Talk:Rashidun Caliphate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Egypt (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contradicting maps[edit]

There are two contradictory maps - one showiug the Rashidun empire at its "greatest extent" which goes no further west than what is now Tunisia and an animated map the "Expansion of the Rashidun Caliphate" which includes what is now the northern areas of Algeria and Morocco. As far as I know, those areas were never under Rashidun control, which seems borne out by the contradicting maps in this article. Those areas came under Muslim control in the time of the Ummayad dynasty.

Arabic terms clarification[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

invasion of ibrean panuselia[edit]

Muslim conquered the spain + portugal in 711 A.D, but in 654 A.D they invaded it for first time by the orders of Caliph Uthman, in 655 when the agitation against uthman grew muslim armies were unable to go further and withdrawl from there outposts, thus it was a only short occupation of the coastal region of Andulus in spain. Thats it, some user here messed up the article because of the same issue so i have explained it now there should be no confussion.

Mohammad Adil 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Visigoths conquered Byzantine territory of Spania along the southern coast of Iberia. There are no Visigothic records of the Visigoths encountering Muslim outposts on Iberia's southern coast; which one would expect if they were there when the Visigoths took over - the Visigothic kingdom, especially in its later phases, is well documented. Nor have any archaeological remains been found of such sites. Perhaps the references are to shortlived outposts that were abandoned before the Visigoths took over "Spania" or perhaps these incursions never got beyond being anything more than exploratory raids. After all, the Arab records on this are vague and limited.


Actually these were not whole scale invasions, they were what we can more accurately call footholds on ibrean coast lines in 655, before starting some serious actions inland, Muslims abandon those outposts along with coast line of north-western Africa with the start of civil war one year later in 656.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Footholds"? What is that? Presumably the conquest of a small area with the intention of using it as a base for future military operations. Do you think the Visigoths would have ignored such a threatening action? They had a funtioning government and were aware of the Islamic invasions of the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. Perhaps this story is an exaggeration of some forgotten coastal smash and grab raids but this falls short of conquest, including limited ones. The area has been populated since antiquity so such a "foothold" would not have gone unnoticed. The story is vague and not backed up by independent sources, written or archaeological, just repetitions by later Islamic historians, which is of no help as proof. Most likely, they were just bragging. Happens a lot among soldiers, even Muslim soldiers.

languages spoken[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"?[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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??[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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.

Mention of term "Haq Char Yaar"?[edit]

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)

The Caliphate was not the largest empire in history at the time[edit]

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.[edit]

"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[edit]

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula[edit]

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"??[edit]

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