Talk:List of rulers of Morocco

Article move

Since this is a list, would it not be better to rename the article to something like List of rulers of Morocco (and not "King", since as the article itself notes that term is not really applicable to many individuals on the list itself)? Any objections?--cjllw | TALK 01:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No objections here--as you say, it seems completely sensible. And I think you're right to identify this as "List of rulers"--an article titled "King of M" or "Sultan of M" implies that it should elaborate on what that office entails (powers, succession, etc.) in addition to listing the dynasties. Those would be great articles, but that's not what we have here now. --Dvyost 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks Dyvost; I've been bold and moved King of Morocco to List of rulers of Morocco. Also added a brief note at the top re formal designation. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

addition of POV tag

User:80.58.2.170, would you be able to explain further here your reasoning for adding the {POV} tag to this article? If you have an issue with it, it would be customary to at least outline what you see the issues to be.--cjllw | TALK 00:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this, since the user who put it there is anonymous and no reason for it is apparent or given. --Vjam 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks Vjam. Based on that anon's earlier contribs, I assumed that they were of the view that dynasties pre-1650s ought not be called "Moroccan"; however, as a regional term rather than a specific political one, I think its use is valid in this context. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Abd Allah of Morocco

I read in this site [1] that Abd Allah was the ruler of Morocco four times.

"Moulay Abdallah, Sultan 1729-deposed 1735, restored and again deposed 1736, 1740-1745 and finally restored 1745-1757, +1757."

However, in this list it was mentioned that he ruled twice, then Abd Allah III and Abd Allah IV were the rulers after him. According to that site, all of them were the same person, and there was no Abd Allah III or IV. Is this list correct or not? ~MK~ (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Morocco was founded by the Alaouites?!

Bokpasa! Your info is false when stating that Morocco was founded by the Alaouites. Please do some more research or try these ones so you can update your info and refrain from reverting and including nonsense to wikipedia...

• CIA factbook
• oneworld-publications.com
• britannica
• electionworld.org - reads The Moors defeat the Caliphate and form the independent state of Morocco in 740, the Mores also rule large part of Spain until 1492. Morocco is the centre of the Almoravid Sultanate from 1063 until 1147. In 1147 the Sultanate of Morocco becomes a fact under the Almohad Sultanate. This rule is succeeded by the rule of the Mernid dynasty in 1268 and by the Saadian dynasty in 1555. In 1666 the Sharifi Moroccan State under the A`lawi Filali Sharifi dynasty starts.

For your info, in 788, Idris I had seized control of Morocco from the jurisdiction of Muslim Baghdad. The Alaouites established themselves at Rissani, in Morocco, becaming Sultans of Sijilamasa in the seventeenth century. During the second half of the century, the head of the family, Mulay al-Rashid gained control over the rich cities of Fez and Marrakesh. His brother, Mulay Ismail, founded a slave army of 150,000 souls, induced the English to abandon Tangier and expelled the Spanish from Larache. All Morocco fell under his control during a record reign that lasted fifty-five years.

The last thing you have to read is this: 787: A Shi'i refugee, Moulay Idriss starts what becomes a 4 year campaign until his own death to establish an infrastructure for an Arab state in central parts of Morocco. Idriss was recognized among Moroccans as Imam, and with him, the line of Moroccan rulers start, first with the Idrissid dynasty. i-cias.com. I hope this is fine w/ you and maybe that can change your POV toward the subject and refrain from doing the same thing in la versíon espaňola. Es que no tengo suficiente tiempo para controlar todo y espero que eso te ayudaria. Cuidate. -- Szvest 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Not 1631

Alaouites ruler in Tafilalt.. in the same year Rabat and Sale was a Republic ..... El Djadida, Casablanca and Mehdia was a part of Portugal ....Cabo Juby was a terra nullis ....Larache, Tanger, and Arcila was part of Spain .... and the rest are Saadian Empire.

Can you see that unity?

Saudian Arabia, is the same case like Morocco ,, that Caliphats ... the same religion, same languague , same region , same culture ..... but a different country ....Saudian Arabia isnt the Islamic Caliphat of Muhammed...

Note: If you read the History of Morocco ,,in a morrocon website ,, puedes ver lo que escriben de los romanos, muy poco , para ellos 400 años es poco , sin embargo siempre incluyen Ceuta y Melilla.(Moi 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)).

Bokpasa, i don't care about what Moroccan history says about itself. I presented above academic and notable sources, no one is Moroccan, stating that The Moors defeat the Caliphate and form the independent state of Morocco in 740... This arguably means that dynasties were ruling the state of Morocco centuries before the Alaouites. The Alaouites started from Tafilalt/Sijilmasa before ruling all over Morocco which has been rules by other dynasties before them. The republic of Bou Regrag (Salé) tried to rule simply over that part of Morocco and that doesn't mean that Morocco never existed before. The analogy of Saudi Arabia has no analogy. Saudi Arabia is a newly created country where nothing was unified before the 18th century. Morocco went through a united country, a divided country before being reunited later. What we hazve today is a Morocco much or less as when the Alaouites took it after begining from Tafilalt. Same religion, same language, same region, same culture is totally false. Morocco is Malekite, Saudi Arabia is Wahhabite. Morocco speak Moroccan Arabic, Saudis speak Hijaz Arabic. Morocco is part of north-western Africa, KSA is part of the Middle-east. Saudis never have had more than a single dinasty. It's like if you tell me that Spain and France or Spain and Mexico have had the same history. To resume. Please read carefully the sources above (CIA factbook, oneworld-publications, britannica, electionworld.org, i-cias). Espero que estube muy claro. -- Szvest 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Bueno, ya que sabes español,,,,te lo escribo (espero que no te importe).. lo que decía es que Marruecos no tiene ningún derecho a autoproclamarse heredera de ninguna dinastía anterior a la alawita. Según consta en un acuerdo pesquero del siglo XIX con Marruecos (creo que era en 1886) , el sultán de Marruecos reconoce no tener ningún derechos sobre el Sáhara Occidental (cosa que los Almohades y Almorávides sí) .... Marruecos su funación es posterior ....

Aunque en la historia de Marruecos ha habido una dinastía reinante en la mayor parte del territorio , y a su vez han habido otras.... no significa que haya continuidad histórica , sino mas bien conquista. La dinastía alaoita no eran familia cercana de ninguna anterior.

El actual Egipto se fundó en 1922, sin embargo hubo muchas dinastías musulmanas anteriores, como la Fatimida, y no por eso es el mismo Egipto.

Respecto a lo de "Morish Dinasty" en España se utiliza para definir cualquier dinastía musulmana magrebí, (incluso a la Nasrid o nazarí, y la omeyya) , y no por eso España era parte de Marruecos. De echo no fue hasta cerca del siglo XIX cuando se conocieron los límites de Marruecos, anteriormente no estaban claros.

Y lo de Arabia Saudita era que Arabia comparte la misma religión,idioma,cultura que el Califato Islámico , pero no es el Califato.

El partido Isqtal, manipuló y sigue manipulando la historia de Marruecos.

The name Morroco , derived that spanish Marruecos , and that derived Marrakesh ....Alaouita capital`s...but official name of Morroco in arabic are Kingdom of Magreb ....Magreb (are Morocco, Algeria...) ..that meand that Algeria is part of Morocco?

Greece and the FYRMacedonia ....is the same..FYRM usurper the name (have rights, but Greece have more rights). Morocco was a part of Kingdom of Nekor, Almohad, Almoravid , Kingdom of Tlemecen , Kingdom of Fez, Marinid, Saadian ,....

• And if Hassan II of the Idrisids died in 974 ,, and Yusuf ibn Tashfin of Almoravide dynastyruled in(1061... what happend in the midle? ...was a interreggum (87 years?)

And do you know that Idrissids only control of a few kilimetres in the Rif and a Tlemecen (now in Algeria) ...what happen in the rest of Morroco was a terra nullis?

Morocco versus History

Acording to Le Petitte Larousse, Morocco began in 1631, not before. Its the same as U.K., its not only the history of England, and what happens about Scotland?...

Since 1956, Morocco think they are sucessors of all arabic states in this part of Magreb, but acording to Espasa-Calpe 1917, the country was cold "Imperio Jarifiano". And if you see the kingdom order its differents, and they are more differents and its NOT the same country. Acording to: Euratlas, Le petitte Larouse, Junta de Andalucía, Espasa-Calpe.. its not the same country. Morocco was part of this countries, yes this is thrue, but Morocco its a new kingdom.

Acording to new Morrocan writers Morroco its the legal sucessor to Almoravides, but I can found 9 more legal sucessor of Almoravides (incluying Banu Ganyra) and Almohades. Later we can found Morocco as legal and only sucessor to Almohades, but I can found more than 3 kingdoms sucessor, not only Marinid... Bokpasa 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bokpasa at it again. Why are you here? To tell people that Morocco never existed at those times? Blatant ignorance when you leave Italy stub tags and Spain even when you talk about 10th, 11th, etc centuries? Do you have something specific against Morocco and not Spain or Italy? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hollar engraving

See Talk:Muhammad II of Morocco for a question about an image. Dcoetzee 06:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sultan?

I was dissatisfied with the use of "Sultan" in the headings. It's a Turkish title, that is found in Egypt and points east, but it was never really used in the Maghreb. I know "sultan" has become a catch-all loose term in English for any Muslim prince (at least since the late 19th C.), and I don't mind seeing it used in article text. But at least in a formal list of rulers, the titles should be a bit more careful. The Moroccan rulers were actually quite particular about it. From a quick scan through C.A. Julien (1961) Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Paris: Payot:

• Idrisids are ambiguous; they were certainly known as "Imam" and "Sayyid", and it seems on their coinage, they used both "Imam" and amir al-moumim ("Commander of the Faithful", i.e. Caliph)(here fn); several secondary sources call them Caliphs, others carefully avoid the term and don't clarify either way.
• The Almoravids stuck assiduously to "Emirs" (to be precise, amir al-moslimin, "Prince of the Muslims", a title of imperial but not impious connotations); they were very adamant about that. (Julien, p.88)
• The Almohads called themselves Caliphs after 1145, consistently and without apology (Julien, p.102)
• The Marinids reverted to Emir ("Prince of the Muslims"). Never used "caliph". (Julien, p. 168)
• Not sure about the Wattasids. Probably just Emir too.
• The Sa'adians called themselves "Caliphs" after 1550 (Julien, p.208)
• Not sure about the Alawites. It seems they (or at least the foreign press) picked up "Sultan" at some point along the way. Although earlier documents have him as king, emperor, emir, prince, and they also happened to use (and still use) amir al-moumim.

In short: until this list is resolved, I am not going to change the specific titles of individual dynasties. But I did remove the statements that insinuates they had the Turkic title of "Sultan", at least before the 1600s. So the headings changed simply to "Rulers of Morocco" for now, with "Kings" at the end. Walrasiad (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of all the alaoui kings photos

It's very strange but someone removed all the alaoui kings photos, although every single article had the accurate photo corresponding as drawn in the shrine of Moulay Ali Sharif until today — Preceding unsigned comment added by HfedBo (talk • contribs) 11:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Morocco 1073 1147.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not the Kings of Mauretania too?

@Cjllw, Dvyost, Vjam, Szvest, FayssalF, Dcoetzee, Walrasiad, and HfedBo: The region of Morocco was known in Antiquity as the Kingdom of Maurusia or Mauretania. Stating that "Morocco started with the Idrissids" is more of an ideological and political statement than anything, and is the official story told by the Moroccan State. I think the article should be neutral and include all known people who ruled the region, just as it is the case in the German version of this page. I've tagged everyone who has been involved in this discussion page at some point. --Ideophagous (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King of Morocco.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Queen of Morocco" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Queen of Morocco has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 19 § Queen of Morocco until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)