Sort:  

Historians tend to ignore any evidence from religious sources although these sources had devoted followers that insured or tried to insure the accuracy of the information. The most evidence I read of Mansa Musa's wealth are true but some might also fall into the fables category so why discredit religious sources and take into account only those provided by assumed historians?

The most evidence I read of Mansa Musa's wealth are true but some might also fall into the fables category so why discredit religious sources and take into account only those provided by assumed historians?
Great point!

I also read, or heard, somewhere that the level of scrutiny was/is much higher for religious sources, particularly for Christianity.