This is an archive of past discussions about Fatimid Caliphate. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This "He legitimized his claim by his descent from the Prophet by way of the Prophet's daughter Fatima Zahra and her husband Ali ibn Abu Talib" doesn't really make any sense, because he didn't change his descent to make his claim legitimate. How about "He justified his claim..." ? Jogback 04:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Iemen was ismaili, but not fatimid
Just taking a look at your article, I found a wide spred error about fatimids. You say:
The Fatimid or Fatimid Caliphate is the Ismaili Shiite dynasty that ruled North Africa from A.D. 909 to 1171. Under the Fatimids, Egypt became the center of an empire that included at its peak North Africa, Sicily, Palestine, Syria, the Red Sea coast of Africa, the Yemen, and the Hejaz.
Well, Iemen was never fatimid, just allied to them with the sulajhid dynasty. In Palestine and Syria, their possessions where just a few little cities, because of the anarchic status of the rest of the land. Source: History of Islam, 2 (750-1055), by M.A. Shaban. -- AnnubiX, from catalan wikipedia.
Relation between Fatimids and Crusaders.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
One of the more controversial issues surrounding the Fatimid dynasty was its relation with the prominent issue of its time, namely the crusades. Subsequently, in my opinion, this decided the future of Shi'a school of thought in the middle-east for hundreds of years to come. Would someone who is knowledgable about this period of history add what he knows? I would be interested in reading it very much. HAE19:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I can only support this request, nine (!) years later... Just have a look at the site on the Fatimids in other languages which often have at least a short, neutral paragraph on the crusades. Surely this can be done a lot better than what we have right now! 93.195.211.55 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
al-Mahdi's caliphate began in 909 or 910
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've changed the date to 910 and I'm completely aware that this is only half of the story. He appeared 909 in Sijilmasa was called caliph by his followers there, had his followers prostrate themselves before him and coins had the inscription of his name in Raqqada. However, his official proclamation was in 910 when he entered the city himself. The scholars are divided, shall we include this bit of discussion in the entry? Bernd09:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
But still, a "height of Fatimid control" or "Fatimid control under super cool leader #1" would be very useful. Most pre-modern-nation-state-things change a bunch and not clearly, but, the approximations still give us good context. grenグレン14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to somehow make it clear that the fatimids had different theological beliefs to the ismails of today i.e the aga khan etc
I think Tripoli is in the wrong spot on that map. I'm pretty sure Tripoli is in what is today Libya, and not Palestine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.14.225 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Subscript text
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
According to this source: "The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids" by HEINZ HALM, the Fatimid Dynasty originated out of the Yemen. It was known that the one who was called the Mahdi was supposed to be a descendant of the prophet, which meant he was born near Arabia and specifically the Yemen. After failing to establish a power presence in what we call now Yemen and Iraq, the Fatimids (Ismaelis at that time), led by Abdallah the elder, fled to the Maghrib. There they gathered their followers, and revealed their hidden Imam; the Mahdi. From that moment on they were known as Fatimids and broke with other Ismaeli groups. These groups didn't accept the Mahdi as their leader and ruler of Islam. According to them he had no legitimate claim to be a descendant of the prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.47.27 (talk) 14:42, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could somebody somehow expand on the fall of hte Fatimids? I don't feel the explanation is clear enough, I would expand it but I don't know the history myself very well. -- 01:46, 9 February 2008 71.191.141.180
I don't know that there's any one single overriding explanation. In some sense the basis of the Fatimids' rule was always a little tenuous, since they were a small Shi`ite elite ruling over a predominantly Sunni population. During the course of the 11th century A.D., the Zirids of the Maghrib declared independence, the Fatimids launched the Arab tribal invasions of the Maghrib in revenge (which left the agricultural economy of parts of northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria in ruins for many centuries), there were some bad Fatimid rulers (most notably the "mad Caliph"), and the Turkish invasions and First Crusade resulted in expelling the Fatimids from the Levant area -- so that as a cumulative result, the Fatimids looked a whole lot less glorious in 1100 A.D than they had a century earlier. That was probably part of the reason why the Ismaili movement showed a tendency to split over leadership disputes around that time. AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Arab or Berber
Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
So you think a group of lost Arabs from Yemen can brainwash the whole Berber nation in Africa to support them as a leaders. What kind of fairy tales are you spreading here? Fatimid dynasty was a pure Berber North African Dynasty, is that to difficult for you to understand. The fact that Berbers also speak Arabic has to do with the fact that Berbers are Muslims, and they practice their religion in the Classic Arabic language, but that doesn't make them Arabs. Imazighen (Berbers) in North Africa have never accepted a leader outside their own nation, and Imazighen in the North regions of North Africa were a very highly educated nation, since they had hunderd of year's access to Roman and Greek science. Your stories are based on fairy tales of thousand and one night. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.70.123 (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It's perhaps possible that in 909 AD they were more Berber than Arab, but they claimed to be Arab, and the exact genealogies can't be known now, so such a substitution as you made in the article is too simplistic to be useful. AnonMoos (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the precedent unsigned post is totally justified, without the BERBER KUTAMA tribes, there will be no Fatimid dynasty ... the dynasty traces its origins to the Kutama berbers of the Aures mountains. 41.140.102.144 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Berbers were an important part of their early power base, but their main claim to legitimacy was elaborate Arab genealogies, and the last two centuries of their rule was centered in Egypt. AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, many historians consider them to be one of the four Arab caliphates of the early centuries of Islam (Rashidun, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids). AnonMoos (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
2021
Oh, brother. You've just destroyed the Berber language. And the Fatamids were Arabs from Yemen, not Berbers. <facepalm> -- 50.111.44.54 14:56, 12 August 2021
2011
AnonMoos just tell us who are this historians? Becuase the famous historians like Ibn Khaudl have orte the the Fatimids is a Berber dynastie and also the Abbasids have considerd the Fatimids as a Berber dynastie. So who are this histroians which YOU are talking about. Give us EVIDENCE like I did. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizouzenati (talk o contribs) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
That claim is FALSE like mainy other Muslim leaders in this era are claiming to be decedents of Ali ibn abu talib. But that is not a historical EVIDENCE and Ali ib abu talib is not a HISTORIAN. Where are the names of the historians which you were talking about? Saddam hossein and the majority of the Arab leaders in this era are claiming to be decedent of Ali ibn abu talib.
Ibn Khaldun and the big Arab dynastie of the Abassids have considerd the Fatimids as a berber dynastie and that is also logic since they the Fatimids is establised in Berber Tunisia by the Khutama Berbers.
You may think it's false, but it's hard to say how you can know that for certain, and the claim was highly-significant towards their gaining political support and ruling power, and went a long way towards defining their political and historical identity. The Bohras and Aga Khan followers of today consider it highly important that the Fatimids were descended from Ali ibn Abi Talib. Furthermore, in modern Arab nationalist rhetoric, the Fatimids are often defined as one of the early Arab caliphates (see Pan-Arab colors etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- it accomplishes nothing to accuse other people of lying when they merely happen to disagree with you. The Abbasids considered the Fatimids to be heretical enemies and rebels, so I don't know that their opinions have great importance today. You may know more about the subject than I do, but as long as you cavalierly ignore (i.e. dismiss without any cogent argument) highly-relevant facts such as that the Fatimids claimed crucial descent from Ali ibn Abi Talib, or that they're considered one of the four historical Arab caliphates by modern Arabic nationalists, then you don't make it any easier to take your views into account in the article. AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read 'Williams, Caroline. 1983. The Cult of 'Alid Saints in the Fatimid Monuments of Cairo, Part I'. Does the history written on stones help to strengthen the view that Fatimid can't be other than descent of Ali, who were strongly opposed by Abbasid, forced to live in occultation and fled to north Africa to safeguard Islam.--Md iet (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha what kind of fairy tales are you telling me now??? I have given here true historical prove that the Fatimid's are not Arabs. The claim, reluctantly admitted by Ibn Khaldun, was undoubtedly political in origin. The Kutama were the chosen people of the Fatimid's. I am Dutch and our queen ancestors are Germans does that make Holland a German state and not a Dutch state? The Arab nationalists are LIARS. The famous Historian Ibn Khaldun has also wrote that the Fatimid's are a Berber dynasty and different Arab historians have wrote that the Abbasids considered the Fatimid's as Berbers. How the hell can one man control a Berber nation if they are not Berbers themselves? You are posting here Marvel and science fiction stories. Wikipedia is truly a joke. You people are claiming an ABORIGINAL North African nation to be a Middle Eastern Arab nation???? This is not world of war craft.My former Historians teachers warned me about Wikipedia that wikiepedia is just a foolish site with morons posting the most ridiculous stories. Go and read the Mugadimmah and other works of the true historian Ibn Khaldun. And the modern science has confirmed that there are NO Arabs in North Africa. North Africans don't share the same genes as the Arabs. Are this Arabs Fatimid's disappeared from North Africa???? Haha oh god what a stupidity. Do you also know how many modern Arab and non Arab leaders claiming to be decedents of Ali ibn Abu Talib, and do you also know why? Zizouzenati (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Zizouzenati (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Zizouzenati --
1) Things might proceed more smoothly if you refrained from intemperate language and pointless personal allegations. These violate official Wikipedia policies and do nothing to resolve any disputed issues with the article.
2) Some of what you say may be true, but unfortunately when you act as if the Fatimid claim to be descended from Ali ibn Abi Talib is unimportant, you end up sabotaging yourself, and make it difficult for other people to take you seriously -- because we know very well that the Fatimid claim to be descended from Ali ibn Abi Talib is historically very important.
3) In some parts of the Muslim world, claimed descendants of Muhammad/Fatima/Ali are known as "Sayyids" and/or wear green turbans. I never heard of any modern Arab rulers other than the sultans of Morocco who made a big deal of their claimed descent from Ali...
4) I find it rather laughable that you accuse me of being an Arab, when on several occasions Arabs have accused me of being a Jew! -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not an uneducated fool as maybe you think that I am, it where not the Fatimid's who where claiming to be the decedent of Ali ibn Abu Talib but ONE man which was their Leader Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah. This leader was chosen by the Kutama berbers. What you don't understand or don't want to understand is that the Fatimid CALIPHATE would never ever been EXISTED without mainly the Kutama Berbers and other Berber clans in North Africa.
The Fatimid Caliphate was founded in the homeland of the Berbers and among the Berbers, it where also the Berbers who wanted that Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah to be their leader. If The Berbers wanted to chop the head of Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah they could do that without any problem at all. That means his existence was dependend on the Berbers, his wife was Berbers.
The Berbers and mainly the Kutama were in that time at war against the Sunni ARAB Aghlabids, the SHIA sect gave them more reason to resist and fight the ARAB Aghlabids rule in their homeland and especially when they have a leader who is claiming to be the DECEDENT of Prophet Mohamed.
What the Arab nationalist are doing is trying to claim and take the credit of the Heritage of the Berber nation and trying to erase the Berber identity by making the Berbers some kind of stupid animals well that is a very fascist and racist approach of the history of the humankind.
The Berbers are the ones who are responsible of the fact that the Fatimid Caliphate was founded/established/created it were they who where the political and military force like Ibn Khaldun wrote. This is an undisputed fact which is shared by all historians. The thousands of people who where fighting and dying in Battles to create the Fatimid Caliphate where the Berbers not the Arabs. The Arabs like the Arabs Abbasids where their enemies.
And I said that you are an Arab nationalist because these ridiculous stories of the Arab identity of the Fatimid Caliphate which you are posting here came from these Arab fascist/nationalist liars who are responsible of trying to erase the history of many nations in the Islamic world. But they will never succeed, the facts are well known by those who are well educated. Zizouzenati (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Zizouzenati, The point and fight is not between educated and non educated but it is between faith / belief /facts Vs any other reasoning /justification by mare location or any other logic.
This is a fact that when Fatimid shifted to Cairo Under Al-Muizz Lideenillah, he brought all of his ancestor coffin up to Imam Abadullah to Cairo and buried at one place named as Mukalafat-al-Rasool at Imam Husain mosque well known to Islam. This indicate that if Fatimid were originated from north African area what is the need to carry back their ancestor to Egypt.
The logic that Arab can't go to Africa and rule there is not so convincing. Few European gone to other part of world and ruled there and returned back to Europe doesn't mean that they were African /Asian.--Md iet (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Zizouzenati-- See my comments of "10:30, 21 November 2010" above: "Berbers were an important part of their early power base, but their main claim to legitimacy was elaborate Arab genealogies, and the last two centuries of their rule was centered in Egypt." -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
2015
The Fatimid dynasty in the Berber HOMELAND OF north west Africa (north Algeria) WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ARAB INVASION BUT THE RESULT OF THE DESTRUCTION AND EXTERMINATION OF THE ABASSID EMPIRE IN EAST ALGERIA, TUNSIA, LIBIYA AND EGYPT. There is nothing Arabic about them. Every single ruler or leader claims to be decedent of the Prophet for political and religious reasons. When it comes to North African history you and Wikipedia are a big joke for me, so get lost shithead and stay of the North African history homeland of the Berbers since the dawn of time. See the Battle of the nobles on Wikipedia and maybe you will learn how the Arabs were completely eradicated from the face of North Africa. 77.248.230.71 (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Coinage
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The current flag is green, but there are other sources on Wikipedia indicating that the Fatimid banner was just white (as contrasted to the Abbassid black). Can someone verify and update as necessary?
MrOakes (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be white. See Cambridge History of Egypt vol.I page 137 on the Fatimid conquest of Egypt, "On July 9, Jawhar himself led prayers in the Old Mosque of 'Amr in Fustat and the preacher, dressed now in Fatimid white in place of 'Abbasid black, recited the khutba for the first time in Egypt in the name of al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah".
The whole concept of rectangular national flags is anachronistic to the Fatimid period, but there were dynastic colors. I'm not familiar with all the historical details, but in some contexts those who claimed direct descent from Muhammad used green, and probably for this reason green is often assigned to the Fatimids... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
On 4/1/18, the flag was green on this page as I grabbed the link. Today, 4/2/18, it was white pointing to a 2012 book. Today, I did a brief search. The Economist (2015) says green ("The Shia Fatimid dynasty adopted the colour, as did Ali, the fourth caliph after whom the Shia—“partisans of Ali”—are named.).Jordan got its green from association with the Fatimid. jmswtlk (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Table of fatimid
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Dear Gabagool, sorry for again interupt you in force ful removal,but as you don't like that some one else remove material you feel right ,others also can have same thinking. If some body can't understand language ,you want to others to read it ,The same logic apply here ,if you can't understand the way matter is presented, let other do it and don't remove. The table created is having all islam depicted in it, fatimid were main pillar of Islam and they chosen caliphate to let live fatimid islam.Hence please don't remove the table ,give your positive suugestions here ,let others to help improve the table in way you want. Main part is it should have information,second part is presentation which we all can help to improve. --Md iet (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not confuse my removal of the table with any desire to stop you from editing. But, I am afraid, that the table in its current state is an utter mess which hardly give any meaning. It actually gives so little meaning, that I am somewhat amazed that you don't see how much of a mess it is. I don't really know where to start, because I don't understand what it is even trying to say. For instance, what is the point of all the "^ ^ ^" signs? Why are some of the text in bold, and why is some of the text in caps? What does any of "<SHIA I- -M- -A- -MA- -T-> <CHALI- -F- -A- -T>" mean? What is the point of putting the names in different places horisontaly in the various boxes? Why are there randomly put in various years together with the names? Most importantly, what is, and where are the chronology? The entire table is just a jibberish mess, I don't find anything meaningful about it. -TheG (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear. I can't make heads or tails of it either. Basic copyediting would help already: some things are in bold, some are in all-caps, some in both, and there are punctuation errors. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It is complete rubbish. Trying to improve it from its current state seems hopeless. But, I did however notice that it seems to include the exact same information which is found in the picture of a "Genealogical tree" which is already right next to the table in the article. What is the point of having the table too? -TheG (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Md_iet -- I know that your intentions are good, but maybe you should focus right now on improving the comprehensibility of article Mustaali... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fatimid Caliphate population
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The current world population is about 30 times the world population during the time of the Caliphate's maximum geographic spread. Today, the Caliphate would have had an approximate population of 261,5 million. Divide that by 30 and the population in the year 969 would have been 8,7 million, so the 6,2 million quoted in this article sounds about right. However, the Arabic, Spanish, Dutch etc versions of this article, quote a population of 62 million. That sounds wrong, by a factor 10.145.53.130.13 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
However, the population of other parts of the world has increased by a larger percentage than that of the middle east has. Any estimate should be cited... AnonMoos (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not to meantion, the Maghareb region degraded considerablly after the early half of the medieval era. as well as Sicily. Maghareb region was still fairly furtile farming region in the early medieval era... though by modern times it's more semi desert. Sicily's degration was also well noted, it went from something akin to Andalusia / Northern Italy to the back waters of Italy.
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
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.
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I removed a paragraph from the "Military System" section. The reasons are the following: first, the paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic manner. Second, its source article is from what seems to be a "Shiite" partisan site, with a very obvious bias - the author of that article at one point claimed that it was in history one of the states which were treated most unjustly (come on now, it is an empire, for starters). Third, the paragraph assumes far more of the Fatimid Caliphate's motives and its perception of its role than is historically wise. Putting its forces in the defense of the Islamic world [against the Komnenid Emperors]? Please. The Caliphate's raison d'etre was its own propogation, and its primary ideological enemy was that other Caliphate over in Baghdad and those who supported it (the Seljuks, the Zengids...the rest of the Sunni world).
TL;DR, partisans are bad for Wikipedia. I'm sick of armchair nationalists and their silly issues, and I guess if an expert's not around, I might as well cut out the bad myself for now.68.96.236.143 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Wiki is to present all the views put forward in reliable sources. The language can be edited to suit. Deletion is not a solution please.--Md iet (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is a solution. The site in question is not reliable; some sort of partisan Shi'a site written by someone intent upon glorifying the Fatimid Caliphate anachronistically (should I bring in rabid anti-Fatimid propaganda from Sunni ideologues of the era just to be "fair and balanced" in return? No?). There are already difficult questions raised when an editor use the much more reliable, scholarly Catholic Encyclopedia in relevant subjects (the ideal consensus seem to be to accept it, while being careful with its bias); by analogy, the same problem applies here -- without scholarly worth in comparison. I reiterate the problem: the view is anachronistic. The Isma'ili Fatimids' biggest problem was the rest of Islam, under the moral leadership of the Abbasid Caliphate, not the Romans or even the Crusaders late in its history. Its most dangerous military opponents were the Seljuk Turks and their successor states. Its most active diplomatic and missionary efforts were aimed at converting as many Muslims to the Isma'ili creed as possible. Not to mention, the whole schpiel, wrong as it is, already adds nothing whatsoever to the understanding of the Fatimid Military System. What does limited Fatimid combat with the Roman Empire has to do with anyone wanting to understand its military system? None. What was the whole point of trying to insinuate that Emperor Nikephoros was "hard on the Muslims" in juvenile prose? In fact, in that particular emperor's reign, the main theater of conflict between the two Mediterranean states was *Sicily*, not Syria, which the Fatimids who just conquered Egypt hadn't even reached yet. In short, everything about that paragraph is wrong, pointless, not even at the right section; ergo, I will delete again. But I will not insist beyond this; no point in a stupid edit war.
Speaking of which, among other issues, someone really need to remove the second map, which misleads terribly: it shows the Empire as it never existed, including Nubia (which was independent and friendly under the Kingdom of Makuria), vastly overestimated its stable control of Syria and the borders of Iraq, not to mention other peripheral regions, and integrated two distinct territorial phases - the North African phase, and the Levantine phase - into one.68.96.236.143 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
If the site is suitable for giving material for Encyclo than please don't question about its content and deletion is not solution, I repeat. IF there is any other view on the topic with reliable source we can add that also to make information complete please.--Md iet (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UT
Today part of …
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Honestly, what is the point of this list containing national flags? Does it confer clarity to the article? If you can’t read a map, it may be useful, though. And why two maps – isn’t the one provided with cities adequate enough? From an English language point of view, this article also needs a clean-up. Hirpex (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sudan
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
According to the map on this article, in 969 most of modern day Sudan was under the control of the caliphate. This is directly contradicted by the article Kingdom of Makuria which states that northern Sudan was under the control of that Christian kingdom from 340-1276. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.53.163 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know much about that period of history in that part of the world, but the maps in Colin McEvedy's Atlas of Medieval History consistently show the southern borders of Islamic realms at around 23°N latitude, or not far from the modern Sudan-Egypt border. If Makuria was stable and prosperous at the southern border of Islam for centuries, then it was very lucky, considering that lands lying along most other frontiers of Islam during that period were under constant threat of invasion... AnonMoos (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIL chaliphate
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
ISIl chaliphate is a misnomer. it is not the chalipate in true sense but insurgents.It is not recognized by any other countries.there fore I am removing it from the side bar.Rukn950 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
since when are caliphates about mutual recognition? How many "countries" did "recognize" the Fatimid caliphate? --dab(𒁳)17:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Tags removed
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article was recently WP:TAGBOMBed by Summichum (talk·contribs).[1]
Ironically (I presume), the user's talkpage is graced by the instruction to "refrain from posting template messages here".
I have removed the tags, but of course if there are issues with the page, you are welcome to point them out constructively. --dab(𒁳)17:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Goldschmidt 84-86 Source
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Morocco was a part of the Fatimid empire. See this article List of rulers of Morocco, section "Idrisid dynasty". Morocco was conquered by the Fatimids, though for a very short period of time. But it was a part of the Fatimid empire at it's height.Arman ad60 (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Assessment comment
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fatimid Caliphate/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
this article is pretty short, considering that the fatimids have a long history. also, it would be useful if someone added information that connects the rise of the fatimids with the decline of the abbasid caliphate. this would clarify how the fatimids rose to power. also, expand on the Fatimid culture and fall of the fatimid empire.
Last edited at 00:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).
Substituted at 14:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Map
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I have changed the map of the Fatimid empire. Morocco was never a part of the Fatimid empire. The source above has been given from a Wikipadia aricle, this article, List of rulers of Morocco. Look at the list, it is mentioned there that, the Fatimid empire ruled Morocco, in the first phase, from 922 CE to 925 CE. And in the second phase, from 927CE to 937 CE. So the region Morocco was never under complete control of the Fatimid empire. The Fatimids conquered that territory but could not hold it on for so long. So, Morocco can never be called a "province" of the Fatimid empire. This is why I have changed the map of the Fatimid empire.Hector 2016 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Atlantic Ocean
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Hey, random BoN here, but I couldn't help but notice that the intro paragraph lists the Fatimid's territory as stretching from the Red Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, when in fact, they were never near the Atlantic. Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8300:AD30:50F1:3C3D:4325:AD71 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
During an early phase of their history, they ruled over today's northern Algeria and attacked Morocco, but I guess they never ruled over Morocco... AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In which case, the empire didn't stretch to the Atlantic at any point in time. From the Red Sea to contemporary Northern Algeria, anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Now I've noticed that this has actually been discussed above on this talk page -- according to List of rulers of Morocco, they did rule over Morocco for two periods totalling about 12 years, for what that's worth (the world history book I was consulting was not detailed enough to include that). However, the last period of rule over Morocco ended about 32 years before the conquest of Egypt, so it would seem that there was no one moment in time when they ruled from the Atlantic to the Red Sea... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
As it's the lead, and should be kept succinct. How does, "...spanned a large area of North Africa, extending from the Red Sea in the east as far as the Atlantic Ocean in the west at various points in its existence." or, alternatively, "...spanned a large area of North Africa, extending from the Red Sea in the east as far as the Atlantic Ocean in the west asynchronously in its existence." strike you? It's a little cumbersome, but alternative descriptions wouldn't be as terse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@AnonMoos:@Iryna Harpy: The Atlantic ocean should be more about their vassalage, I have read it somewhere and I'm stil looking, one way for Islamic kingdoms, sultnates or poltical entity to acquire vassalage is to have their coins minted and have a Friday Sermon (Khutbah) invoke the ruler's name, at the height of their power, the Fatimids Khutbah could be heard all the way to Atlantic ocean, meaning all North Africa was under their direct or indirect/vassalage rule. They never ruled DIRECTLY all of North Africa. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov: That makes it even more problematic. Perhaps 'direct influence' all the way to the Atlantic is closer to the mark?... although that's still not terribly clear (and probably misleading for the reader). Any thoughts on how to handle it without being too long-winded until you can check your sources? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I think it will be less problematic if we focused on their influence, the influence of the Fatimid is what the reader should undestand. I think it will be logistical nightmare with the large swaths of desert to rule directly, with every rebellious Berber tribe on the rise in that time, it will take a week for me to find, since I have to re-read that portion of Northern African history. The way I remembered was they had small rulers who were their vassals all the way to the Atlantic, and the period of these vassalage was very small, these men were quick to rebel and there is no way Fatimids will leave Egypt or send an army all the way to the west. In fact I believe they told certain bedoin tribes (Banu Hilal) to migrate to the west which caused disasters. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Alexis Ivanov: That makes sense. The nature of the area meant that there were some major cities/centres of trade and influence, but far more territory inhabited by nomadic ethnic groups who had localised control of routes, etc. This being the case, 'spanned' is a perfectly good choice of descriptor. If it 'ruled' or 'controlled' the entire area described, then those would be the descriptors used. In other words, there isn't really a problem with the opening of the lead, it's just been overthought because of the comment by the IP who started this thread. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fatimid Caliphate. 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:
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 'Origins' section of this article says of Abd Allah al-Akbar that 'Thus his name was al-Fātimiyyūn "Fatimid". This is not correct. Al-Fātimiyyūn is the plural form, meaning 'the Fatimids' as correctly stated in the first line of the article. The correct form for an individual man is "al-Fatimi". I've changed it. Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fatimid Caliphate. 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:
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fatimid Caliphate. 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:
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A chart is added on the side bar making Fatimid position amongst Shia Imam history. This is informative piece of work with non repletion in the article consuming almost nil physical space and only about 2000 soft words.
Descendants family chart was consuming lot of main space, about 4000 words of soft space and was repeating list of Fatimids, hence removed , some what justified. On the same explanation side chart on Fatimid position amongst Shia Imam history is removed, which seems unjustified. Let the readers see the matter and comment before hasty removal.--Md iet (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've skimmed the discussion at TfD, and I share the concerns raised there. I don't think simply including this chart is helpful because the casual reader won't know what kind of relationships it represents. What I would propose instead is adding a paragraph that explains the claims of spiritual lineage made by the Fatimids and including a collapsed, expandable version of the template (or a similar template, if it's still problematic in detail) next to it for further information. Eperoton (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fatimid Caliphate. 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:
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.
I have checked the source and there is nothing about this flag on page 89. Did you mean to cite another page? M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not the green flag per se that that is the issue here, but the source that is supposed to back this fancy looking flag and its caption. That the Fatimids used a green flag, probably more so than the white one, is something that can easily be sourced, and I don't see why we shouldn't add a plain one to the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Map updated
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion
Hello everybody.
I updated the old map because the parts of the western Maghreb conquered by the Fatimids in their early days were missing.
I didn't look at the map, but if the Fatimids never ruled over Morocco and Egypt at the same time, then a map showing their empire as including both Morocco and Egypt would be "anachronous", rather than historic to a specific year... AnonMoos (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The map I produced is chronological to show the evolution, the sources clearly specify that the cities of Fes and Sijilmassa were conquered.
It shows the different stages of control over the different years (see legend)
Also I have seen the discussions, but the map I am proposing is very precise and concerns only the cities captured by the Fatimids and not the entire province and does not mention access to the Atlantic Ocean.
As explained above, my map is not connected to the #Atlantic Ocean, and the discussion #Map echoes the entirety of the Moroccan province.
The current map omits the conquest and control of the cities of Fez and Sijilmassa, it must be corrected.
Here are some sources used :
* "In the tenth century Yahyā IV was forced to recognize the suzereinty of the Fātimid ' Ubayd Allāh and in 921 Fez was occupied . Idrīsid rule survived in some outlying towns but their history is obscure." (The Age of the Dromōn, Edition Brill, John H. Pryor, Elizabeth Jeffreys, ISBN : 9004151974)
* "The initial Fatimid-Idrisid conflict began in 308 AH / 921 CE when the Fatimid general Masala b. Habus occupied Fez as part of the Fatimid campaign to extend Fatimid rule to the western limits of North Africa. By this time Idrisid rule had fissured amongst many Idrisid claimants from multiple lines of descent from Idris II, son of Idris I. In 308 AH / 921 CE, the Fatimid general Masala displaced the ruling dynast Yahya b. Idris b. Umar, a great-great-grandson of Idris I. Governorship of Fez was soon handed to Masala’s cousin Musa b. Abi’l-Afiya, a noted general but notorious for his eventual defection to the Umayyads in 320 AH / 932 CE." (https://www.iis.ac.uk/academic-article/kinship-camaraderie-and-contestation-fatimid-relations-ashraf-fourth-ah-tenth-ce)
* "The conquest of Fez in AD 380/920 by a Fatimid general Maṣāla b. Abus put an end to the power of the Idrissids, cf. Ibn Ḫaldūn, Berbers, II, trans. p. 526." (From the book : Decor on wood in the architecture of Fez: Almoravid, Almohad and early Marinid eras, Catherine Cambazard-Amahan)
Reverted to the older map : Morocco and Algeria were not part of the Fatimid Caliphate, except for a brief time whereas they were controlled by pro-Fatimid warlords rather than by actual Fatimid lieutenants --160.178.220.108 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, all the sources are included in the image description. In addition, the control periods are specified on the map. The card that you have reinstated is a new work not sourced.
Your map is still an OR since the limits of the Empire were arbitrarly drawn according to some source, ignoring other sources that says the opposite (that they didn't reach the Ocean) as discussed before. 196.75.166.86 (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
1) This is not my map.
2) Sources indicate that they have reached the Atlantic.
All sources are indicated within the description. But you can also find other maps made by experts on the subject that stick to the current map. ([2]) ([3])
The current map is an improvement in clarity over some of the previous ones. But, having just reviewed the sources in expanding the article, I want to provide some follow-up on this. The presentation of the western Maghreb in the map is indeed problematic and in some respects not accurate. The textual references used for the map, and/or the ones cited above, don't provide enough context to explain the extent of Fatimid control, other than briefly saying some of what other reliable sources say: Fatimid control was indirect and unstable. Unsurprisingly, many detailed maps of the Fatimid Caliphate do not show any control west of central Algeria. I've reviewed some important sources further below, but in short these are the things I see that should change for the map to be more accurate:
The territory generally west of Tahert cannot be presented as being controlled in the same way as the rest; either it should be indicated as indirect rule or disputed (personally my preference), or simply not included (like many other available published maps, see below).
The dates shown in the current map also don't fully work for the chronology of the western frontier: Fatimid control in the west was most likely more secure circa 960, because of Jawhar's 958 expedition, than in 940, when the chronology of successes and setbacks is very complicated. (This could be solved by just removing 940 from the map legend and using the same colours for 960 instead.)
Tahert should most likely be included in the green zone of the map; i.e. it was taken as early as 909 or 910 and generally retained (with some seemingly short interruptions), then later controlled by the Zirids before the Hammadid separation (e.g. see Halm 1996 quotes below and also pp. 132, 143, 170-171).
It's unclear what the exact borders drawn in the west of the map are based on; is there a particular source map that shows these borders? For example, there's no indication in any sources I've seen, including the sources cited for the map, that Fatimid control of any kind extended to parts of what is now southern Morocco, aside from Sijilmasa. The sources about Fatimid victories all focus on Fez, Sijilmasa, and northern Morocco (up to but not including Tangier and Ceuta). Halm 1996 even mentions that they failed to capture Sala. I see no reason for the map to show the Sous valley (e.g. present-day Agadir and around) as part of the caliphate.
Some well-cited, reliable references provide more details on the issue. Here are the most important bits:
Abun-Nasr 1987, A history of the Maghrib in the Islamic period, speaking more generally (my emphasis):
"The Umayyads, who had occupied Malila in 927 took also Sabta (Ceuta) in 931 and from these two Moroccan outposts directed local resistance to the Fatimids. At about the same time the two leading Zanata tribes of north-western Algeria, the Maghrawa and Banu Ifran, entered 64 The call of the minaret in the West into an alliance with the Umayyads. The Fatimids were supported in Algeria by the Sanhaja, to which branch of the Berbers the Kutama belonged. In the 930s the Talkata Sanhajas, led by Ziri b. Manad, were emerging under Fatimid auspices as the dominant tribal group in the central Maghrib (Idris, 1962, pp. 7-13). The defection of the Miknasa from the side of the Fatimids, and the alliance of the Maghrawa and Banu Ifran with the Umayyads, meant that the political rivalry between the Umayyads and the Fatimids developed into a tribal conflict between the Zanata and the Sanhaja. The Talkata raided the enemies of the Fatimids and prevented their incursion westwards until the Fatimid general Jawhar led a strong army into Morocco in 958 and within two years brought about the submission of the major tribal groups in the country. The rivalry with the Umayyads of Spain over hegemony in Morocco and western Algeria and the unstable tribal situation in these two areas meant that the Fatimids effectively controlled only the territories formerly ruled by the Aghlabids."
Halm 1996 (English version), The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids (a standard reference on the subject), p.265, in a discussion of the Fatimid state's extent around the time of the first expeditions to the west (my emphasis):
"The extent to which the 'amil [governor] is in a position to convince or force the village peasants or the nomadic tribes of his district to pay taxes depends on his military power. In the genuine Ifriqiya, that is, the lands which had been heavily urbanized since antiquity -- present-day Tripolitania, Tunisia and northeastern Algeria -- this was entirely the case. In addition to this core area there were three outposts: Barqa (the Cyrenaica) in the East, Sicily, and far to the West, isolated Tahert (Tiaret), 300 kilometers distant from Zabi (M'Sila), the southwestern bastion of the core area. Beyond this, the Fatimids had been able to maintain themselves only for short intervals, as in Sijilmasa or Egypt."
And also in the same book, on p. 401, speaking about the end of Jawhar expedition's in 960 (my emphasis):
"By contrast, the Idrisid princes who had been brought to the court as hostages were given rich presents and, after receiving emphatic exhortations to obedience from the Imam, were allowed to return to Morocco. The Imam applied the same method of indirect rule in Sijilmasa. There the Fatimid governor whom Jawhar had established was murdered after a short time, and the Midrarid prince al-Muntasir, who earlier on as a child had been overpowered by his cousin Ibn Wasul, seized power once again. But when he sent a letter to the Imam seeking to excuse himself, stating that the outrages committed by the governor had made his murder justifiable, he was brought to the court in al-Mansuriyya, with several of his magnates; and then he too was confirmed as governor of Sijilmasa and allowed to return there, after receiving a thorough talking-to from the Imam. While the remote Moroccan cities were governed in this way by Idrisid and Midrarid vassals, the entire central Maghrib (Algeria) came under the dominion of the Sanhaja prince Ziri, who received Tahert in addition to the area which he already controlled around Ashir."
Brett 2017, The Fatimid Empire, p.54 (my emphasis):
"For tribal allies in the west, the Fatimids turned instead to the Talkata, a hill people like the Kutama in the Titteri range to the south of Algiers. In 936 their chieftain Ziri ibn Manad was help by the Qa'im to build the citadel of Ashir, a mountain stronghold that not only commanded the route from Masila to Tahart, but the way to the sea down the valley of the Chelif. Overlooking the pastures of the Maghrawa, it secured the extension of Fatimid power as far as Tahart, while setting the scene for the endless frontier warfare on behalf of the two empires [Umayyad and Fatimid] between the Zanata and the Sanhaja, that other Berber race to which the Talkata were reckoned to belong. Punctuated from time to time by triumphant but ephemeral Fatimid sorties into northern Morocco, that warefare continued for the rest of the century to mark the boundary of Fatimid imperialism in the west."
And on p. 74 of the same book (regarding Jawhar's 958 expedition, my emphasis):
"The Umayyads retained their foothold across the Straits at Ceuta and Tangier, which they had occupied in 951; otherwise their suzerainty over this buffer zone was lost, replaced for the time being by that of the Imam-Caliph in this impressive display of his might. There was no question of annexation; Tahart, which had passed in and out of Fatimid control over the past half century, was assigned to Ziri ibn Manad to complete the defence of the western frontier of the Fatimid realm."
Maps: The alternative map sources provided by Askelaadden above are helpful (though the bibliographical info is missing), but multiple other maps from reliable sources, some of which are dedicated to the topic of the Fatimids, do not show any territory beyond Tahert as part of the caliphate, e.g.:
Sluglett and Currie 2015, Atlas of Islamic History, Map 8 on p. 24 (for this edition)
Jiwa 2017, The Fatimids: 1 - The Rise of a Muslim Empire, Figure 1 (page number not clear but it should be the page right after the Table of Contents)
Melikian-Chirvani (ed.) 2018, The World of the Fatimids, see in particular map on p.29 (chapter by Farhad Daftary) which shows similar phases of expansion for the dates ca. 960, 1000, 1050 and 1100, with no territory west of central Algeria.
Given the details described above, this is not surprising.
I see no reason not to keep the current map for now if there's no other reliable map available, but the issues listed above should be addressed. R Prazeres (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Another note: I also just remembered that the current map doesn't show other areas of indirect or brief Fatimid rule, such as Yemen or Aleppo (see article main text and cited sources there), which is inconsistent if we're adopting the principle of including these kinds of areas on the map. R Prazeres (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Flag of the Fatimids
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Greetings M.Bitton, some sources state the flag of that Fatimids was green and some white.[4]. To keep White on the page would not be a fair and accurate description of the past. I'm for the White image getting removed or both get added. Unless of course you have a notable source describing the Famitid flag. -Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ozan33Ankara: Scholarly sources are pretty unanimous that the Fatimids (and the Alids in general) used white. We have articles, like the Fatimid conquest of Egypt, where white flags were raised to signify Fatimid rule; we have an excellent citation already in this article to the effect that white was the dynastic colour. Green was also an Alid colour (e.g. when al-Ma'mun appointed Ali al-Ridha as his heir he changed the Abbasid dynastic colour from black to green), but to my knowledge at least it was never used as an official (rather than religious, since it was associated with Muhammad as well) color by the Fatimids. References to their use of green are widespread in modern literature, but this is probably influenced from the fact that the pan-Arab colors use green to supposedly represent them. To wit, the sources seen in your link above are mostly generic and not by Islamic scholars. Constantine ✍ 22:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I just rechecked the credentials of the author, Jane Hathaway. She seems credible being a professor that is specialized in Ottoman history and wrote extensively on the Arab provinces of that time. Although what do other scholars have to say? Edit: Nevermind I have checked John L.Esposito's view, he agrees with the White banner of the Fatimids. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ozan33Ankara and Cplakidas: I only expressed concern about the change of the sourced statement, but since you're both happy with sticking to the official colour, then maybe we should describe it as such in the infobox (there are other RS we can cite if we have to). What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I am fine with the caption also, but I would like to replace the citation with that of John L.Esposito's book "History of Islam", since he is more notable if that is ok with you guys or add it in the caption. Let me know what you guys think. -Ozan33Ankara (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
"White was also the color associated with the Fatimid caliphs, the opponents of the Abbasids" , p.259, Oxford History of Islam. I meant cite the source in the caption. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)--Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I just wanted to know what the reference said. Fine by me to add it, then we have two citations. It should look like this: "The Fatimid dynastic color was white, in opposition to Abbasid black,[1][2] while red and yellow banners were associated with the Fatimid caliph's person.[1]", where [1] is the extant reference, and [2] is the new one. BTW, Esposito is merely the editor of the volume, you need to find the full citation (chapter, chapter author, pages). Constantine ✍ 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
Recent edits to infobox (first capital, start date, etc)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ikutamen123, the sources you cited in this edit are very vague: some don't seem relevant, some don't mention Ikjan at all or don't mention any dates. This looks very much like citation overkill to impose a challengeable claim. The Encyclopédie Berbère is the most useful source there one but this needs to be complimented with other sources, as the actual situation may have been more fluid than this. For example, Abun-Nasr (1980), gives this account of events, which suggests Tazrut (name might be spelled differently today) was more important in these first years:
When Abu Abdulla arrived in Kutama territory he resided in Ikjan, where he received the protection of the Saktan tribal group. But he endeavoured to create a community in which the bonds of a common faith superseded tribal solidarity. His teachings consequently constituted as much a threat to the established tribal leadership as to the Aghlabids. That is why the Arab military overlords controlling the castles of Mila, Sitif, and Balazma could win the cooperation of some of the Kutama tribal leaders against him, especially those of the Lahisa tribe. When one of the influential chiefs of the Saktan also joined forces with the league formed against Abu Abdulla under Arab leadership, the latter moved his base from Ikjan to Tazrut, where he was supported by the Ghashman clan. Tazrut, which like Ikjan lay not far from Mila, became the centre where Abu Abdulla gathered adherents coming from various parts of Kutama territory and subjugated them to a strict monastic and military discipline. It became also a base from which he led raids against the garrison posts of the; Arab jund and his tribal opponents. His military successes increased the number of his followers and enabled him to acquire political authority over the Kutama. By 902 Tazrut had become the capital of an Isma'ili state ruled by Abu Abdulla and comprising the greater part of Kutama territory. (p. 61)
That Abu Abdallah settled in Ikjan and that the Kutama began conquests while based in that region is thus verifiable, but that doesn't mean reliable sources classify it as the first Fatimid "capital" or that it remained so for the dates you gave. Rather than strong-arming this into the infobox, I suggest that all of this information be added in prose in the History section first. When the details and chronology are clear there (with proper citations), it can be summarized in the infobox. (As a reminder, the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article's key details, not a substitute for the main text itself, per MOS:INFOBOX.)
Also, for the start date of Abu Abdallah's "reign", which you also tried to change here (and implicitly again here), this needs more discussion. Every book I've seen dates it to 909 (the conquest of Raqqada), and that's the date in the article about him. Please discuss this on the talk page and solicit consensus if you want to change this.
And on a last note, I'm not sure if there is an official guideline on this, but I don't think it's a appropriate to link to an unpublished draft page, as you did here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello , R Prazeres . It seems that you claimed the fatimid caliphate started in 909 meanwhile Ikjan was served by the caliph as an Fortress before the invasion of the Aghlabid.
here is a list of the Prominent Battles led by ikutamen Berbers before the creation of the Fatimid caliphate Pre-Fatimid and Aghlabid War (902–909)
Siege of Mila (902): Kutama victory
Siege of Setif (904): Kutama victory
Siege of Mila (904): Kutama victory
Battle of Constantine (905): Kutama victory
Siege of Tubna (906): Kutama victory
Siege of Bilizma (906): Kutama victory
Uprising of al-Qayrawan (906): Uprising quelled
Siege of Tijis (907): Kutama victory
Battle of Kasserine (908): Inconclusive
Battle of al-Aribus (909): Kutama Victory
they Moved on to Raqqada after the destruction of the Aghlabids. but the first capital was in fact Ikjan. It was a fortress, which served as a base for the campaigns of the Fatimids against the Aghlabids in Ifrikiya. Also It was in this region of Ikjan that the da'i Abu Abd Allah founded his citadel, a region which at the time was beyond the control of the two neighboring powers, the Aghlabids and the Sulaymanids. Thus, he succeeded in winning the sympathy of the local population by promising in particular the abolition of non-Koranic taxes. Once the first contingents of Kabyle Kutama soldiers formed, he set out to conquer the Maghreb on behalf of Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi.[1]
Hi Ikutamen123, you have not addressed my comments above. The talk page is not a forum for explaining Fatimid history, it's for discussing changes to the article; all you did here was repost the information you're trying to add to the article (much of which is still unsourced).
More importantly, I see that before you answered here you reacted by edit-warring on the article (i.e. this edit and after) and by posting this bizarre personal attack on my user talk page. This behaviour is prohibited on Wikipedia and if you do this repeatedly it could get you blocked from editing. See WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVIL for the most relevant policies. (WP:BRD is also useful in describing how we should proceed with disputed edits.) R Prazeres (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello R Prazeres , it seems like you're being offended that i refuted your massive propaganda by giving you a barnstar. just letting the people know that you have been spreading multiple misinformation, I'm still waiting for verified refutation about Ïkjan since it was THE fortress of the caliph and it's still standing in setif. Stop chimping and giving false information perhaps Ikutamen123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikutamen123 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
.svg)){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg)){kind=link}
