Talk:Ibn Tumart

Untitled

This article lacks sources and seems to be based on a 100 yrs. old encyclopedia.S711 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions reverted by user

Hello,

My additions to this article were reverted twice by user Atlas. The sources I used are well known but this user deleted them and noted "unreliable primary sources" in the "history" section. Can someone please explain me why are they unreliable ?

Thank you. --Fulgery (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources you want to use are primary sources, take a look at WP:PRIMARY. All seconday sources (by prominent modern historians like: Levtzion, Lévi-Provençal, Basset, Hopkins.... and prominent encyclopedias like: encyclopedia of islam 'ed.1", "ed.2" and history books like: The Cambridge History of Africa) denied his sharifian claims (hundreds of religious leadersand sufis did it before him). --Aṭlas (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

None of the three sources I provided are primary sources. Even if they were, "Primary" does not mean "bad". These sources are known and reliable, contrary to what you noted.

Moreover, two of them were used before in this same article...

Sorry, but your arguments opposing the mention of his Arab origin are weak, and I'm going to restore my additions (I'm adding a fourth source by the way ^^), in addition to deleting this incorrect "Amghar" name.

As for the sources claiming a Berber lineage, I have to look precisely at their proofs as the links provided are not helping. Meanwhile, I'm taking into account the difference of opinion in leaving the Berber origin with "citation needed", along with the Arab one.

It's OK to have the two mentions next to each other if they are both sourced-Fulgery (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you for a second time to take a look at WP:PRIMARY. None of your sources is reliable by wikipedia criteria. Encyclopædia of Islam clearly denied this claim. --Aṭlas (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For a second time, the sources I provided are reliable. The fact that one or several sources doubted the claim does not mean that we should ignore all the other sources citing and validating his Arab lineage. There's no way his Arab ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

I'm restoring my contribution and I'm making a dispute resolution request. Fulgery (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So suspecious! How in the hell a one day account know the "dispute resolution request"? --Aṭlas (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the sources I provided are reliable"

'Mafakhir Al-barbar' is a primary source. 'ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر' is a primary source. Ibn khalkans' dictionnary (translated primary source!) is just tracing the claimed Sharifian lineage. 'Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire, from Columbus to Magellan' is not a reliable source because Hugh Thomas (the author) is not specialized in islamic history (or african history).

"The fact that one or several sources doubted the claim does not mean that we should ignore all the other sources citing and validating his Arab lineage."

Encyclopedia of islam (1st edition by Rene Basset and 2nd edition by hopkins) !? The cambridge history of africa!? Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (Hugh kennedy!!)!?..... --Aṭlas (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you reverted my contribution, so I'm restoring it.

You're repeating yourself so I'm repeating myself : I've read the pages about the primary and secondary sources and your arguments are weak. The clear mention of the famous Arab ancestry as I've added it belongs naturally to this article even if it has been denied by some.

I completed the dispute resolution procedure. Fell free to post your summary of the confict --here-- Fulgery (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The arguments are weak for you not for wikipedia criteria. It's your point of view, Keep it for yourself. If you continue adding primary sources, unreadable sources, removing what you don't like, ignoring wikipedia criteria. You will be reported to administrators. Is this what you didn't understand in the WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." !!? Finally take a look at this WP:VERIFY. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My sources are admissible, known and reliable. I simply added the clear mention of his famous Arab lineage and the arguments you opposed to this are weak, that's why I restored it.

I'm not ignoring Wikipedia rules, it was you who deleted the content that was added by me and it was me who made a dispute resolution request concerning your behavior. Fulgery (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(For disclosure, I was alerted to this controversy by Aṭlas) Fulgery has a point in so far as primary sources attribute him an Arab Sharifian lineage; this must be mentioned. Primary sources are indeed not "bad", but this is a perfect case why they alone do not suffice. Wikipedia reflects scholarly consensus, and in this case it is pretty clear: the modern, scholarly sources are equally clear that this lineage is fictitious, and that he was thoroughly Berber. To pick but one, the EI2 is unequivocal: "there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various S̲h̲arīfian genealogies attributed to him". So his Arab lineage needs to be treated accordingly: there are medieval sources that claim this, but modern consensus research them. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cplakidas:

I think These two sentences "By his own declaration and that of his followers, he claimed to be descendant of Idriss I, a descendant of Hassan, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, who took refuge in Morocco in the 8th-century. However, and despite being supported by Ibn Khaldun, this ascendency is today discredited." are sufficient for this page. As the modern scholars Agree that this is a genealogical fiction. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1)"Primary sources are indeed not "bad", but this is a perfect case why they alone do not suffice." Could you please explain what do you mean by "primary sources" ? How are my sources primary (not that there's anything wrong with that) ? The fact that Ibn Tumart's claim is widely known, reported and is validated by several sources should be sufficient to clearly mention it.

2) Wikipedia reflects scholarly consensus : there's no scholarly consensus that he was not of Arab descent, so deleting the mention isn't justified. I also remind you that I didn't delete the Berber mention.

Now, for the modern scholars consensus part, how do we decree a consensus ? Have we reviewed all the sources ? And how in the world can Encyclopaedia Islamica have "no doubt" that he was a "pure" Berber ? Also, look at the phrase that comes after : "Of His first 30 or so years we Have no real knowledge."

Other modern sources can tell us that he was from or was born into some Berber tribe, but that doesn't contradict the fact that he had an Arab lineage. You can live amongst a group while retaining a distinctive ancestry. It is a known fact in the Maghreb.

So no, "the modern, scholarly sources are" not "equally clear that this lineage is fictitious" and this is why I replaced the generalization "is today discredited" by "is today questionned by some".

3) The "Amghar" name for Ibn Tumart is incorrect so I deleted it. Encyclopaedia Islamica is not infallible and has more than one version.

4) I asked for sources for the "largely disputed" concerning the "claim of Shariffian lineage of Morocco's current ruling dynasty, the Alaouites" and this has also been deleted. Fulgery (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What I mean by primary sources is what anyone means by primary sources: the sources that form the raw material for a subject, prior to having been subjected to analysis. Ibn Khaldun is a primary source; so is Ibn Khallikan, and any other medieval source. They are usable only when corroborated or complemented by a modern secondary source, i.e., a scientific analysis by a modern scholar. "there's no scholarly consensus that he was not of Arab descent, so deleting the mention isn't justified" is your opinion, not what the modern sources say. "Encyclopaedia Islamica is not infallible"; indeed the Encyclopaedia of Islam is not infallible, but it is the premier English-language reference work on anything related to Islamic studies, written by the most renowned scholars in the field. Whether you or I doubt it or not is beside the point: we report what peer-reviewed, scientific sources write, not our own conclusions, guesses, and hypotheses, even if they seem plausible to us. If you want to challenge any of its content, bring sources of equal standing, i.e. modern works by specialists in the field. Primary sources, especially sources that report what is explicitly rejected by modern sources, are not acceptable. On the descent of the modern Alaouites, I agree that a source is needed if it is to stay in the article, but that has no bearing on the main issue here. Constantine ✍ 19:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Ibn Khaldun is a primary source" : Ibn Khaldun cited the historians accepting his Arab descent and he gave his conclusions concerning this claim, so he's a secondary source and the books of the historians he consulted are primary sources, no ? Even if he was a primary source, his work is authoritative enough to justify a citation and to prevent a deletion, no ? "Primary" does not mean "bad".

Also in justifying the mention of a said descent in this article, a medieval source that cite the Arab descent based on prior works without denying is as acceptable as a modern source that says "there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber" without explanation.

Here is the main issue : I added a sourced Arab descent for Ibn Tumart (without deleting the Berber descent). The user Aṭlas deleted this mention multiple times. Is this justified ? No, I don't think so. You said yourself that "this must be mentioned".

For me, a solution possible is to mention the two lineages and to relate the differences of opinions between the medieval and modern scholars in the article. Fulgery (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, Aṭlas deleted my contribution despite of me having made a dispute resolution request concerning him. He also said, in the revision history section : « your edits look like a POV pushing and personal interpretation »…
I’m restoring the article in the state in which it was when I made the dispute resolution request. I hope that doesn't make me fall into the "edit warrior" category.
I ask someone to tell him to stop behaving like this and I ask Aṭlas to please refrain from making assumptions.

1) To Constantine and others, here are some complements concerning Ibn Tumart's lineage that I would like to add after the conflict resolution (I really don't see why all of these justifications are needed for adding to an article a simple, sourced and famous biographical fact, but let's go) :

- From « The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart, 2010 » :
« Historians, however, differ about Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage. The Almohad authors, such as al-Baydhaq and Ibn al-Qattan. assert this Prophetic lineage. Others, such as al-Marrakushi and Ibn Khaldun, do not refute Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage. Al-Marrakushi. who wrote his work in Baghdad, says that Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage “was found written in his own handwriting.” Ibn Khallikan says that he found Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage “on the back of a book.”
These statements have encouraged modem Arab scholars, such as Abd Allah Ali Allam and Abd al-Hamid al-'Abbadi, to accept Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage.'
Other historians question the authenticity of Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage. The Shafi'i scholar al-Dhahabi says that Ibn Tumart “claimed to be an Alawid Hasanite. Ibn Abi Zar and Ibn Abi Dinar, who lived after the fall of the Almohad state, report that 'it is said that he claimed that noble lineage as mentioned by Ibn Matruh al-Qaysi. who said he was a man from Hargha of the Masamida tribes known as Muhammad Ibn Tumart al-Harghi. " Ibn al-Tmad al-Hanbali (d. AH 1089/CE 1678) says that Ibn Tumart was a liar, and he claimed to be a Hasanite. while he was a Berber from Hargha.''
It is noticeable that some historians dispute Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage, though they do not bring forth plausible reasons for their mistrust. A few modem scholars have tried to explain their refutation of Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage.
The French historian Alfred Bel (1873-1945) says that Ibn Tumart claimed the noble lineage to justify his claim to be the Mahdi. Nehemia Levtzion (1935-2003) says that Ibn Tumart “invented a fictitious genealogy to show that he was a descendant of the Prophet. An Azharite scholar. Sa d Muhammad Hasan, says that Ibn Tumart “invented for himself an Arab lineage that ends at Ali Ibn Abi Talib or at the Messenger himself' to claim his Mahdism, and to be supported by “the fabricated hadiths" that do not verify a Mahdi from outside the Prophetic family.
This scathing criticism does not analyse the names of Ibn Tumart's lineage. Rather, it attempts to spell out the supposed reason that prompted Ibn Tumart and his disciples to declare this lineage. It also quotes those writers who oppose this lineage and ignores those historians who validate it.
However, it is difficult for us to deal with this disputable issue because there are no authentic documents to confirm or discard Ibn Tumart's official lineage. Yet, there are some pertinent points that should be considered here.''
First. al-Marrakushi says that Ibn Tumart's people are called “Isarghinan,” meaning in Berber the “Sharifs" (al- Shurafa). This suggests that it was not Ibn Tumart who proclaimed his Prophetic lineage. Second. Sulayman, who was mentioned in Ibn Tumart's lineage, had many descendants in the Maghrib.' The author of Mafakhir al-Barbar says that “Sulayman lived in Tlemcen and had a son called Muhammad who had many children. “All the Qurayshes there are from Sulayman's son." Some of Muhammad's sons went to “the Far Sus" region. “All the Qurayshes there are from them."'' Third, Ibn Khaldun reports that many people in the Masamida and the Sus belonged to Sulayman. who “came to the Maghrib following his brother Idris, and settled in Tlemcen and his sons were separated in the Maghrib." Ali Ibn Abi Talib s descendants in the Sus are Sulayman's offspring. This means that it is possible that Ibn Tumart was a descendant of Sulayman. Fourth, the author of Mafakhir al-Barbar says that Idris “had twelve sons." His son Muhammad dispersed his brothers all over the region, and some of them settled down in the Sus region. This indicates that some of Ali Ibn Abi Talib's descendants were in Ibn Tumart's homeland.'
Ibn Khaldun, however, presents a different reasoning argument. He says that rejecting Ibn Tumart s Prophetic lineage “is not supported by evidence." even if Ibn Tumart proclaimed it. He then argues that "there is no proof that invalidates Ibn Tumart s lineage, "because the people are trustworthy about their lineage." Many people followed Ibn Tumart. not because of his “Fatimid |Fatimi) lineage." but because of tribal fanaticism. Ibn Tumart’s family were aware of their lineage, even if other people have ignored it. Ibn Khaldun’s argument is cogent, and disputes the idea that Ibn Tumart made up his lineage to gain supporters. »'''

- From "Arabic Thought and its Place in History; 1922" :
"The foundation of the Muwahhids is associated with Ibn Tumart (d. 524 A.H. = 1129 A.D.). He was a native of Morocco, and a strange combination of fanatic and scholastic. He claimed to be a descendant of ‘Ali, and posed as the "Mahdi" possessing the supernatural grace of isma or "security from error," and thus introduced Shi‘ite ideas into Morocco;"

- From "Dictionary of African Biography, Volume 6, 2012" :
"Born into a noble line of Berber chiefs or ugailids, and able to claim Arab heritage as a sharif, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Tumart’s claimed dual identity would help him later in life as he preached a fundamental interpretation of the Arabic Qur'an to the Berber, Masmuda Mountain tribes of the Atlas."

- From "The New Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 2, 2010":
"Accounts of Berber merits and genealogies such as the Mafakhir al barbar were recorded, although Ibn Tumart was presented as a member of the Prophet's family"
"He came from the Harga tribe, Masmuda Berbers, although he was properly a member of the Prophet's family"

- From "Encyclopedia of Africa, Volume 1, 2010" :
"The origin of the movement is traced to Muhammad ibn Tumart, an Arab reformer in MOROCCO who preached moral reform and the doctrine of the unity of the unity of divine being."

- From "The Almohads The Rise of an Islamic Empire, 2010" (note : this book is also used by the opponents of the "Arab" mention in this page, see below) :
"The following quotation is one version of what Ibn Tumart may have said that inspired his followers to proclaim Ibn Tumart Mahdl: He [the Mahdl] will be sent by God to command right and forbid wrong so that justice may take the place of injustice. His place will be the extreme Maghrib and his time, the end of time: his name will be that of the Prophet. He will reveal the injustice of the princes and rid the world of corruption. This is the end of the times: the name is the name, the lineage is the lineage, and the works are the works."
"Ibn Tūmart’s name revealed how he wished to portray himself. It also revealed his position in a long line of distinguished ancestors, a type of apostolic succession of blood that tied him to the prophet himself."
"Ibn Khaldun naturally denounced the Almoravids’ disavowal of the Mahdi’s claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad. Getting around the difficult matter of proving Ibn Tumart’s claim, Ibn Khaldun put the burden of proof in the hands of the opponents of the Almohads, saying cleverly, ‘Were it established that he himself claimed such descent, his claim could not be disproved, because people are to be believed regarding the descent they claim for themselves."
"A holy man will have a long list of names. Many of the names define several different agnatic or blood-based groups. Ibn Tumart and the most prestigious Almohad rulers certainly fit into this long naming scheme."
"His sharifian genealogy connecting him to the prophet's blood and family may have been invented, as Ibn Khaldun seemed to suggest. It is also possible that Ibn Tumart was related to the many Arab tribes that flooded into the region after the Hilalian Arab invasions before his birth. His family could also possibly have had some form of relationship with the original Idrissidds who founded the first independent Muslim Moroccan state at Fes, and who dispersed widely into the Sus valley."
"Several French colonial historians, but most notably Georges Marçais, have viewed the Arab ethnic invasions into the Maghrib, especially the famous Hilālian invasion, as the great disaster of the era that pitted Arab against Berber. In Ibn Tūmart, however, it seemed that the most important aspects of Arab and Berber culture, their ancestry, had combined. As the twelfth century Almohad Kitāb al-Ansāb (Book of Ancestry) demonstrated, the use of names to identify a simultaneous Berber and Arab ancestry was widespread among the Almohad tribes."
"Most writers from North Africa generally accepted or glorified Ibn Tūmart’s biography and many of the claims attributed to him. By contrast, scholars from the east who wrote accounts of Ibn Tūmart, such as Ibn al Qalānisī (d. 1160), approached him and the rise of the Almohads from a detached, disdainful distance, claiming that he ‘perpetuated the failure of Islamic law and encouraged bloodshed."
"Just as Ibn Tūmart had both the genealogy of a Berber chief and an Arab sharif descended from Fatima, so too did many tribes have dual Berber and Arab identities."

- From "La conjonction du sufisme et du sharîfisme au Maroc : le Mahdî" in "Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée, 1990, p. 236" :
"Cependant Ibn al-Qattân lui attribue une généalogie qui remonte au Prophète par 'Ubayd Allah b. Idrïs b. Idrïs I. D'après al-Bakrï la ville de Nafis, peuplée de Masmùda et située dans la région où Ibn Tùmart s'établit avec ses partisans (dans le Haut- Atlas), avait été attribuée, lorsqu'on avait partagé le patrimoine d'Idrïs, à son fils 'Ubayd Allah. S'il en est ainsi, il faut logiquement penser que dans cette région du Maghreb, la lignée idrïside était généralement connue et acceptée en connexion généalogique avec le Prophète Muhammad."

- From "The Preaching of the Almohads" in "Spanning the Strait: Studies in Unity in the Western Mediterranean, 2013, p. 89" :
"To begin with, the second half of al-Marrākushī’s typical Almohad Friday khuṭba consists entirely of invocations on behalf of the Mahdī and each of the successive Mu’minid caliphs:
"And blessings upon the infallible Imām (al-Imām al-ma‘ṣūm), the revealed Mahdī (al-Mahdī al-ma‘lūm), Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-‘Arabī al-Qurashī al-Hāshimī al-Ḥasanī al-Fāṭimī al-Muḥammadī [= Ibn Tūmart]"''
For his part, al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ invoked the blessings upon Ibn Tūmart and the caliph ‘Abd al-Mu’min in the beginning of his oration:
"...and blessings upon the caliph chosen from the true kinship, al-Ḥasanī, al-Fāṭimī, al-Muḥammadī, al-‘Arabī, al-Qurayshī, al-Hāshimī, the chosen one (al-Muṣṭafā) from the House of Prophethood, the Imām al-Mahdī, Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh [= Ibn Tūmart]."

- I also want to remind you that I'd already provided this source : The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and the New, 1918 :
"Its founder, Ibn Tumart, was an Arab who had been adopted by one of the Berber Tribes."

Despite having provided modern sources to support my contribution, I still don’t understand and don't see in the rules why authoritative sources like Ibn Khaldun (and other medieval scholars citing or discussing the claim) were not sufficient for at least citing the two lineages one next to the other and prevent the deleting, even if some modern scholars differ with their views ?

I now reiterate my proposition for putting an end to the conflict : citing the two descents, and relating the differences of opinions between scholars in the article’s body. What do you think ?

2) Concerning the name "Amghar" : « Amghar » is not Ibn Tumart’s name, it’s one of his father’s names. There’s an error in the source provided by Aṭlas, Encyclopaedia of Islam 1st ed., that’s why I deleted it. In the 2nd ed., there’s no mention of this « Amghar » name anymore.

« Tumart was also called al-Shaykh and Amghar, indicating the chief of a clan or village. »

« As the son of an amghar, or chief, Ibn Tūmart was exposed to the ways. » also : "As Ibn Tūmart and ʿAbd al-Muʾmin exemplified, it was not unknown for the young descendants of amghars or sheikhs to go off in search of knowledge and return to replace their fathers as leaders of the tribe." p. 127

"Son père avait été enveloppé [à sa naissance] par sa sœur dans un tûmart [et on l'appela ainsi]». On l'appelait aussi as-Saih et Amgâr. Il se nommait donc Abd Allah, Tûmart, as-Saih et Amgâr." (Mélanges René Basset, traduction de Lévi-Provençal)

"Certainly, he must have come from a relatively well-off background, for his father bore the title of Amghar, denoting the headman of a village or kabila in southern Morocco. (General History of Africa - Volume IV - Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century 2010, p. 19)"

3) Aṭlas again deleted my « citation needed » for The part « Even today the claim of Shariffian lineage of Morocco's current ruling dynasty, the Alaouites, is largely disputed ». I’m just asking for sources. Fulgery (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

To both Fulgery and Aṭlas: while a dispute is being discussed in the talk page, you should avoid continuing the edit-war. it can quickly lead to sanctions and does not aid the process of finding a consensus. Thanks to Fulgery for the sources; I will have a look on the subject over the weekend (too busy with work right now) and propose a solution that will reflect the scholarly consensus and the sources, and hopefully be acceptable to both. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Again, Aṭlas deleted my contribution depite of me having made a dispute resolution request concerning him. He also said, in the revision history section : « your edits look like a POV pushing and personal interpretation »…"

The dispute resolution request is not a good reason to restore the page to the disputed version! Before you edited there was no dispute in this page. You are the one who must explain his changes.

"I’m restoring the article in the state in which it was when I made the dispute resolution request. I hope that doesn't make me fall into the "edit warrior" category."

The dispute resolution request is not a good reason to restore the page to the disputed version! Before you edits there was no dispute in this page. You are the one who must explain his changes.

"I ask someone to tell him to stop behaving like this and I ask Aṭlas to please refrain from making assumptions."

playing the victim Wouldn't work.

1)"The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart"

Well, I don't think a work of a "British independent intellectual, research scholar, author, publisher, and political activist." would be concidered a reliable source, i.e., not a historian! So No need to copy paste all this page to explain your situation. + this book was published by "JERUSALEM ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS" (unknown publishing company) hhh you can't compare this to Brill publishers.

"- From "Arabic Thought and its Place in History; 1922" :"The foundation of the Muwahhids is associated with Ibn Tumart (d. 524 A.H. = 1129 A.D.). He was a native of Morocco, and a strange combination of fanatic and scholastic. He claimed to be a descendant of ‘Ali, and posed as the "Mahdi" possessing the supernatural grace of isma or "security from error," and thus introduced Shi‘ite ideas into Morocco;""

He claimed to be a descendant of ‘Ali, and posed as the "Mahdi" possessing the supernatural grace of isma or "security from error," and thus introduced Shi‘ite ideas into Morocco.

To become the mahdi you need to be a decendant of Muhammed. For that you find many Mahdi caimants invented fictional genealogical trees to strengthen their claims. Lol there is persians, kurds, Berbers who claimed this, so no need to inflate these allegations. As there is tens of jesus claimants and budha claimants, messiah....

"- From "Dictionary of African Biography, Volume 6, 2012" : "Born into a noble line of Berber chiefs or ugailids, and able to claim Arab heritage as a sharif, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Tumart’s claimed dual identity would help him later in life as he preached a fundamental interpretation of the Arabic Qur'an to the Berber, Masmuda Mountain tribes of the Atlas.""

Born into a noble line of Berber chiefs or ugailids, and able to claim Arab heritage as a sharif, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Tumart’s claimed dual identity would help him later in life as he preached a fundamental interpretation of the Arabic Qur'an to the Berber, Masmuda Mountain tribes of the Atlas.

That's a mispresentation (or a misunderstanding) from you. Do you think that this will help your arguments ? The text is clear, he was born in to a noble Berber family and all his paternal ancestors were Ugallids (plural of agallid wich means a Tribal Berber chief). Let's move to the "able to claim Arab heritage as a sharif". This phrase you understand it in your way of thinking and your point of view, the phrase is clear. To claim a sharif lineage you should come from a noble Berber family. That's it!

So, we should Avoid sources like The encyclopedia of islam and The cambridge history of Africa, Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus.... Just to satisfy you ? I think "Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past" has cleary discussed this genealogies and genealogical claims (Zirids claimed himyarite origin, Abd almumin and his descendants created a Qaysi genealogy, Al-jazuli claimed a sherif origin, and hundred of others who needed legitimacy for their rule or their claims as mahdis (or sufis...)): p:80 "The Qaysi genealogy was needed for the Mu’minids’ self-proclamation as caliphs, a title the Mu’minids felt was legitimate to adopt as successors to a messianic figure, the Mahdi Ibn Tumart. Although he was presented as a descendant of the Prophet’s family, Ibn Tumart was a Berber from the Masmuda, a tribal group with a long history of producing prophets and messianic figures." So this is not the first for a masmuda Berber to claim an alien origin, there was tens of prophet claimants (barghawata) and mahdi claimant in the history of this tribe.

"2)Concerning the name "Amghar" : « Amghar » is not Ibn Tumart’s name, it’s one of his father’s names. There’s an error in the source provided by Aṭlas, Encyclopaedia of Islam 1st ed., that’s why I deleted it. In the 2nd ed., there’s no mention of this « Amghar » name anymore."

The entry of Ibn Tūmart The Encyclopaedia of Islam 1st ed. was written by Rene Bassé, 2nd ed. was written by hopkins. The content has changed, because they are different authors! and this don't give you the right to remove it.

Finally, there is a more specialized source in almohad history, "Governing the Empire-Provincial Administration in the Almohad Caliphate (1224–1269)"p:24 "Sources place Ibn Tūmart’s date of birth sometime between 469/1076 and 474/1082. Descended from the Hargha Berber tribe, part of the Maṣmūda group",p:5 "The messianic dimensions of Almohad power are confirmed first in the mahdī status attributed to the movement’s founder; this Shiite-inspired term had strong eschatological connotations. Fictitious genealogies, a concession to the constraints of the period that accorded importance to the nobility of one’s ancestry, traced the bloodline of not only Ibn Tūmart (d. 1130), but also the first caliph, ʿAbd al-Muʾmin (r. 1130–1162) back toʿAlī, the prophet’s son-in-law and cousin" + a more specialized source in messianism (islamic messianism i.e., mahdism) "Messianism and Puritanical Reform: Mahdīs of the Muslim West"p: 162 He was a Berber. The sources promoted by the Almohads, al-Baydhaq but more specifically the Kitab al-Ansab claim that the future Mahdì was a sharìf of Idrìsid origin called Muhammad b. 'Abd Allàh, and a descendant of 'Ubayd Allàh b. Idrìs b. Idrìs I, an Idrìsid who had settled in the Sùs after the dispersion of the sons of Idrìs II. This is the alleged origin which became prevalent. Both the name and the lineage would become fundamental to Ibn Tumart’s later status as a Mahdi.

P.s: Histoire des berbères, et des dynasties musulmanes de l'afrique septentrionale (the french traslation of ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر by William McGuckin de Slane) there is a note by the translator (baron de slane) in volume 2 p:162, my translation of the french text is "Ibn-Khaldun could easily have demonstrated the falsehood of this genealogy; But he had to avoid looking too scrupulously at the origin and conduct of an adventurer whom the Hafsids respected as the founder of their religion. The Hafsid sultan, Abu-'l-Abbas, to whom our author communicated his work, might have been offended by such boldness."

+

1) Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (edited by: Josef W. Meri) p:374 "The founder of the al-Muwahhidun confederation, Abu Abdillah Muhammad b. Abdillah b. Tumart, a Masmudian Berber, was born (AH 471/1078 CE or AH 474/1081 CE) in the city of Sus, located in Morocco’s Anti-Atlas Mountains."

2) Classical Islam: A History, 600-1258 (edited by: Gustave E. von Grunebaum), p:181 "Ibn Tumart, a Berber of the Hargha tribe of the Masmuda, hence a mountain peasant and no nomad ....."

3) Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (edited by: Hugh Kennedy) p:197 "Ibn Tumart was born between 1078 and 1082 in Ijilliz a village in the Sus, the great valley which separates the western range of the High Atlas from the Anti-Atlas to the south. He came from the Hargha tribe wich was itself a branch of the Masmuda, as were the inhabitants of most of the villages of the Atlas."

4) The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 2A (edited by:Bernard Lewis, Ann Lambton, Peter Holt, the Part VII by Roger Le Tourneau) p:224 "..., Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah b. Tumart returned from the east where he had been studying for some years. He was a Berber from Sus, who, like many others of his period had been travelling 'in search of learning'"

5) A History of Islamic Spain (edited by: W. Montgomery Watt, Pierre Cachia), p:89 "The founder of the Almohad movement is commonly known as Ibn-Tumart (Tumart being a Berber diminutive of his father's name Umar). His family belonged to a branch of the tribe of Hintata, and he was born in a vellage in the atlas in the years round about 1082". --Aṭlas (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Tumart Arab? On the very first page of Allen Fromherz's The Almohads: Rise of an Islamic Empire (2010): "Muhammad Ibn Tumart, the son of a minor Berber chief from the Atlas Mountains south of Marrakesh" (p.1) Goes on a few pages later, "The Hargha, or more precisely the Ait Argan (Ait in Berber means "people of") were Ibn Tumart's ethnic and tribal group, which remains in the area today" (p.20). "Ibn Tumart was born into a Berber tribe and an Atlas Mountain Berber social context" (p.20), "Ibn Tumart was the Berber son of a Berber chief" etc. That said, it is true Ibn Tumart (sometimes) claimed sharifian descendency from the Prophet (which Fromherz goes into detail on that it was almost certainly invented, and that even Almohad sympathizers like Ibn Khaldun himself claimed it was probably invented, but left it to others to disprove). That said, even if it is true that Ibn Tumart had an Arab somewhere in his ancestors, that doesn't make him Arab. Something like 10% of the world's population has Genghis Khan as an ancestor - that doesn't make them Mongols. One thing is certain: Ibn Tumart was born Berber, lived Berber and died Berber, and no secondary (or even primary source) suggests otherwise. Walrasiad (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Walrasiad:This is actually what I was explaining to him. Check my points above. --Aṭlas (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I know. I am concurring and adding to your references. Walrasiad (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fulgery: Have you actually read the sources you are citing? You seem to have a hard time comprehending them. That Ibn Tumart claimed sharifian lineage (at one point, for political purposes) is well-known. That doesn't mean it's true. What the vast majority of the sources, including practically all the ones you cite to make your "case", assert unambiguously, and repeatedly, is that Ibn Tumart was in fact Berber. You have not provided evidence stating otherwise. By contrast, the evidence against your case is overwhelming. Your edits are not tenable. Nice try, but sorry. I am reversing the edits. You are welcome to continue trying to make your case here, but the page should not be marred with misused sources until you finally figure it out. Walrasiad (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Aṭlas has stopped the edits and was listing his arguments here, but you restarted it while there's a clear mention of possible sanctions.

There's a dispute resolution procedure in progress, please respect it. I'm restoring it and I'm making a Temporaty Full Protection Request until this weekend.

Please stop adding fuel to the flames and feel free to add arguments, as I'm still convinced that the deleting of "Arab" mention and the other changes isn't justified. Fulgery (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To Fulgery: No need for all this copy-paste work (the text you copied here is full of typos) and out of context texts. As, I said earlier, these are just allegations invented by Ibn Tumart himself (and by his followers and by pro-Almohad genealogists and dynasties like Hafsids) to strengthen his Mahdist claim. I previously refuted all the sources you cited here (unspecialist sources, primary sources, unrelated sources to islamic history or african history, lineage tracing paragraphs or quotes, sources by unspecialist authors in islamic history.....). Just to be clear we are not in a battleground to split editors in two categories "opponents" of the "Arab" mention in this page, and "opponents" of the "Berber" mention in this page. This is an encyclopedia we don't edit/create pages to ourselves (our ideological agendas, povs....), but to readers. As you can see this page is watched daily by tens of readers. Lol I don't think two quotes about a Friday khutbah would be considered reliable sources! Jesus! This is just quotes (from al-Marrākushī's "Al-Mu‘jib" and Al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ's "Shaqūr") and it's from page 90 not page 89. Another source you cited, "La conjonction du sufisme et du sharîfisme au Maroc : le Mahdî comme sauveur". Clearly, his origin was given in the p:235 "Ibn Tumart, membre d'une branche des berbères Masmuda, naquit entre 471/1078 et 474/1081 dans l'Anti-Atlas et de fait, avant de prendre le pouvoir, on le connaissait sous la nisba al-Susï (référence au « Sus al-Aqsa », le Sous-extrême)...". As you can see this article presented different mahdi/shariffian pretenders (with their claims and their real origins). Finally, I don't think this debate will end. You created this account just to edit this page (your first real edit was in this page, and a total of 32 edit in this talk page, a total edits of 48 edit). I wasted all my time in this discussion, instead of adding content to other pages. So we need to stop this here. And I will revert the page to it's stable version. "a Temporaty Full Protection Request" ? how do you know this ? --Aṭlas (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an opponent of the "Berber" mention, I just want to add to it the "Arab" mention, with sources. You are an opponent to the "Arab" mention. You can be a member of a Berber tribe while having an Arab origin. You can have more than one identity.

Because of Walrasiad, the edits started again. "I’m restoring the article in the state in which it was when I made the dispute resolution request."

I didn't create this account only for this page, and I want to edit or create other pages in the future. For my part, I hope this debate will have an end. Please wait until this weekend.

P.-S. It's from page 89.Fulgery (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

@Fulgery, I am not a "new user". I am one of the original authors of this page. As far as I can see, there is just one editor inserting unsupported statements, citing references he obviously has not read, and ignoring the mountains of secondary evidence cited against it. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not forum shopping. Not sure what you expect "dispute resolution" to resolve exactly. It is not people there you have to convince, it is people here, us. I see no one else here endorsing your edits. If you can provide supporting evidence, I'd have no objections for your edits. But you haven't. On the contrary, I have evidence against it, and Atlas has provided mountains of it too, which you seem adamant about ignoring. The page should remain at status quo ante, until you can persuade otherwise. And one more thing: before trying to stubbornly revert again, please remember WP:3RR. Walrasiad (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant new user to this conflict. This article is not your property. I provided multiple sources supporting my edits. The edits had stopped before your appearance.

Please wait until this weekend. Fulgery (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your sources do not support your edits. Moreover, plenty of secondary sources supplied above contradict them You have not addressed any of them. I see nothing earnest about your attempts to engage this talk page. FYI, this is your third edit reversal. You are currently in violation of WP:3RR and liable to be banned. Do not reverse again or you will be reported. Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My reliable sources support my edits. You don't seem to understand that if a source says "Berber", that does not mean that we shouldn't add to it "Arab" or other things if it's supported by reliable sources, like mine. Wikipedia is not censored.

It's you who performed reverts and rekindled the fire, while the edits had stopped and the conflict was being discussed. "I’m restoring the article in the state in which it was when I made the dispute resolution request." and I'm not in violation of WP:3RR in doing it.

Please wait until this weekend as hopefully unbiaised users will try to resolve this conflict. Fulgery (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have to say, watching this unfold, Fulgery, for a user account barely four days old you are remarkably conversant with Wikipedia's edit-war talk, and it is suspicious that a new account plunges straight into such a cauldron. Are you an old/returning user? And although technically you are correct regarding the behaviour of the others, that is not a license for you to revert either, irrespective of WP:3RR. For the record, from what I have seen myself in my research so far, Ibn Tumart was indeed "unequivocally Berber". The sources are overwhelming in this regard, as Aṭlas too has shown. Countering these with personal interpretation of primary sources is not enough. Ibn Khaldun is an excellent author and scholar, but he is not WP:RS in the modern sense. An 1918 source that deals tangentially with the issue, is also not the kind of source that we need in the face of overwhelming consensus. I therefore fully support Walrasiad's last version. The alternative ancestry is still mentioned, but the overwhelming consensus is still presented as it should be. There is no controversy in academia about this. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's my first account...

The question is not about choosing between the "Berber" mention and the "Arab" mention, it's about adding the "Arab" mention. Why can't this word be mentionned at the start of the article ? Why the simple adding of this word, this known biographical fact, is so controversial for some ? In any other article, would all these sources and justifications have been requested ?

Concerning his Arab lineage :

1) He himself said he had an Arab lineage.

2) He was called after his death "Al Arabi".

3) Modern scholars accepted his Arab lineage as my sources say, and modern scholars denied it. Medieval sources related and accepted his Arab lineage, amongst them Ibn Khaldun, whose views have been analyzed by modern scholars, and medieval scholars denied it. Modern scholars are not more unbiased than medieval ones. If there's a difference of opinion, it should be addressed in the article, but it shouldn't prevent the adding of the "Arab" mention at the start of the article.

4) The 1918's and the 2010's sources literally say that he was an Arab, these sources are reputable, especially when added to Ibn Khaldun and others views.

5) "The alternative ancestry is still mentioned" So, why the objections to simply adding the world "Arab" at the start of the article ? Fulgery (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Answer #1: Because every secondary source only says "Berber". And even the sources you cite actually only say Berber.

Answer #2: He also claimed that he was the Mahdi and that the dead could speak and gave multiple contradictory lineages. Just because he says something, doesn't mean it's true. We can certainly say he said he claimed sharifian lineage (which the article does). But that's all you can say.

Answer #3: "Al Arabi"? Did you just make that up? Never seen it. I have seen a lot of folks calling him "Al Harghi" though. (And I do know that Ibn al-Arabi - the actual one, the Andalusian scholar - called Ibn Tumart a Berber).

Answer #4: Modern scholars don't accept his Arab lineage and your sources don't say they do. Most Medieval scholars didn't accept it either. Ibn Khaldun (which you seem to want to cite) certainly did NOT accept it - although he left the burden of disproof to others (for good reason - he worked under the Hafsids). And many Medieval sources called him a liar outright.

Answer #5: Modern scholars are certainly more unbiased than Medieval because (a) the Almoravid-Almohad quarrel is long over, modern scholars have no dog in that fight; they are not trying to promote either party or ideology; (b) they draw from many sources; (c) they're actually more careful and competent in how they weight their sources (training etc.)

Answer #6: You evidently haven't read those books. For instance, you claim Fromherz, but I already cited you a half-dozen times, number and page, repeatedly in that book where he asserts unambiguously Ibn Tumart was a Berber son of a Berber chief.

Answer #7 The OVERWHELMING majority of all the secondary works and most primary works is that Ibn Tumart was Berber. Since Wikipedia works on the basis of secondary works, that's how it works here. Walrasiad (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Agh. I put an edit-warring notice, but apparently our friend's forum-shopping got this page frozen for a week with his errors. So I guess that's pointless now. Walrasiad (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I've restored the pre-edit war version. Please note that this is not a comment on what the "correct" version is (and I haven't read the wall of text above). You should use this opportunity to discuss the proposed changes and add any that get consensus to the article in an orderly fashion once the protection expires.--regentspark (comment) 14:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I try to summarize here my arguments for the « Arab or Berber » mention (and the other edits), as I don't want to participate in the RFC in its current state :

1) He himself said it : "Born into a noble line of Berber chiefs or ugailids, and able to claim Arab heritage as a sharif, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Tumart’s claimed dual identity would help him later in life as he preached a fundamental interpretation of the Arabic Qur'an to the Berber, Masmuda Mountain tribes of the Atlas." (Dictionary of African Biography, Volume 6, 2012, p. 121)

2) Reliable modern secondary sources corroborate medieval primary (?) sources that validate the Arab lineage :
- Here's a biography of Ibn Tumart : المهدي بن تومرت - حياته وآراؤه (Abd al Hamid al Najjar. 1983. The Mahdi Ibn Tumart, his life and thought. Dar al gharb al islami. Beirut) The biographer is a reputable scholar who has written many books on Islam.The publishing house is well known.
The biographer himself favors it after a thorough analysis, and he validates Ibn Khaldun and al-Marrakushi's views on it. (p. 30)
He cites two modern authors, saying these two also accepted it : Abd Allah Ali Allam who wrote in 1971 a book on the almohads, and the reputable Abd al-Hamid al-'Abbadi who wrote on Al Andalus history in 1958, on the Amlohades (see note 14) in 1962 and wrote books on Islam.
- A reputable Arab (^^) scholar, Dawud Ubaydat (first link ; it's his complete bio on the site of his university). He wrote several times about the Almohads, the Almoravids and Al-Andalus. With a reputable publisher that is on this official list (it's the site of the National Library of Jordan) and also there for example. He says after analysis : "What comes to light after all that preceded is that Ibn Tumart was likely Arab by descent" (translated) (Dawud Ubaydat. 2006. Al Muwahhidun fi al Andalus. Dar al kitab al thaqafi. Jordan) (these same views are also shared by another modern biographer in his book "The Dearest Quest", but it's a self-published thus unreliable source)
- The « author of a number of influential books on Muslim history and the modern development of Islam » Syed Ameer Ali : "In the year 514 of the Hegira, a man of the name of Mohammed, surnamed Ibn Tumart, (Abu Abdullah Mohammed, son of Abdullah, son of Tumart, an Alide, descended from Hassan I) a native of Sus in Western Africa, appeared among the Berbers inhabiting the vast chain of mountains which intersects Mauritania. He was an Arab by descent, but belonged by adoption to one of the Berber tribes." (A short History of the Saracens, Chapter XXXIX The Almohades, 1916)
- A reliable modern source tells us that, although his genealogy may have been invented  : « His family could also possibly have had some form of relationship with the original Idrissidds who founded the first independent Muslim Moroccan state at Fes, and who dispersed widely into the Sus valley. »(The Almohads The Rise of an Islamic Empire, 2010)

3) two other modern sources literally say that he was an Arab : "The origin of the movement is traced to Muhammad ibn Tumart, an Arab reformer in MOROCCO who preached moral reform and the doctrine of the unity of the unity of divine being" (Encyclopedia of Africa, Volume 1, 2010) "Its founder, Ibn Tumart, was an Arab who had been adopted by one of the Berber Tribes" (The Rise of the Spanish Empire in the Old World and the New, 1918)

4) A reliable modern secondary source analyzed two public speeches where he was referred to as « Al Arabi » (it toughens the use of the word « Arab ») : "To begin with, the second half of al-Marrākushī’s typical Almohad Friday khuṭba consists entirely of invocations on behalf of the Mahdī and each of the successive Mu’minid caliphs: "And blessings upon the infallible Imām (al-Imām al-ma‘ṣūm), the revealed Mahdī (al-Mahdī al-ma‘lūm), Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-‘Arabī al-Qurashī al-Hāshimī al-Ḥasanī al-Fāṭimī al-Muḥammadī [= Ibn Tūmart]" For his part, al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ invoked the blessings upon Ibn Tūmart and the caliph ‘Abd al-Mu’min in the beginning of his oration: "...and blessings upon the caliph chosen from the true kinship, al-Ḥasanī, al-Fāṭimī, al-Muḥammadī, al-‘Arabī, al-Qurayshī, al-Hāshimī, the chosen one (al-Muṣṭafā) from the House of Prophethood, the Imām al-Mahdī, Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh [= Ibn Tūmart]." (The Preaching of the Almohads" in "Spanning the Strait: Studies in Unity in the Western Mediterranean, 2013)

5) The dispute is not "Berber vs Arab", it’s "Berber" vs "Arab or Berber". Or, why not, "Arab and Berber" ? :) Indeed, you can be described as a Berber and still be an Arab. It’s an known fact in the history of the Berbers post Islam : "Just as Ibn Tūmart had both the genealogy of a Berber chief and an Arab sharif descended from Fatima, so too did many tribes have dual Berber and Arab identities." (The Almohads The Rise of an Islamic Empire) "In Ibn Tūmart, however, it seemed that the most important aspects of Arab and Berber culture, their ancestry, had combined." (The Almohads The Rise of an Islamic Empire, 2010) The fact that lots of sources describe him as « being a member of/from a Berber tribe » etc. does not necessarily mean that he has not an Arab lineage, and is not an argument against the "Arab or Berber" mention : "He came from the Harga tribe, Masmuda Berbers, although he was properly a member of the Prophet's family." (The New Cambridge History of Islam: Volume 2, 2010) "He was an Arab by descent, but belonged by adoption to one of the Berber tribes." (A short History of the Saracens, Chapter XXXIX The Almohades, 1916)

6) As for the sources that say explicitly that he was not an Arab, it should be part of the development in the body of the article, but it should not prevent the « Arab »mention at the start of the article, as other reliable modern secondary sources say and affirm the contrary. It's a difference of opinions between the sources that deny explicitely/say that he was not Arab and those that say he was Arab. Again, saying "Berber" or "from a Berber tribe" is not a negation of an Arab lineage. (see point 5) Also, as his biographer says : « It is noticeable that some historians dispute Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage, though they do not bring forth plausible reasons for their mistrust. A few modem scholars have tried to explain their refutation of Ibn Tumart's Prophetic lineage. » « This scathing criticism does not analyse the names of Ibn Tumart's lineage. Rather, it attempts to spell out the supposed reason that prompted Ibn Tumart and his disciples to declare this lineage. It also quotes those writers who oppose this lineage and ignores those historians who validate it. » (The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart, 2010)

7) some examples of articles where you can find two identities mentioned :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baladhuri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Muhammad_ibn_Kathir_al-Farghani
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakariya_al-Qazwini

8) I also objected to the mention of the « Amghar » name (it's one of the names of his father Tumart) with modern reliable secondary sources :

« Tumart was also called al-Shaykh and Amghar, indicating the chief of a clan or village. » (The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart, 2010)

« As the son of an amghar, or chief, Ibn Tūmart was exposed to the ways. » also : "As Ibn Tūmart and ʿAbd al-Muʾmin exemplified, it was not unknown for the young descendants of amghars or sheikhs to go off in search of knowledge and return to replace their fathers as leaders of the tribe." p. 127 (The Almohads: The Rise of an Islamic Empire)

"Son père avait été enveloppé [à sa naissance] par sa sœur dans un tûmart [et on l'appela ainsi]». On l'appelait aussi as-Saih et Amgâr. Il se nommait donc Abd Allah, Tûmart, as-Saih et Amgâr." (Mélanges René Basset, traduction de Lévi-Provençal)

"Certainly, he must have come from a relatively well-off background, for his father bore the title of Amghar, denoting the headman of a village or kabila in southern Morocco. (General History of Africa - Volume IV - Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century 2010, p. 19)"

"D’autre part, quelques historiens affirment qu’à ceux de 'Abd Allah et de Toumert, le père du Mahdî joignait le nom d ’Amghar" (Henri Basset (the own son of René Basset) and Henri Terrasse. Sanctuaires et forteresses almohades in Hesperis volume 4. 1924) p. 21

Note : René Basset says in the Encyclopedia of Islam : "His real name was, according to Ibn Ḵh̲aldūn, Amg̲h̲ār which in Berber means “chief”". Ibn Khaldun, who talks about Ibn Tumart's father as we have seen, doesn't even say that Amghar was his "real name" in the Arabic text...)

9) I also added the « citation needed » mention for the Alaouites part and asked for sources.

To conclude, I'm convinced that my arguments justify my edits, and that their deletion is not justified. I think that this article is currently not representing "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic." Fulgery (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes in the article :
1) I edited the article to mention the Arab and Berber descents with reliable sources.
2) I deleted the "Amghar" name (see point 8 above).
3) I added the « citation needed » mention for the Alaouites part (see point 9 above).
4) I also think that the phrase "However, and despite being supported by Ibn Khaldun, this ascendency is today largely disputed." should be reworded, amongst many other things in the article. Fulgery (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article gives weight to the mahdist/sharifian claims.

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.

---

Background: There is a content dispute about the Possibility of giving weight to the mahdi/sharifian claims by adding Arab to the lead and to the infobox. The discussion (here) has not received a full consensus and this could benefit from input from other editors.

Note: there is three supporters of the Berber origin of this Historical figure (me, Cplakidas, Walrasiad), and there is one supporter of the arab of origin (Fulgery).

Question: The questions of this RFC are: Should we give weight to the sharifian claims by addiding the following sentence to the lead ?

Abu Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn Tumart (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد ابن تومرت‎‎, ca. 1080–1130 or 1128[4]), a Muslim Arab[5][6][7][8] or Berber[citation needed] religious scholar,

Or restoring the undisputed version which is:

Abu Abd Allah Muhammad Ibn Tumart (Berber: Amghar ibn Tumert, Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد ابن تومرت‎‎, ca. 1080–1130 or 1128[4]), a Muslim Berber religious scholar

, but the important question is: What is the most reliable/uncontroversial origin for this historical figure?

please see the above discussion as there is arguments and sources.

Please answer (with a brief/long explanation) as:

• Support or Arab (support giving weight to the Sharifian/mahdist claims, and the arab origin...... and adding it to the lead....)
• Oppose or Berber (No, he wasn't an arab......., but he was a Berber.....we should discuss the sharifian/mahdist claims separately in the body......)
• Other (any other solution)

Aṭlas (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE : Fulgery, the user who wants to modify the article and who first asked for a Request For Comments, will not accept the procedure in its current form and asked Aṭlas to close it, as he finds that the presentation is misleading and doesn't reflect the real points of the problem (see there and there). Fulgery (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. I personally never met Ibn Tumart. I have no idea whether he was Berber or not. I have no idea whether his claims of sharifian ancestry are true or not (and even if true, an Arab ancestor doesn't make one an Arab). All I know is what the overwhelming consensus of secondary literature and vast majority of primary sources say: that Ibn Tumart was just Berber, the Berber son of a Berber chief, of a Berber tribe (Hargha), of a Berber confederation (Masmuda). I have no problems including mention in the body of the text about Ibn Tumart claims of sharifian lineage (sometimes, other times not, he claimed a lot of lineages at different times). But inserting his ethnicity as "Arab" in the lede is completely untenable, flies against all scholarship and contradicts all sources. Walrasiad (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – All reliable secondary sources cited him as a Berber: encyclopedia of islam ed.2 "His father belonged to the Harg̲h̲a and his mother to the Masakkāla, both of which are divisions of the Maṣmūda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various S̲h̲arīfian genealogies attributed to him". The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 3 p:339 "Muhammad b. Tumart, the founder of the Almohad movement (Arabic: al-Muwahhidun) belonged to one of the Masmuda tribes of the Anti-Atlas." + p:340 "He even invented a fictitious genealogy to show that he was a descendant of the Prophet.". Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia p:374 "The founder of the al-Muwahhidun confederation, Abu Abdillah Muhammad b. Abdillah b. Tumart, a Masmudian Berber....". Classical Islam: A History, 600-1258 p:181 "Ibn Tumart, a Berber of the Hargha tribe of the Masmuda, hence a mountain peasant and no nomad .....". Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus p:197 ".....He came from the Hargha tribe wich was itself a branch of the Masmuda....", The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 2A p:224 "Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah b. Tumart returned from the east where he had been studying for some years. He was a Berber from Sus........".Messianism and Puritanical Reform: Mahdīs of the Muslim West p: 162 "He was a Berber. The sources promoted by the Almohads, al-Baydhaq but more specifically the Kitab al-Ansab claim that the future Mahdì was a sharìf of Idrìsid origin called Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah, and a descendant of 'Ubayd Allah b. Idrìs b. Idris I, an Idrisid who had settled in the Sus after the dispersion of the sons of Idrìs II. This is the alleged origin which became prevalent. Both the name and the lineage would become fundamental to Ibn Tumart’s later status as a Mahdi." There is tens of other reliable sources like this (there is some of them in the discussion) who clearly cited him as a Berber. --Aṭlas (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having read the discussion, I believe Atlas, Constantine and Walrasiad's argument is solid. Also;

• "The Encyclopaedia of Islam", Vol. III, page 958, "IBN TUMART, the Mahdi [q.v.] of the Almohads and founder of the Almohad movement [see MUWAHIDDUN]. The biographies of so celebrated a figure inevitably contain much legendary matter besides evident contradictions. He was born between 471/1078 and 474/1081 in the Anti-Atlas of Morocco. His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him. --J.F.P. Hopkins." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I came here by chance (tried to edit the article but it was locked). Comparing sources and arguments from both sides, I think the Berber side is much more convincing. For one the sources are more authoritative and specialized in this topic, and some of them also address the Arab claim and judge it to be false (so it's not like they never heard of it). Tthe Arab argument are either written by non-expert, or primary source, or actually just reports (not endorsement) of the claim. Also, since it is clear that Fulgery is the only dissent here, can we unlock the article and stick with the Berber version, so that we can improve other aspects of the article. HaEr48 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Scholarly sources are virtually unanimous, with not even a whiff of dispute, something rather rare for the period. As long as the attributed Sharifian genealogy is mentioned and explained in the article, the criteria for NPOV and balanced treatment are met. Constantine ✍ 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Inquiry (summoned by bot): Is it a possible compromise to keep the older (Berber-leaning) version of the lead's first sentence, but mention later in the lead that he claimed Sharifian ancestry? or is that thought by the majority to be a violation of the WP:WEIGHT of the claim? I see the direction the sourcing points here with regard to how he has historically been regarded, and yet, a self-declared ancestry seems meaningful, especially when any certainty is obfuscated by 900 years of twists in historical record. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Given that he himself claimed that descent, and that this is a prominent theme in the historical sources, per se I don't think it is WP:WEIGHT to include it. Constantine ✍ 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Given the multiplicity of lineages that he claimed, including Berber lineages, it would have to be qualified from the outset and clutter the lede to no good purpose. This should be dealt with in the body. This was among the least significant things about him. His claim as Mahdi, his unitary doctrine, his tribe, organization, leadership, etc. were far more important aspects, and they're not even mentioned there. In which case, the whole article should be in the lede before this. Lede should be as simple and succinct as possible, for casual readers. Minor obscure things should not come up front and center, just to satisfy a fringe view. Walrasiad (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not an expert on this, so I readily defer to you, but wasn't his claim of Sharifian lineage part and parcel of his being the Mahdi? Constantine ✍ 18:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes. In traditional Mahdist ideology, the Mahdi must indeed be an Alid descended via Hassan. Which is why it is pointless to go over lineage claims in the lede. That said, Ibn Tumart claimed descent from Ali in many months of preaching, before revealing himself as Mahdi. It was part of the appeal to an area of the country (Sous valley) which had been largely Shi'ite (Idrisid/Fatimid/Waqafite) until recently, an area where (if Ibn Khaldun is to be believed), many (most?) of the Berber families there also claimed some kind of descent from Ali. He didn't mention it before until he got there. (Indeed, the connection with local heroes Idrisids is made in some of his claimed lineages, but not all e.g. one lineage claims he is directly descended from Idris I, another claims it from Idris's brother Suleiman and still another variant through a non-Idrisid Arab line, but all his lineages must end in Hassan, to ratify his Mahdi status). Indeed, many of the Almohad leaders made such sharifian claims for themselves - e.g. Abd al-Mu'min, a Zenata Berber, also claimed sharifian lineage; Ibn Khaldun had no problem ripping those claims to shreds, but he was more coy with Ibn Tumart himself. Walrasiad (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above 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.

limiting the imamate to Quraysh

The early life section has this passage:

"This is due to a Hadith (accepted by both Sunnis and Shi'ites) which limits the Imamate to Quraysh[14] and according to another Hadith, specifically to Al al-Bayt (the close family of the prophet Muhamed)."

I believe this should be removed because the quoted source does not mention Ibn Tumart at all, it is merely discussion of hadiths, so linking these hadith to Ibn Tumart's claim to being sharif is unsupported WP:OR. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If there are no comments from other editors I will assume this has support and make the change shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sunni or NOT Sunni?!

@ParthikS8: Ibn Tumart was a student of prominent Sunni scholars such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Abu Bakr al-Turtushi, al-Kiya al-Harasi, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Shashi al-Qaffal, and al-Maziri.

Among his most popular works is al-'Aqida al-Murshida (the Guiding Creed). Several Muslim scholars wrote commentaries on it, including the celebrated theologian Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Sanusi, Abu 'Abdallah Muhammad b. Khalil al-Sakuni, 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. 'Abbad al-Tilmisani, and several others.

His creed the Murshida (the Guide) was praised by the Shafi'i scholar and hadith master Salah al-Din al-'Ala'i (d. 761/1359), Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771/1370), Yusuf al-Nabhani (d. 1350/1932), Fakhr al-Din ibn 'Asakir (d. 620/1223) and Ibn al-Naqqash.

According to al-Maqrizi and Ibn 'Illan, the Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589/1193) ordered the mu'azzins in the mosques to recite the Ash'ari creed, which is known as al-Murshida.

He (and his creed) was being criticized by Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Dhahabi.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

---

TheEagle107 (talk · contribs) I do not doubt that the work al-Murshida is a popular work which wholly conforms with Ash'ari doctrine, and that the later Ash'aris commentated on it. The references on the Arabic Wikipedia page are more than satisfactory in that regard. Nor do I doubt that he studied under al-Ghazali etc. My doubt here relates to the person himself and his own views seperate from his creed. I quote the following passage from the Arabic Wikipedia page of al-Murshida, regarding Ibn Khaldun's statement regarding him:

إن وجازة المرشدة وبلاغتها، وسلامتها من كل مخالفة ظاهرة للآراء الأشعرية ضمن لها الذيوع والانتشار، وجلب لها العناية المتزايدة بالدرس والشرح سواء في عهد الموحدين أو بعدهم. وكان المهدي نفسه يُولّيها عناية فائقة بالتبليغ والتدريس، ومن المرجح أن تكون من مؤلفاته الأولى حين نزوله ببلده إثر رحلته إلى المشرق، فجاءت لذلك خالية من القول في الإمامة التي يبدو أن آراءه فيها لم تتضح لديه بعد، ولم يصدع بها إلا حينما انتقل إلى تينمل، وهو ما يفهم من قول ابن خلدون متحدثاً عن نزول المهدي على قومه وتعليمهم العقيدة: "فنزل على قومه، وذلك سنة خمس عشرة وخمسمائة، وبنى رابطة للعبادة، فاجتمعت إليه الطلبة والقبائل يعلمهم المرشدة في التوحيد باللسان البربري"، وهو ما يفيد أن المرشدة كانت أول ما بادر به المهدي في خطة الإصلاح العقائدي التي كانت إحدى أسسه في الإصلاح.

It is clear he developed views (either later to al-Murshida or concurrent to it) that were atypical of Sunni Ash'ari, including apparently claiming to be the Mahdi and holding Shi'i beliefs in the twelve imams. We have modern scholars who also make this assertion:

He composed his own sectarian identity by combining the Maliki and Zahiri fiqh view, the kalam of Ash'ariyya and Mu'tazila, the Shii imamate thought and Mandi belief, and some principles of Kharijism with his own experiences. His sectarian identity emerged as the result of a selective attitude. With the sectarian identity he composed, he gained a ground for presenting both his actionist personality and his political goals.

— Yavuz

It is clear that an understanding of the attributes as reported of him is in contradiction with the general view of Sunni Ash'aris and this is discussed in both the above and following source:

Fletcher, Madeleine. "The Almohad tawhid: Theology which relies on logic." Numen 38.1 (1991): 110-127.

This is also explicit in other sources I have not quoted in the article:

García, Sénén. "The Masmuda Berbers and Ibn Tumart: An Ethnographic Interpretation of the Rise of the Almohad Movement." Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies 18.1 (1990). "Ibn Tumart preached what he considered orthodox Islam, a symbiotic doctrine of analogical interpretalion of the Qur'an, Mu'tazili and 'Ash'ari teachings, and Shi'i dogmas, especially that of the infallible Mahdi."

Note that al-Murshida does not deal with such topics as how attributes are understood not to be metaphysically the exact same thing as the essence (by Sunni Ash'aris) - a famous Mu'tazilite belief (which thus denies the attributes). Thus he reject attributes of God (see Kojiro Nakamura's citation in the article). The ideas in al-Murshida then seemingly admit both the unique Almohad "Ash'arism", which seems to be more of a blend of Mu'tazilite and Ash'ari beliefs, and normative/Sunni Ash'arism. This may seem to some to be an obscure point of theology, but coupled with his views on the Imamate (atypical for Sunni Ash'ari), this leads us to understand from the sources that he is not quite a normative Ash'ari - and this is explicit in the sources, particularly Yavuz and Garcia above. The fact that his studying under famous Ash'aris and his work being a primary/important Ash'ari work is incidental - they do not give weight against Yavuz, the Brill source etc. that he was not a normative Ash'ari.

Nevertheless, numerous other sources simply state he is an Ash'ari (e.g. Mukti, Mohd Fakhrudin Abdul. "The Background of Malay Kalam With Special Reference to the Issue of the Sifat of Allah." Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 3.1 (2002): 1-32.) Others waver in the distinction, Ibn Wasil for instance says, "he was more like an Ash'ari" (WASIL, IBN, and B. SALIM JAMALAL-DIN. "IBN YūNUS, ALi IBN “ABD." Medieval Islamic Civilization: AK, index 1 (2006): 375.) This seems to be an academic dispute then with some wavering on his own identification as an Ash'ari, others outright stating that he and his movement blended Ash'ari and Mu'tazilite thought, and others still saying he was simply an Ash'ari.

I am wondering what more primary, earlier (medieval) sources say in this regards - do they mention any confusion over his views on the attributes or not? As Al-Murshida does not deal with that subject it cannot be said, "Praise for al-Murshida is praise for him," I would also like to get a citation with page number for Ibn Khaldun's apparent statement regarding his belief in Imami Shia doctrine.

There are no sources that state outright that he was a Mu'tazilite - and some of his beliefs (e.g. negation of place as in al-Murshida) contradict their views, so that claim cannot be made that he is a true Mu'tazilite like Al-Jahiz etc. Thus two claims are:

1. He was a normative Ash'ari. (e.g. according to Mukti and others)
2. He was a non-normative "Ash'ari" who blended Ash'ari and Mu'tazilite beliefs. (e.g. according to Yavuz, Garcia and others, supported by Ibn Wasil/Jamalaldin as well.)

TheEagle107 (talk · contribs) I invite you to give your thoughts on the above, and I invite other editors to comment on the suitablity of the above sources I have quoted. ParthikS8 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@ParthikS8: Actually, I don't know much, but indeed, there are several different views and opinions on him and his creed. There are people who praised him, and there are also those who criticized him. According to WP:NPOV, all opinions and viewpoints should be properly and equally considered. Greetings!--TheEagle107 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)