Talk:Almoravid dynasty

Name

Category:History of the Maghreb okke . i'm ready to read how you know that it is correct.Aziri 13:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, please enlighten me...Maghreb is the name commonly used for the northwestern part of Africa, roughly comprising Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia...and the Almoravids were a dynasty from what is today Morocco. So unless I am totally missing the point here, how can Almoravid history not be a part of Maghreb history? -- Ferkelparade 13:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

mostly,we learen what everybody say if that is frenquenly saied. i know that almoraviedes were in north africa before the arabic influence in morokko. if you will know that there was no Maghreb untill the eightindth century . but Barbary. tell me why ? or do you think that the history must honoure the politic names even if it is new names to say that ? the name Maghreb is born with the arabic ideology and it was not in north africa untill the eightendth century . therefor we can not say the history of the Maghreb . but the history of Lybie. and that was the name.Aziri 14:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't quite see the point...to the best of my knowledge, Maghreb in everyday language is generally used as a geographical term without any political implications, the term meaning roughly "West". So regardless of when the term came into use, everything that happened in the region that is today called "Maghreb" is a part of that region's history...for comparison, in antiquity, the term "Europa" was used by the Greeks to describe their own world (Modern-day Greece and parts of Italy) as opposed to "Asia" (Persian territory in modern-day Turkey). Over the centuries, the meanings of these (purely geographical) terms have expanded to include the whole continents we call Europe and Asia today, and of course early Chinese history is a part of Asian history, as well as early Germanic history is a part of European history, even though an ancient Greek would probably have laughed about that usage of the words. -- Ferkelparade 14:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i think that maghreb is realy not accepted , you can see this scholars not accepte it.[1] . Maghreb is an arabic word and the berber don't use the arabic words. like i saied, this name is born with the arab ideology. and it is important with mustafaa to wikipedia . and that the reason why i don't see Lybie or North afrika or berber . but arabic words. (the arab are not north africans , they were just in the arab's peninsula .Aziri 14:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Aziri, I don't speak Arabic , so your link is not really helpful for me...is there any evidence that Maghreb is such a politically loaded term in common English usage? After all, our own entry at Maghreb also defines the term as purely geographical... -- Ferkelparade 14:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

you don't have to feel sorry. i did that just to see that is not accepted. the important reason is : Maghrib is the name of the arab countries wehereas the history of north africa more than the arab countries like ; the canary island and the not-arabised africans countries. example is Mali, senegal ,niger bourkinafasou ..., it is not very nice to say the "the history of maghrib" because the arab want to delite the history of the berber . Aziri 14:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) and further you can use teh name Maghrib , but you can not say : the history of the Maghrib as the history of the berber. if anybody want to write about the history of the Maghrib , it must to be older than the history of Barbary. after the barbary cames the Maghrib.Aziri 14:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maghrib is the name of the arab countries

That's exactly the point I'm wondering about; according to all references i could find, the English term Maghreb refers not to the modern Arabic countries but to the geographical region where these countries are located (see my Europe example above). Ah well, maybe we're just splitting hairs here; does anybody else have an opinion? -- Ferkelparade 15:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aziri is incorrect, and is engaged in a politically motivated crusade against the use of Arabic terms in North Africa. "Maghreb" is used by the earliest Arabic-speaking geographers - from the seventh century onwards, judging by the Hadith - and is a geographical term, not a political one. - Mustafaa 17:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

that name is at leats disputed . and it has never been. there is no maghreb in the reality. and it mean never the the area of the bereber. Maghreb mean just the five arab counties. so, where are the guanches ,the siwas , the Malians ....?. further is the name of the berber area is barbary and Lybie .Aziri 11:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, despite your vigorous claims that Maghreb means the modern Arabic countries, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that this is so...I just dug around for some references:

• The American Heritage Dictionary defines Maghreb as "a region of northwest Africa comprising the coastlands and the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia"
• The Encyclopedia Britannica Article starts with "region of North Africa bordering the Mediterranean Sea". Britannica also has an Article on "Maghreb under the Almoravids".

So...can we agree that the term Maghreb, in common English usage, in fact describes the geographical region and nothing more, or is there any evidence to the contrary? -- Ferkelparade 11:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

buhhh..is maghrib a english word or an arabic word , to late read that, you did say that you don't understand arabic. if you want to learn you to look more than you belive. firstly is this Maghrib disputed. and you did seen the source. maghreb : wat mean it ? maghreb like mustafaa saied mean the west. west of what? west of midden easte . this want say it's a party of midden oosten and it get its definition from the arab angles. is this a history of north africa? maghrib as north africa? how can this ? north afrika exepts egypt is not maghreb. why ? siwa is not egypt in the history or geografy but political. when is this maghreb born? to answer this question you have to read more about the countries of maghreb. (do it with succes). the arab countries were untill the eighttendth secury a part of the turkian imperium. and maghreb was not arab. (for more information see the histry of the berber countries ) . now we kan speak about the maghrib countries. the maghrib countries were not independent untill the second half of the twintist secury . morocco was a coloned by spain a frensh and algeria by the france... untill now is maghrib not arab. there are many cities wiche are not arab , but spanisch , like as : ceuta and melilla. now we will sppeak about the the meaning of maghreb in the political angles : maghreb are the countries of the maghreb arabic (that is political , and even is dead born ) , so this meaning want to say that siwa not maghreb , and the canary island is not maghreb and the other countries of the berber are not maghreb. so where is the factuality of this one (maghrib). if it even political dead how can it be an historian person . further i have some notes about your answer. why do you tell me the meaning of maghreb in english? do you think that maghreb an english word? and did you say that i don't have proofs ? do you think it is diffecultb to say it ? and where are your source ? finly tell me how did you answer my question ? wasn't it more helpfull to give an answer in place to say that i don't have source? do it !Aziri 12:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit tired of this discussion, but let me restate my position: Nobody is denying that Maghreb is an Arabic word, but that doesn't change the fact that the word, in common English usage, is used to describe the geographic region of Northwestern Africa. I have already listed some sources for this, whereas you haven't provided any source at all to show where, how and by whom this common usage is disuted. What you seem to be attacking is the Arab Maghreb Union which is a sort of political entity using the name Maghreb, but that's something entirely different... -- Ferkelparade 12:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i'm aslo tired of some answers : such as "bourguiba" and "couscous" ; therefor this dicussion is not needed.Aziri 11:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Subheads needed

This article could probably use some sub-dividing.

Dvyost 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article title - "Almoravides"?

So why is this article titled "Almoravides" instead of "Almoravid", or even "Almoravids"? Why not follow the examples of Umayyad and Almohad? What's the reasoning here? --Skoosh 02:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, why isn't it "al-Murabitun"? --Jfruh (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2006 (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)).

Origens Almoravides

There has been a lot of research into the origens of the Mourabiteen in the last 25 years. The main points of this article are not up to date. Encyclopedia Britannica from the fifies/or sixties is not a good soure.S710 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Ch.-André Julien, Publié par Payot, 1966. P 77, the Almoravids come from the Adrar of Mauritania.--موريسكو (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Source?

"Three years afterwards, under Yusef's son and successor, Ali ibn Yusuf, Madrid, Lisbon and Porto were added, and Spain was again invaded in 1119 and 1121, but the tide had turned; the French having assisted the Aragonese to recover Zaragoza."

I know that Almoravids took Lisbon, but I don't sure in the cases of Porto and Madrid, this is the first notice to me about a suppose almiravid conquest of both cities. Porto is a very northern city in Portugal, if it was taken all the country may be fall under muslim rule. Madrid (only a town in the Middle Ages) is north of Toledo, the de facto capital of the Crown of Castile; Toledo never fell to Muslim hands since the Castilian conquest of 1085. Why the almoravids could conquest Madrid with the strongest fortress of Toledo in their way?--Menah the Great 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Al moravid or Al morabitoon in arabic language means the faithful muslims who committed theirselves for Jihad against the eneimes of Islam . unsigned comment by 62.139.206.139

Do you have any source for that? -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Arab or Berber

An anon changed the lead to say that the dynasty was not Berber, but Arab. I reverted it and added a {{fact}} tag, but the explination could probably go into the origins section, if anyone has something for it. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its changed back again, looking at google books and google scholar makes me think that it should be Berber, I'm going to add a citation and revert back. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You should just put black as that is a clearer representation of what they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

What do you mean: "Orthodox?"

This page seems to equate "orthodoxy" with "Sunni". Isn't this insulting to all the Muslims who are not Sunnis?--The Lesser Merlin 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of the map

The map displayed is totally innacurate. It shows Navarra and Aragon as a single political entity, which is wrong. And what is even more erroneous, it is shown as spreading over areas that have never been part of Navarra and Aragon. THis is, for instance, the case of Asturias, which is indeed the founding site of the kingdom of Leon and Castille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetustense (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Map is wrong

Valencia did not belong to Castille and Leon in 1054.S711 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, see this map: [2]--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Why is this sentence just dropped out of nowhere?

"The exact meaning of "Murabit" is a matter of controversy."--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a clarification. --Gribeco (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag?

What source is there for this flag, which is title "Flag of the Almohad Dynasty"? Srnec (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

name in arabic

I was expecting to find the arabic equivelent of the name 'Almoravid' but never did. I suggest someone adds it to keep up with Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.137 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

I consider that the template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article.

The following section comes from the Talk Page of Omar-Toons [3] and has been splitted to suit each article (Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate:

---

Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almoravids [4], why have you done this: [5], without any respect for the time I spent to organise the articles. I waited for an answer to my post on the Talk Pages [6], but you did not discuss. Whould you finally decide to discuss or cotinue your edit-wars ?--Morisco (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As you can easily understand, en.WP doesn't work the same way than fr.WP, then what was decided there isn't applicable here.

A "real work"? Seriously, do you consider that a "real work"? You just removed a template and added an extensive succession list, which may be not precise, since it consider that the territory of each dynasty was divided at the time of its falling, but the reality is that each dynasty lost, at the end of its power, its territories the one after the other, and kept control over a little territory (which is located in Morocco), before getting power overtaken by its successor starting form the same territory (Morocco). The paragraphs "History" of each dynasty's page as well as the page "History of Morocco" explains everything.

Which kind of "answer" are you expecting on the discussions? Seriously, did you wrote any question? Did you ask for a discussion? You just shared your point of view with us. You just said that you think that this template has no place on the article. No questions, no arguments. And how do you think people can read/find a question that you wrote somewhere in the middle of the discussion page [7]?

The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's (including English and French ones), all include the Almohads and the Almoravids, but you don't agree with that, in my opinion, since it doesn't match your POV!

Just to answer to a few questions:

- Where were located the "centers of power" (capital) of this dynasty? In Morocco.

- From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From Morocco.

- Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Morocco.

- How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? By taking their places in Morocco (That also explains the succession tab on the infobox).

- They were originated from somewhere else? Then the US are no longer the same than before since the president is partially originated from somewhere else? Come on! Most European monarchies are ruled by dynasties that aren't of "local descent". Is that a reason to consider that the Bourbon dynasty isn't Spanish? Bonaparte conquered the Dutch, is that a reason to consider it as a European leader, and not a French one? The answer is NO. By the same way, the Almoravid dynastiy is Moroccan, and I don't see any reason to consider them otherwise.

I just gave you some examples. If you don't agree, try to convince the user who made these templates to remove the two dynasties, as well as the wikipedians who wrote these two articles, since including this template (along with the "History of Al-Andalus" one, but I don't understand why this one was removed) was accepted (then became a consensus between the users, since no one removed it or discussed its removing, and since the users who (tried to) discuss it weren't contributors) for more than 2 years.

I don't really care about the nationalistic feelings. WP is a collaborative Encyclopedia, not a forum to explain nationalistic feelings and to modify articles because of them.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Continuation of the discussion

Omar-Toons, we are not going to do like if we do not know each other, we have already discussed about this template in the french Wikipedia (See the discussion), and the descision was the template has no place on the article.

Since en.WP and fr.WP are independent of one anotherand, I start again the discussion we have had on the fr.WP and answer to your arguments:

• I consider a real work, adding the previous and following dynasties properly because it is not easy, I have already done it on the french WP. If your problem was the "Template", you could set back only the template, without removing what I have done.
• The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's, only means that someone has created the templates, on the french WP the template is not allowed to be used on the Almoravid dynasty (verify), and I will propose it to suppression.
• The Almoravids came from the Adrar of Mauritania and conquered what we call now Morocco (Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Ch.-André Julien, Publié par Payot, 1966. P 77), they founded their capital (Marrakesh in Morocco) during their conquest northward, they did not conquer Morocco, then western Algeria and after al-Andalus ; they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco. And talking about Morocco and Algeria is an anachronism.
• From where did they start the conquest of other territories? Not from Morocco, from Mauritania, and as I said, some parts of Morocco have been conquered after Algeria and from Algeria.
• Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Their capital (Marrakech)
• How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? Not by taking their places in Morocco as you said, that was true only for the Almohads after the Almoravids (and that not explains the succession tab on the infobox).
• They were originated from somewhere else? The answer is "Anachronism", your examples are not suitable in our case.
• Last point, I do not understand why you talk about nationalistic feelings, this has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.

See if other Wikipedians join our discussion--Morisco (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: What was decided on Fr.WP isn't applicable here.

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is why I launched the discussion again here.--Morisco (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This map gives the area from which the Almooravids started their conquests. The source is given on it.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Acording to this map Almoravids are not from Morocco, the are from the south of Algeria and the north of Mauritania. And according to Banu Ghaniya legal sucessor of Almoravids was they, not AlmohadsBokpasa 00:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sijilmassa (the are from where they started their conquests) is located in Morocco.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They did not start their conquest from Sijilmassa. And a map is not source.--Morisco (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But the book (which is cited on the map) is.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be serious, saying that the conquest started from Sijilmassa is simply not true. Bring books mentioning that if you want the information to be credible.--Morisco (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

p.35 [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Also, please avoid editing consensual articles without discussion and before getting a new consensus.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I said please be serious, you are not serious:

p.35<---« En peu de temps cette confédération connue sous le nom d'Almoravide (un nom dont l'origine est incertaine), s'empare des villes d'Awlil, d'Awdagust, et surtout Sijilimassa » Traduction: « In a short time the confederation known as the Almoravids (a name whose origin is uncertain), seized the towns of Awlil, of Awdagust, and especially Sijilimassa »

[13]<---Touristim website, not credible. Anyway, when you click on Sijilmassa, you have this map, and it show that the Almoravids started their conquest from Mauritania.

[14]<---I'm not blind, the arrow starts from Mauritania.

[15]<---Same as above

[16]<---Nothing that says that the conquest started from Sijilimassa.

You are loosing my time, and you have to know that consensually does not mean unanimously.--Morisco (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2010 (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)