This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Berbers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Military history: Biography / African This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force African military history task force Algeria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Morocco High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Help expand the project: edit history watch purge You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mounir Charïbi Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco Stubs : Morocco stubs Other : Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu

There is an inaccuracy in this article. The Founder of the dynasty is NOT abdel Moumen but Ibn Tumart, Abdel Mumin is a khalif, after a number of higher hierarchy khalif to Ibn Tumart died in a Conquest battles. See Almohads page in Wikipedia. Ibn Tumart was the religious and first military leader of the state, he was the first military leader he died during a battle to conquer the Almoravids lands

At the time Abdel-Moumen was born (1094 AD), Tlemcen, Algiers and all of the western Zenata areas were under Almoravid empire (Tlemcen and Algiers were conquered circa 1080-1082)

1. Reference (English):

The history of the Maghrib an interpretive essay by Abdellah Laroui page: 163 https://archive.org/details/TheHistoryOfTheMaghribAnInterpretiveEssay/page/n169/mode/2up

1. Reference (English):

Morocco from empire to independence by C.R Pennell, Page 44

1. Reference (Arabic):

تاريخ دولتي المرابطين والموحدين في الشمال الإفريقي عن المؤرخ علي محمد الصلابي. صفحة 72 Translated: History of the Almoravid and Almohad states in North Africa; by the historian Ali Muhammad Al-Sallabi. page 72

1. Refernce (English):

Almoravid and Almohad Empires By Amira K. Bennison, page 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4just (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources mentions where he was born (in fact, they don't even mention his name). To avoid wasting people's time, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP:OR policy and the talk page guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almoravides are no morrocan Numidianhamza (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almoravids are Moroccans. Almoravid movement departed from Al-waggag school (ribat) near Sous area. The founder is Abdellah Ibn Yassine who is a Moroccan. The Gdala and Lamtuna tribes were only followers of the reform movement. 196.206.111.87 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Mu'min was born in tlemcen when it was a part of Almoravids Caliphate CappuccinoSs (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- John Carter 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Al-Mumin was born to a period during Almoravids. Tlemcen was part of Almoravids by 1080 AD, Tlemcen during 1094 (date of birth) was not part of the Hammadids.

Source: Almoravid and Almohad Empires By Amira K. Bennison, page 40. Publisher ‏ : ‎ Edinburgh University Press; 1st edition (August 1, 2016)

1) Nowhere in the source that you're citing does it say that Abd al-Mu'min was born during the Almoravid period. 2) The Almoravids were not Moroccans (as they invaded present-day Morocco). 3) Not liking or not understanding something doesn't give you the right to remove it or to disrupt the project. M.Bitton (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton What is your problem, I would like to know where you read the history? 109.55.26.211 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem. As for the answer to your question: the reliable sources.

Do you have a Wikipedia account? M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Yes, I have 109.55.26.211 (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is it and why aren't you using it? M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I forgot the password. For me, the important thing is to correct errors in Wikipedia, whatever they may be. I am waiting for you to have one source that says that Abd al-Mu’min was born during the era of the Hammadids. 109.55.26.211 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't believe you. 2) The sources are already cited. 3) One more revert and you'll be reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Did you check the sources? There is no source mentioning that Abd al-Mu'min was born during the reign of the Hammadids, according to the Britannica source, which has been corrected, so it is clear that you have personal biases. 109.55.26.211 (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking and edit warring sum up what you're here for. I'm done wasting my time with you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Yeah, all you know how to do is evade the debate and bring sources. You did the same thing in your previous conversations. If only Wikipedia were not a free encyclopedia, it would be safer than counterfeiters like you. 109.55.26.211 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Abd al-Mu'min was born near the village of Tadjra, in the Tlemcen area, in present-day Algeria,[2] then belonging to the Hammadids."

nedroma and tlemcen were not part of the hammadid kingdom during the year 1094 as shown in this map.

https://preview.ibb.co/b2Jgvd/map_1094.png

edit: here's another source: https://books.google.com/books?id=6XMBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA700&lpg=PA700&dq=almoravides+conquered+tlemcen&source=bl&ots=ivFJvE2P38&sig=ofk-UQuRS3-VMpbJytolQLgKboE&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIwrbysI3bAhWJw6YKHYDND40Q6AEIfDAP#v=onepage&q=almoravides%20conquered%20tlemcen&f=false

--History21st (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britanicca is not a reliable source when it comes to african history.

his birthplace; in the end of the 11th century, was part of the Almoravid empire. and not of this hammadid kingdom which was crushed and pushed near actual Tunisia during earlier battles.

1.(in french)

1079 AD: Les Almoravides fondent Taghrart (Tlemcen)

which means

Almoravides founded the city of Taghrart(Tlemcen)

link: http://www.amazighworld.org/history/history_revised.php?page=4

1082 AD: Les Almoravides prennent Alger en 1082 grâce à Youssef U Tachfin. Ce dernier défait tous les Zénètes de l'ouest du Maghreb. La première grande mosquée sunnite de rite malékite, la Grande Mosquée d'Alger, est alors bâtie par Youssef U Tachfin. Les Almoravides n'ont toutefois jamais fait la guerre aux Zirides ou aux Hammadides, les deux dynasties étant issues des Sanhadja.

link: http://www.amazighworld.org/history/history_revised.php?page=4

which means

that in 1082 AD, the almoravids took the city of Algiers, there's no way he could have been born in the hammadid kingdom. the hammadids were never been able to push back the almoravids after the conquest of algiers.

2.show me any other source than Britanicca that says that Abdelmumin was born in the Hammadid kingdom. I can give you multiple sources and maps that supports my argument. thank you

--History21st (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was born during the Almoravid era, this will not make him an Almoravid, as his origin goes back to his Maghrawi ancestors, whose origin is from the Algerian Aures mountains. 197.207.157.75 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(french source)

Les Almoravides, maîtres du Maroc…

Tlemcen tombe en 1079, Oujda en 1081. Ténès et Oran sont prises l'année suivante par les envahisseurs, qui poussent jusqu'à l'Ouarsenis et la vallée du Chélif, au centre de l'actuelle Algérie. Après la chute de Ceuta, qui appartenait au roitelet musulman de Malaga, les Almoravides sont maîtres en 1084 de tout l'ouest du Maghreb. C'est à ce moment que les princes musulmans d'Espagne se résignent à faire appel aux Voilés venus donner un nouveau souffle à l'islam occidental.

https://www.clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_espagne_sous_la_domination_almoravide_et_almohade.asp

--History21st (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Les almoravides ne sont pas marocain et d’après le britanica et plusieurs autre source il est née dans un territoire algérien hammadide Numidianhamza (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no encyclopedia article on Tagra, and a Google Book search only returns sources saying that Abd al-Mu'min was born there, and that it is near Oran/Tlemcen. Based on the French references, I believe Tadjra is an alternate romanization of this place.

I'm also unclear whether Nedroma (which has been listed as his birthplace in some of the revisions of this page, and is also listed in some sources) is supposed to be the same location, or is the closest modern city to the location. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why it's writing village of Tagra because it's just hills, secondly why it's writing Nedrome was under Hammadid Kingdom because that's information is false. We can't write bullshit like this with any references. When Abd Al Mumin was born this territoiries from part Almoravid Kingdom, all of that it is because algerians don't want to recognize their has been a long time under Moroccan dynasties. Also they would to appropriate a great conqueror for their history but Abd Al Mumin rule a Moroccan dynastie that's a fact. So now you should delete this part because it is fake information and some people which don't know Moroccan history took Wikipedia as the first reference but we can write every thing and whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.26.25.166 (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made as many improvements as I could for now, but much of the article's main section (currently named "Political life"), relies solely on Ibn Khaldun, a historical primary source. As per WP:RSPRIMARY, primary sources should be avoided for Wikipedia articles. I've added some secondary sources and used one of sources already present, but this needs to be done consistently across the article to verify and revise the existing text. Once this is done, I'd recommend removing the Ibn Khaldun citations altogether. R Prazeres (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk section, references were provided to correct innacuracies in the article, but they get brushed off. The page must maintain "disputed" tag. Warrior4just (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be few contributors who flagged this page for containing inaccurate information and hence a misinformative page. This is to request that the discussion is reinitiated for the sake of disseminating accurate information about this historical figure. If there is an ongoing discussion, the page should be flagged for potentially containing inaccurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSilvergate (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 Jul 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamSilvergate: I'm not seeing an "ongoing discussion". I've seen some issued raised a year or longer ago with no follow-up discussion or action taken. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further at the article history, what I do see is drive-by tagging of the article by an editor who was subsequently blocked for edit warring. Their edit has expired, yet a different account is here to pick up the cause... —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The series of reversion appears to be made mainly by @Mr.Bitton who refused to put the page as disputed even though the flagging was supported by references from different users. SamSilvergate (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears there has been plurality of claims/corrections if you look at the Talk tab of the subject page. SamSilvergate (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More likely by one single purpose editor (History21st, whose talk page speaks for itself). The fact that "Warrior4just" created sub-sections with the exact title as theirs, and even tried to change them, is way too much of a coincidence to be simply coincidence. Anyway, their "I just don't like it" mumbo jumbo is not based on policy and is therefore irrelevant.

it was reported that the page contains erroneous information suggests that Warrior4just has been off-Wiki canvassing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see no need for a drive-by tagging. If you want to raise a specific concern, identify it here on the talk page, and provide specific reliable sources to support your position. But the article does not need tagged just because somebody presented inadequate sources for a change in the past. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting what they say is "their "I just don't like it" mumbo jumbo" is actually against Wikipedia policies regarding collaborative efforts to maintain accuracy and credibility of content. The fact that you are asserting is "mumbo jumbo" raises the concern of bias, vested interest, or dismissal of the conviction of contributors. I suggest that references/argument/claims are processed based on their merit instead of assertion, incredulity, or suspicion. Experts need to be brought in, dismissal is against any respectful process of knowledge establishment. SamSilvergate (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamSilvergate: There is no need to bring in experts. If there are reliable sources, they should speak for themselves. If the sources don't measure up to Wikipedia standards, then the situation is likewise settled. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are disputed by other sources, then those become unreliable sources. The consensus is arrived by looking at the original historians not subsequent references that are far too often conflated and misused. Is this another dismissal ? SamSilvergate (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion is needed. Dismissal is unacceptable SamSilvergate (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamSilvergate: There's nothing to dismiss. You have been asked for sources, and you have presented nothing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, am I mistaken for seeing the blatant dismissal of other contributors provided sources ? Also, it looks like the common denominator is the "Early life" section. One of the references in the up-to-date version has unreachable link to the source (hence no sources) while one of the sources also cites Britannica. Ordinary person in the art "Historian" uses academic or book sources, instead of Britannica. Upon looking, it looks like Britannica makes also the mistake about the place of death. SamSilvergate (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamSilvergate: Again, please be specific about which sources you're referring to. Nobody is interested in playing guessing games through old talk page threads or the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to raised issues by contributors. This is in regards to "Early life" section, loop up the intervention by other contributors. I personally will look into them when I have time. SamSilvergate (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamSilvergate: Since you are unwilling or unable to provide more specific information, I see no need to take further action at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton already lost credibility by means of dismissal. SamSilvergate (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Are you suggesting that contributors (@History21st) waiting four years to raise the issue again ? SamSilvergate (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have received an email from Maribel Fierro, author of ‪'Abd al-Mu'min: Mahdism and Caliphate in the Islamic West, which is sourced along with the old EB page as saying that Abd al-Mu'min was born under Hammadid rule. Here it is as follows:

Good morning, it is a mistake that has to be changed: in my book it appears "Having been born in Hammadid territory, 'Abd al-Mu'min must have been aware of this" and it should have been "Having been born in previous Hammadid territory, 'Abd al-Mu'min must have been aware of this".

Fierro has informed me that they are going to issue a correction, I will henceforth remove that source with regards to the statement once that is issued.

Furthermore, I don't see why an old version of the page was quoted if it was corrected later? @M.Bitton has offered little explanation beyond ad hominem attacks against the author. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are not a reliable source. 2) It's not an old version, it's the version that was written by a historian and in any case, the businessman's edit doesn't contradict it. M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Neither are you. How can I verify the email correspondance?

2) I'd argue that an editor with an M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies removing that mention does contradict it. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm not the one making unverifiable claims about living people (you are). 2) No, removing "Hammadid" and "Almohad" (like they did) doesn't and cannot contradict what was written by a historian. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) The living person corresponded with me in a way that I can easily verify, you claiming that the author is a mere businessman is an unverifiable claim about a living person, however.

2) How so? If a new edition of the encyclopedia removes the mention.... NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you're not a reliable source (I suggest you read WP:VERIFY). "Lebanese businessman and prime minister" is how they describe themselves. Basic common sense. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam Zeidan was never prime minister of Lebanon. He however wrote the page on Najib Mikati, who is indeed a Lebanese businessman and was prime minister. Refrain from insulting me for lacking "common sense" when you cannot verify your own claims. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. That was an honest mistake (as I'm working while communicating with you). In any case, it doesn't change anything as the removal of the "Hammadid" and "Almohad" doesn't and cannot contradict what was written by a historian. M.Bitton (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all is good, you can focus on your work instead (I don't think refuting me is that important). While the claim of the dynasty he was born in is still somewhat disputed, I'd propose something along the lines of Abd al-Mu'min was born in the village of Taghra, near Nédroma, in modern-day Algeria like French Wikipedia says. I find the birth dynasty a mere detail as even if he was born in Hammadid territory, nothing indicates that he pledged allegiance to any Hammadid sultan. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to remove what is properly sourced. The French Wikipedia has been turned into cesspit when it comes to certain subjects (you can guess what I'm referring to). M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'll wait for Fierro's possible retraction or until I stumble across a source showing the contrary then I'll come back to it. Just letting you know, if you're fine with that. NorthAfricanArmsDealer (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source (about him, like EB, and not just a mention in passing) that contradicts what EB says, then we'll adjust the content accordingly. M.Bitton (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-mu'min is moroccan same as in tumart why isn't his nationality mentioned in this article? 165.16.47.4 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:NPOV. What "nationality" would he have in the 13th century? He is not "Moroccan" anymore than he is "Algerian" for being born in what is now Tlemcen, this is a modern-day national identification and there is frequent consensus across many articles on Wikipedia to avoid such labels in historical contexts unless it's clearly appropriate and informative. Perhaps if you had engaged on this talk page first instead of edit-warring, you would have gotten a full answer already. R Prazeres (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres well according to oxford's African-American study center and oxford's dictionary of the African biography, and the university of Michigan's book Morocco not mention the royal academy of Madrid and others, they literally described abd al-mu'min as " Moroccan " so doesn't Wikipedia take the academic references as a trusted source or what 165.16.47.4 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can find sources using the word "Moroccan" does not mean that those authors are asserting his nationality as such, since modern country labels are often used by authors for geographic convenience. The term "Islamic Spain", for example, sometimes used in referring to Al-Andalus, does not mean a writer is literally asserting the existence of modern Spain under Islamic rule, just that this wording is convenient to situate the average reader. It also ignores other sources that do not use such labels. As the beginning of a Wikipedia article is the part most read and taken most seriously by average readers, the wording should be more careful and not resort to ambiguous labels that are clearly subject to different interpretations. You are free to solicit consensus for a change here on the talk page, but any further edit-warring will get you nowhere. R Prazeres (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres well it's actually not complicated and quite simple actually according to Oxford, their book the dectunary of the African Biography:

'Abd al-Mu'min (d. 1163), builder of the Almohad Empire and great Moroccan military leader and able administrator, led the Almohad movement for tawhid, absolute monotheistic unity, after the death of the Mahdi Ibn Tumart, the Almohad founder, in c. 1130.

His full name was 'Abd al-Mu'min ibn 'Ali ibn 'Alwi bin Ya'la al-Kumi Abu Muhammad.

After defeating the Almoravid Empire at Marrakech, he established the administrative and military foundations of the Almohad state while securing a caliphal succession for his descendants, the Mu'minid dynasty. In a matter of decades 'Abd al-Mu'min and his followers transformed the Almohads from a vigorous but vulnerable ideologi- cal movement in the small Atlas Mountain town of Tinmal to one of the largest and most successful Islamic empires in North African and Andalusian history.

They call things by their real names in a simple way that " average people" can understand, and That's just about abd al-mu'mn because if I'm going to mention the " Moroccan Almohads " or the Moroccan nation at its old form " Almohad state " I'll start giving references from Oxford, Cambridge, California universities, Texas University Michigan University, and a lot more

For Islamic Spain, it's a term not a state and there's a huge difference between a nation like Morocco with its successive dynasties and a piece of land that was Christian then islamic then Christian again 165.16.47.4 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find mentioning that abd'al mumin was born in the hammadid kingdom in 1094 contradicts these statements:

 1- According to the Great Mosque of Tlemcen article, this mosque was built by Almoravids in 1082 (which is 12 years before his birth).

 2- According to the artice of  Djamaa el Kebir in Algiers (which is farther east than Tlemcen), this mosque was also built by the almoravids in the year 1097 (3 years after his birth).

 3- the great mosque of nedroma article says that this mosque was built by the almoravids in the year 1145 which means almoravids are still in this region (where abd'al mumin was born).

Unless there is a source that says the hammadids captured Tlemcen in some year between 1082 and 1094. I'd be glad if someone gave me explanations. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This and the article's history (socking and all) explains why you personally attacked me on your third edit, despite the fact that I theoretically never interacted with you before. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-i'm totally new at wikipedia editing, in fact i've no idea about wikipedia policies and i'm still learning.

-actually i have no idea about this word "sock" or "socking" which i've seen you and some other editors using it in your comments.Simoooix.haddi (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton And Yes I think we've never interacted before my 3rd edit, i've written that message after seeing your edits to some articles that concern Morocco and thought you're trying to edit against Morocco's history and heritage. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first ruler of the Almohad Caliphate (that he founded), he obviously had no Caliph predecessor. This is basic common sense, there is nothing to discuss here. M.Bitton (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources [1] and [2], they don't mention Hammadid kingdom at all. While [3] I couldn't check it but even if does, that doesn't make sense to follow a claim of a single source. Meanwhile kitab al-Mu'jib (the best Almohad source ever) says that "He was born at the end of the year 487 during the reign of Yusuf ibn Tashfin." which makes the neutrality of this article under serious doubts (I'm afraid it follows the narrative of the nationalists of a certain country) 105.75.43.161 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check them again.

the nationalists of a certain country what does that make you? M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked them many times before I was here, Britannica (which isn't even a credible source) deleted it from its article which means they recognized their mistake. The archive cannot be followed. I didn't understand your question, what would that make me according to you? 105.75.43.161 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either you haven't or you're simply being disingenuous, either way, I don't intend on wasting my time with someone who makes baseless claims about the sources and worse, other people. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I read two of them, None of them does mention "Hammadid kingdom" except the archive of Britannica. The third one I didn't check it but even if it does, it doesn't make sense to follow a single source especially when it comes to such a controversial claim. I would also humbly ask you to read them again, maybe you've read them a long time ago and don't remember their actual content. 105.75.43.161 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have all the RS that we need. Whether you agree with or not is neither here nor there, especially considering what you said about "nationalism" in your first comment. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's your problem with expressing my concern that this article may follow the narrative of the nationalists of a certain country. Do you feel personally attacked? If that was the case, just let me know so I can know who I'm really talking to now. 105.75.43.161 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]