Talk:Idrisid dynasty

Proof that Idrisid Dynasty was Shiite from Shia Islam

Any reference that Idris ibn Abdallah was shiite?--Mouradvt 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hereis where you can find that. It took long because it was real hard to get that Rawd al Qirtass in hand. However, Hodgson also classified them as Alawites starting from Idriss father Abdullah al Kamil. see ref:
  • Ibn Zar (Rawd al Qirtass P. 38). UPDATE 1/8/19: (Verification check by User-gebruiker: this stated source and page does not mention Zaydi-Shiism whatsoever, this is false and should immediatly be corrected and removed)
  • Marshal GS Hodgson, Venture of Islam, Univeristy of chicago press p 262).--Yusayr (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot! (--Mouradvt (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

My name is jawad alidrisi, and im from this family...and we are Sofi's from sunna not shia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.99.194 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Later conversion does not remove the fact that they were originally a Shia dynasty. JasonMoore (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shiite ?

There is absolutely NO way that the Idrisids were Shiites. If they were, Morocco would have a Shia majority. Actually, Shiites are almost non existant today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.71.158 (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a false statement built on false pretences.

A primary example is the Fatimid Empire - A Shia dynasty founded in Tunis, that ruled most of North Africa and created the city of Cairo and Al-Azhar University. Today, neither Egypt, Nor Libya or Tunis are Shia, and neither is Al-Azhar or Cairo. So your claim falls flat. It is not an issue that they were originally Shia, and later became Sunni. JasonMoore (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Idrisids were "Berberized"?

I tagged this for citations but left it untouched when I was revising the history section earlier, but there is a claim (unsourced) in the article that says the Idrisids were "Berberized" by the late 9th century. I would appreciate if anyone could clarify or provide some sources for this.
It's unclear what this claim means in this context; presumably they were integrated in the majority-Berber society of the time, at least those branches that left Fez and settled in less urban areas, but does that imply they identified as Amazigh? Fez started out as Berber but quickly attracted a lot of Arab immigrants, so there's no reason to assume they assimilated to the Berber population in the end. Plus, the descendants of the Idrisids were still present and visible as shurfa (sharifian families) in Fez centuries later (see most recent edits in "Legacy" section with sources) and I'm doubtful that a sharifian family would abandon its Arab identity in the political and social context of historic Fez, where sharifian status gave them certain privileges and would likely encourage them to emphasize their Arab descent. Though I'm happy to be wrong on this.
The Hammudid dynasty page has two initial references to claim that this branch of the family was Berberized: I've verified that the Bosworth 2004 citation (New Islamic Dynasties) does describe the Hammudids as "Berberized Arabs" but does not do so about the Idrisids generally, while I can't find any clear confirmation in the other reference (Viguera-Molins 2010 pp. 26-27). As for the reference to Ibn Qutaybah in text, that's a 9th-century primary source from Abbasid Iraq and therefore should not be taken at face value without secondary sources to back it up; no citations for verification are provided here either way.
Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There's been no response to this so I assume there are no strong feelings either way. I will remove the relevant statement for now, but at least there's a record of the issue here in case it comes up later. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent page-wide edits by IP user

Hi 31.53.242.194 (IP user). As I indicated in my reverts, you are making many changes of different natures to many things in the article all at the same time, in one edit. I've asked you not to do this, because if your edit has multiple problems, the most practical option for other editors is to revert it. Some of the changes you made look valid, but some do not and need to be justified. You've repeated your edit twice with more sources to the main section you're adding, but you're still making changes elsewhere without explaining them, and trying to change these back manually is unnecessarily complicated. I've asked that you focus on one thing at a time, in separate edits, to make it easier to evaluate each of your changes (and easier for you to explain them). For example, adding the chronology section should be one edit and changes elsewhere should be separate edits. The main problems (that I can see) in your edit that you haven't addressed so far are:

• In "The dynasty" section you added a date (880) for the switch between the reigns of Ali (II) ibn Umar and of Yahya (III) ibn al-Qasim, despite the fact that both reliable sources cited there indicate that this date is not known. If you believe the date is known, you will need to provide equally reliable sources as support.
• In the infobox, you removed the "preceded by" parameter and eliminated the Zenata kingdoms from the "succeeded by" parameter, despite these being justified in the main text and explained on this talk page. (You've also added some empty parameters to the infobox that are unlikely to ever be used here, such as GDP.) If you want to remove information that's already sourced and established, you need to explain your reasoning specifically. Since I've already reverted your edits, I suggest you do so on the talk page first instead of editing it directly again, in the spirit of WP:BRD. You can explain yourself here if you want or at the relevant talk section above.

So with that in mind, I am (partially) reverting your edit again for the same reasons, but this time I am leaving the "Chronology" section as you made it, since you made an effort to add sources there and since this is the gist of your contribution. If needed, other editors can still object to parts of that section or make revisions if they find problems. For the other changes in the rest of the article, please consider my comments above. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have reverted their edit to give them a chance to start communicating. M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)