Talk:Idrisid dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Incorrect references about religion of the Idrissid dynasty

Incorrect references were made about the religion of the Idrissid dynasty. The former article wrongfully stated that their religion was Zaydi-Shi'ism but according to primary sources and secondary sources/modern historians, the Idrissids were a Sunni dynasty and Sunni opponents of the Abbasid Caliphate. I corrected these statements and placed the sources for the correct historical view on their religion.

• Sources:
  • Al-Bayan Al-Maghreb (Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, 13th century), Vol.1, p.118 (Arabic - Dr. Bashar A. Marouf & Mahmoud B. Awad, 2013)
  • A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (J. Abun-Nasr, 1987), p.50 (Historian): "..., the third 'dissident' dynasty to gain power in the Maghreb during the eighth century, the Idrisid of Fez, was Sunnite"
  • Al-Tabari (9th century) never mentioned in his Tarikh that Idris ibn Abdullah or his father Abdullah were Shiite in theology. The seeds of Shi'ism were at this stage/time only a local phenomenon in Kufa, Iraq and not in Medina were the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad lived. According to Al-Tabari, the same Zayd said the following after the first proto-Shiites asked him questions about the companions of the Prophet Muhammed, Abu Bakr and Omar ibn al-Khattab that would be foundation of Shiite theology. They asked him his opinion on these companions on which Zayd answered: "May God have mercy on both of them and forgive them both! I have not heard anyone in my family renouncing them both nor saying anything but good about them." - reference: Tarikh al-Tabari (Al-Tabari, 9th century) – English translation: The History of al-Tabari vol.26, p.37-38. This statement clearly sets the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam, where Zayd alignes himself with the Sunni narrative about Abu Bakr and Omar ibn al-Khattab. Zayd also here describes this Sunni narrative to his whole family of which Idris ibn Abdullah is a part of. The father of Idris, Abdullah was alive at that time so he held the same views and he is the one raising Idris which means Idris follows the same theology as the people of Medina where the Sunni Islam was followed and established.
  • De Geschiedenis van Marokko & Noord-Afrika (Sofyan al Kandoussi, 2019), p.179

_____

(UPDATE: SEE ANSWER BELOW) Your last two sources do not say Idrisid dynasty was Sunni, you are not allowed to post references that do not verify the claim. As for your last argument, you are basically arguing that Zaydi Shiism is not Shiism because of a quote (which by the way you did not write the next one: "My strongest argument against you is that we were more entitled than anyone else to assume the authority of the Prophet of God and that they appropriated our power for themselves and deprived us of it.") therefore his family isn't Shia (which itself is a pretty big leap in logic), that's a whole other discussion which you are free to have elsewhere, it is not appropriate for this article. Go prove Zaydi Shiism is actually Sunni, then once that becomes established come here. It is established academically that Idrisid dynasty was not Sunni, I will be undoing your changes and as long as you don't have any credible academic references it should remain that way. Webtarentula (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

---

31-7-2019 - Answer to the above wrong and false statements and claims: I am asking you to not to undo the changes otherwise I am obliged to complain with the moderator. You are putting lies here and you are putting words in my mouth. I never said Zaydi Shiism is Sunni and never made that claim. That means you did not check my correction and you did not check the references. You said the referenes do not verify the claim. Check this following quote from academic and historian J. Abun-Nasr, 1987 (see second reference, p.50): "..., the third 'dissident' dynasty to gain power in the Maghreb during the eighth century, the Idrisid of Fez, was Sunnite". You can't get it more clear than that. And the quote you have put out there, I do not see any references, please keep it professional and I clearly do not see in your quote anywhere where it states that (?the one making the statement, you did not put a name of the one making the statement?') says that they follow the Shiite doctrine and curse the Sahaba. As I stated earlier, they were Sunni opponents to the Ummayad and later the Abbassid Caliphate, I will once again correct this and ask you to not disregard objective sources and historians and place your own opinion above academic research. This is not a theological debate but a historical issue where old and contemporary historians all claim that the Idrisids where Sunni. The reason I corrected this, is because I see a lot of Shiite propaganda going on without actual academic research and evidence from historians. Please keep it historically accurate with historical evidence and references. (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

---

UPDATE August-11-2019:

Reply to User-gebruiker: The quote you were inquiring about is from Tarikh of Al-Tabari (your own reference), it is the follow-up to the quote you yourself pasted. It's what Zayd said (right after he says "May God have mercy on both of them and forgive them both! I have not heard anyone in my family renouncing them both nor saying anything but good about them."). He clearly says that that they were more entitled to rule, right there in your own reference. I don't see how any clearer you need it to be for you to see that Zayd was not "aligned with the Sunni narrative", or at the very least it brings into doubt the claims he was and makes it seem much less of a certainty than it was presented, perhaps he was but the quote saying he felt they were more entitled to authority (his "strongest argument") definitely make him sound more of a Shia than a Sunni. You accuse other people of propaganda and being Shia, yet you yourself seem to have taken all of this personally.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webtarentula (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

According to,

• Ludwig W. Adamec in the Historical Dictionary of Islam, page 145, "Idrisid Dynasty (788-985). First Shi'ite dynasty in Islamic history, founded by Idris ibn Abdullah....".
• "The Development of Politico-Religious Movements: A General Overview", Meis Al-Kaisi, Arabic Heritage in the Post-Abbasid Period, ed. Imed Nsiri, (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019), 124.
• Ignác Goldziher & Bernard Lewis, Introduction to Islamic theology and law, Princeton University Press (1981), p. 218
• The New Islamic Dynasties, by C.E. Bosworth, page 25, "The Idrisids were the first dynasty who attempted to introduce the doctrines of Shi'ism, albeit in a very attenuated form, into the Maghrib...".

Also, your removal of references stating Zaydi Shia is not acceptable. Simply posting sources and then edit warring is not productive. I will be restoring the Zaydi Shia and the cooresponding references. I would strongly suggest discussing before you revert again. Ignoring other reliable sources to simply edit what you want is clear sign of POV editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Reaction to the above by User-gebruiker: I do not agree with your statements because I actually used historically accurate sources. I quoted/referred to historians. I checked the sources quoted by the oponnent in this case and none of them refer to the primary sources from the middle ages and that is what I did. I even referred to the primary medieval sources. I even quoted a historian (historian, proffessor J. Abun-Nasr, specializing in North-Africa, Cambridge University Press) who said the Idrisids were a Sunni dynasty. I checked the opponents sources who I am suspecting of propaganda while I try my best to correct and state credible and the best sources out there. In his sources I see one lady that is not a historian, secondly I see a book (Ignác Goldziher) about theology that is making a historical claim without referring to the original primary medieval historical sources but to a contemporary encyclopedia which shows his lack of expertise in this field, the other sources also do not refer to the original primary medieval sources. We should make Wikipedia a place for credible and academic sources and not claims made by people who do not have the expertise in a specific field, in this case history of Morocco and North-Africa. User-gebruiker 02:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I do not agree with your statements because I actually used historically accurate sources. I quoted/referred to historians."

You have presented nothing that proves the sources I provided are historically inaccurate. If you do not know what a PhD. in Islamic studies is, then you should not be editing in this area.

• "I checked the opponents sources who I am suspecting of propaganda..."

Sounds like you just do not like what reliable sources are stating.

• "In his sources I see one lady that is not a historian..."

I see you do not understand what Islamic studies constitutes.

• "secondly I see a book (Ignác Goldziher) about theology that is making a historical claim without referring to the original primary medieval historical sources but to a contemporary encyclopedia which shows his lack of expertise in this field"

LMAO. Ignac Goldziher was the founder of Islamic studies. And if you are referring to the comment concerning the Encyclopaedia of Islam, then we are done here.

• "We should make Wikipedia a place for credible and academic sources and not claims made by people who do not have the expertise in a specific field, in this case history of Morocco and North-Africa."

What is at issue is the religion used by the Idrisids not whether they were in Morocco or North Africa. AND, suggesting my sources are not credible and do not have the expertise concerning the religion of the Idrisids is laughable.

In fact, my sources Al-Kaisi(PhD Islamic studies), Goldziher(founder of Islamic studies), Lewis(expert history Islam), Bosworth(Arab and Iranian studies), Adamec(PhD. Middle Eastern studies) are exactly what we should be using concerning the religion of the Idrisids. Your continued comments are starting to sound like you just don't like what the facts state.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Jamil M. Abun-Nasr is a professor of Islamic studies. Which makes the others just as reliable as Abun-Nasr.--Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Reaction to the above by User-gebruiker: I do not disregard their PhD's. I am saying that a PhD in history can not be compared to a PhD in theology for example. You need specialists and also I do not see you quoting primary medieval sources except referring to contemporary scholars in your sources, I do not say they are not credible but I am saying that they also rely on the primary medieval sources which I did quoted/referred to by the way. I also did not say anything about Lewis, why are you trying so hard? It almost seems you have this desire and wish that the Idrisids are Shiite? Are you a Shiite yourself? That would explain everything. Using sources to confirm your own bias and wish, that is how it comes across. Let us be above this and discuss this as adults who sincerly try to reach the truth. Primary sources are to be held above contemporary sources regarding descriptions of their political environment. On a side note: There is no evidence for the Zaydi-Shia claim. Even the Berber Awraba tribe that gave Idris ibn Abdullah shelter and refuge, were a Sunni Berber tribe (maybe Khariji) and Idris II grew up as a child among them. The mosques that Idris II build were Sunni mosques. There is no historical evidence of the Zaydi-Shiite doctrine being implented during that time in Morocco (please bring me primary medieval sources stating your claim, I will try my best to look into this and research this if you have any). Reading your comments I can clearly see that you are not a theologian who studied theology. The Zaydi-Shia doctrine/ideology did not exist in 788 AD as a different theology from Sunni Islam, there were only political differences between factions, the only exception were the Kuffans from Iraq that began (locally) starting a different theology (negative image of certain compagnons of the Prophet Muhammad). User-gebruiker (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• " I also did not say anything about Lewis, why are you trying so hard?"

Trying to hard for what? Showing what 4 reliable sources state?

Answer by User-gebruiker: Where do the contemporary historians get their information from? Time travelling to the middle ages? They get these from the primary medieval sources and I have read those books and nowhere have I found one of the big medieval historians state that the Idrisid dynasty is Shia (Zaydi). Do some research, don't lose your ability of critical thinking and always do critical research before making certain statements.

Did I remove Sunni and all the references supporting it from the article? No. I took all the information and wrote it into the article to show what all academics state about the Idrisids.

Answer by User-gebruiker: Have you not seen how the article was written before? It claimed in black and white that the Idrisid were Zaydi and according to secondary AND PRIMARY SOURCES (THE REAL SOURCES), they were a Sunni dynasty. The way you edited the article now is far more neutral than it was before and I respect that. But still I don't agree with the claim that they were Zaydi and this should be corrected.

Did I removed Shia and all the references supporting it from the article? No. You did.

Answer by User-gebruiker: Yes, I did and clearly stated why.

Did I ignore what 4 reliable sources state and start making comments concerning another editor? No. You did.

Answer by User-gebruiker: I see that there are multiple editors but I find it funny that until now you were silent and never attempted to add to the article that there are reliable and credible sources that say that the Idrisid dynasty were Sunni, unless you also did not know until now and that is normal. We all learn new things.

Did I start making comments about the other editors religious affiliation? Stating they are not a "theologian"? No. You did.

Answer by User-gebruiker: Is it forbidden and a crime to ask a question? If you are sick, do you rather go to a qualified doctor or do you go to an uncle who claims to know a lot about medicine and health? I hope you get the point.

Who is trying so hard?? Clearly you are.

Very childish of you to respond in such a agitated manner. I just simply stated an observation, it seems you are unjustifiably offended, very sharp and harsh way of responding to a simple and respectful conversation.

So when your so called argument fails, you resort to personal comments.

Answer by User-gebruiker: No I did not, I just made an observation and asked some questions, nothing more and nothing less. By asking questions, things become clear.

• "It almost seems you have this desire and wish that the Idrisids are Shiite? Are you a Shiite yourself?"

So you have ignored 4 reliable sources by experts in this field? I have no feelings about this one way or another. Compared to your comments, it is very clear you are emotionally involved in this subject. Clearly this is effecting your ability to edit this article neutrally.

Answer by User-gebruiker: Again, very childish to make claims and put words in someone else's mouth

• "Primary sources are to be held above contemporary sources regarding descriptions of their political environment."

Wrong. Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources.

Answer by User-gebruiker: Are you seriously not reading what I said? You are talking about Wikipedia policy and acceptability of sources. Of course it is valid to quote secondary sources on Wikipedia but that does not mean we accept them blindly without critical study and research (AND VERIFYING what those sources state). I was talking from a perspective on the historical value and validity of sources not about Wikipedia policy, please read my statement better next time and do not make assumptions on what I mean to say. You should ask questions before you draw conclusions.

• "Reading your comments I can clearly see that you are not a theologian who studied theology."

It makes no difference what I am. Yet again, since your so called argument can not refute 4 reliable sources you resort to personal comments.

Answer by User-gebruiker: It certainly makes a difference, especially in this talk section of this article where people have discussions, I get this vibe from you that you are very agitated and want to argue with me while I only want to have civilized discussion about sources and claims. Clearly you do not act in this manner and that's a pity.

• "please bring me primary medieval sources stating your claim.."

No. I am not required to bring any primary sources for anything. And since you have now decided to make this personal, we are done here. Continued edit warring on your part will result in the notification of an Admin.

Answer by User-gebruiker: You are using my line, I will contact an Admin if you continue on this path of war and attacking editors only for stating credible and reliable sources. Secondly, you are making claims and you are siding with the Shiite claim so it is my right to expect from you primary sources so you can fairly challenge my claims and statements based upon primary sources (aside from the secondary sources I stated) (and the statements of the primary and secondary sources. I am also sincerly interested in this subject and really am curious if there are primary sources stating this claim so I also can learn something). Do not fall in argumentum ad verecundiam.

FYI, concerning Zaydis, try reading Caliphate: The History of an Idea, Hugh Kennedy, pages 180-184. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer by User-gebruiker: Thank you for your suggestion, I have a library full of books on Sunni and Shiite theology and history, I will look into your suggestion and also look into the primary sources H. Kennedy is using and referring to.

Berber Zaydi??

All the history books I read about Morocco confirm that the Idrisids were a shiite Arab dynasty. The Zaydis are a shiite Arab clan from Yemen. So 'Berber Zaydi' simply doesn't make sense. I'm changing it back to Arab.81.243.124.23 (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Zizouzenati (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Can you name me those History books? Because Ibn Khaldun wrote that the Idrisids were a Berber Dynasty. Idries was an Arab taken by the Berbers. The Berbers made him their leader. So how the hell could you say that the dynasty was Arab? Because of ONE man? The Berbers doesn't exist for you, the Berbers who are RESPONSIBLE of the fact that Idries became their leader.

The Idrisids overtook the Abbasids?

That doesn't make sense. Look at the maps and focus on Morocco.

It seems the Ummayad Caliphate splintered into:

1. the Abbasid Caliphate in Central North Africa & the Middle East.
2. the Emirate of Córdoba in Iberia.
3. the Idrisid Dynasty in Morocco & West Algeria. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent removal by Mehdioa

Mehdioa states, "Because Idris was sunni as stated by the actual suffi in Morocco.
According to,

• Ludwig W. Adamec in the Historical Dictionary of Islam, page 145, "Idrisid Dynasty (788-985). First Shi'ite dynasty in Islamic history, founded by Idris ibn Abdullah....".
• The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History:The Later Roman Empire of the Twelfth Century", by Charles William Previté-Orton, page 243, "Morocco had already revolted under the Shi'ite Alid dynasty of the Idrisids."
• History of Middle East, by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia, page 165, "Farther west in Morocco, another independent Shi'ite dynasty of the Idrisids, came to power." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• The New Islamic Dynasties, by C.E. Bosworth, page 25, "The Idrisids were the first dynasty who attempted to introduce the doctrines of Shi'ism, albeit in a very attenuated form, into the Maghrib...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Shi'i Cosmopolitanisms in Africa: Lebanese Migration and Religious Conversion in Senegal, Mara A. Leichtman, page 216;"Sengalese Shi'a also refer to the spread of Shi'i Islam to Senegal through the Idrisid dynasty and evidence of Shi'i roots in Morocco through 'Alaouis (Hydarah 2008:132-135). Cornell writes that Moulay Idris and his successors, descendants of the Prophet's grandson Hasan, brought with them to Morocco from the Arabian Peninsula "a form of archaic Shi'ism that was similar in many respects to Zaydism" (1998:200)."
• "The Sunni-Shia Split: Changing Faces of Religious Schism and its Modern Political Implications for the Arab World", Fouad J. Kadhem,Contemporary West Asia: Perspectives on Change and Continuity, edited by Sujata Ashwarya, Mujib Alam;"Shia rule, however, had extended to the west of Egypt, where the Alid Idrisid family governed some parts of the North Africa. The legacy of Shia Idrisid rule had imprinted a distinct cultural and religious mark on the region and its people." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Layout concerns

Kansas Bear: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.154.146.90 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The article, in its current layout, is a mess: an overcite case in the introduction and a "History section" without subsections, making it hard to read.

My edits are about:

• putting the origins (Shurafa/Arab) and belief (Zaydi/Shia) issues in a dedicated "Origins" section,
• putting the right references (Joffe & Ben-Mlih) for each referenced statement on the lead, then instead of a block of 5 references in its end there are only 4 left, and Ben-Mlih newly added,
• splitting the "History" section into 3 subsections without modifying any information.

No information has been changed, it is only a layout matter

Regards,

105.154.146.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Odd, your "layout concerns" seem to only be with Arab Zaydi Shia being mentioned in the lead, compared to your edits on Marinid dynasty where you left Berber in the lead. Where you have also been edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

actually I don't even care about them being Shia or Sunni. If you want to have this on the lead it is fine for me, my only concern is the layout (believe me or not).

105.154.146.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

well, I forgot to tell you that another concern to me is M.Bitton's POV-pushing [1]

105.154.146.90 (talk)

I still see no explanation for any of your editing. "Berber dynasty" category, yet there is nothing cited that supports that. Berber language in the lead, yet no sources supporting that either. Also, concerning this source "Hodgson, Marshall (1961), Venture of Islam, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 262", which volume is this? Since there is no mention of Idrisids on page 262 of volume 1 or volume 2. Considering the nature of your editing, I believe you should supply a quote and in which volume it resides. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Bear's rollback [2] demonstrates that the overwhelming literature, primary and secondary, that state that the Idrisids were pro-Alid Zaydis, should be set aside in favour of two references that allegedly claim them to be Sunni: the primary source cited is in Arabic and it does not state or describe the Idrisids as "Sunni" but if I remove the reference to the primary source, chances are Kansas Bear will roll it back again. Al-Zaidi (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

188.52.190.159 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC) that the dynasty was an sunni family, my family are idrids (الأدارسة‎‎) a great amount of people of live currently on the hejazi region (jeddah,taif,macca) and are currently known as Kutbi's

and we are grandchildren of hasan , which is widely known in the hejazi region also we're related by one of the 12 sons of idris II, (Ahmad) and we're all sunni

http://www.ansabcom.com/vb/t17118.html#.V4a0n7h96Uk

we were not shiaa at all

1- أسرة السيد محمد حسين بن محمد الحنفي السيواسي الشهير بالكتبي سكن احد اجداه مصر قادما من سيواس في بلاد الروم بعد خروجهم اليها من الحجاز , وعقبه في مكة من ابنه محمد صالح ( 1245 –1295) وقد وهم صاحب النشر في اسم محمد صالح وسماه محمد والصحيح ماأثبتناه وقد عقب السيد محمد صالح من سبعة ذكور هم محمد أمين وعبد الهادي ومحمد نور ومحمد مكي وحسن وأحمد وطاهر ومن أعقابهم السيد محمد أمين كتبي والسيد حسن كتبي وزير الأوقاف الأسبق وغيرهم وهم سادة حسنيون يرفعون نسبهم الى احمدبن إدريس بن إدريس بن عبد الله المحض وهم منتشرون في مدن الحجاز --احمد بن إدريس بن إدريس بن عبد الله -- translating to (ahmad bin idris(i) bin idris(ii) bin AHMAD we also have a very old family tree which can prove it. please consider changing it, it taints our name. besides all that they also have an flag saying there is no god but god and muhammad is the prophet which means they're not shia, shia believe that ali is the prophet due to succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shia_Muslims_flags#/media/File:%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9_Idrisid_Flag.gif

Facebook is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia.

• The New Islamic Dynasties, by C.E. Bosworth, page 25, "The Idrisids were the first dynasty who attempted to introduce the doctrines of Shi'ism, albeit in a very attenuated form, into the Maghrib...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.190.159 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Idrisid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610132109/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=867&lang=en to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=867&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Zaydi

@User-gebruiker: Why is there this opposition to identifying them as adherents Zaydiyyah thought when reliable sources identify them as such? Also it might be worthwhile if you also checked your talkpage. Alssa1 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

REACTION 20/8/2020 - Hi Alssa1, thank you for your response. Indeed I just saw your comment and I've responded there. I will place the same response here, see below:

REACTION 20/8/2020: Reading your comment shows that you did not go through the Talk section of the Idrisids page where this old discussion has been adressed and solved to meet both claims (Sunni, Shia) so there is a fair representation of both sides of the claimants.

You want evidences to disprove the claim that they were Zaydi-Shia, here you go, including primary sources. The only ones making the claim of of Zaydi-Shiism are modern historians who are conflating Zaydi-Shia Theology with the political opposition of the Ahl al-Bayt in the beginning stage. Shia theology as we know did not even exist then.

Sources: (Primary Source) Al-Bayan Al-Maghreb (Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, 13th century), Vol.1, p.118 (Arabic - Dr. Bashar A. Marouf & Mahmoud B. Awad, 2013) - Ibn Idhari from the 13th-Century claims they were Sunni.

(Secondary Source) A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (J. Abun-Nasr, 1987), p.50 (Historian): "..., the third 'dissident' dynasty to gain power in the Maghreb during the eighth century, the Idrisid of Fez, was Sunnite"

(Primary Source) Al-Tabari (9th century) - Tarikh al-Tabari (Al-Tabari, 9th century) – English translation: The History of al-Tabari vol.26, p.37-38.

(Secondary Source) De Geschiedenis van Marokko & Noord-Afrika (Sofyan al Kandoussi, 2019), p.179 - Dutch history book on Morocco and North-Africa

Question: As far as we know there ar no primary sources from the middle/medieval ages that claim that the Idrisids were a Zaydi-Shia dynasty while we do have Primary sources that claim that they were Sunni. Please provide primary sources for your claim. We really sincerly would like to know and learn new information if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Hello Alssa1 and User-gebruiker, just a reminder to everyone to please add ~~~~ after your comment so they are signed.

Primary source material and contemporary scholars have described them as a Sunni Muslim dynasty.—Can we please specify which primary source material and which contemporary scholars? Also, what is meant by "contemporary"? Contemporaries of the Idrisid dynasty or scholars of our times?

Certain contemporary academics have described them as Zaydi-Shia most likely because of their political affiliation. Others have criticized this claim for conflating Shia theology with a political movement in a historical period where there was no Shia theology distinct from Sunni theology in this area as of yet.—Same thing: Who are these "certain contemporary academics"? Who are these "others"? إيان (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly @User-gebruiker:, I have read the previous discussion and while it has stopped, it certainly hasn't come to conclusion. What I have noticed however is a total disregard for Wikipedia's rules, particularly in regard to civility and personal attacks. Your regular mentions of "notifying an Admin" as well as other threats like "Last warning otherwise I am obliged to report you" and "it will not be tolerated" are not conducive to productive discussion, and suggests an infringement on WP:OWN. You are one editor among many who should be attempting to seek consensus, rather than making threats and being generally unpleasant.

Now onto the meat of the discussion. A primary source is a witness to an event/phenomenon, given the fact that Ibn Idhari lived in 13th century Morocco and we're talking about a dynasty that was founded in the 8th century, and ended in the 10th century, Ibn Idhari is not a primary source in relation to the Idrisid dynasty.

In the case Al-Tabari (so long as we're referring to Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari), he was a Persian scholar who lived in modern-day Iran, towards the end of the existence of the Idrisid dynasty; living between 839–923AD. As far as I can see he never got as far west as modern-day Morocco, so Al-Tabari is also not a primary source.

So to really hammer home the point: A primary source is not simply someone who vaguely lived around the time in question.

The task for you is to explain why the verifiable and reliable sources listed in the previous discussion do not allow us to cite Zaydiyyah as the religious affiliation of Idrisid dynasty. Alssa1 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@إيان: it seems that User-gebruiker has disappeared. Alssa1 (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Name changes

Once again, D4rkeRR9, please stop unilaterally moving pages without discussion. The term "sultanate" is not automatically applicable to every Moroccan or Muslim state. In fact the term "sultan" wasn't even in wide use yet before the 10th century (see “Sulṭān” entry in Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition). "Idrisid dynasty" or "Idrisids" is used in many sources as a general name for this topic (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, "Idrīsids" in Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bosworth's (2004) "The New Islamic Dynasties", etc). If there is an improvement to be made, discuss it here first and elicit consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok D4rkeRR9 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• Idrisid dynasty → Idrisid Sultanate
• Almoravid dynasty → Almoravid Emirate
• Wattasid dynasty → Wattasid Sultanate

– The pages need to be renamed to the country name instead of the dynasty. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley, R Prazeres, and M.Bitton: pinging the other participants at Talk:Almoravid dynasty. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. My first choice would be to go for the simpler and easily sourced names, i.e., Idrissids, Almoravids and Wattassids.

  Oppose. I have to agree with R Prazeres in that it's best to discuss the page moves individually and take all the time we need to do thing properly. On a side note (in case I forget), having noticed that the undiscussed page move French Protectorate in Morocco → French Protectorate of Morocco was reverted by Srnec. Wouldn't it be better to move it to "French Protectorate over Morocco" (which is attributable and makes more sense since a protectorate is usually proclaimed over a country)? M.Bitton (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: The Moroccan case is interesting, because there was a general French protectorate over Morocco but also a geographically restricted protectorate in Morocco that excluded the Spanish zones. The current title parallels Spanish protectorate in Morocco, and "Spanish protectorate over Morocco" would certainly be wrong. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec: AFAIK both protectorates were established over Morocco, or at least that's how they are described individually in RS, which also use expressions such as "Franco-Spanish Protectorate over Morocco" or "French and Spanish Protectorate over Morocco" when talking about both. Anyway, it's just an idea worth mentioning in case a page move is ever proposed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure if it's possible to approve some of these changes but not all of them? If so, then I wouldn't oppose categorically. Basically, this would be better discussed individually for these pages. I get that it seems simpler but unfortunately the topics relate to different historical periods and circumstances, and in my opinion that matters. It's difficult to do it all here without taking a lot of space, but here's my response to each proposal based on a look at general (reliable) references:

• Idrisid Sultanate: I oppose this proposed name especially. As I mentioned above, the term "sultan" wasn't used by the Idrisids to my knowledge, and both the The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World and Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd edition) explain that the term only began to be used in the late 10th century and in the 11th century, well after the Idrisids (see the entry for "sultan" in both of those sources). And so "sultanate", which means a state led by a sultan, is not historically faithful here. A closer reading of the sources might offer an answer to what title they used and so on (e.g. emir, emirate), but it's not clear so far that there is indeed a clear answer in this way. Some other minor points to keep in mind: what I have read of the Idrisids in Moroccan history suggests that the Idrisid state wasn't a well-defined realm with clear borders (compared to the Almoravids and other states after), and at the same time the Idrisids themselves may have a legacy that stretches beyond their period of rule (I believe their claimed descendants sometimes showed up in some political events later on) which might be worth discussing in a more developed version of this article. So "Idrisid dynasty" or "Idrisids" might still be most appropriate in the end. And as M.Bitton notes, this title is also simpler and avoids theoretical discussions about the definition of the state. And as I noted in Talk:Almoravid dynasty, that kind of name is compatible with names of similar articles about historical periods of other countries. R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Almoravid Emirate: This might be sufficiently appropriate as the Brill Encyclopedia of Islam and Abun-Nasr's "A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic period" (p.83) both recount that Yusuf Ibn Tashfin established himself with the title amir al-muslimin to indicate a formally subordinate relation to the Abbasid caliphs, and I guess because of this the former source at least (and maybe others) uses the term "amir" to refer to the Almoravid rulers. So "emirate" is probably reasonable. As I've mentioned on that page too, the term "empire" is also used by several sources and seems an equally reasonable label considering that it unified under one rule distant territories across two continents. Some people might think of "emirate" as having the connotation of a smaller realm (because "amir/emir" typically has a lesser status in many contexts, often translated as "prince"; again see entries on "amir" in encyclopedias mentioned above).
• Wattasid Sultanate: The Wattasids took over the reduced realm of the Marinids sultans and, again for example, Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam and Abun-Nasr (in "A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic period") refer to them as sultans. So "Wattasid Sultanate" looks reasonable to me.

I hope some of that is useful either way. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Have to agree with R Prazeres. Quite a good bit of research done there. Nicely done! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it's worth noting that we use the "XX dynasty" format pretty commonly and it doesn't mean that we are referring solely to the ruling family and not the country. As such, it seems like the OP's opinion that the existing naming is problematic, is based on a misunderstanding. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggestions above.

• "Idrisid sultanate" is certainly wrong. You might try "Idrisid caliphate" instead, since caliph is a title they are sometimes referred as. I could also accept "Idrisid imamate", given they are Alids and that was their early title among the Awraba. But definitely not "sultanate". Otherwise leave at "Idrisid dynasty" or "Idrisids".
• "Almoravid emirate" I also object to as awkward and unnatural, not reflective of its constitution nor usage ("emirate" is commonly attached to geographic locations). "Almoravid dynasty" is unfortunate, and I have long intended to propose an RM changing it simply to "Almoravids", as it is the name of a movement, not a family (the family would be Turgutids). I refrained from proposing for reasons to do with a persistent sockpuppet problem these articles have had in the past. But I would put my vote firmly and simply for "Almoravids", period.
• "Wattasid sultanate" I object, albeit less strenuously, because it covers some Wattasid rulers - but not all. Wattasids are a family and did not rule as sultans for the first third of their existence. A large and significant part of the Wattasid 'reign' was as regents (or viziers) for Marinid sultans, and only later became titular sultans themselves. Since the article covers the reign of the family (viziers & sultans), and not merely their period as sultans, I would prefer to retain this one "Wattasid dynasty", even if that is admittedly not ideal. Walrasiad (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons already stated above. Alssa1 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Edit warring

This issue has taken place to one extent or another across multiple pages but it seems especially visible to me here that D4rkeRR9 is beginning to engage in edit-warring. D4rkeRR9 has made the same edits (or broadly the same edits) three times now in the last 1-2 days, always to reinstate the same changes. They have been reverted twice (by myself, then LouisAragon) with instructions to go to the talk page instead. This latest (third) attempt was clearly a revert of everything since their second attempt since it also reverted an intervening typo fix in the process. This is not counting other earlier attempts at inserting some of this information which were also reverted as being unsourced and undiscussed, as well as similar problematic edits on other pages. To be clear, the problems with the changes being reinstated against consensus here are:

1. Inserting inaccurate flags next to the predecessor/successor states, including the supposed flag of the Taifa of Cordoba (here) as the flag of the Caliphate of Cordoba and (bizarrely) the flag of the Darfur Liberation Front (here) as the flag of the Barghawata Confederacy.
2. Inserting the Abbasid Caliphate as predecessor state. I can see how some might assume that the Abbasids would have had nominal authority here, but Abun-Nasr's frequently cited book ("A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic period", ) clearly states that Abbasid authority did not extend this far. On page 41 there: "Outside this area [Tunisia and eastern Algeria] the Berber tribes, especially those adhering either to the Sufrite or the Ibadite Kharijite doctrine, were no more prepared to submit to the 'Abbasid than to the Umayyad caliphs. The mountainous territory of the Zab in eastern Algeria constituted the western limit of the area held by the Abbasid 'governors." Another reasonably well-cited book on the history of Morocco by Daniel Rivet ("Histoire du Maroc", 2012) also make no mention of Abbasid control and as far as I'm aware I've never seen any other sources contradicting this as well.

All this to say that I'm not sure what to do anymore and I have little experience dealing with consistent disruptive editors, so I'm wondering whether other editors have suggestions, or whether we just have to monitor these pages and endlessly revert these kinds of edits. R Prazeres (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the newest attempt to now add Umayyad Caliphate as predecessor, leaving aside the fact that it had been defunct for close to 40 years by the time of Idris I's arrival, the same source as above (Abun-Nasr) indicates (p. 33): "At no moment in the history of the wilaya were its amirs able to impose caliphial authority over the whole of the Maghrib. This was especially true in the case of Morocco. In spite of Ibn al-Nu'man's military operations in it in the first decade of the eight century, Morocco remained an unsubjugated territory where Arab administrative control was minimal and which was raided above all for the purpose of capturing slaves." I think it's fair to argue that proceeding and succeeding states should be limited to clear cases which won't mislead readers about the facts and the chronology of events. Obsessively trying to establish an idealized continuity between one empire to the next in early Moroccan history is misleading and ignores what actual historians say about the political situation of the country during this period. Likewise, adding too many preceding and succeeding states is a bad idea; as per MOS:INFOBOX, the purpose of the infobox is: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the preceding/succeeding parameters

I've revised the history section of the page to make sure it's sourced with at least some reliable references. So now seems a good time to review this issue following the recent editing dispute. To repeat, as per MOS:INFOBOX the purpose of the infobox is: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." So I've revised the "preceded" and "succeeded" parameters to reflect the information in the main article. Here's how:

• Preceded: As per the sources in the main text (and my comments above) the authority of the Umayyads did not extend in practical terms to Morocco much to begin with, and especially not after the Berber revolts in 740. Likewise, the Abbasids never controlled the region. As for the Barghwata, their realm existed in another part of the country that was never taken over by the Idrisids, and continued to exist after the Idrisids, so listing it as a predecessor seems incorrect. The same is true of others like the Midrarids and the Kingdom of Nekor, none of which were superseded by the Idrisids. Reading what historians have to say, it's clear that the area the Idrisids occupied in Morocco was controlled by various other Berber tribes and confederacies, but since there's no page corresponding to this period exactly, I propose that we simply put Berber revolt for "preceded by", since this is the last relevant historical event or period before the Idrisids (for which there is an article). This also has the convenience of following the structure and order of topics in the History of Morocco page and the "History of Morocco" template (below the infobox here), thus keeping some consistency across pages and formats. From a quick look at similar infoboxes on other pages, it seems that best practice is to list the page(s) that most naturally cover the relevant historical stage preceding the current one. That said, this is my interpretation of what seems reasonable, so if this is controversial then I'd suggest trying to reach a consensus here.
• Succeeded: For the successors, things are a bit clearer, as per the main text: the Zenata tribes dominated most of Morocco either as proxies of the Umayyads and Fatimids or, afterwards, independently of any outside power. The Umayyads also ruled northern Morocco more directly for a time and displaced the remaining Idrisids in the late 10th century. So Zenata kingdoms (which is vague but used on the Almoravid page too) and Caliphate of Cordoba are both appropriate as successors; the Fatimids could arguably be added but it's not clear that they ruled directly without the Zenata, so I leave that to debate.

I've made the changes but editors can use this section to discuss. R Prazeres (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)