Talk:List of caliphs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fatimids

Why aren't the Fatimid Caliphs listed here? john k 11:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cause you cant be a caliph just by claiming that you are.--hnnvansier 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Columnar View

I changed the page back to a columnar format for the parallel Abbasid, Fatimid, Umayyad (Cordoba), and Almohad caliphs. I tried to align the columns according to date as much as possible. The table follows an unusual structure to achieve this effect. Unfortunately, the individual section edit buttons don't edit the correct content now. If anyone can think of a way to fix this, please do. Morngnstar 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Tabular View

The list should be inserted into a table, with two other columns containing the reigning years and brief notes on the corresponding caliph. This way, it'll be more informative and readable. Please suggest your views on this. SVAA (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

this is a bit of a mess

the list of popes is difficult enough, what with all the antipopes, but in Islam, there being no central authority whatsoever, it doesn't even make sense to speak of "anti-caliph", it is presumably up to each sect to define its own preferred succession of Muhammad. So perhaps this list should be split into lists of identifiable successions within given caliphates.

Also, the Hadith of the Twelve Successors page duplicates this effort by giving a similarly confused "list of caliphs", so at least these two attempts should be merged.

Also, I agree that the Ahmadiyya caliphate has no place in this, as here we simply have the word "caliph" as a common noun meaning "successor", it's not even intended to be about succession to Muhammad. We can just as well claim that Elizabeth II is "the caliph" of Mary Stuart. By unspecified "caliph" we of course mean Islamic theocrats claiming the status of successor of Muhammad. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Move towards deletion of ahmadiyya caliphate

I would like to invite concerned editors to discuss any objections. I will be removing any mention of ahmadiyya caliphate from this page as the caliph within ahmadiyya is not a political leader and holds no authority over any land. All the other caliphs mentioned on the page were caliphs in the political sense as mentioned in the lead of the article. I welcome any comments. Mbcap (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There are Spiritual Caliphates which do not require any land dominion. The ahmadiyya believe that caliphate is a spiritual position and have not made any efforts to establish any land dominions. Their leaders have always been recognized as caliphs.This is the most recent mention of Ahmadiyyah world leader in media and as you can see he has been mentioned as Caliph.I can provide numerous media sources which agree that Ahmadiyyah Caliphate is recognized.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think your source is reliable as it meets WP:NEWSORG. However this article as explained in the lead, states that the caliph is, "the supreme religious and political leader of an Islamic state known as the Caliphate". Also every caliph on that list has at some point been a ruler of an Islamic state or at least held political authority over a land. I think if you look at previous posts on this talk page dab has also raised the issue that the caliph in this article refers to a theocratic leader. Because of reasons already mentioned and to maintain consistency on the page we should delete it. Please let me know if you have any other reasons as to why it should stay. Mbcap (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the lead mentions that all caliphs have had a political standing then that is historically incorrect and the lead needs to be rectified as off course the Ahmadiyya Caliphate is a non-political office. It would be better to say that "Caliphates have generally been political offices, until recently..." or something of this sort.--Peaceworld 15:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Peaceworld111. It strikes me that the wrong thing is being targetted for removal here. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:peaceworld111 what is historically incorrect about the caliph being of a political standing? Please explain what you mean. We cannot put your quotation, "Caliphates have generally been political offices, until recently...". First reason is, caliphate does not mean the same thing as a caliph which is what this article is about. Second, we can only put a sentence in there, if a reliable source stipulates such.

Sitush your statement does no really help the discussion move along. Please clarify what you are alluding to. If there is something on the page that should be removed, your input would be appreciated as it will help us to remove unsuitable content. Mbcap (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should modify the intro to include the fact that there have always been "Spiritual Caliphates" which do not fight for dominion. Therefore their heads are usually spiritual leaders who do not rule any lands.The Ahmadiyyah Caliphate falls under this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mbcap: Ahmadiyya is, if not WP:UNDUE, off-topic. However, I think that the Ahmadiyya section could be kept but only is it clearly says that Ahmadiyya Caliphs are rejected by Muslims as their sect is considered unorthodox/heretic. --Omar-toons (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE Omar-toons: We have already established that Wikipedia cannot say that they are unorthodox etc etc , however an authors opinion can be added IF required. Raising this issue here while it has been already discussed is useless. The issue is whether to delete or to leave as is. And as I have shown that they are recognized as a Caliphate by reliable sources, then we should leave it AS IS.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Who "have already established" that? I don't see any mention of that on this TP. --Omar-toons (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained in the Caliphate talk page by Mbcap. Please study that page instead of making us copy paste everything here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if sth sth was decided there, what was decided regarding an issue which isn't similar to this one can not be applied here. But the fact is that othing was decided there. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we all take a break from this article and post-pone consideration for deletion of section until the dispute is resolved on the other issue in the caliphate discussion page. There is a lot of overlap between this and that discussion. We will learn a lot from the process on the other page and once that issue is resolved, we will move on to this one where I hope the experience will aid us. Mbcap (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Pro-Sunni article

Why is this article is only calling Sunni caliphates as "ecumenical" and categorizing it as mainstream? Is the Fatimid Caliphate false or something? Shias generally have never reagarded and recognised any of the post-Rashidun Sunni caliphs. The Abbasids withered away mostly after 9th century and the Ottomans only controlled the Middle East and part of Balkans after 19th century. It is likely that many Sunnis not ubder their rule never recognised them or bothered anyway. Then why are Sunni caliphs only shown as mainstream while the Shia Fatimids are left out? 169.149.143.212 (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this post is old, but I must agree with you. The Fatimid Caliphate ruled for nearly 300 years and their domains included North Africa, Egypt, the Levant, and western Arabia -- "ecumenical" by any standard. Even if the Shia Caliphate is not accepted by Sunnis, they were certainly a legitimate caliphate at the time. —General534 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@—General534 no, it can't.One of the criteria of being the caliph is that the majority of the Muslim public must approve him(whether it is directly or indirectly). GrandSultanMaeltheGreat (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is true, it is like calling the Eastern Orthodox Russian Church a successor of the Roman Empire, when they'd be considered heretics and pretenders. Or considering American presidents the kings of the British Empire. The fatimids never were seen as a caliphate, this is something Westerners called it due to their misunderstanding of how a Caliphate works, and of couse in Islamic law, the rulers need the approval of the majority, shia are not the majority, in fact are a small minority, the vast majority over 90% are Sunnis, and this is after the 16th century safavids forcefully converting Persia to shiaism, during the time of the fatimids, this number would have been extremely low(similar to how qadianis are today) as virtually every piece of Islamic land was conquered by Sunnis and inhabited by them, the shia never conquered any new land from non-Muslims/Christians/Pagans, and thus never managed to propagated their heresy before the 16th century safavids 74.90.234.208 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Caliphs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219140000/http://www.caliphofislam.com/ to http://www.caliphofislam.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsubstantiated sentence

I have removed the following unsourced sentence: "That the US then chose to destroy the legitimate Caliphate of all Muslims is a predictable, yet hilarious, fact of history." As far as I know, the legitimate Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish parliament March 3, 1924, and not by anyone else, and certainly not by President Trump. Luke (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

Ghulam Mirza is not an islamic person. The reference from here brings false statements in search about muslims and islam. 194.193.170.191 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing fringe drivel claims

One does not post an entire section of "how the earth is really flat" in a Wiki article about the planet earth, or how some fringe groups believe it is a NASA conspiracy. In the same sense stuff like "Taliban caliphate" "isis caliphate" "ahmadiya caliphate" obviously not be here and should be in their own pages regarding these groups and their claims to one.

If we were to include these fringe sects then we could include hundreds of non-fringe medieval claims to a Caliphate by various duchies and minor kingdoms. Also on with the Taliban, they do not or ever have claimed to be a Caliphate, they aren't a fringe group within Orthodox Islam and take it very seriously. The term "Ameer al Mumineen" is not synonymous with Caliph, it can be used as a generic title for any leader of Muslims, such as a king, president, revolutionary leader(as such with the Taliban) Of course for this I've modified it. Much of this non-sense about ISIS being a "caliphate" is western media hysteria and Orientalism being unable to understand what this Islamic politcal entity actually is.

TL:DR Imagine me claiming to be the president of the United States, and then putting it in the Wiki list of presidents, a real life example of this is John Titor

Although the only post-1900 caliphate claim that is legitmate is the Sharifi one which is by an actual recorded descendant of Muhammad, so it holds some legitimacy if they were properly able to defend their claims in a war

The sourceless Taliban one has been removed, and we should talk about the schematics of the ISIS/ahmadiya ones. People with actual Islamic history/madrassa degrees recommended.

74.90.226.35 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much this, the section on the Taliban claiming to be a caliphate has literally zero sources. The Taliban however refer to themselves as the Emirate of Afghanistan. And I dunno who keeps putting in "ISIS" as there was an entire debate on the talk before that it doesn't belong here Qurtuva (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lots of soapboxing...

There is no current Caliph of Islam @Wikipedia Please remove this misleading information that the current caliph is not Mirza Musroor Ahmed Qadiani. Qadianis are unanimously declared non-muslims by all elite organisations of muslims. There is no iota of difference among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1D25:1D00:9536:2E55:369B:20C4 (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @Wikipedia You have provided wrong information, the current caliph is not Mirza Musroor Ahmed Qadiani. And Qadiani's are non-Muslims. Please correct that mistake. Muhammad Awais CH 73 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Its wrong information. Midza Masroor is not caliph of Islam. Blackpanther789 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Remove this information its misleading and wrong information abouts caliphate of islam. NajeebPakistan (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Whilst we appreciate that, this matter is Google's and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. On the article, this has been noticed on this note. Pahunkat (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC) There is NO Current Caliph of Islam @Wikipedia You have provided wrong information, the current caliph is not Mirza Musroor Ahmed Qadiani. And Qadiani's are non-Muslims. Please correct that mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubashermubi (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Whilst we appreciate that, this matter is Google's and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. On the article, this has been noticed on this note. Pahunkat (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020 (2) Qadiyyanis arenot accepted as muslims by majority of muslims community ,So Mirza Masroor is not the Caliph of ISlam accoridng to all major sects including Ahle Sunnat and Ahle Tashi' 39.34.199.18 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC) This has been noticed on this note. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) There is no current caliph of Islam it is misleading by conveying that there is a caliph when it is not @Wikipedia You have provided wrong information,There is no current caliph. Please correct that mistake. It is pointed out by many Muslim leaders that a non-Muslim cannot understand what it means to Muslims when they talk about Prophet(SAW) and Islam which is completely because of ignorance and against Islamic point of view, as pointed out in United Nations Organisation by Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan, and at many other forums, also by many other leaders. Ahmadiya Community is not a muslim community they are completely against islamic perceptions Ahmadiya Community are non muslim Because They don't believe that Hazrat Muhammad SAW are last prophet of Islam Abubakarhrl (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC) On the article, this note is sufficient. Read the above discussions before you post again. Pahunkat (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020 (3) I want to complain about some religious topic which had been posted by Ahmadis Islam has only caliph named Hazrat Abu Bakar Hazrat Umer farooq Hazrat Usman Hazrat Ali Islam has no other caliph except the mentioned above kindly make sure that the article which wikipedia has uploaded should be valid and verified Thankyou for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Wasay88 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020 (4) The caliph is the elected spiritual and organizational leader of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and is the successor of Ghulam Ahmad. He is believed by the Community to be divinely ordained and is also referred to by its members as Amir al-Mu'minin (Leader of the Faithful) and Imam Jama'at (Imam of the Community). But these are false claims and he is not the Messiah of the muslim Community. 148.64.26.114 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Whilst we appreciate your opinion, the portrayal of info on Google's search engine is Google's matter and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. On the article, this note should suffice. Pahunkat (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information >> Correction needed

Well, as per the article it is written that “ After the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632, a succession crisis arose as Muhammad had not left a generally acknowledged heir.” But this is an incorrect edit/statement because this is only believed by SUNNI Muslims. However, if you check references about SHIA Muslims, then they already have a confirmation tagged that Prophet Muhammad has announced Ali Ibn Abu Talib as his successor at the event of Ghadir Khumm (the article available at: http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Event_of_Ghadir_Khumm). Therefore, I request to correct the statement as “As per Sunni Muslim, after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632, a succession crisis arose as Muhammad had not left a generally acknowledged heir.” SHIA VOICE (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. It is saying that there is generally no acknowledged heir, it is not that saying that the view is held by Shia Muslims. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Mackintosh04yeahman (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Style	Amir al-Mu'minin

Residence al-Madīnah al-Munawwarah (Medina) Makkah al-Mukarramah (Mecca) al-Kūfah (Kufa) Dimashq (Damascus) Baġdād (Baghdad) Sāmarra (Samarra) Qāhirah (Cairo) Qustantiniyyeh (Constantinople) or Istanbul Appointer Hereditary (since 661) Formation 8 June 632 First holder Abu Bakr Final holder Abdulmejid II Abolished 3 March 1924 Succession Muhammad Al-Mahdi This is a list of people who have held the title of Caliph, the supreme religious and political leader of an Islamic state known as the Caliphate, and the title for the ruler of the Islamic Ummah, as the political successors to Muhammad. All years are according to the Common Era.

Contents 1 Background 2 Ecumenical caliphates 2.1 Rashidun Caliphate (8 June 632 – 29 January 661) 2.2 Umayyad Caliphate (661 – 6 August 750) 2.3 Abbasid Caliphate (25 January 750 – 20 February 1258) 2.4 Mamluk Abbasid dynasty (1261 – 1517) 2.4.1 Caliphs of Cairo (13 June 1261 – 22 January 1517) 2.5 Ottoman Caliphate (1517 – 3 March 1924) 3 Non-ecumenical caliphates 3.1 Ibn al-Zubayr's Caliphate (684–692) 3.2 Ummayad Caliphate of Córdoba (929–1031) 3.3 Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171) 3.4 Almohad Caliphate (1145–1269) 3.5 Indian caliphates 3.6 Sokoto Caliphate (1804–1903) 3.7 Bornu and Songhai Empires 4 Non-ecumenical caliphates declared after 1900 4.1 Sharifian Caliphate (1924–1925) 4.2 Islamic State 4.3 Non-political 4.3.1 Ahmadiyya Caliphate (1908–present) 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 Bibliography

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 20:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Since this supposed to be a non-partisan list of caliphs, i propose changing the section from "Rashidun" to "Medinan" Caliphate. While this isn't the term used by Sunni or Shia Islam members, many researchers and scholars refer to the caliphate as the Medinan caliphate as a neutral term to avoid disrespecting anybody's beliefs. A further description could be added explaining this. 47.195.225.100 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide sourcing for that naming convention please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please reopen the edit request when you have reliable sources to prove this. —Belwine (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

“Ecumenical Caliphate”

Why is the Ottoman Empire referred to on this page as an ecumenical caliphate? Both Sunni and Shia scholars believe that the non-Qurashi Caliphate is not valid, hence the Ottoman Caliphate was not legitimate. Iranophile (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have removed mention of Ecumenical. Also removed the below to make article more "listy".

The Ansar (natives of Medina) gathered to decide on a new leader of the Muslim community among themselves. Abu Bakr, a prominent companion of Muhammad, addressed that an attempt to elect a leader outside of Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh, would likely result in dissension in the community. He presented Umar and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah to the Ansar as potential choices. Another suggestion was that the Quraysh and the Ansar choose a leader each from among themselves, who would then rule jointly. Eventually, Umar swore his own allegiance to Abu Bakr, citing his prominence among the companions. Others soon followed, accepting Abu Bakr near-universally as the first Caliph of Islam.

Abu Bakr and the three caliphs following him are regarded as the Rashidun Caliphs (or rightly-guided caliphs) by the adherents of Sunni Islam. Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor on his deathbed. Umar, the second caliph, was assassinated by a Persian named Piruz Nahavandi. His successor, Uthman, was elected by a council of electors (majlis). Uthman was killed by members of a disaffected group. Ali then took control but was not universally accepted as caliph by the governors of Egypt, headed by Muawiyah, who wanted revenge for Uthman's murder. This culminated into the Fitna, or the first Islamic civil war. Ali was assassinated by Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, a Khawarij. His son, Hasan ibn Ali abdicated in favor of Muawiyah, who transformed the caliphate into a hereditary office, thus founding the Umayyad dynasty.

JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Numbering constituting a form of original research

I think there's a problem with the fact that this lists numbers the caliphs, as if there were some established numerical order in which, for example, Mu'awiya I would be the sixth caliph of Islam. But of course, we're not citing any reliable source for that, and it may give readers the wrong impression. If someone thinks this is far-fetched, consider this recent argument that Hasan ibn Ali should be called the fifth Rashidun caliph in his article, because he is ranked no. five here. Is it possible to keep the templates but somehow remove the numbers? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

About 5th chalipat

This is wrong information about 5th chalipat 2001:8F8:1321:B1EB:C570:8FC:11FC:7746 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

See Hasan ibn Ali#Sunni Islam for reliably sourced information, and the discussion about this subject below at Talk:List of caliphs/Archive 1#Hasan ibn Ali. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hasan ibn Ali

Edit six months later than the discussion below: Hasan ibn Ali#Sunni Islam now contains some reliably sourced information on this topic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit that added Hasan ibn Ali to the Rashidun caliphs but it was reverted on the grounds of him not being one. Although it is true that Hasan is not considered to be of the Rashidun, he is still considered by Sunni Muslims to be a legitimate caliph, so putting him under the "Disputed" section is not correct. Philosophy2 (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If (some) Sunni Muslims, and only (some) Sunni Muslims, would consider Hasan ibn Ali to have belonged to the Rashidun or to have been the legitimate caliph rather than Mu'awiya, while others do not, it would be by definition 'disputed'. But of course, we don't have any source to verify the claim that (some) Sunni Muslims consider him as such. Moreover, we report the views of historians on this, and these certainly do not view Hasan as belonging to the Rashidun or as somehow more 'legitimate' than Mu'awiya. What historians do say is that Hasan's claim to the caliphate was disputed by Mu'awiya from the very beginning, and it is in this sense that the word 'disputed' is also used by our article here.

However, the word 'disputed' may not be the best way to characterize the other caliphates listed under that heading. For example, the Abbasid caliphate was also 'disputed' from the moment the Fatimids claimed the title of caliph in the 10th century, while the Fatimid Caliphate was arguably just as powerful as the Abbasids at the time and could for this reason also be added to the main section. Almost all caliphates were 'disputed' at some point in time by other claimants, some of them quite serious ones. We could solve this simply by renaming the section to 'Other caliphates'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What I was saying is not that he is considered to be the legitimate caliph instead of Mu’awiyah, but that he is considered to be the legitimate caliph between Ali and Mu’awiyah, in that 6-7 month period. Philosophy2 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't considered legitimate in that period by the many followers of Mu'awiya, who had claimed the caliphate already since 658 and who immediately after the death of Ali in early 661 had marched on Kufa to lay siege on Hasan and his followers (for references, see Mu'awiya, which fortunately is a featured article and so very well-sourced). Again, Hasan's claim to the caliphate is by far not the only one to have been 'disputed', which is not a very sensible category to put caliphates in (since a large number of them, including some of the most notable, were disputed at some point), but there's no doubt that it was never as widely recognized as the caliphates in our main category. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Very well, looking that so many controversy regarding Hasan ibn Ali as 5th caliph listing, and potential edit war regarding it, i think this matter should be solved ASAP. do we need to vote? or just resolute it by reaching the consensus by discussion? Ahendra (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Some things are just simple, by virtue of the fact that there is an unambiguous and straightforward way in which policy should be applied. If there's no source to verify something, no discussion at all should be needed. If and when a source is brought forward for Hasan as the fifth (rightly-guided) caliph (preferably at Talk:Hasan ibn Ali rather than here), then we can discuss its reliability, its due weight, etc. Only if that discussion should fail to reach a consensus, perhaps even after it has passed by a content discussion noticeboard such as Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN) or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (NPOVN), should we proceed to something like a Request for Comments (RfC).

Isn't debating whether or not Hasan is "rightly-guided" a violation of NPOV? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but debating whether prominent and reliable sources reckon Hasan among the so-called Rightly-Guided caliphs is not. It's fairly straightforward really: there is no such source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

However, it often happens that a piece of misinformation that circulates on the internet and for which no reliable secondary source exists keeps on being added by an overwhelming number of anonymous or new editors, and needs to be removed time and again by a much smaller number of regulars. This should not be a cause for concern: basic content policy (WP:V) applies regardless of the sheer numbers of editors who try to add the same thing. It's a well-known phenomenon on WP, of which every WP-patroller can cite a few examples.

That being said, I do wonder where the claim about Hasan as a fifth rightly-guided caliph comes from? It has been present in the Hasan ibn Ali article and related WP articles for a very long time, so this may very well be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Alternatively, perhaps some prominent modern Sunni religious scholars claim Hasan as a fifth rightly-guided caliph (e.g., from an interfaith dialogue point of view, seeking a rapprochement with Shi'i Islam)? In that case, if reliable secondary sources about the claims of these religious scholars exist, it may deserve a small place in the Hasan ibn Ali article (though definitely not here, since we follow the POVs of independent historians, not those of involved religious scholars). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What if we split up the "Rashidun" section into two parts, one for the Medina-based polity (from 632 until the capital moved to Kufa) and one for the Kufa-based polity (which would include the latter part of Ali's rule as well as Hasan's rule)? That would agree with a previous discussion on the talk page (see Talk:List of caliphs/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021) about the term "Rashidun" being non-neutral, as well as solve the issue of where to list Hasan's reign. (After all, sources indicate that people pledged allegiance to Hasan as caliph and that he had political power for several months, then why wouldn't he be listed with the others? It doesn't make sense for him to simply be listed in "disputed" when many of the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers were also disputed but still have full inclusion.) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As I argued above, the real difference between the main section and the 'Disputed' section is that the former were major, historically important caliphates, while the latter were short-lived and very seriously contested from beginning to end. If we would include Hasan among the 'main' caliphates, why shouldn't we also include Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr? To put only Hasan's caliphate at the same level as Ali's or Mu'awiya's just doesn't make any sense outside of an agenda-based context. Furthermore, the term Rashidun very much is neutral: as the article explains, it is the term historically used by Sunni Muslims for the first four caliphs, which is adopted as such by modern scholars. 'Neutral' at Wikipedia means not saying anything different from what reliable sources say. Not using the scholarly term 'Rightly-Guided' ('Rashid') merely because some editors object to it is precisely what would, in fact, not be neutral.

All of that said, what would make sense to me is to reorganize the caliphates on a purely chronological basis (by the date they were first claimed). It would solve the problem of the 'Disputed' category being vague and inaccurate, a fact on which I think we all agree. Just beware of introducing categorizations (like Medina-based vs Kufa-based) that are not in fact prominently used in reliable sources (such as, e.g., Rashidun vs Umayyads). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "Notes" column

Why is there a biographical "Notes" column for the tables on the page? It doesn't seem to add much value, and it goes against standard Wikipedia convention -- many other standard Wikipedia pages that have a list of political rulers do not include a "Notes" column that gives a biography of the person (see List of presidents of the United States, List of British monarchs, or List of presidents of Egypt for just a few examples). I would propose removing the Notes column and, if necessary, possibly adding a "relationship to predecessor" column for the hereditary lines instead. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing the 'Notes' column: most of it is either unsourced or poorly sourced, as such it's a magnet for disruptive editing, and the role played by it should really be fulfilled by the lead section of the target pages (which presumably are well-sourced). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Apaugasma -- as there has been no further feedback it seems like the consensus is to remove the Notes section. We can mark this section as closed and I'll update the article now. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What about parents?

Apaugasma and Snowsky Mountain: I agree on the removal of the "Notes" column, but what about the parents column? The information it provides is unnecessary here in my opinion. I boldly removed the column from the Rashidun section a while ago, and I want to hear your opinions in this regard. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 15:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree on removal of parents at least from the Umayyad section, as the information in the "Relation with predecessor" column is somewhat duplicative to that of the "Parents" column. I think an argument could be made for keeping "Parents" for the Abbasid and Ottoman sections, as those sections don't have a "Relation with predecessor" category. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Replied below at Talk:List of caliphs#Parents?. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hassan Ibn e Ali

He was the caliphate and there is no reason to include him in the Disputed. Muhammad Hanif Bani Hashim Bani Quresh (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

See Hasan ibn Ali#Sunni Islam for reliably sourced information, and the discussion about this subject above at Talk:List of caliphs#Hasan ibn Ali. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)