Regarding Morocco and its news, he was merely a narrator of various and contradictory accounts without discernment. These events were among what he transmitted in his history. If these elements that undermine objectivity explain our understanding of how these historians transmitted these narratives, which many who came after them also transmitted, how do we explain their appearance with Al-Baydaq and Ibn Al-Qattan, both of whom were devoted to the Mahdi and loyal to the Almohads? It is clear that Al-Baydaq was not a learned man, as appears in his historical records of the Mahdi's news. Rather, he was a naive narrator of news. It is not unlikely that he transmitted these events from some who were infatuated with the Mahdi, or he fabricated them himself as part of his boasts and miracles, and as manifestations of his strength, fierce bravery, and knowledge of the unseen. He included them within the framework of his belief that the Imam is not to be questioned about what He does, because He is guided by divine guidance. It is probable that these same meanings also surrounded Ibn Al-Qattan's narration of these events. He was among those infatuated with Ibn Tumart and fanatically devoted to him, even though he was more learned and more sound in intellect than Al-Baydaq. Thus, it becomes probable that these heinous events were exaggerations by those infatuated with the Mahdi. They invented them for enhancement and elevation, and they found acceptance and veneration among the ignorant and simple followers of Ibn Tumart. They were exploited by the enemies of the Almohads, those who opposed their call and principles, and they made them a means of attack and defamation. We can finally conclude that violence and cruelty are a constant characteristic in the personality of the people. One of the indicators of the situation, as narrated by Ibn Al-Qattan, is what he mentioned in the incident of discrimination, that wonders occurred in it, including that the wealthy were not killed directly during discrimination but were released, even though they knew that death was their only fate. None of them escaped, until they were called and then killed. This is contrary to the instinct of self-preservation. See: Nuzum Al-Juman, p. 104. I believe that the bloodshed is attributed falsely to Ibn Tumart. Sheikh Abdullah Kannoun told me in a conversation at his home in Tangier on April 11, 1979, that some followers, like Al-Baydaq, attributed it to him, as at that time it was not considered an ugly act but rather something commendable [meaning in the environment where the Almohad call appeared]. This is similar to some esteemed Sufis fabricating false miracles and attributing them to their sheikhs.