Talk:Rashidun

Only Four?

How can one be sunni if one does not consider Hassan ibn Ali as kuhlafa rashidun. Sunnis do consider Hassan to be kuhlafa rashidun. That is why they say in urdu panch yaar haaq(five rigthly guided friends). Any comments? -- Imranal 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rashidun are the first four caliphs why do you say there are 5? Hasan ibn Ali was not part of the rashidun. He only briefly claimed the caliphate and was recognized by only a small portion of the Islamic empire. He resigned his claim, and recognized Mu'awiyah.

Well thats usually believed by wahabis and not the sunnis. Let say that it was brief, that still emancipates it as a khilafat non the less. Secondly, there are only five "Rightly Guided" because of the Hadith in which the Prophet mentioned that there will be time when people will become treacherous and untrustworthy. Now this time began after the Khilafat of Hassan. Before this time, the Ummah was unanimous of who should be Caliph. After that it was up to the Muslim Ummah to decide who was trustworthy, and hence some disagreeing on who was the next Caliph. Imranal 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't right. There are only 4 rightly guided Caliphs. Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-khattab, Uthman bin Affan, and Ali ibn Abi talib. The people became treacherous during the caliphate of Uthman. Hassan was only caliph for a very short time then he turned it over to Mu'awiyah. --CherryBlossom93 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

there are only four rashidoon, sometimes Omar ibn Abdul Azziz is called "the fifth of the four rashidoon" but he is not considered one, that is only a sort of "honarary". --Mahaodeh (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the part that's talking about Al Hassan ibn Ali due to the fact that the reference link doesn't work and no one in the Islamic (sunni) world calls him that. P.S. there is no such thing called "Wahabi". --Regards,(Alpha4th (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Someone apparently restored that part, which I hereby move over here for further discussion:

In addition to this, there are several views regarding additional rashidun:
* Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, who was the eldest son of Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, briefly succeeded his father Ali as caliph in 661 CE and is recognized by several historians as part of the Rashidun. Hasan ibn Ali abdicated his right to the caliphate in favour of Muawiyah I in order to end the potential for ruinous civil war.
* `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz, who was one of the Umayyad caliphs, has often been regarded by Sunni historians as one of the Rashidun, as quoted by Taftazani. More rarely, the Ottoman caliph Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Mehmed II) is also sometimes regarded to be among the rightly guided caliphs. In the Ibadi tradition however, only the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar are considered to be the "Two Rightly Guided Caliphs".
* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also includes the Abbassid caliphs, including Harun al-Rashid, in his enumeration.

IMHO, none of these belong into the article. Apart from the lack of a accessible source for Hasan, the "Rashidun" are a group of four specific rulers. Saying that Hasan or somebody should be included doesn't change that. Also, while there are apparently some who argue for their inclusion, it is unclear if the argument is actually for these individuals to be legitimate Caliphs, or for classifying them as "rightly-guided" (a value judgment) or as part of the group called "Rashidun Caliphs". Only the latter argument is relevant here but it seemes the areas are mixed up. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sunni and Shia Islam

The term is used in both sunni and Shia Islam although there is a difference in (Tafseer)the explination of the term.--Aziz1005 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moses and Aaron

Can someoen clarify this?

The article states "Another reason for this support for Ali as the first caliph is because he had the same relationship to Muhammad as Aaron had to Moses"

In the Hebrew Bible (Jewish and Christian) Moses and Aaron are brothers. According to the article, Ali is Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law. In the main article about Ali states:

Non-Muslim views Edward Gibbon (British 18th century historian)is Quoted: "From the first hour of his mission to the last rites of his funeral, the apostle was never forsaken by a generous friend, whom he delighted to name his brother, his vicegerent, and the faithful Aaron of a second Moses."

Gibbon is describing Ali's loyalty, not the reason he was chosen as Caliph.

I suggest deleting or changing the first statement,Rgbutler (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Uthman ibn Affan

After clarifying any possible errors in pronunciation or dialects, Uthman sent copies of the sacred text to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, and destroyed variant texts. It is also important to mention that this text was not questioned by any of the followers of Islam, even those who were alive during the time of Muhammad This statement is asking for a citation, but I feel it should be deleted outright as it assumes too much that is unverifiable. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstairs (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-neutral and largely uncited

This article seems to consist of editor's own opinions about the early caliphs. Very little of it is backed up by citations. I doubt its neutrality.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge needed?

It seems that Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate cover the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The reversion

@DA1: Firstly, the quotations which are not straight are meant to reflect the fact that the Arabic names, such as 'علي' and 'عثمان', have letters that do not usually have equivalents in the English language, the letter 'ع' in the case of these 2 names, which is pronounced from the throat, and they do not necessarily make it harder for users to search for those names, since links for these 2 men exist without the apostrophe, so it doesn't matter if you insert the apostrophe or not, it should still return the same result when searching.

Secondly, Hasan ibn Ali's role in the end of the Rashidun Caliphate and rise of the Umayyad Dynasty, that is, that he was the Caliph who negotiated the transfer of power to Muawiyah I, to end the First Fitna, is too important to ignore, from a historical POV. Leo1pard (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

And here is the reference on Hasan being a "Rightly Guided" Caliph, even if his rule was temporary. Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"too important to ignore" - but this article is not a retelling of the history of how power was transferred from Ali to Muawija but rather about that four-member group of Caliphs. Hasan's role might be noted (in Ali's section) but that doesn't make him one of the four. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Improving the presentation of minority views

I'm hopefully going to work on this article over the course of the next few weeks to improve the presentation of Shia views. I'll discuss any major changes in this section. In particular, some of the content is unsourced and should be either removed or cited. Albertatiran (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll soon change the first paragraph of Ali's section into a short bio, dotted by qualifications, instead of my earlier edits which, in the hindsight, looks like a laundry list of distinctions. Albertatiran (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, this section is about the caliphate of Ali, and while its first paragraph may briefly introduce Ali, your first attempt at this was far too long. It also read more like a hagiography than as a neutral description of facts. Hadiths are generally not taken by scholars as factual but rather as representing religious belief, and so our writing should reflect this: hadiths generally don't belong in biographical sections, and should never be presented in such a way so as to suggest they were facts.

Also please take care with your stated intention of 'presenting Shia views'. This should only be done if the sources explicitly compare Shia and non-Shia views. We should never endeavor to present Shia views ourselves, e.g., by conveying what sources written from a Shia point of view are saying. These latter should be ignored, because trying to fit them in a neutral point of view would only be possible through original research. It is not our place to compare Shia and non-Shia views. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran! I think your second attempt at rewriting the introductory paragraph for Ali is better, but still suffers from a number of problems. First, it presumes a detailed background knowledge of the prophet Muhammad's life and the important events in early Islam, and as such is totally incomprehensible to the average reader, who does not normally have this background knowledge. Second, it still presents a religiously inspired interpretation of events (the Shi'i interpretation) as factual, indirectly drawing upon (Shi'i versions of) ahadith (e.g., the Hadith of warning). Historians normally don't evaluate events through these later (9th-century) Sunni/Shi'i lenses, but try to reconstruct the original events precisely by removing what is obviously a Sunni or Shi'i slant to the narrative from the primary (9th-century) sources, thus 'distilling' the historical events. However, the paragraph you've written appears to reintroduce that slant: what emerges from it reminds me more of the 'Shi'i Ali' than of the 'historians' Ali', if you get my meaning.

I wonder, is it not possible to largely retain the content of the original paragraph (which hit all the the most important points), but add better sources to it?

In any case, in the paragraph as it now stands some Harvtxt templates are not working (because the full citation went missing after your trim, I think), so you might want to fix that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, thanks for the comments. I disagree with the suggestion that I'm using the Shia version of hadiths. The paragraph cites secondary sources from reliable publishers which in turn cite credible Sunni primary sources for these claims, e.g., the brotherhood pact with Muhammad is from Sahih of at-Tirmidhi, a canonical Sunni source. Or the hadith of warning is reported in al-Tabari and (parts of it) in Musnad Ahmad. I'll soon address and fix the other comments that you raised. The problem with unsourced materials is that it's often very hard to verify them. It's much easier to narrate the same events based on the sources one is familiar with. Albertatiran (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the following questionable content from Abu Bakr's section. The first source is primary and the second one is from an unreliable publisher.

...In which Ali ibn Abi Talib and Zubayr ibn al-Awam replied, "and we believe that Abu Bakr is the righteous successor of the Messenger of Allah". When Ali and Zubayr give bay'ah to Abu Bakr and this fitna ended, Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad and wife of Ali, was happy and satisfied with Abu Bakr and Umar, This event is mentioned in both Shia and Sunni academic books.

Another unsourced and questionable sentence that I'd like to remove:

...since the religious function and authority of prophethood ended with Muhammad's death according to Islam.

References

I wholeheartedly agree with these removals, as well as with most of your latest edits. However, the section on Ali has now become very hagiographic, and I'm tempted to say that, despite the better sourcing, it actually has gotten worse contentwise. We need to point out the most important historical developments, not how great and brave and devoted Ali was. I know for a fact that this is not how the sources deal with Ali's caliphate. That really remains a problem. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me get back to you shortly, Apaugasma. To me, it seems reasonable to include a short paragraph that highlights Ali's distinctions. As a reader, I'd like to know what made Ali a contender, e.g., the current "senior companion" description for Abu Bakr. For that matter, it also seems reasonable that I or someone else would add a similar content for the earlier caliphs. Albertatiran (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, "senior companion" is more or less equivalent to "cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad": it's the primary reason why they would have been a candidate for the succession. So would be mentioning that they were among the earliest converts, and other facts of this nature. But the section on Ali says a whole lot more than that, doesn't it? No, it would not be a good thing if the sections on the other early caliphs would also be expanded with hagiographic and irrelevant material. What we need is a summary style, focused on the topic at hand. And that topic is not the greatness of the sahaba or of Ali (in itself part of a religious way of thinking that is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia), but the early caliphate.

I know that most WP articles on early Islam fall short on this matter (they abound in hagiography), and since I'm not planning to work on them personally, I will not stand in your way. I'm just commenting to try and make you more aware of these things. Not sure if that works out very well, but thank you anyway for improving the article! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I appreciate your input but, after reading it again today, I don't think that a short paragraph about Ali's credentials is out of place here. I'd like to keep it... The same goes for the earlier caliphs (in my view anyway). Albertatiran (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Reference/Citation Cleanup

I have begun cleaning up the references and citations. I started by adding what was missing and moving book with harvtxt references into a bibliography. I expect to return and continue that work.

I would also like to convert the verbose <ref>{{harvtxt|name|year|page}}</ref> into easier to maintain {{sfn|name|year|page}}. I will do so if there is no objection raised.

ref: Template:Harvard citation text and Template:Sfn —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Article scope unclear, possible merge

I'm a bit confused about the precise scope of this article; it seems to overlap with Rashidun Caliphate a lot. Even the title adds to this: is it about the Righteousness of these caliphs as a concept? A collective bio? The caliphate generally? The first of these seems to make the most sense, but the lead really doesn't make that clear, and the subsequent contents then wander all over the place. If this can't be cleared up, perhaps the article should be merged outright? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair criticism. Also, does the concept of these caliphs need to be outlined? Caliph is not outlined separate to Caliphate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Possibly? I think it's fairly clear already, given the context, the literal meaning being given here, and the link. But depending on the actual intended scope -- per the above -- maybe given these being the very first such, and their status being denominationally disputed, it could benefit from being expanded on a little. If that's what ends up working best in the context of the remainder of the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there should only be one article. That article should mainly deal with the actual caliphate and caliphs, and the concept of being 'rashid' or 'rightly-guided' should be dealt with in a separate section. It's fairly typical for Wikipedia to have an entirely separate article for what should in fact only be a substantial section in another article. But I would suggest to leave such things be unless and until someone undertakes to rewrite the whole thing from scratch. Haphazardly merging stuff can make things even less transparent. The key is to actually want to spend a few weeks on going through the literature and thoroughly update the article. If the will for that is not there, better to leave things be and only fix the most egregious mistakes. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The "caliphate" article is a pretty substantial one, so certainly it's not on the face of it unreasonable for this to be a summary-style split of the section of that. Were it structured properly as such. If we get the lead in better shape I think other improvements should flow more readily from that. Begin by stating the scope, explain it briefly, trim stuff that's outside of that scope and just repeats other caliph-related material. If we're only left with a section-sized article, then merger might look like the better option. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good way to do it, for someone who would like to do it. The scope of this article should be the Sunni religious term 'rightly-guided'. Start with reading Melchert 2020. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)