This part of Sudan's history, we pause with intense thought on the ideas that were circulating in Al-Samadi's mind, his concerns, and his positions.

The majority of Arab historians lacked a plan in their writings and adopted the method of annalistic entries, meaning they wrote their history year by year. Al-Tabari, the sheikh of Arab historians, followed this method, even though Al-Mas'udi, who lived at the same time, departed from it. Ibn Khaldun criticized the annalistic method, but when he began writing history, he followed what he had criticized in others. Then came Al-Sa'di, who wrote his history in the style of the vast majority of these historians, so his writing lacked any plan.

The reason for writing this way was that Al-Samadi, to a great extent, was inclined towards literary writing, with some artistic flair. He often used words not found in Arabic dictionaries and played with Arabic sentence structure as he pleased. At times, the reader feels that he is thinking in a Sudanese way and writing in a language that is not his original one. Nevertheless, most of his writing was free of errors. Some of the gaps in the writing can be attributed to the fact that the writers were more concerned with the accuracy of transmission and the literalness of the subject matter than with the elegance and beauty of the writing. It is unreasonable to ask an African man who lived in this period to critique the events he narrates and their causes, or to ask him to explain the causes and consequences of these events.

Despite the lack of a plan in the writing and the gaps within it, it hints at the existence of a general understanding of the administrative system in Sudan during the 16th and 17th centuries, and allows us to understand the reasons that led to periods of prosperity and periods of hardship in this part of Sudan. The writers of that era