![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think this has come up before, and it's come up again with an anonymous edit I just reverted, so I'll ask here: Do editors want to change the wording of the first lead sentence to replace "centered in Morocco" with something that doesn't mention Morocco, like "in western North Africa and Al-Andalus" or other equivalent? Personally, I think the current wording is fine and clear; it doesn't call the dynasty "Moroccan" so I don't see potential nationalist or anachronistic connotations, though I would maybe specify "present-day" Morocco for the clearest wording. R Prazeres ( talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Alooypasha: your edit doesn't make sense since most sources agree that Marrakesh was founded Abu Bakr ibn Umar. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:My mistake i will make clear edit
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
What question? I left a text in your page
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did you report me? What have I done wrong I clearly make clarification with citations
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Kansas so oxford citation is unreliable, really oxford
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
U said ibn yasin is not the founder of Marrakesh I totally agreed and said your right. Umar is, but the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasin. Founder of Marrakesh is different than founder of the dynasty
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasinYou are 100% wrong. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Than who is it? Yahya ibn ibrahim was the leader of the Godala tribe. It clearly is ibn yasin. It was on oxford page. It was ibn yasin all the time until you decided to change it today. Why today???? You changed your mind or something
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Mr bitton im waiting for your response.
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Answer if you can. Exactly you can't answer. All ur trying to do is rewrite history. Shame on you. Shame. Everyday Moroccan pages are changing and ur the reason removing the truth and adding false
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Sock or not sock, ur trying to rewrite history with ur false info. Why can't you answer my question then, it's clearly cause your wrong shame on you for rewriting history shame. Literally your still a child
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Who is the founder then answer me? Let see don't make stupid excuses and answer me like a man
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Exactly can't answer. Just proved my point
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
No. There you go I answered no your turn.
Why are you trying to rewrite Moroccan history????
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Answer me come on? Exactly that's what I thought? Trying to destroy Moroccan history and making Algerian history better. Isn't that bit suspicious?
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I know a hater when I see one. I know how much u hate morocco that you decided to vandalise its history. U keep vandalising Moroccan articles and for Algerian article you help evolve it. Don't u think this is a hate crime.
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
2 years from now. The king of morocco birthplace will be changed to Algeria. And I will not be surprised seeing ur the one that change it. Vandalising articles just u hate that country is the main reason ur doing it.
Alooypasha (
talk) 17:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller please do me a favour a check every article he has edited and you will see he mainly changed articles consisting morocco. Don't u think it is suspicious. Check the article Almoravid dynasty and you will see clearly the changes he has done. When I myself added with citation the true founder of the dynasty and still changes it because to him he feels it's inappropriate since it's speaking the truth
Alooypasha (
talk) 17:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loudiddly.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The "family tree" in the article doesn't explain its sources and it's unclear how much of it is verifiable. I see that Walrasiad added it a while ago ( [1]). Walrasiad, would it be possible to indicate what sources these are based on? (We can figure out how to insert them in the section later.) There are partial family trees provided in the Encyclopedia of Islam 2 reference (Norris and Chalmetta 1993, cited in article) and in Bennison 2016 (p. 51), but they don't confirm most of the non-ruling family members included here. Aridhims's suggestion here (reverted by a bot) to limit the tree to only the rulers and their immediate relations may ultimately be a good idea if this information can't be verified. R Prazeres ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be that the page is biased and not objective, I have tried to add Abdallah ibn Yasin as the co-founder and spiritual leader of almoravids but my edits seem to be reverted.
Abdallah ibn Yasin and Waggag ibn zalu are the founders of the almoravid movement which has been named after their school "dar al murabitin" ,or "House of almoravids" in sous in modern day Morocco, this is acknowledged in a paragraph contained in the article but shrugged off else where.
Ibn Umar was appointed military leader, while ibn Yasin was the spiritual leader.
The Map in the article showing the expansion of almoravids is also inaccurate, as it shows the expansion of the lamtuna tribes before the founding of the almoravid movement.
I hope this can be fixed in order to keep the article as objective and factual as possible. Goharocko ( talk) 19:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted, I've read your reply, and I now understand this Goharocko ( talk) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I found it extremely odd 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, unless the overwhelming majority of reputable sources agree that it was, which isn't the case, unlike how it is for aghmat or marakesh.
I also see a heavy bias against morocco eventhough it is the birth place of the almoravid movement, and the dynasty while being a specific branch of the sanhaja that allegedly hails from the disputed western Sahara which morocco claims, and parts of present day Mauritania, is still considered a moroccan dynasty given the empire's ideology, government system, and its spiritual leader, came out of "the house of almoravids", a school in sous, Morocco, and the empire itself 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.
Finally, there are entire sections in need of citations that remain unedited and unsourced, I need permission to edit or atleast attempt to source it.
I hope my concerns can be addressed. Goharocko ( talk) 23:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I should've used my words better, I didn't mean all of the tribes constituting almoravids hail from aghmat, but that it's their first capital based on scholarly consensus, however "dar al-Murabitin" in Morocco's sous region is definitely the birth place of the almoravid movement who's ideology was spread in the sahara by Abdallah ibn Yasin, the article should be factual even at the expense of the feelings of some editors.
I have a feeling that I know exactly which editor you're talking about, either ways I've left this here in the discussion not expecting much to change based on what I've seen. Goharocko ( talk) 17:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was answering your question, You can't answer my concerns with "now you will be ignored"
"The Idrisids,(are) the founder dynasty of Fas and, ideally at least, of the modern Moroccan state" - Leonard R. Koos et al, Journal of North african studies
"The nucleus of the Moroccan nation was established in the 8th century AD" -"Morocco" page n16, by Anne M. Findlay, university of sterling, published by Oxford
You asked whether "Morocco existed at that time" , I answered that the moroccan state is widely considered by historians to have been founded by Idris I in the 8th century AD, therefore of course the Moroccan state existed at that time, the name "Morocco" is but an exonym that came later on and it doesn't mark the foundation of the Moroccan state, (an exonym is what other nations call a state, while an endonym is what it calls itself) therefore almoravids (being a dynasty that came to rule in the moroccan statr) are, in fact, a dynasty of morocco.
Your reply that completely disregards my factual statements simply confirms the bias you have, you can't ask for something then say "you will be ignored" when I provide what you asked for, I hope you understand that, although I doubt it since you seem to have a rather clear bias that drives your every action on this article. Goharocko ( talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Azougui cannot be considered as a capital of the almoravids, the real almoravid establishment was by the construction of marrakesh, the sources i deleted cannot be reliable since they are mauritanian sources, i've read the camridge history of africa and azougui is not mentioned on it, i hope you understand.
Simoooix.haddi (
talk)
23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
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 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
Whenever Norris (1972) refers to Azuqqi as the Almoravid "capital" in the Sahara, he generally puts the word in quotes. I have followed this convention here in light of the apparent plurality of such centers.
Azuggi was the base of the Almoravids following their movement northward from the Sahel in the mid-11th century (Saison 1981; Levtzion and Hopkins 2000).
After the confrontation with Ibn Tashfin, Abu Bakr b. 'Umar returned to the desert, where he led the southern wing of the Almoravids in the jihad against the Sudanis. The base for his operations seems to have been the town of Azukki (Azugi, Arkar.) It is first mentioned as the fortress in Jabal Lamtuna (Adrar), where Yahya b. 'Umar was besieged and killed by the Juddala. Azukki, according to al-Bakri, was built by Yannu b. 'Umar, the brother of Yahya and Abu Bakr. Al-Idrisi mentions Azukki as an important Saharan town on the route from Sijilmasa to the Sudan, and adds that this was its Berber name, whereas Sudanis called it Kukadam (written as Quqadam).
The Arabic narrative, such as it is, posits that Abu Bakir b. 'Umar returned to the Almoravids' southern base or capital at Azuggi in modern Mauritania with a handful of Maliki jurists, including Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Muradi from Qayrawan, to orchestrate the Almoravid advance south against the Soninke kingdom of Ghana, which was successfully conquered around 1076-7 and subsequently collapsed.
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)
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)
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)
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, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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.
"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)
"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)
"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)I've compiled every source I could verify on this topic and added brief statements on the matter to the body of the article ( [12], [13], and to lesser extent [14]), 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: [4]
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)
References
Azuggi was the base of the Almoravids following their movement northward from the Sahel in the mid-11th century (Saison 1981; Levtzion and Hopkins 2000).
After the confrontation with Ibn Tashfin, Abu Bakr b. 'Umar returned to the desert, where he led the southern wing of the Almoravids in the jihad against the Sudanis. The base for his operations seems to have been the town of Azukki (Azugi, Arkar.) It is first mentioned as the fortress in Jabal Lamtuna (Adrar), where Yahya b. 'Umar was besieged and killed by the Juddala. Azukki, according to al-Bakri, was built by Yannu b. 'Umar, the brother of Yahya and Abu Bakr. Al-Idrisi mentions Azukki as an important Saharan town on the route from Sijilmasa to the Sudan, and adds that this was its Berber name, whereas Sudanis called it Kukadam (written as Quqadam).
The Arabic narrative, such as it is, posits that Abu Bakir b. 'Umar returned to the Almoravids' southern base or capital at Azuggi in modern Mauritania with a handful of Maliki jurists, including Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Muradi from Qayrawan, to orchestrate the Almoravid advance south against the Soninke kingdom of Ghana, which was successfully conquered around 1076-7 and subsequently collapsed.
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)).
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. [1]
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). [2] [3]
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. [4] Almoravid unity also protected other tribes from the domination of the Zenata tribes to the north. [5]
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 [4], 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
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
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 [1] (Even with the source, POV and editorial issues comes to mind). Yahya ibn Ibrahim was killed in a battle in 1057 [2], 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 . [3] [4] [5] (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
shilling89
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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). [1] (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
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)
This article could probably use some sub-dividing.
Dvyost 19:38, 20 June 2005 (UTC)
The commonly used modern translation of Amir is "Commander," not "Prince." Yusuf's title should more appropriately be rendered as "Commander of the Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.89.143 ( talk) 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think this has come up before, and it's come up again with an anonymous edit I just reverted, so I'll ask here: Do editors want to change the wording of the first lead sentence to replace "centered in Morocco" with something that doesn't mention Morocco, like "in western North Africa and Al-Andalus" or other equivalent? Personally, I think the current wording is fine and clear; it doesn't call the dynasty "Moroccan" so I don't see potential nationalist or anachronistic connotations, though I would maybe specify "present-day" Morocco for the clearest wording. R Prazeres ( talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Alooypasha: your edit doesn't make sense since most sources agree that Marrakesh was founded Abu Bakr ibn Umar. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:My mistake i will make clear edit
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
What question? I left a text in your page
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did you report me? What have I done wrong I clearly make clarification with citations
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Kansas so oxford citation is unreliable, really oxford
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
U said ibn yasin is not the founder of Marrakesh I totally agreed and said your right. Umar is, but the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasin. Founder of Marrakesh is different than founder of the dynasty
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasinYou are 100% wrong. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Than who is it? Yahya ibn ibrahim was the leader of the Godala tribe. It clearly is ibn yasin. It was on oxford page. It was ibn yasin all the time until you decided to change it today. Why today???? You changed your mind or something
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Mr bitton im waiting for your response.
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Answer if you can. Exactly you can't answer. All ur trying to do is rewrite history. Shame on you. Shame. Everyday Moroccan pages are changing and ur the reason removing the truth and adding false
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Sock or not sock, ur trying to rewrite history with ur false info. Why can't you answer my question then, it's clearly cause your wrong shame on you for rewriting history shame. Literally your still a child
Alooypasha (
talk) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Who is the founder then answer me? Let see don't make stupid excuses and answer me like a man
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Exactly can't answer. Just proved my point
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
No. There you go I answered no your turn.
Why are you trying to rewrite Moroccan history????
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Answer me come on? Exactly that's what I thought? Trying to destroy Moroccan history and making Algerian history better. Isn't that bit suspicious?
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I know a hater when I see one. I know how much u hate morocco that you decided to vandalise its history. U keep vandalising Moroccan articles and for Algerian article you help evolve it. Don't u think this is a hate crime.
Alooypasha (
talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
2 years from now. The king of morocco birthplace will be changed to Algeria. And I will not be surprised seeing ur the one that change it. Vandalising articles just u hate that country is the main reason ur doing it.
Alooypasha (
talk) 17:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller please do me a favour a check every article he has edited and you will see he mainly changed articles consisting morocco. Don't u think it is suspicious. Check the article Almoravid dynasty and you will see clearly the changes he has done. When I myself added with citation the true founder of the dynasty and still changes it because to him he feels it's inappropriate since it's speaking the truth
Alooypasha (
talk) 17:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock.
M.Bitton (
talk)
12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loudiddly.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The "family tree" in the article doesn't explain its sources and it's unclear how much of it is verifiable. I see that Walrasiad added it a while ago ( [1]). Walrasiad, would it be possible to indicate what sources these are based on? (We can figure out how to insert them in the section later.) There are partial family trees provided in the Encyclopedia of Islam 2 reference (Norris and Chalmetta 1993, cited in article) and in Bennison 2016 (p. 51), but they don't confirm most of the non-ruling family members included here. Aridhims's suggestion here (reverted by a bot) to limit the tree to only the rulers and their immediate relations may ultimately be a good idea if this information can't be verified. R Prazeres ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be that the page is biased and not objective, I have tried to add Abdallah ibn Yasin as the co-founder and spiritual leader of almoravids but my edits seem to be reverted.
Abdallah ibn Yasin and Waggag ibn zalu are the founders of the almoravid movement which has been named after their school "dar al murabitin" ,or "House of almoravids" in sous in modern day Morocco, this is acknowledged in a paragraph contained in the article but shrugged off else where.
Ibn Umar was appointed military leader, while ibn Yasin was the spiritual leader.
The Map in the article showing the expansion of almoravids is also inaccurate, as it shows the expansion of the lamtuna tribes before the founding of the almoravid movement.
I hope this can be fixed in order to keep the article as objective and factual as possible. Goharocko ( talk) 19:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted, I've read your reply, and I now understand this Goharocko ( talk) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I found it extremely odd 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, unless the overwhelming majority of reputable sources agree that it was, which isn't the case, unlike how it is for aghmat or marakesh.
I also see a heavy bias against morocco eventhough it is the birth place of the almoravid movement, and the dynasty while being a specific branch of the sanhaja that allegedly hails from the disputed western Sahara which morocco claims, and parts of present day Mauritania, is still considered a moroccan dynasty given the empire's ideology, government system, and its spiritual leader, came out of "the house of almoravids", a school in sous, Morocco, and the empire itself 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.
Finally, there are entire sections in need of citations that remain unedited and unsourced, I need permission to edit or atleast attempt to source it.
I hope my concerns can be addressed. Goharocko ( talk) 23:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I should've used my words better, I didn't mean all of the tribes constituting almoravids hail from aghmat, but that it's their first capital based on scholarly consensus, however "dar al-Murabitin" in Morocco's sous region is definitely the birth place of the almoravid movement who's ideology was spread in the sahara by Abdallah ibn Yasin, the article should be factual even at the expense of the feelings of some editors.
I have a feeling that I know exactly which editor you're talking about, either ways I've left this here in the discussion not expecting much to change based on what I've seen. Goharocko ( talk) 17:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was answering your question, You can't answer my concerns with "now you will be ignored"
"The Idrisids,(are) the founder dynasty of Fas and, ideally at least, of the modern Moroccan state" - Leonard R. Koos et al, Journal of North african studies
"The nucleus of the Moroccan nation was established in the 8th century AD" -"Morocco" page n16, by Anne M. Findlay, university of sterling, published by Oxford
You asked whether "Morocco existed at that time" , I answered that the moroccan state is widely considered by historians to have been founded by Idris I in the 8th century AD, therefore of course the Moroccan state existed at that time, the name "Morocco" is but an exonym that came later on and it doesn't mark the foundation of the Moroccan state, (an exonym is what other nations call a state, while an endonym is what it calls itself) therefore almoravids (being a dynasty that came to rule in the moroccan statr) are, in fact, a dynasty of morocco.
Your reply that completely disregards my factual statements simply confirms the bias you have, you can't ask for something then say "you will be ignored" when I provide what you asked for, I hope you understand that, although I doubt it since you seem to have a rather clear bias that drives your every action on this article. Goharocko ( talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Azougui cannot be considered as a capital of the almoravids, the real almoravid establishment was by the construction of marrakesh, the sources i deleted cannot be reliable since they are mauritanian sources, i've read the camridge history of africa and azougui is not mentioned on it, i hope you understand.
Simoooix.haddi (
talk)
23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
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 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
Whenever Norris (1972) refers to Azuqqi as the Almoravid "capital" in the Sahara, he generally puts the word in quotes. I have followed this convention here in light of the apparent plurality of such centers.
Azuggi was the base of the Almoravids following their movement northward from the Sahel in the mid-11th century (Saison 1981; Levtzion and Hopkins 2000).
After the confrontation with Ibn Tashfin, Abu Bakr b. 'Umar returned to the desert, where he led the southern wing of the Almoravids in the jihad against the Sudanis. The base for his operations seems to have been the town of Azukki (Azugi, Arkar.) It is first mentioned as the fortress in Jabal Lamtuna (Adrar), where Yahya b. 'Umar was besieged and killed by the Juddala. Azukki, according to al-Bakri, was built by Yannu b. 'Umar, the brother of Yahya and Abu Bakr. Al-Idrisi mentions Azukki as an important Saharan town on the route from Sijilmasa to the Sudan, and adds that this was its Berber name, whereas Sudanis called it Kukadam (written as Quqadam).
The Arabic narrative, such as it is, posits that Abu Bakir b. 'Umar returned to the Almoravids' southern base or capital at Azuggi in modern Mauritania with a handful of Maliki jurists, including Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Muradi from Qayrawan, to orchestrate the Almoravid advance south against the Soninke kingdom of Ghana, which was successfully conquered around 1076-7 and subsequently collapsed.
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)
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)
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)
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, [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 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.
"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)
"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)
"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)I've compiled every source I could verify on this topic and added brief statements on the matter to the body of the article ( [12], [13], and to lesser extent [14]), 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: [4]
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)
References
Azuggi was the base of the Almoravids following their movement northward from the Sahel in the mid-11th century (Saison 1981; Levtzion and Hopkins 2000).
After the confrontation with Ibn Tashfin, Abu Bakr b. 'Umar returned to the desert, where he led the southern wing of the Almoravids in the jihad against the Sudanis. The base for his operations seems to have been the town of Azukki (Azugi, Arkar.) It is first mentioned as the fortress in Jabal Lamtuna (Adrar), where Yahya b. 'Umar was besieged and killed by the Juddala. Azukki, according to al-Bakri, was built by Yannu b. 'Umar, the brother of Yahya and Abu Bakr. Al-Idrisi mentions Azukki as an important Saharan town on the route from Sijilmasa to the Sudan, and adds that this was its Berber name, whereas Sudanis called it Kukadam (written as Quqadam).
The Arabic narrative, such as it is, posits that Abu Bakir b. 'Umar returned to the Almoravids' southern base or capital at Azuggi in modern Mauritania with a handful of Maliki jurists, including Abu Bakr Muhammad al-Muradi from Qayrawan, to orchestrate the Almoravid advance south against the Soninke kingdom of Ghana, which was successfully conquered around 1076-7 and subsequently collapsed.
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)).
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. [1]
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). [2] [3]
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. [4] Almoravid unity also protected other tribes from the domination of the Zenata tribes to the north. [5]
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 [4], 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
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
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 [1] (Even with the source, POV and editorial issues comes to mind). Yahya ibn Ibrahim was killed in a battle in 1057 [2], 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 . [3] [4] [5] (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
shilling89
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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). [1] (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
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)
This article could probably use some sub-dividing.
Dvyost 19:38, 20 June 2005 (UTC)
The commonly used modern translation of Amir is "Commander," not "Prince." Yusuf's title should more appropriately be rendered as "Commander of the Muslims." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.89.143 ( talk) 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)