Talk:Almohad Caliphate/Archive 2

Bookbinding
Hi! I'm working on this article as part of a Wikiedu class assignment, focusing on manuscripts and arts of the book. I added a little bit on manuscript bookbinding during the Almohad dynasty using a source from a book published by the Met Museum -- it's a collection of essays ("The Arts of the Book",Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain, 1992) Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns!!

Figapartmenttoast (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! It's me again! I've added more to this article section, including expanding more on calligraphic styles and manuscript illumination practices. In regards to the calligraphy, I've seen conflicting sources on the relevance of Maghrebi thuluth vs. Maghrebi kufic vs. Maghrebi mabsut, so anyone with more expertise is welcome to edit it! Most survey texts on the topic seem to focus on Maghrebi thuluth as the official script of the Almohads, but Umberto Bongianino's lectures focus much more heavily on Maghrebi kufic and mabsut -- he is one of the few current scholars on the topic but I did not get the chance to follow up with him on the calligraphic traditions.

I've also added to the existing examples of Almohad manuscript (by Abu Hafs al-Murtada) and described his notability and his manuscript's contributions. Furthermore, I've added a section on Hadith Bayāḍ wa Riyāḍ, as it is one of the only existing illustrated illuminated manuscripts from the time. Please add to this section! My writing is a little choppy here (likely due to my lack of context for the manuscript). The primary source was from Cynthia Robinson's article focusing on the plot of the story, as I could not access her book on the manuscript illumination itself.

I did email Umberto Bongianino asking for advice on researching the book arts and manuscript traditions of the Almohad, and he sent over several sources in French, which I worked through to the best of my ability, 4 years of secondary French language classes notwithstanding. Marianne Barrucand, Elisabeth Dandel, and Deroche Francois seem to have been the scholars studying Maghrebi Qur'ans in the past few decades. I know there is more work done in Arabic on this topic, but I am completely illiterate in it. Umberto Bongianino is planning on publishing a book on the book arts of 12th-14th century al-Andalus in the next year or so (2021-22), so future editors may find his work useful. He is also fairly responsive by email.

As usual, please let me know if there are any issues or concerns! It's been lovely learning more about this topic.

Figapartmenttoast (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen with a quick look it all looks great. Thanks for these interesting additions! R Prazeres (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Caliphate dating
There seems to be some quarrel about when the Almohad "caliphate" begun or did not begin. There include some precise claims in the text about when Abd al-Mu'min was "officially declared" or "declared" himself caliph that seem contradictory and conjectural. Absolute statements should not be made lightly. Wording should be a bit more careful.

When should it be dated? Four plausible dates suggest themselves: (1) Founding of Tinmal in 1121 (2) Death of Ibn Tumart in 1130 (3) Emergence of Abd al-Mu'min in 1134 (4) End of the "Seven Year Campaign" in 1147.

The latter date (1147) would be most plausible, which is when they go from mountain-top rebels to rulers of Morocco. Although I am not aware of any "declaration" at that time, and it should be worded differently. Nonetheless, the fall of Marrakesh in 1147 is a plausible date which they considered most important, the culmination of their efforts since the start of the rebellion.

I would not object too much to using the founding date of the Almohad movement in 1121 instead(as that is when the mountain-top Almohad state at Tinmal is first built, with a political structure that will remain to the end). But aiming for any other founding date in between is fraught with problems.

For starters, the Almohads were entirely confined to the High Atlas mountains and did not manage to break out of them until 1145. It is like suggesting the "Fatimid Caliphate" started in 902, when it was a group of Kutama rebels confined to Little Kabylia mountains, rather than upon conquering Ifriqiya in 909-10.

The term "Caliphate" has the implication that it is ruled by a "Caliph", which in this case necessarily means a successor to the mahdi Ibn Tumart. So I understand the temptation to use dates around the death of Ibn Tumart/succession of Abd al-Mu'min in the early 1130s.

However, our few sources are very coy about the aftermath of the death of Ibn Tumart. We actually don't know who Ibn Tumart's successor was, or if one was designated. There was an obscure succession struggle after 1130, that lasted several years, the details of which are unknown. The Almohad chroniclers paper over it quietly. Abd al-Mu'min certainly emerged as the supreme military leader of the Almohad movement around 1133-34, but exact date and title is actually uncertain given the continued presence and authority of Ibn Tumart's family, as well as the high status of Masmuda sheikhs like al-Hintati. It is fair for us, as article writers, to call him "caliph" (successor) to the mahdi, a title by which he would be known, from this time, but to state that there is an exact date when he was "declared" or "declared officially" may be a bit too strong. Particularly since in the 1130s-40s, the Almohads were still run in a kind of republican format. We can say he was recognized as (military) leader by the Almohad sheikhs in 1134, which we can take to mean de facto caliph. But what his exact title was and what it meant in practice, or if there were spiritual implications, is unclear during these years.

There was no dynastic centralization or recognition of Abd al-Mumin's supreme rights until the "serrata" of the Almohad council in 1155. By this I mean the great constitutional conference of Sale/Rabat in 1155. This came after a coup attempt, which culminated in Abd al-Mu'min's destruction of the family of Ibn Tumart. In the aftermath, in return for granting Abd al-Mu'min the right to appoint governors from his own family, membership of the Almohad Council became "closed" or "sealed" to a set number of high families, and henceforth viziers would be appointed exclusively from those families (evidently a compromise). It is this constitution that remained in place for the remainder of the Almohad Caliphate. It is only from now that dynastic succession was recognized (caliphs to be elected by the Almohad Council, but candidates to be drawn exclusively from within the Mu'minid family, rather than Ibn Tumart's family or the Hintati or other high Almohad families).

So if we're particular about a dynastic caliphate in the Mu'minid family, then technically the date is 1155. But that is far too ridiculously late a date to contemplate. They were already ruling Morocco, much of Spain and the rest of the Maghreb for years.

Up until 1155 - that is, through the "Seven Year Campaign" period, through the first expeditions to western Spain, through the conquest of Algeria - Abd al-Mu'min's exact status seems ambiguous. It is telling that were was great consternation in 1145 with the appearance of Ahmed ibn Qasi, an acclaimed Mahdi from the Algarve, who formed his own Almohad-style movement (the "al-Muridun", or "The Disciples") that swept the Almoravids out of western Spain (up to Seville) and threatened to divide loyalties in Morocco. The plea of Ibn Qasi for Almohad assistance (inducing the first Almohad expedition to Spain under Barraz in 1146) is the first time we hear of concerns about spiritual succession to Ibn Tumart (long dead) and Abd al-Mu'min's demand that Ibn Qasi drop the mahdi title (from whence Ibn Qasi's famous subjection phrase "Are there not two dawns? The true one and the false one?"). This may have been when "caliph" was formally attached to, or emphasized by, Abd al-Mu'min to avoid confusion on spiritual authority. But it is also telling that the rift between Abd al-Mu'min and Ibn Tumart's family began shortly after. It might be (as chroniclers say) because the Ibn Tumart's family proved corrupt and wicked when they arrived in Spain. Or it might be because Abd al-Mu'min, a military chief, was absconding with a spiritual title they felt infringed on their rights.

So I don't know where or when the "Caliphate" was formally begun. 1147 seems like a plausible date to me for practical purposes. Anything before that is too ambiguous. I know constitutionally 1155 marks a sharp division date between the "republican" Almohad period and the "dynastic" Almohad period. The title may very likely have been used earlier, but was not dynastic until 1155. How much earlier, and exactly when, I don't know. I am not happy assigning precise dates, or making statements like "officially declared". If these can be avoided, it is better. Walrasiad (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Caliphate" date: I agree with the caution overall and don't object to rewording if it makes things clearer. I just noticed that a slightly different date seems to be implied in the lead ("when he conquered Marrakesh and declared himself caliph"), but not clear if that detail is coming directly from a source. I'll just note that the wording I added in the main text below (this edit) is taken directly from Encyclopedia of Islam (Edition Three), in the entry on "Almohads", which says: "These successes were made possible by the talents of ʿAbd al-Muʾmin, the favourite disciple of the Mahdī Ibn Tūmart, who succeeded him in 524/1130 and was officially proclaimed caliph three years later." Of course it's a general overview that doesn't go into detail on this issue. I looked at Bennison's book (see reference on page or below) and it gives a similar version of events about the succession, from which I added other details, but it doesn't say much more on that specific question. If there are other reliable sources that give a more elaborated explanation, that might help. I didn't look further. I mainly wanted to establish the general change from the Mahdi to his successors and to mention when the title "caliph" becomes relevant (especially since "Caliphate" is in the page name).
 * PS: I'll note that the title Amir al-Mu'minin is discussed a little more precisely in a couple of sources, but not consistently and without equating the position of "caliph" with that title exclusively, which is why I didn't add anything about that for now. E.g.: Bennison (p.93-94 of her book) says this "full caliphal title" was first used by Abd al-Mu'min's successor Abu Yaq'ub Yusuf around 1167, but clearly uses the term "caliph" for Abd al-Mu'min before that, while Lévi-Provençal in the "Abd al-Mu'min" entry of Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (an older source) says that "In all probability, it was at the time of the capture of Marrākus̲h̲ that ʿAbd al-Muʾmin had allowed his entourage to confer on him the exalted title of amīr al-muʾminīn."
 * Regarding lead statement: As for the sentence in the lead that was recently disputed, I think that's a slightly separate issue. The sentence was there to establish the main figures and their significance for the topic. The specifics should be discussed in the main text. Hence, there's probably a better wording possible but it should be about summarizing general facts: Ibn Tumart did create a leadership structure and the beginnings of a state, but the empire was created under Abd al-Mu'min and much of the state-building was carried out under him and his successors. The sources cited there before the latest revision by SegoviaKazar state this, and that's what I intended to reflect (concisely) when I last revised that sentence (this edit). For everyone's reference, here are the most relevant passages from those sources about Ibn Tumart and Abd al-Mu'min's roles (aside from conquests), very briefly:
 * J.F.P. Hopkins, “Ibn Tūmart”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (1960-2012): "[Ibn Tumart], the Mahdī of the Almohads and founder of the Almohad movement. (...) Ibn Tūmart regarded himself primarily as a religious reformer. It is not certain that even when in later life he had adopted the mantle of the Mahdī and become the head of an embryonic state in declared rebellion against the Almoravids he had developed any secular ambitions beyond those necessary to back his religious ones. (...) The role of ʿAbd al-Muʾmin in founding the Almohad state was as important as that of the Mahdī, though probably neither would have achieved anything without the other."
 * E. Lévi-Provençal “ʿAbd al-Muʾmin”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (1960-2012): "The final destruction of Almoravid power made it possible for ʿAbd al-Muʾmin to organise his new empire, using as a basis the political system of the Almohad community, but broadened and adapted to his purpose. (...) Also, breaking with the Almoravid tradition, which itself had been inspired by the Hispano-Umayyad organisation, he [Abd al-Mu'min] set up an administrative system which took into account the political needs of his great empire, as well as his desire not to give offence to his entourage of Berbers, "Almohads from the very beginning"."
 * Jamil Abun-Nasr (1987), "A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period": "Like the Almoravid movement, the Almohad began as one of religious reform. Its founder, Abu Abdulla Muhammad b. Tumart, [...]" (p.87) "Before moving to Tinmallal Ibn Tumart was only a religious reformer; in Tinmallal he became the head of a rebellious religio-political movement directed against the Almoravids." (p.89) "Instead of following up his successes in north-eastern Algeria by invading Tunisia, 'Abdul-Mu'min left the command of the Almohad army in the eastern Maghrib to his son 'Abdulla and spent the six years between 1153 and 1159 organizing his state internally, with a view to establishing the government of the Almohad state in his family." (p.93) "In the state which 'Abdul-Mu'min founded the supremacy of the tribes which had constituted the Tinmallal community was preserved. The original tribes formed the aristocracy of the empire, [...]" (p.94) (Jamil Abun-Nasr (1987), "A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period")
 * Amira K. Bennison (2016), "The Almoravid and Almohad Empires": "Ibn Tumart (d. c. 1130) did not live to see the movement he founded became an empire, that was the achievement of his successor (khalifa, caliph), 'Abd al-Mu'min, who fought regular campaigns against the Almoravids [...]" (p. 58) "'Abd al-Mu'min combined his campaigns to the east with the gradual consolidation of Almohad government and the elaboration of the simple hierarchy established by Ibn Tumart three decades before in Tinmall. (...)" (p.80)


 * So I think the current wording in the lead (as of this revision) isn't wrong in spirit but it distances itself a little from what the sources say. The sources discuss the stages in general terms of "movement", "community", "state" and "empire", not "state" vs "caliphate" as implied in the current phrasing. I haven't consulted the new sources added by SegoviaKazar because I doubt there is a verifiable argument saying this exactly and I doubt there's an actual substantive contradiction between sources (if there is, it should be discussed in the main text). I think we are getting hung up on wording rather than substance/content. The citations there are also starting to stray into WP:OVERCITE territory. R Prazeres (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This edit by SegoviaKazar is misleading as it confuses the small Berber state that Ibn Tumart created with "The Almohad State" (the empire that was founded by Abd al-Mu'min, which is also known as the "Mu'minid state" and that the average reader is familiar with). The cherry picked sources (some of them questionable, such as the anonymous articles by Larousse and Britannica) don't describe the small Berber state as "the Almohad state"; and even they did, it wouldn't be difficult to find other cherry picked sources that describe Abd al-Mu'min as the founder of "the Almohad state"; but as we all know, collecting any content and sticking it in the lead section of an article is not how Wikipedia works. Therefore, given the contradictory statements (which are not put into context and discussed in the article's body) and to avoid misleading the readers, I have restored the last stable version. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * James N Tallon: At the same time, the new government established by Ibn Tumart utilized the tribal structure of the Atlas Berbers to rule the growing Almohad Empire.
 * Leiden University (African studies): The Almohads, or al - Muwahhidun , appeared in the 1120s as a Masmuda Berber theocratic State based on the religious teachings of Muhammad ibn Tumart
 * Salma Khadra Jayyusi: (...) now a century later another state appeared, that of the Almohads , owing its existence to another propagandist Muhammed Ibn Tumert known as the mahdi (...) Muhammad Ibn Tūmart , the founder and spiritual shepherd of this state , possessed a strange , complex , contradictory personality.
 * Henri-Louis-Étienne Terrasse: Ibn Tūmart won a following in the mountains and founded a small Almohad state there, centred on the village of Tinmel.
 * I am sorry but this is an evidence that Abd al Moumen is Ibn Tumert's continuity, caliph in arabic mean successor, Abdel Mumin himself by instoring a caliphate explain that he is the continuity of the Ibn Tumert. This is the almohad state growing up like James N Tallon explain.
 * We can talk about the dynasty foundation, about caliphate foundation, but the almohad state was founded by Ibn Tumert according to the sources.
 * All of the sources are from historians.
 * I understand your interpretation but the sources are not in line with your point of view.
 * The word that I modified is indeed "state", and it is also this word which returns in the multitude of sources exposed SegoviaKazar (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * SegoviaKazar is correct. Ibn Tumart did not found a "small Berber state", he founded the "Almohad state".  That is, if you want to characterize a group of rebel mountain holdouts as a "state" at all.  Not only the ideological, but also the political particulars of the Almohad state were all laid out in meticulous detail by Ibn Tumart. Abd al-Mu'min didn't "found" anything, he continued it.  His only real political innovation was the closure deal of 1155 with the Almohad elite.
 * However, if you want to differentiate a rebellion from a state proper, then 1147, the culmination of the Seven Year Campaign, would be the start date. The conquest of Marrakesh and destruction of the Almoravids was the original goal laid out in the 1120s, what Ibn Tumart attempted (but failed) in 1130, and Abd al-Mu'min finally accomplished in 1147.
 * I think a lesson should be learned from the "Fatimid Caliphate" article, where the rebels in Kabylia mountains are characterized as a "Fatimid state" at the beginning of the rebellion in 902, but the "Fatimid Caliphate" dates from 909, after the capture of Raqqada, the capital of Aghlabid Ifriqiya. However, there is the difference that the commander of the Fatimids in the Kabylia mountains (Abu Abdallah al-Shi'i) is an entirely different person from the Fatimid Caliph (Abdallah al-Mahdi, who was absent from the region during the campaign), and there is an exact date of proclamation of the latter. We are not so fortunate to have things so clean.
 * But this is definitely not Abd al-Mu'min's state. It is an Almohad state, the continuation of Ibn Tumart's at Tinmal, with the same political structure and governed by the same councils. He never pretended otherwise.
 * Or using a more recent analogy, the Taliban was certainly a movement and since 2001, certainly from 2008, have managed to control parts of the country, which has be characterized as a rebellion but also as a de facto "Taliban state". But it is more informative to date the "Taliban state" from the fall of Kabul and collapse of the Afghan government last week. Current supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada also uses the title "commander of the faithful".  But we commonly call it the "Taliban state" or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan", not Hibatullah's empire, and we date it from 2021 not from his ascension in 2016. Walrasiad (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I agree, moreover the sources which abound in this direction are numerous and works centered on the subject, not necessarily generalists.
 * I was able to select 2 books written by specialists in Almohads and therefore focused on the subject that interests us, the 2 books are:
 * Los almohades: problemas y perspectivas by Patrice Cressier and The Almohade Order (1120-1269) by Mehdi Gouighrate.
 * The two works are of the same opinion, the Almohad state is founded by Ibn Tumert.
 *  "Their imām, the renowned scholar, Muhammad ben Tümart, ruler of the Unitarian state, known as al - mahdi" 
 * I think it is important to make a distinction between 3 events: the founding of the Almohad state, the establishment of the caliphate and the dynasty.
 * These 3 events happen on different dates.
 * We cannot attribute the creation of the Almohad state to Abdel Mumen who himself claims to be in the continuity of the state of Ibn Tumert and of which he inherits the succession on the death of Ibn Toumert. Have we ever seen a state born empire?
 * I think we should stay within Wikipedia's objective by giving more importance to sources than to personal interpretations.
 * I liked the prudence of Walrasiad and M Prazeres much less the reaction of M Bitton which I do not find justified, I carried out a long work of research on the subject, and seeing your agreement confirms me on this.
 * The idea that I took into account could be compared to a compromise because one attributes to Ibn Tumert the foundation of the movement and the Almohad state but to Abdel Mumen that of the caliphat and the Almohad dynasty.
 * It goes well in the direction of the events and the sources.
 * I also have other sources attributed to specialists but in different languages ​​if you are interested.
 * Consequently I reinstate the affirmation by adding more sources. Thank you Walrasiad, I wish you a good day. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Folks, as I said before we are getting hung up on the word "state" and debating its meaning in ways that the cited reliable sources themselves don't dwell on. And I think some of the claims above about what constitute the main events and transition points should be left to those sources rather than to personal interpretation on top of them (regardless of the merit of the interpretation), as otherwise we're more likely to go in circles.
 * The issue should not be whether the word "state" is legitimate or not in one context or the other. In general usage this word isn't that specific. For that matter, just because the word "state" appears in a source also doesn't mean that the author was investing it with the same amount of meaning that we're discussing here. I'll also note that the next sentence in the paragraph of the current lead, right after the sentence in dispute, says: "Around 1120, Ibn Tumart first established a Berber state in Tinmel in the Atlas Mountains." So the point SegoviaKazar is making is arguably included in the current paragraph already, as far as any general reader is concerned. The issue is how to describe to a general audience both of the foundational roles played by Ibn Tumart and Abd al-Mu'min. The current wording (as of this) fits this fine enough I think; I don't imagine any reader is going to pause and ask themselves "but what about the state?!". A similar option would be to follow the example of Bennison above (a recent English-language overview of the subject by a well-known historian), who in one convenient sentence summarizes Ibn Tumart as the founder of the "movement" and Abd al-Mu'min as the one responsible for creating the "empire" (a word slightly more specific than "state", but less theoretical than "caliphate").
 * That said, it occurs to me while rereading the paragraph (i.e. the second paragraph) that there's some redundancy, because the first sentence arguably repeats in different words what the next two sentences say or imply: i.e. a generalization about Ibn Tumart and Abd al-Mu'min is stated, and then Ibn Tumart and Abd al-Mu'min's contributions are summarized again separately right after. So another option, or an additional task, could be to reword this paragraph in a more streamlined way (i.e. summarize Ibn Tumart's contribution first, then Abd al-Mu'min's contribution second, then move on to next major events). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree there is redudancy. The wording in the second paragraph is clumsy and confusing. I see no point in inserting Abd al-Mu'min immediately in the first sentence, particularly with that confusing "but".  It should be spaced out chronologically, explaining first what Ibn Tumart built, the Almohad coalition and Tinmal state, and later going on to explain the succession, conquests and dynastic consolidation (as you suggest). Walrasiad (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello


 * As Walrasiad explained, this story of a small Berber state is very surprising, personally the Almohads is a subject that fascinates me, and when I read the beginning of the article, I was quite disoriented.
 * I also note that there is no allusion to the fact that Abdel Mumin is the successor of Ibn Toumert which is nevertheless a capital element in the following events.
 * Although my opinion and that of Walrasiad converge, I accept your reformulation proposal, which I think will remain in the idea that the Almohad state is founded by Ibn Toumert as the sources claim.
 * I propose to divided the attributes: movement + state (Ibn Toumert) and caliphate + dynasty (Abdelmoumen).
 * Pascal Burasi explains it well here, we have a state led by Ibn Toumert with his state organization which will be generally maintained by Abdelmoumen and some of his descendants who of course will experience reforms as the Almohads expand.
 * I wish you a good day. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in my opninion, the current sentence in the introduction seems quite right. First we explain who founded what and then we give the chronology of the facts. The majority of sources, such as those cited by R. Prazeres and M. Bitton, give Ibn Tumart as the founder of the movement and Abd al-Mumin as the founder of the empire, the caliphate or the dynasty. For example, in his introduction to the character Abd al-Mumin, Magill explains that: "Through military prowess and admistrative skill, 'Abd al Mumin founded the Almohad empire in North Africa and the Iberan Peninsula, initiating a period of thriving commerce and artistic creativity." He then explains in the body that "Ibn Tumart founded the Almohad movement of the unitarians". In the Encyclopaedia of African Characters, this is how Abd al Mumin and Ibnt Tumart are described: "'Abd al Mumin was a Berber chief who founded the Almohad dynasty in North Africa. He succeeded Ibn Tumart, founder of the Almohad sect, and proclaimed himself caliph (ruler) of the dynasty(...)". The current wording is also in line with the definition in the Encyclopaedia of Islam by Brill : "b. ʿAlī b. ʿAlwī b. Yaʿlā al-Kūmī Abū Muḥammad, successor of the Mahdī Ibn Tūmart in the leadership of the reformist movement of tawḥīd , known as the Almohad movement (see al-muwaḥḥidūn ), and founder of the Muʾminid dynasty, which in the West, in the 6th/12th century, took the place of the kingdoms of Ifrīḳiya and of the Almoravid dynasty of Morocco and of Spain, with its capital at Marrākush." Furthermore, James N Tallon describes Ibn Tumart as "founder of the movement" and states that "al Mu'mim, reinvented this structure". Btw @Walrasiad The word 'but' is justified and invites the reader to distinguish between the Almohad movement founded by Ibn Tumart and the Almohad Caliphate founded by Abd al Mumin. Furthermore, the fact that Abd al Mumin is mentioned is totally justified given the importance of the character. This is why, I believe that the current wording transcribes well the serious sources provided by M. Bitton and R. Prazeres and helps to avoid unnecessary confusion. Cheers, --Askelaadden (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Askeladen, there is no difference. Maybe the solution is to simply rename the article "Almohads" and end this nonsense.  Walrasiad (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the word "state" is prone to misinterpretation (think dynastic state) and is not what either of them is associated with (this has nothing to do with the article's title). Their major achievements as the "founder of the movement" and the "creator of the empire and its ruling dynasty" is what should be highlighted in the lead section (these are factual, undisputed and repeated in all RS that discuss the subject). Everything else, including the mention of the so-called small Tinmal state (was the is even a state?) belongs in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think dynastic state. I think Almohad Councils, which is how this was ruled. They are referred to as  "Almohads", not "Mu'minid dynasty".  Abd al-Mu'min "founded" nothing, he was a successor, he continued. This was not an autocratic monarchy. The privy council was created by Ibn Tumart, the House of Ibn Tumart continued authoritative, and from the beginning down to the end ultimate power rested in the the council of Almohad sheikhs.  Walrasiad (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Abd al-Mu'min "founded" nothing" I'm sorry, but I can't pretend to take you seriously after such a statement. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rudeness does not befit this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Walrasiad : Renaming this page to "Almohads" will not change the problem raised, since it will always be necessary to distinguish between the Alhomad movement and the Almohad caliphate founded by Abd al Mumin, as attested by the multiple quality sources. --Askelaadden (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is misleading. Political structures were fundamentally the same. You can differentiate between a period of lack of military success (1121-1145), when the Almohads remained confined to the High Atlas, and a period of military success (post-1145), where the Almohads finally broke out.  Which is all they are referring to. Abd al-Mu'min led the Almohads to military success in 1147.  But that's not quite the same as "creating" a new state - and certainly has to be worded carefully.  They are adding acreage, not inventing something new.  The emphatic point - the important one that should not be lost - is that political structures remained intact.  This remains an Almohad state, not a Mu'minid state.  Conquests were integrated into the Almohad political structures of Tinmal as laid out by Ibn Tumart, new tribes inserted into its hierarchy and new members added to its councils (until the 1155 serrata). The character of the Almohad state did not change, power continued to emanate from the Almohad councils.  These councils were not Abd al-Mu'min's invention (even if he tried to pack them with his supporters, and ended up negotiating the serrata deal in 1155).  Things may be tweaked here and there, but Abd al-Mu'min saw himself as a successor, he continued, and worked within the confines of the Almohad political structure of Tinmal. Walrasiad (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that Abd al-Mu'min created the Almohad empire and its ruling dynasty is undisputed and no amount "talk" will change that. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor any amount of research, I am noticing. I see you two have made up your mind. Which is a pity. Walrasiad (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton I have difficulty understanding your reaction, I find your way of defending your point of view too harsh, everyone discusses calmly and takes into account the opinions of each other but you try to impose your opinion in a rather violent way through your personal interpretations.
 * We should not think that the article is a personal object, everything is debatable and modifiable.


 * We should not try to asleap the real subject, here the debate concerns the Almohad state, the caliphate is the logical evolution of the state not a new state like P.Buresi explain.


 * In this case, if you want to remain on an indisputably empire and a dynasty created by abdelmoumen then you will have to accept just as indisputably that the creation of the Almohad state falls to ibn toumert as explained by the many sources of quality and we stop there because the discussion seems to take a conflicting turn despite the fact that the sources are not as categorical as the position you are defending as John N and Pascal Buresi clearly show.
 * We will also note the very relevant example that Walrasiad exposed.
 * Finally, I recall that the centered sources are more credible than the generalist sources, the centered sources tend towards the same point, the Almohad state is created by Ibn Tumert.
 * @Askelaaden if you are based on James N Tallon, so you recognize de facto that it is Ibn Toumert who creates the Almohad state. That Abdelmoumen reinvents the structure (through reforms, which in itself is logical in view of the enlargement of the state) is quite normal and that is exactly what was interpreted from the sentence that I modified. It's a good thing we're moving forward.

--SegoviaKazar (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @SegoviaKazar : No, I'm not basing it on James N Tallon who I don't consider to be focused on the subject. I was responding to you since you are the one who used this source that qualifies Ibn Tumart as the creator of the Almohad movement. As explained in my previous message, I was basing myself on the quality sources cited by R. Prazeres or M. Bitton.
 * Moreover, speaking of quality sources, in the Cambridge History of Africa, the authors use exactly the same wording as in the current introduction :
 * "Whereas Ibn Tumart was the spiritual originator of the Almohad movement, 'Abd al-Mu'min proved to be the real founder of the Almohad empire and of its ruling dynasty."
 * , --Askelaadden (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * You quoted it, if you quote Tallon, who is a specialist, although the works you use are not specialized, you should not take only what suits you, otherwise it is clearly cherry picking.
 * The book you are quoting is just as less centered than Tallon's.
 * We have two works centered on the subject which go in the direction of the Almohad state created by Ibn Toumert, written by specialists not only of history but of Almohads, Los almohades: problemas y perspectivas by Patrice Cressier and The Almohade Order (1120-1269) by Mehdi Gouighrate.
 * It is undeniable that Ibn Toumert founded the Almohad state, the sources going in this direction are very numerous and of quality.
 * The question we can ask would be if he is at the origin of the Almohad empire? Some sources like Tallon go in the sense that it is Ibn Toumert who manages the growing Almohad empire which will reach its apogee under the era of his successor Abdelmoumen.
 * The historian John Coleman DeGraft-Johnson also goes in this direction in the work African Glory affirming "The almoravid or senegal empire lasted for a century and was followed by another african empire, the almohade, which was founded by another african religious leader or mahdi, his name was Ibn Toumert "
 * Askelaaden please, we know each other and it would be a shame to repeat the same interminable debate for this simple point concerning the Almohad state, if we agree on this point I will not go further. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable and Biased section
Wow, this is being used as a source on an Islamic Caliphate. How did this slip by. Jewish Virtual History. : The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance Does that not set of alarm bells ringing? There are 1000 of books which we can source from and I will bring those sources and not this propaganda. What is sickening is during this time Jewish philosophy was at its peak. So clearly no thanks for that either.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ''While violent and intolerant attitudes towards dhimmis seem to be confirmed for specific periods of Almohad rule, the assumption that

Almohad persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities was a systematic or official policy throughout their rule is more problematic. New readings of the existing primary sources and incorporation of new material can shed fresh light on this episode of Jewish-Islamic history. The letter under review here is the first step in a project to reconsider not only the source material related to this era from both the Jewish and the Islamic sides but also the way particular historiographical trends have evolved over time and their impact upon our current perceptions of this important but, in fact, poorly understood ra.''JEWISH TRADING IN FES ON THE EVE OF THE ALMOHAD CONQUEST--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ugh you brought this up...Unfortunately yes some cleaning is needed, this is the dynasty that gave Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tofail and others, not particularly fundamentalist. The teachings of Ibn Tumart were heavily criticized by "fundamentalists" (cf. Ibn Taymiya). Although one could argue that Yaqub al-Mansur changed the ideology of the dynasty and did "persecute" the Jews. Not sure about the Christians (if there were any living under the Almohads) as this was a period of all out war between the two. Tachfin (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There were of course Christians living under the Almohads. And the lines in the text concerning Averroes being protected by al-Mansur is at least doubtful. Averroes was banned, his writings burned. Maimonides ultimately had to leave Spain because the Almohads demanded that he become Muslim. 2A02:1210:3ECB:2600:AC7E:330D:C5C3:AF8E (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of Morocco 1073 1147.svg

Hereditary aristocracy
It was a Caliphate and a hereditary aristocracy according to Britannica, if this isn't reliable I can consult another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.253.173 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention a "hereditary aristocracy" anywhere, only that a "ruling aristocracy" was part of the hierarchy, which of course it was. A more accurate wording would be needed, perhaps based on more specialized sources. R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the IP is more correct. "Caliphate" has centralized autocratic insinuations, but this was originally organized closer to an aristocratic republic, with decisions and appointments in council. Only by the "serrata" of Sale-Rabat in 1155 was a deal struck for a "Caliphate", that is,  dynastic centralization in the Mu'minid family*, and more importantly an agreement with the Almohad council that the Caliph would appoint the first provincial position (governors, sayyids), from his family, without council interference, in return for which the nobles on the Almohad council would select by hereditary right the second provincial position (treasurers, hafiz), from their families, without caliphal interference.  So it became sort of a mixed system, where the Caliph and the aristocracy split their appointments, rather than agreeing on them collectively (as before).
 * [* Footnote] although the "serrata" of 1155 agreed the next Caliph would always be drawn from the Mu'minid family (rather than elected from the aristocracy generally, as had been generally understood before), Caliphs didn't get to appoint their successors, so exactly which family member required election by the Almohad council. Ergo the "race to Marrakesh" by Mu'minid provincial governors at the moment of a caliphal transition - whoever got there first usually won the title. This turned suddenly dramatic in the succession of 1224, and led to the gradual evacuations of Almohad garrisons from Spain as competing family members serving as provincial governors gathered armies in Spain to go back to Morocco and press their candidacy with the council - leaving Spain bereft of troops and clearing the way for the massive Reconquista onslaught of the 1220s-40s. Walrasiad (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Almohad flag was red!
Almohad caliphate had a red flag that is mentioned in several books including the medieval Libro del Conosçimiento de todos los regnos which literally shows the Almohad red flag on page 25,and the medieval Catalan Atlas which shows the Almohades red flag! It's shown in Charles V’s Atlas, also mentioned and shown in the books Fahnen und Flaggen Eine bunte Fibe, Les drapeaux de l’Islam de Mahomet à nos jours, Die Flagge. Geschichte der Entwicklung der auf den Kriegs- und Handelsschiffen zur Verwendung kommenden Flaggen unter Berücksichtigung des Gebrauchs von Flaggen zu Signal und Salutzwecken.. Etc, man Wikipedia is unbelievable nowadays Kayzer aika gas (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * We've addressed this before. See, among others, Bennison's discussion, p.270 :
 * "Although white is cited as the colour of the Umayyads, of the Almohad caliphal standard, and of the Marīnid sultan’s banner, it is not clear whether such white banners included religious inscriptions and designs or not. The Marīnid sources simply refer to white as the dynasty’s colour, while the Libro del Conoscimiento de Todos los Reinos, written in the last quarter of the fourteenth century by a Franciscan monk, distinguishes between the ‘kingdoms’ of Fes and Marrakesh and also attributes flags to other cities such as Ceuta and Sijilmāsa."
 * Followed by this foonote (same page) about the red checkerboard flag:
 * "It has been assumed that this flag is Almohad but by the late fourteenth century when the Libro was composed, the Almohads had not ruled for over a century. It is, however, possible that an Almohad design had remained the insignia of the city rather than of a particular dynasty."
 * A better solution, directly applicable here, is suggested by the recent discussion at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate, where there was consensus to remove the plain white image from the infobox and discuss this in the body of the article instead. R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that it is clear that the Almohad dynasty had a white flag? Because the red flag with the checkerboard is mentioned in several books and maps, if it's not clear witch flag was used we use the closest one to reality, there's no smoke without a fire, choosing a white banner out of thin air over the historical mentioned r
 * red isn't a professional thing to do, wikipedia started to become more like a joke than an encyclopedia on social media, no won er why Kayzer aika gas (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, they are suggesting you pay attention to what the reliable sources say about the white flag. M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen such sources nor anything that shows the white flags other than some random words, wikipedia lacks professionalism, for this reason they say what are your sources wikipedia? And then they lol Kayzer aika gas (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the flag of the almohad dynasty was white according the official magazine of the Algerian national army museum, it displays two flags, one as a white army stadard, the other resembles the one taken in the battle of las navas de tolosa, yet having white background and not red, the magazine is downloable but in arabic. how can i share it ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * if it's downloadable, you just share the link to it. It doesn't matter if it's Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.mdn.dz/site_principal/sommaire/revues/images/MCA022019.pdf
 * Here it is, 2019 edition, check the pages 23 and 24, also there is a good article about the founder of the dynasty "Abd Al mumin al Goumi" and the military tactics that the almohads used in combat. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from the captions stating that the Almohad's flag and banner are from the museum's collections, not much else is said about them. M.Bitton (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * in the magazine No unfortunately, dunno if there is a descriptive template near them inside the museum though, however i think all berber muslim dynasties from the Zanata branch had a white flag because of their loyalty to the Umayyad house and the sunni doctrine, this was the case since the first maghrawa ruler (saclab ibn ouzmar) converted to islam in medina during the reign of rachidune caliph Uthman, the maghrawa were part of the islamic conquest of the maghreb and al andalus according to ibn khaldoun (6th tome) and the zenatians were called ottomans for that (affilates to Uthman and the umayyad house), so i think this would be the case to the almohads, marinids and even the zianids at some point Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * you might want to check the page 65, 3rd picture in the right, you will see those two flags inside the museum on the wall with a template near them. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that i take a source from a country that exists 700 years after the Almohades? A country that wasn't the capital nor a point of interest in Almohad period over spain? The country with oldest book and maps, Are y'all kidding us or what? Kayzer aika gas (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * sigh Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing flags from infobox
I'm removing the flag from the infobox altogether, which I'm recommending for the following reasons: I hope this is convincing enough. R Prazeres (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As per Bennison 2014 (see quotes in my comment above or full article here): even if the flag was white, we don't know what patterns or motifs it contained, if any. The sources simply say that the dynastic colour was white, they don't provide further details about flag design.
 * In a recent discussion at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate (see here), there was a clear consensus to remove the same blank white flag image from the infobox of Umayyad Caliphate, because a blank white image is uninformative as a preview image and some readers may even think that the image failed to load. Given that the exact same situation is present here, and that the sources are actually slightly less clear on the issue here, there seems little reason to do things differently.
 * The flag is far from essential information about this topic. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of key information about the article (see MOS:INFOBOX). The flag, especially a semi-hypothetical one, does little to improve anyone's understanding of the topic one way or the other. This is something that's more appropriately discussed in the body of the article, where context can be provided. All the more so if people keep disrupting the infobox over this one issue alone.
 * Other alternatives are no better:
 * The chequered flag that some want to re-add has already been discussed above. There's little evidence of its relevance other than one source written a century after the end of the Almohads, which does not even explicitly identify the flag as Almohad.
 * The only surviving banner which has been traditionally attributed to the Almohads looks nothing like any of these. Its identification as Almohad as also been questioned and some scholars argue it is Marinid (see Art section), which is why I previously removed it from the infobox too.


 * Agreed - what Bennison said, and per the obvious confusion that a blank white image can cause. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Ibn Khaldoun, even the Fatimids had white flags with Goldern crescent in it, the Abbassids were known to wear black. the Zirids had fatimid flags then after renoucing the Shia doctrine they adopted abbassid Flags
 * However I do beleive that All Zenata berber Kingdoms had white flags just like Umayyads, since they supprted them from the start Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)