Talk:Almoravid dynasty

Subheads needed

This article could probably use some sub-dividing.

Dvyost 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Translation of "Amir"

The commonly used modern translation of Amir is "Commander," not "Prince." Yusuf's title should more appropriately be rendered as "Commander of the Muslims."

Almoravides are not Morroco

Almoravides are a different country ,with are different dinasty .But if someone is racist ,can write Almoravid is the four dynasty of Morroco -User:Bokpasa (Moi 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)).

The almoravids are indeed moroccan, if not explain why Oqba Ibn Nafi confronts the Lamtuna at the Draa River. Watermelonfan69 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No almo It's Moroccan DYNASTY It was founded by Abdullah Ibn Yassin and its first capital is the city of Aghmat near Marrakesh Taha Moroccan (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Azougui

Read the page on Azougui and tell me why it isn't even mentioned on this page...? CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1- A Wiki article can't be a source for another one.

2- Don't think that "Mauritania" existed at that moment

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Concerning #1 I didn't suggest to use the other Wikipedia article as source, rather a starting step to investigating the connection between the two subjects (which is strongly suggested by the Azougui article).

Concerning #2 not sure what you mean? Is the information at Azougui correct or false? If it is correct, would it not be appropriate to at least mention the origin of the peoples that later form what this article is about?

Remember, I'm not telling anyone to include a link between the two pages. I am merely asking why that is not the case...

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Almoravids were "originated" from the actual Trarza region of Mauritania, from which they migrated north before starting their conquest.

As shown in the map that I gave in the precedent discussion on this page, when the Almoravids started their conquest they were located in an area spreading from Sijilmassa to Adrar, as nomads. Then, yes, the information on the Azougui seems to be false to me. Maybe it was one of their bases during their conquests, but definitely not THE base from which they conquered their empire.

Don't forget that we started to talk about an "empire" when the dynasty (not the "movement") conquered Marrakech and made it their capital city ;)

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the incongruity. CapnZapp (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Azougui as first capital is actually correct, there are at lest 7 references sourcing Azougui as the first capital. It was built by one of the Almoravid founders Yannou ibn'Omar el Hadj. But just like Aghmat the second capital, Azougui is in ruins today. They were both were capital of the Almoravids, only that unlike Azougui and Marrakesh, Aghmat wasn't founded by the Almoravids.

Also if one follow your explanation about Azougui not being the first capital of the Almoravid empire because they circulated as nomads/ were in motion: following your logic one can say the same bout their third capital Marrakesh. That when the Almoravids continued their conquest, they were located from an erea spreading from Valencia to Marrakesh region and that for this reason: Marrakesh in not the Capital of the Almoravids but rather for instance Seville, as it rang the finishing point of their motion.

And the Almoravids didn't originate from Trarza but from Adrar the geographic local of the Godala tribe from which the first emir Yahya ibn Ibrahim is from. AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AvaBrandon2000, instead of replying to comments that are more than 12 years old, i suggest you take your comment to the latest discussion whose title is "First capital". Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Origins

In his book The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain, the author Abd al-Wahid Dhannūn Taha, based on several sources including bibliographic of Ibn Khaldun, provides, on pages 26 and 29 of his book, information on the geographical distribution of Sanhaja tribes. He does the same for the different tribes and tribal Berber branch of the Maghreb and information on the different tribes or ethnic groups (Arabs, Berbers and sub-Saharan African) who participated in the Muslim conquest of Visigoth Spain.

The exact meaning of "Murābiṭ" is a matter of controversy. Some have suggested that the word might be derived from the Arabic ribaṭ, meaning fortress (a term with which it shares the root r-b-ṭ), while others believe that it refers to ribat, meaning "ready for battle" (cf. jihad).

When the Almoravids began their political rise, the Kingdom of Fez (Morocco's first name) of the Idrisid dynasty was split into a series of small emirates located mainly north of the country, and headed by relatives of the royal family (No source).

According to French historian Bernard Lugan and others, the lure of wealth from trade in the South (Sahara) and marketed to the North (the West) attracted various tribes to crossroads city such as Marrakech, which become the capital of various dynasties, especially those from the South (Almoravids, Almohads, Saadian) (For the lay reader, who is this French historian? No source of his book, scholary work etc).

Kevin Shillington proposes that the Almoravid movement had origins in efforts of the Sanhaja of the Awdaghust area, especially the Lamtuna tribe, to defeat the influence of the Ghana Empire in the area. Almoravid unity also protected other tribes from the domination of the Zenata tribes to the north.

The most powerful of the tribes of the Sahara near the Sénégal River was the Lamtuna, whose culture of origin was 'Wadi Noun' (Nul Lemta) (POV) (No source). They later came together as the upper Leger river culture, which founded the city of Aoudaghost (No source). They converted to Islam in the ninth century (No source).

About the year 1040 (or a little earlier) one of their chiefs, Yahya ibn Ibrahim, made the pilgrimage to Makkah (No source). On his way home, he attended the teachers of the mosque at university of Al-Qayrawan, today's Kairouan in Tunisia (No source); the first Arab-Muslim city in North Africa (No source), who soon learnt from him that his people knew little of the religion they were supposed to profess, and that though his will was good, his own ignorance was great. (POV) (No source). By the good offices of the theologians of Al Qayrawan (POV), one of whom was from Fez, Yahya was provided with a missionary, Abdallah ibn Yasin, a zealous partisan of the Malikis, one of the four Madhhab, Sunni schools of Islam (No source paragraph and puffery).

His preaching was before long rejected by the Lamtunas, so on the advice of Yahya (Is this a story?), who accompanied him, he retired to Saharan regions from which his influence spread (No source). His creed (POV - tone) was mainly characterized by a rigid formalism and a strict adherence to the dictates of the Qur'an, and the Orthodox tradition (No source).

Ibn Yasin imposed a penitential scourging on all converts as a purification, and enforced a regular system of discipline for every breach of the law, including the chiefs themselves (No source. This sentence really needs rewording) . Under such directions, the Almoravids were brought into excellent order (POV) (No source). Their first military leader, Yahya ibn Ibrahim, gave them a good military organization (POV) (No source). Their main force was infantry, armed with javelins in the front ranks and pikes behind, which formed into a phalanx; it was supported by camelmen and hor semen on the flanks (No source).

References

Conquests

Northern Africa

From the year 1053, the Almoravids began to spread their religious way to the Berber areas of the Sahara, and to the regions south of the desert (No source. If the first source in this paragraph also support this account, please indicate it). After winning over the Sanhaja Berber tribe, they quickly took control of the entire desert trade route, seizing Sijilmasa at the northern end in 1054, and Aoudaghost at the southern end in 1055 (Even with the source, POV and editorial issues comes to mind). Yahya ibn Ibrahim was killed in a battle in 1057, but Abd-Allah ibn Yasin, whose influence as a religious teacher was paramount (No source. Reword this), named his brother Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar as chief (No source). Under him, the Almoravids soon began to spread their power beyond the desert, and subjected the tribes of the Atlas Mountains (POV) (No source). They then came in contact with the Berghouata, a branch of the Masmuda of central Morocco, who followed a "heresy" founded by Salih ibn Tarif, three centuries earlier (POV - tone.) (No source). The Berghouata made a fierce resistance, and it was in battle with them that Abdullah ibn Yasin was killed in 1059 (No source). They were, however, completely conquered by Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar, who took the defeated chief's widow, Zainab, as a wife (POV. This whole paragraph reads like an story) (No sources whatsoever)

In 1061, Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar made a division of the power he had established, handing over the more-settled parts to his cousin Yusuf ibn Tashfin, as viceroy, resigning to him also his favourite wife Zainab. (No source) For himself, he reserved the task of suppressing the revolts which had broken out in the desert (No source), but when he returned to resume control, he found his cousin too powerful to be superseded (No source). In November 1087, the Serer King Ama Gôdô Maat gathered his warrior Serer army, defeated Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar and killed him with a poison arrow . (In spite of the sources, the tone of this sentence needs reworded I admit) (This whole paragraph needs rephrasing).

Yusuf ibn Tashfin had in the meantime brought what is now known as Morocco, Western Sahara and Mauretania into complete subjection (POV) (No source). In 1062 he founded the city of Marrakech (No source). In 1080, he conquered the kingdom of Tlemcen (in modern-day Algeria) and founded the present city of that name (No source), his rule extending as far east as Oran (No source).

References

Ghana Empire

There has been a belief by some (Who? See end of section) that the Almoravids conquered the Ghana Empire sometime around 1075 AD. According to Arab tradition, the ensuing war pushed Ghana over the edge, ending the kingdom's position as a commercial and military power by 1100 (See end of section), as it collapsed into tribal groups and chieftaincies, some of which later assimilated into the Almoravids while others founded the Mali Empire (See end of section). However, the Almoravid religious influence was gradual and not heavily involved in military strife (See end of section) as Almoravids increased in power by marrying among the nation's nobility (See end of section). Scholars such as Dierk Lange attribute the decline of ancient Ghana to numerous unrelated factors, only one of which can be likely attributable to internal dynastic struggles that were instigated by Almalvorid influence and Islamic pressures, but devoid of any military conversion and conquest (See end of section). (End of section comment: This whole section has weight issues with its one source. Other reliable sources needs to be added. Many of the sentences in this section can be contradicted with several reliable source one of which has been previously given. POV issues are also everywhere. Since this section is addressing the southern wing of the Almoravid movement, the religious wars etc should not be minimise by the use of clever wording. This section needs re-writing).

References

Southern Iberia

In 1086 Yusuf ibn Tashfin was invited by the taifa Muslim princes of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) to defend them against Alfonso VI, King of León and Castile (No source). In that year, Yusuf ibn Tashfin crossed the straits to Algeciras (No source), inflicted a severe defeat on the Christians at the Battle of az-Zallaqah (Battle of Sagrajas) (POV - tone) (No source). He was prevented from following up his victory by trouble in Africa (POV - tone), which he had to settle in person (POV - tone)(No source) (This whole section is written like a big fan and like someone who is boasting).

When he returned to Iberia in 1090, it was avowedly for the purpose of deposing the Muslim princes, and annexing their states (Am I the only one who thinks this sentence does not make sense whatsoever?). He had in his favour the mass of the inhabitants (How do you know? No source. Tone), who had been worn out (Worn out!) by the oppressive taxation imposed by their spend-thrift rulers (POV) (No source). Their religious teachers, as well as others in the east, (most notably, al-Ghazali in Persia and al-Tartushi in Egypt, who was himself an Iberian by birth, from Tortosa) (No source), detested the native Muslim princes for their religious indifference (Tone) (No source), and gave Yusuf a fatwa -- or legal opinion—to the effect that he had good moral and religious right, to dethrone the rulers, (No source) (POV) whom he saw as heterodox and who did not scruple to seek help from the Christians, whose habits he claimed they had adopted. By 1094, he had removed them all, except for the one at Zaragoza; and though he regained little from the Christians except Valencia (No source) (POV), he re-united the Muslim power, and gave a check to the reconquest of the country by the Christians. (Very essay like section, big fan and boasting with no sources whatsoever).

After friendly correspondence with the caliph at Baghdad, whom he acknowledged as Amir al-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Faithful"), Yusuf ibn Tashfin in 1097 assumed the title of Amir al Muslimin ("Commander of the Muslims") (No source). He died in 1106, when he was reputed to have reached the age of 100.(No source)

The Almoravid power was at its height at Yusuf's death (No source), and the Moorish empire then included all North-West Africa as far as Algiers, and all of Iberia south of the Tagus, with the east coast as far as the mouth of the Ebro, and included the Balearic Islands.(No source)

How come Azougi to be a Capital?!

I have looked through the ancient books of history where there is no mention to this called city [Azougi] as a capital. Please remove it because this is called as "Falsification of history". The very first capital is Aghmat city then Marrakech city, while there is no recognition of Azougi as a capital of the Almoravids. 41.142.219.152 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we will remove it that easily given that there are sources cited and you don't cite any sources of your own.

That said, I have looked at this before and the claim does seem to be more sketchy than the presence of citations would suggest, and its current presentation in the infobox may be not be WP:NPOV or particularly accurate. The cited sources (minus one I can't access) offer no details about this point other than a brief mention without dates, and one of them puts "capital" in quotation marks, suggesting the author isn't definitively endorsing this label (a convention also used by other authors, among other things because there were probably multiple bases of operation in the south). An earlier capital is indeed not mentioned in other detailed references about the Almoravids that I can find, even those that discuss Azougi (also spelled Azuggi, Azugi, Azuqqi, Azukki, etc). References mention it clearly as a southern capital of the Almoravids, mainly as the base of Abu Bakr after leaving Marrakesh, but these events are well after Aghmat already served as a capital. There are a number of apparently important authors and references that sources cite in relation to Azuggi which are not cited here and which I can't access at the moment (e.g. Saison, B. (1981) "Azuggi: archéologie et histoire en Adrar mauritanien"; Norris, H.T. (1972) "Saharan Myth and Saga"; Norris H.T. (1986) "The Arabic Conquest of the Western Sahara"; etc).

So a deeper dive into the literature would be needed, which I don't have time to do now. The issue is certainly hindered by the fact (mentioned by many scholars) that the early Almoravid period and the southern branch of the Almoravids are still poorly understood. Judging by what I see so far, it seems pretty unlikely that there is actually a scholarly consensus about another "capital" before Aghmat, if indeed there was one; most likely Azuggi should be mentioned as another capital for the southern Almoravids, alongside the northern capitals, perhaps with an uncertain start date and most likely a much later end date. R Prazeres (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Aghmat was only conquered quite late (1058/59), after the crossing of the High Atlas. The Almoravids existed prior to that, having conquered Sijilmassa (twice), Awdaghost, etc. in prior years. Their initial empire stretched across the Sahara, anchored at Sijilmassa in the north and Awdaghost in the south (indeed, the apparent initial goal of the Lamtuna was simply to recreate the great Sanhaja empire in the Sahara; the crossing of the Atlas in 1058 was provoked by repeated attempts by the Maghrawa to recover Sijilmassa. It is conjectured that the Almoravids went into the Atlas initially just to seal the passes to prevent the Magrhawa from crossing south again and protect their holdings; but upon allying with the Masmuda, they were urged to cross over and venture north themselves, into the Aghmat plain; and the rest, as they say, is history.) The homeland of the Lamtuna (core tribe of the Almoravids) was around the Adrar plateau in the Sahara, although being desert-dwellers it is unlikely you can pin-point a single location that served as "capital". Azuggi was certainly an early Almoravid fortress and cited as the base of the first Almoravid emir Yahya ibn Umar in his campaign against the Gudala in 1055/56. Calling it a "capital" is probably an exaggeration. But it is the only Almoravid location we have for certain. Walrasiad (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I've seen so far also. To me this is another example of something that should be discussed in the main body of the article, where all this can be explained (even briefly), rather than inserted into the infobox without context. R Prazeres (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Azugi continued to be regarded as the capital of the Almoravids well after the fall of the dynasty in Spain and even after its fall in the Balearic Islands. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It did, because the southern "branch" of the dynasty survived much longer. But there's no serious scholarly source so far, or certainly nothing resembling a scholarly consensus, around its supposed status as a first "capital" in the early Almoravid years. Like I said in my first response above, it should only belong in the infobox with very different dates and added context. R Prazeres (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Archaeology suggests here that Aghmat was the first Almoravid capital.[1] SimoooIX (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So does this source. [2]. While this one suggests that it was Marrakesh [3] SimoooIX (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it extremely odd as well that azougui was in the info box, while many of the edits that have solid sources get reverted.

The universally accepted first capital of almoravids is aghmat, the "birth" of almoravid empire only started with their alliance with the Masmuda of sous, as such it makes no sense for azougui to be in the info box as the first capital.

I also see a heavy bias against morocco eventhough it is the birth place of the almoravid movement, and the dynasty while being a branch of sanhaja that's in the disputed western Sahara which morocco claims, and parts of present day Mauritania, is still considered a moroccan dynasty given the empire is based on the ideology of "house of almoravids" in sous, and was centered in morocco, this is like saying the current alaouite dynasty is not a moroccan dynasty because the alaouites are originally from the hijaz region in Arabia.

Some users even suggest removing Morocco's name from the lead altogether, and the wording has already been changed from "centered in morocco" to "centered in present day morocco" as if to detach present-day morocco from 11th century morocco, when there's a scholarly consensus that the moroccan kingdom was founded in 789 and had a continuous existence up till modern day with a total of 7 consecutive dynasties including the current one. Goharocko (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

April 2023

Hi @Kkloppm, i have reverted your edit because it was unsourced. You need to provide a reliable source . Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This issue has actually been discussed at length already at Talk:Abu Bakr ibn Umar#Original source of the image. If there is any further productive discussion to have on this issue, I recommend taking it there. Kkloppm's edits are clearly a continuation of earlier edit-warring by a previously blocked account in February 2023. R Prazeres (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

First capital

Although there have been discussions on this topic earlier, I would prefer to initiate a new discussion. While some sources cited in this article indicate that Azougui was the first Almoravid capital, other reliable sources suggest that it was Aghmat, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] making it unclear which one was actually the first. Note: There was a discussion on the Azougui talk page about whether to use the term "capital" (which is currently used) or "base" (which was used before 2021) in the lead section. However, M.Bitton and Apaugasma preferred to keep it as it is now.

• I suggest we remove the mention of Azougui from the infobox but instead we try highlight the issue in the body using a phrase like "some sources suggest that it was the first capital while some others say otherwise". Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I essentially said in the earlier discussion above: the issue needs to be explained in proper detail in the body of the article, without editorializing, and the capitals in the infobox will need to be updated accordingly.

The current issue with the infobox is really limited to the dates for Azougui, which are merely the original's editor's own assumption and have little to do with cited sources. Aghmat is probably not the "first capital" in the most general sense either (Sijilmasa was an important base before it), but we do have dates for when it was used as such during the Almoravid northern expansion. For Azougui, it's clear that it was the southern base/capital at least after Abu Bakr's return to the Sahara, as well as an existing fortress before that, but there is no clear information beyond that. It also means that Azougui was still a "capital" after the foundation of Marrakesh, which of course the infobox currently doesn't reflect at all.

The best option would likely be to summarize Azougui in the infobox simply as "southern" capital (with a clarification for the other cities if needed), as the sources do. Otherwise, treating Azougui as the "first capital" of the Almoravids without further qualification is not WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship, as the various more detailed scholarly references on the topic (e.g. Bennison, Messier, etc) mention Azougui as a southern capital but make no claim about it being the "first", which indeed some others attribute to Aghmat. The literature also explicitly notes that early Almoravid history is not well understood, and the southern Almoravids even less so. It's not Wikipedia's job to resolve this. Passing mentions about the "first capital" in some sources do not make up for that, but are relevant and should be indicated explicitly, without further WP:SYNTHESIS. If we can find more clearly verifiable dates for Azougui later, we can add them then. R Prazeres (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally prefer to describe Azougui as a base rather than a capital. But i think mentionnig it as a capital of the southern part of the empire as you suggested sounds very reasonable and i support it (just like the way Seville is mentioned as a capital of al-Andalus in the Almohad article). Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not the southern part, it's the southern branch (the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr, the supreme leader of the Almoravids). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the "southern branch" is more precise, though for an infobox summary "southern capital" seems equally clear to me, without confusing unfamiliar readers. It should be up to the article itself to make the division between the southern and northern Almoravids clearer (among other things), so we can leave that particular side-note open to further discussion, pending further improvements to the main text. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr" this seems like a POV. Could you please provide an RS supporting your claim? If Azuggi held such importance back then, why is it so hard to find mentions of Azougui in reliable History sources? Almost all the books i've read so far, either they don't even mention it or they describe as a mere base. SimoooIX (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the "branch", that's why I mentioned Abu Bakr who remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death. Southern capital would work only if Marrakesh is labelled as northern capital (Aghmat was a temporary base). M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i misunderstood you. But you still need an RS supporting your claim. SimoooIX (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Which claim? That Abu Bakr remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death? M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, your claim that the southern Branch was the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr.

Also Aghmat wasn't a "temporary base", actually it was a "temporary capital", that's what most of RS say. SimoooIX (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't answer questions that are not addressed to you. I know you position and have zero interest in what you have to rehash about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Who were you asking then? SimoooIX (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I was having a discussion with R Prazeres (due to your unindented comment that followed theirs). Needless to say that this ends here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I will also reiterate that this has been discussed on multiple occasions (here and on the Azougi article where the consensus was to leave it as it is). If the issue is just with the dates, then to keep it simple, they can be removed altogether (they are not needed).M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing what? Could you please clarify? SimoooIX (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been discussed here but never resolved, to be clear. And discussion at Talk:Azougui is instructive but doesn't override ongoing discussion here (indeed, had I known, I would have request that SimoooIX not start a separate discussion there, only to return here). Regardless, the issue remains being accountable to the sources.

To confirm, M.Bitton: are you saying you're ok with removing the dates from Azougui specifically in the infobox? And how do you feel about adding "southern capital" next to it? (The order, as far as I'm concerned, can remain the same.) R Prazeres (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Yes, removing the dates from the Infobox should address the issue (no need to specify what kind of capital it was, even if we knew that for a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of getting some progress done on this issue, SimoooIX can you confirm whether you object to removing the dates from Azougui in the infobox? (Just the dates for now, not other changes.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, i oppose removing the dates. They are needed. SimoooIX (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the dates. They must be kept in order not to mislead readers. SimoooIX (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it's unsourced. What solution are you proposing?

If there's no agreement, then the only other thing to do for now is to place an inline "disputed" tag until this is resolved. R Prazeres (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution is your suggestion above, mentioning it as a "southern capital" without mention of any date (because it's unsourced as you said), but think we must keep the dates for Aghmat and Marrakesh. SimoooIX(talk) 21:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: given the above, I have another suggestion: instead of removing the dates, replace Azougui's with (-1087) to make the end date match the year of the death of the Abu Bakr. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you know exactly what that is called. SimoooIX (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Think what you want, just make sure you keep to it away from my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion is nothing but WP:OR. SimoooIX (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it remained a capital even after Abu Bakr's death. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is proving how you want to push your POV. SimoooIX (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You have two choices: a) substantiate your accusations of POV pushing. 2) take them back and apologize. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No i'm not going to apologize, I mean just look at it. When i started a discussion on the Azougui talk page and presented sources indicating that Aghmat was the first capital, you quickly came and objected to this (I wonder what led you there), and cited the Encyclopedia of Islam as evidence that "Azougui was still regarded as a capital even after the fall in the Balearic Islands". (I'm still waiting for a quote), which is not relevant (even if it was mentioned in the source) to our discussion of which city was the first capital and whether Azougui was considered a capital by the traditional definition or merely a military base. And now you suggested that we include an original research date in the infobox, but when I pointed out that this was not appropriate, you responded by saying "You're right, it remained a capital even after Abu Bakr's death. I'm done here.", what does that even mean? SimoooIX (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, and since I promised Rosguill not to respond in kind, I will do just that. Incidentally, the other discussion that you're using to justify your aspersions proves the exact opposite of what you're asserting (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well). M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres, I'm sorry, i didn't read your comment properly. I'm not opposing removing the date from Azougui (i thought you meant removing all the dates since i think that's what M.Bitton suggested above) SimoooIX (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said and ideally, avoid mentioning me altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what you said : "If the issue is just with the dates, then to keep it simple, they can be removed altogether", While there was only one date for Azougui. SimoooIX (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, following SimoooIX's last comment, if there are no further objections, I'll start with removing those specific dates. I would prefer to include something like "southern capital" eventually, per the wording used in multiple sources, but this can be decided another day. Not everything needs to be in the infobox by default. I'll also try to find time to add relevant content in the article itself. R Prazeres (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No comment on that as I can't concentrate when people start casting aspersions (I'm still waiting for them to justify their accusation). In the meantime, I will also ping Apaugasma, since they were involved in the other discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since the meaning of the word 'capital' with regard to Azougui is quite fuzzy, and since sources appear to not give fixed dates for it, removing the date (now done by R Prazeres) was the right solution.

I've only briefly engaged with the sources while working towards a solution for the previous dispute at Azougui, but the impression I got there is that 11th-/12th-century chroniclers like al-Bakri and al-Zuhri regarded Azougui as a kind of symbolic capital, without it ever having officially been declared a capital by the Almoravids themselves. If that is correct (but my impression can be wrong!), it would make sense to not put fixed dates on it, since a symbolic capital is a timeless entity.

I will reiterate that I believe this continued dispute about the status of Azougui to be a wp:timesink caused by tendentious editing, which in my experience not only wastes editors' time but often degrades the quality of the articles themselves. I strongly advise SimoooIX in particular to disengage from this specific subject, and perhaps consider refraining from editing Morocco-related subjects in general (there are many other underdeveloped subjects on Wikipedia which need your editorial help!). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, I find your accusation of my edits being tendentious pretty loose and baseless, Please refer to the discussions above on this talk page where you will see that I am not the only one who has had issues with this subject. Also i appreciate your advice and respect your opinion, but i cannot stop editing Wikipedia, because technically that's what you're asking me to do, just see my userpage in order to know why. It would have been better not to judge my whole contributions here on the basis of one case. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@R PrazeresALMORAVID ITS A MOROCCAN DYNASTY It was founded by a Moroccan named Abdullah bin Yassin and This empire was born in southern Morocco not mauritania . Taha Moroccan (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've compiled every source I could verify on this topic and added brief statements on the matter to the body of the article ([11], [12], and to lesser extent [13]), in the two places where they're relevant to mention. There's probably more to say on the southern Almoravids in the future, but this will require still more sources. I've taken the trouble of including quotes from the relevant passages in every citation, so anyone can read them. Several are in French, but I'm sure Google Translate can give any non-French readers the gist of it. At the moment, I think the infobox content can actually remain as is (following the removal of the dates discussed above).

For historiographical context, Ould Cheikh and Saison's article is instructive, making it clear that primary sources mention the town very sparsely, so it's likely we won't find a lot more on this beyond any more recent archeological studies. I've repeated that particular quote (in French) below:

Au milieu du Ve siecle H/XIe siecle ap. J.C., l'écrivain andalou al-Bakri fait état de l'existence à «Arki» d'une «forteresse...au milieu de 20 000 palmiers...édifiée par Yannu Ibn 'Umar al-Ḥāğ, frère de Yaḥya Ibn 'Umar... ». Cette brève mention est vraisemblablement a l'origine du qualificatif d'«almoravide» qu'en l'absence de toute investigation proprement archéologique, les historiens modernes ont généralement attribué aux ruines apparentes du tell archéologique d'Azūgi; nous y reviendrons. Au siecle suivant, al-Idrisi (1154) localise la «première des stations du Sahara...au pays des Massūfa et des Lamṭa» ; étape sur un itinéraire transsaharien joignant Siğilmāsa a Silla, Takrūr ou Gāna, Azūki, ou Kukdam en «langue gināwiyya des Sudan», abrite une population prospère.
Pour brève et à nos yeux trop imprécise qu'elle soit, l'évocation d'al-Idrisi est néanmoins la plus étoffée de celles qui nous sont parvenues des auteurs «médiévaux» de langue arabe. Aucun écrivain contemporain d'al-Idrisi, ou postérieur, qu'il s'agisse d'al-Zuhri (ap. 1133), d'Ibn Sa'id et surtout d'Ibn Haldun - qui n'en prononce même pas le nom dans son récit pourtant complet de l'histoire du mouvement almoravide - ne nous fournit en effet d'élément nouveau sur Azūgi. À la fin du XVe siècle, au moment où apparaissent les navigateurs portugais sur les côtes sahariennes, al-Qalqašandi et al-Himyari ne mentionnent plus «Azūqi» ou «Azīfi» que comme un toponyme parmi d'autres au Bilād al-Sudān... Les sources écrites arabes des XIe-XVe siècles ne livrent donc sur Azūgi que de brèves notices, infiniment moins détaillées et prolixes que celles dont font l'objet, pour la même période et chez ces mêmes auteurs, certaines grandes cités toutes proches, telles Awdagust, Gāna, Kawkaw, Niani, Walāta, etc... Faut-il voir dans cette discrétion un témoignage «a silentio» sur l'affaiblissement matériel d'une agglomération — une «ville» au sens où l'entendent habituellement les auteurs cités? — dont al-Idrisi affirme effectivement qu'elle n'est point une grande ville»?

Saison has an earlier article about the archeology of the site (Saison, 1981, "Azuggi: archéologie et histoire en Adrar mauritanien"), not accessible to me, but this article seems to summarize his findings anyways (alluded to in quote). I didn't include that part above, as it's quite long and doesn't seem to add anything useful other than confirming the site was occupied during the Almoravid period. R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres, thank you for recent additions, I am aware that it must have taken a substantial amount of time and energy, Your edits are of high quality and well sourced, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

However, i think we must do something about the infobox now before this discussion ends up in an archive. The current mention of Azougui in the infobox is vague if not misleading (especially for readers who get enough by reading the lead and the infobox and also i guess everyone here agrees that the three towns mustn't be treated the same) and needs to be clarified, probably "southern capital" would fit? Also i think Apaugasma suggested some interesting stuff above. SimoooIX (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@AvaBrandon2000 The issue is already being discussed here, so please join the discussion rather than trying to shoehorn one POV into the lead while more detailed and nuanced information is being presented in the article itself. That said, the lead sentence starting with "The Almoravid capital was Marrakesh (...)" implies it was the only capital, so it could be modified to simply say "The Almoravids founded the city of Marrakesh (...)", and then leave the questionable issue of other capitals to be covered in the article. The lead will also need to be updated to mention the division between the northern and southern Almoravids, which I think is now explained more clearly in the article itself. R Prazeres (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to your suggestion. Indeed the sentence is misleading. SimoooIX (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to follow through on this, but I've now changed the statement to something more generic ([14]). ~~ R Prazeres (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Almoravid Flag

@R Prazeres and @M.Bitton hope you're doing well, what do you think about this flag ? reliable enough ? File:Black standard of the Almoravids.svg Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say this is worth mentioning in text (which makes those sources very useful!), but not adding to the infobox. It confirms once again the use of a certain colour with the Abbasid connection, but not whether those banners had other details, or whether they flew other banners, etc. Like a lot of other states/dynasties in early periods, we still don't have a visual record of their flags so it still requires a bit of WP:SYNTH. A black rectangle isn't very informative to readers at the end of the day and doesn't do much as a preview image, so I'd rather leave it as is (but mention this in text). That's my opinion at any rate. R Prazeres (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I thaught that, since the flag of the almoravid was in fact the flag of their investiture by the Abassids, then they can have the same thing in the infobox as the Abassids (with something below like : Black flag of the Abassids or Flag of the Abassid investiture), since the Almoravids represented the Sunni power in the region headed by the Sunni Caliph in Baghdad, but adding this to the text using the sources could be very informative, also some additions to this article: Islamic flag would be good. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In the Abbasid case the flag's role and description is very well-established I think, I'm not sure if that translates to the same certainty here. But others may disagree and it's fine if there's a consensus otherwise. And yes, again, definitely good material for the body of the article and maybe worth mentioning at Black Standard too. Either way, thanks for this research! R Prazeres (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks reliable for the article's body. No opinion on whether it belongs somewhere else. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding new flag

Hello, cc @R Prazeres,

per Mouline, Drapeaux du Maroc (2024), I have uploaded a variation of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids onto Commons. I would not be opposed to using this in the Flag parameter and using this file in the Second Flag parameter with the caption of "possible appearance of variations of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids".

An interview with Mouline regarding the book states that "the founders of Marrakech, the first capital of a unified Morocco, adopted a black flag, as a badge of power and sovereignty". The book coroberrates this statement adding that "After having created an immense territory whose capital is Marrakech, the representatives of the first imperial dynasty of Morocco sought to strengthen their legitimacy by obtaining an official investiture from the caliphs, honorary heads of the Ummah. This gives these sovereigns, among other things, the right to wear a black suit and display a flag of the same color during all their public appearances. To highlight this badge of sovereignty, the Almoravids surrounded it with flags, standards, banners and pennants mainly white, red and variegated. While some are richly decorated with images and floral designs, others are embellished with profession of faith and Quranic verses." (p. 27) and appends this with these pictures, the illustration on the left seems to show a version of the Abbasid caliphate flag which has Kufic script rather than a poorly-vectorized Naskh as seen in the Commons picture (which says it is fictional, but I have no clue about this) while the illustration on the right shows a new variation of the Black Standard which seems to be unique to the Almoravids.

Thank you very much, NAADAAN (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I may still need to read the book, but the thing is, I don't know where Mouline is getting these details. The existence of a "black banner" in general, whatever its full details may have looked like, is historically attested. There are occasional representations of flags in Christian illustrations (which may or may not be accurate). But there are definitely no surviving flags/banners of this period and, to my knowledge, no detailed accounts of what they looked like.

Maybe Mouline is merely compiling various depictions found in present-day sources. That seems to be supported by the fact that this flag, as you pointed out, is also in the book, even though it's just a conjecture from a modern book illustrator (Angus McBride) with no direct historical evidence (as pointed out by Cplakidas here). Mouline's book (which just came out) probably has good discussions that could be cited, but I think the images should not be taken too literally. Even the book itself captions them as "probable appearance".

So I recommend keeping the flags out of the infobox. (Also per previous discussions.) These medieval banners are not equivalent to standardized modern flags, there's just too much uncertainty about them, and the infobox doesn't allow room for much nuance.

However, this article currently has a section dedicated to the "emblem" of the Almoravids, including the black banner. Maybe one of Mouline's flags would be OK there. As always, an image complimenting an explanatory text is much more informative. I welcome other opinions. R Prazeres (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres, Here are the citations used in the article regarding Almoravids:

1. Ibn al-Qattân, Nouzoum al-joumân li-tartib mâ salafa min akhbar al-zamân, Dâr al-Gharb al-islâmî, Tunis, 1990 (2011), p. 168;
2. Ibn Abi Zar', al-Anis al-moutrib bi-rawd al-qirtās fi akhbâr mouloûk al-maghrib, al-Matba'a al-malikiyya, Rabat, 1999, p. 176;
3. Ibn 'Idhârî, al-Bayân al-moughrib fi akhbar al-Andalous wa al-Maghrib, Dâr al-thaqafa, Beyrouth, 1998, t. IV, p. 89;
4. Ibn Simâk, al-Houlal al-mouwashshiyya fi al-akhbar al-mourrâkoushiyya, Dâr al-Rashad al-haditha, Casablanca, 1979, p. 122.

I am not awfully familiar with those primary sources though, but they seem like they were from their respective era so I doubt that Mouline would just be compiling modern-day accounts. I don't see why a flag based on a description wouldn't warrant to be in the infobox, the Roman Empire article uses a flag which was based on a description and that there are no surviving physical copies of.

FYI the book focuses on a tradition that started with the Almohads stopped with the Alaouites, the use of a white flag with golden writing named al-'Alam al-mansoûr which would have been the flag used in major battles and would signify the dynasty's central authority. There's actually a fair bit of detail regarding these so they could probably warrant their own article on Wikipedia. I have vectorized and uploaded them per dynasty: Almohad (a description on the flag is also on this Wikipedia article), Almohad (alternate), Marinids, Saadians. Now excuse me while I watch fireworks NAADAAN (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Mouline is neither an authority on flags nor a historian. Their fancy looking flags are just claims by a non-specialist that don't even belong in an encyclopedia, let alone be presented as facts. M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do your due research before starting to act like this. NAADAAN (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

starting to act like this what do you mean by that? M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Mouline is neither an authority on flags He has written three articles regarding this, he is though not a vexillologist yes. nor a historian He is a senior researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and Rabat's Centre Jacques Berque with a Ph.D. in history from the Paris-Sorbonne University and a Ph.D. in political science from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris and has been presented as a historian and politologist, Their fancy looking flags are just claims by a non-specialist He wrote the authoritative non-Arabic source on the Saadian dynasty. Et tu? Remember to AGF, you are starting to act antagonistic imo. I don't see why you'd need to question everyone's authority and credibility especially when it can be disproven by one Google search. This is not the first time you have done this fyi. NAADAAN (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember to AGF is this some kind of joke? Need I remind that you that you wrote starting to act like this (which is nothing short of an unprovoked and totally unjustified personal attack?

I don't see why you'd need to question everyone's authority and credibilityi I am free to question anyone's authority on any subject, especially when they make extraordinary claims. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you about this, you initially attacked the author with no justification whatsoever with questions that could have been easily answered by a Google search, I would like to focus on the main topic of discussion now. His work has been cited in other reliable sources, his credentials in the CNRS and the CJB are as a historian, and he has authored three books with reputable publishers. Do you now accept that he is indeed a historian and his works are reliable sources? NAADAAN (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't attack the author (so don't you ever repeat that again), I questioned whether their claims have any validity. One single source calling him a historian doesn't explain the rest (him specializing specializing in Social Sciences and Political Studies). M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

OK perhaps your concerns are justified, have they been answered by now? He is a historian at the CNRS, has written a book describing the history of the Saadi dynasty with a reputable publisher and has a Ph.D. in history, do you not agree that he is a historian? If so, would he not be an authority in discussing historical flags? If not, what relevant qualifications would be necessary to be an expert in this in your view? There are also other reliable sources calling him a historian. The fact he has two specialities is irrelevant regarding this imo. NAADAAN (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The only biography of his that I could find doesn't describe him as such, but regardless, the fancy flags are clearly extraordinary claims. Do you agree with that? M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that they are extraordinary if their description were sourced from contemporary or historical sources (as has been the case in the book). I'd say the illustrations I have made SVGs out of could be at worst extrapolations based on those descriptions. If that is the case, perhaps it wouldn't belong on the infobox (this is something I am willing to concede), but I think they are still at least worth putting into an article section. Given everything I have provided, I'd say Mouline has the right credentials. NAADAAN (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that flags that you uploaded are not in the book that you're referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are in the book, here are scans: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; The point I have made were that Mouline had based some of these illustrations from descriptions provided in historical sources (which are cited in the book), hence why he labeled them "probable appearances" of banners (I have reflected this nature on the Sa'adi dynasty article). NAADAAN (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that they are mentioning the "probable appearance" of the flags. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledged this in my original message by proposing possible appearance of variations of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids as a caption for the infobox. I have backed out of attempting to put this into an infobox until the book is put under more scrutiny over time, I am planning to add them onto the respective dynasties' articles outside of the infobox if there are no objections to that. NAADAAN (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What would a possible appearance of a flag (basically, someone's idea of what it may have looked like) add to the article? M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a historian's idea of what the Almoravid's flag could have looked like based on historical texts and a particular dynasty's 'alam al-mansûr banner (a tradition which lasted from Almohads to Marinids) would offer insight. Would a presentation like this be acceptable? NAADAAN (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials, but the addition is UNDUE given how fancy the so-called flag is and the fact that the historians of the Almoravids haven't mentioned anything that looks like it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not presented it as an authoritative fact but as a "possible appearance of the black standard variation used by the Almoravids, according to Nabil Mouline". I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials I think it has been proven that he has been described as a historian by a few reliable sources and has the relevant credentials to back it by now, unless you can dispute the contrary. given how fancy the so-called flag is I do not understand this argument, it is the shahada on a black banner. NAADAAN (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more than a shahada on a black banner (something we use to have on this article), it's an elaborate flag that isn't mentioned in any RS about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is a historian (assuming e.g. this is correct). Maybe not an authority on flags though. Is there another reason to doubt his reliability? R Prazeres (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a degree or Ph.D. in history and then specializing in something else (Social Sciences and Political Studies) doesn't make someone a historian. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

NAAADAAN. Thanks for the details. To further clarify, what I mean is that existing historical descriptions seem to only mention a colour and maybe another vague detail, but little else. This is also the extent of detail we find in all the reliable secondary sources consulted so far (when they mention flags at all). The quote you provided from Mouline above is another example (unless he provides other details in the rest of his text). What's missing is everything else: what decorative details were on the flag (if any), what inscriptions were on the flags (if any), what style of Arabic script it used, where these elements placed on the flag, etc? Since these details aren't available anywhere, many of the supposedly historical flags that show up on Wiki Commons (not just on this topic) and in modern illustrations are merely conjecture. The Roman aquila emblem is not comparable: I believe it's well-known and frequently depicted on historical sources, including Roman art, and it's easy to find recreations of it in WP:RS.

But just to re-summarize my point above: I think it is WP:UNDUE to place any of these in the infobox, for the reasons above, but I don't think it's a problem to include one in the article section dedicated to this topic, if other editors agree. R Prazeres (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, I will focus on creating an article for said al-'Alam al-mansoûrs as they think they are very much pertinant and will probably include them on an article section. I will also vectorize other flags in the book that have been based out of murals and, more pertinantly, banners that have survived the test of time. I will leave it up to you if you ever obtain a copy of the book and you find the information presented there pertinant enough to warrant an infobox entry. NAADAAN (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the Sa'adi article to reflect this, FYI. NAADAAN (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted you at first only because the image was still in the infobox, so I thought you were duplicating it (perhaps by accident). I'm good with the current alternative. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for you work and your reasearch, however, i beleive we still don't have a visual record of what the flag of the Almoravid and Almohads and marinids and saadis looked like exactly officially, we know for sure that the "victorious flag" is a state flag per RS, and we're pretty sure of the colors used for those flags, but without multiple visual sources we cannot just put them in the infobox. Best thing to do in this case is having a section or a subsection about the flag it would be much more informative than just putting a Black flag in the infobox (which could confuse regular readers regarding the Almoravid-Abbasid relationship). Also, the flags shown in your source look more like war flags and they would fit in the section about the embelm in the article. At least, we did got to remove those red penants and inadequate primary sourced flags from the infobox of those medieval-early modern state of modern day Morocco, as this will reduce NPOV and allow readers to understand better the religious doctrines and the political legitimacy upon which those states rely.

@R Prazeres per this source Abderrahmane Djilali here [15] , Al Djilali explicitly identifies the "Victorious flag" as the official state flag, the marinid one (p 100) is recorded as being white with golden quranic inscriptions, however, the Hafsid flag is also white, and not yellow, per this primary source also (p 44) [16] (Tunis and Annaba having the same white flag with black crescent). Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

yes in this case the alam al mansour is the closest thing to a state flag for those dynasties. I have written a draft for an article on those flags from the sources I have on hand here: Draft:'alam al-mansûr. thank you for your feedback NAADAAN (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The founding of the Almoravids

When a political movement departs from a location then spreads to southern tribes (lamtuna and Gudala) whom its leaders sought guidance from the movement founders to restore order, piety, and eliminate degeneracy, it would be unreasonable to say that the movement and the political order departed from these tribes (Lamtuna and Gudala) as suggested in the header section. The political, religious, and military movement departed from Aglou around Tiznit area in present day Morocco (see in this same page the origin of schools of Waggag ibn Zallu in the <Name section>). In fact the founder Abdallah Ibn Yassine died in a military conquest against Barghawata in the north near Romani area before the Almoravids became an empire. In summary, the political state and rise of Almoravids had begun in Morocco, this is to be stated in the header section. Verify and edit accordingly (The same sources apply) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.250.237.93 (talk • contribs)

Lithām and Almohad accusations of effeminacy

At the end of the section "Name" there is an indication of "citation needed". I just had a suggestion for an article that might be useful on that regard, but I cannot edit the page because it seems to be protected: González Diéguez, Guadalupe. "Veiled Men of the Desert: Perceptions of the Ṣanhāğa Face-Muffler in the Medieval Islamic West," Occhialì: Rivista sul Mediterraneo Islamico 7 (2020): 33-47. Many thanks for your consideration, in any case. Alqantara75 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Alqantara75. If I have time at some point, I'll have a look at the reference and update the paragraph accordingly. (Anyone else is also free to do so.) I believe Amira Bennison's book (already cited widely in this article) also discusses this issue to some extent, if that's helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Almoravids' maximal expansion

Hey @R Prazeres, I noticed that you reverted my edit regarding the date of the map, stating that it contradicts the article. However, according to sources such as Ibn Khaldun and the historian and archaeologist Dr. Rachid Bourouiba, the map accurately depicts the year 1100, not later. Ibn Khaldun mentions that Algiers, just before the Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen, was under the Sanhadja, and the governor of Tlemcen besieged Algiers unsuccessfully before turning to Achir, which prompted the Hammadid expedition. According to Rachid Bourouiba, Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur governed the province of Algiers under the reign of his brother Badis, and under the rule of Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz (1121-1152), the province of Algiers was given to his brother Hassan. Additionally, according to Ibn Khaldun in his book Al Ibar, Al Mansur was able to reconquer the western territories of his kingdom after the expedition. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that the Almoravids controlled all of those eastern territories in 1120, and it is necessary to adjust the map. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, I don't see any definitive details that don't require some form of WP:SYNTH. It's fully plausible that Algiers was captured by the Hammadids at some point, maybe during the war that was settled between the two sides in 1104, but I don't see any sources being explicit about that, or about when Algiers was under whose control, etc. I couldn't find anything precise on my end either during a brief search.

The map is not more compatible with the date 1100, because that contradicts the much better known chronology of conquests in al-Andalus discussed in the article (as I mentioned in my edit summary). Zaragoza wasn't captured until 1110, the Balearics in 1115. (Valencia also in 1102.) In fact, the caption should more accurately say circa 1115, rather than 1120, since Zaragoza was then captured by Aragon in 1118 (see article).

The map itself, as is, matches many maps from scholarly and reliable sources depicting Almoravid control, all including Algiers, so I don't think there are any grounds for adjusting it. All such maps are merely approximations and Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources say. If we begin to nitpick about certain places based on our own incomplete reading of sources, we'll likely end up in a never-ending loop of WP:OR. If we find clear and explicit reliable sources saying the Almoravids did not occupy Algiers after a certain date, my suggestion instead would be to add a footnote to the caption noting this for clarification, following the example of the caption at Aghlabids regarding Sardinia. R Prazeres (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, we already have sources (Roger Le Tourneau, Phillip Naylor and others) stating that the Hammadids expanded westward and by 1102, they took Tlemcen. I think the best option would be to remove "c. 1120" and leave the map simply showing the maximum extent. Also, for what it's worth, the Atlas of Islamic History map states "c. 1100". M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's less informative, but if others agree then I'm fine with removing the date, given both my comment above (about Zaragoza, though this is easily fixed) and the fact that most of the map sources I've seen don't give a specific date in the caption.

I've seen Naylor's note, but just to show how easily there can be apparent contradictions: Messier puts the city under Almoravid control under both Ali Ibn Yusuf and Tashfin ibn Ali (including names of governors), we have epigraphic evidence of Ali ibn Yusuf expanding the Great Mosque of Tlemcen in 1136, and multiple sources state that Tashfin ibn Ali made his last stand here before being chased to Oran(e.g. Messier, Bennison p.59). R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that period is not well documented (probably because the cousins weren't so keen on fighting each other). If I have time, I will try to create a derivative of the Atlas of Islamic History map (Slugett seems to always come to our rescue). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing the date from the caption of the map. This would make it more accurate. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Tayeb188. I'll go ahead and remove it then. And if we later use a map that's modeled more closely on Sluglett & Currie's map (which is a little more precise in its presentation), I'm sure that'll be fine; thanks, M.Bitton. R Prazeres (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

References