Talk:Umayyad 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)

::That's not true. Much of Morocco and Algeria were already independent BEFORE the abbasid revolution, after the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_Revolt.

::Also, Spain and Tunisia were under the control of members the Fihrid family and they governed independently until the Ummayads came to Corboda and the Kharijites overran Tunisia .Abbasid came later to the region.

::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fihrids 2800:200:F410:2421:B1E1:BB67:AC34:660E (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

:Rather shallow subject for many reasons

: The Umayyad were not Arabs nor spoke arabic as coins and collateral documents inform us . Not even Muslims ~ just a punch of opportunistic risk takers after the collapse of Persian empire 622 !! ( the elephant in the room) not to mention the devastating Pibunic plague

:I think the traditional narratives of history fabrication needs revision

: 2A00:23CC:B594:BC01:8151:D227:F365:A535 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (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)

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) 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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. Aghvcgjmm (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

:Please read Wikipedia:No original research. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

1st used in headings, w/o explanation!

What's the difference betw. Sufyanid and Umayyad?

Basic questions... Arminden (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2024 (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. Arminden (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think adding to the “Religion” section of the infobox Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism as religions would be wise. The article even mentions later that Christians comprised the majority of the Caliphate’s inhabitants, but listing only the official religion in the info box could lead to skewed understandings of the continued existence of Christianity, Judaism, and other religions in the Umayyad Caliphate. KrispyBaconMan3612 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_imperialism&redirect=no Islamic imperialism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 5#Islamic imperialism}} until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 17:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This caused some confusion for me when I read it, but there are a number of kingdoms and empires that are listed in the 'Preceded By' section. While it seems natural to include the Rashidun Caliphate, I don't understand why every contemporary kingdom/empire that at one time had minor overlapping territories annexed by the Umayyads is listed here, especially when on their own 'Succeeded By' section the Umayyad Caliphate isn't listed.

For instance, the Brahmin Dynasty of Sindh, the Hephthalite Empire, and the Gupta Empire all don't list the Umayyad Caliphate in their infobox. As a reader I was confused, since there seemed to be some continuity implied (such as with the Rashidun Caliphate or Exarchate of Africa) that isn't supported by any of the pages or their sources.

If I did misunderstand the purpose of this section, then feel free to revert my change, but it might be better to include the Umayyad Caliphate in the 'Succeeded By' section of the three pages listed above instead. Thucydidean Gamer (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, in theory the infobox should be summarizing what's already in the article, so if these various kingdoms aren't mentioned at all, then it's probably best to remove them from the infobox. Some leeway seems reasonable (especially in less developed articles) if the inclusion links to another article that makes the relevance clear and unambiguous, but otherwise the clutter does not help readers, as you've noted. R Prazeres (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi {{u|R Prazeres}}. Sorry, but what does

:"Islam (state)"

mean? And how is it better than

:"Islam (state religion)"?

I honestly don't get it, and I believe that my English isn't all that bad for a non-native speaker. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Arminden, assuming you're referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umayyad_Caliphate&diff=prev&oldid=1291817087 this edit], I just want to clarify: you had already reverted one part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umayyad_Caliphate&diff=1291766948&oldid=1291486718 this change], I was reverting the rest; you restored the detail as "(state religion)" and the larger revert restored it to the previous version, "(state)". There is no substantive difference here, either "Islam (state)" or "Islam (state religion)" communicates the same information. The only minor difference is that the former is slightly more concise; in the context of a parameter clearly titled "Religion", the meaning should be clear whether we repeat the word "religion" or not. (The same wording is also used at Abbasid Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, Mamluk Sultanate and some others.) Another equivalent would be "Islam (official)". So it seems fine to me as is, but I have no objection at all if a little more explicitness is desired. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|R Prazeres}}, and thanks. I was aware of everything you have written, except for the fact that this has been used for all those other empires. I also hate word repetititons and I'm a big fan of abbreviations and conciseness myself, but this made me very much aware of the problem of being too concise. So yes, I do get the intention, just don't think

:::"Religion Islam (state)"

::makes much sense. It's not a coincidence that state religion is an established 2-word term: it transports a specific meaning as such. In my opinion, the required meaning could perhaps also be reached by writing

:::"Religion Islam (the state)"

::but not as it is now. Pls mind that users don't see what's hidden left of the pipe.

::Adding "..., with tolerance shown only for certain other religions, under specific restrictions" would be better, as it catches the specific practice of traditional Muslim states including caliphates. But maybe people fear a war over such wording with Muslim editors? If we agree to add these specifications, we can add "People of the Book" between brackets after "religions", or directly connect "certain other religions" via hidden wikilink (behind a pipe).

::Anyway, as it is now I find it too elliptical to carry the intended meaning. This goes for all the examples you have mentioned. Can you see my point? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Adding "official" is OK-ish, of course, but probably just in the context of modern states. Traditional Muslim states were far more restrictive than just proclaiming a nominal official religion. The Koran & Hadith do not provide for freedom of religion. There is restrictive tolerance for the People of the Book, and "idol worshipers" are to be offered the option of either converting or being killed. Tolerated religions come with an added fiscal imposition, and often with additional restrictions for the respective houses of worship (for instance the prohibition of using church bells, and churches having to be lower than mosques), sometimes mandatory clothing etc., and with strict limitations in social mobility once there are Muslims available for all high-ranking roles in the administrative apparatus. So too concise here means: misleading. Arminden (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)