Talk:Ibn Tumart

message: This article lacks sources and seems to be based on a 100 yrs. old encyclopedia.S711 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Background: There is a content dispute about the Possibility of giving weight to the mahdi/sharifian claims by adding Arab to the lead and to the infobox. The discussion (here) has not received a full consensus and this could benefit from input from other editors.
Note: there is three supporters of the Berber origin of this Historical figure (me, Cplakidas, Walrasiad), and there is one supporter of the arab of origin (Fulgery).
Question: The questions of this RFC are: Should we give weight to the sharifian claims by addiding the following sentence to the lead ?  Or restoring the undisputed version which is: , but the important question is: What is the most reliable/uncontroversial origin for this historical figure?
please see the above discussion as there is arguments and sources.
Please answer (with a brief/long explanation) as:
*Support or Arab (support giving weight to the Sharifian/mahdist claims, and the arab origin...... and adding it to the lead....)
*Oppose or Berber (No, he wasn't an arab......., but he was a Berber.....we should discuss the sharifian/mahdist claims separately in the body......)
*Other (any other solution) 
Aṭlas (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *"The Encyclopaedia of Islam", Vol. III, page 958, "IBN TUMART, the Mahdi [q.v.] of the Almohads and founder of the Almohad movement [see MUWAHIDDUN]. The biographies of so celebrated a figure inevitably contain much legendary matter besides evident contradictions. He was born between 471/1078 and 474/1081 in the Anti-Atlas of Morocco. His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him. --J.F.P. Hopkins." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the article gives weight to the mahdist/sharifian claims. 

message: *Oppose.  I personally never met Ibn Tumart.  I have no idea whether he was Berber or not.  I have no idea whether his claims of sharifian ancestry are true or not (and even if true, an Arab ancestor doesn't make one an Arab). All I know is what the overwhelming consensus of secondary literature and vast majority of primary sources say: that Ibn Tumart was just Berber, the Berber son of a Berber chief, of a Berber tribe (Hargha), of a Berber confederation (Masmuda). I have no problems including mention in the body of the text about Ibn Tumart claims of sharifian lineage (sometimes, other times not, he claimed a lot of lineages at different times).  But inserting his ethnicity as "Arab" in the lede is completely untenable, flies against all scholarship and contradicts all sources.  Walrasiad (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *"The Encyclopaedia of Islam", Vol. III, page 958, "IBN TUMART, the Mahdi [q.v.] of the Almohads and founder of the Almohad movement [see MUWAHIDDUN]. The biographies of so celebrated a figure inevitably contain much legendary matter besides evident contradictions. He was born between 471/1078 and 474/1081 in the Anti-Atlas of Morocco. His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him. --J.F.P. Hopkins." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The early life section has this passage: "This is due to a Hadith (accepted by both Sunnis and Shi'ites) which limits the Imamate to Quraysh[14] and according to another Hadith, specifically to Al al-Bayt (the close family of the prophet Muhamed)."
I believe this should be removed because the quoted source does not mention Ibn Tumart at all, it is merely discussion of hadiths, so linking these hadith to Ibn Tumart's claim to being sharif is unsupported WP:OR. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no comments from other editors I will assume this has support and make the change shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  limiting the imamate to Quraysh 

message: : Ibn Tumart was a student of prominent Sunni scholars such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Abu Bakr al-Turtushi, al-Kiya al-Harasi, Abu Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Shashi al-Qaffal, and al-Maziri.
Among his most popular works is al-'Aqida al-Murshida (the Guiding Creed). Several Muslim scholars wrote commentaries on it, including the celebrated theologian Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Sanusi, Abu 'Abdallah Muhammad b. Khalil al-Sakuni, 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi, Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. 'Abbad al-Tilmisani, and several others.
His creed the Murshida (the Guide) was praised by the Shafi'i scholar and hadith master Salah al-Din al-'Ala'i (d. 761/1359), Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771/1370), Yusuf al-Nabhani (d. 1350/1932), Fakhr al-Din ibn 'Asakir (d. 620/1223) and Ibn al-Naqqash. 
According to al-Maqrizi and Ibn 'Illan, the Sultan Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (d. 589/1193) ordered the mu'azzins in the mosques to recite the Ash'ari creed, which is known as al-Murshida.
He (and his creed) was being criticized by Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and al-Dhahabi.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't know much, but indeed, there are several different views and opinions on him and his creed. There are people who praised him, and there are also those who criticized him. According to WP:NPOV, all opinions and viewpoints should be properly and equally considered. Greetings!--TheEagle107 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni or NOT Sunni?!