Talk:Umayyad Caliphate

Area of Caliphate

The area was definitely bigger than 11.1 million km2, if the Abbasid Caliphate, which just by looking at it and comparing it to Umayyad's is smaller, then the Umayyad Caliphate has to be considerably bigger, note the following territories not included in the Abbasid Caliphate but included in Umayyad Caliphate: half of Algeria on top of the amount of Algeria controlled by Abbasid's (1.2 million km2 on top of 11.1) almost the entire Iberian peninsula (540,000 km2) all of Morocco (450,000 km2), additional half of Sindh in Pakistan that wasn't controlled by Abbasids (70,000 km2) and about a fifth of the province of Gujarat in India (40,000 km2), half of Rajasthan (175,000km2). And some other territorial advances. Suffice it to say, the Umayyad Caliphate was well over 2 million additional km2 than 11.1 million km2. AbdusSami98 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Were all those territories lost when the Abbasids took control of the Caliphate? Córdoba didn't secede until six years later, for example. Anyway, we'd need a WP:RELIABLE source which gives a different estimate for the area if we are to change it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

When the Abbasids first took control, they had all of Umayyad lands before they gained independence. Spagheditor (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Cordoba is indeed the exception to the otherwise general rule of the Abbasids not having the extreme Eastern and Western territories of the Umayyad Caliphate. Also can courses.lumenlearning.com › chapter The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires | Boundless World History

count as a reliable source? AbdusSami98 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, especially when considering that the current source is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Change Preview Image on Links to this Page

The preview you can see when you hover over a link is nice with the image and all, but this page has the image just a plain white flag. It makes it seem like the image isn't loading. Maybe it should be replaced with the Umayyad Dynasty's map instead? 208.66.243.66 (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag?

I am not sure if this is universal, but the flag appears as a green banner with a crescent and star, a flag which as far as I know has no historical usage. Spagheditor (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

In the info box, over the map is a flag. Normally this is white but for some reason it is showing a green flag with a diagonal crescent and star Spagheditor (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The current flag in the infobox is white. Someone did change it on Commons for the flag that you're describing, but that was three weeks ago. Maybe you still have a cached copy of it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed the flag back to the White Standard, what you are describing appeared for me as well in the .svg version. The image used has been switched to the .png format and should no longer experience any errors. Praxeria (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Zakat and The House of Treasury

It is not true that the Zakat, the Obligatory or Mandatory charity ordained unto Muslims, by both the Qur'an and the Sunna, was used exclusively for the welfare of born Muslims and Muslim converts or the Mu'alafs. Since the rule of the second Califah, Omar ibnul Khattaab, he has established Baitul Maal, the House of Treasury, formed essentially of the Zakat, collected from those Muslims who according to Islamic legislation are considered affording to its paying, but also of the booty and the Jizyah paid by the non Muslims living under the protection of the Islamic state. Omar, gave orders that among the funds of the House of Treasury, are pensions that are to be paid for elderly retired non Muslims who used to pay the Jizyah earlier in their active years of their youth. 102.185.137.255 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the Bayt al-mal setup. Inclusion will require sources though. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that difficult to source as this is a known fact, though I suggest you start by improving the Bayt al-mal article first. Here are some sources that could potentially help. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead summary of Umayyads in al-Andalus

Hi Theriddler1234, you're making it sound like the dynasty simply held on to power uninterrupted in al-Andalus through the end of the Abbasid Revolution in 750, which is incorrect. The dynasty, which was based in Syria, was removed from power there, and the family nearly wiped out. The surviving Abd ar-Rahman had to make his way in secret across North Africa and had to eventually fight to gain power in al-Andalus, which was effectively independent and ruled by local leaders competing with each other at the time. This is plainly and clearly summarized by the previous wording and can be verified by many reliable and detailed references on the subject. Your proposed edit conveys a different impression and introduces unnecessarily vague or confusing wording (how can "most of the dynasty" be toppled?).

Next time your edit is reverted, please explain yourself on the talk page instead of simply repeating your edit, as recommended by WP:BRD and to avoid edit-warring. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi R Prazeres. You’re simply wrong. The dynasty did hold on to power uninterrupted in al-Andalus through the end of the Abbasid revolution in 750, as the predecessor to Abd Al-Rahman I (the first emir of Córdoba) was Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri (the UMAYYAD governor of Al-Andalus). So the Umayyads never lost control of Al-Andalus after the Abbasid revolution. I will also mention this on the talk page. Theriddler1234 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "simply wrong", as your opinion does not reflect what scholarly sources say, so please leave the lead alone until you have solicited a proper consensus here on the talk page. I am posting a warning on your user talk page about edit-warring, to make this double-clear. R Prazeres (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri was the Umayyad governor of not only Al-Andalus but also Septimania, and he was succeeded by Abd Al-Rahman I and never by the Abbasids. The Umayyads were never toppled by the Abbasids in Al-Andalus and Septimania. NEVER. Theriddler1234 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop using all caps to emphasize your point. The lead doesn't say anything about the Abbasids in al-Andalus, it simply summarizes what happened to the ruling dynasty of the caliphate and the subsequent establishment of a new Umayyad line in al-Andalus. Please stick to what reliable sources say and not your own interpretation. Here's one extract of the most relevant passages from Hugh Kennedy, quoted at length for your benefit (format errors may be present from copy-pasting):

Yusuf began to grow in confidence. The collapse of the Umayyad caliphate of Damascus in 747-50 in the face of 'Abbasid attacks from the east meant that he became an independent ruler. (...) After the 'Abbasid revolution of 750, al-Andalus was no longer part of a wider Muslim empire: it remained to be seen what alternative polity would emerge to fill the gap.
(...) From 747 to 750 there was a vast upheaval, the 'Abbasid revolution, which swept the Umayyads and their Syrian supporters from power. Most of the members of the ruling house were rounded up and executed, but a few, mostly less prominent, individuals were able to lie low and make their escape.
One such was 'Abd al-Rahman b. Mu'awiya, a young grandson of the great Caliph Hisham (724-43). After some hair-breadth escapes, he fled to North Africa, accompanied only by a few mawali, among them Badr, later to be his right-hand man in al-Andalus. His first intention seems to have been to secure Ifriqlya (Tunisia), but the governor, 'Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, was hostile and he was obliged to seek refuge among his mother's relations, the Nafza Berbers. Thwarted in Africa, he sent Badr to make contact with the Umayyad mawali among the Syrian junds in al-Andalus. There were said to have been 500 of them in the diwan, led by 'Ubayd Allah b. 'Uthman and 'Abd Allah b. Khalid of Damascus and Yusuf b. Bukht of Qinnasrin. At first they tried to attract the support of the Qaysi leader, al-Sumayl, then under siege in Zaragoza, but he refused, fearing that 'Abd al-Rahman would like to make himself effective ruler, so they turned to the opposition Yemenis for support. In the early autumn of 755, after more than five years on the run, 'Abd al-Rahman crossed to Almunecar on the south coast of al-Andalus.
At first he was given refuge in the nearby homes of his mawali, Ibn Khalid and Abu 'Uthman, protected by 300 horsemen. After the attempt to reach a compromise with Yusuf al-Fihri and al-Sumayl, 'Abd al-Rahman began to make contact with Yemeni leaders throughout the south. By the next spring (756) he had recruited an army of about 2,000 Umayyad mawali and Yemeni jundis and marched on Cordoba. Here his supporters fought and defeated the Qaysi army of Yusuf and al-Sumayl and, in May 756, he entered the capital. The proclamation of 'Abd al-Rahman b. Mu'awiya as Amir in the mosque of Cordoba on Friday 14 May 756 was not the end of the Umayyad seizure of power in al-Andalus, but only the end of the beginning.

Here's another example from the Encyclopedia of Islam 2:

The governors of the Iberian peninsula, whether they were directly dependent on Damascus or whether they had assumed jurisdiction from the governor of Ifrīḳiya, enjoyed considerable autonomy because the area was so remote. The fall of the Umayyad dynasty in Syria, overthrown by the ʿAbbāsids, only served to reinforce this autonomy.
It took on the appearance of actual independence from the time of the government of Yūsuf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Fihrī, who combined all the conditions necessary to become the founder of a dynasty in Andalusia. He was a Ḳuras̲h̲ī [q.v.], the great-grand-son of the great ʿUkba b. Nāfiʿ, the son and nephew of the conquerors of al-Andalus, whose uncle, Ḥabīb b. Abī ʿUbayda, was one of those who killed ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, the son and successor of Musa b. Nuṣayr, and he was elected governor with the almost unanimous support of the Arabs of al-Andalus. But this unanimity rapidly disappeared thanks to the sectarian politics of his lieutenant al-Ṣumayl b. Ḥātim.
Another, even more far-reaching factor was added to this, the arrival on the scene of the young Umayyad, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muʿāwiya, the grandson of the caliph His̲h̲ām b. ʿAbd al-Malik: he had fled ʿAbbāsid persecution and had been wandering around the north of Africa accompanied by a faithful servant, his emancipated slave, Badr. He had tried as a fugitive to establish himself in Ifrīḳiya but the governor of that province, ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥabīb al-Fihrī, forced him to continue his flight, fearing correctly that if he allowed him to settle in that province the same fate would overtake him as destiny had reserved for his cousin Yūsuf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Seeing that his hopes of seizing government in Ifrīḳiya were dashed ʿAbd al-Raḥmān commenced his wanderings amongst the various Berber tribes of the Mag̲h̲rib, an experience which convinced him not to try to restore Umayyad government in these regions. The task of creating a “state” from nothing and of unifying the numerous Berber tribes was evidently much more laborious than that of seizing a province which was already supporting a certain political organisation. Given that Ifrīḳiya, because of the rapid and determined action of its governor, was out of the question, there was only one possible region left to satisfy the ambitions of the fugitive, and that was al-Andalus.
(...)
At the end of the summer of 138/755, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān landed at Almuñecar and took refuge without delay in the home of one of his followers, ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUt̲h̲mān at Torrox, which was in a very mountainous and inaccessible region. Until then the governor Yūsuf b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān knew nothing about the whole affair and ignored the advice of al-Ṣumayl, who had urged him to act speedily against the newcomer before he managed to gain firmer support. He decided to wait until the end of the winter, for his troops had only recently returned from one campaign and were reluctant to undertake another. This delay proved fatal for the governor, who was obliged to watch the gradually increasing forces of the Umayyad pretender, until the final foreseeable result, the overthrow of Yūsuf and of al-Ṣumayl, who came again to the region of Cordova on 10 Ḏh̲u ’l-Ḥid̲j̲d̲j̲a 138/14 May 756. At first the life and also the liberty of the Fihrite were respected, but when he quickly attempted revolt he was again defeated and then at last killed.

You can look up other the full texts yourself or other references. Another more recent reference would be Catlos's 2018 book Kingdoms of Faith (see pp. 37, 47-49). These descriptions from actual historians differ from the picture you're painting. Al-Andalus had fallen outside of central caliphal rule, Umayyad or otherwise, and Abd ar-Rahman had to take it by force and diplomacy. It was not the uninterrupted continuation of the previous Umayyad Caliphate. R Prazeres (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Theriddler1234, I see that you, of course, immediately resumed edit-warring ([1]) instead of working by consensus, despite being asked explicitly to respect Wikipedia policies on this issue. R Prazeres (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you stop moaning about people using capital letters and learn to read properly. The passages you referenced say nothing about the Umayyad DYNASTY being overthrown or toppled. It says the Umayyad CALIPHATE of DAMASCUS collapsed, or that the dynasty collapsed in SYRIA. The passages you referenced also mention that the Abbasids “rounded up most of the Umayyads” and some Umayyads survived. This is in reference to what happened in SYRIA. Read your own references again. You haven’t provided any evidence that the Umayyad dynasty (as a whole) was overthrown or toppled. You haven’t provided any evidence that the Umayyad dynasty was overthrown or toppled in Al-Andalus or Septimania. At the beginning you also said that “the (Umayyad) DYNASTY did not hold on to power uninterrupted in al-Andalus through the end of the Abbasid revolution in 750”, now you’ve changed the word dynasty to the “UMAYYAD CALIPHATE”, because you know Yusuf Al-Fihri was an Umayyad, which destroys your entire argument. The lead clearly talks about most of the Umayyad DYNASTY being overthrown. Nobody is arguing that the Umayyad Caliphate was not overthrown in 750. Be consistent and stop trying to be deceptive. Theriddler1234 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I provided some passages relevant to the crux of the issue about the situation in al-Andalus. Now you're trying to pick on semantics and ignoring substance. Every other reference can explain the overthrow of the dynasty, so what else are you expecting? Your argument that the Umayyad dynasty wasn't overthrown in Al-Andalus or Septimania is vague and misdirecting; if the ruling dynasty is overthrown from power in Syria, how is it still in power at the far reaches of the empire where no member of the ruling dynasty is present in 750? If only "most of the dynasty" was toppled, then tell me which member(s) of the dynasty remained in power after 750? Yusuf is a Fihrid and not a member of the Umayyad dynasty (any more than the other "Umayyads" which Kennedy mentions among the supporters) and he clearly didn't recognize the authority of the incoming Umayyad emir, who was a member of the dynasty (or a branch thereof), per the sources above. So it's misleading to portray this as continuous Umayyad rule in parts of the empire, when literally no reliable source so far states that.

You're implying that it's my job to prove you wrong by doing your research for you, but that's not how things work on Wikipedia: it's your job, per the verifiability policy, to provide support for your proposed change clearly and it's your job to sort this out on the talk page, not by edit-warring. You haven't demonstrated how the previous wording was incorrect, you've simply repeated yourself. R Prazeres (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Sorry that you had to expend time on a non-issue. The Umayyads (as in the Umayyad Caliphate and the ruling Umayyad dynasty) was toppled in 750. Period. Yusuf ibn Abd al-Rahman was not an Umayyad dynast. He was originally an appointee of the Umayyads who went on to rule autonomously during Umayyad rule and simply operated independently when they were toppled in 750. A member of the Umayyad dynasty in Syria, Abd al-Rahman, escaped the Abbasid attacks on the family, went to al-Andalus, defeated Yusuf and established an emirate (the Umayyad emirate of Cordoba) in 756. There was absolutely no continuity. If you continue to try to edit-war your point of view into the article, despite its inaccuracy and without supporting sources, the longstanding version will still be restored but you would be blocked from editing. Al Ameer (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Change Preview Image in Links to This Page.

The preview you can see when you hover over a link is fine for the image and everything else, but on this page the image only contains a plain white flag. The image doesn't seem to load. Moreover, this flag is not legitimate, it is just a simple guesswork. Therefore, like most pre-modern countries, it is better not to use any flags. It would be more Encyclopedic and better to replace the page image with the Country Map. Frq ltc (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Frq ltc, I don't entirely disagree with your argument about the flag; I'm not sure I've seen sources stating that it was a blank white banner. However, once you have been reverted, you must obtain a consensus for your edits here instead of edit-warring in the article, as you have done so far. You also haven't explained why this map you keep adding is an improvement over the other. R Prazeres (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I daresay it's self-evident that the plain white flag is rather useless as a preview image, and that a map would be more helpful. Exactly what solution should be applied can be discussed, but it ought to be uncontroversial that we should not have an entirely white preview image. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi R Prazeres. In short, there is no real historical evidence that that flag was true. It's misleading as it's just a simple guess, and it's definitely wrong to use it as an official flag in articles. Moreover, it was not on the national flags at that time. Therefore, it would be much better if it did not contain any flags like most pre-modern countries. I added the map, unlike the other, because it includes big cities. What do I need to do now to convince you? Frq ltc (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much value one way or another. The supporting evidence for the white flag seems marginal; it's very unclear if the dimensions were known or if that is a complete guess, but more critically, to the casual reader this will more likely just look like there has been a display error, because that is what a plain white box actually means to most people. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

For the flag: There are definitely sources stating that the flag was "white" or that the dynastic colour was white. One of the scholarly sources recently added to the file description states it was "plain white" (footnote 8 on p.91 here), though I'd be more reassured if we had an equally explicit source pre-dating this Wikipedia article (which has displayed this flag since 2008). This one at least minimally satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the concerns are about confusing readers with a blank image, we could potentially mention the flag in a dedicated section in the body of the article instead, if preferred.

Personally, I'm always skeptical that we have enough information to reproduce flags of this period or that they're really necessary in infoboxes for history articles, as it disproportionally emphasizes a marginal aspect of the topic that receives very little comment in reliable sources. But it's a wider issue beyond this article (e.g. compare infobox at Abbasid Caliphate).

For the map: Perhaps M.Bitton can further explain if needed, as they initially reverted it ([2]). I'm assuming it was an objection about visual quality? I would note that the map you added ([3]) was previously used in this article in the past, so it was intentionally changed since then. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think having a section in the body on the flag, or Umayyad vexillology and symbology more generally, would definitely be more pertinent. As it stands, this detail is hardly so critical that it needs to be in the infobox; on the contrary, the paucity of sourcing places it more in the category of the undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

A man uploaded that flag to the wikimedia in 2008 without citing any sources. But because it was such a simple design, some people believed this flag was "correct". And that book, published in 2017, claimed the flag was white, without stating any real historical evidence, simply citing the example of the Chinese calling the Umayyads "in white clothes". But clothes don't set the flag (!!!) Frq ltc (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: The visual quality aside, the unsourced map shows an area of the Maghreb that the Umayyads never controlled. I will upload a properly sourced map in the coming weeks. M.Bitton (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no significant difference from the current map except for the big cities. Frq ltc (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Frq ltc: care to explain this change? M.Bitton (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It was a mistake and I deleted it later. The fonts had changed. Frq ltc (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you didn't delete it, I did. Was the font the only problem with it? M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

no, I accidentally changed the font in that edit while trying to delete it completely. and then I deleted it completely myself. Frq ltc (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you related to Tarataraq? M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything??? who's that? I am not related to anyone here. Frq ltc (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Frq ltc: That's great. It's not unusual for editors to abandon an account in order to start afresh, but when two accounts behave alike (same interest and modus operandi), one cannot help but wonder if they are related.

One last question: did you ever edit this article using an IP? M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I remember I used to edit this page, when I didn't join by account. I just don't remember when. Frq ltc (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms that the IP I have in mind (used not long ago) actually belongs to Tarataraq. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

what IP and that person ("Tarataraq")??? Frq ltc (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Since you haven't used one after joining the project, that shouldn't concern you. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't get it, but whatever. I don't care who is what anymore. good bye. Frq ltc (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving my reply to the bottom so it won't get lost, but following up on TompaDompa, Iskandar323, and Frq ltc's comments above about the flag: do we have consensus, then, to remove the white image from the infobox? Do we want to mention the flag in a separate section below, as suggested by Iskandar323 and I? Or are there other opinions? R Prazeres (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a section (or at least a mention somewhere) in the body is warranted, not least to clear up such musings for future readers. Really what we need is an article on Islamic vexillology. This work: Alexander, D. (2000). The black flag of the ͑Abbasids. Gladius, 20, 221-238. is rather instructive generally, though it again leaves the specifics of Umayyad flags rather murky. That the Abbasid flag was black, and this was chosen in opposition to the Umayyads, is well known. Muhammad meanwhile flew both white and black flags. The Umayyads are meanwhile well attested as using white as a caliphal color, but to what extent that extended to their choices of standard is unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we pretty clearly have consensus to remove the flag from the infobox, and I have consequently implemented that consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa THANKS for your stable implementation. Frq ltc (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)