Talk:Umayyad Caliphate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Misuse of the Word 'Arab'[edit]

The use of the word Arab is far too liberal and not specific enough for an encyclopaedia - as the Umayyad Caliphate was Syrian and therefore likely what has been called Arabic for was a a derivative of the Syrian language. In the Bible there are frequent references to Damascus but at no time does it put Arab and Damascus or Arab and Syrian together.

The Syrian Umayyad was important to the development of Islam - as they compiled the Koran - as the original Arabian text - was written in Old Arabic of which few could understand - source Encyclopedia Britannica - under the comparatively modern Syria - Islamic architecture and calligraphy were developed. In addition the five pillars of Islam were established and Islamic law was written drawing mainly from Persian and Armenian law.

This work was done only after North Africa and Spain were conquered - supposedly for Islam - whether these lands were conquered in the name of Islam - is questionable - as the Umayyad ruling that everyone in the conquered lands should speak Arabia /more Syrian came in order to spite the Byzantine rulers who were the previous conquers of these sought after lands of the Roman Empire - under the ruling all reminders of Byzantine had to be removed - all coins' writing changed to the new Middle Eastern style. As well as all were encouraged largely through political gain to take Islam. But not before the Syrian Umayyad prepared the Koran so that it could be accepted - in these mainly Christian and tribal lands. And the Koran still exists in this form today.

So maybe the people of North African might consider calling themselves Syrian rather than Arab - The Island of Gibraltar is named after the first Islamic conqueror Tariq - who was himself a Syrian!

Perhaps the Umayyah was the first of the non-Arab caliphates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talkcontribs) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment has so many factual errors that it's useless to even try and itemize them, I'll just say that Tariq was not Syrian, he was a berber from Morocco.Yazan (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Yazan. I don't know where you get this information, but the Ummayads were close allies and friends with the prophet during his life, and didn't have to compile the Koran in order to get favor as you claim. In fact, the complilation was initiated by the first Caliph Abu Bakr. Also, the five pillars of Islam were existent since the early years of Islam, and certainly not after the conquering of Spain and North Africa. And the Ummayads can be said to be a branch of the Quraish tribe, so they're not Syrian. I don't really know where you're getting all your thoughts on this, but they are very far off. AbbasAD (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I took the spelling of names in the list from Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples, ISBN 1567312160. I fully realize that any transliteration from the Arabic is fraught with peril. If you decide to change it, please change it as universally as possible! --MichaelTinkler

Hmmm! I think the images are a bit out of topic and I placed one myself. I'll handle this later, unless someone does something before. --zelidar 21:10, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

in general[edit]

This could be a lot worse but it is filled with minor errors and has more Shi'ite pov than it should (eg the canard about 'Umayyah). The general layout is poor and I can see no reason for listing Banu Umayya companions and successors. Since when has the tribal affiliations of either been of any interest? I have made no changes. I am planting this here to see if I get any comments then in a few months I will start actual editing. Kleinecke 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "origins" section way exceeds the proper extent of the article and needs some major editing. -afdoug 19 sept 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afdoug (talkcontribs) 04:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


well, al other tribes are called Banu x, so i thought i whould be better if it followed the same principle..hmmmm....

--Striver 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Map of the empire[edit]

I think it would benefit the article greatly. Ksenon 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The firs map wich show the caliphate extension in red is highly inaqurate because the following reasons:

1. Crete wasn't conquered until the year 824 by the andalusian exiliates. 2. Sicily was invaded by the arabs in 652 but they were quickly repulsed, the trully conquest of that island began in 827 under the hand of north africans. 3. Canary Islands wasn't part of the Caliphate, in fact never was conquered by any muslim power.

I will talk with the guy that posted if he want to correct the map, but until that happen, i will delete the image.

--Bentaguayre 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

the fantastic four[edit]

This page mentions: four rightly guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Ali)

The History of Islam page ( mentions: the regim of Caliphate of Muhammad's Companions (Abubakar,Umar,Usman and Ali).

I almost missed the similarity. Is one of these "translations" (who the four are, and their names) more often used?

The most conventional transliteration for these names would be: Abu-Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and 'Ali. The hyphen in Abu-Bakr is optional. I am going to change the article to use these. Kleinecke 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Are all these names three different people or is the author of this really bad at proofreading?

I'm no expert but I'm guessing that they are the same person. All three have the same pronounciation: Moo-wha-ee-yah

They are all the same name. There was a Muawiyah I and a Muawiyah II in the Umayyad Caliphate. The pronounciation goes like this: Moo-aw-wee-yah. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


{{rename|Banu Umayyah}} (striking old request, removes from category Patstuarttalk|edits 00:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

see Banu Quraish to see how all the other sub-clans are named. --Striver 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections? --Striver 02:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Umayyad is more popular to the English reader. --Islamic 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is true. But that could be solved by having a redirect, so everyione does find its way here, and explain the etymology in a section of its own. Don't you agree that its better to name it after a tranlisteration, so it follows the precedens of the other tribes? --Striver 16:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A redirect from one name to the other would be best. But which name is fundamental? I believe the importance of the Umayyads is as a dynasty rather than as a "tribe" (they were at best a family) and dynasties are not generally called Banu anything in English. So I say redirect Banu Umayyad to this article. Kleinecke 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Iran[edit]

There is an entire list about the history of Iran in this article, and i don't see an special relation for that privilege. I have deleted it.



Have expanded the history section, largely relying on G.R. Hawting, The first dynasty of Islam, 2nd ed. (London, 2000), and removed the expand tag. Comments and corrections most welcome!

I've concentrated mostly on political and military history; a section on culture is still a desideratum --Javits2000 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Normally you would expect either the purals noun Umayyads as the article title or Umayyad dynasty, not the singular adjective Umayyad .S711 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the name of tribe[edit]

the name of tribe is Banu Umayyah(Which means sons of Umayyah) not Umayyad

UMAYYAD BRO? (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion section[edit]

I included the Baha'i theological standpoint on the Umayyads, but as `Abdu'l-Bahá has made the statement as the authoritative standpoint of the religion and has asserted it as a fact as opposed to the opinion I felt the term "standpoint" was more appropriate. I feel a little uncomfortable including it in that section though because it seems to be placing an official standpoint next to general trends of opinion. Any thoughts? Peter Deer (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too feel uncomfortable. I demoted it to a new Other religions subsection. The Bahá'í standpoint is an outgroup opinion, like imagininative

Christian standpoint[edit]

Christians in general feels like the Umayyad were nice guys, but then generally exclaims

"Umayyad" who?!?
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Major Blunders - Qusayr Amra was built by Walid I not Walid II[edit]

Whoever has said the architectural finds at Qusayr Amra were built in the time of Walid II is seriously out in his dates. Almost all the archaeological books say it was Walid I who built it, and it may have been used by Yazeed II and Walid II also. Given the fact that Walid II's section is dominated by a photo from a palace he did not even build yet which is being ascribed to him, I'd say that's a blunder which should be changed. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank1829 (talkcontribs) 01:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A good idea so long as you cite it to a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The map[edit]

The map in the infobox is exaggerated. Umayyad caliphate had conquered only a part of Transoxiana and had never conquered north of Transoxiana (ie Syr Darya). The second map in the History section seems more realistic. Although, I don't know much about Umayyad conquests in Africa, by comparing the maps, I can see a similar exaggeration in Africa also.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and i have replaced the fairy tale map with the previous one. --Scoobycentric (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Major mistake in Umayyad genealogy[edit]

There is a major mistake in the genealogy proposed for the Umayyads in this page. 'Uthman (the 3rd Caliph) was not Abu Sufyan's brother, but his first cousin once removed. He was the son of Affan, the son of Abu al-'As. This means that Mu'awiya b. Abu Sufyan, who appears in this genealogy as 'Uthman's nephew, was in fact his second cousin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the tree needs some work. The tree seems to be mistaken at least near the root. Umayyah had two sons "Abu al-As" and "Harb". Abu al-As had multiple sons, one was "Affan", the Caliph "Uthman" is his son. Another son is "Al-Hakam" as correctly put in the tree. On the other hand, "Abu Sufyan" is the son of "Harb" (who is Jattab?).

Umayyah{----Harb----------Abu Sufyan--Muawiyah
       {----Abu al-As{----Al-Hakam----Marwan I
                     {----Affan-------Uthman (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The above is exactly true. In the genealogical tree, at least the following changes should be made: - There is no such person as "Jattab", and this has be taken out. - Uthman (which should not be spelled as "Utman") is not the son of the non-existent "Jattab", but the son of "Affan", who is not shown on the chart. Affan is the son of Abu al-As (already on the chart). - Abu Sufian is not the son of (the non-existent) Jattab, but the son of "Harb", who is not shown on the chart. Harb is the son of Umayyah (already on the chart). - Marwan II's father was not "Al-Himar" as shown, but rather Mohammad. "Al-Himar" (which means a donkey) was a name given to Marwan II himself. The above information is common knowledge and is found all over Wikipedia itself. Also, the genealogical tree of Umayyads in the Arabic Wikipedia shows the information correctly. Esam.zainal (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Can we add a new section for the DNA regarding Banu Umayyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DNA regarding Banu Umayyad

i read the some people think that Banu Umayyed don't belong to the same tribe and they are whatever.. Banu Umayyed offspring made DNA and the result was J1 .. if you want to make sure contact the Arabian DNA' admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Arabian DNA' admin? Really? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag_of_Afghanistan_(1880–1901).svg or File:3by2white.svg?[edit]

Why does the flag that links to the previous caliphate also be the flag of Afghanistan in 1880-1901, long after the early days of Islam?

File:3by2white.svg would be better because the first caliphate had no flag. Flags existed but not every country had one back then(unlike now).

Could someone explain this to me? (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunni Opinion[edit]

What is written on the Sunni opinion is not the Sunni opinion. What is said in the beginning is true, but till this part: "Sunni opinions of the Umayyad dynasty after Muawiyah are dim, viewing many of the rulers as sinners and the cause of great tribulation in the Ummah[citation needed]. For example, in the section concerning Quran 17:60[23] in the exegesis by al-Suyuti entitled Dur al-Manthur, the author writes that there exist traditions which describe the Umayyads as "the cursed tree". There are some exceptions to this, for example Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz is praised as one of the greatest Muslim rulers after the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. Only one Umayyad ruler (Caliphs of Damascus), Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, is unanimously praised by Sunni sources for his devout piety and justice and for his efforts to spread Islam and his efforts to undo the wrongdoings of his fore-bearers eventually led to internal hostilities within the dynasty that ultimately lead to his poisoning in the year 720." This lacks sources, and is actually the Shiaa opinion of the Sunni opinion. And I have sources to prove otherwise. For example the verse 17:60 according to Sunnis it is not about Muawiyah's lineage. It is a Shiaa opinion not a Sunni. Here what is the actual Sunni opinion: Sunni view Muawiyah as good man, who made his own Ijtihad during the First Fitna, which may have turned out wrong according to them, and they point out the fact that he was one of the writers of the Quran. But they also criticize the change from a Caliphate to a monarchy, and criticize the Mawali system. Generally, They view the Umayyad regime as a good time, especially during Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz ruling, that became bad near its ending. --BelalSaid (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Map Update to include Somalia[edit]

The Map needs to be updated as it excludes Somalia. --Inayity (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You also need a reference to indicate that Somalia was geographically part of the Caliphate! Faizan (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Inayity. The map needs an update to add Somalia, and this is a source: [1].

The map also has several mistakes. It excludes Kashgar[2]which was conquered by Qutayba ibn Muslim Al-Bahili.((there are many sources for this, for example: the famous historical source-book Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya,Ibn Kathir, page 1406)) After the conquest of Kashgar, Qutayba sent a delegation to the Chinese emperor under the leadership of Habira bin Mashmarj Kilbai with the message: "Accept Islamic rule or the horses of the Islamic warriors will run over China".[3]

Another mistake in this map is that it does exclude Galicia and the Balearic islands!

Iberia in 750.

It also doesn't include Rhodes.[4]

In my point of view, the map has several mistakes and is not currently accurate! what makes it worse is the statement mentioned under the image in the information box: "The Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent."!--IMaxCool (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Post 750 dynasty (Spain)[edit]

I am getting ready to write a large addition to the Cordoba section but am vacillating on where to place it. My first thoughts based on the books Encyclopedia Britannica that I am initially reading is to place them in either a new section of Umayyad Dynasty or to create an Arab Umayyad Dynasty in Spain or something similar page. However there are other options such as Calphate of Cordoba or even Al-Andalus, which I actually think is the worst of the options. I am going to think on it and see what others in the know have to say. I also brought home a bunch of books on African History and Asian History but forget that Spain has a lot of involvement in the History of North Africa for a period, so I will need to go to my University Library and get more books. Anyway please chime in, let me know what you think. If I don't get a lot of strong opinions one way or the other I will just be BOLD, and do what I think is best from all of my sources. speednat (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The map of Iberia in 750 is incorrect. It is really the situation in 719 with the fall of the last Visigothic province Septimania. In 739 an uprising drove the Muslim army out of northwest Spain. The northwest then joined the Kingdom of Asturias.

Section deleted by user Flyte35[edit]

User:Flyte35 has deleted the following:[5]

The [[Conquest of Mecca]] while overwhelming for the Umayyads for the time being, further fueled their hatred towards the Hashimites {{POV-statement|date=May 2013}}; this would later result in battles between [[Muawiyah I]] and [[Ali]] and then killing of [[Husayn ibn Ali]] along with his family and a few friends on the orders of [[Yazid ibn Muawiyah]] at the [[Battle of Karbala]].<ref>Britannica Encyclopedia, Karbala', Battle of</ref>

I think that this was a good deletion. When I checked the citation Encyclopedia Britannica, Battle of Karbalā, it did not support the statements. The citation appears to be bogus.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Living descendants[edit]

Are there any living descendants of the Umayyad Caliphs? Komitsuki (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your connection for inter-languages are WRONG![edit]

You have separated the topic into 2 different language groups. There are 72 languages, but not all of them connected. You have made 2 separete groups in such a way that if you are in english page, you cannot reach to all of the other languages that is German and French, and if you are German and French, then you cannot reach to English page, because you have not connected all 72 languages together. I have corrected TWICE, but you have reverted!! (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to reach German or French pages of Umayyad Caliphate when you are reading the English version. You have reverted my corrections TWICE! Now this time you have to revert your incorrect edits ıf you can, I don't believe that you can do it properly. You see you are not CAREFUL enough. (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

All pages of Ummayads in different languages should get linked!! Except TWO of them: ONE is the Ummayad Family Tree in English, and the OTHER is Ummayad Family tree in Turkish, those TWO of them must remain connected with each other (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC) & These pages should get MERGED!!! Because they are the SAME. I have had them CORRECTED twice but User talk:Maqivi reverted my CORRECTIONS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC) . (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC) You can see that in the case of Abbasid Caliphate, all articles in 70 different languages are linked. (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your connections for the languages in Ummayads are WRONG!!! All pages of Ummayads in different languages should get linked!! Except TWO of them: ONE is the Ummayad Family Tree in English, and the OTHER is Ummayad Family tree in Turkish, those TWO of them must remain connected with each other . (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think the problem is. On the left hand side of the Umayyad Caliphate page are inter-wiki links. For example:
If you think that some of these interwiki links are wrong, what I suggest you do is to make a list of the ones that you think are the wrong ones. If you look at the format I used above *Alemannisch links to [[:als:Umayyaden]] you will see how to do it. It would be helpful to list both what you consider the error and what you consider that it should link to. For example *Lilliputian links to [[:Lil:Umayyisch]] and should link to [[:Lil:Umayyaden]]. (Lilliputian is just an example.)
By the way, have I understood your point correctly? --Toddy1 (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I explain once more again about UMAYYADS & Umayyad Chaliphate & The articles are linked to those TWO Separete pages, which should be merged to ONE page only!!! 55 languages in one page and 19 on the other page, which is wrong. Total number of article is 74 and all should be in the same page so that people can go from one language to the other.

  1. Now :Umayyad Caliphate (Q45646) has 55 articles
  2. :Umayyad Caliphate (Q8575586) has 18 articles how will you go to (Umayyade-kalifatet in dansk) if you are reading (Umayyad Caliphate in english)
  3. all 73 articles should be in one page i.e. in the page of :Umayyad Caliphate (Q45646)
  4. I did this correction twice, they reverted my corrections, and now they BLOCKED!!!
  5. BUT these links are still INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have posted an item on Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts#Umayyad Caliphate (Q45646)/Umayyad Caliphate (Q8575586). Trying to deal with this was a thoroughly horrid experience. I do not know why they changed to this difficult and complicated system - actually I do know - the "improvers" love difficult and complicated systems :( --Toddy1 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Robert Monk posted the following response on Wikidata:
"These items cannot be merged because they represent different things: the first is for the family and the second for the state (caliphate). I've cleaned the properties and moved some of the language links to appropriate items. --Robot Monk (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)"
If this does not help, please post a response to him on Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts. Please do not post any more messages on my talk page telling me that it is all my fault.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummayads your article Umayyad Caliphate does not match to Ummayads in 45 other languages128.164.157.184 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate You need a separate page for Ummayads such that you can match to the Ummayad in 45 other languages because they don't have a separate page under the title of Umayyad Caliphate (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

BECAUSE The Umayyad Caliphate is ONLY prepared in 28 languages

Ummayads/Ummayad/Umayyads/Umayyad/Umayad & Umayyad Caliphate

Ummayads - Your article Umayyad Caliphate does not match to Umayyads in 45 other languages.

Umayyad Caliphate- You need a separate page for Ummayads such that you can match to the Ummayad in 45 other languages because they don't have a separate page under the title of Umayyad Caliphate . (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is solved NOW In 46 Languages, Ummayads topic is prepared! In 28 Languages, Umayyad Caliphate topic is prepared! If you don't redirect Ummayads to Umayyad Caliphate, it is solved for English. (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good reference source[edit]

While searching for sources for another article, I found a good reference for the Umayyads here. It could be used to site some information already available here in the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


The site contains entire paragraphs from this article (without footnotes and hyperlinks)? Which is the original? Is this a problem? What can be done? TheseusX (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheseusX: Given that the blog is unattributed, and that it didn't exist until 2014, it would be a WP:MIRROR. They can be found all over blogs and forums on the web. If you are uncertain, please feel free to contact the blog's 'team' (or possibly one man and his dog) for confirmation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Thanks for the reply! Cool, I learned something. Several things, actually. Inter alia, it wasn't clear to me that the site I stumbled upon was just a blog; on first glance, it appeared more professional. I assumed it was the copy, but the fact that the relevant passages (the section "Historical significance") exist in versions pre-2014 settles the issue, I guess. However, I don't care enough to take any further steps (especially since I haven't contributed anything to this article). TheseusX (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@TheseusX: Not a problem. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, therefore none of us are obliged to do more than we're up for. I might get around to contacting whoever runs the blog when I can find some time and ask that they attribute the Wikipedia content to the authors who have worked hard to produce a free resource available to anyone. It's a 'not for profit' site and, judging by the limited activity on the Facebook and Twitter pages, whoever set it up lost interest quite some time ago. Cheers for the heads up, and happy editing in the areas that you'd like to put your energies into! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


I find the second paragraph of the introduction a bit out of place in an already-too-long section. It starts off with taxation of various religious groups right after a the history and geography of the empire. I just wanted to see what people think before I even consider changing any of it. a.buchhorn (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Artur Buchhorn: Agreed. There are literally thousands of articles on historical states, and non of them focus on whether the taxation system was deemed fair or unfair, be it a monarchy, theocracy, or a tribal system. Certainly, there's room enough for taxation in the economy section in the body of the article, but the content is WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)