidelines to ensure that my future contributions follow Wikipedia’s standards.

My intention has only been to present information supported by verifiable evidence, including the documented Al‑Amiriya inscription and the restoration reports. I will continue the discussion on the talk page and work toward consensus with the other editors.

— MolookLegacy

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@MolookLegacy: You clearly did not understand what was said above, as you just did it again (). If you continue to do this, you will likely end up being blocked.

PS: I'm also wondering if you are using AI or machine-generated text in your edits and responses? If yes, please stop doing that; AI-generated text is rarely acceptable on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand your concerns and apologize if my previous edits caused any problems. I will carefully review my contributions and ensure that I do not repeat the same mistakes. I also want to emphasize that I will not use AI-generated text in my edits. All future contributions will be written manually and based solely on reliable and verifiable sources. Thank you for your guidance. MolookLegacy (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand what you said, and I’m sorry if my edits caused any problems. I will be more careful from now on and I will not repeat the same mistake. I also want to clarify that I am not using AI to write my edits. English is not my first language, so sometimes I struggle with writing, but I am trying my best. I will make sure that any future edits are simple, clear, and based on reliable sources. Thank you for your patience.

MolookLegacy (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MolookLegacy persistent edit-warring & page-breaking edits. R Prazeres (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued usage of LLMs in articles and talk pages.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Sennecaster (Chat) 18:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MolookLegacy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

l am really sorry for using

translation tools that looked

like AI. I don't speak English

well

and I only wanted to share important

“Al‑Taher

family from

Al‑Bayda

historical evidence about

the

the that'll

dynasty

I have original Mussed

inscriptions and mentions from

famous historians like

Al-Hamada i and Al-Hajari

that prove their origin in

Al-Bayed I didn't mean to

break the rules, I just wanted to help make the article

more accurate with these

sources Please give me a chance

to show these documents I promise

promise to

follow the rules and ask for help

with

English next time

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on the discussion below, I do not think your English-language skills are proficient enough to edit on the English Wikipedia, especially regarding nuanced topics. After being asked to review policies and guidelines multiple times, you did not do so and/or did not seem to understand the policies. This may be due to an issue with your translation aid, which is why we discourage editors from using translation aids to translate articles from one Wikipedia to another (see WP:TRANSLATE). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thank you for writing this reply yourself.

It's important to understand that Wikipedia cannot publish original research, our articles must only summarise what existing reliable sources say about a subject. That means you probably won't be able to present any documents here, but might be able to find reliable sources that already discuss them in detail.

Can you please click on the two blue-text links on my post and let us know what your understanding is of both these guidelines? We just need to check that you are ok with the way Wikipedia works, for example to see if you need any support or we should clear up any misunderstandings about article sourcing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blue Sonnet is exactly right about the problem of original research. Though I want to a add second major question:

MolookLegacy, why are you editing the English Wikipedia if your English abilities are not good enough to work without a third-party tool (like an AI or translation app)?

I suggest you edit the Wikipedia of your native language instead. The same policies apply on other Wikipedias, but at least you'll be able to understand and communicate without major difficulties, which would also be a better environment for you to learn how Wikipedia works. R Prazeres (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

"Thank you for your advice, R Prazeres. I understand your concerns regarding language and 'original research'. My goal is to ensure the English Wikipedia reflects the most accurate historical data about the Tahirid dynasty, which I have already documented with reliable sources on the Arabic Wikipedia. I am using translation tools to assist me in communicating these complex historical nuances correctly. I will focus on providing clear, cited references for the Himyarite lineage to meet Wikipedia's standards." MolookLegacy (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

A simple conversation about your use of AI tools on your talk page has nothing to do with "communicating complex historical nuances correctly." While there are many great editors on English Wikipedia who are non-native English speakers, at least some rudimentary ability to communicate in English is necessary to write an encyclopedia in English, meaningfully interact with an English-speaking community, and follow policies and guidelines written in English. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My intention was never to break any rules. I was only trying to correct a serious historical mistake regarding the ancestry of my family. Some people have published false information linking my ancestor, King Amer Abdulwahab Al‑Tahiri Al‑Himyari Al‑Baydani, to “Dharhan / Yafa”, which is not accurate and is considered identity falsification in my culture.

All the information I added is supported by reliable and published Arabic sources, and my edits were already accepted on the Arabic Wikipedia. The problem is that I do not speak English well, so I used simple translation tools only to understand and communicate. This made my writing look unusual, and I understand why it caused confusion.

I was not using AI-generated text. I was only trying to explain the correct historical lineage based on documented inscriptions and well-known historians. I apologize for any misunderstanding, and I only want to correct the false claims about my family's history in a respectful and policy‑compliant way.

' MolookLegacy (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The original and historically correct name is “Al‑Bayda”, which is the documented homeland and lineage of the Tahirid Himyarite family. The attribution to “Dharhan / Yafa” is not accurate and is considered a false claim. No reliable historical sources connect the Tahirids to Dharhan or Yafa. All authentic Arabic historical sources—such as Al‑Hamdani, Al‑Hajari, and documented inscriptions—confirm the lineage of the Tahirid family as Himyarite from Al‑Bayda.

MolookLegacy (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It like like you've gone back to using tools again because these posts are very different to your latest appeal - a lot of translation tools will integrate AI, which would explain what we're seeing here.

If this is your family then you have a conflict of interest (COI) in the subject. English Wikipedia has different standards to other language Wikipedias, so you wouldn't be able to directly edit the article with a COI - you would need to make edit requests, which independent editors would then review and submit if they feel they are acceptable.

Are you able to please answer my original question, the one in my first post above?

Historical sources and English Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" may not necessarily be the same thing.

This is a complex and nuanced distinction however, one which you may find difficult to make it you don't have sufficient grasp of the English language - that's why I'm asking you to please read the pages I've linked in blue and let us know your understanding of them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not using AI tools. My English is very limited, so I use simple translation only to understand and communicate. This may make my writing look unusual, but it is not AI-generated.

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this topic is related to my family, so I understand that I have a conflict of interest. I will not edit the article directly. I will only make edit requests for independent editors to review.

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My only goal is to correct the historical information using published and reliable Arabic sources. I am not trying to promote myself or my family.

MolookLegacy (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us what tool you're using for translation? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The current article contains incorrect information about the lineage. The Tahirid dynasty is named after our ancestor Tahir, and all classical Yemeni sources place the family in Radman, Al‑Bayda, Al‑Sawadiyah, and Al‑Surouh. There is no historical connection to Dharhan or Yafa‘. These claims do not appear in any reliable ancient sources.

MolookLegacy (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

‏These are the published historical sources I am using:

‏1. Al‑Hamdani, “Muluk Himyar wa Qabayil al‑Yaman”, p.144.

‏2. Al‑Tabari, “Tarikh al‑Rusul wa al‑Muluk”, vol.2, p.73.

‏3. Ibn Khaldun, “Al‑Ibar wa Diwan al‑Mubtada’ wa al‑Khabar”, Dar al‑Fikr edition.

‏4. Jawad Ali, “Al‑Mufassal fi Tarikh al‑Arab Qabla al‑Islam”, vol.2, p.401.

‏5. “Mukhtarat min al‑Nuqush al‑Yamaniyya al‑Qadima”, p.259.

‏6. Svolovskaya, “Journey to Al‑Had”, p.170.

‏7. Tariyush, “Studies on Ancient Yemeni Inscriptions”, p.37.

‏These sources describe Radman, Al‑Bayda, Sirwah, and the Himyarite origins of the Al‑Tahir family.

(1) بافقيه : مختارات من النقوش اليمنية القديمة ، ص 259 . (2) علي ، المفصل ، ج 2 ، ص 401 . (3) بيغوليفسكايا ، بيزنطة في الطريق إلى الهند ، ص 20 / 170 . (4) طربوش ، المصدر السابق ، ص 37 . (5) الطبري ، المصدر السابق ، ج 2 ، ص 73 ، الحميري : ملوك حمير وأقيال اليمن ، ص 144 ، ابن خلدون ، عبد الرحمن (ت 808 هـ ) : العبر وديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبرير ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر ، تحقيق : خليل شحادة ، مراجعة : سهيل زكار ، دار الفكرى، بيروت ، 2001م ، مج 2 ، ص 64 . MolookLegacy (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

These are the published historical sources I am using:

1. Bafaqih, “Mukhtarat min al‑Nuqush al‑Yamaniyya al‑Qadima”, p.259.

2. Jawad Ali, “Al‑Mufassal fi Tarikh al‑Arab Qabla al‑Islam”, vol.2, p.401.

3. Pigulevskaya, “Byzantium on the Road to India”, pp.20, 170.

4. Tarboush, “Studies on Ancient Yemeni Inscriptions”, p.37.

5. Al‑Tabari, “Tarikh al‑Rusul wa al‑Muluk”, vol.2, p.73.

6. Al‑Himyari, “Muluk Himyar wa Aqyal al‑Yaman”, p.144.

7. Ibn Khaldun, “Al‑Ibar wa Diwan al‑Mubtada’ wa al‑Khabar”, Dar al‑Fikr edition, vol.2, p.64.

8. Al‑Hamdani, “Al‑Iklil”, vol.8, pp.53, 89.

These sources describe Radman, Al‑Bayda, Al‑Sawadiyah, Al‑Surouh, and the Himyarite origins of the Al‑Tahir family.

MolookLegacy (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you read the pages I've asked you to review? I'm a little worried that I've asked you to do this a few times and answer specific questions, but you've not been able to do this yet. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to explain something clearly. I do not speak English well, and I did not fully understand the pages or questions you asked me to review before. Please send me the exact links again and tell me step by step what you need from me.

My main concern is very simple: some users are falsely claiming my grandfather’s name and lineage. This is not allowed, and it is not acceptable in our culture or religion. I only want to protect my family name from impersonation and false claims.

Please help me understand what I should do to stop anyone from using my grandfather’s name without proof.

Thank you for your understanding.

MolookLegacy (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ok, so we might have a bit of a problem. We have editors from all over the planet, but you need to be able to read and understand English Wikipedia's policies, then be able apply those same policies when editing articles.

Can you please start by reading the following pages:

• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Once you've read through them, can you please explain whether any of the sources you've given are considered appropriate for English Wikipedia and how you reached that decision? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• • I understand the policies now, especially Wikipedia’s rules on No Original Research, Reliable Sources, and Neutral Point of View.None of my edits were based on personal interpretation. All the information I added comes directly from published and verifiable sources, including:

– Al‑Hamdani’s Al‑Iklil and Ṣifat Jazīrat al‑‘Arab (10th century)

– Al‑Hajri’s Majmū‘ Buldan al‑Yaman wa Qabā’ilihā

– Al‑Akwa‘’s historical works

– Official Yemeni governmental publications

– The documented restoration reports of the Amiriya Madrasa published by CCAROMA and ArchNet (MIT), which supervised the UNESCO restoration project.I now understand that YouTube links from personal channels are not considered reliable sources, and I will only use official published documentation such as the CCAROMA and ArchNet reports.I am ready to follow all Wikipedia policies carefully. I kindly request an unblock so I can continue contributing with proper sourcing.Thank you.** MolookLegacy (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Unfortunately, to me, the problems here look insurmountable for the foreseeable future. This is a single-purpose editor who doesn't understand English and has stated openly that their motivations are essentially personal and non-neutral, which probably contributes to the inability to express a cogent point that other editors can work with.

Blue Sonnet has asked me () to have another look at the "correction" they're trying to make to Tahirid Sultanate. Part of the problem is that it's not even clear to me what they're trying to say: they keep protesting that there is "no connection" to "Dharhan/Yafa", but I see nothing about this in the article to begin with. (If I'm missing something and someone else understands what they're getting at, maybe they can bring it up at Talk:Tahirid Sultanate.)

What does currently appear in the article about the origins of the dynasty is clearly cited to reliable sources, which I've just checked again for myself. For good measure, I've also added a clarification about the dynasty's name coming from Tahir, which wasn't in dispute (). The article already mentions a possible "Himyar tribe" origin with citation, which is the closest connection I can make to anything MolookLegacy has said so far. Anything beyond that would need to come from modern academic sources specialized on the topic. MolookLegacy has not cited anything that looks usable: of the sources they've listed (not very clearly) above, most are historical primary sources, which is an immediate problem for "No original research", and the others are in different languages and not otherwise accessible (so who knows what they actually say). Nothing they've said so far convinces me that there's some urgent error in the article about the dynasty's origins.

The Tahirid article needs improvements, just as many Wikipedia articles do, but competence is required, so it will have to await other editors who possess the ability to work on this. R Prazeres (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Thank you so much for taking the time to do this @R Prazeres.

I know they said they're not using AI, but their responses are using language that's very typical of AI/LLM and still doesn't really answer the questions properly.

Most translators use AI/LLM programming as a base, which would explain why we're seeing the usual issues that we get with AI/LLM use - e.g. robotic language, repetitive comments, missing the point (Wikipedia:LLMCIR).

If they aren't able to understand English without using AI/LLM's (and we're still seeing misunderstandings anyway) then I don't think they're able to edit English Wikipedia competently.

I think we've reached the point where I'm not able to assist any more due to the language barrier & I sadly don't think the block should be lifted. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• • I understand your concern, but I am not using AI or LLM tools. My English is weak, so I use a simple translator. This is why my writing may look unusual.Using a translator is not against Wikipedia policy. Many editors who do not speak English fluently use translation tools. This is normal and allowed.My goal is only to correct false historical information about my family based on published sources such as Al Hamdani. I am not trying to argue or cause problems.I am answering the questions as clearly as I can. If my English is not perfect, I am willing to explain again in simpler words.Please judge my edits based on sources and evidence, not on my language level. Thank you.**

MolookLegacy (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is the problem - the translator is causing a lot of the context from my post to be lost. You're misunderstanding what I've been saying pretty consistently.

I'm saying that machine translators often incorporate AI as part of their programming, not that you are using an AI chatbot on its own.

For instance, Google Translate has in-built AI as part of its machine translation software.

Since you have to rely so heavily on a machine translator and don't speak English very well (by your own admission), I don't think you are able to understand our policies fully. This is shown by your inability to fully answer the questions you've been asked and the frequent misunderstandings.

This means that I don't think you're able to competently edit English Wikipedia and cannot support your appeal.

I don't doubt that you mean well and want to contribute sincerely, unfortunately I don't think you have the ability to do this.

If you wish to review your answers to my earlier questions and provide a more comprehensive answer, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

I will commit to what is in Wikipedia

Okay I want to clarify not replying to a quick discussion I take care of animals the fibers

Therefore the reply becomes late I apologize for that

And I do not want to promote myself or my grandfather

On the contrary I do not want that

I only want my grandfather name to be correct

For example

My real grandfather name is Amer Abdulwahab Al Taheri Al Baydhani from the lineage of Shammar Yarash

And he is not Amer Abdulwahab Al Taheri from the lineage of Al Dharhani Al Yafii

This is not my grandfather name they are impersonating my grandfather name

And this is not allowed to take my grandfather name and attach it to his grandfather name

Without conscience

I only want to change Al Dharhani Al Yafii

To Al Baydhani Shammar Yarash

Only this

And thank you all thank you for your patience

MolookLegacy (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I want to explain that my replies may be slow because I take care of animals and I do not always have time to answer quickly. I apologize for any delay.

I am not trying to promote myself or my grandfather. I only want the correct name of my grandfather to appear. My real grandfather name is Amer Abdulwahab Al Taheri Al Baydhani from the lineage of Shammar Yarash. He is not Amer Abdulwahab Al Taheri from the lineage of Al Dharhani Al Yafii. That is not my grandfather name, and some people are using his name incorrectly.

I understand that machine translation can cause misunderstandings. I am trying my best to communicate clearly, and I respect the policies of Wikipedia. My only request is to correct the name from Al Dharhani Al Yafii to Al Baydhani Shammar Yarash.

Thank you for your patience. MolookLegacy (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you can please look further up the page, you'll see that your appeal has already been declined by an admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2026 (UTC)