Talk:Umayyad Caliphate

I noticed that there is no specialized paragraph on the economy during the time of the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate, so I decided to add it, taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the information.

The economy flourished greatly during the Umayyad era as a result of the great Islamic conquests that led to the expansion of the state and provided it with enormous resources that enriched it and provided it with all its needs. There are a limited number of historical sources that address the Umayyad economy. However, such books focus on the economy from a jurisprudential perspective. Sources that examine the state's budget and financial conditions during the Umayyad era are completely nonexistent. Therefore, the primary means of understanding economic conditions during the Umayyad era is by studying the general standard of living of individuals, as reported in history books. In general, the Umayyad economy was large and prosperous, greatly fueled by the extensive Islamic conquests. The Umayyad state controlled most of the major trade routes in the ancient world, and subsequently dominated commercial activity there. Furthermore, its territory encompassed many important agricultural and industrial centers that enriched and enriched its economy. Moreover, its expansion enabled the growth of a massive trade movement between its provinces without obstacles, making the transport and trade of goods easy and convenient, and commercial activity flourished within the state. Hamza bin Uthman (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but there are two problems with this contribution:

1. Without reliable sources, it cannot even be taken into consideration.
2. I don't know much about the entire empire, but in Israel/Palestine, even acknowledging that there had been a decline in the Late Byzantine period, the Umayyad period was characterised by a slow settlement abandonment in the semiarid areas (Negev cities) and general decline, the region being partially cut off from the Byzantine Empire, its land and sea transport system, and markets, for which the new empire didn't seem to have offered sufficient replacement. So a downward economic, trade, demographic etc. tendency, although clearly less than once thought & taught. I guess this was the case in other provinces, as well - maybe less so around Damascus, but that's just a guess.

Arminden (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

شكرآ للملاحضات ولاكن كانت كتابتي التي أعلاها

مجرد بداية لأنه كنت أقرأ أهم المصادر التاريخية التي كتبة في تلك الفتره عن الأقتصاد الأموي

وكان أهم كتاب قرأته هو كتاب

الخراج لأبي يوسف الذي كان في تلك الفترى و في فترت الخلافة العباسية و هو من أهم الشخصيات التي كتبة بموضوعية في شرح حالة الأقتصاد الأموي و العباسي في بداياته

أما مصدري فسيكون كتابه لأنه عاشر تلك الفترى و عاش أيضآ حتى فترة هارون الرشيد

في الخلافة العباسية وشغل مناصب أدارية و قتصادية عديدة في فترت حياته لذا فهوا أفضل مصدر موثوق وكتب بموضوعية ولديه الخبرة الكافية لذالك فهوى

وشكرآيعتبر من أهم المصادر الموثوقة Hamza bin Uthman (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hamza bin Uthman (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Secondly, describing the period of the Umayyad Caliphate as a period of economic and social weakness and decline is the opposite of the truth, as history and the books existing in that period confirm that despite the destruction and damage of the majority of the books due to the Baghdad massacre and the destruction of civilization in Andalusia (Iberia), the books remaining from that period prove that the economy in the time of the Islamic conquests and the early Islamic conquests It was in a state of development and economic recovery under the rule of Muslims (the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphate), where many cities were built in their number and damaged cities were repaired and improved. Among the cities built during that period were Basra, Kufa, Karbala, Kairouan, and SirtePalIn Palestine, important cities were built, such For many centuries, Ramla was the most important commercial and economic center in Palestine and was the capitalChinese records confirm the development of land and sea routes in Muslim regions during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. I hope you will correct your information. Thank you. Hamza bin Uthman (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but you didn't pay attention to my most important point:

1. Without reliable sources, it cannot even be taken into consideration.

"Reliable sources" is the paramount criterion on Wikipedia: preferably academic books and articles, published by good publishing houses or in peer-reviewed journals. And you must cite them with full details: author(s), title, journal, publisher, date, online access option if possible, etc. Your opinion or mine don't count at all, sorry.

The rest doesn't matter much.

Also: unfortunately I don't read Arabic, nor do most people here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Regarding my source, it was my mistake that I did not mention my source. The source of my information is the book “Al-Kharaj” by Abu Yusuf, who lived during that period and also lived during the Abbasid Caliphate until the reign of Harun al-Rashid, and held many administrative and economic positions. Therefore, it is the most reliable source remaining, as it was written with great objectivity. Also, the paragraph that I wrote previously was the beginning, as the book “Al-Kharaj” by Abu Yusuf is very rich in information and written with precision and transparency. Thank you for the reminder. Hamza bin Uthman (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to what Arminden said: the guideline on reliable sources also explains that Wikipedia uses quality secondary sources (in this case, modern academic historians), not primary sources, which would generally violate Wikipedia's principle of no original research. Therefore, we cannot write content for Wikipedia based direclty on Abu Yusuf; only on modern academic publications. R Prazeres (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

True. But let's recap for Wiki purposes: we have Abu Yusuf: Kitab al-Kharaj. Now we need a work of secondary literature discussing it, with author, year, publisher, page No., and if possible ISBN and online address.

It might be that Abu Yusuf wanted to please Harun ar-Rashid, or that it was hard for him to come by Byzantine economic figures and compare them with contemporary ones. That's where a modern researcher can step in, thus the need for a good secondary source. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The Umayyads were based in Damascus. It could well be that the city and its immediate hinterland profited much from their presence. Maybe that's also valid for other regions, in desert areas or elsewhere, which had been on the border or outside the two empires, the Byzantine and the Sasanian. What I think to know is that a great many of the towns and villages in Galilee, the Golan and the Negev were abandoned, many for good, during Umayyad rule. So at best, a change of focus between regions. Also proven: for the areas I've mentioned, Abbasid rule proved to be noticibly worse, as the capital moved much further away, to Baghdad. Arminden (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Flag

Hi Andalusi97, and thanks for adding the flag. May I kindly remind you to write edit summaries? The first edit was essential, so writing "Adding flag, with sources" would have helped future editors with finding it. The next edits were just technical tweaks, in such cases I just write as edit summaries: 2, 3, 4, etc, till I'm done. Or "Cont." "Same" or whatever you like.

Thanks, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid the flag issue has been discussed before here and there was a clear consensus to keep it out of the infobox. I also told this to Andalusi97 recently (here), told them to use the talk page first, and there was clearly an editorial note indicating this in the infobox itself... so, respectfully, I'm not sure why they went ahead and did it anyways. Please use the talk page and do not reinstate unless there is a consensus to do so. R Prazeres (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the discussion. The block of 7 sources looked impressive as such, but I didn't actually go through the trouble of checking them up. Now I notice that the formate was carelesdly applied and some are more superficial. Tabari, Iranica and Sikes should be checked, they may sway the discussion in one direction or the other for good. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

We have, buried deep in one section:

"The Umayyad banners were white, after the banner of Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan;{{sfn|Hathaway|2012|p=97}} it is now one of the four Pan-Arab colours which appear in various combinations on the flags of most Arab countries."

The ref is 100% RS, published by SUNY and focusing specifically on symbols. The way it's summarised here is too schematic though.

The matter should be adressed somewhere by itself and in some detail: white used specifically for the caliphal banner and as such also by Abbasids, so after the Umayyads, and not just them, while otherwise the Abbasids made massive use of black as their almost official colour, based on its eschatological symbolism etc. The matter has significance, as it entered popular conscience in all the Arab countries which make use of green, red, white and black in their flags; check out Pan-Arab colours. You can firmly count on fellow editors like Andalusi97, who probably comes from this background, to fight for the "white standard" to be brought back in. Only once it gets a section with a heading of its own, not just an obscure talk-page thread, the matter will be closed.

N.b.: the Iranian tricolour (same colours less black) seems to be from the time of Darius I, so it's probably a coincidence (although red for blood, green for life, renewal, salvation etc. and white for purity, serenty and so forth are almost universal, with more complex, added symbolisms in each culture).

So yes, deal with it in detail in the articles, or otherwise it will keep on showing up again, and rightfully so. Reverting and ignoring is the wrong approach. Arminden (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

what does the Umayyad calphate do

origination and syria

1)the Umayyad caliphates capital was Damascus and virtually every major decision came from syria.

2)the syrian army was the most professional and most funded army in the caliphate, all major campaigns were launched from syrian troops including al andalus and Transoxiana, additionally when the abbasids rose they only won after they destroyed the syrian army, proving it was the real power.

3)most governors were appointed from syrian tribes and elite families, as well as syria was the heart if the economy.

historians such as hugh Kennedy and G.R Hawting described the umayyad caliphate and i quote " a syrian monarchy ruling an empire"., noting that the dynasty's political capital, military base and administrative core was concentrated in syria.

therefore to avoid the confusion i ask the editors to re-add the statement " The Umayyad caliphate was fundamentally a Syrian state".

sources: the First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, https://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Age-Caliphates-Islamic-Century/dp/0582405254, https://www.routledge.com/The-Umayyad-World/Marsham/p/book/9780367564445 and many more Thelorondo (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The lead already explains the role of Syria in the caliphate, including by stating "Syria remained the Umayyads' core power base thereafter, with Damascus as their capital.". I can see no logical reason why we would add an undue and repetitive statement, or replace the existing explanatory statement that actually explains what is "Syrian" about the Caliphate, in favour of a more vague and possibly less neutral statement. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

hi , Thanks for the response. I agree that the current wording (“core power base”) is accurate, but my concern is that it doesn’t fully reflect how many reliable sources characterize the Umayyad state as structurally and administratively Syrian.

I understand the need to avoid anything that could appear non-neutral, and I’m not trying to overstate the point. My view is simply that describing the Umayyads as a de facto Syrian state is common in the scholarship, and including a brief mention of this wouldn’t necessarily be repetitive, it would clarify what is meant by Syria being their “core power base. Thelorondo (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you are overstating this point. Just because some sources use the word "Syrian" in the course of much longer descriptions of the Umayyad state does not mean they are defining it as a "Syrian state" over all other aspects, nor does it mean we must phrase it one particular way and state it at the very top of the article. The important information is already there, as I said. This edit, which by all appearances must be you or someone on your behalf, also constitutes edit-warring again and potential sockpuppetry. Do not repeat it again. R Prazeres (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont understand why if you disagree with something then you can keep removing it, i am not telling you my point of view, i brought u multiple sources from famous and reliable historians who all agree with what i saying, and those “some” sources include one of the most reliable libraries in the uk, britannica. ~2025-34607-83 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've already explained this. As for how Wikipedia works in cases of disagreement, please read Wikipedia:Consensus. And finally, please log in to your account when making further edits and comments. R Prazeres (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It says we gotta talk about it, but u do nothing other than say “its already mentioned” or imply that its not historically correct even tho i brought u multiple verified and trusted historical sources to prove my point. Thelorondo (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Greatest territorial extent

@R Prazeres and Proguyiscool: Though I agree with R Prazeres that the source did not support the claim that "The Umayyad Caliphate reached its greatest territorial extent under Caliph Al-Walid I" in this edit, the following source does support it:

• Kennedy, Hugh (2004). The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the 6th to the 11th Century (Second ed.). Harlow: Longman. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-582-40525-7. The reign of al-Walid (86-96/705-15) also saw the furthest extension of the georgraphical frontiers of the Umayyad state.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I would expect that sounds right overall, but the current map could still correspond to Umar's reign, per my comment about the inclusion of Narbonne. That said, as I also mentioned, the map itself does not cite its sources and I suspect it just includes every territory captured in that general period. A few possible steps:

• Rather than try to pin this to a particular year, we could simplify the caption in the meantime to say something like "The Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent in the early 8th century", while awaiting potential improvements.
• And/or find a more clearly or reliably sourced map (which would hopefully also be easier to caption). Among existing files on Commons, this one looks like a good candidate, based on its references and clarity. It's already used in the article further below, so we could simply move it to the infobox.

R Prazeres (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Current lede fails to explain what Umayyads represent in Islamic history for both Sunnis and Shia

Hello. I’d like to explain my reasoning about the Umayyad Caliphate article more clearly, because I believe the core historical thread is being unintentionally diluted in the current phrasing.

My edits were not about minor wording preferences. They were aimed at restoring the central historical reality that Umayyad rule cannot be understood apart from the Uthmaniyya–Alid antagonism. The Umayyad Caliphate was not merely the successor to the Rashidun state, it was the political response to Ali.

This period is THE point of origin for Islamic sectarian identity formation.

Right now, the lead says: “It succeeded the Rashidun Caliphate, of which the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, was also a member of the Umayyad clan.”

I think this wording understates what occurred. The Umayyads did not “succeed” the Rashidun Caliphate in the sense of a normal political transition. A civil war LED by Muawiya himself driven directly by opposition to Ali created the conditions out of which the Umayyad dynasty emerged. The familial link between Uthman and Muʿawiya is not incidental background trivia, it is the axis around which the First Fitna revolved.

Similarly, the current phrasing: “The Umayyad family established hereditary rule under Muʿawiya … who became caliph after the end of the First Fitna and the assassination of Ali…”

This sequence makes the rise of Muʿawiya sound like a post-Fitna administrative development. In reality, Muʿawiya was the DRIVING FORCE of the Uthmaniyya faction and the principal military opponent of Ali from the earliest days of his reign. The continuity is direct:

• Uthman is killed.
• Ali becomes caliph.
• Muʿawiya categorically rejects Ali’s rashidun (rightly guided) status and wages war against him.
• After Ali’s assassination, Muʿawiya immediately advances against Ali's son Hasan, pressures him into a treaty, and then violates that treaty once power is secured.
• The Umayyad dynasty emerges not from a chaotic vacuum but as a clear victory of Uthmaniyya over Alid.

That is what the Umayyad Caliphate is - the victory of Uthmaniyya over Alid.

Framed this way, the logic behind Karbala, Zayd ibn Ali’s revolt, and even the Abbasid Revolution becomes obvious. These are not disconnected eruptions, they are the later phases of a single, long-running conflict rooted in the Uthman–Ali divide. And we have the ability to make that really clear to the English reader by wording things right.

In short: the First Fitna was not a separate prelude to Umayyad history. Muʿawiya WAS the First Fitna, and the Umayyad state was the response to Ali. English readers need to understand that, and given their unfamiliarity with a lot of this, they need to understand it as clearly and front and center as possible. Because this is the antagonism that explains how Islam became what it is today. Without placing that causal chain front and center, we obscure the very engine that drove early Islamic political and sectarian development. And I don't mean just Sunni - Shia, I mean that Islamic identity itself, both sects, are descended from scholarly opponents of the Umayyad Caliphate. For example, Abu Hanifa, the founder of the largest school of Sunni fiqh, supported Zayd ibn Ali's revolt.

I’m fully open to discussion on phrasing or being concise, but the central issue here is that I believe the current phrasing doesnt represent the essence of what happened properly. Idris Shirazi (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've replied to the same comment on my talk page, but please do direct future comments here, as I mentioned there. I'll briefly repeat here the points relevant to this talk page. The point of the lede, like I said in my earlier edit summary, is to summarize the topic very plainly and concisely. Any deeper level of detail belongs to the body of the article, so I don't think there is a good case for digging into this issue at the top of the article. Further information on this kind of question should almost certainly be reserved for the "Legacy" section. As long as any new additions are based strictly on what reliable sources have already said, I don't see a problem doing so there. R Prazeres (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You're definitely right, we absolutely should not dig into this issue in the lede.

The reason for that long winded post was to make the case for very minor changes to the lede.

Simply: The Umayyad caliphate must be presented as the victory of Muawiyas faction of the first fitna, instead of a succession. Muawiya saw himself as the successor of Uthman, not Ali - he saw Ali as illegitimate, which was the basis for his war against him. Idris Shirazi (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If all that's needed in the lead is a minor adjustement to wording to make it clearer that it was a struggle, then I suggest this revision, which phrases it as a victory from the civil war rather than just "became caliph". If it's not satisfactory, feel free to revert and we can discuss a better wording if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

What you’ve drafted is certainly an improvement, but it points us toward a more fundamental issue: the uncritical reliance on the category of the “Rashidun Caliphate.” The term rashidun (“rightly guided”) is inherently religious. Early Uthmaniyya circles often limited the designation to the first three caliphs, while Shia tradition applies it exclusively to Ali to this day.

Although Western historiography has used “Rashidun” as a convenient label for the first four caliphal reigns, most historians are very careful to note that no unified, continuous polity called the “Rashidun Caliphate” existed as such. What we actually have are three successive individual reigns, followed by a civil war over the contested leadership of Ali. The inclusion of Ali within a coherent “Rashidun” period is a Sunni position that materialized centuries after this, and was irrelevant to the Umayyads who certainly did not include Ali as a legitimate successor. Im not saying the term Rashidun is not useful to use, but we should not frame the Umayyads as the “successors” to this retrospective construct.

What if instead of:

The Umayyad Caliphate or the Umayyad Empire was the second caliphate established after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and was ruled by the Umayyad dynasty from 661 to 750.

We do

The Umayyad Caliphate or the Umayyad Empire was the first hereditary caliphate established after the death of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and was ruled by the Umayyad dynasty from 661 to 750.

This avoids presenting the Umayyads as inheritors of a formally bounded polity called the “Rashidun” and instead describes them according to a clear, historically verifiable institutional innovation: the introduction of hereditary succession.

Then instead of

It succeeded the Rashidun Caliphate, of which the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, was also a member of the Umayyad clan. The Umayyad family established hereditary rule under Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, the long-time governor of Greater Syria, who became caliph by emerging victorious from the First Fitna after the assassination of Ali in 661. Syria remained the Umayyads' core power base thereafter.... [continues]

We do

Its establishment followed the First Fitna (656–661), the civil war that broke out after the killing of the third caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān. Up to that point, caliphs had been elected by communal consensus, but Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān—ʿUthmān’s cousin and the governor of Syria—rejected the legitimacy of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and led armed resistance against him. Following ʿAlī’s assassination in 661, Muʿāwiya consolidated power and founded the Umayyad dynasty, which established hereditary succession and ruled from Damascus. Syria remained the Umayyads' core power base thereafter Idris Shirazi (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash: Can you give your thoughts on this?

My issue is this:

I was researching Abu Hanifa,

then I found out that Abu Hanifa supported Zayd ibn Ali's rebellion

But Hanifa's fiqh is used by Sunnis

That made me a little confused, so when I dug into the issue I fell into this rabbit hole, and I realized that we are not presenting history in a way that can allow us to understand how the religion emerged

What do you have to say to what I wrote above? Idris Shirazi (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Like R Prazeres said above, we go by what reliable sources say. The Umayyads are widely described by the vast majority of RS as the second Islamic caliphate (as the Abbasid Caliphate are similarly described as the third caliphate). Again, the lede is meant to summarize the topic very plainly and does not have to go into all the details of the First Fitna. The current lede is already sufficient in mentioning that the Umayyads came to power after emerging victorious from that civil war. Please see WP:ONUS and refrain from unilaterally changing the lede at will. Skitash (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Its not WP:ONUS if its correcting an error, is it?

Because what you said about "vast majority of RS call it the 'second' caliphate" is just not true. It seems to be a Wikipedia specific thing, not an RS thing.

Britannica says "Umayyad dynasty, (661–750) First great Muslim dynasty"

Islamichistory.org says "The Umayyads were the first Muslim dynasty — that is, they were the first rulers of the Islamic Empire to pass down power within their family."

Even a basic google search doesnt find this "second" caliphate terminology.

If you go beyond a basic google search and look at actual scholarly sources, they not only dont use the "second" terminology, they go even further. They all disagree with the idea that the Rashidun caliphate even existed as a coherent polity.

And no, the current lede is very far from being clear about the role of the First Fitna. On top of the other issues I just mentioned. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS clearly states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Framing your edit as "correcting an error" doesn't make it any less disputed. Furthermore, the Umayyads being the second Islamic caliphate is a fact that's easily attributable. The standard scholarly consensus in Islamic history recognizes four major historical caliphates, with the second being the Umayyads. Skitash (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I just proved to you that isn't the case.

Do a quick google search and find an WP:RS that says that. Britanica literally says the opposite "the first" dynasty

Framing my edit as correcting an error may not make it any less disputed, but it makes your disputation irrelevant, because content comes before qualitative disputes. Which is why Im asking you to give wp:rs. I can easily demonstrate to you that it is NOT the view of WP:RS. If you can't demonstrate to me otherwise, then I will change it.

Otherwise, WP:ONUS could be used to group up and keep articles at a bad quality with false information by outnumbering people. So theres a limit to that, and the limit is "true" and "false" Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

"Do a quick google search and find an WP:RS" The fact that the Umayyads are the second caliphate is incredibly easily attributable; there's no debate at all. Do yourself a favor and search up the "four major caliphates."

"Britanica literally says the opposite "the first" dynasty" In what way does "the first dynasty" translate to "the first caliphate"?

"makes your disputation irrelevant" You clearly have to familiarize yourself with the core policies of Wikipedia, particularly WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, and WP:BRD. Skitash (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Then give me ONE wp:rs. I am asking you for one WP:RS. That is it. Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

OP has been blocked indefinitely for edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I was busy elsewhere today and it seems I missed a minor saga. For what it's worth, I think Idris Shirazi's expansion of the second paragraph is still undue for the conciseness reasons I mentioned originally. As for the specific wording of "second caliphate" in the first sentence, I'm not sure it's primarily based on WP:RS, as I'm not aware of historians generally counting/numbering "caliphates" in this fashion. Perhaps more relevantly, the word "caliphate" is ambiguous in English (it could refer to a polity, or the office of the caliph, or the reign of the particular caliph, etc), which I think makes it awkward/unclear to unfamiliar readers what we mean by "second caliphate". It's understandable enough for now, but a clearer wording might be possible if we revisit this. R Prazeres (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced by Idris Shirazi's version of history. It creates a pattern by selecting those facts that fit the pattern - survivorship bias. He/she wrote that the continuity is direct, but it was not - it only looks that way with hindsight. The account in the article on the First Fitna is better history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the footnote and paragraph break that Idris Shirazi inserted into the first paragraph. (1) Having the Arabic and Romanised Arabic in brackets after article's name in the first sentence is normal in Wikipedia articles, e.g. Rashidun Caliphate. (2) I cannot see why we would want a one-sentence first paragraph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Sounds good to me. R Prazeres (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the difference between the 21:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC) version of the article before Idris Shirazi's edits and the 05:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC) version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Spelling consistency

I noticed that the article had centre ten times: six times spelt "centre" and four times spelt "center". So I standardised on "centre" as this was more common. @R Prazeres and Skitash: do you think we ought to give the article a scrub for other words that are spelt differently in Rest-of-World English and American English?

I checked early versions of the article for such words; the 31 December 2006 version contains the word "criticised" (Americans spell this "criticized").-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll have the time to do much of it, so you're up for it, feel free to go ahead. The article has undoubtedly accreted contributions from many different editors using one or the other. I have no opinion on the choice of standard, so feel free to pick whichever you think makes the most sense per MOS:RETAIN. R Prazeres (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

System of government

@Mhatopzz: As the instructions at Template:Infobox country indicate, and as the many Wikipedia articles about states also show, the "government_type" parameter is for describing the system of government. "Caliphate", just like "sultanate" and "emirate", is not a term describing a type of government, but describing the office or title of the ruler, which can and did exist with different systems of rule. The Umayyad state is a hereditary monarchy by definition (and the article explicitly states "hereditary rule" too). If you believe it can be more precise than that, you can explain or provide reliable sources, but in the meantime this is an appropriate and accurate summary for readers.

PS: When you are the one proposing a new change to content, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide support or seek consensus, as is also the usual practice per WP:BRD. Next time you're reverted, any editor would appreciate that you respond by elaborating your reasoning on the talk page, rather than edit-warring and demanding that they do so for you (). R Prazeres (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the

Caliphate article:

• A caliphate is an institution or public office under the leadership of an Islamic steward with the title of caliph, a person considered a political–religious successor to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and a leader of the entire Muslim world (ummah). Historically, the caliphates were polities based on Islam which developed into multi-ethnic trans-national empires.

That definition alone already stated that Caliphates are not the same thing as a conventional monarchy.

1. Caliphates were political-religious systems, leader of the Muslim community, relied on Bay'ah, and traditionally required an election (Sunni tradition), all of these are mentioned in the Caliphate article alone.
2. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE required that an Infobox should be a summary of the article using the informations that appears within the article alone, and not to supplant it with informations beyond what is described within the article's body.

Neither the Umayyads nor the Abbasids have a formal coronation, succession was not always fixed, and princes often compete to be the successor.

One more thing, the article did mention "hereditary rule", but hereditary rule here might refer to Hereditary monarchy or even Hereditary dictatorship which created a confusion, but since the Umayyads was not formally a monarchy, the latter could be used as well.

Mhatopzz (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article you quote (which itself is not a reliable source but its lead is essentially correct anyways) states that "caliphate" is an "institution or public office". It does not describe a system of government. So it makes even less sense for this parameter to link to that article, which does not actually tell readers what the system of government is. A monarchy, as both its Wikipedia article and any good dictionary explain (), is simply a government which is ruled by a single individual, usually for life and usually (but not necessarily) hereditary. The Umayyads (and Abbasids) are such a system and the article does explain all of that; are you denying that the caliphs were singular heads of state who ruled for life and who passed on their power to a family member? I'm assuming you're not, since that would blatantly contradict all reliable sources, but I'm genuinely not clear on what you're arguing. The word "caliphate" is also literally in the name of the article and the term "caliph" appears in the next line under "hereditary monarchy" to specify the title of the ruler; so what exactly are you trying to clarify? Again, a more precise summary might be possible here, but the word "caliphate" doesn't actually summarize or explain what's needed here.

For good measure, there are of course plenty of reliable sources referring to the Umayyad (and Abbasid) caliphs as "monarchs"/"monarchy", let alone describing the relevant properties that makes them a monarchy, e.g. see use in: , , , , , . R Prazeres (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Many academic sources describe the period as “Arab empire” -> double standard vs Ottoman Empire

@User:R Prazeres: This looks like a double standard. The same approach is not applied on Ottoman Empire, where “Turkish Empire” appears in sources with weaker academic backing.

Here, multiple high-quality academic sources (e.g. Cambridge, JSTOR) explicitly use “Arab empire(s)” for the early caliphal period, including the Umayyads, yet it gets removed.

What is your reason for removal? --~2026-24637-44 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And if your argument is that it wasn’t commonly known as “Arab Empire”. You can still argue many scholars describe it as an Arab empire. --~2026-24637-44 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talk page. The sources you cited do not provide evidence that the Umayyad Caliphate in particular is commonly named as the "Arab Empire". More obviously still, historians merely use "Arab empire", just like "Islamic empire", as a way to refer to the early Islamic caliphate more generally; not to the Umayyads or the Abbasids or the Rashidun specifically. Which is exactly what your first source is an example of (). This is also why Arab empire on Wikipedia leads to a disambiguation page that links to all the major early caliphates. So it is inappopriate and confusing to include this in the lead sentence here.

As for "Turkish Empire" at Ottoman Empire, if you disagree with that then please bring it up at the talk page there. It is irrelevant here, especially since the context is not the same (there is only one major Turkish imperial dynasty, unlike the multiple Arab imperial/caliphal dynasties). R Prazeres (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Berber Language

@R prazeres would you be fine with the addition of Berber as a common language if I find RS that state it was a widely spoken language in North Africa during the existence of the Ummayad Dinasty? Bananakingler (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Again you're missing the point: please read the article, which states, with citations: "Arabic replaced Persian as the language of the dīwān in Iraq in 697, Greek in the Syrian dīwān in 700, and Greek and Coptic in the Egyptian dīwān in 705/706." The note in the infobox does not currently make this clear enough (it should say "circa" 700) and it incorrectly includes "Aramaic" alongside the others (which I didn't notice until now), but these languages have a different status from other spoken languages as they were also major administrative languages. If we start including any spoken language in a domain as large as the Umayyad empire, then the list risks becoming counter-productively large and vague.

To be clear: there is no requirement to include this in the infobox at all, regardless of accuracy. The Abbasid Caliphate infobox, for example, does not include a "Common languages" list. The point of the infobox is to summarize the main points of the article, not to collect every piece of information that relates to every parameter.

That said, I'm not opposed to including both Aramaic, Berber, and any other major languages, if we expand the article accordingly to discuss this aspect of society and describe the main languages with appropriate citations (similar to Fatimid Caliphate). Currently there is no section really covering this, though the "Social organization" section could surely be expanded to cover more demographic information in general. This is a larger task than I have time for on my own right now, but I'd be happy to assist if someone wants to get it started. R Prazeres (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

PS: Thank you Ahmed.Mhdv for this clean-up and clarification. That looks much better for now. R Prazeres (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

“ That said, I'm not opposed to including both Aramaic, Berber, and any other major languages, if we expand the article accordingly to discuss this aspect of society and describe the main languages with appropriate citations”

so if I get find RS and expand the article with the information that millions of people spoke Tamazight you would not oppose it. Right? Bananakingler (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Is your plan to just randomly add a statement about Berber somewhere in the article just for the sake of adding it to the infobox? If yes, then that sounds like single-purpose editing that isn't really constructively improving the article, let alone WP:NPOV. There's no doubt that Berber was spoken in North Africa, but that's not the only point I was making above.

If your plan is to start a new expansion of the article that will cover languages in general, wait until it is reasonably complete and balanced, and then discuss whether it's worth adding more languages to the infobox, then that sounds great. I can help withthat, as can perhaps other editors. R Prazeres (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)