Talk:List of caliphs

Khalifatul masihah

Ahmaddiays are not included in region islam. 59.103.91.119 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Calligraphic images for IS leaders

Moved from User talk:Sam6897 § February 2023

Image under discussion

Other image under discussion

I fully understand you point. First thing is that the person in picture is not abu al-hassan. he is bashar al-sumaidi (hajji zaid) and now we know that he was not abu al-hassan al-hashimi so there is point in using his picture.

And second for me posting calligraphic Representations is because they serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the individuals in question just like logos of I/S provinces (featured in I/S officials) are used in wiki articles of the provinces. Another point about phrases such as "shaykh al-mujahid" and "Rahimullah/hafidullah" is that they are the literal transliterations of how they are reffered within "Islamic State group" just like Wikipedia is using "Islamic State" to refer to ISIS instead of acronyms or other derogatory terms used by some of its opponents. Sam6897 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If the picture used now is not the person it is supposed to represent, please remove it. Remember that images are not obligatory, and that it is often better to have no image at all.

The calligraphic representations do not identify the subject except textually, which itself is discouraged per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Images should be illustrative not merely decorative, but to be illustrative they must have some verifiable and documented relation to the subject. In this case, it's unclear where the calligraphy is coming from and whether they are in fact used by IS at all. Some random person on the internet could have created them. Some readers may think Wikipedia created them.

The fact that the images use honorifics for terrorist leaders (raḥmat Allāh ʿalayhi = 'God's mercy be upon him'; ḥafiẓahu Allāh = 'God save him') would not necessarily be a problem if they would have a documented relationship with the subject. However, since they have no such relationship, they give the semblance of Wikipedia honoring terrorist leaders. If no sourced context can be given for these honorifics, they also violate MOS:ISLAMHON.

If you do not agree, please feel free to seek other editors' input, for example at WT:ISLAM or, if no one should respond, by asking for a third opinion. Please do not reinstate the images without wp:consensus. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of articles about late Islamic scholars and leaders have calligraphics to represent them and they also add honorifics which are disputed. For example, the calligraphy at page of "Abu Hassan Al-Ashari" contain title Imam of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah which is not accepted by salafi Muslims for him and if we go by your logic, they can also think that wikipedia is "honouring" him. Simarily, for article of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, the calligraphy there is calling him Al-Imam Al-Shaykh which is disputed by Sufi Muslims. Same thing goes for hundreds of calligraphic at the articles of islamic scholars and leaders which contain such honorifics.

As per MOS:LEADIMAGE, it states "find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals".

I suggest that we should use this images for now but we must add a caption which mention "A calligraphic representation of Abu Al-Hussayn by a pro Islamic State media channel" so the viewers can differentiate. Sam6897 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the user-generated calligraphic eulogies and honorifics at pages like Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and hundreds of other historical Islamic figures also violate:

• MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: they are primarily decorative rather than illustrative
• MOS:LEADIMAGE: they are not the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works
• MOS:ISLAMHON: Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations, a documented historical picture arguably being similar to a quotation, but user-generated images not

Images like that are in fact regularly removed from our best articles on Islamic historical figures (see, e.g., Mu'awiya I, Marwan I, etc.). Compare this to Muhammad, which does have a calligraphy but one taken from al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina: this image does illustrate Muhammad' enduring legacy in architecture and art, it is the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and as a picture of text inscribed on a centuries-old mosque it is similar to a quotation.

Also, while I agree that the calligraphic eulogies and honorifics should be removed from pages like Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, there is yet a qualitative difference between such historical figures and modern terrorist leaders. Your suggestion of adding a caption stating "by a pro Islamic State media channel" might mitigate that a bit, but mainly because it creates the impression that this is an official image actually used by IS, in which case it would be completely appropriate in the first place. I think that calling the source of the image (https://archive.org/details/@research_media_foundation) "a pro Islamic State media channel" is misleading: it's just an anonymous account on archive.org which has posted three very similarly looking and badly done calligraphies.

Once again, I think that other editors would be substantially in agreement with me. Some input from other editors will be needed to create the wp:consensus needed to add these images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Parents?

It seems the caliphs here have their parents mentioned, but why is this relevant to the list? The relationship with Muhammad (or previous caliph) is enough IMO. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 18:54, 7 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) 18:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Son Of The Desert, thanks for the ping (above). I largely agree with Snowsky Mountain. Some indication of the caliphs' relations to their predecessors does seem marginally helpful, though ideally they all would have a 'Relation with predecessor' column only (mentioning both parents really is a bit much). Ultimately though I wouldn't even object to removing all of it as needless clutter; I just don't have a strong opinion on this, which is also why I didn't reply to your query about this a few weeks ago. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Snowsky Mountain and Apaugasma for your input. I did remove the "Parents" from the Ummayyad section, and when I have time I'll add "Relation with predecessors" to all tables and then remove "Parents" sections accordingly. Son Of The Desert (T • C) 04:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya caliphate?

Should the Ahmadiyya caliphate be included? As far as I know, most sources consider them non-Muslims, so they should not be included. Moazfargal (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I appear to be rude, but I can understand why Ahmadiyya was removed, Muslims and scholars that research about Islam must be confused why it was included which led it to be removed from list, I will elaborate on it.

It appears like it was removed in this revision

Which is both odd and understandable, unlike historical Muslim understanding, Ahmadiyya consider caliph to be successor of Messiah and not the sherif and awliya of all Muslim political existence through military force.

Off part is then also ISIS caliphate should not be included that is because:

• Considering a chunk of Indian Muslims are Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah (as known as Barelvi Movement in English media), Afghan political authority fell under Deobandi movement, largest Muslim country in population falls under the authority of Nahdlatul Ulama, many other countries have a considerable Naqshbandi, Chishti Order, Mevlevi Order, Bektashi Order and Qadiriyya following. All of which differ with each other in belief but all of them are equally under takfir according to ISIS.

This even includes Taliban, even though they suppressed other Sufi groups, their Deobandi ideology in reformed sense, they do not consider ones who practice Sufism to be outsiders or disbelievers.

Deobandi_movement#Sufism

Sufism is not a different sect of Islam; it is a name of set of practices that is considered alongside Kalam and Fiqh. Then, to which populace does ISIS plan to include in their caliphate? Which can be answered by looking at their history:

• Unlike Al Qaeda or Hizbut Tahrir, ISIS never accepted to protect any Muslim group or country alleging pledge to them. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan pledged allegiance to Taliban and joined their ranks, showing a sign of solidarity, and we know Hizbut Tahrir declared a protection of Uzbek populace at least once.

ISIS instead seeks a restoration of Islam in itself according to their Salafi theology which leads to:

• ISIS understand caliphate to be not protective, which made them separate ways from Al-Qaeda, force but a Mujaddid force which urged them to destroy mosques, remove Islamic works of art such as calligraphies, destroy graves and do other things that sought a self-ascribed renewal in Islam even if it gone against the local Muslim beliefs to do so.

So, this is not case of legitimacy but their difference of understanding of Islam and issue of Caliphate compared to the traditional understanding in a number of countries.

See Also:

Takfiri - Wikipedia

Sufi–Salafi relations

Ziyarat#Salafi

This is not my personal opinion; this is claim of ISIS as they consider themselves to be reformers and restorers, therefore everything before them is kufr according to their theology.

Ethics-Symp-2017.pdf (thesimonscenter.org)

ISIS’ Miscontextualization of Ḥadīth through the Strategic Linguistic Propaganda: A Socio-political Analysis | Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization (umt.edu.pk)

ISIS considers themselves to be the Mujaddid promised in the Hadiths

So, if we are to remove Ahmadiyya for their heterodoxy and different understanding then solutions are:

1. We should include Ahmadiyya in a separate page and give them a "see also" in this page.

2. We should allow both under heading sating "other claimants".

3. We should remove both as they both only resemble in name, just like how we do not add Caliphate State, Khilafah state, House of Khalifa, Khalifa (Morocco), Khalifa (caste) or "Hidden Caliphate" in this list as this is not a list of "things referred to as Caliphates" but this is up to consensus of course and many other solutions can be applied.

Peace, and respect. Cactus Ronin (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have undone this removal. If (some) reliable sources call them caliphs, I think that any argument to not include them on Wikipedia in a List of caliphs should also be based on (other) reliable sources explicitly stating that they are not to be regarded as caliphs. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Non existent footnote #41

Both links tried under the textual footnote link and there’s no video file offered. 65.124.223.98 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)