Talk:Muslim conquest of the Maghreb

Untitled

The military history is all very well, but it would be useful to have other material, eg on the progress of Islam among the population. 88.111.232.130 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I renamed the article for two reasons:

  • It talks about the Magrheb islamisation (Not the all North Africa - including Egypt)
  • The islamisation lasted more than the Umayyads in the Maghreb so the word islamisation is more appropriate

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muslim conquest of the Maghreb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance

Although the area was under control of the caliphate, there were still some sections of the population that would resist the spread of Islam. The Berber people were thought of as inferior and made to convert to Islam and join the Arab army, receiving less pay than an Arab would have. This led to much dissatisfaction and ultimately the death of Mahgreb's Arab governor, Yazid ibn Abi at the hands of one of his bodyguards after ordering them to tattoo his name on their arms to signal his ownership. Another rebellion was prompted by the enslavement of the Berbers. This occurred in southern Morocco, in 739 lasting through to 740. However, this rebellion would be suppressed by an Arab expedition, which seized both prisoners and gold in the process.[1]

One of the unifying forces of these rebellions were the teachings of Arab Kharijite missionaries who had worked as merchants. They were able to convert some sections to their way of thinking and this provided a "unifying discipline and revolutionary zeal that powered the Berber rebellion of 739"[2]

  1. ^ Stapleton, Timothy J. (October 21, 2013). A Military History of Africa. Praeger. p. 22. ISBN 978-0313395697.
  2. ^ Rogerson, Barnaby; McCullin, SIr Donald (May 15, 2018). In Search of Ancient North Africa: A History in Six Live (1 ed.). Haus Publishing. p. 25. ISBN 9781909961555.
All of this is already covered in the Great Berber Revolt article, in quite some detail. Links should be made to it. Walrasiad (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Regarding this edit:

I removed the section because a) it is irrelevant to the primary topic, which is about the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb (643-709), and b) it's mentioned in other articles such as Christianity in Africa and Catholic Church in Africa. Should the impact the conquest had on Christianity be mentioned, then properly sourced content linking the two subjects could go in the aftermath section. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem since you didn't pick and choose anything to retain. I had a similar thought as this article will stray its topic if we talk about Christianity in any manner. But please do not try to remove Christianity existing after Arab conquests under excuse of "irrelevant" if any impact is mentioned like you do on other articles. IRGCfan (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

Historyoftheworldchris (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the opening paragraph should be reworded as it refers to the conquest concluding in 709, but suggests that it concluded under the command of Caliph Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān who died in 680.

Is the word "jihad" ever used to label this?

When scholars discuss the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb, is the word "jihad" used by some"? Pete unseth (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of Gibbon, other available references

There is no reason for this article to be repeatedly quoting Gibbon as it does; he is quoted no less than 9 times, mostly without accompanying citations (which in itself makes it legitimate to simply remove these). His text may be public domain, but an 18th century writer is obviously not a high-quality source to represent current scholarly views of this history when there are plenty of recent and more specialized works on a subject that also happens to have a difficult historiography. Some useful examples include Hugh N. Kennedy's The Great Arab Conquests (chapter 6) and Fenwick's Early Islamic North Africa, as well as more briefly Hoyland's In God's Path (see especially p.142-146) and Abun-Nasr's A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (mostly pp.28-32), and so on. R Prazeres (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, an 18th-century write-up of historical events is a terrible framework for a page. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launched men in a catapult?

Supposedly Khalid ibn al Walid launched men to the top of a wall in Cyrene (Barqa) using a catapult and cotton sacks. This claim is to be believed? I think it's one to be investigated at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1a30:ef0:4e87:8355:cdb7:9056 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I just looked and that all or most of that section is not based on reliable sources, so I imagine it may be reporting legendary material rather than information offered by historians. It obviously should be rewritten with better sources. R Prazeres (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pipes quote

@48f, You've been around long enough I think to know when you are reverted, follow WP:BRD and explain yourself on the talk page and seek consensus. While you're at it, read WP:UNDUE and MOS:QUOTE. You've provided no reason why there should be a lengthy quote from one specific author which is already paraphrased in the article, which is clearly redundant and excessivce. The onus is on you to explain why, not on other editors. I'm restoring the pre-edit war version. Don't repeat your edit until you've gained some consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You also haven't even provided a citation for this quote ([1]). R Prazeres (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WOW....now even offenses.....I have read that you like to fight continuously...ADIEU.--48f (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-pasting the same sarcastic non-response ([2], [3]) does not address the issue. Please explain yourself properly. R Prazeres (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 January 2026

Muslim conquest of the Maghreb → Arab conquest of North AfricaArab conquest of North Africa – There is a huge RS weight supporting the use of "North Africa", and a further layer of weight supporting "Arab" over "Muslim" as the descriptor of the conquerors. This is very clear from Ngrams, which shows even an undifferentiated "conquest of Maghrib" being soundly kicked to the curb by both the proposed title and its closest alternative. The reasons for this are very simple. The conquest was for the most part against the Exarchate of Africa or Byzantine North Africa, with the term "Africa" being consistently used for North Africa throughout the Roman period, as exemplified by the honorific title "Scipio Africanus" for Rome's conquering general. In a historical context, "Maghrib" is by contrast the terminology of the conquering Arabs for the region – from bilad al-maghrib – but it was not an accepted name in the vernacular of the region or the wider Mediterranean/Old World at the time. It would be rather like retroactively calling the Arab conquest of the Visigoths the conquest of "Al-Andalus", as opposed to Hispania (or Spain/Portugal or the Iberian Peninsula in modern usage). And while the term Maghreb does find some usage as a modern geographical term, it has less usage than North Africa and is quite vaguely defined, much like "Levant", lending it little to justify denying the more prevalent terminology in reliable sources. And looking at the actual sources on page, we see that – in a mirroring of the Ngrams chart – Maghreb and Maghrib appear just one time each in the titles of sources (one in French). It appears around 40 times worked into the page. "Africa", by contrast, despite not appearing in the title and tags, appears 70 times on page, including in about 20 references. This excludes the French "Afrique", which appears in a further two sources, including in Robert Brunschvig's Ibn Abd al-Hakam et la conquète de l'Afrique du Nord par les arabes. In English, a parallel source and a key anchor source for the page is Fenwick & Hitchner. "The Arab Conquests and the End of Ancient Africa?" in: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity. See also: Walter E. Kaegi. Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa. Also: Ṭāhā, ʿAbd-al-Wāḥid Ḏannūn. The Muslim conquest and settlement of North Africa and Spain. Routledge. Many more titles then use Africa alone, but for obvious reasons, North Africa is clearer, while still consistent with the Exarchate of Africa. As for "Arab", well again the Ngrams speaks for itself and so do the sources."Muslim" appears in the titles of just two sources: Kaegi and Dannun, as above. "Arab" appears in 10 sources, including Fenwick, as above, but also in the likes of: Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Chapter LI (51): Conquests By The Arabs — Part VI. Also: Kennedy, Hugh (2007). The great Arab conquests. Also: Hoyland, Robert G. (2015). In God's path: the Arab conquests and the creation of an Islamic empire. And others. This conquest succeeds the Arab conquest of Egypt and is a part of the Arab-Byzantine wars as its direct parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The proposed name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Google scholar results show that "Arab conquest of North Africa" is used far more than "Muslim conquest of the Maghreb" or "Muslim conquest of North Africa" in RS. Skitash (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The name change doesn't make sense on two levels. "The Maghreb" is not equivalent to "North Africa". "The Maghreb" is a region in North Africa.
And if you look at Ngrams for "Muslim conquest of the Maghreb" versus "Arab conquest of the Maghreb" then "Muslim conquest of the Maghreb" is the clear winner. Guz13 (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Maghreb wasn't anything in 646CE, so it wasn't something that could be conquered. This makes it problematic as both an ambiguous and anachronistic term for the time period, in which the actual geography is Byzantine North Africa. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such thing as Maghreb back then, which is why historians and RS refer to the Maghreb as "North Africa" while considering Egypt separate. As for the Ngrams, the proposed name here is "Arab conquest of North Africa," which is far more common than both "Muslim conquest of the Maghreb" and "Arab conquest of the Maghreb."[4] Skitash (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above two comments. From Maghreb: "The toponym maghrib (Arabic: مغرب) is an Arabic term that the first Muslim Arab settlers gave to the recently conquered area situated west of the Umayyad capital of Damascus in the 7th century AD.[1]"
This RM is about an article on the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb. It is not talking about Arabs conquering all regions of North Africa. Guz13 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've just highlighted how even worse and even more ambiguous a historical term "Maghreb" is than even I'd thought. "Everything West of Damascus" is an even bigger and vaguer scope than even a modern definition of North Africa. But again, that's not what we're referring to. We're referring to Byzantine North Africa. Context is key (and king). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that's true then under your logic, the article should be titled "Muslim conquest of Byzantine North Africa". Guz13 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's not what the sources do. They abbreviate in the context (in which the Byzantine nature of Roman North Africa at the time is an obvious narrative precondition). Iskandar323 (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be better to change the article's title to "Muslim Conquest of North Africa," as seen in a large number of books from secondary sources, including Cambridge.[2]
Afshar131 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned Kaegi, and that's one of the only two referenced books using "Muslim". But also, if you're saying "Muslim Conquest of North Africa" is a possibility then you're only partially, not fully opposing, correct? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I support changing the article title to "Muslim Conquest of North Africa," as I believe it is more suitable for everyone, especially since many sources refer to it. I think it is the most likely option.[3][4][5] Afshar131 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose - 1. North Africa could be confused to also include Egypt, Cyrenaica and bits of Tripolitania. Whereas the term "Maghreb" usually refers to that which is west of Cyrenaica, or west of Tripolitania. However, Maghreb may be a more specialised term, which a lay audience may not search for, so perhaps "North Africa" (which much of the scholarship does indeed use) would be better. Though perhaps the start date of conquest should be pushed back to 642 (Cyrenaica and Tripolitania) instead of 647(Sufetula)?
2. As for the term "Arab" I feel like this forgets about the unique and massive role of the non-arabs in the conquest of the Maghreb, more than any other early muslim conquests (save Iberia), particularly Abul Muhajir (either copt, greek or berber - Kennedy 2007 ch6), who's appointment as governor in 675 was quite early for a non Arab, and whom Taha names as pivotal to the Muslim successes due to his rapprochement policy and the subsequent mass recruitment of the berbers on a scale unseen elsewhere. However, the scholarship old and new (including fenwick 2020, the most detailed recent work on the topic), frequently makes use of the term "arab conquests".
overall, I prefer the current title, or "Muslim Conquest of North Africa" at the least. Wakobear (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wakobear: Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, I was wondering when the Berber point was going to crop up. My response would be that ancient military campaigns of this scale are rarely defined in terms of the composite make-up of armies, but instead usually according to the ruling class of empire directing them. One apt parallel is Alexander the Great, whose Macedonian forces began from the outset with Greek and Thracian auxiliaries, and took on more and more non-Macedonian auxiliaries as his campaigns progressed and his original core force was eroded. His campaigns never stopped being 'Macedonian' ones though. A later example is the Mongols who absorbed and recruited extensively from numerous other tribes, including the Naimans, who were Mongol-speaking but may actually have been more Turkic. They were beaten hard, their leader killed, and then assimilated. By the time of the Battle of Ain Jalut, a Nestorian Christian of the Naiman tribe was the general. Underneath him was an Ayyubid commander. Other than the Naimans and presumably numerous non-Mongol tribal fighters on the Mongol side by this point, the army was accompanied by forces sent by the king of Cilician Armenia, Georgians and Syrian Ayyubid levies. Despite this astounding diversity, at no point do historians tend to deviate from labelling the army 'Mongol', part of the Mongol campaigns, and a Mongol loss. The latter is a particularly apt parallel here. It is extremely rare to define entire campaigns in terms of religious persuasion rather than the ethnicity/political identity of the ruling class. There is the Great Heathen Army, but even so, its actions tend to be defined as a 'Viking' invasion of England. And if we take the example of Abul Muhajir's appointment by 675 – well this is roughly half way through the campaign, so a similar pattern to other conquests assimilating other troops and taking on more auxiliaries as campaigns progress. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Mitchell, Peter; Lane, Paul (4 July 2013). The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology. OUP Oxford. p. 1071. ISBN 978-0-19-162615-9.
  2. ^ Kaegi, Walter E. (2010-11-04). Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19677-2.
  3. ^ Nicolle, David (2024-10-10). Armies of the Muslim Conquest. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-6928-9.
  4. ^ Ahmed, Faisal Z. (2023-06-15). Conquests and Rents: A Political Economy of Dictatorship and Violence in Muslim Societies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-36749-3.
  5. ^ Pierson, Paul Everett (2009). The Dynamics of Christian Mission: History Through a Missiological Perspective. WCIU Press. ISBN 978-0-86585-006-4.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb