Talk:Almohad Caliphate

The "start date" provided in the infobox until now is 1121, but this is not entirely sound, since the first caliph (Abd al-Mu'min) was only came to power in 1130(–1133) (see , , etc). The beginnings of the Almohad movement and some of its governing bodies were established before that of course, but in 1121 they were still little more than a band of followers with no significant political control in the region, and not even established at Tinmal yet. More simply: many reliable sources summarizing the period count 1130 as the start date, e.g.: , , , , and others. Ultimately, start dates for a progressively expanding state are often a little arbitrary, so an alternative might also be something like "1120s", "1130s". But to me, the sources above make "c. 1130" good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. R Prazeres (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the Caliphate wasn't established until the conquest of Marrakesh (1147). M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any references say that exactly. The conquest of Marrakesh consolidated Almohad control in the Maghreb and ended the Almoravid dynasty, but Abd al-Mu'min was recognized as caliph since 1133 at least and by the mid-1140s he was in control of most of the surrounding region. (Apologies for any repetition with my reply at Talk:Fatimid Caliphate.) Again though, what convinces me is mainly what reliable references have chosen as the start date for summarizing purposes; I didn't make a systematic survey of everything, but looked at many of the usual sources. R Prazeres (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are RS^[1][2][3] mentioning that Abd al-Mu'min proclaimed himself Caliph in 1147. M.Bitton (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. There are others stating it as 1132/1133, like Bennison (, see also p.70), Buresi (Fierro ed., ), & Laraoui (). Others don't state the year explicitly but appear to describe it as something following the death of Ibn Tumart rather than the conquest of Marrakesh: , , . I'll try to look at more but I'm limited at the moment by time and access to some sources. Still, this is arguably a detail that doesn't need to necessarily determine the "start date" in the infobox. R Prazeres (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Also in EI3, Viguera Molins, "Almohads", behind a paywall but quoting here: "[...] 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." R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

With more reading, I think the divergence here may be due to "caliph" being used in two different senses. One is in terms of khalifa, the successor to Ibn Tumart, and another is in terms of amir al-Mu'minin, Commander of the Faithful. E.g. Abun-Nasr (1987, p. 94) notes in general discussion of the state:

Abdul-Mu'min himself was called the khalifa (caliph). Although in the context of the Almohad state this meant that he was Ibn Tumart's successor, to whom the Almohads referred as the imam, Abdul Mu'min also assumed the proper caliphial title of amir al-mu'minin. He was the first non-Arab to be so called.

And so regarding 1147, Maribel Fierro 2021 says (these are two quotes that should be on pages 42 and 74, respectively):

Marrakesh was taken in 1147. (...) At this time, or perhaps earlier, ‘Abd al-Mu’min began to use the title of caliph.

(...) Abd al-Mu’min seems to have started using the caliphal title of amir al-mu’minin after the conquest of Marrakesh. In an 1147 letter addressed to the talaba, the Almohads and the people of Meknes, ‘Abd al-Mu’min refers to himself as amir al-mu’minin ayyadahu Allah bi-nasrihi wa-amaddahu bi-ma‘unatihi (Prince of the Believers, may God help him with His victory and provide him with His help), a formula that became standard in subsequent letters.

But for the overall start date in the infobox, personally I think the most helpful one is again 1130, per the examples in my first comment above (, , , , ). There are examples of the other dates being used in summaries too (e.g. , ). But marking it as 1147, based on an estimate of when he started using one caliphal title in addition to another, is more likely to cause confusion to readers than any of the other suggested dates, as the years of Abd al-Mu'min's reign are always counted as 1130/1133 to 1163 and a lot of Almohad history happens before 1147, including the start of their intervention in al-Andalus, the conquest of other major cities, etc. 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What about Julien ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Haha, yet another slightly different claim, thanks for finding that. I guess what this means is that there is reasonable uncertainty about when that title was used. Fierro (quoted above) also implies it's not a sure thing in her wording. R Prazeres (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly looks that way (I can't think of any other reason that would explain the divergence). Maribel Fierro also seems to be the only one to offer some evidence of when "amir al-Mu'minin" was first used, something worth looking into. At this stage, I don't know which is more helpful in the infobox, though I think we can all agree that 1121 (currently in the infobox) is incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this date corresponds to the date of his proclamation as the Mahdi, even before establishing his base in Tinmel, per the Fatimid caliphate, i suggest we remove Tinmel as first capital of the Almohad Caliphate and put Marrakesh instead. Just like the start date of the Fatimid caliphate corresponds to their conquest of the Aghlabid capital (as it neither corresponds to the establishment of Ikjan as a base for the Fatimid ismaili movement nor the Mahdi Abd Allah’s reveal and coronation)

according to RS Abd Al-Mu'min was proclaimed caliph of Ibn tumart as leader of the Almohad movement, which was succesful under his leadership in overthrowing the Almoravids.

The Almohad movement ended when the Almohad caliphate started. That is to say when Marrakesh was conquered and made capital for the new state. So i agree with Bitton that the start date should be 1147. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. The Mu'minid dynasty, the Almohad caliphs, came to power in 1130-33. That should be plenty enough for a general start date. Debating what exact titles were used at what time is just getting into the weeds. There isn't a more "official" foundation date to determine here without getting into WP:SYNTH territory. We should merely be following the most common date range used in reliable sources, and 1130-1269 seems to be it, from what I've seen so far.

Likewise, there's no reason to remove Tinmel from the infobox when it was the capital of Abd al-Mu'min, the first caliph, for many years. We should not remove information that isn't inaccurate or confusing. (Unlike Ikjan, where the confusion comes from the fact that no Fatimid caliph ever reigned there; and even that could be mitigated with some kind of note.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Prazeres, in that case then I think I’ll just go with changing the current start date in the infobox. 1130-1133 seems reasonable for me if he was indeed proclaimed as "prince of the faithful" as both Julien and Kaddache mention. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Kaddache p 258, Abd Al Mu'min took the title of Caliph in 1133, 3 years after the death of the Mahdi ( which was kept in secret) Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So how would everyone feel if I changed the start date to "c. 1130" or "c. 1133"? (Suggesting the "circa" because the occultation period after Ibn Tumart's death makes the exact date a little complicated in context, while the details are explained in the article; but I'm fine if people want to leave out the "c.") R Prazeres (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

PS: We can still mention what Fierro says in the body of the article. R Prazeres (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

c 1133 for me because RS agree that the Mahdi’s death was kept secret until the council of 10 then the council of 50 agreed that Abd Al-Mu’min would be proclaimed caliph of ibn Tumart and prince of the faithful. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

describes the flag of Marrakesh? The claim that the red flag was the flag of the city of Marrakesh is a weak claim, and I would go as far as calling it wrong. The claim is based on two factors, one being the flag of maruecos and the other of Fez, which might lead one to think it's the flags of the two cities, however, this assumption is incorrect. According to my personal research, I have found three reasons why it's not the city's flag: The first reason is that the title of the book itself, "Libro del Conosçimiento de todos los regnos" (Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms or Book of All Kingdoms), is self-explanatory. The second reason is that Don Rodrigo, the last Visigothic King, in the 11th-century book "Portraits of Kings", refers to Tariq as "rio de miramomilin rey de maruecos", meaning "prince of the faithful king of Morocco". Although Tariq had never held those titles, they referred to Morocco as "Maruecos", not the city of Marrakesh, since it's well known that Tariq was in Tangier. The third reason is Fernan Gonzales' poems, Yes right, thee fernan gonzales who was a military leader and died in 970, He mentioned the name "Maruecos" in some of his poems, referring to Morocco specifically, this was even before the city's foundation in 1061. Ps: I'm not arguing about whether the flag was used or not; I'm simply clarifying that the name "Maruecos" wasn't a reference to the city but rather to the kingdom, specifically during the civil war period when Almohad Sultan Abu Dabbous reigned in Marrakesh and its surroundings, staying as the legitimate Sultan of Morocco, while Ya'aqoub al-Marini ruled in Fez and had all of northern Morocco under his kingdom. He would soon conquer Marrakech to unseat him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.38.8.5 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. None of the above is useful. R Prazeres (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake yet it doesn't delete the fact that the name ( maruecos) existed before Marrakesh was founded, that is a fact proven and not a research built on linked sources so I hope you consider it because it clearly conflicts with what's written 102.38.8.5 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions "Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohad movement from a Masmuda aristocracy to a Mu'minid dynastic state." which is untrue.

According to "Almoravid and Almohad Empires, Amira K. Bennison · 2016": ""The support of the Masmuda tribes was crucial to the success of the Almohad movement... The almohad shaykhs, remained the most important political chiefs and military commanders in the empire for a century or more, despite the incorporation of other military elemnts into the Almohad army" "the Almohad movement had a distinct and revolutionary berber agenda that identified the Masmuda as the new chosen people.

From "The Cambridge History of Africa Tomo 3 1975": "This empire had been the creaton of the Masmuda tribes, who remained the conquering aristocracy, and sought to retain exclusive priviledges." "Leaders of the Masmuda Almohads held important positions in the army and as provincial governors".

So we can see that even if zenata koumiya and arabs tribes were added to the army of the empire, the goverment of it remained Masmuda. Examples of this would be Ifriqiya, which was authonomous from the central power in Marrakech, and governed by the Masmuda Hafsids. The viziers and the council of the caliph were mostly Masmuda aswell, Masmuda had priviledges in taxation, education, governance, held important positions, and their language was encorauged in political and religious matters. When the caliph Al Ma'mun insulted Ibn tumart, the Masmuda sheiks killed him and replaced him with their brothers.

Almohads are the empire of the Masmuda, with almohadism as their doctrine, which was also centred around Masmuda. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What you're doing is called WP:CHERRYPICKING. The sources that you cited say a lot more than that and neither of them contradicts the sourced content that you removed. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It does clash directly with my source form the University of Cambridge. The article says "Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohad movement from a Masmuda aristocracy to a Mu'minid dynastic state." Which is just untrue, the Masmuda were kept as the aristocracy of the empire.

Instead of just deleting my article try to explain why a source from a prestigious university like Cambridge should not be taken in account. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't delete sourced content that you don't agree with or simply don't understand. Describing it as untrue doesn't mean that it is. Now. if you're suggesting that the Caliph and founder of the empire, as well as his children (the sayyinds), were less important than some cheikhs, then, there isn't a lot I can say to convince you otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Caliph Al Ma'moun was assasinated by the cheiks and replaced with his brother, so yes, they did have the power to decide over the caliph, they are not "some cheiks" like you and this article are trying to make it look. You are clearly biased since you are denying sources from a high prestige university which is way more reliable that just some random books. Yes it is "untrue" if you do not like it you can complain to Cambridge, I come here with reliable sources then the changes must be done. You are not giving any argumentation against the changes im trying to make, just deleting the changes because you feel like it. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

they did have the power to decide over the caliph this is too ridiculous to entertain.

If you took the time to read the article, you would have come across this simple fact: "To appease the traditional Masmuda elites, he appointed some of them, along with theirs sons and descendants, to act as important advisers, deputies, and commanders under the sayyids".

You are clearly biased I think we're done here. I will wait for others to weigh in. M.Bitton (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

How it is ridicolous? I just gave you an example of how a caliph was assasinating by the Masmuda just for disrespecting Almohadism. Masmuda had the religious and administrative monopoly, the whole empire revolved around Almohadism which only Masmuda were allowed to discuss about. I am giving four reliable sources that claim Masmuda as aristocrats even after the inclusion of different ethnicities into the Almohad army. This article tries to make it like if there was a conflict between Abd al Mumin and the Masmuda, when there wasn't. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way I was told that you M.Bitton has been here deleting edits since 2014, seems like you are monopolizing this article. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You should stop edit warring. The content you're deleting is backed by two reliable sources. Masmuda support and tribal influence doesn't change the fact that Abd al-Mu'min established a dynasty. The personal attacks are also unhelpful. Skitash (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are Cherry picking, I am adding high prestige sourced information and you are deleting it. By the way the phrase "Abd Al Mumin transformed the Almohad movement from a masmuda aristocracy a muminid dynasty" is not present in any of the sources given. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The Masmuda remained an important sort of aristocracy, but unlike the movement which they effectively led under Ibn Tumart, they no longer had power, which was the prerogative of Abd Al Mu'min and his dynasty, strongly supported by his own Kumiya tribe and the Hillalians, as the article clearly showcases. So per RS, Abd Al-Mu'min did in fact took power from the Musmuda aristocracy for his own and his successors after him.

@Skitash @M.Bitton This new account's hostile attitude, use of personnal attacks and especially his emphasis on "Cambridge" reminds me of a recently banned sock on the Almoravid TP. This looks like sockpuppetry. Can you please check this out ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are now accusing me of things I have never done, this is my first and only account. I have never made any changes in any Almoravid article. I did not made any personal account, I just pointed out that it seems like you have monopolized this article, since you have been reverting changes for a long time. And you do not want to accept my changes even tho I gave 4 different sources that backs my edits. I put enphasis on Cambridge because it is a prestigious university, nothing more.

You also claim that the Masmuda no longer had power, which again, I have sources that says the opposite, the changes I made are literally direct quotes from the books that I used as a source, im using objective information and being honest. The last edit I made I did not even delete anything from what was already written except a slight change in the previous parragraph which I was not been able to find in the given sources. The rest of changes that I made are sourced information that I added.

So im not deleting any information, I am just adding new information, with four different sources, but you still reverting my changes just because you feel like it. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Carlos Hernández Cabrera Any additions on this matter remains subject to a consensus, which you still haven't reached. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: I don't know whose sock they are, but their "I was told that..." statement speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Again deleting my edits even though everything is sourced, this article has been completely monopolized by @Nourerrahmane, @M.Bitton and @Skitash Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

well you have to prove the source and then they cant deny that or just ask for the intervention of the admin Iblah.17 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton @Nourerrahmane @Skitash I opened a dispute resolution so we can sort things out. Please check: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Almohad Caliphate Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

If you took your time to read Benninson, you would have known that Almohad legitimacy rested on loyalty to the Mahdi rather than on "tribal ʿasabiyya", embodying a universalist Muʾminid state that transcended Berber kinship ties. (p130) This project was often resented by the Masmūda tribes who had formed its original base, leading eventually to regional fragmentation and the rise of the breakaway Ḥafṣid state in Ifrīqiya.

Your pov (bolstered by the fact that you keep removing a well sourced part "Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohads from an aristocratic Masmuda movement to a dynastic Mu'minid state" which Prazeres warned you not to remove. You seem poised to mislead readers by pushing a Masmuda oligarchy state narrative rather than their resentment to a foreign dynasty and it's Berber/Arab allies that chipped power away from them. This friction in the Almohad elite painted the almohad decline episode pretty well later on.

Edit warring won't help your cause, get a consensus instead. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The sources you give are not even avaible, how I am supposed to see them? I eliminate that sentence because the sources you give are not accessible and because I have 4 reliable sources saying the opposite, from universities and well known books, many of them who were used by yourself, you can not cherrypick from a source whatever pushes your nationalist agenda.

The Almohads were ruled by the founding Masmuda tribes, the councils of ten, fifthy, and seventy, this structure was mantained by Abd lMumin even after the death of Ibn Tumart, contemporary sources refer to the almohads as "Dawla al masmuda" (The goverment of the Masmuda). No contemporary source refers to it as an "Muminid state". The masmuda were kept as the most important tribes in the empire besides the incorporation of the Koumiya and Arabs in the army, this is said by my sources.

You speak about the Hafsid independence when this happened almost a century after Abd lMumin. Completely two different times you are mixing up here. The Hafsid state is also a good example of the influence of the masmuda over the empire, which was ruled by the Hafsid Hintata dynasty with a high degree of authonomy.

Also I see curious how you delete my content for being "repetitive" but you allow some arab to give an entire parragraph about Arobiya when this article is about the Almohads, not about Arobiya nor about the arabisation of Morocco.

I do not mislead readers, all my changes are backed up by several reliable sources, while you are trying to push an algerian nationalist propaganda, you have monopolized the article and you revert all the changes that do not fit your propaganda. Is you who is edit warring by deleting sourced content. @R Prazeres never said anything to me. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to reach a consensus, this is why I opened the dispute with you, im waiting for you all to fill it. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Carlos has a point , Masmuda were the aristocracy of the empire since the founding and until the death of the state , for example the army leaders were all of hintati lineage , Abdullah ibn Wanudin who led the defence against the Marinids was from Hintata , a Masmoudi clan , the Almohads in the conquest of Maghrib al Awsat were led by Abu Hafs al Hintati , Ibn Zaggu al Genfissi , and Al Mui'z Yizlassen , there was no Koumya generals then , after the conquest of Maghrib al awsat , Koumya still never providede any generals or high ranking statesmen for the empire , for example in Oued chennil near granada the battle was led by Abu Yaaqub al Tinmallali , another Masmudi general , he led the tribes of Arghen , Hintata , Genfissa , Gedmioua , Tinmel , and al Qaba'il which were cited as other Masmouda tribes , again no mention of Koumia , in the battle of Talaveira Ibn Wanudin Abu Muhammad won a decisive battle against the Castilian forces all of these events are found in the historical books of Al baydhaq , Al Murrakushi , Abu udhari , Nudum al Jumman and more which are contemporary sources of the Almohad history Adam delafontaine (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 This new user account was created less than an hour ago. Now it's pretty clear I guess. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane, article talk pages are for improving articles, so focus on content. User talk pages are more for conduct. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, or even a proposed sockmaster, is inappropriate. Kowal2701 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash Stop deleting sourced content. Participate in the dispute resolution if you want to reach a consensus Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Almohad Caliphate Carlos Hernández Cabrera Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Carlos Hernández Cabrera, the onus is on you to achieve consensus for your desired changes, follow WP:BRD. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we replace the text with Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohad movement from an aristocracy into a dynastic monarchy. The current sentence seems a bit too simplistic, and we already say his accession alienated the Masmuda. But I do agree with those above that the sources in the OP don't really contradict the sentence.

• Julien 1970 pages 108-9 says

  The original formula set out by Ibn Tumart, that sort of federative and aristocratic republic which appeared to be acceptable to the Berbers, gave way to a family monarchy for which those same Berbers had a strong distaste. Our only clue to the alterations made by ‘Abd al-Mumin in the Mahdi’s system is to be found in the anonymous chronicle al-Hulal almazvshiyya,^^ which relates to the class of hafidh.

• Arjomand 2022 I can't see the full sentence, but I don't see mention of the Masmuda.

That being said, Carlos Hernández Cabrera, WP:Assume good faith is policy, you need to collaborate with people. At the moment you're not far from walking into an WP:ANI report. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Below I will cite each source on which my claim is based.

• "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, and during the whole of the Almohad period, and afterwards in the Hafsid state, the name 'Almohad' (al-Muwwahi-dun) was used to refer specifically to them. The Almohads were the only group entitled to discuss and elaborate Ibn Tumart's doctrine, to the extent that under 'Abdul-Mu'min the religious scholars (talaba) were divided into two classes, Almohads and town scholars. As the Almohads were also given preferential treatment in taxation, they became a distinct and exclusive class of conquerors.

• "Abdul-Mu'min retained the council of fifty in which the founding tribes were represented, and it remained a constant feature of Almohad government to the end. In this way the heads of the founding tribes continued to have a recognized position in the administration of the empire."

https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&hl=es&id=jdlKbZ46YYkC&q=masmuda+aristocracy#v=snippet&q=masmuda%20aristocracy&f=false Page 94.

• Nonetheless, the support of the Masmuda tribes was crucial to the success of the Almohad movement: they protected Ibn Tumart as a fellow Masmuda tribesman before accepting him as a religious leader, and their tribal chiefs, the Almohad shaykhs, remained the most important political chiefs and military commanders in the empire for a century or more, despite the incorporation of other military elements into the Almohad army, most notably Arab tribes from further east.

https://www.google.es/books/edition/Almoravid_and_Almohad_Empires/19JVDwAAQBAJ?hl=es&gbpv=1&dq=masmuda+almohads&pg=PA130&printsec=frontcover Page 130.

• Almohad empire. This empire had been the creation of the Masmuda tribes, who remained the conquering aristocracy, and sought to retain exclusive privileges. They even restricted the diffusion of the Almohad doctrine, which served as a lever for their fiscal policy. The non-Almohad Muslims were regarded as infidels, and therefore lost rights over their lands, which became subject to heavy taxation.

https://www.google.es/books/edition/The_Cambridge_History_of_Africa/GWjxR61xAe0C?hl=es&gbpv=1&dq=masmuda+almohads&pg=PA344&printsec=frontcover Page 334.

With this being said, I think my point is fair, and that parraghraph should be changed, since it uses sources that are not even avaible. Also I see unfair that many of the sources I use, have been already used for this article, for some reason, they are allowed to cherrypick whatever they want, and skip the parts of their sources that they dont like.

Under any sircumstance they should be deleting sourced content (with many different academic renowned sources, while they sources are not even avaible to read) without a reason. Its impossible to assume good faith when its more than obvious that they are gatekeeping this article for themselves, and refusing to reach an agreement, only reverting changes without a proper explanation.

I am just trying to add useful information to this article, but they reverted my change labeling as "repetitive", for some reason tho, I dont see them complain about the parragraph who is speaking about the Arobiya, when this article is not about them (its ok to give them a brief mention but is not the right place to go into detail about that topic), also I see that this whole article is too centred about Abd lmumin, but ignores other important almohad figures such as Abu Hafs al Hintati, or the members of the council of ten.

If they are willing to resolve the issue I invite them to fill the dispute resolution that I have created, otherwise stop deleting sourced content to fit up your biased narrative: @Nourerrahmane @Skitash @M.Bitton Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's just an endless loop you're sucking us into. Simply because you're so obsessed with a tribe which, although held important positions (You could have saved yourself the misery of writing an article long paragraph just to stress this point), remained a subject to the dynasty, well supported by its Arab/Berber allies, who proved crucial to counter the political ambitions of the Masmuda. That's why you avoid comparing the position of the Masmuda to other elites in the broad Almohad government. Crushing the Mahdi's brothers revolt is one example, bringing 40K Kumiya berbers as a second exemple, using Arab support to legitimise a succession is a third example, Masmuda resentment of the Sayyids (which formed mostly from mu'minids holding key power and provinces within the Empire is a fourth exemple, Heavily endoctrinating the descendents of the Masmuda as huffaz and Talaba and administrators to make sure they remain loyal is a fifth exemple...

Aside from your cherry picked focus on the Masmuda, here is what Abun Nasr says (p118):

"Although 'Abdul-Mu'min, another of Tumart's close companions, became his successor and founded the ruling dynasty of the Almohad state, the Hafsids occupied in the state a position next only to that of "Abdul-Mu'min's family. They therefore had a vested interest in the maintenance of its authority as well as the solidarity of the Masmuda tribes that formed its main support."

A clearer picture of the Almohad regim could be found in (Benninson p131):

"his accession to power and establishment of a dynastic caliphate had important repercussions for the social structure of the Almohad elite. In the first place, 'Abd al-Mu'min further modified the power of purely tribal 'asabiyya in the ruling elite by inculcating an Almohad esprit de corps through the rigorous ideological and physical education of the descendants of the original tribal leaders of the movement to expand the huffāz cadres and the scholarly elite, the talaba, who actively instructed others in the tenets of Almohadism. Although the members of the early Council of Fifty and their descendants, the ahl or ait khamsin, retained their status, references to gatherings of the Almohad tribal councils fade away.

(p132)

"...to find a counter-balance to the powerful Masmuda shaykhs, they (Mu'minids) recruited their Zanata kinsmen, as well as the Arab Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym tribes from Ifriqiya, to the military, creating a much more diverse politico-military elite. An indication of the meteoric rise of the Kumiya was the appointment of 'Abd al-Salam b. Muhammad al-Kumi, 'Abd al-Mu'min's step-brother, as his chief minister in 1158."

You just don't like a well sourced fact : The Almohad Caliphate is a Mu'minid state. It's not a democracy nor an Oligarchy. I'm done here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your sources are very easily proven wrong:

• Nonetheless, the support of the Masmuda tribes was crucial to the success of the Almohad movement: they protected Ibn Tumart as a fellow Masmuda tribesman before accepting him as a religious leader, and their tribal chiefs, the Almohad shaykhs, remained the most important political chiefs and military commanders in the empire for a century or more, despite the incorporation of other military elements into the Almohad army, most notably Arab tribes from further east.

https://www.google.es/books/edition/Almoravid_and_Almohad_Empires/19JVDwAAQBAJ?hl=es&gbpv=1&dq=masmuda+almohads&pg=PA130&printsec=frontcover Page 130.

• "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, and during the whole of the Almohad period, and afterwards in the Hafsid state, the name 'Almohad' (al-Muwwahi-dun) was used to refer specifically to them. The Almohads were the only group entitled to discuss and elaborate Ibn Tumart's doctrine, to the extent that under 'Abdul-Mu'min the religious scholars (talaba) were divided into two classes, Almohads and town scholars. As the Almohads were also given preferential treatment in taxation, they became a distinct and exclusive class of conquerors.

• "Abdul-Mu'min retained the council of fifty in which the founding tribes were represented, and it remained a constant feature of Almohad government to the end. In this way the heads of the founding tribes continued to have a recognized position in the administration of the empire."

https://books.google.es/books?redir_esc=y&hl=es&id=jdlKbZ46YYkC&q=masmuda+aristocracy#v=snippet&q=masmuda%20aristocracy&f=false Page 94.

And these books have been used many times for this article, again you can not cherrypick what it fits your narrative and ignore the rest.

You want to give examples of specific events, no problem.

Abdesslam al Koumi, half brother of Abd lmumin, was arrested an executed by the Masmuda aristocracy after he opressed and stealed from the people of Tlemcen.

https://www.google.es/books/edition/Almoravid_and_Almohad_Empires/19JVDwAAQBAJ?hl=es&gbpv=1&dq=masmuda+almohads&pg=PA130&printsec=frontcover Page 132.

Ibrahim who’s is the brother of Abd lmumin, came to the Caliph Abd lmumin, with tawhid (monotheism), and the Caliph gave him the horses, the slaves, and the tent, and he put him in the position of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr ibn Yiggit al-Hintati from the ⁠council of 10 Then Ibrahim, the Caliph’s brother had a heated argument with ibn Yiggit al-Hintati, and the super chad Muhamed ibn Abu bakr ibn Yiggit al-Hintati killed Ibrahim the brother of Abdelmumen. From that time, the spoils of the death of Abdelmumen’s brother Ibrahim were divided according to the lines, and the Caliph Abdelmumen became angry that his brother got killed and he said, “Ibn Yiggit al-Hintati will be killed.” So Abu Hafs Omar al Hintati from the ⁠council of 10 and Abu Hassan Yuggut ibn Waggag al-Tinmelali from the ⁠council of 50 stood up and said to the caliph, “Didn’t the Mahdi ibn Tumert say that the ⁠council of 10 and their children and their slaves are better than anyone in the world (it means they can’t get touched)?” So the Abdelmumen remained silent. And on that day Abdelmumen ordered the spoils from his brothers death to be divided according to the rules to each tribe

https://archive.org/details/akhbar_almahdi/page/55/mode/1up?view=theater Page 55.

The viziers of the caliph Abd lmumin:

• Omar Aznag al-Tinmelali
• Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Attiya al-Andalusi (executed by the masmuda sheyks)
• Abd es-Selam ibn Mohamed al-koumi (executed by the masmuda sheyks)
• Abu Hafs Omar

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62251820/f188.item Pages 172 and 173.

The vizier of the second almohad caliph Abu Yaqub Yusuf:

• Abou al-Ala Idris ibn Ibrahim ibn Jami al-Hintati

https://books.google.nl/books?id=4Q4sAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=&hl=fr&source=gb_mobile_entity&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Page 211.

The viziers of the third almohad caliph Abu Yusuf Yaqub al Mansour:

• Abu Hafs Omar ibn Abu Zayd al-Hintati,
• Abu Bakr ibn Abdellah ibn Abu Hafs Omar Al-Hintati,
• Abu Abdellah Muhamed ibn Abu Bakr ibn Abu Hafs Omar Al-Hintati,
• Abu Zeyd Abdrahman ibn Musa ibn Yuwugan Al-Hintati

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62251820/f243.item.zoom#visuAccordion Page 227.

The viziers of the fourth almohad caliph Muhamed al-Nasirr:

• Abû Zeyd ibn Yugan Al-Hintati,
• Abu Muhamad ibn shaykh Abu Hafs Omar al-Hintati,
• Abu Abdellah Mohamed ibn Ali ibn Abu imran al-Drir al-Tinmelali,
• Abu Said Othman ibn Abdellah ibn Ibrahim ibn Jami al-Hintati

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k62251820/f284.item.zoom Pages 168 and 170.

And of course you ignore the fact that the whole province of ifriqiya, including Tunisia, eastern Algeria and western Libya. was ruled by the Hafsid dynasty of the Hintata tribe, one of the founding tribes. You mentioned about their declaration of independence, but you do not mention how this is because of caliph Al Mamoun decided to insult Ibn Tumart in the streets of Marrakech, and the masmuda Shayks killed him, and replaced him with his brother.

In summary, they had masmuda aristocracy for most of the empire's lifespan, as many academic renowned sources specify (They even specify that they were still the aristocracy despite the attempts of countering their influence by introducing other ethnicities into the empire), including after the death of Ibn Tumart. An aristocracy that had a monopoly over the religious doctrine, priviledged taxation, and governance. With so much influence that they were able to depose viziers and rulers, no matter if they were family of Abd lmumin, they did even assasinate one of the caliphs (Al mamoun).

You think the almohadism is centered around Abd lmumin and his family, when its not, its centered about the original core of the almohads, the founding masmuda tribes, you are trying to cherrypick to push your bias agenda by oversimplificating something that is not simple. I am not deleting big part of what you have written, I am respecting all the sourced content, I am just adding sourced information, yet you still decide to delete it. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

They are not wrong.

Anyway, how about you spend some of that energy answering this simple question? M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Is funny you talk about spending enegry when you all three spend your whole days checking this page for any update just to revert it. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

They are wrong as I just disproved them, refrain for monopolizing this article. its obvious your nationalistic intentions you dont even bother to hide it. @M.Bitton @Skitash @Nourerrahmane Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I found another source this time from Brittanica: "The empire of the Almohads had kept its original tribal hierarchy as a political and social framework, with the founders and their descendants forming a ruling aristocracy".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Almohads

I will wait one week for you to fill up the dispute resolution, if its not filled I will edit the wrong information that is currently in the article.

@M.Bitton @Skitash @Nourerrahmane Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You can not say that the state does not have a masmuda aristocracy when I gave you plenty of sources that label the almohads, even after the death of abd lmumin, as a state dominated by a masmuda aristocracy. Its contradictory, and a clear sign of bias over the topic. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, infoboxes are by nature simplistic and without much room for nuance, but perhaps we could come to an agreement about how Berber/Lisaan Gharbi could be represented given that it was made mandatory for imams and used in what we might consider a co-official capacity for Friday khutbas. Thoughts? إيان (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Since @M.Bitton did not like my source I took my time to find another one.

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8945591 Page 433

"Ghouirgate (595-604) has shown that Ibn Tūmart and his successors tried to make their Amazigh variety (a mediaeval stage of Tachelhit) the official language of the Almohad Caliphate and that during the first half of the 12th century a governmental bilinguism of Arabic-Amazigh was practiced."

@M.Bitton @Skitash What is your opinon about this one? Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This also fails verification. "Tried" implies that no such policy was enacted. Skitash (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

did not like my source you misrepresented the source and you are now misrepresenting what I said in the edit summary.

This second source doesn't support your assertion (that Berber was the official language of the Caliphate) either. M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I did not mean it in that way Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Carlos Hernández Cabrera about the use of Tachelhit (language of Masmuda) by the Almohads as an official language, To support this further, I'm adding another source of Mehdi Ghouirgate (2014, p. 58), who states explicitly: 'l’État sut donner une traduction institutionnelle au berbère، et plus précisément au berbère des Maṣmūda.'

This confirms the institutional framework given to the Berber language of masmuda.

Furthermore, Talking about "Official Language" for a medieval empire just as a modern state is in itself controversial, and may be an anachronism, especially if the Almohads didn't have an institution mentioning that Arabic is their "official language", they used it sure, but they used also the Berber of Masmuda, a fact well documented by many important primary sources including: The letter of Almohad Caliph Abdel Mumin, Al-Murrakushi, Al-Fasi and Ibn Khaldun.

Relying on an interpretation dating from 1952 (Henri Terasse) while completely ignoring a peer reviewed academic monograph from 2014 (Ghouirgate, L’Ordre almohade (1120-1269) Une nouvelle lecture anthropologique) isn't it a violation of WP:AGE ?

'Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed'

Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for removing your comment, I mistook it for a new discussion about this same subject. Please read the last discussion in this TP, so you may be informed of our consensus and the arguments we have presented there. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

You made two mistakes, The second of them was when you misrepresented my comment, You pretended I said something I didn't ... then used that false premise as a justification to delete my comment (WP:TPO)، This is a clear case of misrepresentation and bad faith editing which undermines your credibility as an editor...

The citation from Ghouirgate (2014) that I provided is distinct from the one provided by @Carlos Hernández Cabrera It adds new institutional details that haven't been talked about before.

Don't forget that "Wikipedia" is a work in progress (Consensus Can Change) and it exists precisely for cases like this one.

Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

First, let's please assume good faith in our discussions and avoid personal accusations when addressing other editors.

Second, you described Arabic's official status in this context as an anachronism, (Which no source supports) yet you accepted (without similar qualification) the attribution of official status to the "Masmuda dialect" even though no reliable source directly links that dialect to modern Tachelhit. Relying on your own interpretation of the sources in that way risks constituting original research (WP:OR), and other editors are not required to agree with.

Third, if there are indeed reliable sources that explicitly describe the Masmuda dialect as having official language status in the relevant historical period, then the appropriate approach would be to reflect that in the article: note that some sources affirm it had such a status, while others (including many specialized works on Berber/Almohad linguistics and administration) explicitly state that it did not. I would be genuinely interested in seeing any such sources that make the positive claim.

Regarding the "official institution" reference you keep returning to (Cherrypicking ?): that phrase, in context, appears to describe a limited, ideological, or ceremonial role rather than a normative/legal status for day-to-day administration or law. Again, per the discussion below. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding WP:OR The connection between the Masmuda dialect and modern Tachelhit is not my interpretation; it is the standard linguistic and historical consensus used by Mehdi Ghouirgate.

'les sources en berbère les plus substantielles relatives à la période médiévale sont liées au tachelḥit, tant du point de vue du lexique que de la morphologie'« Chapitre V. Le choix de la langue ». L’Ordre almohade (1120-1269), Presses universitaires du Midi, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pumi.12051. Van Den Boogert N., « Medieval Berber Orthography », dans Chaker S., Zaborski A., Études berbères et chamito-sémitiques. Mélanges offerts à Karls-G. Prasse, Peeters Press, Louvain-Paris, 2000, p. 370-371.

It is actually your description of Berber's role as 'ceremonial' that constitutes original research, as it is a personal interpretation that seeks to downplay the evidence. Ghouirgate does not use the word 'ceremonial'; he uses the term 'Institutional' (Institutionnalisation) and, as I mentioned, he confirmed (Verbatim) in his interview (IRCAM,2015) that the Language of Masmuda was the 'Official language' of the state'.اللغة الرسمية للدولة (The video of this interview is on Youtube)

Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Mehdi Ghouirgate's source doesn't say that Tachelhit was an official language. As for Henri Terasse, I have yet to encounter a RS that contradicts what he said about the Almohad's Andalusian bureaucracy. M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I see M.Bitton's point. It's a jump to claim that Tashelhit was simply an "official language." I've incorporated Ghouirgate source into the Languages section, though. This is good stuff and I hope to see if well integrated into the article if not as an "official language" at this point. إيان (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton

The claim that Mehdi Ghouirgate does not support the 'official' status of Berber directly contradicts with his own academic lectures.

his presentation at IRCAM (2015), Ghouirgate explicitly said "Berber of Masmuda was an Official Language of the state" which directly confirms my previous citation.

The video is available on Youtube إستعمال الأمازيغية عند الموحدين محور محاضرة بالمعهد الملكي للثقافة الأمازيغية or You can use your browser to fetch:

في إطار الأنشطة العلمية التي ينظمها مركز الدراسات التاريخية والبيئية بالمعهد الملكي للثقافة الأمازيغية، ألقى مهدي اغويرگات، أستاذ محاضر بجامعة بوردو مونتاني- فرنسا، يوم الأربعاء 07 يناير 2015 بالرباط، محاضرة عن استعمال الأمازيغية (اللسان المصمودي) عند الموحدين.

Modern scholarship has moved past Terrasse's 'Andalusian-only' administrative model (of 1952) to recognize the bilingual nature of the Almohad empire, where Berber was the language of the ruling elite, the military, and the state's religious dogma. Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Modern scholarship has moved past Terrasse's 'Andalusian-only' administrative model feel free to source this claim. M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Very good, Since you chose to ignore the core of my previous response especially the academic sources from Ghouirgate (2014) and his IRCAM (2015) interview where he explicitly stated Berber was the "Official Language" and only focused on other detail, I assume you have no further objection to these references.

Regarding your objection to the statement that modern scholarship has moved past Terrasse's (1952) "Andalusian only model", I provide the direct evidence from the specialist on the Almohads:

Il convient de remarquer que dans ce passage d’al‑Ḥulal al‑mawšiyya, une chronique de la seconde moitié du xive siècle attribuée à Ibn Simāk, la langue berbère bénéficie d’une "égalité de statut" avec l’arabe, en jouissant d’un support écrit et comme langue d’expression du sacré. Cette promotion du berbère permettait aux Almohades de se différencier "radicalement" de leurs prédécesseurs almoravides et des fuqahā’Andalous , mais aussi des pouvoirs orientaux.'

— Ghouirgate (2014), L’Ordre almohade, p. 18

Therefore maintaining a 1952 perspective (Terrasse) to suppress 21st century research (Ghouirgate) isn't it a violation of NPOV?

Since the evidence of "equality of status" is now clear and sourced, I don't see any need for further repetitive debate. I'll now focus on integrating this fact into the article to ensure it meet Wikipedia's standards for up to date "NPOV".

Thanks,

Aɣaras iḍlan (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Maya Shatmiller, The Berbers and the Islamic State, p.148 : The Almohad movement which legitimized the Berber language as the other official language , beside Arabic , had also conferred legitimacy on Berberstitions by assimilating them to the councils established by the Prophet.

Berber was indeed an official language of the Almohad Empire, as confirmed by several sources. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

What's you're citing is a passing mention from an explanatory note in a book that's entirely about the Marinids. It's simply noting how Marinid institutions (i.e. Abu Yusuf founding a loyal Berber-speaking Islamic clergy) were "reminiscent" of certain Almohad practices (where it makes that passing claim in the footnote). Skitash (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, removing the Berber reference from the introduction to simply emphasize the "Sunni Muslim" character does not correspond to how the Empire is presented in the sources. For example:

• Britanica: Almohads, Berber confederation that created an Islamic empire in North Africa and Spain (1130–1269), founded on the religious teachings of Ibn Tūmart (died 1130). A Berber state had arisen in Tinmel in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco about 1120, [...]

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The Sunni character is also a WP:UNDUE, as the Almohad doctrine is interpreted as heretical by some Sunni viewpoints (including Maliki Islam, which prevailed under the Marinids and Zianids), as indicated by Ghouirghate . Presenting the Almohads, a dissident caliphate, as Sunni is problematic. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Consistent with similar articles like the Ghaznavids, Timurids, and Khwarazmians, the culture and identity the ruling dynasty practiced is equally if not more important than their origins. It also doesn't really make sense to attribute an ethnic identity to an empire itself (for the same reason the Umayyad Caliphate isn't introduced as an "Arab empire"). I just noted that the ruling dynasty was culturally Arabized, and that they were of Berber origin. As for the Sunni character, I was keeping it consistent with the infobox, but that can be changed too if it's more complicated. Skitash (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with not having emphasis on the ethnic character of the "empire", but this is merely a matter of wording and the Berber aspect of the state/dynasty should clearly be stated at the start. That the Almohads were Berbers and that this is a significant aspect of the topic is not controversial, this is how they are introduced and summarized in almost any reliable source. Even if references rightfully mention some degree of Arabization (which is true of all ruling classes in Islamic North Africa), I think it's undue to try to emphasize this on the same level. A rough summary of the cultural environment is probably due in the lead somewhere, but I see it as a separate point that could be addressed below along with topics like architecture, literature, etc. It's also dubious to characterize them as "Sunni", as they clearly rejected orthodox Sunnism. Much of this is already covered in the article below (and at Almohad doctrine), so the lead should not have an emphasis that differs from the article.

If we want to reword the opening sentence, it could be something along the lines of: "The Almohad Caliphate [...] was a North African empire ruled by a Berber Muslim dynasty from in the 12th and 13th centuries." R Prazeres (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the Berber origin of the Almohad rulers is central; there's no question in that. The Almohad caliphs were Berbers, but that said, don't you think it would be cleaner and less confusing to handle the detailed dynasty stuff in the second paragraph? As the second paragraph covers, the "Almohad dynasty" in question (from Abd al-Mu'min onward) is the Mu'minid dynasty, which excludes the first leader, Ibn Tumart. Among the reasons why I added "culturally Arabized" is the fact that they went as far as giving themselves an Arab genealogy to conceal their Berber origins, meaning they did not openly identify with their origins in the way the current lede (which only stresses "Berber") might suggest. Skitash (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Since ethnicity here has to do with the ruling elite then it's safe to say that these dynasties were essencially Berber. The empire has to do with regions rather than ethnicities because although the ruling elite belongs to an ethnic group, the empire is centered in the Maghreb. Arabic has more to do with culture and is closely associated with Islam as a civilization. Berber dynasties tend to get arabized because they upheld an Islamic rule and promoted Islamic ideals, and Arabic tends to be the embodiment of that (This was constant habit since the Zirids). Yet the Empire is Maghrebi, with its Berber ruling elite and Arab Muslim culture. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to stick to how the subject is presented in secondary (or tertiary) sources. The Berber character of the Empire (which is broader than its ruling class) is quite fundamental.

There are multiple occurrences of "Berber Empire" for both the Almoravids and the Almohads in the works of authors specializing in the period, such as Mehdi Ghouirgate , , and Maribel Fierro .

This doesn't just concern the dynasty, but the entire Empire, which, as Maribel Fierro asserts, was only very slightly Arabized.

Even the religious language and rituals are not culturally Arab, as Mehdi Ghouirgate demonstrates in his article ; Le berbère au Moyen Âge : Une culture linguistique en cours de reconstitution, there is a real break with the East (quite unprecedented, moreover, in the history of Islamic states, regardless of their ethnicities).

• Le nouveau pouvoir almohade créa son propre pèlerinage dans le Haut Atlas occidental, [...]. Par ce dispositif, le califat berbère ambitionnait de s’autoréférencer sans avoir à reconnaître de prééminence à aucun autre pouvoir et surtout pas aux différentes dynasties orientales qui dominaient les lieux saints de l’islam, ce qui permettait à ces Berbères d’origine de prétendre au califat.
• De même, sur ordre des autorités almohades, l’appel à la prière se fit en berbère à partir d’un précepte attribué à Ibn Tumart
• Clef de voûte de l’édifice almohade, cette sacralisation de la langue berbère doit s’entendre à plusieurs niveaux. Elle résulte de la volonté d’imposer et de pérenniser un État dans des contrées où prédominait un modèle de société relativement acéphale et où l’immense majorité de la population ne pratiquait qu’une des langues berbères.
• En définitive, depuis les temps de la conquête, les Maghrébins hésitent entre une expérience référencée culturellement et idéologiquement à l’Orient, avec son corollaire linguistique, la suprématie sans partage de l’arabe comme dans le cas des Aghlabides et des Fatimides, et une expérience autonomiste auto-référencée, comme chez les Barg˙awa¯ta ou les Almohades, que caractérise la promotion du berbère au rang de langue du sacré.

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Maghrebi states were fondamentally Arab-Muslim culturally. Berber languages were tied to the ruling clique or more broadly the musamuda component (which was a very isolated tribal confederation prior to the Almohad era). And even if the majority of the population spoke Berber languages. The official language remained Arabic. To quote Historian Amira Benninson (the Almoravid and the Almohads empires, p131) :

“From a social logistic perspective this was a revolutionary experiment which inserted Berber into urban religious life as never before, but, like so much of the Almohad religious programme, this innovation did not endure and the Berber languages remained relegated to the rural and domestic domains rather than gaining parity with Arabic as a religious and public idiom.”

It’s like saying Carthage is not a Punic state because most of its population (or even oligarchy) was Libo-Sicilian. Ancestry is irrelevant regarding the cultural identity of a state, let alone a Muslim empire.

The Berber elite claiming Arab ancestry has more to do with adopting official Arab culture that unifies different political and social segments of the empire rather than neglecting their own Berber roots.

This is a key point in understanding medieval (or even ancient) Maghrebi political identity. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

1) The reasoning that involves a Wikipedian assessing the degree of cultural Arabization to determine whether they should innovate and include an original presentation and synthesis in the introduction (WP:OR) is not encyclopedic.

It's quite fitting to quote Amira Bennisson because, according to her presentation of the topic, she says: p. 18 The Almohads emerged from the High Atlas mountains during the 1130s, and by the time they conquered Marrakesh in 1147 they controlled most of the Almoravids’ erstwhile territories in the Maghrib and had begun to consolidate their control of al-Andalus too. They then went on to conquer the rest of the Maghrib as far east as modern Tunisia, creating the largest Berber empire to have ever existed.. She doesn't refer to an Arab-Sunni, Sunni, or Berber-Arabized empire. She even confirms p.20: This volume starts from three premises: the first is that these empires of the Maghrib deserve to be ranked with the Islamic empires of the Mashriq as major contributors to the story of Islamic civilization, and the Berbers placed with the Arabs, Persians and Turks as a major Islamic people. My second premise is that the Almoravids and Almohads were quite different from each other and thus need to be contrasted as well as considered together as Berber empires.

2) Regarding the place of Berber under the Almohads, Ghouirgate tells us more about situations of bilingualism where Berber took precedence over Arabic: C’est en vertu de ce statut que les discours énoncés en « langue occidentale » avaient préséance sur ceux qui l’étaient en arabe, y compris au palais almohade de Séville au cours des réceptions officielles comme celle du 21 ša’bān 668 (7 avril 1173), telle qu’elle est décrite par Ibn Ṣāḥib al‑Ṣalāt

Djibril Tamsir Niane, Joseph Ki-Zerbo in L'Afrique du XIIe au XVIe siècle, p.80 : Par calcul politique, les Marinides, constatant que leurs partisans Zanāta étaient largement minori-taires, firent alliance avec les Arabes auxquels ils étaient déjà fortement assimilés. L'immigration des nomades arabes fut encouragée. De nombreux groupes berbères furent arabisés, et le berbère, qui était la langue des armées almoravide et almohade, fit place à l'arabe devenu langue officielle.. = the Arabic language will only be official under the Marinids (which replaces the sentence you quote from Amira Bennisson about the long period of medieval history and not just the Almohad period. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, My point is not to deny the Berber origin of the dynasties. RS are unanimous that the Almoravid, Almohad, Marinid, and other ruling families were ethnically Berber. What I am emphasizing is the distinction RS themselves make between dynastic ancestry and the cultural-administrative identity of the state.

Historians such as Bennison, Fierro... note that while the ruling elites were Berber, the administrative, legal, theological, and literary culture of these empires was part of the wider Arab-Islamic tradition. Arabic was used in law, governance, diplomacy, and scholarship, and no Berber language is described in RS as having attained an official administrative status. The Almohad use of Berber in particular ceremonial or ideological contexts, as Ghouirgate describes, does not contradict the broader scholarly consensus that Arabic remained the language of state administration and Islamic jurisprudence. Also, describing the empires’ political and religious frameworks as Arab-Islamic does not mean describing the dynasties as ethnically Arab, nor the state as an “Arab empire.” It simply reflects the Islamic legal, linguistic, and cultural norms in the medieval Maghreb. Any change to this would require RS that explicitly frame the states themselves as “Berber-language” or “Berber-identity” polities, which current scholarship does not do. Suggesting to ‘replace’ the RS-based framing with an editor’s interpretation would fall under WP:OR. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a general reminder to keep us on track: this discussion was about the lead wording, not really the deeper specifics of the Almohad period (which we could expand endlessly). The start of the article only needs to concisely introduce the topic in the broadest strokes and let further nuances be explained further below.

In that sense, Patillo is right insofar as most references introduce the Almohads as "Berber" rulers. The notes about Arab-Islamic norms and culture are also correct, but this is both a more nuanced point and one not paticularly specific to the Almohads; most RS don't rush to emphasize this in the same breath. As far as I'm concerned, the lead of this article should continue to follow that example.

For the sake of a bit more precision, I suggested above an alternate wording for the first sentence that avoids trying to characterize the state/empire itself: "The Almohad Caliphate (...) was a North African empire ruled by a Berber Muslim dynasty from in the 12th and 13th centuries." (I do see Skitash's earlier point that the dynasty is explained in the next paragraph, but to me this is just the natural follow-up to a lead section's first paragraph, going into more detail — such as the Masmuda origin, Ibn Tumart, etc — it doesn't negate the current general point of the first paragraph.) If editors don't like my suggestion, that's fine, but the current wording would remain for now until there is a new consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. It's more cautious to point out the dynastic leadership's ethnic background from the start rather than paint ethnicity blatantly on the whole state. This will convery the right picture about these states being dynastic/religious, rather than national or ethnic polities. Also, this would leave the room open for making a clear point about the cultural and political (Civilizational ?) norms of these states, saving us a lot of arguining against modern identitarian absolutist interpretations that keep popping up. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The question is how the Almohad empire is presented in the sources.

The Berber character of the state, and not simply of the dynasty, is a point of consensus among historians, particularly in the way the subject is presented, including in tertiary sources (Britanica). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a good compromise. M.Bitton (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that removing “Berber” from the lead and keeping only “Sunni Muslim” is not consistent with how modern secondary sources present the Almohad Empire.

For example, Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, in his “A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period”, treats the Almohads within a chapter explicitly titled “The Maghrib under Berber dynasties”, where “The Almohads” appear alongside other Berber ruling houses. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted the last edit, which lacks consensus: "The Almohad Caliphate or Almohad Empire was a North African empire ruled by a Berber Muslim dynasty in the 12th and 13th centuries. At its height, it controlled a large part of the Maghreb and the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus)." It also doesn't comply with the principle of verifiability: I have no example of a source that presents the Empire in this way. Therefore, in the absence of consensus and proof that this is not a WP:OR, please do not reintroduce the controversial statement. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

PS : If my objections remain unanswered, I will request an RFC to resolve the matter. I believe I have provided more than sufficient sources to prove that the antebellum version, specifically the mention of "Berber state," is sourced and substantiated. Please refrain from any attempt to force the issue. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about it at all. An empire can't possess an ethnicity, which is why four editors are in favor of the proposed alternate wording. Skitash (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Bennisson : My second premise is that the Almoravids and Almohads were quite different from each other and thus need to be contrasted as well as considered together as Berber empires.. Please avoid WP:OR. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"Berber Empire" is a purely a modern historiographical label. For consistency with other empire articles (none of which use ethnic labels even when historians do), we should avoid using that label. E.g. the Umayyads are extensively called an Arab empire but we don't refer to it as such in the Umayyad Caliphate's lede. Skitash (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your source does not contradict the Berber character, but criticizes the connection made by the narrative to present-day nation-states.

The comparison is not relevant. The Umayyad Caliphate encompassed a multitude of peoples. The Almohad Caliphate was essentially based on a Berber and Berber-speaking territory and population, as Maribel Fierro points out. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the Almohad Caliphate encompassed people of different ethnicities, especially after incorporating Ifriqiya and al-Andalus into its empire, and Arab tribes into its army. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The source makes it clear that labeling medieval powers as "Berber empires" or framing the period as a "Berber era" is a historiographical construct. This oversimplifies things and treats ethnic origin as if it automatically shapes political identity, which is historically inaccurate and false. Furthermore, we both know that the Almohad Caliphate was absolutely not "based on a Berber and Berber-speaking territory and population" as scholarship shows the opposite. This article notes how the Almohads oversaw extensive Arabization, facilitated and encouraged Arab settlement, and officialized and spread the Arabic language. The Almohads didn't even identify with their Berber origins,^[1] and frankly, I'm not even sure why that detail isn't covered in the article. Skitash (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please propose a modification in the Talk before implementing the change (as stated in your last revert) doesn't make any sense given that a compromise was proposed and has been agreed upon by four editors, with a fifth quoting a source that literally substantiates its content. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal? The current version sounds fine to me. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)