Talk:Emirate of Diriyah

Saudi Arabia High‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected to be shown on the portal.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable claim

"Since the establishment of the First Saudi State none of these practices have ever been observed again in Saudi Arabia." Referring to non-Salafi Islamic practices in the post-first state era. This is an absolute statement, which is false considering that Shi'a groups form 10-25% of Saudi Arabia's population. Shi'a are routinely arrested there for praying at grave sites. The Saudi government still tears down historical sites where it claims people pray. Also, Sufism is still strong in Hejaz. Blpb (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

I'm very skeptical that this was their actual flag. Anyone agree? Slackerlawstudent 09:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was their actual flag , source: [1] Ammar 11:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still skeptical, but until I find out for sure I guess there's no point talking about it. Thank you for the link. Slackerlawstudent 23:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You welcome man :) Ammar 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Also, the article says the Saudis and their allies "controlled neither cost", but the map shows both coastlines under their control. Slackerlawstudent 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is another map belong History on maps website which confirm the map on the article , maybe someone mixed between first and second saudi states , because we all know that Second Saudi State had no coastal cities :) , you can help by re-writing the incorrect statements on the articles Ammar 07:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but this article is on the First Saudi State, not the Second (which, by the way, did rule the eastern coast including Bahrain, since you mention it). I will edit the article, but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any dispute over whether the First Saudi State actually did rule the coasts or not.

you right , go ahead :) thanx for notice . Ammar 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map still shows rule over the Trucial States/coast, which was not the case. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait

Slacker , Actully Kuwait wasn't a part of FSS. This was an important seaport for ottomans untill the british conquest. A M M A R 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did rule part of what is now Kuwait, but you're right, they couldn't take Kuwait city itself. I'll remove it but also remove Iraq because, all though they raided Karbala, they never actually ruled it or sent any amirs over there. --Slacker 03:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No , in fact they did fight the iraqi pasha and succesfuly conquered some land . The iraqi pasha was the first responser to Ghalib afandi of hejaz . As a result of this failure to help they lost lands . This is a sources ; it says that saudis have reached the iraqi river of Euphrates. [2] A M M A R 22:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Sahel.org is not a reliable source, but even if it was, it doesn't show that the Saudis ruled any part of Iraq. See for example here [3], al-Moqatel's encyclopedia is very reiable, and most of the text is taken directly from published history books. It says: "و على الرغم من أن التحركات السعودية ضد العراق استمرت فترة طويلة، استغرقت حوالي ربع قرن (1788-1811م) فإن النفوذ السعودي لم يستطع أن يوطد قدمه في أي جزء من الأراضي العراقية ولم تستطع الدرعية أن تعين لها عمالاً في أي بلدة عراقية". So, they did raid Iraq and reach the Euphrates, but never actually held any territory or appointed any governors. Basically the same situationo as with Kuwait. -- Slacker (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Lahej

Why is the Sultanate of Lahej listed as preceeding state in the infobox? The Sultanate of Lahej is not mentioned in the article itself. And I doubt that this Sultanate was occupied. Arturius001 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Affiliation

I question the idea that the First Saudi state was Sunni. After all, Wahhabism discriminated against all non-Wahhabi (/Salafi) Muslims. While the transgressions against the Shi'a (see destruction of Karbala) and the Sufis are perhaps more well publicized, I don't believe the Sunnis escaped this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.125.81 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@141.140.125.81: The Salafist reform movement, and the related movement of Wahhabism (there's actually little difference in practise) fall within the branch of Sunni Islam. This isn't really questioned by anyone except polemicists. That they are dismissive of, or even sometime persecute other Sunnis who hold different views, doesn't remove their religious affiliation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The beliefs of Muhammad bin 'AbdulWahhab are matching to those of Ahmad ibn hanbal except in slight differences like divorce, he said he is against taqlid (following a certain one of the four school of thoughts all along the way irregardless of evidence they put in each specific matter) and he's for following the Sunni schools of thought on a matter to matter basis as sometimes the right is with one school of thought and sometimes it's with the other, his way is also similiar to ibn Taymiyyah. There has been some rumors about him having certain biszare views and mass takfiring Muslims but he denied them in letters he sent, he made his views clear and they match traditional Sunni views, even some of those who were against him and fought him (like the Emir of riadh if I remember correctly) did accept that his creed was right. Today he is regarded with respect by Sunnis and in scholarly majority, however many people also believe he was a kharijite based on the rumors mentioned above, and some others claim unhistorical things or use conspiracy theories to say Saudi family tree is crypto Jewish to explain their corruption over generations, and such claim is not to be even looked on, as it's based on internet hearsay stories and had no real roots as a regarded historical opinion. In the end regardless of your views, or what the first Saudi state did (if they did unorthodox things that are wrong according to ibn AbdulWahhab that doesn't change how we define his views) but "Wahhabism" (the one practiced by ibn AbdulWahhab and his followers during his life and near generations after his death) was as orthodox as it could get, you can try to compare it with respected traditional Sunni scholars of the medieval times. They even recognised the ottoman sultan as caliph (and contrary to what some believe, ottomans had no authority in nejd to the extent that some people didn't even who who was the [current?] Ottoman sultan) and the first agressive against an ottoman vassal was with banu Khalid in which they started the war by marching toward nejd (to give context uyaynah was their vassal but it's leader pledged allegiance to Saudi Emir, and before the migration to diriyah ibn 'AbdulWahhab was expelled from uyaynah after banu Khalid leader threatened the uyaynah Emir) and they didn't really fight ottomans themselves until the second and more explicitly third leader (I'd say ottoman role was small during the second) during conquest of hejaz, in the end these matters don't render them as non sunni AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd898 00:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emirate of Diriyah. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Siege of Diriyah into Emirate of Diriyah

No references in article created in 2007; but may have relevance to page to be merged to. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different article, different content, year of abolished/founding and states of discussion, the article has been in enwiki for many years without more ref and no one had suggest that, so does not need merging. Merging template would be removed. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 19:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map

Why does this map not include southern Najd? 46.184.88.188 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't controlled by the Al Saud. Compare with this reliable source. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was controlled by Al-Saud. Ibn Bishr literally mentioned Southern Najdi clans paying tribute to First Saudi state. Jasmkssnksskskskskz (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that it was part of the Emirate. The Al Saud had to pay tribute to the Ottomans at various time - Abdul Aziz did so from 1910.[4] It doesn't mean that a map of the Ottoman Empire should include Nejd. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map problem

Why is modern day Lebanon and some of modern day Pakistan & India just blue on the map? IndianEmperor7 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map is extremely sloppy

. 107.15.167.203 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]