Talk:Rashidun Caliphate

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)

• Rasidun could be the name of this proposed article and the Rasidun Caliphate Article could be a sub-article within it. WikiEditor5678910 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• I agree. That articles are nearly identical and "Rashidun" doesn't mean anything besides the first few caliphs. 2804:3288:A1CA:C800:35FB:E614:E19D:EF07 (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The Islamic religious concept of a "rightly-guided" or Rashidun caliph is different from the historiographical term Rashidun Caliphate. 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. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - If anything, that article should merge with this one instead. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Or, I guess that means support, but in a different way. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per Apaugasma Sushidude21! (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (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)

Historiography: scope and NPOV

@NGC 628: This is now at least the 4th time you have (re-)added material that brings up, or unduly promotes, the Revisionist school of Islamic studies (which as I mentioned, was a problem editors brought to your attention long ago) and that goes beyond the scope of this article. I asked you after the third time to bring this to the talk page first before trying again (). The newest iteration () seems to make a little more effort in the right direction, but still contains many of the same problems: short-form citations to sources that are not provided (Robinson 2019, Hughes 2013), a citation that copies a large amount of text followed by a bare url () without indicating it's a quote, a citation to a non-reliable source () that only partly relates to the preceding statement (if at all), a statement with citation to a page number that doesn't exist in the cited source (Donner 2010, p. 628), a statement whose content and citations are clearly about the life of Muhammad and not the Rashidun period covered here ("Some historians state that a history cannot be written using these sources critically." and following citations), etc. None of this actually says much about the specific topic of this article. As I said before, a short historiography review would be nice, but this is a mess.

For the last time: please propose your addition here first (or in a sandbox that you can link to), with content and correct citations that specifically relate to the Rashidun period. If you need help, ask. R Prazeres (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of my contributions here consist of quotations from other Wikipedians' contributions, which I have included here for context without any changes. I do not think that I am inflating any non-scientific narrative or school of thought on history. However, I will try to rewrite it when I have time, taking into account your opinions and criticisms. NGC 628 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

NGC 628, if you are copying from elsewhere on Wikipedia, then you must provide attribution in your edit summaries when doing so: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This also helps to troubleshoot problems like this (because other editors can check if what's missing is found in the original article). That said, I would recommend against doing this more generally, unless you're being careful and (ideally) you're checking the cited sources in the material before doing so, as copying from Wikipedia also tends to reproduce errors. (Wikipedia, after all, can be unreliable.) I hope these notes help for the future. R Prazeres (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Why is Hasan ibn Ali not included in Rashidun caliphate?

Why is Hasan ibn Ali not included in Rashidun caliphate? 2400:ADC1:411:6A00:B34A:7B39:202D:536 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Issues about the Byzantine empire and mostly the caliphate of Hassan ibn Ali as the 5th Rashidun caliph

Hi Wikipedians, I see clearly what happens here but I have only few about the article: Why are the Byzantine Empire is listed as one of the predecessors of the Rashidun Caliphate on supposition that the caliphate annexed only a little piece of it(a part of North Africa: for example Egypt and Cyrenaica) Mostly obligatory I'd would ask why imam Hassan ibn Ali is not included as a caliph and his 6-7 month reign despite the hadith of Muhammad which says the caliphate will continue 30 years and after that will become a kingdom. If the history is be looked from the one side, it said between Ali's assassination and death (26-28.01.661) and the Hassan-Muawiya peace treaty (circa August same year) it's reign of Hassan,not Muawiya. But from other side some of sunnis and scholars think he (Hassan) is the 5th right-guided caliph and his caliphate is part of the Rashidun Caliphate and the caliphate,including and First fitna,ends with the peace treaty not with the assassination of Ali,that means 6-7 months later,and then the Umayyad Caliphate and Muawiya's reign begin as well. So I know nicely why some of you (especially R Prazeres) undid these revisions with corrections about imam Hassan's caliphate and you don't except him as the 5th rashidun caliph although even and the history accept it. Just must to make a very research about that and you'll convince alone. There are enough materials about his reign. And I love saying these my words as a History lover, ,,there should be nothing hidden-covering in the history" and ,,also the truth is hidden in the history" and in the case you should accept Hassan's caliphate once and for all. P.s:I'm ready for more questions and talks in Talk Peace :) </ref> Missmoonchild9 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to describe the early caliphates as Arab empires

I think the lead should mention that the Rashidun Caliphate was an Arab empire or an Arab Muslim empire.

The same approach is used for other Islamic empires or states, while many scholars also describe the early caliphates as Arab empires:

Some examples:

• The Seljuk Empire is described as a “Turkic empire, with Turko-Persian culture”.
• The Timurid Empire is described as a “Turco-Mongol, culturally Persianate, Muslim empire”.
• The Ghaznavid Empire is described as a culturally Persianate Sunni Muslim empire of Turkic mamluk origin.
• The Khwarazmian Empire is also described as a culturally Persianate Sunni Muslim empire of Turkic mamluk origin.
• The Ottoman Empire is historically also known as the “Turkish Empire”.

So why can't the same cannot be done for the caliphates?--AytWaygher232 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think "Arab (Muslim) empire" isn't wrong but there's nothing gained from just somehow inserting those words in the first sentence, if that's what you mean. The other articles you mentioned, in addition to having different contexts, are in my opinion bad examples to follow precisely because they create awkward, unfocused opening sentences that are frequently still being disputed. (Although the Ottoman Empire lead is actually a good example, precisely because it does not define the topic with something like "[ethinicity] empire"; the term "Turkish Empire" is merely mentioned as one of its other historical names, while the topic is immediately defined as "a state that spanned much of Southeastern Europe, West Asia, and North Africa from the 14th century to the early 20th century, centred in modern-day Turkey.")

I do think, however, that the first paragraph could do a better job of concisely explaining the geopolitical nature of the "polity" mentioned in the first sentence. There's sufficient detail in the rest of the lead, but it would be good for unfamiliar readers to know right away that this topic is about the beginning of the Islamic empire, rather than focusing only on the historiographical explanation of the term "Rashidun". I would suggest, for example, keeping the first sentence as is but changing the second sentence to something along the lines of:

"[...] These early caliphs led the Muslim community (Ummah) after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 632 CE to the establishment of the succeeding Umayyad Caliphate in 661 CE. During this time, they oversaw the creation of a new Arab Islamic empire that expanded beyond the Arabian Peninsula and over much of the Middle East through successive conquests."

What do others think of this? R Prazeres (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)