Talk:Almoravid dynasty

The founding of the Almoravids

When a political movement departs from a location then spreads to southern tribes (lamtuna and Gudala) whom its leaders sought guidance from the movement founders to restore order, piety, and eliminate degeneracy, it would be unreasonable to say that the movement and the political order departed from these tribes (Lamtuna and Gudala) as suggested in the header section. The political, religious, and military movement departed from Aglou around Tiznit area in present day Morocco (see in this same page the origin of schools of Waggag ibn Zallu in the <Name section>). In fact the founder Abdallah Ibn Yassine died in a military conquest against Barghawata in the north near Romani area before the Almoravids became an empire. In summary, the political state and rise of Almoravids had begun in Morocco, this is to be stated in the header section. Verify and edit accordingly (The same sources apply) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.250.237.93 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I do not want to appear to be smart, but I relied on the description of Oxford and UNESCO that the Almoravids were founded in southern Morocco in the Western Sahara by the Lamtuna and gudala. Kozioğlu (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

High quality RS stating that they invaded Morocco can be cited ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton From the way you speak, your personal biases are clear, but the Almoravid state did not invade Morocco, but rather united it, and it was launched within the lands of Morocco. And if we go according to your logic, then the Rightly-Guided Caliphate was launched from Mecca and invaded the Arabian Peninsula?🤔😅 Kozioğlu (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I mean the Rashidun Caliphate, Translation error Kozioğlu (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton My edit was not a personal attack but a correction to the article. There is incorrect information although it is clear. Kozioğlu (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The origins of the Almoravids from Western Sahara

@M.Bitton There was no need to remove my entire edit because I had sources you didn't respond to Kozioğlu (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kozioğlu: what you added to the article doesn't make any sense. For a start, the origin of the various tribes is attested in their respective articles and sources about the Lemtuna being from Mauritania can be easily be found. Second, the Almoravids' first capital was in Mauritania (that didn't happen by accident), and third, even if we ignore all the sources about Mauritania, the idea that Western is in Morocco is frankly not even worth discussing. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton First, I brought many sources about the origin of the Almoravids, most notably Oxford and UNESCO, which say that their origins are from the Western Sahara. As for the first capital of the Almoravids, it is Aghmat according to Oxford. Azuki was rejected as the first capital of the Almoravids in UNESCO. Kozioğlu (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just checked Clansy-Smith, which I think is the most RS in his edit. It says : "Almoravid intellectual roots lie in Qayrawan, a centre of strict Maliki orthodoxy which attracted the attention of earlier Almoravid reformers intent upon uprooting perceived un-Islamic practices and beliefs among their people the Sanhaja of the southern Sahara. The desert Sanhaja, were known as the mulathamun, ‘the veiled ones’. They were nomadic peoples grouped in three large societies in the western Sahara: the Massufa in the east and north to the Wadi Draa of southern Morocco, the Lamtuna in the southwestern Sahara, and the Juddala in the far western Sahara from Seguiat al-Hamra to Trarza." (pp 51). Basically (the Western Sahara) covers all the aforementionned area, and not solely the Seguiat al-Hamra which covers parts of the modern day Sahrawi Arab republic. Also, the source nowhere relates Seguiat al-Hamra to modern day Morocco as he did in his edit.

Source says this too: "The Almoravid dynasty was born among the Saharan Sanhaja, a confederation of some 70 tribes, the three most important of which were the Bani Gudala, the Bani Lamtuna and the Bani Massufa. They were desert nomads, pastoralists who lived off their herds. Additionally, the Sanhaja sold protection to the caravans passing through their territory in much of what is modern day Mauritania". (pp 66)

We've covered this again and again in this TP and RS unilaterally agree on this matter. The Almoravids were not from modern day Morocco, they conquered it.

PS: Cherry picking and modifying a direct quote from a RS isn't going to help your cause) Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane The Almoravids, according to Oxford, set out from Morocco under the leadership of two tribes, the Lamtuna and the gudala and Massufa, whose homelands were in southern Morocco, according to Oxford. This is a clear reference to the Western Sahara, which is today part of Morocco.

Let's not forget that the Almurabitun school was in Sous and the founder of the state, Abdullah bin Yassin, was from Sous. If you want sources from me, I am always here. Kozioğlu (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane Before I forget, you destroyed that the Almoravids invaded Morocco, although I do not know how, although they themselves are Moroccans, but I brought you a source from Cambridge that states that the Almoravids' goal was to unify Morocco under their authority. Kozioğlu (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@NourerrahmaneThere are translation errors, don't take it as my burden, "I meant I mentioned" not destroyed Kozioğlu (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop pinging me please. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane We are discussing to edit the article, how can your edit be rejected and at the same time no one wants to discuss it?🤔 Kozioğlu (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @Kozioğlu isn't wrong here. The Atlas of Islamic History identifies the Saqya al-Hamra as the "Almoravid homeland" on its map. Tyben^Welcome 17:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Almoravids Is Mauritanian

@R Prazeres Why did you change my edit? According to the article, the Almoravids are originally from Mauritania. Kozioğlu (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The lead states (my emphasis added): "The Almoravids emerged from a coalition of [...] nomadic Berber tribes living in what is now Mauritania and the Western Sahara". That is the extent of what can be said on the matter. Stating they are "Mauritanian" is anachronistic. Same goes for your edit at Marinid dynasty (). R Prazeres (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

PS: I find it odd that after insisting in the discussion above that they are "Moroccan", you're now switching to this. As I said in my revert, please stop trying to attribute medieval rulers to modern nation-states, one way or another. R Prazeres (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres According to the article's conception, the origin of the Almoravids is from Mauritania, so there is no need to mention Morocco, especially since all sources that say that the Almoravids came from southern Morocco, as Al-Idrisi mentions, and also secondary sources, have been rejected.

Regarding the Banu Marin, a wrong perception was put forward, as the homeland of the ancestors of the Banu Marin (the Banu Wassin) was the outskirts of the Muluya River according to Ibn Khaldun, while the Zab was their second homeland, as they were nomads.

Therefore, the article on the Marinids suggests to us that their origin is from Algeria, so why do they not say that the Marinids are a historically Algerian state, given that they have severed any connection with Morocco, according to the article Kozioğlu (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I would advise you to take what editors are suggesting seriously, as your contributions are not constructive. You don’t seem to understand that Wikipedia is more like a summary to RS. It’s not a place for silly assumptions and POV edits with clear nationalistic agendas. You’re not building an encyclopaedia and you’re starting to look more like a WP:SPA. ANI might have a say in this if this continues. Best. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia relies on volunteers with historical biases like you and it is not a reliable source of information (according to Wikipedia) but there are many mistakes regarding the Almoravids and other dynasties, All the suggestions given to you from Al-Idrisi’s sources and books from Oxford and UNESCO were rejected, and English and French books written in 2010 were used as sources.

Therefore, I suggest that they write that the Almoravids are a Mauritanian dynasty, so that everyone can understand the opinion of the page editors on the subject. Kozioğlu (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

You still seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. The opinion of editors (whether your opinion or someone else's opinion) is not a valid reason on its own for adding or changing content; please read Wikipedia:No original research. R Prazeres (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres

According to the article you sent me about Wikipedia rules, it was mentioned that unreliable sources should be replaced with reliable university sources that contain the same idea or text.

As for the origin of the Almoravids, primary and secondary sources such as Al-Idrisi, Oxford, and UNESCO were excluded, and reliance was placed on unreliable sources by contemporary writers who wrote books in the early 2000s.

Finally, I wanted to point out that the editor, Those called ""@Nourerrahmane"" He rejected all suggestions for discussion about the origins of the Almoravids and always evaded by saying that he did not want to waste time.

Until now, I am ready to discuss the origin of the Almoravids with reliable university sources. Kozioğlu (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The almoravids are a coalition of sanhaja berber tribes from different geographical locations. It is wrong to attribute these tribes to modern states that did not even exist in those times. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Picture of mosque

@Carlos Hernández Cabrera: the picture you keep adding appears to be of a Saadian-era structure, not Almoravid, according to the only mentions I can find of it in scholarly sources: , (both by Salima Naji). It seems to belong more specifially to a site named "Agadir Amghar". M.Bitton is correct in saying that the sources you used in this edit are not reliable. R Prazeres (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The mosque is a mosque of Almoravid style and there is two different theories for its origin one that it was built under the Almoravids and the other one that states that it was built later under the saadians following the almoravid architechture style. But which of these theories are true is really unknown. This is why I specified that "it is believed to be built in the 11th century by the almoravids". Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

None of that is admissible unless there are reliable academic publications saying so. (It certainly does not look like an Almoravid structure, even if it was an Almoravid foundation.) At any rate, it's certainly not worthy of being included here. If (and only if) there are academic references that state this, then it could be mentioned at Almoravid architecture. R Prazeres (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Al Ghazali and Ghana

Guess it wasn't allowed but Al Ghazali, a contemporary of the supposed conquest, only states the Almoravids as bordering the Ghana Empire and land of the Franks. He would be the closet writer to the time.TankHaven (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Your edit had other problems, as I said in my revert. As for the point you just made: the paper that mentions al-Ghazali (Conrad & Fisher) is already cited in this article and the authors' conclusion (that the Almoravids did not conquer the Ghana Empire) is explicitly stated inline. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, which in this case means modern historians, so it's their conclusions that matter here. If the authors' main arguments revolved around al-Ghazali in particular, it might make sense to mention it, but they don't (it's just mentioned in one paragraph of a 40-page article), so this is tangential to an overall summary of modern scholarship. Beyond that, there is also no independent reason to mention al-Ghazali here since (as far as I can see) he never visited the Maghreb, had no particular connection to the Almoravid court, and he was not a historian or geographer, so he would hardly be a notable source of information compared to other historical sources. As the cited authors also explain, al-Ghazali did not actually write this, but is rather reported to have said this by a anonymous chronicler two centuries later. R Prazeres (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)