Talk:Second Fitna

Minor addition

I added Marwan ibn Hakim to the history DKleinecke (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Material copied from Battle of Marj Rahit (684)

The second paragraph in the Aftermath section of this revision of the article was copied, with minor changes, from Battle of Marj Rahit (684)#Impact. The writer of the content is User Cplakidas. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Any improvements?

@Al Ameer son: Hi, would you mind having a brief look on the article? I plan it for FAC by the mid of the next month and have requested ce at GOCE. Your opinion on any omissions, inaccuracies and potential improvements is requested. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey AhmadLX. I scanned through it, big improvement from its previously poor state. I’ll take an in-depth look later this week or the next. Very impactful and multi-faceted conflict with several players and shifting alliances but which ended conclusively for the Umayyads, though it planted the seeds of its demise a few decades later. From the outset, I’d highly recommend a GA review and much more importantly for this subject matter, an A-class military history review before going for an FAC. The article would benefit greatly from this approach. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer son. Yes it has been on GAN for a month, and it seems GAN waiting time is going to approach human life span in future ;) As for ACR, it is duplicate of FAC (90% theoretically, 100% practically), so after ACR you have to do the same thing over again in FAC. That's why I am thinking to take this article beyond GA, and if it is not reviewed in the meantime, I will withdraw GAN and nominate at FAC. But before that it needs to have very good prose (hence requested ce at GOCE), be comprehensive and accurate. For the latter two, I need your views. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the GAN banner right after I posted my reply. I'd advise going for an A-class milhist review instead of the GAN if you don't want to wait for both. I really believe this article would benefit more with an A-class review as you have many editors with long experience with military history-related articles, including Islamic history, who might be better at honing in on what this article needs before becoming an FA. This is just my opinion, of course. That being said, I'll offer whatever I can towards the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this article in the next few days or next week. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Scope and structure

• Just as a general note, I'll help contribute to the article as much as I can. This will be a work in progress.
• I'm thinking that the article should be organized in a more chronological way, but we'll hold off on this point for now.
• I propose a restructuring of the article’s war sections that would improve its chronological order and contiguity and make things clearer for the reader:

1) Revolts against Yazid

1a) Battle of Karbala

2a) Uprisings in Medina and Mecca (name could be different but discusses rebellion of Medina, battle of Harrah and aftermath, failed Syrian siege of Mecca)

2) Caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr (discusses how the provinces declared for Ibn al-Zubayr, struggle for Syria and Battle of Marj Rahit, Sufyanid–Marwanid transition and subsequent Umayyad breakthroughs in Syria and Egypt.)

3) Pro-Alid movements

3a) Tawwabin uprising

3b) Revolt of Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (discusses defection from Ibn al-Zubayr, Battle of Khazir, punishment of killers of al-Husayn, Zubayrid victories at Madhar and Harura and Mukhtar’s death)

4) Umayyad resurgence

4a) Conquest of Iraq (discusses failed pro-Umayyad Jufriyya revolt in Basra, Umayyad reconciliation with Qays after third siege of Qarqisiya, Kufan resentment at Musab and Battle of Maskin and immediate aftermath)

4b) Siege of Mecca (Kharijite isolation of Ibn al-Zubayr, Tariq ibn Amr’s expulsion of Zubayrid governor of Medina, al-Hajjajs siege of Mecca and reunification of caliphate under Abd al-Malik).

@Al Ameer son: Impressive. I have rearranged sections. Will add stuff soon. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Stuff added. As for the last section, I am unwilling to divide it into sections. Everything is coming together to a point of close, so creating subsections seems unaesthetic to me. ¯\__/¯ --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think the section should be renamed to reflect the Umayyad victory, a major moment in Umayyad and Islamic history. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Resurgence" would require Marwan's accession to be moved here, so done as "Victory of Umayyads".AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Background

• The political events of the First Fitna and Mu'awiya's accession seem pretty well-covered, though my understanding is that opposition to Ali at the Battle of the Camel wasn't merely a few leading Muslim figures like A'isha, Zubayr and Talha; these figures were leaders of a wider opposition among the Quraysh in general, which had opposed Ali's accession.

Quraysh added.

• General conditions under Mu'awiya and Yazid should be noted here. The political nature of the caliphate, i.e. its decentralized structure held together by loyalty to the person of Mu'awiya, needs to be briefly described. The provinces were essentially left to their own devices, Mu'awiya having established his suzerainty through understandings with provincial leaders (the tribal ashraf of Syria and Iraq, the Quraysh and Ansar of the Hejaz), empowering those willing to cooperate (i.e. al-Mughira and Ziyad in Iraq and the East) and gaining the personal loyalty of as many influential figures as he could (Amr ibn al-As and Maslama ibn Mukhallad for Egypt, al-Dahhak in Syria, etc.) The pre-Islamic administrations were largely left in place: Byzantine Greek/Coptic Syria and Egypt, Persian Iraq and Khurasan. The treasury received a minimal share of the provincial revenues; Mu'awiya financed the caliphate through war spoils from the Byzantine front and controversially, by confiscating large tracts of land for agricultural development. The latter was a major point of contention for the Hejazi and Kufan elites and contributed to their growing hostility. See Kennedy 83–88. Information, however scant, about the army of the caliphate, its tribally-centric nature, system of pay. It's important to have all this because the aftermath of the Second Fitna saw the elimination of this system in favor of centralization, Arabization and Islamization under the victor Abd al-Malik.

This information could be put in its own subsection: General conditions in the Caliphate or some other name. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that since these things didn't contribute much to the development of the crisis, they don't belong in background section. But their discussion in aftermath can sure be expanded so that the contrast b/w Sufyanid and abd al-Malik's administration is clearer. I think we need a subsection in aftermath dedicated to this. What do you think? Just saw that you've already suggested a sub-section. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that might be best. —Al Ameer (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Done.

Nice work here, I’ll copyedit prose shortly. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• No need for a "Prelude" section. What's currently covered by it should be merged into "Background". Prelude is better suited for an article about a particular battle or a war more limited in scope.

Done.

• While other related articles touch on the issue of Yazid's succession, more detail, perhaps even a subsection, should be devoted to this issue in the Background section of this article since it was the major catalyst of the civil war. Details could be found in Wellhausen pp. 140–147; Kennedy p. 88.

Done.

• Wellhausen notes, as we should, that those four major Qurayshi figures, all sons of former caliphs or major leaders, who opposed Mu'awiya's initiative, "had the nearest claims" to the caliphate, which is why Mu'awiya was so intent on gaining their recognition of Yazid. It provides a useful context about their opposition to Yazid. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Done here.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Struggle For Syria

• Remove that the Zubayrids controlled the Hejaz and Egypt as its already stated in the paragraph above.
• You can remove the first mention of Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad in this paragraph. Instead, the next time he’s mentioned, just add a descriptor that he was the ousted governor of Iraq. I’ll copyedit.
• Its important to note that it wasn’t just the Qays tribes of northern Syria and the Jazira, but also the junds of Homs and Palestine under Numan ibn Bashir al-Ansari and Natil ibn Qays al-Judhami respectively that gave allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr. Even al-Dahhak ibn Qays al-Fihri, governor of Damascus, was in the Zubayrid camp. Support for the Umayyads was basically restricted to Jund al-Urdunn (central Syria), controlled by the Banu Kalb; the latter’s Kindite and Ghassanid allies (and others) also backed continued Umayyad rule.
• Mention in a few words why the Kalb backed the Umayyads, i.e. stately privileges and marital ties.
• Instead of the “Pro-Zubayrids led by the Qays tribes”, it should by the “pro-Zubayrid Qays led by al-Dahhak”, who was not actually a Qaysi but a Qurashi (this doesn’t have to be mentioned though).
• Its my understanding (have to double check sources), that Marwan himself ousted the Zubayrid governor of Egypt as opposed to him sending his son Abd al-Aziz, who accompanied him and was afterward made governor.
• Mention that it was Mus’ab who led the attempt against Umayyad Palestine.
• Mention that the abortive campaign against the Hejaz was defeated at al-Rabadha, near ? —Al Ameer (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Al Ameer son, anything else to be improved/added? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies AhmadLX, I tend to get quickly distracted here. As far as comprehensiveness, I haven't noticed anything important to be missing from the course of the war, the background to the conflict and its aftermath. If I notice anything later, as I intend to keep a watch on this page, I will update you or add it myself. No problems with accuracy, there are a few points where we could get more precise, but there are enough details in the sub-articles. If it becomes an issue later, it's an easy fix. Other than that, it needs a very thorough copyedit to reach GA level, let alone FA. Good work ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed insight and valuable suggestions. Hopefully GOCE ce will get to it in next few days. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Any chance you can give some feedback at FAC? It has been added to urgent list and may be archived if there is no further activity. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Detailed map

@AhmadLX: Here's a detailed map of the political situation of the Caliphate during the civil war in 686:

• File:Second Fitna Territorial Control Map ca 686-87.png

Not sure where to add it—infobox, counter-caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr or somewhere else. I'm going to work on a second map (most likely terrain version) for the battles, sieges and other engagements of the civil war. The only cities I'll show on the second map will be Damascus, Mosul, Kufa, Basra, Mecca and Medina. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: This is an impressive map. Special thanks for incorporating Sijistan and Khurasan. I have added the image to infobox. There is, however, a bit of twist here. In 687 Mukhtar's control was limited to Kufa at most. If one makes it 685-686, there is another problem that Sijistan wasn't under Ibn al-Zubayr then. Can you move the file to "Second Fitna Territorial Control Map ca 686"? Thanks. Yes, terrain map of battles would be great; current one is ugly. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I put in a request to move it to ca. 686. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I think the file has been renamed. I have a couple suggestions; change label ("territorial control in 686/687") and enlarge key, there is enough space around it. Currently it is not possible to read it, unless zoomed in. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, will do. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The adjustments have been made, as well as some other changes. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer son for the fixes. Seems good now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A little oddity with that map, re Cyprus. It appears as a dark colour in the infobox, but pink/white stripes in the original. But more importantly, there is no explanation in the legend box (nor any mention on Cyprus in the text - unless it is called something else). Davidships (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this Davidships. @Cplakidas: Could the dark color/striped color discrepancy be fixed? Also, since I did not include an explanation anywhere in the original map, could there be a note somewhere in the svg map to explain that there was condominium control over Cyprus between the Umayyads and the Byzantines at this time? It would not be relevant to include this detail about Cyprus in this particular article as the focus is on the inter-Islamic war. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer, it was due to the fact that I used a pattern object to do the stripes, which apparently doesn't scale well in small resolutions. I've replaced that now, and added a note in the map legend (I think this is the simplest and clearest way to include it). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Perfect, thanks ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: and from me - it's all clear now. Davidships (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)