÷
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zirid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (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) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the last edit I've changed the date of the start of use of kairouan as a capital since 1014 seems unreasnable since 1014 mark the year of secessionof the hammadid dynasty also all the sites I've seen tend to mention that kairouan was the capital since the departure of the caliph to egypt https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=596&lang=en https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zirid-Dynasty So please make sure you read this before trying to delete my last edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Les trois premiers Zirides, avant tout souverains d'Asïr, guerroient sans cesse à l'ouest et confient l'Ifrïqiya à un vice-roi arabe, mais la vocation ifrïqiyenne de la dynastie se dessine de bonne heure. Elle a pour conséquence une recrudescence de la pression des Zanâta qui, sous Bâdis (996-1016), déferlent victorieusement de Tiaret à Tripoli. Il les mate, non sans peine et grâce surtout à son oncle Hammâd, qui pacifie le Magrib Central et y fonde la Qal'a (1007-8). La fin du règne est marquée par la rébellion de Hammâd (1015), qui reconnaît les 'Abbàsides, et par les premiers massacres de si'ites, notamment à Béja et à Tunis.
I think he means by those ziri, bologhin and al mansur. So we can exclud ziri from this list (he did not live in the period we are talking about and we agree that he had achir as his capital). Now what about bologhin and his son al mansur we know that they were governors of achir when they were the heirs of the throne . But none after becoming a "king".for example bologhinLes trois premiers zirides
http://www.mammeri100.dz/index.php/fr/voir-plus/32-achir-la-capitale-de-ziri-ben-menadQuand, en 972, le calife fatimide Al-Mu’izz quitte le Maghreb pour l’Egypte, il confie l’administration de l’Ifriqya à Buluggin, le fils de Ziri. Celui-ci quitte Achir pour s’installer à Kairouan, mais il va garder des liens étroits avec Achir où sa famille va demeurer
https://books.google.tn/books?id=bXjXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&dq=zirid+capital+kairouan&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo_cbCwujrAhUWSxUIHVpfCzIQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsewhen the fatimids left them in control for north africa the zirid dynasty took kairouan as their capital
source [2] Sss2sss ( talk) 11:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)his son al mansur first moved into the old aghlabid palace in raqqada, then established himself "definitly" in Mansuriya, where he soon became known for his magnificence...
لكن على الرغم من الطابع العسكري لفترة حكم يوسف فإن ذلك لم يمنعه من الاهتمام
بالتنظيم الإداري لدولته، وسعى إلى ذلك عبر تعيين عماله على الولايات، وإدخال تعديلات على
حدودها، خاصة منها الولايات الغربية، حيث ألغى ولاية المسيلة وضم الجهة الجنوبية منها إلى
تاهرت، والجهة الشمالية إلى أشير، واتخذ من مدينة المنصورية قرب القيروان قاعدة حكمه.
(Translated via google since the only version I have is in arabic). And he further go to sayBalkin was feeling lonely in his new kingdom and longed for Asher, so he installed one of the Aghlabid princes as a ruler and he did not come to Mansuriyya except occasionally
— histoire du maghreb
so you can see how the capital change was permanent. Sss2sss ( talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)When his son Al-Mansour succeeded him, he first settled one of the palaces of Bani Al-Aghlab in Raqqada, before he moved to Al-Mansuriyah and settled there
when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk".
I really hate being misquoted. Here's what I said
[3] and here's their response
[4].
I suggest you read my last three comments, and please, don't ping me again. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
doesn't " remained" mean that they were and still are in kairouan ? Thank you for your reply Sss2sss ( talk) 19:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)the Zirid main branch of North Africa remained in Ifriqiya, with its capital at Kairouan...". Which gives the impression that Kairouan was only the capital after 1015
Let me summarize my opinion to make it clear
1)we have written records that all of the first governors lived in al mansuriya near Kairouan.
2)ashir was under the rule of governors appointed by the zirid emirs first al mansur son of bologhin and when he became emir and departed to kairouan he put his brother hammad as governor.
3)hammad established his new capital kalaa in 1007 (he was still not declared independant yet) and ashir was partially abandoned according to abdallah laroui. How could the capital city would be abandoned for another city ?
4)kairouan was the capital city of zirid predecessor in ifriqiya the fatimid caliph al mu'izz.
governor of al-Qayrawān and any other territory the Zīrids might reclaim
— encyclopedia britannica
6)1014 as a date for the change of the capital is absurd since ; it was not under direct control of zirid emirs but under hammad who was ruling it autonomously from his relatives and when he declared independance historians never talked about it as 'the Zirid take refugee in kairouan' or 'he fleed to kairouan' or 'changed his capital' as similiar to what happened in 1057. But they described the secession of the hammadid branch as like of a secession of a kingdom located far away from the capital. And won't that make hammadid the legitimate successors not the badisid branch ? 7)And about what you've said about the viceroys. It is clearly that bologhin chose his viceroy when he went for war in Maghreb al Aqsa (he loved to lead wars himself because that's what he was before becoming emir ; a military general) or when visiting his family in ashir. What do you want from him to let kairouan without a governor ? Also we never heard about a viceroy after the reign of mansur ibn bologhin. Finaly since you like to cite hady roger idris I recommand for you to read all of his book "la berberie orientale sous les Zirides" and not judge about the book from it's cover. You will find everything I wrote clearly in his book.Also you can easily find it in google in pdf. I am not sure about the availability in google books. Sss2sss ( talk) 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear:?
Another link between the millions that proves kairouan/al mansuriya as a capitalHonestly I would think that copying this model would be the best Sss2sss ( talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC) One other book that according to you has got it wrongMain capitals : al - Mansuriya in 971 , Kairouan in 1048 , Mahdiya from 1057. Banu Ziri . Clients of the Fatimids , from 935 they were resident in the stronghold of Ashir near Algiers under Ziri ibn Manad , who fell in the service of the Fatimids in 971
— Islam: Art and Architecture, page 619
source [5]. I don't know how are we supposed to get into a solution if you keep ignoring my replies ? Sss2sss ( talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Buluggin transferred the government seat from ashir to al-Qayrawan (now kairouan) in effect becoming the founder of the zirid dynasty and its first emir
— International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, page 36
Since the only author you wanted to mention is hady roger idris I gave the effort to read all of his book the 460 pages of "LA BERBERIE ORIENTALE SOUS LES ZIRIDES X-Xlle SIÈCLES". And interestingly enough he did never clearly mention any capital of the zirids. He was interested in every event that happened during that time but did not give any "cristal clear" information.
But one of the paragraph that interested me is this onethis is not written by roger idris himself. It is a comment made by the Library who published the version of the book I've read "LIBRAIRIE D'AMÉRIQUE ET D'ORIENT" Normaly comments like this would be made by a real historian who is well educated about the subject. And I wonder why he didn't get the impression that ashir was the capital of zirids after reading the whole book (during the date we are talking about) as like you did.I hope I would get a response. But he did agree with me about kairouan. I hope I would get a response since you still until now didn't give me any proper response Cordialy Sss2sss ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Si,, comme on le verra, Buluggïn ne quitta la capitale pour le Magrib qu'en
Sa'bân, on ne peut suivre l'auteur du Mu'nis, 74, qui affirme qu'il demeura deux mois
à Kairouan-al-Mansûriyya, car il s'agirait d'au moins quatre mois.
— page46
About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. There's been no actual discussion here since October 11, just one editor writing. My suggestion would be for the one remaining editor to go ahead and make the edits in the article that they think appropriate and see if they're reverted; if they are then perhaps discussion can resume. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Let me note that Kansas Bear is both wrong and right about one thing: Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, see RSPRIMARY, but as he says encyclopedias are tertiary sources and secondary sources are preferred, so if there is a secondary source it should be used in preference to Encyclopedia Britannica. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
. If not it would oppose what I am trying to defend here. Though I don't have access to the book you've cited. So I don't really know what you are referring to. If the case is that you disagree with my demand of changing the date (kairouan 1014 to 972) maybe you should mention it here. Sss2sss ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Ziri's son Buluggin ibn Ziri who founded his capital at Achir was appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya (971-984)
Achir (before 1014) Kairouan (from 1014 to 1057) Mahdia (after 1057)
thank you for asking Sss2sss ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Achir (before 972) Kairouan/Mansuriya (972-1057) Mahdia (after 1057)
Sss2sss ( talk) 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)The Fatimids transfer their court from Mahdia to Cairo. Buluggin was then appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya with Kairouan as its capital
M.Bitton, clearly Sss2sss has chosen not to answer your or my questions. I move that this discussion be closed. We have entertained this long enough. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
. I will keep searching for an english version.وأما افريقية فقصبتها القيروان ومن مدنها: صبرة، أسفاقس، المهدية، سوسة، تونس، بنزرت، طبرقة، مرسى الخرز، بونة،
باجة، لربس، قرنة، مرنيسة، مس، بنجد، مرماجنة، سبيبة، قمودة،قفصة،قسطيلية، نفزاوة، لافس، أوذنة، قلانس، قبيشة، رصفة، بنونش، لجم، جزيرة أبي شريك، باغاي، سوق ابن خلف، دوفانة، المسيلة، أشير، سوق حمزة، جزيرة بني زغناية، متيجة، تنس، دار سوق إبراهيم، الغزة، قلعة برجمة، باغر، يلل، جبل زالاغ، أسفاقس، منستير، مرسى الحجامين، هياجة، باغر، غيبث، قرية الصقالبة، لربس، مرسى الحجر، جمونس الصابون، طرس. قسطيلية، نفطة، بنطيوس تقيوس، مدنية القصور، مسكيانة، باغاي، دوفانة، عين العصافير، دار ملول، طبنة، مقرة، تيجس، مدينة المهريين، تامسنت، دآما،
قصرالإفريقي، رآوى، القسطنطينية، ميلى، جيجل، تا بريت، سطيف، إيكجا، مرسى الدجاج، أشير.
— page 59
About abdallah laroui, how would we consider him a non specialist to the subject ? Isn't he one of the most famous modern arabic historians ? Are we here to say that all the degrees he took in history are fake ? And "for al mu'izz left for the east in 973" maybe he is talking about the date he arrived to egypt. And wasn't buluggin theoretically a governor (as he was appointed by al mu'izz) but by the time he became more and more autonomus until at the end it became a real kingdom ? I'll leave a simple and final question if we agree that the page would stay as it is but we source that information what would be the article or the book that you will chose ? Sss2sss ( talk) 22:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear: isn't leaving the page as like if it is and ignoring the sources (that says buluggin changed his capital) I and you mentionned also considered Cherry picking? Sss2sss ( talk) 00:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ IbnTashfin97: Regarding this sourced content removal:
You have already been asked to explain your rationale on the talk page. Ignoring that advice and edit warring while leaving snippets in the edit summary won't do. Here's your chance to explain why you want to remove the sourced content from the article. Also, since you have been doing this for quite sometime, I will ask an admin ( Doug Weller) and another editor who's familiar with the subject ( Kansas Bear) to keep an eye on this article. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:05, 4 January 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) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mazing107 ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I need the permission to edit this page because of some historical inacurracies such as the origin of the Zirids and the map showing their extent
This section was recently added. After looking it over, I'm removing the section almost entirely, with apologies to
Kabz15. Normally, I would try to do some initial clean-up (as I just did for the same section at
Hammadid dynasty), but honestly the section is such a mess that it would need to be restarted from scratch.
First, it is almost entirely unsourced, which is enough grounds on its own to remove it. The only paragraph with citations relies on a claim that some of the cited sources actually contradict, and which has been discredited or rejected by other scholars. (Specifically: the fountain of lions in the Alhambra does not date to the Zirid period. This was the claim of one author only and has been rejected by other scholars in this field including Fairchild Ruggles, who's cited here. More recently, Felix Arnold, sums it up in
his book (p. 283): "The theory of Frederick Bargebuhr that the lion sculptures date to the eleventh century has since been disproven.") Additionally, the section begins with a list composed of mostly external links, which should not be in the main body of the article as per
WP:EXT, and some links to non-English wikipedia pages, instead of properly citing sources. Finally, the number of pictures is totally disproportionate and disruptive to the page layout; please see
MOS:IMAGES for guidelines on how images should be used.
There is room on this page for a section like this, but please make an effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines for content, including citing reliable sources (and citing them for claims that they actually support). Rather than doing something like rapidly dumping as many mentions as possible of monuments linked to one of the Zirid states in some way or another, I'd suggest starting small and adding information about specific sub-topics one at a time, and with more careful attention to what the sources have to say. And in a similar vein: there should be separate (sub)sections for architecture under the Zirid Taifa of al-Andalus versus that under the Zirids in Ifriqiya, as these two are not automatically the same thing.
Sincerely,
R Prazeres (
talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello R Prazeres, I don’t see any problems or violations of any Wikipedia policies for the map you reverted. You said that the territories were not controlled at the same time but I clearly marked out the time periods in which certain territories were controlled, furthermore I’m not familiar with any Wikipedia rule against this even so other pages such as the Omani Empire or the British Empire have maps like that. You also said that it was a personal interpretation which I think is definitely incorrect, please read the file description and you will find that this is not the case. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 00:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC))
I'll also note for everyone that another map on this page for the later Zirid period ( this one), does not name any sources. It's substantially similar to the representation of Zirid territory in Map 26 of the Sluglett and Currie atlas I mentioned above, so I've left it for now, but unless the map's own sources can be clarified this would be an argument for either editing it or removing it too. R Prazeres ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton This map is exaggerated , it does not correspond to the sources. I replace it by the map used on French Wikipedia. I brought a source which justifies my modification. The issue of the map of the Zirids has already been discussed on the French version of Wikipedia... Please stop accusing me of vandalism. Thank you, YusAtlas ( talk) 02:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn’t correspond at all. On the first source we can see that Tripoli for instance isn’t under Zirid sovereignty. I will repeat myself once again by saying that the map I introduced is better. YusAtlas ( talk) 02:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I see no contradiction with what I said. What a POV-Pushing… WP:ADVOCACY YusAtlas ( talk) 02:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The map is wrong and you are unable to argue so you make ad hominems. Just check this : https://books.google.com/books/about/Atlas_historique_de_l_Alg%C3%A9rie.html?hl=fr&id=tLMEoAEACAAJ. You are wrong, just admit it and stop this POVP. YusAtlas ( talk) 02:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but given that all the maps in question contain some non-verifiable aspects, I finally decided to put the time in and make three (!) new maps based on three different published sources relevant to three different (approximate) time periods. The borders are re-drawn manually, but any differences from the sources should be trivial. As always, there are some inconsistencies between the published maps, which is why I didn't try to combine them all into one map with different areas of shading or striping, etc. Instead, I've used the "switcher" template to include all three in the infobox, allowing readers to look at each individually or together. See this edit.
Notes on the first map: The only map that posed significant difficulty is the one for c. 980. I ended up making three versions of that one map, with what I hope are clear and detailed notes in the file descriptions (see links below). In summary: there are no published maps that unambiguously represent this one moment in Zirid history (probably because Buluggin's conquests lasted only a few years). The only detailed source I've seen for the 10th-century Zirids is the Atlas of Islamic History by Sluglett & Currie (2002), already mentioned above, which is also the source used for multiple other maps with consensus in similar articles (e.g. Marinid Sultanate and Saadi Sultanate). There are, however, two maps in this Atlas which appear relevant for this time period: Maps 10 and 11, on pages 26 & 28, [10]). The two maps show somewhat different things for the eastern border: the second includes Cyrenaica, the first doesn't. There's nothing in the book that really contextualizes this difference; the second one might represent a later stage, but that's not explicit and, as mentioned in previous discussion, there are text sources which clearly indicate control of Ajdabiya (at least) under Buluggin's reign (but possibly not Barqa, which is a question for another day). I've also found another published map (also used for the new circa 1000 map) which appears to show the same extent of Zirid control over Cyrenaica; the map isn't as explicit as I'd like, but to me it seems clear enough in context. Given these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to combine the territories shown in both Sluglett & Currie maps. At the other end, the western frontier is clear enough on Map 10 (it's not shown on Map 11), but I've still made minor changes to reflect multiple sources stating the three main cities Buluggin captured in the west: Fez, Sijilmasa, and Basra (a lesser-known town in the north). Apart from these two details, which are not clearly shown by the Sluglett & Currie map, the rest of the western frontier is per the source map, which is not the case for the previous maps considered above, each of which feature a great deal of personal editorial input that isn't verifiable under scrutiny.
For full sources and details, see the three versions of this map:
As long as we do want a map for 980, then in my opinion all three versions are acceptable; they're just different ways of resolving the inconsistencies between reliable sources. I've added version 2 in the infobox for now, as I'm inclined to consider it the most informative and complete. Feel free to discuss or recommend other preferences here. (I can also make changes to or new versions of the maps if there's a clear need for it.) R Prazeres ( talk) 09:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
M.Bitton, I did not notice the long and chaotic discussion above previously, but there's obviously some confusion there as there are plenty of reliable sources explicitly stating that the capital was al-Mansuriya from the start of Buluggin's appointment, for reasons that should be obvious. There are none I've seen that state otherwise, including any I could see above or in the article itself. The only source I see above that lends itself to ambiguity, Hady's article (p.359), is very poor support to the contrary, since he's evidently referring to the fact that the early Zirids were all originally from Ashir, hence their constant interest in the west; not that it remained the capital after they were given the viceroyship of Ifriqiya, and nowhere does it speak of a transfer from Achir to Kairouan circa 1014. Given the abundant information elsewhere (see below), there should really be no ambiguity. It's well known that Ashir was their original capital before the Fatimids moved east and it remained of central importance accordingly, but to claim it was the official capital between 972 and 1014 is WP:OR that contradicts plenty of reliable sources, including:
At most, there could be an argument for Ashir continuing to act as the western capital of some sort under Buluggin, if there are clear sources saying so (see maybe Brett 2017 p.85), but there's absolutely no argument for omitting al-Mansuriyya/Kairouan as the official capital from 972 onward. If there actually are genuine contradictions in the literature on this matter, then this needs to be indicated to readers. R Prazeres ( talk) 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"In the mid tenth century a chief of the Talkāta named Zīrī b. Manād established the Zirid dynasty with its capital at a city called Ashīr in al-Maghrib al-Awsaṭ. The Zirids proved to be capable and loyal fighters for the Fatimid cause. When the Fatimid caliph al-Muʿizz decided to move his court to Egypt in 361/972 he left the Zirids behind as vassal rulers over Ifrīqiya and the Maghrib. The Zirid sultans henceforth took up residence in Qayrawān." Amar S.Baadj, Saladin, the Almohads and the Banū Ghāniya. p:22-23
"In 972 he accompanied his sovereign on the first stages of his journey to the east, then remained behind apparently as viceroy over all except Sicily and Tripoli. As a mark of this exceptional favour he was renamed and restyled Sayf al-Dawla ('Swor d of State') Ab u'l-Futuh ('Man of Victories') Yusuf. It was characteristic of Buluggin that despite this elevation, he at once returned to fight in the west. Although he held the Maghrib for the caliph, confirmed in this position by Mu'izz's son and successor 'Aziz in 975, and was further endowed with Tripoli in 979, he remained essentially the lord of the west with his capital at Ashir. His visits to Kairouan were few, and from 974 the capital and the whole of the Tunisian region were entrusted to 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Katib, 'the Secretary', an aristocratic product of the Fatimid chancery, one of the great departments of state." J. D. FAGE and ROLAND OLIVER, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AFRICA, p:623-624
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
The Zirids' capital, Ashir, featured an impressive palace complex. Nevertheless, intra-Zirid conflict coupled with intra-Sanhaja rivalry arose, leading to the establishment of a separate state ruled by their cousins, the Hammadids (1014-1152), who established Qal'a as their capital at the base of the Hodna Mountains in Algeria.
Leur rôle était double et double leur domaine, avec ses deux capitales d'Achir, donjon du territoire héréditaire, et Kairouan, centre de l'administration. Ce domaine était trop grand: il se brisa. Les parents, auxquels les nouveaux maitres de l'Ifriqya avaient confié la tâche de continuer la lutte contre les Zenâta, se déclarèrent indépendants dans les provinces qu'ils défendaient. Dès lors la Berbérie fâtimite compta deux royaumes çanhâjiens: à l'Est, le royaume des BeniZirî de Kairouan, à l'Ouest le royaume des Beni Hammâd de la Qal'a.
After the departure of Buluggīn's son al-Manṣūr to take up residence at al-Qayrawān in 381/991, Ashīr remained the Zīrid capital of the central Maghrib until the foundation of the Qalʿa (Fortress) of the Banū Ḥammād in 398/1007, when it became the second city of the Ḥammādids.
[p.626] Mansur reunified the country at the cost of moving his residence in 991 from Ashir to Sabra and Kairouan. His brother Yattufat took his place at Ashir, while the Zab was entrusted to Sa'id b. Khazrun, brother of the ruler of Sijilmasa, (...) [p.627] When Mansur died in 996, six months before his Fatimid suzerain 'Aziz, the accession of his son Badis, a boy of eleven, was ensured by the 'abid, the most probably Negro regiments who were the nucleus of the army. Their solidarity against their rivals, the cavalry of the nobility, meant that the attempt of the uncles to impose a regent was defeated, and that the young sultan ruled in person from the beginning. Yattufat and Hammad, the brothers of Mansur, contented themselves with Tiaret and Ashir.
Is there anyone who can make a correction to the family tree chart near the bottom of the article? I have little experience with this particular template and I'm not sure how to fix it myself without messing it up further.
The specific correction that's needed is: "Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz 1121-1152" should be placed under "Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur 1105-1121", not under "Badis ibn Mansur 1105". Per his name and per the detailed genealogical chart in Idris (1962) La berbérie oriental sous les Zirides (p. 833; pdf available here), Yahya is the son of Abd al-Aziz, not Badis.
(Pinging Agricolae, who added the chart, but I see that they haven't been active recently.) Thanks for any help, R Prazeres ( talk) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
÷
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zirid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (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) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the last edit I've changed the date of the start of use of kairouan as a capital since 1014 seems unreasnable since 1014 mark the year of secessionof the hammadid dynasty also all the sites I've seen tend to mention that kairouan was the capital since the departure of the caliph to egypt https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=596&lang=en https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zirid-Dynasty So please make sure you read this before trying to delete my last edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Les trois premiers Zirides, avant tout souverains d'Asïr, guerroient sans cesse à l'ouest et confient l'Ifrïqiya à un vice-roi arabe, mais la vocation ifrïqiyenne de la dynastie se dessine de bonne heure. Elle a pour conséquence une recrudescence de la pression des Zanâta qui, sous Bâdis (996-1016), déferlent victorieusement de Tiaret à Tripoli. Il les mate, non sans peine et grâce surtout à son oncle Hammâd, qui pacifie le Magrib Central et y fonde la Qal'a (1007-8). La fin du règne est marquée par la rébellion de Hammâd (1015), qui reconnaît les 'Abbàsides, et par les premiers massacres de si'ites, notamment à Béja et à Tunis.
I think he means by those ziri, bologhin and al mansur. So we can exclud ziri from this list (he did not live in the period we are talking about and we agree that he had achir as his capital). Now what about bologhin and his son al mansur we know that they were governors of achir when they were the heirs of the throne . But none after becoming a "king".for example bologhinLes trois premiers zirides
http://www.mammeri100.dz/index.php/fr/voir-plus/32-achir-la-capitale-de-ziri-ben-menadQuand, en 972, le calife fatimide Al-Mu’izz quitte le Maghreb pour l’Egypte, il confie l’administration de l’Ifriqya à Buluggin, le fils de Ziri. Celui-ci quitte Achir pour s’installer à Kairouan, mais il va garder des liens étroits avec Achir où sa famille va demeurer
https://books.google.tn/books?id=bXjXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&dq=zirid+capital+kairouan&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo_cbCwujrAhUWSxUIHVpfCzIQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsewhen the fatimids left them in control for north africa the zirid dynasty took kairouan as their capital
source [2] Sss2sss ( talk) 11:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)his son al mansur first moved into the old aghlabid palace in raqqada, then established himself "definitly" in Mansuriya, where he soon became known for his magnificence...
لكن على الرغم من الطابع العسكري لفترة حكم يوسف فإن ذلك لم يمنعه من الاهتمام
بالتنظيم الإداري لدولته، وسعى إلى ذلك عبر تعيين عماله على الولايات، وإدخال تعديلات على
حدودها، خاصة منها الولايات الغربية، حيث ألغى ولاية المسيلة وضم الجهة الجنوبية منها إلى
تاهرت، والجهة الشمالية إلى أشير، واتخذ من مدينة المنصورية قرب القيروان قاعدة حكمه.
(Translated via google since the only version I have is in arabic). And he further go to sayBalkin was feeling lonely in his new kingdom and longed for Asher, so he installed one of the Aghlabid princes as a ruler and he did not come to Mansuriyya except occasionally
— histoire du maghreb
so you can see how the capital change was permanent. Sss2sss ( talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)When his son Al-Mansour succeeded him, he first settled one of the palaces of Bani Al-Aghlab in Raqqada, before he moved to Al-Mansuriyah and settled there
when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk".
I really hate being misquoted. Here's what I said
[3] and here's their response
[4].
I suggest you read my last three comments, and please, don't ping me again. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
doesn't " remained" mean that they were and still are in kairouan ? Thank you for your reply Sss2sss ( talk) 19:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)the Zirid main branch of North Africa remained in Ifriqiya, with its capital at Kairouan...". Which gives the impression that Kairouan was only the capital after 1015
Let me summarize my opinion to make it clear
1)we have written records that all of the first governors lived in al mansuriya near Kairouan.
2)ashir was under the rule of governors appointed by the zirid emirs first al mansur son of bologhin and when he became emir and departed to kairouan he put his brother hammad as governor.
3)hammad established his new capital kalaa in 1007 (he was still not declared independant yet) and ashir was partially abandoned according to abdallah laroui. How could the capital city would be abandoned for another city ?
4)kairouan was the capital city of zirid predecessor in ifriqiya the fatimid caliph al mu'izz.
governor of al-Qayrawān and any other territory the Zīrids might reclaim
— encyclopedia britannica
6)1014 as a date for the change of the capital is absurd since ; it was not under direct control of zirid emirs but under hammad who was ruling it autonomously from his relatives and when he declared independance historians never talked about it as 'the Zirid take refugee in kairouan' or 'he fleed to kairouan' or 'changed his capital' as similiar to what happened in 1057. But they described the secession of the hammadid branch as like of a secession of a kingdom located far away from the capital. And won't that make hammadid the legitimate successors not the badisid branch ? 7)And about what you've said about the viceroys. It is clearly that bologhin chose his viceroy when he went for war in Maghreb al Aqsa (he loved to lead wars himself because that's what he was before becoming emir ; a military general) or when visiting his family in ashir. What do you want from him to let kairouan without a governor ? Also we never heard about a viceroy after the reign of mansur ibn bologhin. Finaly since you like to cite hady roger idris I recommand for you to read all of his book "la berberie orientale sous les Zirides" and not judge about the book from it's cover. You will find everything I wrote clearly in his book.Also you can easily find it in google in pdf. I am not sure about the availability in google books. Sss2sss ( talk) 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear:?
Another link between the millions that proves kairouan/al mansuriya as a capitalHonestly I would think that copying this model would be the best Sss2sss ( talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC) One other book that according to you has got it wrongMain capitals : al - Mansuriya in 971 , Kairouan in 1048 , Mahdiya from 1057. Banu Ziri . Clients of the Fatimids , from 935 they were resident in the stronghold of Ashir near Algiers under Ziri ibn Manad , who fell in the service of the Fatimids in 971
— Islam: Art and Architecture, page 619
source [5]. I don't know how are we supposed to get into a solution if you keep ignoring my replies ? Sss2sss ( talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Buluggin transferred the government seat from ashir to al-Qayrawan (now kairouan) in effect becoming the founder of the zirid dynasty and its first emir
— International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, page 36
Since the only author you wanted to mention is hady roger idris I gave the effort to read all of his book the 460 pages of "LA BERBERIE ORIENTALE SOUS LES ZIRIDES X-Xlle SIÈCLES". And interestingly enough he did never clearly mention any capital of the zirids. He was interested in every event that happened during that time but did not give any "cristal clear" information.
But one of the paragraph that interested me is this onethis is not written by roger idris himself. It is a comment made by the Library who published the version of the book I've read "LIBRAIRIE D'AMÉRIQUE ET D'ORIENT" Normaly comments like this would be made by a real historian who is well educated about the subject. And I wonder why he didn't get the impression that ashir was the capital of zirids after reading the whole book (during the date we are talking about) as like you did.I hope I would get a response. But he did agree with me about kairouan. I hope I would get a response since you still until now didn't give me any proper response Cordialy Sss2sss ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Si,, comme on le verra, Buluggïn ne quitta la capitale pour le Magrib qu'en
Sa'bân, on ne peut suivre l'auteur du Mu'nis, 74, qui affirme qu'il demeura deux mois
à Kairouan-al-Mansûriyya, car il s'agirait d'au moins quatre mois.
— page46
About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. There's been no actual discussion here since October 11, just one editor writing. My suggestion would be for the one remaining editor to go ahead and make the edits in the article that they think appropriate and see if they're reverted; if they are then perhaps discussion can resume. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Let me note that Kansas Bear is both wrong and right about one thing: Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, see RSPRIMARY, but as he says encyclopedias are tertiary sources and secondary sources are preferred, so if there is a secondary source it should be used in preference to Encyclopedia Britannica. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
. If not it would oppose what I am trying to defend here. Though I don't have access to the book you've cited. So I don't really know what you are referring to. If the case is that you disagree with my demand of changing the date (kairouan 1014 to 972) maybe you should mention it here. Sss2sss ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Ziri's son Buluggin ibn Ziri who founded his capital at Achir was appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya (971-984)
Achir (before 1014) Kairouan (from 1014 to 1057) Mahdia (after 1057)
thank you for asking Sss2sss ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Achir (before 972) Kairouan/Mansuriya (972-1057) Mahdia (after 1057)
Sss2sss ( talk) 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)The Fatimids transfer their court from Mahdia to Cairo. Buluggin was then appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya with Kairouan as its capital
M.Bitton, clearly Sss2sss has chosen not to answer your or my questions. I move that this discussion be closed. We have entertained this long enough. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
. I will keep searching for an english version.وأما افريقية فقصبتها القيروان ومن مدنها: صبرة، أسفاقس، المهدية، سوسة، تونس، بنزرت، طبرقة، مرسى الخرز، بونة،
باجة، لربس، قرنة، مرنيسة، مس، بنجد، مرماجنة، سبيبة، قمودة،قفصة،قسطيلية، نفزاوة، لافس، أوذنة، قلانس، قبيشة، رصفة، بنونش، لجم، جزيرة أبي شريك، باغاي، سوق ابن خلف، دوفانة، المسيلة، أشير، سوق حمزة، جزيرة بني زغناية، متيجة، تنس، دار سوق إبراهيم، الغزة، قلعة برجمة، باغر، يلل، جبل زالاغ، أسفاقس، منستير، مرسى الحجامين، هياجة، باغر، غيبث، قرية الصقالبة، لربس، مرسى الحجر، جمونس الصابون، طرس. قسطيلية، نفطة، بنطيوس تقيوس، مدنية القصور، مسكيانة، باغاي، دوفانة، عين العصافير، دار ملول، طبنة، مقرة، تيجس، مدينة المهريين، تامسنت، دآما،
قصرالإفريقي، رآوى، القسطنطينية، ميلى، جيجل، تا بريت، سطيف، إيكجا، مرسى الدجاج، أشير.
— page 59
About abdallah laroui, how would we consider him a non specialist to the subject ? Isn't he one of the most famous modern arabic historians ? Are we here to say that all the degrees he took in history are fake ? And "for al mu'izz left for the east in 973" maybe he is talking about the date he arrived to egypt. And wasn't buluggin theoretically a governor (as he was appointed by al mu'izz) but by the time he became more and more autonomus until at the end it became a real kingdom ? I'll leave a simple and final question if we agree that the page would stay as it is but we source that information what would be the article or the book that you will chose ? Sss2sss ( talk) 22:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear: isn't leaving the page as like if it is and ignoring the sources (that says buluggin changed his capital) I and you mentionned also considered Cherry picking? Sss2sss ( talk) 00:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ IbnTashfin97: Regarding this sourced content removal:
You have already been asked to explain your rationale on the talk page. Ignoring that advice and edit warring while leaving snippets in the edit summary won't do. Here's your chance to explain why you want to remove the sourced content from the article. Also, since you have been doing this for quite sometime, I will ask an admin ( Doug Weller) and another editor who's familiar with the subject ( Kansas Bear) to keep an eye on this article. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:05, 4 January 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) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mazing107 ( talk) 16:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I need the permission to edit this page because of some historical inacurracies such as the origin of the Zirids and the map showing their extent
This section was recently added. After looking it over, I'm removing the section almost entirely, with apologies to
Kabz15. Normally, I would try to do some initial clean-up (as I just did for the same section at
Hammadid dynasty), but honestly the section is such a mess that it would need to be restarted from scratch.
First, it is almost entirely unsourced, which is enough grounds on its own to remove it. The only paragraph with citations relies on a claim that some of the cited sources actually contradict, and which has been discredited or rejected by other scholars. (Specifically: the fountain of lions in the Alhambra does not date to the Zirid period. This was the claim of one author only and has been rejected by other scholars in this field including Fairchild Ruggles, who's cited here. More recently, Felix Arnold, sums it up in
his book (p. 283): "The theory of Frederick Bargebuhr that the lion sculptures date to the eleventh century has since been disproven.") Additionally, the section begins with a list composed of mostly external links, which should not be in the main body of the article as per
WP:EXT, and some links to non-English wikipedia pages, instead of properly citing sources. Finally, the number of pictures is totally disproportionate and disruptive to the page layout; please see
MOS:IMAGES for guidelines on how images should be used.
There is room on this page for a section like this, but please make an effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines for content, including citing reliable sources (and citing them for claims that they actually support). Rather than doing something like rapidly dumping as many mentions as possible of monuments linked to one of the Zirid states in some way or another, I'd suggest starting small and adding information about specific sub-topics one at a time, and with more careful attention to what the sources have to say. And in a similar vein: there should be separate (sub)sections for architecture under the Zirid Taifa of al-Andalus versus that under the Zirids in Ifriqiya, as these two are not automatically the same thing.
Sincerely,
R Prazeres (
talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello R Prazeres, I don’t see any problems or violations of any Wikipedia policies for the map you reverted. You said that the territories were not controlled at the same time but I clearly marked out the time periods in which certain territories were controlled, furthermore I’m not familiar with any Wikipedia rule against this even so other pages such as the Omani Empire or the British Empire have maps like that. You also said that it was a personal interpretation which I think is definitely incorrect, please read the file description and you will find that this is not the case. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 00:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC))
I'll also note for everyone that another map on this page for the later Zirid period ( this one), does not name any sources. It's substantially similar to the representation of Zirid territory in Map 26 of the Sluglett and Currie atlas I mentioned above, so I've left it for now, but unless the map's own sources can be clarified this would be an argument for either editing it or removing it too. R Prazeres ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton This map is exaggerated , it does not correspond to the sources. I replace it by the map used on French Wikipedia. I brought a source which justifies my modification. The issue of the map of the Zirids has already been discussed on the French version of Wikipedia... Please stop accusing me of vandalism. Thank you, YusAtlas ( talk) 02:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn’t correspond at all. On the first source we can see that Tripoli for instance isn’t under Zirid sovereignty. I will repeat myself once again by saying that the map I introduced is better. YusAtlas ( talk) 02:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I see no contradiction with what I said. What a POV-Pushing… WP:ADVOCACY YusAtlas ( talk) 02:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The map is wrong and you are unable to argue so you make ad hominems. Just check this : https://books.google.com/books/about/Atlas_historique_de_l_Alg%C3%A9rie.html?hl=fr&id=tLMEoAEACAAJ. You are wrong, just admit it and stop this POVP. YusAtlas ( talk) 02:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, but given that all the maps in question contain some non-verifiable aspects, I finally decided to put the time in and make three (!) new maps based on three different published sources relevant to three different (approximate) time periods. The borders are re-drawn manually, but any differences from the sources should be trivial. As always, there are some inconsistencies between the published maps, which is why I didn't try to combine them all into one map with different areas of shading or striping, etc. Instead, I've used the "switcher" template to include all three in the infobox, allowing readers to look at each individually or together. See this edit.
Notes on the first map: The only map that posed significant difficulty is the one for c. 980. I ended up making three versions of that one map, with what I hope are clear and detailed notes in the file descriptions (see links below). In summary: there are no published maps that unambiguously represent this one moment in Zirid history (probably because Buluggin's conquests lasted only a few years). The only detailed source I've seen for the 10th-century Zirids is the Atlas of Islamic History by Sluglett & Currie (2002), already mentioned above, which is also the source used for multiple other maps with consensus in similar articles (e.g. Marinid Sultanate and Saadi Sultanate). There are, however, two maps in this Atlas which appear relevant for this time period: Maps 10 and 11, on pages 26 & 28, [10]). The two maps show somewhat different things for the eastern border: the second includes Cyrenaica, the first doesn't. There's nothing in the book that really contextualizes this difference; the second one might represent a later stage, but that's not explicit and, as mentioned in previous discussion, there are text sources which clearly indicate control of Ajdabiya (at least) under Buluggin's reign (but possibly not Barqa, which is a question for another day). I've also found another published map (also used for the new circa 1000 map) which appears to show the same extent of Zirid control over Cyrenaica; the map isn't as explicit as I'd like, but to me it seems clear enough in context. Given these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to combine the territories shown in both Sluglett & Currie maps. At the other end, the western frontier is clear enough on Map 10 (it's not shown on Map 11), but I've still made minor changes to reflect multiple sources stating the three main cities Buluggin captured in the west: Fez, Sijilmasa, and Basra (a lesser-known town in the north). Apart from these two details, which are not clearly shown by the Sluglett & Currie map, the rest of the western frontier is per the source map, which is not the case for the previous maps considered above, each of which feature a great deal of personal editorial input that isn't verifiable under scrutiny.
For full sources and details, see the three versions of this map:
As long as we do want a map for 980, then in my opinion all three versions are acceptable; they're just different ways of resolving the inconsistencies between reliable sources. I've added version 2 in the infobox for now, as I'm inclined to consider it the most informative and complete. Feel free to discuss or recommend other preferences here. (I can also make changes to or new versions of the maps if there's a clear need for it.) R Prazeres ( talk) 09:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
M.Bitton, I did not notice the long and chaotic discussion above previously, but there's obviously some confusion there as there are plenty of reliable sources explicitly stating that the capital was al-Mansuriya from the start of Buluggin's appointment, for reasons that should be obvious. There are none I've seen that state otherwise, including any I could see above or in the article itself. The only source I see above that lends itself to ambiguity, Hady's article (p.359), is very poor support to the contrary, since he's evidently referring to the fact that the early Zirids were all originally from Ashir, hence their constant interest in the west; not that it remained the capital after they were given the viceroyship of Ifriqiya, and nowhere does it speak of a transfer from Achir to Kairouan circa 1014. Given the abundant information elsewhere (see below), there should really be no ambiguity. It's well known that Ashir was their original capital before the Fatimids moved east and it remained of central importance accordingly, but to claim it was the official capital between 972 and 1014 is WP:OR that contradicts plenty of reliable sources, including:
At most, there could be an argument for Ashir continuing to act as the western capital of some sort under Buluggin, if there are clear sources saying so (see maybe Brett 2017 p.85), but there's absolutely no argument for omitting al-Mansuriyya/Kairouan as the official capital from 972 onward. If there actually are genuine contradictions in the literature on this matter, then this needs to be indicated to readers. R Prazeres ( talk) 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"In the mid tenth century a chief of the Talkāta named Zīrī b. Manād established the Zirid dynasty with its capital at a city called Ashīr in al-Maghrib al-Awsaṭ. The Zirids proved to be capable and loyal fighters for the Fatimid cause. When the Fatimid caliph al-Muʿizz decided to move his court to Egypt in 361/972 he left the Zirids behind as vassal rulers over Ifrīqiya and the Maghrib. The Zirid sultans henceforth took up residence in Qayrawān." Amar S.Baadj, Saladin, the Almohads and the Banū Ghāniya. p:22-23
"In 972 he accompanied his sovereign on the first stages of his journey to the east, then remained behind apparently as viceroy over all except Sicily and Tripoli. As a mark of this exceptional favour he was renamed and restyled Sayf al-Dawla ('Swor d of State') Ab u'l-Futuh ('Man of Victories') Yusuf. It was characteristic of Buluggin that despite this elevation, he at once returned to fight in the west. Although he held the Maghrib for the caliph, confirmed in this position by Mu'izz's son and successor 'Aziz in 975, and was further endowed with Tripoli in 979, he remained essentially the lord of the west with his capital at Ashir. His visits to Kairouan were few, and from 974 the capital and the whole of the Tunisian region were entrusted to 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Katib, 'the Secretary', an aristocratic product of the Fatimid chancery, one of the great departments of state." J. D. FAGE and ROLAND OLIVER, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AFRICA, p:623-624
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
The Zirids' capital, Ashir, featured an impressive palace complex. Nevertheless, intra-Zirid conflict coupled with intra-Sanhaja rivalry arose, leading to the establishment of a separate state ruled by their cousins, the Hammadids (1014-1152), who established Qal'a as their capital at the base of the Hodna Mountains in Algeria.
Leur rôle était double et double leur domaine, avec ses deux capitales d'Achir, donjon du territoire héréditaire, et Kairouan, centre de l'administration. Ce domaine était trop grand: il se brisa. Les parents, auxquels les nouveaux maitres de l'Ifriqya avaient confié la tâche de continuer la lutte contre les Zenâta, se déclarèrent indépendants dans les provinces qu'ils défendaient. Dès lors la Berbérie fâtimite compta deux royaumes çanhâjiens: à l'Est, le royaume des BeniZirî de Kairouan, à l'Ouest le royaume des Beni Hammâd de la Qal'a.
After the departure of Buluggīn's son al-Manṣūr to take up residence at al-Qayrawān in 381/991, Ashīr remained the Zīrid capital of the central Maghrib until the foundation of the Qalʿa (Fortress) of the Banū Ḥammād in 398/1007, when it became the second city of the Ḥammādids.
[p.626] Mansur reunified the country at the cost of moving his residence in 991 from Ashir to Sabra and Kairouan. His brother Yattufat took his place at Ashir, while the Zab was entrusted to Sa'id b. Khazrun, brother of the ruler of Sijilmasa, (...) [p.627] When Mansur died in 996, six months before his Fatimid suzerain 'Aziz, the accession of his son Badis, a boy of eleven, was ensured by the 'abid, the most probably Negro regiments who were the nucleus of the army. Their solidarity against their rivals, the cavalry of the nobility, meant that the attempt of the uncles to impose a regent was defeated, and that the young sultan ruled in person from the beginning. Yattufat and Hammad, the brothers of Mansur, contented themselves with Tiaret and Ashir.
Is there anyone who can make a correction to the family tree chart near the bottom of the article? I have little experience with this particular template and I'm not sure how to fix it myself without messing it up further.
The specific correction that's needed is: "Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz 1121-1152" should be placed under "Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur 1105-1121", not under "Badis ibn Mansur 1105". Per his name and per the detailed genealogical chart in Idris (1962) La berbérie oriental sous les Zirides (p. 833; pdf available here), Yahya is the son of Abd al-Aziz, not Badis.
(Pinging Agricolae, who added the chart, but I see that they haven't been active recently.) Thanks for any help, R Prazeres ( talk) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)