Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rashidun Caliphate: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:14, 9 June 2023 edit67.169.132.3 (talk) →invasion of ibrean panuseliaTag: Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:30, 8 January 2025 edit undoR Prazeres (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users30,692 edits →Why is the Byzantine Empire listed as one of the predecessor states of the caliphate?: ReplyTag: Reply 
(47 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Vital article|class=B|topic=History|level=5}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|Muslim-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history {{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Top}}
|class=B
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|Muslim-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Arab world
|class=B
|importance=Low
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Former countries}} {{WikiProject Former countries}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages |class=B |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Middle Ages |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Rashidun Caliphate|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}} {{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Rashidun Caliphate|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
Line 33: Line 10:
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. --> <!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->


== Flag ==
== Invasion of Ibrean panuselia ==


Hello, before anyone who wants to remove the flag. Let me explain, in the ], it is mentioned that people said it would've been the same flag as ] which is black as seen in the ]. ] (]) 08:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Muslims ''conquered'' Spain + Portugal in 711 A.D, but in 654 A.D they invaded it for the first time by the orders of Caliph Uthman, 655 when the agitation against Uthman(RA) grew Muslim armies were unable to go further and withdraw from their outposts, thus it was an only short occupation of the coastal region of Andalusia in Spain. That's it, some users here messed up the article because of the same issue so I have explained it now there should be no confusion.


:In the what? Either way, any claims about a flag need to be supported explicitly by ]. ] (]) 09:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
] 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
::According to Ibn Abbas, he said that the Muhammad's standard (Raya) was black and his banner (Liwa) white. ] (]) 09:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Syazwi Irfan, Misplaced Pages is based on what is explicitly said by ]. The source you cited was not one of those. (Please also look at ], which is relevant here.) I doubt that there is clear support in reliable sources for identifying something like an official flag of the Rashidun caliphs, but if there is, I recommend you present the sources here first so that we can verify them. Thanks, ] (]) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


== Map ==
The Visigoths conquered the 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 these incursions never went beyond being anything more than exploratory raids. After all, the Arab records on this are vague and limited.


I've noticed that neither {{u|Wario2}}'s map added nor the previous map (, ) reference any sources. As with other content, the article should use a map based on ]. The new map goes a step further by introducing additional ] in the form of provincial borders and an alleged banner (which has been repeatedly removed from the infobox in the past), so I'm reverting to the former map, even if the latter remains ultimately unsourced as well.


I had a quick look through ] but I haven't found a map that's a clear improvement. One reliable source that could be used as basis for a new map is Sluglett & Currie 2014 (which is accessible on archive.org ] and maybe visible on ), which has a relevant map of the period (#3, pp. 16-17). Another potential source is (pp. 28-29). There are a couple of other scholarly historical atlases that illustrate this as well, but I don't think they're as easily accessible (e.g. by Hugh Kennedy, 2002). ] (]) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, it is very difficult to find maps that cite reliable sources, even the map currently used in the article I don't think cites reliable sources. However, after looking around, all the maps in that category almost show the exact same area range. ▪︎ ''''']''''' <sub>(])</sub> 22:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Actually, these were not whole-scale invasions, they were what we could more accurately call footholds on Iberian coastlines in 655, before starting some serious actions inland, Muslims abandon those outposts along with the coastline of north-western Africa with the start of civil war one year later in 656.
]] 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


== Al-Khilafah Ar-Rasidah rather than Rashidun Caliphate ==
== Mention of term "Haq Char Yaar"? ==


Rashidun Caliphate is a European English name for Al-Khilafah Ar-Rasidah. It's official name was ] rather than ]. Also, according to Google trends, the most used word nowadays is Khilafah ar rasidah, or Khilafat e Rashida, or Khilafat ar Rashida, not Rashidun Caliphate. ] (]) 07:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
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? ] (]) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


:We go by ], not official name. This is the English Misplaced Pages, so obviously we will stick with a name which is most familiar to English-language readers. I checked the Google Trends page you have sent and it actually proves the opposite - that "Rashidun" is more commonly used. Every other English-language encyclopedia uses "Rashidun" too. ] (]) 07:20, 21 August 2024 (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? ] (]) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


== Hasan Is the Fifth Caliph? == == Arabian Empire ==


I want to say ummayed and rashidun caliphate were continuation and were muslim Arabian Empire it would be better as Arabian Empire like Spanish empire was Catholic but Spanish and spread language and religion both Arabian Empire did arabization and islamization too. ] (]) 17:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fazoffic


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


The last caliph isn’t Ali, it’s his son Hassan. His 6 months in power after Ali completes the 30 years of the prophetic caliphate. ] (]) 16:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
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 and . Because They Think Hasan Fulfilled the Six Months Left of His Father Ali.


== Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor? ==
So Shouldn't we just include this information in the article?.
Or maybe not because it's not too important?


Thank you. ] (]) 00:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC) I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. ] (]) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== Merge proposal ==
:'']'' and ]'s ''al-Bidaya wa-l-nihaya'' are what we call ']'. Interpreting such sources or making inferences from them is what we call ], which is not allowed on the English Misplaced Pages: 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 ], we are citing {{harvnb|Melchert|2020}} on this very topic of Hasan ibn Ali being regarded as a fifth Rashidun caliph. ] is an established academic expert on early Sunnism (also note that he works from a ] perspective, which is necessary here to qualify as ] research), and ] is a well-known and ] 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 ]). If you don't know of such a source, it's probably better to spend your time on something else.
:{{small|{{Cite book |last1=Melchert |first1=Christopher |author1-link=Christopher Melchert |date=2020 |contribution=The Rightly Guided Caliphs: The Range of Views Preserved in Ḥadīth |editor1-last=al-Sarhan |editor1-first=Saud |title=Political Quietism in Islam: Sunni and Shi'i Practice and Thought |location=London and New York |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-83860-765-4 |pages=63–79 |contribution-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=96TDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63}}}}
:Thanks, <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 12:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


I propose merging ] into ]. I think the content of the articles is almost exactly the same. See for yourself. --] (]) 02:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== Rashidun Caliph(s) ==


*Rashidun's are different than the state of Rashidun Caliphate. Rashidun are rightly Guided caliphs and the the Rashidun caliphate is a state by them. ] (]) 04:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
At present ] and ] redirect not here, but to ]. 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. ] (]) 17:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support,''' but with a few notes:
== "]" listed at ] ==
** I agree the scopes of the two are so overlapping that I can't tell the difference. So in terms of existing content, this should be merged.
]
** In principle, two different articles might still be beneficial, but a much more clearly distinct scope needs to be proposed and defined for the other article. Given its current state, this looks like it would be an entirely new endeavor, so I think a merge and consolidation in the meantime is probably still more beneficial. Future discussion could determine the scope and merits of another article.
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> and it has been listed ]. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11#Patriarchal Caliphate}} until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 11:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
** The article here (Rashidun Caliphate) is currently 11,000+ words, so it will require some additional management, especially if we merge content. However, there are multiple independent measures that can address that:
== "]" listed at ] ==
*** There are long sections, like the "History" section, which could be reasonably ] into its own clearly-defined article and replaced here with ].
]
*** There are multiple areas of extensive uncited or poorly-cited material in this article, which might be best removed under the circumstances.
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> and it has been listed ]. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 11#Expansion of the Arab empire}} until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 11:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:] (]) 21:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::No. Rashidun's are different from the the Rashidun Caliphate. They are those who are considered to Special person or from the by prophet Muhammad in several Hadiths. ] (]) 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*Rasidun could be the name of this proposed article and the Rasidun Caliphate Article could be a sub-article within it. ] (]) 18:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
*I agree. That articles are nearly identical and "Rashidun" doesn't mean anything besides the first few caliphs. ] (]) 06:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The Islamic religious concept of a "rightly-guided" or ] caliph is different from the historiographical term ]. However, the Rashidun/"rightly-guided" concept is not something that needs a separate article (RS do not treat it separately either), but rather something that should be explained within the Rashidun Caliphate article. <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 11:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

== Hasan ibn Ali as a part of it ==

Hasan ibn 'Ali was the part of the formal caliphate but his reign is religiously considered under Ali's caliphate because of a narration in Hadith - but historically he was the part of formal ''Al-Khilafah the caliphate''' <ref>https://www.muftisays.com/blog/Seifeddine-M/4091_17-12-2018/imaam-alhasan-ibn-ali-ra-the-fifth-rightlyguided-caliph.html</ref>] (]) 16:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}

== Orphaned references in ] ==

I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

<b>Reference named "Campo":</b><ul>
<li>From ]: Juan Eduardo Campo, '' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230312135811/https://books.google.com/books?id=OZbyz_Hr-eIC |date=2023-03-12 }}'', Infobase Publishing, 2009</li>
<li>From ]: {{Cite book |last=Campo |first=Juan Eduardo |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OZbyz_Hr-eIC&pg=PP1 |title=Encyclopedia of Islam |date=15 April 2009 |publisher=Infobase Publishing |isbn=9781438126968 |via=Google Books}}</li>
</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. <small>Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs.</small> ]] 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

== Prophet Muhammad SAW said that his Ummah would be ruled by 12 rashidun caliphs ==

The Prophet Muhammad SAW is reported to have said that his Ummah would be ruled by 12 righteous caliphs as mentioned in hadiths narrated by jabir ibn samura

references:-

Sahih bukhari 7222
Sahih bukhari 7223
Sahih muslim 4705
Sahih muslim 4706
Sahih muslim 4707
Sahih muslim 4708
Sahih muslim 4709
Sahih muslim 4710
Sahih muslim 4711
tirmizi 2223 ] (]) 21:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Umayyad-387}} all these are ]. On Misplaced Pages, we need you to cite secondary sources written by secular academic historians, to establish the encyclopedic nature of the information.
: Please read our core policy page ]. Thanks, <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">☿&nbsp;] (]&nbsp;])</span> 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:: ] (]) 14:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== Why is the Byzantine Empire listed as one of the predecessor states of the caliphate? ==

The caliphate only annexed two Byzantine provinces, Egypt and Cyrenaica. So to list the entire Byzantine Empire as a predecessor state is incorrect and only the two above mentioned provinces should be listed as predecessors. ] (]) 08:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:As I pointed out previously, that's not what this parameter of the infobox entails. It means that the territory which the caliphate occupied was previously occupied by the states in that list. That is how the parameter is used in every other article. There's no implication to that the entire empire was conquered and the article, including the lead, is very clear on this point, so there's no real confusion here. ] (]) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:30, 8 January 2025

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Early Muslim
WikiProject iconThis 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)
WikiProject iconIslam Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArab world Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1


This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Flag

Hello, before anyone who wants to remove the flag. Let me explain, in the Fictionised flag of the Rashidun Caliphate, it is mentioned that people said it would've been the same flag as Muhammad which is black as seen in the Conquest of Mecca. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In the what? Either way, any claims about a flag need to be supported explicitly by reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
According to Ibn Abbas, he said that the Muhammad's standard (Raya) was black and his banner (Liwa) white. Syazwi Irfan (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Syazwi Irfan, Misplaced Pages is based on what is explicitly said by reliable (and secondary) sources. The source you cited was not one of those. (Please also look at original research policy, which is relevant here.) I doubt that there is clear support in reliable sources for identifying something like an official flag of the Rashidun caliphs, but if there is, I recommend you present the sources here first so that we can verify them. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Map

I've noticed that neither Wario2's map added here nor the previous map (, ) reference any sources. As with other content, the article should use a map based on reliable sources. The new map goes a step further by introducing additional WP:OR in the form of provincial borders and an alleged banner (which has been repeatedly removed from the infobox in the past), so I'm reverting to the former map, even if the latter remains ultimately unsourced as well.

I had a quick look through Category:Maps of the Rashidun Caliphate but I haven't found a map that's a clear improvement. One reliable source that could be used as basis for a new map is Sluglett & Currie 2014 (which is accessible on archive.org here and maybe visible on Google Books preview), which has a relevant map of the period (#3, pp. 16-17). Another potential source is Ruthven & Nanji 2004 (pp. 28-29). There are a couple of other scholarly historical atlases that illustrate this as well, but I don't think they're as easily accessible (e.g. An Historical Atlas of Islam by Hugh Kennedy, 2002). R Prazeres (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is very difficult to find maps that cite reliable sources, even the map currently used in the article I don't think cites reliable sources. However, after looking around, all the maps in that category almost show the exact same area range. ▪︎ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 22:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Al-Khilafah Ar-Rasidah rather than Rashidun Caliphate

Rashidun Caliphate is a European English name for Al-Khilafah Ar-Rasidah. It's official name was Al-Khilafah Ar-Rasidah rather than Rashidun Caliphate. Also, according to Google trends, the most used word nowadays is Khilafah ar rasidah, or Khilafat e Rashida, or Khilafat ar Rashida, not Rashidun Caliphate. Therealbey (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We go by WP:COMMONNAME, not official name. This is the English Misplaced Pages, so obviously we will stick with a name which is most familiar to English-language readers. I checked the Google Trends page you have sent and it actually proves the opposite - that "Rashidun" is more commonly used. Every other English-language encyclopedia uses "Rashidun" too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Arabian Empire

I want to say ummayed and rashidun caliphate were continuation and were muslim Arabian Empire it would be better as Arabian Empire like Spanish empire was Catholic but Spanish and spread language and religion both Arabian Empire did arabization and islamization too. 2404:3100:1408:ADAE:F72A:8959:AE4F:CEBD (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Caliph Hassan

The last caliph isn’t Ali, it’s his son Hassan. His 6 months in power after Ali completes the 30 years of the prophetic caliphate. Sxmiii (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor?

I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. Arminden (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Rashidun into Rashidun Caliphate. I think the content of the articles is almost exactly the same. See for yourself. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Rashidun's are different than the state of Rashidun Caliphate. Rashidun are rightly Guided caliphs and the the Rashidun caliphate is a state by them. Therealbey (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, but with a few notes:
    • I agree the scopes of the two are so overlapping that I can't tell the difference. So in terms of existing content, this should be merged.
    • In principle, two different articles might still be beneficial, but a much more clearly distinct scope needs to be proposed and defined for the other article. Given its current state, this looks like it would be an entirely new endeavor, so I think a merge and consolidation in the meantime is probably still more beneficial. Future discussion could determine the scope and merits of another article.
    • The article here (Rashidun Caliphate) is currently 11,000+ words, so it will require some additional management, especially if we merge content. However, there are multiple independent measures that can address that:
      • There are long sections, like the "History" section, which could be reasonably split off into its own clearly-defined article and replaced here with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
      • There are multiple areas of extensive uncited or poorly-cited material in this article, which might be best removed under the circumstances.
R Prazeres (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
No. Rashidun's are different from the the Rashidun Caliphate. They are those who are considered to Special person or from the 12 mentioned by prophet Muhammad in several Hadiths. Therealbey (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hasan ibn Ali as a part of it

Hasan ibn 'Ali was the part of the formal caliphate but his reign is religiously considered under Ali's caliphate because of a narration in Hadith - Sunan Abi Dawud 4646 but historically he was the part of formal Al-Khilafah the caliphate' Therealbey (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.muftisays.com/blog/Seifeddine-M/4091_17-12-2018/imaam-alhasan-ibn-ali-ra-the-fifth-rightlyguided-caliph.html

Orphaned references in Rashidun Caliphate

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rashidun Caliphate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Campo":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad SAW said that his Ummah would be ruled by 12 rashidun caliphs

The Prophet Muhammad SAW is reported to have said that his Ummah would be ruled by 12 righteous caliphs as mentioned in hadiths narrated by jabir ibn samura

references:-

Sahih bukhari 7222 Sahih bukhari 7223 Sahih muslim 4705 Sahih muslim 4706 Sahih muslim 4707 Sahih muslim 4708 Sahih muslim 4709 Sahih muslim 4710 Sahih muslim 4711 tirmizi 2223 Umayyad-387 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Umayyad-387: all these are primary sources. On Misplaced Pages, we need you to cite secondary sources written by secular academic historians, to establish the encyclopedic nature of the information.
Please read our core policy page Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Sahih bukhari Hadith Number 7222 Umayyad-387 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Byzantine Empire listed as one of the predecessor states of the caliphate?

The caliphate only annexed two Byzantine provinces, Egypt and Cyrenaica. So to list the entire Byzantine Empire as a predecessor state is incorrect and only the two above mentioned provinces should be listed as predecessors. Sapphire2025 (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, that's not what this parameter of the infobox entails. It means that the territory which the caliphate occupied was previously occupied by the states in that list. That is how the parameter is used in every other article. There's no implication to that the entire empire was conquered and the article, including the lead, is very clear on this point, so there's no real confusion here. R Prazeres (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: