Zaida (Isabella) (de Sevilla) Alfonzo, reina consorte de León - New Evidence Found From Valid Spanish History Source: Zaida is Elizabeth, Isabella, Queen and Wife of Alfonso VI

Once again, I agree and support you on this.

I get a lot of research from https://www.academia.edu/ too.
I'll take a look!

Thanks, Sandro

Sandro, study these authors.

Jaime de Salazar and Acha
http://www.rah.es/jaime-salazar-acha-2/

Reilly, Bernard F
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/reilly-bernard-f

Both experts in Medieval Spanish History

I used both or their works to support the Zaida / Isabella Queen to Alfonso VI, ideas.

I am bringing this discussion back up as new evidence from a high Islamic Scholar has been posted.

If you have not noticed all over the internet the discussion of Queen Elizabeth being a descendant of Prophet Muhammad PBUH has reemerged.

I understand, that despite all the sources I tried to present supporting the opinion t that Zaida was a descendant of Muhammad and also Isabella the Queen who converted, I have been place with closed door opposition. Zaida the name in itself being a clue in my opinion as Zaida=Sayyida=descdnat of Muhammad (PBUH).

I listed the Burke's Peerage report and this seems to be the basis topic in many of the article currently being posted all over the web.

We can sit here and say we already discussed this and there is not enough supporting evidence.

The new scholarly supporting information which has been published is connecting the line of Muhammad PBUH to the Spanish Royals.

This new source is of Great importance as this is A Mufti Islamic Scholar. Most sources have been by Western Christian perspectives.

What is a Muft?
A mufti (/ˈmʌfti/; Arabic: مفتي‎) is an Islamic scholar who interprets and expounds Islamic law (Sharia and fiqh).[1] Muftis are jurists qualified to give authoritative legal opinions known as fatwas.[2] Historically, they were members of the ulama ranking above qadis

Scholar Verifying Path from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the Spanish Royals to other European paths including Queen Elizabeth HRH.

Shiekh Ali Gomaaa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa
-------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1O3zEe4O0s

* A March report by the Moroccan newspaper Al-Ousboue traced her lineage back 43 generations to the founder of Islam, sparking widespread interest across the Middle East.

* The claim is not new, and was originally published in 1986 by Burke’s Peerage, the noted guide to royal genealogy. The link was also reportedly verified by Ali Gomaa, the former grand mufti of Egypt, which would make Elizabeth a distant cousin of fellow monarchs King Abdullah II of Jordan and Mohammed VI of Morocco.

*According to the family tree, she is descendant from the Prophet’s daughter, Fatima.

* According to the Economist, much of the purported link revolves around a Muslim princess called Zaida, who fled an attack on Seville in Muslim Spain in the 11th century and found refuge in the court of Alfonso VI of Castille.

There, “she changed her name to Isabella, converted to Christianity and bore Alfonso a son, Sancho, one of whose descendants later married the Earl of Cambridge,” the Economist said.

* The news said that they had found the Queen's lineage back to the Prophet. "Her bloodline runs through the Earl of Cambridge, in the 14th century, across medieval Muslim Spain, to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter," it quoted. While many people trashed the news, a record of medieval spain also showed same thing. The record had also been verified by another genealogical publisher Ali Gomaa, the former grand mufti of Egypt.

According to Burke's Peerage, the queen is direct descendant of a Muslim princess Zaida. She is the fourth wife of king Al-Mu'tamid ibn Abbad of Seville.

With the emergence of this new verification from a scholar of highest Islamic jurisdiction, I humbly request that curators merge the recently newly created profile
Dª. Zaida Isabel, reina de León

be merged back with Zaida
Dª. Zaida Isabel, reina de León

Thus connecting most of our European paths back to the Arab Andalusian lines and the tree of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

I trust the work of Jaime de Salazar y Acha, I met him in person in the XX American Gathering of Genealogy and X Congress of IberoAmerican Genealogy.

Zaida muslim name Isabella the name she took when she turn to christianity.

Please take some time to look at the line and at the debates around it. There is no direct evidence. The debate is entirely around conclusions drawn by different scholars from indirect evidence.As far as I know, no one has found any new evidence.

There is no doubt -- none whatsoever -- that Zaida converted to Christianity, was baptized with the name Isabella, and was mother of Alphonso's son Sancho, who was designated his heir.

The debate centers around two other pieces of the puzzle. First, Zaida's ancestry is uncertain. The articles quoted above are wrong. Old genealogies said she was a daughter of al-Mutamid, ruler of Seville, but modern research showed she was his daughter-in-law, the the widow of Abu Nasir, the ruler of Córdoba. There is no evidence of her parents but there is a theory she might have been a first cousin of her husband, and so perhaps a niece of al-Mutamid,That's a conclusion drawn from indirect evidence. It was a common practice for Muslim men in this period to marry their paternal first cousins.

The second problem is that Sancho died when he was 15. He has no known descendants. The articles quoted above are wrong. The debate centers around two other daughters of Alphonso, Sancha and Elvira. Their mother is said to have been Elisabeth. Many people think this Elisabeth might have been Zaida / Isabella, but the Chronicon Regum Legionensium says Elisabeth was the 4th Alphonso's five wives and Zaida was the 2nd of his two concubines. The descendants of daughter Sancha died out, but the descendants of daughter Elvira continue to the present day.

In this landscape, you need actual evidence to resolve the problems, not just another opinion.

This is my point I tried to mention above:

Sheikh Ali Gomaa has verified the line as sound. There was records he used. Now getting those records he used, that will take me a lot more emails and international hurdles with work to accomplish.

But, However, at this point his Jurisdiction should be held with some weight. At least as equal as a group discussion claiming doubts to the European lines with NO proof of evidence supporting their claim, just discussion.

maybe merge the files again, with notation, of course, stating more verification is needed regarding Zaida's line to Muhammad (PBUH), despite many of us believing The Umayyad and Abbasid lines are indeed connected to the lines of Muhammad (PBUH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will try my best to find out what reference Shiekh Ali Gomaa used to make his statement. I have one good thing going for my at this point.

My personal Shiekh and guide in our local community is an Egyptian Imam and Scholar from Al Azhar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_University

Dr. Sheikh Syed Ramadan
Dr. EL SAYED RAMADAN, PhD

Lecturer at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
Department Of Islamic Studies In English
Imam of Masjid Fresno Islamic Center

https://youtu.be/FcT_n4NcqJs?t=6m8s

He is very busy, but, I will see if he will help me get connection to Egyptian records.

Geni is a secular site. I can understand that you trust the opinion of a religious authority in your own tradition. However, the errors of material fact in the published accounts, as well as the fact it seems to be just a re-hash of old arguments, create a great deal of doubt.

I see no problem with you believing (a) a particular version of Zaida's ancestry, (b) the co-identity of Zaida and Elisabeth. It's a respectable theory, but it's just a theory until proven.

Geni is a collaborative site. When we make a change like the one you want, we are making it for all users not just for you personally. In the event of a disagreement about the evidence we have to consider all reasonable views and adopt the most conservative.

For the Spanish Speakers to understand more about Sheikh Ramadan and Islam.

https://youtu.be/4Fd0T4O0-Kg

Quote: " Geni is a collaborative site. When we make a change like the one you want, we are making it for all users not just for you personally. In the event of a disagreement about the evidence we have to consider all reasonable views and adopt the most conservative."

I request you do the same and remain balanced in you curating as I seem to see a sided view from Geni Curating .

I am not trying to just use religious views here. I have tried to first bring up Spanish historians' perspective. Now, I am bringing up a religious scholar who has spoken on this line leading to Prophet Muhammad PBUH. We must respect Ali Gomaa's view because this is a topic which is incorporating religion, as the line leads to a religious leader of Islam.

This leader who may be the Grandfather of many of our Spanish lines.

Quote: First, Zaida's ancestry is uncertain. The articles quoted above are wrong. Old genealogies said she was a daughter of al-Mutamid, ruler of Seville, but modern research showed she was his daughter-in-law,

I can speak very confidently on this confusion. Even today Cousins are allowed to marry cousins in Islam.

Also mentioning this is a known pattern we see, even withing European Royalty, because this was a common pattern within Royals to marry within family.

So even if she was the so called ,"Daughter-in-Law" she very well could be have been his niece as well.

I just want to make that clear . this is not a strong argument to dissect the line.

The articles quoted above are wrong. Old genealogies said she was a daughter of al-Mutamid, ruler of Seville, but modern research showed she was his daughter-in-law.

Also, for you to claim this statement, you Must provide evidence of your claim. not a group discussion.

Anwar, again -- in the event of a dispute about the evidence we must take the most conservative view. That is, the view that says the evidence is not quite good enough.

Modern genealogy is based on original sources. In this way it is very different from genealogy only 100 years ago, which was based on old legends.

We understand that genealogists working today can be wrong when they jump to conclusions but many people never think to apply that wisdom to old-time genealogists as well.

When I was first getting started with academic genealogy one of my mentors gave me a piece of advice that turned out to one of the best things I ever learned -- when there is a disagreement about the evidence be very careful if you find yourself deciding in favor of the line you want to have.

In other words, remember you are not immune from cognitive bias. You might be seeing what you want to see.

"The Chronicon Regum Legionensium names "Zaida, the daughter of King Abenabeth of Seville, who was baptised…Elisabeth" as the second of two concubines of King Alfonso, and their son "Sancho who died at the battle of Ucles

"The Chronicon de Cardeña records that King Alfonso married “Mora, que decien la Cayda, sobrina de Abenafanle” who was the mother of his son Sancho.

"Her first marriage is confirmed by the Bayan al Mugrib of Ibn Idari which names "le fils d´Alphonse, Sancho, qu´il avait eu de l´épouse d´Al Mamun ibn Abbad" when recording the battle of Uclés."

"Salazar y Acha attempts to explain these three apparently contradictory sources by suggesting that Zaida could have been the daughter of "un hermano mayor…Ismail ibn Abbad" of Mohammed al-Mutamid, noting particularly the practice of endogamous marriages in the Muslim dynasties. . . . Ismail is recorded as the brother of al-Mutatid and so would have been the paternal uncle of al-Mutamid. From a chronological point of view therefore Salazar y Acha´s suggestion appears untenable, although Zaida could have been another relative, maybe the daughter of an otherwise unrecorded brother of al-Mutamid."

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MOORISH%20SPAIN.htm

Translating for clarity.

Chronicon Regum Legionensium (~1121) says Zaida was daughter of Abenabeth (al-Mutadid). The author is thought to be generally reliable but this work is thought by some to have been hastily compiled. According to Wikipedia, he has been called "the Fabulist" and "the Prince of Falsifiers" because so many " forged, interpolated, and otherwise skillfully altered documents" came from his office.

Chronicon de Cardeña says Zaida was niece of Abenafanle. It's not certain who this is supposed to be but Menéndez Pidal thought he was al-Hajib. Totally different family.

Bayan al Mugrib (1306) says Zaida was wife of al-Mamun (son of al-Mutamid, who was son of al-Mutadid). This is a highly regarded text, re-discovered in the early 1900s.

English Wikipedia summarizes this better than I could:

"She is said by Iberian Muslim sources to have been the daughter-in-law of Al Mutamid, the Muslim King of Seville, wife of his son Abu al Fatah al Ma'mun, Emir of Cordoba, (d. 1091).[2][3][4][5][6] Later Iberian Christian chroniclers call her Al Mutamid's daughter, but the Islamic chroniclers are considered more reliable.[2][4][5][6].

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaida_of_Seville

All those footnotes there? Those are to some of the leading authorities in this area -- Canal Sánchez-Pagín, Montaner Frutos, Palencia, and Salazar y Acha.

Found an English translation of Chronicon Regum Legionensium:

https://books.google.com/books?id=GDMoa4EzrcMC&pg=PA88&lpg=...

And for those who just want an easy-to-read article that explains this part of the tree without a lot of arguing:

How England’s royals descend from Andalus
http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/124517/how-englands-royals-desce...

I came across a 2005 comment to an online message about Zaida. The commenter contacted Debretts about Zaida. Their answer was:

> " I regret that the claim of an Islamic descent is based on faulty genealogy. King Alphonso VI of Castile married Zaida, a Moorish lady by whom he had only one son who died without issue and it has been wrongly claimed that some of his daughters came from this marriage. It has been further claimed that she was the daughter of a local king descended from Muhammad. However, Islamic sources make it quite clear that she was the daughter-in-law of the king and widow of one of his sons. Thus her own ancestry is unknown. Indeed the descent of the king from Muhammad is dubious. In short, no islamic descent for the Queen. However, some Spanish noble houses do have Islamic descents but these have not been studied in great detail."

* https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=59&p=...

I've been trying to find an article I remember from the late 1970s or early 1980s. It was my first introduction to the problem of Zaida. I remember it appeared in The Augustan, a publication of The Augustan Society. And, I remember it was written by Forest Barber, who was a frequent contributor of articles about Spanish lines.

So far no luck finding it, although I know I have it.

What I remember of the article is that the author met with some Berber tribal oral historians when he was in Morocco. He asked them about Dª. Zaida Isabel, reina de León. They affirmed her ancestry as a part of their tradition.

That's it. I don't remember which version of her ancestry they affirmed. Presumably it it was that she was a paternal 1st cousin of al-Mamun. And I don't remember whether they said anything about daughters Sancha and Elvira. I suspect the whole point of Barber's article would have been to "prove" they were Zaida's daughters. At least, I must have understood it that way judging from some notes I made in the 1990s.

A 900-year-old oral tradition doesn't count for much, but it might be a clue to Sheikh Ali Gomaa's opinion about Zaida.

I see you have been working hard.

Good Job

You are assuming it is oral tradition. Scribes were a common thing even at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And keeping track of lines connected to the Prophet has always been of great importance, through all the times of Islamic rule.

Anwar, I'm not assuming anything. I said "might be a clue".

For these historians it was indeed an oral tradition. That's what they do -- memorize and recite pedigrees.

But any scholar will tell you, you cannot assume any tradition is entirely oral if there have been periods of contact with written cultures.

We see that even in our own society, where people know something about their genealogy because Grandma read it in a book.

What kind of opening statement is this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Are you descended from Muhammad?
The short answer is "probably not". Or more accurately, maybe you are but if you are claiming descent through medieval Spain there is no evidence.

Starting a project relating to Rasollullah, just to cut his descendants paths. ((wow))
----------------------------------------------------------------
all your sources are from the same spot and they are discussions.
most coming from one American Historian. Not sure we should base all these lines on one American historians views, who appears antisemitic.

References for the project:
"Banu-Qasi conjectured line" (2001), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"History of the house of maia in Portugal" (2018), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"Moslem Roots" (2000), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"Muhammad's family in Europe(1998), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"Muslim/Christian descents in Early-Medieval Spain" (2001), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"New theory on the Muslim descent of the Maia" (2016), at soc.genealogy.medieval.
"Umayyad family tree", at Wikpedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love to see more Spanish or European Medieval professionals contribute.

Because really all I see is Justin creating a Fake page for our Beloved Muhammad to help back his curating with sided reference material.

let's get some real records as valid proof , maybe at least a book from the 1600's or something of status?

Justin are discussions considered valuable evidence?

Even if the person in the discussion has valid credentials, sources must be provided to support views.

That's what you keep mentioning to me.

Not, he said , so it is.

Otherwise, The Shaykh Ali Gomaa reference holds up equally in validity as what you are posting.

A scholar verifies something and you call it oral tradition, well, at this point the references you have provided are about the same.

Just oral discussions.

Anwar, this is very simple.

Genealogy is founded on records created contemporaneously, or more or less contemporaneously, with the events they record. If there are no records, there is no proof. The line is a myth.

Opinions are not proof. Theories are not proof. Discussions are not proof. Books written 500 years later with no sources are not proof. Nothing is proof except records created at the time of the event.

I've posted the sources. I keep posting the sources. You keep ignoring the sources.

For Zaida, there are three sources. Very late, but perhaps marginally acceptable. They all three say something different. There is no way to prove this line without some new source that experts agree is better and more reliable than all the others.

I'm not trying to be mean here. I'm not trying to take away your title Sayyid that you get from telling people you're a descendant of Mohammad. I don't doubt that means a lot to you.

What I'm doing is the thing all modern genealogists do -- looking at the records, and pointing out places where there are problems.

Then it's up to you and others who think the line is right to find the missing evidence. You're not looking for someone's opinion or theory. You're looking for a charter or chronicle that no one else has ever discovered. Find that, and you'll be a hero.

I recommend you spend some time learning about the Genealogical Proof Standard. We have a project for that on Geni:

Workshop: Using the Genealogical Proof Standard
https://www.geni.com/projects/Workshop-Using-the-Genealogical-Proof...

We also have other resources that would helpful for you. I particularly recommend:

Working with sources
https://www.geni.com/projects/Working-with-sources/18201

Autosomal DNA Knowledge share
https://www.geni.com/projects/Autosomal-DNA-Knowledge-share/39099

DNA Fingerprint Signature Testing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3831584/

Anwar, you aren't understanding either genealogical proof or genetic evidence.

Here are two very easy intro-level videos that should help you understand why your DNA arguments don't make sense.

Are your DNA Ethnicity Results Accurate?
https://youtu.be/i70SZRW9t90

DNA Ethnicity Results Aren't What You Think
https://youtu.be/u8lMfGqSrwg

When you take multiple DNA tests and compare them, you get clues from all tests. When you have overlapping finding from various tests , it becomes apparent this findings are accurate.

I also have similar findings on my Chromo 2.0 testing .

The Chromo2 test used a custom-designed Illumina chip which covered 250,000 autosomal SNPs, 14,000 Y-chromosome SNPs and 3000 mtDNA SNPs. The autosomal DNA test was known as All My Ancestry. Customers were provided with a chromosome painting, a global connections plot and a population percentage model to infer which proportions of your genome come from seven different world regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you understand fingerprint testing?

Your values for 15 of these genetic systems are compared with our company database known as atDNA 8.0, developed by population experts. The current state of the database reflects over 450 published studies containing over 130,000 samples from all over the world.

Our genealogy experts take your DNA results and evaluate the relative strength and weakness of your matches to arrive at an overall picture of your primary ancestries.
(WHAT DOES THIS PARAGRAPH SAY?(Our genealogy experts! )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxWXCT9wVoI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdSbH5TQJr0

Stop trying to now debunk my DNA test findings.

I guess you are also saying if I committed a crime they wouldn't find me because the test shows Russian, Spanish Andalusian, Moroccan Arab / Spanish, and Yemeni Right? Nice, glad to know Crime scene type testing doesn't work.

You're still misunderstanding. You're not alone. Many people misunderstand the science here. They get their science knowledge from a commercial -- that guy was German and now he's Scottish.

It doesn't work like that.

The markers in your DNA don't come with built in labels that say French, German, Yemeni. The only way to know what they might be is to compare them to a reference database of people from different countries. That comparison can be flawed for many reasons.

One of the flaws in the tests you describe is a basic flaw in logic. Overall statistical similarity to a population is not the same as being part of that population. Too many variables. Bad science. You need a more comprehensive, more modern analysis.

On similar tests I come up as almost entirely Swedish, although in fact I have a very diverse ancestry all across Northwestern Europe. My DNA just happens to be closer overall to the Swedes than to anything else.

And there is another logical flaw, one that comes from the way you are thinking about your results.

You imagine that the Yemeni is your DNA composition can be attributed to a particular line. But it can't. Autosomal DNA begins to wash out after about 5 generations. If you really have Yemeni markers, your Yemeni ancestry is much more recent than Muhammad. Any DNA you got from an ancestor that far back would be broken down into > 1 cM segments that aren't specific enough to be used for genealogical matching.

Then too, a match to a specific population is not at all the same thing as a match to a specific DNA line.

My experience teaching and mentoring in this area is that you will need to time to assimilate this information. No one ever says "Oh, I get it now." Particularly when they are emotionally invested in another theory. It always takes a bit of time to get someone to see why the science isn't what they thought it was.