And his reliance in mentioning the historians who adhered to him was on those who were followers of the monotheists among them, and his turning away from mentioning others of the moderates who accepted him.

It seems that posing the question in a way that aims to confirm or deny this lineage is a futile endeavor, as there are no definitive documents to date that prove or disprove it. Therefore, it is more appropriate to pose the question on the level of possibility rather than actuality. Is this prophetic lineage of Ibn Tumart, as mentioned by the historians in the aforementioned ways, or does it carry within itself the seeds of its invalidity?

To prove or disprove this possibility, it is necessary to rely on two criteria: one related to the human geographical sphere, and the other to the historical temporal sphere. From a human geographical perspective, we find historical testimonies proving that both Sulayman, mentioned in the third way of lineage, and Idris, mentioned in the fourth way, migrated to the Maghreb and their descendants spread widely there. Ibn Hazm, in his discussion of Sulayman, mentioned that his descendants in the Maghreb were numerous. The author of "Mafakhir al-Barbar" said: "Sulayman settled in Tlemcen and had a son named Muhammad. Muhammad had many descendants, so all the Quraysh there are from the descendants of Sulayman, and some of his sons ventured into the far Sūs."

Ibn Khaldun also alluded to this, stating: "All the Quraysh there are from them." He defined Sulayman as: "The reality is that many of his descendants are among the Masamida and the people of Sūs, as Ibn Nakhil narrated in his book on Sulayman, and he joined the Maghreb after his brother Idris and settled in Tlemcen. His descendants scattered in the Maghreb." As for Idris, his descendants were widespread in the Maghreb. The author of "Mafakhir al-Barbar" mentioned that he had twelve sons.

Ibn Hazm, Al-Jumhara: (27) Unknown, Mafakhir al-Barbar: (28) Unknown, Al-Istibsar: (3) Ibn Khaldun, Al-'Ibar: (29)