Talk:Rashidun Caliphate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arabic terms clarification

The Arabic term given in the first sentence of the article is supplied as "الخلافة الراشدية" (where Rāshid is put in a 'nisba' form) while the spelling supplied in the info box on the right-hand side of the article is "الراشدة" (where Rāshid is kept in the 'faa3il' form). Does anyone know which is correct?? I know Arabic pretty well and only ever hear the two words in a genitive (idāfah) construction as opposed the usage here of Rashidun as an adjective. Does anyone else oppose "خلافة الراشدين" ?? I think that reflects more accurately how Arabic speakers refer to the first caliphate. cullen (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually الخلافة الراشدية is wrong. All Arabic history books call it الخلفاء الراشدون alkholafa alrashidun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.238.186 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

please see below: "Rashidun"?? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This article should be improved

I am not competent to do much more than what i have already done, changing some bad sentences, rewriting some into regular english and removing the preposterous description of muslim conquest as "liberation". I agree with the other commenters assessment of the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A Generally Inaccurate Picture

I don't know who "rated" this article for accuracy, but it makes it seem to the lay reader that the Rashidun Era after Mohammad was more of a monolithic state rather than just being an era of successive rule by four of Mohammad's closest comrades immediately after his death. Each of these four men had their own policies and individual stamp on their governments, and in highlighting the turbulent contradictions of this era, it would suffice to remember that out of the four, three were murdered (nay, "martyred", as the "faithful" would have it!) by internal enemies from their own entourages - and the last, Ali, also "martyred", was the odd one out of the whole lot as he fathered the Shi'ite minority sectarian schism in Islam, which the majority of Muslims still denounce vehemently and violently after the passage of nearly 1400 years. So this should be kept in mind when contemplating the Rashidun Era.

User: Al-Muslimooner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.5 (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i couldn't actually get what u r trying to say ? please explain ur view point.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Largest Empire in History?

One of the lead sentences states that the Rashidum Caliphate was "the largest empire in history up until that time." In what way? Surely, the Roman Empire and a Chinese dynasty or two were much more vast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.21.9 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

languages spoken

I'm removing Old Persian from the languages spoken box, since Old Persian was definitely not spoken at this time. Pahlavi was the main language of the Sasanian empire at this time (the most recent OP text dates from the 3rd century BCE, while Pahlavi texts date from the 2nd century CE.). Sicarii 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

countries

I'm also not sure that the box for "countries included in the empire" should be in the article. None of the current countries in the Middle East and N. Africa existed at this time, so it isn't really valid to "include" them in the empire. Plus, the box takes up a LOT of space and prevents other information from being seen immediately. A subsection with commentary might be useful in its place, but I recommend removing it altogether. any thoughts? Sicarii 00:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) I'm going to add to my comments above. The article contains many grammatical and spelling errors, as well as some important factual errors. I'm working on these. Does anyone else think that the article is too long? Sicarii 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) The length of article is fine i guess, check the articles of other empire they are of the same lenghts. Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the map of the empire includes dashed lines showing modern country borders, I don't think a text box is needed.--Paddling bear (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Countries text box should be removed it degrades from what is , otherwise an accurate history and also enjoyable reading 92.8.17.20 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Insomnia DM

Arabic as official language

Arabic wasn't made the official language of the Caliphate until the Marwanid era, under Abd al-Malik
It was the language of the Caliph, he use to speak in it, the official letters were writen in arabic, what else one need to declare any language as OFFICIAL language ? Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a formal declaration? Otherwise it is like a "de facto standard", so to say. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you say "الامبراطورية الاسلامية"?

I.e. "al-Imbaraturiya al-Islamiya" ? Written in this way, in very first line it seems that the Rashidoon used to call this way their Empire. But I strongly doubt that they ever used such an "European" expression :-) --Vermondo (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ive edited the first paragraph, linguistically and historically speaking it made no sense what so ever, there is no such thing as a rashidun "empire" a caliphate yes but not an exclusive empire it was based on ashura a sort of elected head of state it turned into a dynasty or monarchy after there deaths that is why it is called rashidun or rightly guided.Alpha.test (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral?

I do not feel that this article takes a neutral point of view on the subject matter. In particular the sentence 'The chief cause of the apostasy was lack of true faith' seems to be particularly irrelevant and non-encyclopaedic. What is 'true faith' in this context? And I cannot see any citations to published material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriusregent (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course the article is not neutral. Apart from a few paragraphs, it is entirely written from a strictly Muslim point of view. It uses an entirely non-encyclopedic language.

It has little to do with history, but much with ideology. Giordaano (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• ok so feel free to contribute to its style and language if u feel its not encyclopedic.

and indeed the cause of apostasy was "lack of true faith" it implies that they entered islam for political reasons and not accepted it as a faith. simple, whts neutral -- not-neutral here ? thsts a historical fact and its not about writing any thing from a muslim point of view or any thing, obviously when u write an exclusive muslim history u ought to write it as it is mentioned in muslim sources, so far there is no western historian who have worked on rashidun caliphate, therefore only muslim sources can be considered, and its not bias-ism, is it ?

the sentence expalins it self later if u read the whole sentence The chief cause of the apostasy was lack of true faith. Most of the tribes, converted in the ninth and tenth years of the Hijra [disambiguation needed], had taken to Islam for political reasons.

so please avoid quoting sentences out of context. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 06:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Where I am coming from is that most readers of this article are not necessarily Muslims (although I am). In the context of a secular encylopaedia, It makes more sense to leave out expressions like 'true faith'. I understand that the point is the tribes' conversion for mercenary purposes. I am not questioning the explanation of the motives of the tribes, but the point of view of the 'voice' of the article, which seems to assume a Muslim readership.--Siriusregent (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a muslim (just reading up on it) and didn't know what exactly apostasy was. However, by including the sentence about tribes joining Mohammad for personal reasons and later writing of their loyalty to him personally rather than to the religion, it made sense to me. If this is true, then why remove it? Encyclopedia's don't ignore religion, they just don't push a religious agenda (or shouldn't). I don't read mention of faith as nonsecular when it's carefully put into context, as this seems to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole article seems to me some muslim zealot(s) (now there is irony for you!) that wish to 'educate' us on the history of their faith, but that are unable to think uncritically or unbiased about it. There is no indication where the information comes from, and 'holy books' do not really count. So I'll just hrow in some {\{fact}}s in the hope it will ever come up to standard. But it all may be hopeless, just as discussing Scientology here or the history of Israel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.242.19 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the Christian friend of Muslims (for the salvage of science), but the tone should be a tone of neutral ground, and since this is Wikipedia, the Wikipedia policies should do fine. The tone should be neutral in so far as that the "true faith" should be exchanged for "orthodox faith" or "mainstream faith" and similar descriptive phrases. 'Lack of faith' is no proper explanation, and should be either removed or exchanged for something more descriptive: the explanation comes later in the text: the lapsing clans refused to pay zakat, that explanation is enough.

Opinions are allowed, but they must always be attributed to external sources. And the discussion page is not for throwing personal flame baits such as "zealot", read WP:CIVIL! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing

This article contains numerous grammar errors and fragmented sentences abound. This is a very important article, hopefully a qualified editor can bring it up to the standard it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin1 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD! Grammar errors and fragmented sentences don't require any special expertise. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Backwards implication??

The section Succession of Abu Bakr claims:

Apostasy is a capital offense under traditional interpretations of Islamic law, and Abu Bakr declared war on the rebels.[citation needed]

Is Islamic law relevant in this early stage? Isn't it instead so that because of the initial lapses from the main muslim community, that later apostasy became a capital offense? I think mixing in Islamic law at this early formative stage only confuses, since a tradition cannot exist before the founding events for that tradition has occurred. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

okey thats a very good point. apostasy was indeed an offense even in early stages, as mentioned in hadiths (basic source of islamic jurisprudence ), but his event of whole scale apostasy contributed in changing apostasy from simply an offense into a capital offense. later islamic jurists, Umar for instance, made strict laws (capital punishment) in order to tackle this problem in its very roots i.e if it will not take root at individual level (due to fear of death) it will never rise again on large scale (apostasy of whole tribes and regions) as it had happened back in 632, which took shape of a rebellion.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This Article is Crap

The vast majority of this article sounds like it was written by some Arab with a boner for 'the Good Old Days.' Countless verb tense contradictions, horrible grammar by any standard, and so many of these claims (an invasion of Spain when? What a bad joke) that are unsupported. I'm going to go in and put '[citation needed]' where I think there should be some, but even if I put one every other sentence; it wouldn't be enough. Someone who actually cares about making Wikipedia more than a shitpile should consider going through this article and editing it for three things: brevity, readability, and POV.

I'm also thinking this Mohammad Adil guy is totally incompetent for this job and is likely some twelve year-old running around screwing up a perfectly good period of time with his own inane remarks. So, please, someone, ban him from this page. I've looked at all of his 'edits,' and they are definitely not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.205.20 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Horrible English

It is a shame that the official wikipedia artical about one of the most importent states/empires of human history is seemed to be written by someone with very bad English-skills. Doesn´t this article deserve better? It is only about the Empire which took the first steps in the expansion of the worlds 2nd largest religion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.159.254 (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Languages: Turkish?

Are you kidding me? Turks weren't even muslim in those days. Until the battle of talas, the only turks living in islamic caliphate were the ones who were captured during the wars.

The Caliphate was not the largest empire in history at the time

Leamhan spáis (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)The entire article is quite heavily flawed from what I can see, which is a pity since so much work has obviously been put into it. The lead section states that it was the largest empire in history up until that time, which is completely untrue since the Achaemenid Empire was almost twice as large and was at it's greatest extent 900 years before Islam even existed, and the empire of the Tang Dynasty, which existed concurrently with the Rashidun Caliphate, was also larger. The statement is also contradicted by it's source given in it's citation, which also gives the Achaemenid Empire as the largest empire in antiquity. So I'm going to try to change the sentence "It was the largest empire in history up until that time." To be honest, the article reads like a propaganda piece for the golden age of islam, and while this bias from editors is almost certainly unintentional, it does not change the fact that the Caliphate was not the ultra-benevolent, all inclusive fairy kingdom it is made out to be here, particularly in the section "treatment of conquered peoples", which is a shame since this is an important article. I'm going to try to make some of the relevant changes myself, but the article seriously needs attention from someone who really knows what they're writing about from a NEUTRAL standpoint, and not from someone who fancifully maintains the notion of an extremely early muslim invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Leamhan spáis (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

7.1 Religion - Blatant NPoV issue.

"The minorities were also dealt with very leniently by the Muslim leaders and many offences were pardoned.An example of this is that they were pardoned at multiple occasions for non-payment of jizya, while non-payment of zakat by Muslims was not tolerated. Different Muslim sects,Jews and Christians lived in Perfect harmony in the Islamic Empire."

The issue I have with this segment should hopefully be obvious:

1) "Muslim sects, Jews and Christians lived in Perfect harmony in the Islamic Empire."

That is a nonsensical statement. Find me a single place on earth in "Perfect harmony", nonetheless one freshly conquered by foreigners of a different religion, with new laws and customs. It clearly isn't trying to be objective about Islamic hegemony at all.

2) "The minorities were also dealt with very leniently by the Muslim leaders and many offences were pardoned.An example of this is that they were pardoned at multiple occasions for non-payment of jizya, while non-payment of zakat by Muslims was not tolerated."

While it might be true as a technicality that they were less strict on enforcing the precise payment of the Jizya that doesn't mean that it's an example of fairness to "the minorities", who are practically guaranteed to be the majority in most regions during this early expansionary stage. The taxes specific to non-Muslims, especially during the early days of being subjugated, were much higher and could even be twice the tax-burden. If you're demanding twice the taxes for not following your religion then it'd also be more likely there'd be good reason for why they'd fail to make payments as easily as the Muslim citizenry.

Just a couple of things that caught my eye even if I don't have Editor experience. I'd recommend a rewrite as to the actual treatment of and harmony with "the minorities" in accordance with whatever protocols are relevant.

--Nuril (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Islamic State

• the predecessors of the Rashidun Caliphate was The Islamic state which was ruled by Prophet Muhammad, which controlled all the Arabian Peninsula
• during civil war 656-661 Amr ibn al-As was under Muawiyah rule.
• Hasan ibn Ali briefly succeeded his father Ali ibn Abi Talib as the righteous Caliph following the latter's death, before retiring to Madinah and entering into an agreement with the first Umayyad ruler Muawiyah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bdulelah (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula

The paragraph concerning a purported invasion of the Iberian Peninsula is largely unsourced and discussion was last raised three years ago about whether or not it should be in the article. Since the conversation on this page appears to be very limited I'm going to go ahead and clip it down to what it should be: a description of purported invasions of the Iberian coastline before the Muslin conquest of the 8th century. At the moment it pushes the view that the caliphate had a foothold in visigothic spain, which is only speculation from a couple of understandably biased historians. so I'm going to clip it. I'm hoping for some discussion on what is a very important but sadly abused article.Leamhan spáis (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rashidun"??

please explain the meaning of the word "Rashidun" to non-arabic speakers! thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Its Basicly the shortage of 'Khulafa'ur Rashidin' or 'rightly guided caliph' which pointing to the authority of the four first Caliph in this empire. well basicly its just e mere of Rule of thumbs from modern historians that its often named 'Rashidun' as the shortened popular nickname

Rashideen, as is rightly mentioned in old arabic accounts, is the correct one. Alexwharf001 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A complete rewrite

I am beginning a complete re-write of this article. The entire article, and many of the articles it links to, and very obviously written from a Muslim, Sunni perspective, with no sourcing and wiki-inappropriate wording. Many of these sections very openly praise the people in question in a way which is completely inappropriate for a neutral wiki, misleading, and to many very offensive.

I will be deleting a lot of text. I will preserve as much as I can, but without sourcing, much of this material is simply nowhere near wiki qualtiy, and to keep it up is an insult to the desired neutrality of the wiki project. Talking about "true faith" and "political genius" in religious figures is unacceptable.

Eternal of sirus (talk)

Your "rewrite" being composed of removing vast amounts of references and referenced information? I disagree. You will need a consensus for your massive removal of references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kansas Bear. You are removing sourced information and you need consensus for this kind of editing. By the way User:Eternal of sirus new discussions go to the bottom. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The referenced information I remove is, if you'll look at it, irrelevant to the article as a whole. It is largely sections praising historical figures, making unsourced claims, and embelleshing about events. You have been removing entire sections of edits, which I have taken care to atomize so people can tell me what changes they disagree with, instead of addressing atomic changes.

Many of these changes do not remove any references or referenced material at all. That is a key issue of my desision to revert your reversion.

Besides: If someone puts in, lets make up an example, "and then Umar totally awesomely defeated the enemy, crushing them with the grace of God", I would go ahead and remove that without any sort of consensus. The page isn't quite that extreme, but some sections certainly embelish to a dangerous degree.

If there are particular deletions you disagree with, could we discuss them bit-by-bit instead of undoing everything I have changed? I don't think adding a references makes having so many unsourced, propaganda-esque claims defendable. I stand by my belief that the current state of the article is attrocious. Eternal of sirus (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to do your editing a little bit at a time instead of all at once. For best results: Tell us here on the Talk Page what you want to do, like "I have found a source that contradicts the article, and here is what it says: 'It was Joe Blow and not Richard Roe who made the statement (according to Sidney Doe's book on the subject), so I am changing the article to reflect this new information.'" And then make the change to the article. If nobody objects to the change, it will stay there, but if somebody objects, then we talk about it on the article's Discussion page. Then you go on to the next change. For more, see WP:BRD. The idea in a contentious article like this one is to take things slowly, and in little chunks. Let it stretch out a few days or weeks. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

But they are removing _all_ of my edits, rather than the ones they disagree with. Some are small fixups, but they are grouing together every single edit - including ones that aren't mine - and just reverting them as a group. Is wikipedia really in such a failed state that in order to remove something that is overtly inappropriate praise for a religious figure, or an entire section of unsourced speculation, it requires 'consensus'? This article is effectively Islamic propaganda. Now, I'm not trying to make it propaganda to fit my viewpoint, because I do appreciate neutrality, but...

why is every single edit grouped together? That is what really bugs me about this. We disagree on changes, sure. But they are taking away even small, very obvious and necessary changes that I feel should not be controversial in the least. I feel like I need an administrator at this point, because they have not addressed my problem of _addressing each change separatately_ at all, but continue to group everything I do together and throw it out. Eternal of sirus (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but in the space of half an hour you made all these edits. Just make them one at a time and tell why on the Talk Page. Then wait a day for people to respond and for consensus to be achieved. (You and the other editors might reach a happy WP:compromise.) There is no reason to rush the editing of an encyclopedia which will be here for the ages even though I know you want to set things right as quickly as possible. The other editors want to make a good encyclopedia, too. It is up to you to help find a consensus. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, then. I've heard you all out and asked the admins what should be done. What changes can we agree on? I feel that this article is in a very, very sorry state. Does anyone disagree with that?

This article contains many sections that go on longer rants without any sources at all. These rants are often apologist in nature, and talk about the motivation of the historical characters in question. Can we all agree to remove such sections if they do not add to the historical context of the article, and have no sources at all?

I would also like to neutralize the language of the article. It often paints a "Muslims vs Everyone" picture. I think "Rashidun forces" is better than "the Muslims", for example. I would also avoid words like "apostaphy" and "treason", as while that may be the Sunni Muslim view of certain events, it is not a neutral point of view. Does anyone disagree with that?

Generally speaking, is anyone actually happy with the current state of the article? Eternal of sirus (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record I still think it was unreasonable to roll back every single thing I changed rather than trying to address individual changes. Eternal of sirus (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That massive rollback will now enable you to do your edits one by one. I don't have access to any of the sources, and I have scant interest in the topic, but if you want to start by changing "Rashidun forces" to "the Muslims," well, go ahead with that change to the article and cite a source that uses "Rashidun forces" because someone else will certainly look for a source that says "the Muslims." If somebody reverts, then you have to go through one of the WP:Dispute resolution processes, but at least there will be a focus on what the dispute is all about. Then just wait a day and make another change. WP:Bold, revert, discuss is slow but it is the process that is marked out in Wikipedia. I myself have simply removed unsourced sentences, paragraphs or entire sections from articles with the Edit summary "Unsourced. Challenging and removing." Then whoever puts the information back had better find a source for it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The main problem here is sourced information and multiple sources being removed. The fact is, when someone arrives on the article and editor talk pages and starts crowing about "propaganda" and "clear violation of wiki policy" or "I also disagree with your assertion that I need consensus to remove information", does not convince me this person has any form of "neutrality" in mind for this article. And, statements like, "...Sunni Muslim view of certain events.", simply illustrate this editor's bias. Oh, and I have added references to this article as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rashidun Caliphate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070402221553/http://www.swordofallah.com:80/html/bookchapter34page1.htm#1 to http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter34page1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070306021010/http://www.swordofallah.com:80/html/bookchapter33page1.htm to http://www.swordofallah.com/html/bookchapter33page1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

does this empire still exsist then?

as nowhere in this article is any mention of when it ceased to be, ie when its downfall took place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.233.230 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read the Crisis and fragmentation section. The information is there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Succeeded & proceeded standard flags?

Not sure what the problem is with the standard flags I am adding which are being used on there main article and across Wikipedia. 70.50.214.180 (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't looked into this matter myself. I reverted your edit because you seemed to be edit warring with Iryna Harpy. If the images you added in your last edit are not the ones Iryna earlier identified as OR, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Eperoton (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Apologies for the tardy response. I seem to have missed your ping. In fact, it is all of the same sources (and associated sources) being used to create a 'flag' out of colours identified as being associated with this or that state, royal or other emblems associated, but not flags or insignia recognised universally by academics as being emblematic of said states. Using such symbols is a breach of WP:NOR and has been discussed at length on multiple historical state articles, with the consensus standing at it being OR. There are still a multitude of articles using such insignia, but I'm not about to take on every the world (read as dozens of articles). Users still keep adding emblems used in the associated articles but, per WP:WINARS, it doesn't make it so. As I'm sure you'll agree, manufacturing associations with imagery is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge needed?

It seems that Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate cover the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The reversion

@DA1: Firstly, the quotations which are not straight are meant to reflect the fact that the Arabic names, such as 'علي' and 'عثمان', have letters that do not usually have equivalents in the English language, the letter 'ع' in the case of these 2 names, which is pronounced from the throat, and they do not necessarily make it harder for users to search for those names, since links for these 2 men exist without the apostrophe, so it doesn't matter if you insert the apostrophe or not, it should still return the same result when searching.

Secondly, Hasan ibn Ali's role in the end of the Rashidun Caliphate and rise of the Umayyad Dynasty, that is, that he was the Caliph who negotiated the transfer of power to Muawiyah I, to end the First Fitna, is too important to ignore, from a historical POV. Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

And here is the reference on Hasan being a "Rightly Guided" Caliph, even if his rule was temporary. Leo1pard (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In lieu of possible WP:EDITWARRING or WP:OVERKILL, refer to the existing discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam here [1]. I urge other members or editors to do the same, and share their input for consensus. -DA1 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Black Standard as the Flag of the Rashidun Caliphate

Hi Wikipedians I was thinking of the flag of the Rashidun Caliphate was the original black standard flag of the prophet muhammad. I read in many sources that the black standard flag was used by the Rashidun Caliphate. If it isn't, what is the real flag of the rashidun caliphate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixarkid101 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Pixarkid101. This has been discussed before (above). There was no 'official' flag for the caliphate. The concept of an official flag/banner is a relatively modern one. Many cultures and states in the past may have used various symbols to designate aspects of their state, but they were not emblems representing that state in the way we perceive such symbols in contemporary times. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a meaningful answer. Wikipedia uses images of historical emblems all over the place as long as the historicity of the emblem can be established. See the Vexilloid in the Roman Empire infobox. Are you going to argue Many cultures and states in the past may have used various symbols to designate aspects of their state, but they were not emblems representing that state in the way we perceive such symbols in contemporary times for that as well? If not, why not?

The question is if we have good sources of the use of a black banner as a field sign at the time. If we do, the article can certainly assert as much, and use the emblem within Wikipedia common practice.

I am very much in favour, and myself active in, combatting unhistorical flag-spam in articles. But this is very different from pontificating about the way we perceive such symbols in contemporary times. Please address the actual case at hand, i.e. is there, or is there not, historical evidence for the use of this specific flag at this specific time? --dab (𒁳) 08:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag, redux

I believe the issue here is that the Black Standard is strongly associated with the Abbasid Caliphate, who chose black to contrast with the Fatimid green Umayyad white. There is a tradition that Muhammad used both a black and a white flag, and there is (as of yet) no evidence that the Rashidun caliphs used either, or both. So even if there is a reference stating the Rashidun used flags of this or that colour there is no strong case for picking any of them as emblematic.

However, Iryna Harpy, you have also taken it upon yourself to remove the black flag from the Abbasid page. [2]

This is not exactly a "rightly guided" editorial decision, to say the least. We have perfectly valid evidence that the Abbasid caliphate was, at the time, very strongly identified with this flag, they consciously picked it as their emblem, and their partisans were even called musawwids for their flag. I do not see how this can even be remotely cast as "disputed" or lacking in "reliable sources".

"The proselytes of the ʿAbbasid revolution took full advantage of the eschatological expectations raised by black banners in their campaign to undermine the Umayyad dynasty from within. Even after the ʿAbbasids had triumphed over the Umayyads in 750, they continued to deploy black as their dynastic colour; not only the banners but the headdresses and garments of the ʿAbbasid caliphs were black [...] The ubiquitous black created a striking contrast with the banners and dynastic color of the Umayyads, which had been white [...] The Ismaili Shiʿite counter-caliphate founded by the Fatimids took white as its dynastic color, creating a visual contrast to the ʿAbbasid enemy [...] white became the Shiʿite color, in deliberate opposition to the black of the ʿAbbasid 'establishment'." Jane Hathaway, A Tale of Two Factions: Myth, Memory, and Identity in Ottoman Egypt and Yemen, 2012, p. 97f.

If you are capable of claiming "No WP:RS attest to these being 'flags'" in a case as overwhelmingly clear-cut as that you should really reconsider your general approach to this.

TLDR:

• Abbasids: black.
• Umayyads: white.
• Fatimids: white, later green.
• Rashidun: no evidence cited, probably did not have an emblematic colour.

--dab (𒁳) 09:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Still badly lacking in neutrality

As other have mentioned in several sections above, this article strays very far from a proper NPOV - it reads like a celebration of the Caliphate rather than an impartial piece of encyclopedia. It also lacks references for many of the claims it makes, and never explores contrary views and records (for example well documented cases of brutality in the imperial conquest). I would go so far as to say that it shold be tagged NPOV if it isnt substanitally improved quickly. Fig (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hazrat Hasan ibn Ali (RA)

The scholar Akbar Shah Najeebabadi considers the caliphate of Hazrat Hasan ibn Ali (RA) as part of the Rashidun caliphate as well. See the book Tarikh e Islam (in Urdu) or its translation History of Islam by him--Abdul Muhsy (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Population and size of the Caliphate

I doubt the Caliphate's population was as low as 20 million, a simple wiki search of the Eastern Roman Empire's population shows that it was about 17 million before the Roman-Persian war of 602-628, even if the Romans lost a lot of manpower, you can't tell me that Syria and Egypt would have a population less than 2 million, they were trade centers of the world back then, if anything the population shouldn't be affected so heavily as to being completely unrecognizable to their former prosperity, both empires wished to preserve these areas as they would be beneficial for them, personally I believe the two areas wouldn't have a population lower then 2.5 million after the war. The Sassanid empire had a population of roughly 40 to 45 million, even if by some catastrophic phenomenon the empire's population got reduced to about 35 million, which would make this war one of the deadliest in world history mind you, this is just me somewhat exaggerating to make logical deductions here, it should still have a population of a little greater than 35 million which would mean at the start of the Arab conquests the population should presumably be 15 million plus for the ERE and 35 million plus for Sassanids'. This would mean that even if there was to be a lot of bloodshed in the Arab conquests, of which there is no indication that the conquests were as bloody as the 602-628 war that preceded it, I can only understand this to mean that the Caliphate would have a higher population than 21 million. As far as I know, there wasn't any mass immigration by the two opposing empires, thus it logically follows that the Caliphate should have a higher population, especially considering that some people favored the Caliphate, Sassanians got lower taxes from the Caliphate, why would they want to immigrate, a large number of Romans actually helped the Caliphate against the ERE, such as in Syria and in Egypt, where inhabitants exposed the weakness of the Roman forces to the Caliphate's forces. That along with the 641 estimation of the ERE's population on wikipedia suggests, to me, that at least 4 million people joined the Caliphate from the Romans, and at least 25 million would have joined from the Sassanids, especially considering that Iran, the heartland of the Sassanid empire had been taken completely by 646 and what we call Iraq was already in the Caliphate's hands, Iraq being very fertile would obviously have had high concentration of the population of the Sassanids. I suggest that we should re-evaluate the Caliphate's population.

As for the size of the Caliphate, while I respect Rein Tagpeera's efforts, I believe the numbers he has cited are false, by mistake of course, for example Rein puts the Caliphate's size as 4.1 million km2 in 644, though if you look at the conquests of Umar, you will notice that this is blatantly wrong, the Arabian Peninsula's area is 3.2 million km2, then you have the fact that in Umar's time the area we call modern Syria and Palestine was completely conquered along with south-eastern anatolia, plus almost all of modern day Iran, disregarding the fact that the Caliphate didn't take the coastal region of Iran with the Caspian Sea, the area of Iran occupied by he Caliphate is still easily more than 1.5 million km2 in area, I did (an admittedly crude) area calculation of the area in Iran not occupied by the Caliphate (through google maps Area calculator) is just a tad shy of 135,000 km2, subtract that from Iran's 1.648 million km2 area and it is still above 1.5 million km2, add to that the other areas in Umar's reign, like Egypt, about a half of the area of Turkmenistan ( including the area occupied in modern Afghanistan) and the area west of Egypt and north of Anatolia, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, who had recognized Umar's reign by the very end of his reign, it becomes blatantly obvious that Umar's Caliphate was bigger than 5.2 million km2 easily, that then begs the question, how big was the Caliphate at Usan's time, especially considering that he had conquered all of modern day Balochistan, which comprises 47 percent of Pakistan and a little of Sindh plus he moved extended Egypt, moved further westward, a little further than Tripoli and even conquered some of the Iberian coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdusSami98 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@AbdusSami98: You may well be correct in the changes you are proposing, but you need to provide reliable sources to justify them. When doing so, please ensure that you do not go beyond what is stated in the sources; this would otherwise violate Wikipedia's original research policy. Also note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself (see WP:CIRCULAR).
Alivardi (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that is a pity, I don't have access to reliable sources, nor can I direct one to a reliable source (due to the circumstances of my nation) plus I'm new to wikipedia (first day was yesterday) so I can't really do anything now. At least we were able to come to somewhat of a conclusion that the Caliphate's current cited size is off the mark and that it would have likely had a notably larger population. That is enough for me. I leave this up to someone more resourceful than me to implement the changes. (Thanks for the warm reply Alivardi)

No problem AbdusSami98. Regarding reliable sources, do you have access to Google Books? That's what I always use to find them. See WP:INTREF for how to actually make the citations: it's not as difficult as you'd think.
Alivardi (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:INTREF , I will look it up later, I'm busy right now. I do have access to Google books, but it's limited, I can only read previews. Plus I haven't read or heard of any book that truly goes in depth about these two aspects of the Caliphate, so I don't know where to start. Anyway, my main purpose was to shine light upon an often overlooked, inaccurately depicted, aspect of the Caliphate and cause a discussion to basically allow those who are more resourceful than me to be able to reconcile the inconsistency in the wiki page of Rashidun Caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdusSami98 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hasan Is the Fifth Caliph?

Hello, I'm Fazoffic

Previously I'm Sorry For Not Telling Other Editors About My Edits. I usually make edits on the Indonesian Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia so I rarely do it on the English Wikipedia.

As for After that, Me and My Crew Contacted Several Parties from the Islamic University of Medina and We Found Information That They Considered Hasan ibn Ali as the Fifth Caliph based on [Musnad Ahmad, No. 18406] and [Al Bidayah wan Nihayah]. Because They Think Hasan Fulfilled the Six Months Left of His Father Ali.

So Shouldn't we just include this information in the article?. Or maybe not because it's not too important?

Thank you. Fazoffic (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Musnad Ahmad and Ibn Kathir's al-Bidaya wa-l-nihaya are what we call 'primary sources'. Interpreting such sources or making inferences from them is what we call original research, which is not allowed on the English Wikipedia: as an encyclopedia, we follow existing, independent research already published by academic publishers. Such a publication containing established original research is what we call a 'secondary source'.

For example, in Hasan ibn Ali#Sunni Islam, we are citing Melchert 2020 on this very topic of Hasan ibn Ali being regarded as a fifth Rashidun caliph. Christopher Melchert is an established academic expert on early Sunnism (also note that he works from a secular perspective, which is necessary here to qualify as independent research), and I.B. Tauris is a well-known and reliable academic publishing house. This qualifies as a reliable, independent, secondary source. If you can point us to a secondary (containing established research), independent (secular), reliable (academic) source of this type, we could use it to add something to the relevant articles (in the first place to Hasan ibn Ali). If you don't know of such a source, it's probably better to spend your time on something else.

Melchert, Christopher (2020). "The Rightly Guided Caliphs: The Range of Views Preserved in Ḥadīth". In al-Sarhan, Saud (ed.). Political Quietism in Islam: Sunni and Shi'i Practice and Thought. London and New York: I.B. Tauris. pp. 63–79. ISBN 978-1-83860-765-4.

Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliph(s)

At present Rashidun Caliph and Rashidun Caliphs redirect not here, but to Rashidun. I think here would likely be better, maybe with a hatnote to the other. The bigger problem is that the other article is a bit of a mess, has an unclear scope, and overlaps in apparent scope with this one. One possibility is that the other should be more explicitly about Rashidun as a concept -- perhaps with particular reference to the different interpretations of that -- rather than the historical entity or bios. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mention of term "Haq Char Yaar"?

I'd run across the term "Haq Char Yaar" in some other place on the internet, and managed to track down that it means "the first four caliphs" and is pretty commonly used in Pakistani culture. Is there any way we can work in mention of this term into the article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Really! There is no reason to work a modern Urdu phrase into an article on the first four caliphs 1400 years ago. Not even the Anglicized phrase "Rashidun Caliphate" was used fourteen hundred years ago! It was invented in Arabic much later as a handy historical label. Can't we find a professional historian fluent in English to write this article? The first thing to check is, "When were these four caliphs first called the "Rashidun Caliphs"? They were not so called in their lifetimes, they were not so called in their century, they were no so called in any language for centuries. Who was the first Muslim historian to use the phrase? 100.8.239.196 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Patriarchal Caliphate" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Patriarchal Caliphate and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Patriarchal Caliphate until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Expansion of the Arab empire" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Expansion of the Arab empire and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11 § Expansion of the Arab empire until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)