Talk:Saladin/Archive 1

Well he was ethnically Kurdish, but he didn't rule an independent Kurdish state, it was more like an empire consisting mostly of Turks and Arabs, and some Kurds (and various other people). Adam Bishop 20:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the 19th-century idea that every ethnic group deserved its own state, see Romantic nationalism. Saladin's career was broader than his mere ethnicity. --Wetman 20:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eyyubi Dynasty (1171-1252)

(The following material posted by [[User:144.122.250.231] relating to the Turkish dynasty founded by Saladin commonly referred to in English as the Ayyubid dynasty, gives a vivid impression of the intensity of race-based Turkish nationalism in Turkish popular history. The text has been copied and pasted from the website below.)

PS: The historians never mention about the intensity from Turkey's enemies of erasing the turkish history. The turkish nationalism should and can not be associated with distorted history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.47.102 (talk • contribs) 17:23, June 5, 2005

One of the dynasties established by the Turks in the history is the Eyyubi dynasty. This Turkish State has been known as Eyyubi State in the history due to the name of the father of Selahaddin who was the founder of this dynasty. Today, it has been alleged that this Turkish State pertained to an artificial nation in the region with the substitution of the history that they did not have at all. The principal reason for this situation results from the lack of the determination about the lineage of the family before Eyyub's father. Therefore, some historians have been under the influence of the contemporary historians of the period with Arabian roots that tried to relate this dynasty with Arabian identity pursuant to the death of Selahaddin (1193). Therefore, they also tried to relate the origin of Selahaddin Eyyubi with the Arabian identity. On the other hand, particularly the separatist elements and their ideologies allege that this dynasty pertain to any other nation apart from Turks in order to create a new national history for themselves.

Considering the historical realities, we can observe that these allegations do not have any effective basis. The geographical region on which the state was founded is Egypt and its environs. Although most of the people were Arabians, the middle class and the administrative class were under the control of the Turkish majority. Tolunoglu Ahmed had established his own dynasty in the same region before (875) and this dynasty survived until the year of 905.

Tolunoglu Ahmed had manufactured its own dynasty in the same region forwards (875) and survived this dynasty until the year of 905. In which region truely this dynasty????????? Most probably in westChina or Siberia !

Afterwards, another Turkish commander, Muhammed Ebu Bekir had established a dynasty called as Ihsidi in the history and this dynasty established dominion in the region between the years of (935-969). Both of the Turkish dynasties had emerged as a result of the policy of Abbasi caliphate that provided the excessive employment of Turkish commanders and Turkish soldiers in the army. Ihsidi State was abolished by the Shiite Fatimi State and Selahaddin Eyyubi came to Egypt as a Turkish commander of Nureddin Mahmud Zengi who was the Tutor of Mosul and abolished the Shiite Fatimi State (1171). Until the death of Nureddin Mahmud to which he had been submissive (1174), Selahaddin had acted as a governor of Nureddin Mahmud. Then, he declared his independence. Izzeddin Aybeg who abolished the Eyyubi Turkish State and established the Turkish Mameluke State in its place was also one of the Turkish commanders in the Turkish army of Egypt. These historical facts obviously indicate that the army and the dynasty were under the dominion of Turks although most of the people were Arabians in the state.

Most of the members of Eyyubi dynasty had had the ancient Turkish names. The name of Selahaddin's brother was Turanshah. The names of his younger brothers were Tugtekin and Böri. The name of Selahaddin's maternal uncle was Sihabeddin Mahmud b. Tukus. Selahaddin's mother was a real Turk. Similarly, one of the wives of Selahaddin, Ismatuddin Amine who was the daughter of Unar Bey was also Turk. His two sister's husbands were also Turks. One of them was Unaroglu Sadeddin Mesut; and the other was Muzafferüddin Gökbörü.

The most conclusive evidence indicating that the Eyyubi dynasty is a Turkish dynasty is the eulogy that Ibn Senâül-mülk, one of the contemporary poets of the period wrote pursuant to the capture of Aleppo by Selahaddin. In one of the couplet of this eulogy, the poet states that:

"Arabian nation became sublime with the state of the Turks. The matter of Ehl-i Salip (the Crusades) was eradicated by Eyyub's son."

The state organisation of the Eyyubi dynasty is the same organisation that was firstly initiated in the Karahanli and Gazneli Turkish states and then developed in the Seljuk States. Tue Sultan, Divan, Meşveret, in other words, the General Assembly, Ustazüddar (the person that manages the duties related with the palace administration, vine works, flavour works, etc.), and the palace organisation including the posts of Registy of inheritance, Armourers, emirahur (emir of colonels), jurisdictional judges for the suits, el-mükebbis (legal official), taşdar (governor of district), the posts of sergeant, etc. are the continuation of the Turkish-Islam states. As it is well known, the institution of chief military judge that managed the administration of justice also remained as the same in the Ottoman State.

The Turkish slaves that were called as Tavasi constituted the foundation and the majority basis of the Eyyubi army. This Turkish army were named in accordance with the commanders to which they pertained such as el-Nuriyye, el-Esediyye, el-Necmiyye, el-Salâhiyye, etc. Among the commanders of this army composd of Turkish Slaves in the period of Selahaddin, there were some Turks such as Bahaeddin Karakûş, Şerefeddin Karakuş el-Takavî, Izzettin Cavlı, Şarimüddin Kutluaba, Hüsameddin Sungur el-Halâtî, etc.

As it is known, one of the symbols of the sovereignty was the flag. The flag of Eyyubi State was in the colour of yellow. Its emblem was the eagle. Eyyubi dynasty had followed the Turkish traditions and they had adopted the colour of light yellow as the colour of their domination. Furthermore, they had included the eagle as a Turkish emblem in their flag. The eagle has also been used as the symbol of the state in Seljuk States, and Artuklu State apart from Eyyubi State.

One of the other symbols of the Turkish sovereignty was the military band of musicians. The military band has also been used in the palace of Eyyubi State in accordance with the Turkish traditions and they would blow trumpets and attract great respect. Moreover, Selahaddin provided the marriage of one of his favourite concubines with the chief bandsman who was one of the high-rank officials in the palace and he showed the respect and value that he attached to this institution.

In the period of the lifetime of Selahaddin, the Eyyubi dynasty had a characteristic quality of a great Turkish-Islam state. Pursuant to the death of Selahaddin, the state was shared among his sons and brothers. Turanshah who was the last Eyyubi ruler in Egypt was annihilated by Aybeg, one of the Turkish Mameluke commanders (1250).

Salah ad-DIN Jusuf ibn Ajub a Turk???????????????

Eyyubi a Turkish dynasty????????????????????????

Such a muck writes which weak head????????????????

Mameluke protect slaves from different Volker the earth! Eyyubi truely and remains a Kurdish dynasty! Salah ad-DIN Jusuf ibn Ajub is a Kurd!

source:http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0003/0003_02_15.htm

Well seeing real ignorant comments here shocked me. Selahaddin Eyyübi was brought up in a Saracen family, with having Turkish relatives (the Turkish relatives can even be traced back to their Turkish tribes). Saying that he was a Kurd is ridicilous since if sth is going to be said about him, it is that he is Saracen. For the ones who do not know(!) who Saracens are just read some history first. Wikipedia is a source that is referred to too much, and bias will kill it if not removed. There is this tendency by Kurdish people to refer to every non-Turkic, non-Arab Muslim community as Kurds, I am sorry my friends but this is not true.. I am not a person of nationalism or.. whatever you would call (I even do not believe in discrete distinctions of ethnicity in a geographical region), the only thing I would like here to be maintained is anti-biased info.. Well I know that Kurdish people want some symbols in history that they can relate to but they should be somehow related to reality(!). PKK even took it to an extent that they built a mosque in Germany called Selahaddin Eyyübi mosque.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuisnotunixisit (talk • contribs) 01:57, October 26, 2005

Saladin is not Turk that can also the whole world confirm. The Turks maintain the Prophet Mohammed is a Turk. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Prophet Mohammed is Turk, Saladin is Turk, The whole world are Turks Ha ha ha ha ha ha You have forgotten that the Turks of Mongolia to come. who is its Turkish relatives of saladin, you turken since really sad people Except that you are lie near a large. Kurdish worker's party is a communist party and worries not about Islam you lie near. That build from Selahaddin Eyyuebi mosque in Hamburg and Berlin as well as other cities Germany the Hereketay Islamay Kurdistan (Islamic movement in Kurdistan/Turkay) financed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.225.59 (talk • contribs) 10:29, October 26, 2005

---

Turkish Prime minister said Prophet Mohammed is a Turk ha hahahahaahahahahahahah You understood well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.225.7 (talk • contribs) 06:20, October 27, 2005

If someone is claiming that Saladin was something else than a Kurd, I would like to see some references to back that stance (the one above might appear to be a bit biased). It is the common belief among historians that he was indeed a kurd. --Tokle 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC) ___

There is no clear information about Saladin's nationality, a claim- without reference- travels the whole internet. After deciding to be a state-nation, Kurds are needed to have a rich and "proud" history.

 Since the religion used to come first to idetify one's him/herself, also nationalites are rejected in order to advertise ummeth concept. But it's known that Eyyubi family served to Seljuks later on. Wiki is getting more and more dirty day by day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.158.32   (talk • contribs) July 22, 2007

Is it commonly accepted Saladin was a Kurd? I don't recall where I read it, but I'm sure I've seen him more than once described as a Seljuk Turk... Kipwatson 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But you know, even Muhammad is a Turk... Adam Bishop 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little bit confused. It says in the article that he died in 1171, yet when you visit the link for May 22 Selected Anniversaries at the top of this page, it says that the Hash-assasins tried to murder him in 1176. If he died in 1171, then how could they attempt to kill him 5 years later. Either the article or the anniversaries page needs to be fixed. --Zeerus 18:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

1171 refers to the death of the Egyptian caliph, which I suppose may be unclear at the moment. I'll fix it. Adam Bishop 07:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that out a little bit after I posted it, but I guess it owuld be confusing to people who aren't paying attention. --Zeerus 21:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any historical proof to Gibbon's claim that Saladin had received a christian knighthood? --Tokle 14:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In Decline and Fall vol. 6, chapter lix, part i:"his military character was established by the defence of Alexandria; and, if we may believe the Latins, he solicited and obtained from the Christian general the profane honors of knighthood." Gibbon's source was a chronicle; it would be more believable from an Arabic source.--Wetman 17:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

But, Arabic sources would probably be reluctant to mention it if it was true, wouldn't they? (I'm sorry if this might seem prejudiced, that is not my intention). --Tokle 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That's from the Itinerarium et Gesta Regis Ricardi, he was supposedly knighted by Humphrey II of Toron. Nicholson, the translator, has a note to the effect that it is a bunch of crap :) Adam Bishop 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Before making any changes over this debate please get rid of all your prejudices, ok? I do not understand but anglo-saxon people seem to enjoy bias. John Kenney removed Shirkuh's being a Turkish statesman.. Do not get funny.

Please admire history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.206.113 (talk • contribs) 17:24, October 26, 2005

thanks for that! Get a grip people. The guy was from a Kurdish origin which means he was a speaker of a Kurdish dialect. The issue involved is not whether the state he was born in was part of Turkic or Kurdish or Persian or whatever kingdom. The reference is to his own ethnic and linguistic background. He was working for Nureddin Zangi, which was a Turk in origin. The fact is, those ancient people where much more open minded than us "moderns".--

Khodadad

02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Every source I have ever seen on Saladin (and Shirkuh), says that the family was Kurdish. This is the basic historical consensus - the Ayyubids were a Kurdish dynasty.

The burden of proof is on those who want to claim that Saladin was a Turk (an idea I have never heard before...). What evidence is there? Are there any historians (preferably non-Turkish ones) who have advanced this idea? On what basis? And I have no idea of this "Saracen" thing - the term Saracen is archaic, and is no longer generally used. When it is used, it is used to mean Arabs, which Saladin was not.

The idea of Saladin being a Turk seems wildly unlikely to me. Basically, every other dynasty in the area, aside from the Fatimids and the Abbasid caliphs, was Turkish. If the Ayyubids were also Turkish, why would they be constantly called Kurds? It is not as though the Turkish domination of the Near East in the 11th and 12th centuries is a matter which has been generally ignored by historians.

(To toot my own horn a bit, I should note that I have an impeccable record of integrity and impartiality on these matters, having previously argued in favor of saying that the Safavids were a dynasty of Turkish origins).

Have you read the Öz Türkler article cited above? http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0003/0003_02_15.htm --Tokle 19:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That site is not a trusted source, and in it history was mixed with heavy nationalist ideas. In the case of Ayyubid and saladdin this site mentioned just some turkish names that belong to this family , while none of the sources that deal with history of this family have never mentioned these names(I mean apart this site you can not find these names in anywhere). At the moment Arabic version of the wikipedia has extensively used the original sources and it confirms that Saladdin and his family were kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.105.127 (talk • contribs) 00:22, December 22, 2005

This page says he died in 1171, but the

He was not deposed, he gave up his rule over Syria in favour of his son, Al Malik ul Zaher. --

Khodadad

02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the external link for the Star Trek reference. It is http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/USS_Saladin

I just wasn't sure how to properly cite it in the article itself, so I'm posting the link here in the talk page. Longshot14 20:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first sentence the Arabic version of his name transliterates as: Al din Yusuf bin Ayyub Salah. Is this correct? It doesn't conform to the transliteration that is there and seems like a fragment. Ashmoo 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it must have to do with the way your browser splits the line. The Arabic version of the page has it correct, but the Arabic characters in the English version are split funny, due to the browser treating them like English words left-to-right, rather than Arabic right-to-left. That's a terrible explanation, I admit, but one that makes sense if you try typing in Arabic for just a few words around the end of the line in MS Word. My browser makes the same mistake, but with the mix-up happening at a different point. The Frog 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too...mine says "ibn Ayyab Salah ad-Din Yusuf". Adam Bishop 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Kurdish history book Şerefname(1597), the name of Selahaddin's brother was Turanshah. The names of his younger brothers were Tugtekin and Böri. these names is Turkish.

so Saladin is a Kurd but Selahaddin's brother is Turk. is that true? :))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.10.210 (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 4, 2006

I have a Hebrew name, therefore I must be Jewish! Adam Bishop 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This comparison is not right, as you can have Christian (i.e. Hebrew) names, all the Muslims, regardless of their ethnic identities, certainly have Arabic names. But, so far I never heard any Kurd taking a Turkish name. This is not normal, so if it's a reality, this issue should be researched. --85.96.167.247 18:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Turanshah, Tugtekin and Bori are pagan Turkic names therefore they wouldn't be used by Kurds or Arabs, especially during those times. It would be like having a Jewish prophet with an ancient pagan Viking name. Kurds and Turks lived together in that area and I believe the reason why Saladdin is considered to be Kurdish is purely political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L Rothen (talk • contribs) 00:09, October 13, 2006

Not really. The fact that today his origin is being vied by Turks, with only one source (not a current or published source for all to access and see, thus verify) is untenable. He was clearly Kurdish and born in Dvin (The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, Bahā'al-dīn Ibn Shaddād,trans D.S. Richards, Ashgate 2002, p17) is an open and well known fact that this day, Kurds are proud of. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Spartan King (talk • contribs

) 01:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Rabukurafuto 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

صلاح, if your computer can see the Arabic letters; the letters are saad, the laam-alif ligature, and haa, if that helps. Adam Bishop 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

actually saladin's birth name is Yusuf ,that's his name .the part "Salah ud din" is not a name it's a title,like in the cas of the "Lionheart" part in the name of Richard I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadyyy (talk • contribs) 10:24, July 7, 2006

The arabic Wikipedia seems to have a much better main image. If someone can translate the image page and confirm that it is in fact a free image, it should be uploaded and used as the main image here. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many people have seen Kingdom of Heaven and assume that it is historical fact. Someone edited this article and said that Raynald of Chatillon was executed partly for killing Saladin's sister (as seen in the movie when her caravan was attacked and she was killed). In actuality this contradicts Arabic sources which state that her caravan's security was increased and travelled without incident. Saladin disliked Raynald because of his attacks on Hajj pilgrimage caravans in blatant disregard for an agreed upon treaty. This led to Saladin veiwing Raynald as dishonourable and worthy of death.

People need to stop thinking that Hollywood is fact, and much more importantly stop editing Wiki articles and littering them with inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.250 (talk • contribs) 01:53, September 2, 2006

The citecheck template is intended to flag articles where citations may misrepresent reference material. I see no discussion to that effect on this page and have removed the template. Please see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources if an editor here feels that some other template is needed, and please discuss these templates on talk. Durova 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised

I think this sort of information is better off in the main article, especially when there isn't very much information here yet. Adam Bishop 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I don't want to step on any toes so I'm suggesting this at core biographies and deferring to active page editors. Regards, Durova 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In the section Rise to Power, there is written "Saladin revitalized the economy of Egypt, reorganized the military forces and, following his father's penis, stayed away from any conflicts with Nur ad-Din, his formal lord, after he had become the real ruler of Egypt." Unless there is a definition of penis which I don't know, I'm guessing that's not supposed to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.56.178 (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 13, 2006

That was already reverted, so you shouldn't be seeing it... Adam Bishop 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I know Saladin was a highly active military ruler who had to travel frequently but there's no mention of his preffered home when not fighting crusaders or conquering other lands. What city/castle did he consider his home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackB69 (talk • contribs) 04:05, September 24, 2006

It is often mentioned that Saladdin had decided not to reside in a comfortable house but only to stay in tents until Jerusalem was saved --L Rothen 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

-sakredfire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The context of these quotes is somewhat misrepresented. Salah-al Din enjoyed killing the Templars and Hospitallars because they killed his men, not because they were Christian. He wanted to pursue the Franks and called them Godless not due to their religion, but due to their behavior which was at odds with their religion. When did Saladin percecute the Copts? How about the Jews? Be more objective, pretty please. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Sakredfire (talk • contribs

) 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is English translation of Moqadameh bu Ibn khaldun

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

it would be helpful if you show your source.

All the Arab Historians (like Ibn Athir ) who lived in the same age as Saladdin insisted that Ayyubid family were Kurdish.This is what Ibn Athir wrote" he saladdin was from ravadi family and they were the best of kurds."

If you show me a link to "Alkamil fi Tarikh" of Ibn Athir which is encyclopedia of islamic history I will show you,the exact place of this sentence.(and remember Ibn Athir lived in the same time of Ayyubid in Egypt)

About your sentence:

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

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

Shirkuh whose name is a popular kurdish name even today.

Then this sentence

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

Actually all historian stated that that he and his family were kurdish origin,that is why for all these years Ayyubid were considered as kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.10.106 (talk) 13:55, February 15, 2007

I can't believe people still argue that he was Turkish. Sometimes you got to wake up from the dream. :::Ozgur Gerilla 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't think so. The Hungarians took Croatia from the Byzantine Empire. It was very much the Kingdom of Hungary, ruling Croatia as a vassal.

talk

) 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

how is those name of Saladin (mother)?

from which country and from which city descend did it?

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

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

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

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

50-59 gives you 109%! Do you have any reliable source that says he was 50% Arab and 50% Turkish? Do you know that at that time there was no Turkey? Do you mean Turkic? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know some of those people who you mentioned as Turkic used to called theirselves Turk, so many years before Turkey, even in Arabic states, look for

Baibars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.158.32 (talk

) July 22, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this guy "al-Dīn" while

No reason, really. I suppose there is an official Wikipedia policy about this somewhere, but they are both pronounced the same anyway. Adam Bishop 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Same reason why we have Adam and Alan. Those two names will look similar to a foreigner, which, with all due respect, I assume you are to Middle-Eastern names. But now that you mention it, Salah din means "Repairer of the Religion" whilst Nur-ad-Din means "Light of the Religion". Saladin repaired Islamic fortunes in the East whilst Nuredin brought the "light" or the "spark" to initiated the Islamic counter-crusade or Jihad (Struggle)against the enemy.

talk

) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think he was asking about the difference between al- and ad-. In this case there is none. And "salah" means "righteousness" does it not? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the Al-Din and the Ad-Din has to do with the pronounciation in Arabic. It is always written Al-Din in Arabic, but always pronounced Ad-Din. The reason is there are two groups of letters in Arabic, sun and moon letters. The sun letters will be pronounced 'ad-din' and for example 'ash-shams' for sun. The moon letters will keep the sound of the 'al' in front of them. I hope that helps. ----Nicole Bovey

I'm going to be bold and dramatically trim the trivia section. I don't think we need to list every instance in which the name "Saladin" is used in popular literature, movies, games, etc.... A book which names a character "Saladin", but represents him in a historically inaccurate manner is not describing the Saladin of this article, and thus it does not belong here. The same goes for video games. Basically, this section is just junking up the article and is very unencyclopedic. Per

Why don't you clean it up then? (It may take more than a viewing of Terry Jones' show though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And

Kalavun as well. Saladin was in third behind Baibars and Kalavun until the Arabs picked up the notion from earlier European writers. I don't advise watching Terry Jone's video as it is horribly inaccurate. ResurgamII (talk

) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel there are POV problems with this article, I think it would be helpful if you could either (a) explain what they are in more detail or (b) actually fix them. I've read this article over thoroughly and don't see any POV problems. The {{

fansite}} tag is totally inappropriate, so I'm removing it. I'll leave the other one for a bit to see whether it stimulates any action. JYolkowski // talk

02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Omar, Muslims destroyed Churches, Salah din had the great cross of Jerusalem beaten and paraded for two days in Jerusalem, 100,000 Christian Armenians were slaughtered at Antioch in 1268. Baibars and countless other Islamic rulers claimed to have a piece of the true cross to give them leverage in negotiations (lies of course, especially Louis' crusade into Egypt), whilst Muslims in Moorish Iberia also participated in Massacres of Jews. Whats your point? As a Christian of the Middle East, I know very well that both sides have commited crimes. No, you and I are certainly are no scholar since you fail to mention these points. Salah din was a chivalrous man at times, and at other times such as after the

talk

) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What the Antioc massacre in 1268 as to do with Saladin ? What's your point telling that muslims slaugthered a lot of people, who deny it ? Like Omar said, on cannot judge Saladin with today's terms. Saladin, nor any other person of theses times. Backwardes 22:03, 19 february 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree with Adam on this one. The text makes it clear that he was born in Iraq, and so it should. However, the terms Iraqi-Kurdish, Syrian-Kurdish or Turkish-Kurdish are all modern concepts as the border between these states were drawn less than 100 years ago. In the days of Saladin, most Kurds lived in the same country, the caliphate. JdeJ (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is strange that the text mentiones "he was born in Iraq", it is more suitable to say modern-day iraq or in the modern republic of iraq. Iraq at the time of Saladin did not include Tikrit, instead there were two iraqs, Iraq Ajami (khuzestan in modern Iran) and Iraq Arabi which streched from north of Basra to Baghdad, perhaps even Samarra, but not Tikrit. I also agree that the term "iraqi-kurd" is irrelevant as it has no historical ground, even today it is a problematic term as it does not coincide with the Kurds internal socio-culturall subdivisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.3.14 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is a modern nation. Ancient peoples must be allowed to be born in the area they were actually born into, Mesopotamia, in this case. Okay to refer back to Saladin from Iraq and certainly Tikrit, but he was not born in Iraq per se. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Better yet, explain why there are differences of opinion in a paragraph and the different resources that support "your" side. Let the reader decide if s/he can! Student7 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reasonable source claiming that Saladin was Turkish. This seems to be an anachronistic application of the modern principle/legal fiction that Turkey is an ethnically homogenous modern nation state, going back essentially to

Ataturk and, with various degrees of intensity, upheld by the Turkish government ever since. Regardless of how one sees this concept, applying it to a 12th century leader seems to be utterly pointless. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 12:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen. A number of contemporaries describe his as Kurdish. He is simply not a Turk. There is no dispute; no arbitration or extra paragraph is necessary. This has nothing to do with the current state of affairs between the Turks of the modern state of Turkey and the Kurds: Turks should neither be offended that he is not Turkish, nor should Kurds claim any particular pride, as his dynasty was in no sense a "Kurdish empire." And let neither side think we are favouring the Kurds and disdaining the Turks - Turkish and Kurdish editors have both been guilty of vandalizing this article (though I do not doubt that Turkish and Kurdish editors have also edited it constructively). However, any and all edits to the article which change his ethnicity to Turkish are to be considered vandalism and reverted. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking my private library, I find:

• Norwich, John Julius (2006). The Middle Sea. Doubleday. p. 124.: "Born in 1137 into a prominent Kurdish family, at the age of 31 [Saladin] was appointed..."
• Maalouf, Amin (1984). The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. Schocken Books.: "Shirkuh, Saladin, and al-Kamil were Kurds" (although that is only from the back matter of the hardcover edition)

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I made the revert just prior to this thread, I should explain - the edit in question had changed one instance of Kurdish to Turkish, without changing the other further down, and made the article disagree with its references without supplying new ones. To me that looks like an unconstructive edit. As ever the standard in wikipedia is not to judge truth but verifiability. Bazzargh (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I had a dig into the history of the image and, well, there isn't any, and both users involved seem to have left, so unless anyone recognizes it it has no provenance at all. How about this [1] (cropped appropriately). At least we know who that's supposed to be! Its already in the commons, but in a much worse scan: [2]. There's the series of Doré engravings as well, but they're murkier and I don't know of a PD source. Bazzargh (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had another look and found it. See [3], and look at the cover of Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz's 'Saladin',

ISBN 1597400750 (note the ISBN given by google books is wrong - that's the first of the 'see also' books on the last page). The book didn't get its cover from here, it was published in 1972. Its clear from the larger image that he is not wearing a tallit, as I guess the anon thinks, but a gorget. Unfortunately, the page that would identify the original source of the image is not part of the preview, but I think this is enough evidence for now to keep the picture. Bazzargh (talk

) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

While KoH dramatized this scene, it can be sourced e.g. to Runciman's History of the Crusades (page 759 in my German Omnibus edition - that's the middle of Book 10, Chapter II). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's probably where Kingdom of Heaven got it from, but it goes back to French, Latin, and Arabic sources who were present (or heard about it later). Of course, they all say different things about it, which is exactly what we might expect when dealing with witnesses and rumours for the same event! The

Raynald of Chatillon articles and talk pages have the stories and the sources. Adam Bishop (talk

) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In Warriors of God, Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James R. Reston, the passage reads

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

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

An editor has linked the Economy of Egypt to the phrase, "Saldin revitalized..." One does not expect that the article would have economic statements back to the middle ages! I don't think that this is a reaonable link. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bascially its to show his greatness and rise to power, his rep improved and this is why he trusted a lot of people began to trust him. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LOTRules, would it be possible to fill in the edit summary so that other editors can understand what it is you are trying to do and why? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but most of the sources need to addedand I'm doing this quite efficiently. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the massive changes have been that useful. Along with the many spelling errors, the article suddenly sounds naive or aimed at a naive reader. It seemed more encyclopedic before. I'm not so sure the article wouldn't be improved if the changes and sometimes very vague references wouldn't be totally reverted wo whatever was there bofore. I have no idea why you started this anyway. Nor does anyone else since the editor has chosen not to enlighten us either by discussion or by entering an edit summary. Student7 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The diction in some places is stilted, broken, and sounds like it was drafted by a non-native speaker; these issues direly need to be addressed. Also, a cursory reading reveals contradictory claims -'He neither maimed, killed nor retaliated against the losers of the battle but allowed them to live in peace and harmony as long as they cooperated' and 'Saladin retaliated by killing all Franks captured from August 28 - September 10. Bahā' ad-Dīn writes, "Whilst we were there they brought two Franks to the Sultan (Saladin) who had been made prisoners by the advance guard. He had them beheaded on the spot"'. Additionally, summations such as 'peace and harmony' are so highly subjective as to be of little worth; the article would be well served by adopting a more encyclopedic voice.Mavigogun (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Student7 I directly take notes made on encyclopadia Britannica and from a variation of reliable sources. First of all what spelling errors? I can see none. They are useful and I'm continually adding sources. I've only edited the the first two sections and am researching this article more and more. Might I ask what the "very vague references" are? Also are you intentially trying to insult me by saying Britannica is not reliable? To the second user I did not write the other baha ad-dins source. I think it looks more encyclopaedic now. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You might try using an English version of Mozilla for updates. It will underscore misspellings and suggest (like a word processor) alternate spelling.Student7 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to take a look at

WP:CIVIL.Student7 (talk

) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you do first off. You insult my writing skills and then go on to tell me to be civil? Even the user on the next section here thinks you were not being nice. Still you haven't answered all my questions, frankly don't tell me what to do or insult me when you seem to contradict yourself, also don't attack me personally. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, a brief note before I leave. First, good job keeping this on the talk page. Second, part of Wikipedia is that our edits are going to be criticized and changed. I consider this a good thing and appreciate the evaluation of my work. LOTRrules, understand that this is part of the process. If one makes sweeping edits to an article, one must expect that their edits will be criticized, challenged, and sometimes removed. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi, I just came here from a 3rd Opinion notice. First, I want to commend everyone for seeking resolution without allowing the discussion to be come aggravated into a dispute.

The reason for the third opinion filing seems to concern the use of edit summaries. My opinion is that, although not required, they are good practice. Personally, I find them useful when looking at article's from my watchlist and to keep track of changes in articles. I recommend editors to use them, whenever possible. Also, I would add that it is customary to notify active collaborators of pending plans to dramatically change an article. This permits discussion and promotes consensus. LOTRrules, I would hope that you work with the editors on the page to help establish that consensus. Lastly, Student7, I encourage everyone to assume good faith regarding editors who have come to work on a particular article, thus LOTRrules can edit the article. However, I would hope that in the future he would discuss these changes on the talk page beforehand.

I hope this helped. Most kind regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may give a fourth opinion, LOTRrules, you have not improved the article at all. Britannica is not a reliable source - all you have done is used another encyclopedia. The article may not have been great before but it hasn't gotten any better. 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference for the above is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the subject (again), if any reference can be found to whether Saladin's administrators (after his death) opened Saladin's personal "treasury" (what we would call "his estate") as opposed to finding nothing in the funds that should have been used to run the army/administration, or whatever. I assume that the writers intended it to be Saladin's personal treasury (what might be called "The Privy Purse") and not funds of the realm. I have a feeling that the references are vague which is why it hasn't been precisely stated before when asked. Not all rulers have been able to successfully distinguish between the two until relatively recent times. Student7 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And quite a few rulers in Africa are still having difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Meowy 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This documentary is being used as a source in the article. I do not think it is a valid source. Using a TV documentary as a source is risky at the best of times, but this production seems decidedly unsuitable to be used as one. The imdb.com reviews of it are not encouraging. Quotes from various reviews: "funded mostly by Iranian state oil and mining companies, this documentary is dazzling in its presentation, but careless about the historical facts"; "tendentious"; "propagandizing"; an "infomercial"; "mostly propaganda"; "pseudo documentary"; "Great cinematography but biased"; "there is a decidedly pro-Islam bias pervading this film"; "don't take the "historical facts" too seriously"; "the director prostituted himself to covert politics", and so on.

I have asked for the opinion of others at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Meowy 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing actually its a documentary by PBS and made in the US. So how can it be biased. Don't pay any attention to the comments - they're just opinions. Have you actually seen the documentary? There are links on the actual page to Google video and you can see it from there. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reviews? I have only seen one user review. The documentary was made back in the year 2000. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The best that television can do is to use the same

WP:RELY sources that we are trying to use. At worse, they can use myths and legends. The latter can help promote a serious documentary into sensational stuff that is tremendously watchable but not terribly accurate. I don't trust television. I've run into more than one problem with well-intentioned editors who relied on a television "documentary." They all have "sweeps" or the equivalent. We are just trying for accuracy not a huge readership nor a Pulitzer! Let's stick with serious scholars and let tv go it's own way. Student7 (talk

) 12:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am Turkic myself, but it does not mean that I have to twist history to fit whatever nationalist feelings I might have. Salah ad-Din was a Kurd. It is a historical fact. Though it is true that many Turkic warriors fought under his banner. It is true that his father had six sons, and two had Turkic names (Buri and Tughtekin). But it does not mean that his family was Turkic. All these chauvinistic disputes are really ugly. Those who fought in Salah ad-Din's army won not because they were Kurds, Turks or Arabs, but because they were Muslims and realized their unity and their common cause. Salah ad-Din would've been ashamed to see how some of us act today. So let us not use his noble name to promote Pan-Turkist, Pan-Iranist or any other chauvinistic ideology. He was a great man, and we can all be proud of him as Muslims. You know, there was a similar story with mawlana Jalal ad-Din Rumi. Some years ago there was a big conference dedicated to Rumi's works and heritage. So, one of the speakers, a professor from Tehran, said that Rumi was certainly a Persian because he wrote his poems in Persian and originally came from Balkh, a Persian city. Then a Turkish professor from Istanbul said that Rumi lived all his life in Turkey, and that Turkey became his motherland, and that his grave is in Turkey, and that he is revered and respected by the Turkish people as their great member. So, he is a great Turkish poet. Then spoke a Arab professor from the University of Cairo. He said that Rumi made a great contribution to Islamic heritage, was essentially a religious poet, and so forth, and therefore can be claimed by the Arabs as well. Then spoke a lady from one of universities of Rome) She jokingly said that "Rumi" means "Roman", and since his works are becoming very known and popular in Europe he can be claimed by the Italians. And then one of the speakers said that Mawlana Rumi was too great of a human being to fit in the boundaries of just one nationality. Neither Mawlana Rumi, nor Sultan Salah ad-Din were chauvinists. So cut it. I know that many of you will not change your opinion and argue about who Saladin was with foam at their mouth. But try to enjoy life anyway. Feruz Khwaja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feruz Khwaja (talk • contribs) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

What makes Saladdin 'Saladdin' is not his ethnic background but his personality.He could even be Greek, Asyriac or even Hebrew who happened to have Turkish named siblings and have fought for Muslims. I just think some people just can't take the fact that he could be Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L Rothen (talk • contribs)

How do you know those names wouldn't be used by non-Turks? Are Kurds not allowed to give their children supposedly Turkish names, at any point in history, ever? And we don't know anything about his mother, or even if he had the same mother as his brothers. It is not so radical and disturbing that he could be Turkish...the world would not collapse because people couldn't handle such a disturbing revelation. We just do not know. We do know that his father was a Kurd and that no contemporary or near-contemporary claims him as anything but a Kurd. Adam Bishop 14:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with L Rothen. Khan is a widely used name which came essentially from the Juan Juan Mongols, yet it used by South Asians also as a name and a title. Does this signify Turkic ancestry also?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan King (talk • contribs) 20:21, February 24, 2007

Personally, I feel that people are using specific examples to verify a rhethoric. I have a feeling that a Kurd having a Turkish name at that point will have been almost like a German having a French one - possible, perhaps, but not very likely without at least some familial connections. Again, such names as Khan and languages like Latin, Hebrew and Arabic are special cases. One can not judge common names by the merits of special cases. Obviously, I do not know anything - most likely, nobody knows this or will know it, ever. But I would recommend against using special examples to underbuild rethoric, since this is hardly an encyclopaediatic approach.

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

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

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

All the rest are Arabic names, some accompanied by a Persian name. Turanshah is not a Turkish name, it is Persian and has nothing to do with Turks. Associating

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

Weak argument. "Buri/Bori" may also be related to the Iranian name "Bur/Bor", as in Bors (which has an Iranian Scythic origin) or Boran/Puran. 82.82.131.168 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The eagle was a sybol of the Seljuks.ok?So Saladin and his family adopted Turkish culture.Why are you all rejecting the real?But the history isn't fake and it tells us the true everytime..

bilecikli 22:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The eagle was/is also a symbol for Polish culture, for Russian culture, for Albanian culture, for German culture, for Sumerian culture, for Hittite culture, for Byzantine culture, for Romanian culture, for Italian culture and so on[4]. The eagle is an extremely common symbol in heraldry and does not prove a thing in this case. JdeJ (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean all of the "eagle symbols".I said the eagle symbol which is using by Egypt now.It comes from Seljuks.bilecikli 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Still, I'm not sure that using such a common symbol tells us much. JdeJ (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

While I (and most of us) agree that Saladin was a Kurd, your argument is a)

original research and b) very weak. Turks had been in the area for a quite a while. Alp Arslan beat the Byzantines at Manzikert two generations before Saladin was born. Both the Seljuk Turks and the Kurds at that time were strongly influenced by Persian culture, and would quite probably laugh about the modern prejudices. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 15:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Indeed. But just like the Roman's conquered Greece only to take on much of their culture, Islam conquered Persia and took over much of its culture in return. See e.g.

Islamic Architecture#Persian_architecture. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This has nothing to do with argument or "rationalization." It has everything to do with scholarly research. If your scholarly reference to Saladin being a Greek beats someone who claims is is a Scot, then he is a Greek! :) Student7 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not true, actually. It would have to beat or at least reasonably balance the standard claim that he was indeed a Kurd. He is obviously more likely to be a Vulcan than a Ferengi, but that does not mean we put Vulcan in the article ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

not so much a correction, as the removal of two lines of vandalized text some retard inserted:

Heyyy! i Was Here! 11.24.O8 EVERYONE LovesZ Saja(=

Hey Sajaa(= i Love U This iZ Like Sooo Much Fun lOl!

Antifornicator (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone provide a section on Saladin's family, wives, brothers, children, etc.? One source, whose reliability is unknown to me, is Cawley, Charles (2007) "Chapter 6: Syria & Mesopatamia" Medieval Lands Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That site seems okay; so little is known about his family anyway. The names of some of his siblings, children, and especially wives are unknown. (There have been numerous discussions here about what ethnicity his mother was, by those offended by the statement that he was Kurdish - no one has any idea though.) I think all of his known family are already mentioned in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

the first paragraph needs to be edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.225.172 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with the little rectangle characters in Saladin's name at the beginning of this article ("Ṣalāḥ")? Is my browser missing a needed plug-in? The rectangles bear no resemblance to any letters of our alphabet. Wideangle (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They should be an S and an h with dots underneath. I can see them fine, must be your browser. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My browser is Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0.2900.5512.xpsp_sp3_gdr.080814-1236CO Wideangle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If no other solution is found, I propose to replace the first rectangle by a plain "S" and the second rectangle by a plain "h" Wideangle (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wouldn't be a technically accurate representation of his name. Have you tried switching your character encoding, maybe it's on Western and should be on Unicode? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The character encoding was already set to Unicode (UTF-8), and that gives better results than the others that I have tried. However, the first and fifth characters in the first word of the first paragraph of this article are shown as rectangles. My browser is Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.5512 et cetera, with SP3. I change the character encoding in IE by going to View/Encoding. Wideangle (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go back to the old section structure—meaning the removal of the "Biography" main heading. Since there's so much info out there for Saladin's lifetime, I say we structure the article based on the sections of the

Any opposition? I'll restore the old form in a day if no one objects. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed all references to "Nur ad-Din" and "Nur al-Din" to be consistent. Revise if necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fz5656 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good move. No need to revise. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This page states Saladin was born between 1137 and 1138. It also says he led the Islamic opposition to the Second Crusade, which took place between 1147 and 1149, implying that Saladin led the Muslim resistance when he was between 10 and 11 years old. I question the authenticity of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.56.26 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should just be the Third Crusade. I've fixed it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Saladin is a Turkish warrior and statesman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALADIN WAS TURKISH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.216.244 (talk) July 15, 2007

As a kurd my whole family has turkish names, that doesn't make me turkish. --94.224.255.168 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

kurdalo you are great lier and you must be fundamentalist fashist.ı think here is no where to make your idiot propaganda and to write tells for children.bilgehan öztürk--78.189.21.14 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Kurdalo is correct, at least in my view. Now, purely for lulz I'm going to play spelling police on 78.189.21.14.

Fashist? More like Fascist, amirite? Also, disagreeing with someone doesn't make you a fascist. Lier? More like Liar, amirite? No where? More like Nowhere, amirite? tells? More like tales, amirite? Kurdalo you are great lier? More like Kurdalo you are a great liar, amirite?

71.207.19.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

he wasn't a turk or a kurd he was an arab so get over it. also there were turks in greece/macedonia so ataturk is not necessarily greek or macedonian. you ignorant people make me facepalm! at least read a few books before writing something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.104.221 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On Recapture of Jerusalem, "After the siege had started, he was unwilling to promise terms of quarter to the Frankish inhabitants of Jerusalem until Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim hostage, estimated at 5000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given. Saladin consulted his council and these terms were accepted. Ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city whether man, woman or child. Saladin allowed many to leave without having the required amount for ransom for others.[83][84]"

I have read many books and I have not read any thing about this. In fact, I believe this is a fictional claim from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven". I may be wrong, but that paragraph needs more verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.59.223 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It already has two references, to Steven Runciman and the Encyclopedia of Islam. (And if I remember correctly, they both take this story from one of the Old French continuations of William of Tyre. It's one of the few parts of Kingdom of Heaven that is actually surprisingly accurate.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Saladin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following