Talk:Ibn Tumart#Additions reverted by user

:{{Ping|ParthikS8}} 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)

----

{{user|TheEagle107}} I do not doubt that the work al-Murshida is a popular work which wholly conforms with Ash'ari doctrine, and that the later Ash'aris commentated on it. The references on the Arabic Wikipedia page are more than satisfactory in that regard. Nor do I doubt that he studied under al-Ghazali etc. My doubt here relates to the person himself and his own views seperate from his creed. I quote the following passage from the Arabic Wikipedia page of al-Murshida, regarding Ibn Khaldun's statement regarding him:

{{quote|إن وجازة المرشدة وبلاغتها، وسلامتها من كل مخالفة ظاهرة للآراء الأشعرية ضمن لها الذيوع والانتشار، وجلب لها العناية المتزايدة بالدرس والشرح سواء في عهد الموحدين أو بعدهم. وكان المهدي نفسه يُولّيها عناية فائقة بالتبليغ والتدريس، ومن المرجح أن تكون من مؤلفاته الأولى حين نزوله ببلده إثر رحلته إلى المشرق، فجاءت لذلك خالية من القول في الإمامة التي يبدو أن آراءه فيها لم تتضح لديه بعد، ولم يصدع بها إلا حينما انتقل إلى تينمل، وهو ما يفهم من قول ابن خلدون متحدثاً عن نزول المهدي على قومه وتعليمهم العقيدة: "فنزل على قومه، وذلك سنة خمس عشرة وخمسمائة، وبنى رابطة للعبادة، فاجتمعت إليه الطلبة والقبائل يعلمهم المرشدة في التوحيد باللسان البربري"، وهو ما يفيد أن المرشدة كانت أول ما بادر به المهدي في خطة الإصلاح العقائدي التي كانت إحدى أسسه في الإصلاح. }}

It is clear he developed views (either later to al-Murshida or concurrent to it) that were atypical of Sunni Ash'ari, including apparently claiming to be the Mahdi and holding Shi'i beliefs in the twelve imams. We have modern scholars who also make this assertion:

{{quote|He composed his own sectarian identity by combining the Maliki and Zahiri fiqh view, the kalam of Ash'ariyya and Mu'tazila, the Shii imamate thought and Mandi belief, and some principles of Kharijism with his own experiences. His sectarian identity emerged as the result of a selective attitude. With the sectarian identity he composed, he gained a ground for presenting both his actionist personality and his political goals.|Yavuz}}

It is clear that an understanding of the attributes as reported of him is in contradiction with the general view of Sunni Ash'aris and this is discussed in both the above and following source:

{{quote|Fletcher, Madeleine. "The Almohad tawhid: Theology which relies on logic." Numen 38.1 (1991): 110-127.}}

This is also explicit in other sources I have not quoted in the article:

{{quote|García, Sénén. "The Masmuda Berbers and Ibn Tumart: An Ethnographic Interpretation of the Rise of the Almohad Movement." Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies 18.1 (1990). "Ibn Tumart preached what he considered orthodox Islam, a symbiotic doctrine of analogical interpretalion of the Qur'an, Mu'tazili and 'Ash'ari teachings, and Shi'i dogmas, especially that of the infallible Mahdi."}}

Note that al-Murshida does not deal with such topics as how attributes are understood not to be metaphysically the exact same thing as the essence (by Sunni Ash'aris) - a famous Mu'tazilite belief (which thus denies the attributes). Thus he reject attributes of God (see Kojiro Nakamura's citation in the article). The ideas in al-Murshida then seemingly admit both the unique Almohad "Ash'arism", which seems to be more of a blend of Mu'tazilite and Ash'ari beliefs, and normative/Sunni Ash'arism. This may seem to some to be an obscure point of theology, but coupled with his views on the Imamate (atypical for Sunni Ash'ari), this leads us to understand from the sources that he is not quite a normative Ash'ari - and this is explicit in the sources, particularly Yavuz and Garcia above. The fact that his studying under famous Ash'aris and his work being a primary/important Ash'ari work is incidental - they do not give weight against Yavuz, the Brill source etc. that he was not a normative Ash'ari.

Nevertheless, numerous other sources simply state he is an Ash'ari (e.g. Mukti, Mohd Fakhrudin Abdul. "The Background of Malay Kalam With Special Reference to the Issue of the Sifat of Allah." Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 3.1 (2002): 1-32.) Others waver in the distinction, Ibn Wasil for instance says, "he was more like an Ash'ari" (WASIL, IBN, and B. SALIM JAMALAL-DIN. "IBN YūNUS, ALi IBN “ABD." Medieval Islamic Civilization: AK, index 1 (2006): 375.) This seems to be an academic dispute then with some wavering on his own identification as an Ash'ari, others outright stating that he and his movement blended Ash'ari and Mu'tazilite thought, and others still saying he was simply an Ash'ari.

I am wondering what more primary, earlier (medieval) sources say in this regards - do they mention any confusion over his views on the attributes or not? As Al-Murshida does not deal with that subject it cannot be said, "Praise for al-Murshida is praise for him," I would also like to get a citation with page number for Ibn Khaldun's apparent statement regarding his belief in Imami Shia doctrine.

There are no sources that state outright that he was a Mu'tazilite - and some of his beliefs (e.g. negation of place as in al-Murshida) contradict their views, so that claim cannot be made that he is a true Mu'tazilite like Al-Jahiz etc. Thus two claims are:

1. He was a normative Ash'ari. (e.g. according to Mukti and others)
2. He was a non-normative "Ash'ari" who blended Ash'ari and Mu'tazilite beliefs. (e.g. according to Yavuz, Garcia and others, supported by Ibn Wasil/Jamalaldin as well.)

{{user|TheEagle107}} I invite you to give your thoughts on the above, and I invite other editors to comment on the suitablity of the above sources I have quoted. ParthikS8 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{Ping|ParthikS8}} 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)

@M.Bitton reverted my recent edit on 19-06-2025 at 12:12 with the argument "A source by an unknown author + linking to a Caliphate that didn't exist during his lifetime".

The source I used with the author being Abd el-Wahid al-Marrakushi is not an "unkown author", al-Marrakushi is a well known historian who lived under the rule of the Almohads and documented many important information about the Almohads as documented in his book I used named المعجب في تلخيص أخبار المغرب من أجل فتح الأندلس إلى آخر عصر الموحدين which is also used by modern historians as a source.

"+ linking to a Caliphate that didn't exist during his lifetime" I never claimed he did; my edit was about when Ibn Tumart passed away in the months of the year 1130, after he had established matters, perfected the management, and outlined for the Almohads what they should do, which means that he made it clear and perfect for the Almohads what they should do, and this does not necessarily mean that he should have lived under the reign of a caliph which I did not claim at all, and if you do not agree with me linking the Almohad Caliphate as Almohads, you could have unlinked it and explained in detail why you did so and kept the rest of my sourced edit, which is without a doubt very accurate.

In this matter, I request to get my recent edit on the article of Ibn Tumart restored, and I hope that my sourced edits will not get reverted anymore because of a user's opinion rather than an actual historical fact backed by a reliable source. Rudolph Schneider (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Your edit clearly links to a source about a book with an "[https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebook-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%AC%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%8A-%D8%B7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-pdf#top_page unspecified author]". If it is 'Abd al-Wahid al-Marrakushi (as you claim), then given that the subject is covered in multiple modern secondary sources, there is no reason for you to use a primary source. Also, none of al-Marrakushi's book has the title that you attributed to him.

:Linking to the Caliphate (the way you did) is plain wrong (however you slice it). M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)