Jump to content

Talk:Abbasid Caliphate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Second Class Citizens"

The concept of the "citizen" didn't emerge until the French Revolution, therefore no one was a second class citizen because there was no such thing as a citizen. Someone should fix this, because I'm too busy to think of a better way to reword this, but if no one changes it by weekend, I'll fix it up. Canadian Paul 07:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ancient Rome had a developed sense of citizenship. - Bryan is Bantman 02:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's arguable I guess, after over half a year of learning about things since I last posted the comment... anyhow, I think I fixed in such a way that it works for either view point - Canadian Paul 20:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Persians,

Would you ppl stop adding Persian crap to this page, as in "three Persians, Al-Kindi, Al-farabi..."

Would you please research before you add stuff, yes al farabi was persian, but al kindi and ibn sina (avicenna) were arabs. 

  alkindi was arab but ibn sina was persian, alfarabi was either a persian or turk.  Nevertheless, the question of ethnic origin is quite pointless, since they these three belonged to the same cultural and intellectual realm and most if not all their works were written in arabic (the de facto language at that time)

Persians/Spuler

I have had trouble finding in Spuler the quotation about the Persians given in the text and footnoted at footnote 4. I have a different edition of Spuler but have searched pretty extensively through it. Could there be an error here?86.136.74.2 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This link:

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the website's entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 01:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and like Encyclopedia Britannica is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop your nonesense war

Why do you (Iranian Wikipedians) keep adding the irrelevant texts to articles on Wikipedia?, that thing will -NOT- make Iran a greater country, i can see many articles that the name (Persia) is shoved in and you keep mentioning (Persia= Iran today don't forget)!, i call that a childish edits and will make people suspicious of articles related to Iran. can you tell me what's good for the article to add "It is well established that the Abbasid caliphs modeled their administration on that of the Sassanids.[4] One Abbasid caliph is even quoted as saying:


"The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour."[5]"

it is completely racist and does not help -at least- the section of Abbasid Science, I hope you guys understand me--Zobiez 23:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a valid reason to remove relevant sourced information about who caliphs modeled their administration on, and their influences......I agree what he is saying .--Piroozi 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)



is that what you understood! you look so clever, the section is about ABBASID SCIENCE not about the administration. now your racist admin Khoikhoi blocked me and accused me of being a sock puppet of User:Islami, i dont know what me and Islami have together we edit different articles we are different people we have different IP's, can i have any evidence that explain my block on the nick User:Tinglepal??, he wants to silence me but i will stand for the truth--Creativiti 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Meh

editprotected

A protection template should be applied to this page for the duration of its protection. Thanx, 68.39.174.238 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a small template, top right. — Gareth Hughes 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Abbasid flag

Was the Abbasid flag really just a black field, or is that just a placeholder? 71.57.90.83 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Black was indeed the official color of the Abbasids (except for a brief period during Al-Ma'mun's reign when they switche to green). They fought under a black banner. -- Slacker (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

the Sack of Baghdad: February 28 or February 10 ?

The Wikipage on Baghdad shows February 10, 1258, instead of February 28, as the date of the sack of Baghdad. Can anyone confirm this, please ? -- PFHLai 05:51, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

This site has all the dates:

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/sources/baghdad.htm

Hard to figure out exact date since it apparently went on (including initial negations) for a month or more OneGuy 09:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the reference, OneGuy. I can't find any mention of Feb.28th. And I quote:
... the caliph and his three sons, Abu'1-Fadl Abdul-Rahman, Abu'l-Abbas Ahmad, and Abu'l-Managib Mubarak, came out on Sunday the 4th of Safar 656 [February 10, 1258]. With him were three thousand sayyids, imams, cadis, grandees and dignitaries of the city. ... The people disarmed themselves and came out in droves, and the Mongols killed them....
I suppose this means February 10, 1258 was the date Baghdad fell to the Mongols. I'll edit the article accordingly.
"...At the end of the day on Wednesday the 14th of Safar 656 [February 20, 1258], the caliph, his eldest son, and five of his attendants were executed in the village of Waqaf...."
I'll add this date of the execution of the last reigning Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad (February 20, 1258) to the article.
Thanks, again. :-) -- PFHLai 18:31, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Sometimes February 12th is mentioned. Information service (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BBC Podcast about Abbasid Caliphate

MP3. Jacoplane 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to the main article page. If there are any objections, post them here and we'll discuss. Rob cowie 13:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Bold textAl-Mu'tasim's Last Remaining Son"Bold text

It says in the article that al-mu'tasim, the last abbasid caliph, had his last son and daughter sent to hulegu's harem as a slave and a concubine. Which is totally untrue. How could his last son be sent to Azerbaijan (hulegu's stronghold), then reappearing in Cairo to restore his dynasty?!! Al-Mustasim's son was somewhere in a desert town, I read, when Baghdad was sacked, and kept roaming the desert in fear of his life, until the mongols were defeated at Ayn Jalut, then he travelled to Cairo in Egypt, to meet Sultan Baibars Al-Banduqdari, and be restored as a figurehead caliph. May someone please edit the article concerning this matter. Everytime I edit it, my edit is scrubbed out.

It was not his son but his uncle who re-established the Caliphate. Al-Mustasim's several sons fled to different countries. The Syrian line spread itself and gained importance. Emirs Ruslan and Iskander belong to it. Information service (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this...

Why is this "Caliphate" considered Shia? It imprisoned and persecuted the Shia Imams and it imprisoned and persecuted Shia in general. Armyrifle 10:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not Shia, it is Sunni. Information service (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Al-Bitar

Part of the Al-Bitar family of Syria is of Abbasi descent through the male line. Information service (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


750 years without the Abbasids.

February 10th 2008 is the sad 750th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the demise of the Abbasid Empire established in 750. On February 10th 1258 the hordes of Mongol prince Hulagu sacked Baghdad. One the World's greatest city was destroyed up to a million people massacred. The Abbasid Empire was the largest Empire of its time. It stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to China. During 508 years it was ruled by 38 Caliphs of the Abbasid dynasty, direct descendants of the Prophet Abraham through the male line. 10 days after the fall of Baghdad the last Caliph Al-Mustasim perished the death of a martyr. Several of his sons fled to different countries. The Syrian line spread itself and gained importance. Emirs Ruslan and Iskander belong to it. 750 years have passed but Iraq is still in the paws of barbarians... Information service (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged this section with {{POV-section}} because the same editor that wrote it also made these edits (which are very POV). EnviroboyTalkCs 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Anniversary

The section in question smacks of NPOV and is written with very poor grammar and mechanical construction. Should it be removed entirely, or reformatted so it actually means something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.165.16 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. This is the text:

February 10th 2008 is the 750th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the demise of the Abbasid Empire established in 750. On February 10th 1258 the hordes of Mongol prince Hulagu sacked Baghdad, effectively dissolving the Abbasid Empire, the second largest Empire of the time [behind the Mongol Empire that displaced it]. It stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to China. During 508 years it was ruled by 38 Caliphs of the Abbasid dynasty, descendants of the Prophet Abraham through the male line. 10 days after the fall of Baghdad the last Caliph Al-Mustasim was massacred. Several of his sons fled to different countries. Emirs Ruslan and Iskander belong to the Syrian line of the descendants of Al-Mustasim.

— Hex (❝?!❞) 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Persians

The quote expands on the idea that the Abbasid caliphs modeled their administration on that of the Sassanids. If it's not relevant to a certain section it can be moved to a different one. But I don't see why it should be deleted outright. Khoikhoi 08:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

fair enough now--MARVEL (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seljuks

I don't get it...one source says the Seljuks simply took over Baghdad, another says they were allied with the Abbasids before taking over, and another says that the Mamluks were responsible for the empire's decline...which one is it?

--Skydude176 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Abbasid persian mother quote

"One Abbasid caliph (whose mother was Persian) is even quoted as saying:"

Which abbasid caliph? Faro0485 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral wording?

"temporarily converting to Shia Islam and joining their fight against the unjust Umayyad rule" [my emphasis] is this some kind of partisan comment on an old secterian muslim conflict. seems like it might be one.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.109 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Independent Emirates rising in Abbasid Caliphate

This map is not accurate, many of the names mentioned are not clear and if you look them up you will not find any entry in either Wikipedia or google; example: Tulumid, Buyjid and Alijid; who are they? Someone needs to clarify this, probably correct the spelling (if they exist) so that we can know who they are. --Maha Odeh (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tulumid is a typo (should read Tulunid). Buyjid means the Buyids and Alijid means Alids. It's possible the original map was done in another language where "j"="y". -- Slacker (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should find someone to correct this, does anyone have any idea how? --Maha Odeh (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
You could contact the person who apparently made the map: user:Arab League. -- Slacker (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The map is completely anachronistic. The map is actually helpful in that it summarises the areas of separate dominance very well, and given the complication of this issue such as summary is needed, but (for example) the Buyids took power in Baghdad a couple of decades after the caliphate seized Egypt back from the decadent Tulunids. Have emphasised this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SARDINIA? CORSE? CRETE?

That map is wrong! Never arabs conquered or occupied those islands! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.248.30 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Umar

The Umayyads were not descended from Umar. I have corrected that claim.

DigiBullet 09:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is correct that Umar (Omar) is not the first ancestor of Umayyads however, he was belonging to that linage. And is the first Umayyad Caliph. In view of this fact one may consider that Umayyads descended from Umar. Umar and Uthman these two Rashiduns belonged to Umayyad descendency. But as they were included on the higher rank as Rashiduns; they were not considered as Umayaads. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The alleged fantastiqualness of Geber

Section Science boasts:

In particular, Jābir ibn Hayyān (Geber) is considered the "father of chemistry".

No, he's not. Maybe he was the father of alchemy, but referring to the article Jābir ibn Hayyān many of the discoveries attributed to him are dubious, and may alternatively be tracked to an anonymous Christian sphere alchemist using the name Geber for his books for the sound of it. Alchemy was a very secretive art, so it is very hard to track discoveries back to Geber or pseudo-Gebers.

In general one more generally accepted "father of chemistry" is Robert Boyle, who started it by describing experiments rejecting the alchemical symbolism and its mythical concepts in his The Sceptical Chymist. Later non-alchemical experimentalists and theoreticans like Lavoisier, Berzelius and John Dalton may also share this title.

Geber should (IMHO) be mentioned as part of the Islamic Golden Age, but downplayed, not as a scientist proper. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Either Geber or that Christian pseudo-Geber allegedly invented the destillation of alcohol. Which is culturally most likely? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please ignore that! (Me trying to be funny). Instead see: Talk:Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This material is similar to, or exact duplication of, other material that has failed verification, all added by a single editor, or written by that editor in other articles and copied here. See Jagged_85 RFC and related cleanup page for details. Some of the claims you've looked at have been specifically challenged and removed already in other articles. This article appears not to have been cleaned up yet. I would suggest removing all of the detail content on specific scientists, and write it as something like: 'Individuals in this period who advanced scientific understanding include Jābir ibn Hayyān, another linked name, etc.". This would leave the specific content to the linked articles, including Science in medieval Islam. Dialectric (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have nowadays a habit of examining the history in articles regarding islam and science, but I refrained from mentioning that for the principle of reconciliation. In some areas there are numerous independent indications that islam really pioneered and paved way for the western renaissance, but chemistry is not one of them. The article of Jābir ibn Hayyān seems in a state of flux, but better than before, examining its history, it seems that it has been extensively proofread. As far as I can tell/guess, "Geber" was more like a tradition, whereupon lots of alchemical ideas were added by lots of people from the islamic and from the western christian sphere. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I just read your links. Good links, thanks! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done I fixed it by removing non-chemical (?) guys such as Roger Bacon, Newton and a couple of alleged praisers. The essense of the clause was originally correct, according to the books I had to borrow from the city library. The case you refer to is more of a general cleanup where a lot of valid contributions is outweighted by an annoyingly bad source usage, and lot's of imaginative interpretation concocts in the "bullocks class", to cite allude one of the detractors of aforementioned case. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Done with Jagged cleanup

I'm done with Jagged cleanup. I still think the technology section needs further verification, so I've tagged it with Expert verify. For example, mills were used extensively, but I'm not sure if there were steel mills in the modern sense, and I don't know how reliable the sources given are. --Merlinme (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good state now. I'll take an exact look at who really influenced Copernicus. As far as I can tell, he erected a new planetary model with fewer epicycles, but the only influences he really would need was to be Ptolemy's Almagest and some updated astronomical tables. There were Europeans to do that, maybe Regiomontanus, maybe some other person associated to the updated planetary tables of the high middle ages. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Found a ref for al-Tusi, Urdi and al-Shatir. The other influnces need additional refs. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA wtf people, are you smoking something legal?

Take this dreadful excuse of an image out of here. The Abbassid Caliphate never ruled so much land at all and in fact they never had control of North Africa or Spain which was under a splinter Ummayad Corduba Caliphate. Meanwhile also teh date is wrong because after the 10th century the rise of the Byzantine Empire and the Fatimid Caliphate meant that the Abbassids governed little other than modern day Iraq. Tourskin 06:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh , i already noticed and wrote on Image talk:Abbasids Dynasty 750 - 1258 (AD).PNG , i think too much of coffee is the reason :)  A M M A R  20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In their opening years they did have sovereigny over Morocco and Spain, so the map somewhat accurately represents the Abbasid empire at its greatest extent. They lost Spain early on to Abdul Rahman I, and then later lost Morocco to Idris I after a failed revolt of Fakkh in the late 8th century, but that doesn't mean they didn't appoint governors there prior to that. Also, they ruled more territory in the east than is shown by that map. -- Slacker 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i found this map showing the greatest extent to te abassid caliphate that is different than the pic currently used, so i think the pic used is misleading that the abassids did rule parts in north africa http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/abba/hg_d_abba_d1map.jpg Mighty toad (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To revive this discussion, regardless of what areas we consider to be actually ruled by the Abassids, this crappy map cuts off the Eastern edge of the territory, and while it claims they ruled Spain, cuts off most of that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.6.166 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not smoking. And this is not a forum. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the map from Arabic wikipedia that has Hispania and north west Africa in dark green explaining that the those parts were lost at the caliphate's infancy and that the light green remained under its control for a long time.Qwertzy (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In the "Today part of" in the Old country infobox, there is Andorra and Portugal but not Spain. Either believe the map given and remove the whole Iberian peninsula, or put them all (maybe France too, since it's highly improbable the empire extended exactly to Andorra not touching French territory) and correct the map.(talk) 22:10, 27 August 2013 (CET)

Flag in infobox

The concept of rectangular national flags was unknown in Abbasid times, but black was the dynastic color of the Abbasids, so File:Black flag.svg could be put in the infobox (apparently something similar was done in the past, see section "Abbasid flag" above). However, File:Abbasid flag.png should be avoided, since there's no evidence that it's historical... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. You are almost certainly the person who knows most about the subject looking at the article at the moment. --Merlinme (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Requested move

FYI
 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


Abbasid Caliphate → Abbasid caliphate –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, caliphate is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. A specific state, hence a proper name. Some writers use the "Abbasid caliphate", or more often some closer transliteration (khalifat, for example), to refer to the office of caliph within the Abbasid state, but that is not the subject of this article. I would suggest the warning parallel of Roman empire, but the nom's edits suggest he may prefer that too. JCScaliger (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose In theory, there is one "Caliphate" and should remain capitalized. In practice, many states (Umayyads of Cordoba, Fatimids of Egypt, Almohads of Morocco, etc.) absconded with the title and called themselves that. I guess the best point of comparison is with, say, the Pope - supposedly only one, but sometimes claimed by several. The Avignon Papacy is capitalized. Should that be also lowercased? Walrasiad (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
And to the Empire. In theory (up until 1804, at least) there was only one Empire; for some six centuries there were at least two, in Aachen and in Constantinople. JCScaliger (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Good call; no reason "papacy" should be capitalized there; books overwhelmingly agree. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
One empire? There have been many empires and emperors - west roman, east roman, holy roman, bulgar, sassanid, mongol, etc. Caliph is a religious title, not a temporal one. It covers the community of all Muslims. Caliph is more akin to "Pope", and Caliphate to "Papacy". Abbasid is not a demonym, but a dynasty. Just happens to be some other dynasties have tried to claim that same title (akin to Roman vs. Avignon Popes). Walrasiad (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Support – classic over-capitalization should be fixed. Whether there's one or several, sources describing the one commonly use lower case, which is good evidence that capitalization is not "necessary" here; the threshold in MOS:CAPS is not met. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
JCScaliger, must we then write the Indian State, not the Indian state (in the sense of governance)? That's a specific state, but why would you upcase it? Tony (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I have plenty of references which keep Caliphate capitalzed, especially when attached to the dynastic name. Caliphate is the name of the state. Abbasid a dynastic modifier. Like saying Tudor England or Hapsburg Spain. Walrasiad (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the dictionary definition and our article Caliphate are all wrong? Nobody denies that usage in sources is very mixed; that supports the conclusion that capitalization is not necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. That article is a mess. I don't agree with your deduction, as it depends very much on the context in which it is used. e.g. I can use "Roman Republic" as the proper name of a state, or "Roman republic" as a casual reference to the republic the Romans had. Similarly, I can use Abbasid Caliphate as the name of the state, or the Abbasid caliphate as a casual reference in compare and contrast mode. As it is used here, it is the proper name of an entity. Again, to emphasize, Abbasid is not a demonym, but a dynastic family, like the Tudors or Hapbsurgs. The proper name of the entity they ran is the Caliphate. It should remain capitalized. Walrasiad (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Power: The first Capital of the Abbasid Caliphate - Kufa or Damascus

Currently, the inset table on the right of the Wikipage states that the first capital of the Abassid Caliphate was Kufa (750-762), followed by Baghdad (762-836), then Samarra (836-892), then Baghdad again (892-1258).

In the article section headed "Power", however, the text currently asserts: "The first change the Abbasids made was to move the empire's capital from Damascus, in Syria, to Baghdad in Iraq." This is confusing. On the face of it, the assertion would appear to contradict the assertion about the capitals of the Abassid Caliphate in the table. Both assertions can't be right. The assertion in the text has no references to back it up. The reference at the end of the paragraph, currently #5, '^ a b Applied History Research Group, University of Calgary, "The Islamic World to 1600", Last accessed 30 October 2008' does not support the assertion.

Damascus was of course the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate until the fall of the Umayyads in 750. The Abbasids defeated the Umayyads at the Battle of the Zab on 25 January 750. Did the Abbasids then briefly occupy Damascus in 750? On the face of it, it seems plausible if only to have driven out the remnants of the Umayyad forces. But then what of Kufa? If the claim here is that the Abbasids' first capital in 750 was Damascus, and not Kufa, and that the Abbasids occupied Damascus for the next twelve years until 762 when the Abbasids moved their capital to Baghdad, then this is a claim that needs an inline citation in the text to support it.

Moreover, if Damascus, and not Kufa, was indeed the Abbasids' capital from 750 to 762, then of course the table would need to modified to remove the erroneous reference to Kufa, not least in order to make the text and the table consistent. 123.211.2.73 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the info box titled history of Iran?

Modern day Iran was only a part of the Abbasid Caliphate, why is the info box titled and links to the page discussing history of Iran?72.53.153.82 (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop the manipulation

I removed the racist sentences mentioned in the article...since this has nothing to do with truth...it was never said...& I'm getting sick of all Persian shit put on ALL Arabic-related articles...Exactly all Arabic articles on wikipedia...its very annoying, they're making everything Arabic as Persian manipulating history, names & facts....Does any Arab manipulate anything on Iran-related articles...No....its only persians doing that...in the Iran article they even jump over certain parts of the history related to ruling of persia by Arabs, its so biased in the way they not only manipulate but also write things that serve their persian nationalism & if we would search & analyze about Iran as a whole the majority of it has Arabic origin & yet Arabs don't do it....So stop with this persian nationalistic propaganda..stop putting your shit everywhere!!!!!! Iraswe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.158.33 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Abbasids came to power by pandering to the non-Arab converts and they moved their capital to Baghdad (a Persian name), which is only 20 km away from Cteisphon, I believe. I think it's fairly obvious the Abbasid Caliphate was highly persianized... The majority of the thinkers in Baghdad were of Persian ethnicity. Iran has a majority of Arab origin? Based on what? Genetic testing doesn't suggest that at all; Only certain cities (Qom, for example) were founded by Arabs. The Arabs in Southwestern Iran didn't even arrive into that region until relatively recently (a few hundred years... they have not been living there since Islamic conquest). Nor does the historical reality. As for "Arabic identity dominates Iran." Can you name a single contribution the Arabs have made to Islamic architecture beyond calligraphy? Did they come up with double skinned domes? Pointed arches? Minarets? The landscaping? Right. The original Arabs were living in tents. So let's not start with the nonsense that Iranians have "Arabic origin." It makes no sense genetically. It makes even less sense culturally. The Ummayads were Arab in essentially every way, but to lay a claim on all of the science, culture and knowledge that was generated during the Abbasid period is nonsense. The CAPITAL CITY of the Abbasid Caliphate was predominantly Persian. Baghdad did not become Arabized until the Ottoman Empire. Rhazes, Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Biruni, Tusi etc. were all Persians. As for the Iran-article.. That's irrelevent to this article, for one. Two, the Iran article does mention almost 10 paragraphs on the Arabs, the Turks, and the Mongols. I don't really understand where the "nationalist Persian propaganda is." Ignoring the Persian component of the Abbasids would be similar to ignoring the Greek component of Rome. The entire reason there WAS a golden age was because works of non-Arabs were translated into Arabic. Not because the Arabs themselves started something on their own. I think leaving out that little factoid would qualify as Pan-Arab nationalism, not Persian nationalism. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Really hate having to look dumb pointing this out, 5 years later, but oh well, the user from the IP above seems to spend all his time contributing to articles about "Race and Intelligence" and scientific racism. Maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions, but coupling stuff like that with phrases such as "The entire reason there WAS a golden age was because works of non-Arabs were translated..." and "The original Arabs were living in tents" strikes me as a bit, uh, hypocritical for someone trying to carefully denounce claims of Persian nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.191.120 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Population

Which year circa was this? Where's the source for the 20 million mark? //Gotipe (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a source given for the 20 million figure, so it could easily be wrong. I'll add a citation needed. Do you have a sourced figure? --Merlinme (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Abbasid Khanate of Bastak

I am not sure of this section. All of my literature, including portions of the same article, point out that the end of the Abbasids occurred on 1517, with the death/captivity of Matawakhil III? I am not disputing the information only asking for a clarification. Well, maybe I am disputing it slightly, as I know I am no expert, but if it is correct (the section in question) and it is not just an extension of some vague connection to the abbasids then more information needs to be added connecting that last chapter, also the dual calendars really create confusion. speednat (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Educational source

While looking for info about the Abbasid Revolution, I found this. There isn't much about the revolution in particular but there is a lot of good stuff about the Abbasids in general. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cordoba paper mill

"Within 10 years, the Abbasids built another renowned paper mill in the Umayyad capital of Córdoba in Spain." The Umayyad kingdom in Spain called itself a Caliphate and did not acknowledge the political authority of the Abbasids in Baghdad. The Abbasids could not claim credit for anything that happened in Cordoba. JamesWim (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The sentence was not referenced, and as you've observed, it didn't make a great deal of sense. In general if something is unreferenced and you have a good reason to believe it's wrong, I'd encourage you to be Wikipedia:BOLD and correct it. Wikipedia is only as good as its references; information which is unreferenced can be (and frequently is) complete rubbish, so don't worry about deleting inaccurate unreferenced material.
Occasionally you may also know that referenced material is incorrect, although that's rarer. If you can check the reference, or find a better referenced, then again, please be bold and correct the Wikipedia article. If it's a more complicated matter of giving Wikipedia:Undue weight to one source, or if you don't have access to a good reference source but suspect the Wikipedia information is wrong, then starting a discussion on the Talk page is a good idea. But if you know something is wrong don't hesitate to correct it. --Merlinme (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

More on the Abbasid Khanate of Bastak

The section on the Abbasid Khanate of Bastak has been added because it is a part of Abbasid history, and related to the history of the Caliphate. It is the Abbasid Caliphate of Cairo that ended in 1517; and the difference between "Caliphate" and "Khanate" should be emphasized here. The Abbasid Khanate of Bastak represents a later manifestation of Abbasid rule (under a new form, that of a "Khanate"). References in English to the Khans of Bastak are few so far, though there are sources that are still unpublished. Published English sources include Sykes' account of Southern Persia, the English translation of Tarikh-e Qajariyeh (Vol. II), and the recently published works of Willem Floor which include the following: The Persian Gulf: The Rise of the Gulf Arabs (2007), The Persian Gulf: The Rise and Fall of Bandar-e Lengeh (2010), and The Persian Gulf: Bandar Abbas, The Natural Trade Gateway of Southeast Iran (2011). The first of these (Willem Floor's books) makes occasional references to Shaikh Mohamed Khan Bastaki while the other two devote considerable sections to the history of Lengeh and Bandar Abbas under the Khans of Bastak. The primary sources for the Abbasid Khanate of Bastak are in Arabic and Farsi. They include the following: Tarikh-e Jahangiriyeh va Baniabbassian-e Bastak, Nader al-Bayan fi Dhikr Ansab Baniabbassian, Bastak va Jahangiriyeh, Bastak va Khalij, Tarikh-e Qajariyeh, Tarikh-e Lengeh, and others. More such sources are being published all the time.

The sources mentioned above can be consulted for more information. The section in the Wikipedia article has been kept brief (while giving enough information) to avoid devoting too much space to a later manifestation of Abbasid rule which is only one part of Abbasid history. With reference to the Hijri years of the section, where employed these derive directly from Arabic and Farsi sources (hence the use of Hijri). They have been retained for the sake of accuracy.

Bastak

So, did the last Khan have any sons or daughters? Are they still alive or did the dynasty finally come to a complete end? Is there a photograph of the guy? A photo would be totally cool....and as to the Caliph, did they kill his entire family in 1517 or are there any pretenders anywhere?Ericl (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Large quotes?

I have been tidying up the reference sections and I have noticed that there are a lot of large quotes that may (or may not) be integral to the flow and quality of the article. As of now I have moved them to a separate footnote section to ease readability of the ref/note/footnotes. I personally feel that these quotes are generally not necessary as all they are doing is verifying the information alluded to by the reference (which is what the reference are for). This is not an article that I have, done a lot of work on and I feel that this point should probably be talked about before a major change (i.e. deleted) Thanks speednat (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

singing slave girls of the Abbasid court

I ran across a scholarly article that may be relevant for expanding this article: Richardson, Kristina. "Singing slave girls (qiyan) of the ‘Abbasid court in the ninth and tenth centuries." Children in Slavery through the Ages (2009): 105-118. http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780821443392/9780821443392-12.pdf Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia contradicts itself

English and Swedish language editions of Wikipedia apparently have very different ideas of the Abbasid Caliphate's greatest extent. See the little map in green and white towards the top right of each of the two mentioned pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasidkalifatet

To help English language Wikipedia editors, the map subtext in Swedish "Kalifatet vid dess största utbredning" translates to "The caliphate at its greatest extent". Which Wikipedia language version is correct? It ought to be corrected. Now the same in Swedish: Någon har fel. Vem? Hursomhelst bör det åtgärdas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.143.137.193 (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Abbasid 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Persianate

At the same time the Arab conquerors of Iran were being Persianized, for although they were originally garrisoned as soldiers, they soon settled in the towns and cities, especially in Khurasan, where conquerors and subjects melded into a single Persianate society Canfield, Robert L. (2002). Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 4.

Under the Abbasids, Persianate customs became the style of the ruling elite. Affecting the demeanor Sasanian Persian emperors, the Abbasids wore Persian clothing, instituted such Persian offices as vizier and executioner, established their new capital, and like the Achamenids and Sasanians erected grand palaces and supported artists and scholars who celebrated their rule. The Abbasid caliphate at its nadir was the climax of Persianate panopoly: they were  remote in a world of awesome luxury, walled off by an elaborate courtly eriquette whose casual word was obeyed like divine law  Canfield, Robert L. (2002). Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 5.

It is very clear that the Arabs are influenced by Persian culture after the conquest of Persia. For this reason, As in other articles I did this addition. The reason why I have made this statement in defining the state, It is made in this way in some other articles.--212.252.99.122 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. The influence of Persian customs on the Abbasid ruling elite is broadly accepted and we can add a statement to that effect to the second paragraph, which already talks about Persian political influence. However, that's not the same as calling Abbasids "thoroughly Persianized in their culture" or describing the caliphate as a "Persianate empire". It looks like you didn't notice that the term "Persianate society" in the first quote is referring specifically to Khurasan. According to A History of Islamic Societies by Ira Lapidus, the Arabs who settled in Iran adopted the Persian language en masse and generally assimilated into the local Iranian society, which is quite different from what happened, e.g., in Baghdad. Eperoton (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Iranicaonline?

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baghdad-iranian-connection-1-pr-Mongol is not a reliable source. Loaka1 (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh? Where?
BAGHDAD i. The Iranian Connection: Before the Mongol Invasion, was written by Hugh N. Kennedy, a medieval historian and academic. He specialises in the history of the early Islamic Middle East, Muslim Spain and the Crusades. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not notice that it was written by Hugh N. Kennedy, sorry. But the source says "While it is impossible to cite any direct influence, there were a number of examples of round cities from pre-islamic Persia which may have provided inspiration.", and not the direct "The round plan reflects pre-Islamic Persian urban design". Loaka1 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So then it needs to be re-phrased, "The round plan may reflect pre-Islamic Persian urban design". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That should work. But where is the consensus that Iranicaonline fails WP:RS? Doug Weller talk 17:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say Iranicaonline, the web version of a large academic (but incomplete) encyclopedia, is very much an RS, without of course being infallible. We use it widely. I don't understand Loaka1's comments. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps one of you gentlement would like to instruct Loaka1 on the finer points of plagiarism and paraphrasing.
From Iranica:
  • "The most important feature of the architecture of early Baghdad was the celebrated round city, whose walls encircled the caliph’s official residence and the first great mosque. While it is impossible to cite any direct influence, there were a number of examples of round cities from pre-islamic Persia which may have provided inspiration.
From Loaka1's edit[1]:
  • "The most important feature of the architecture of early Baghdad was the celebrated round city, whose walls encircled the caliph’s official residence and the first great mosque. While it is impossible to cite any direct influence, there were a number of examples of round cities from pre-islamic Persia which may have provided inspiration."--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Abu Muslim

Shouldn't there be a reference in here about Abu Muslim, who is usually credited with bringing the abassids to power?

Haroon Al-Rashid

Being among some of the greatest rulers of Abbasid and Islamic rule shouldnt a seperate category be made for his rule in the Caliphite?

Calligraphy

Calligraphy is a fundamental element and one of the most highly regarded forms of Islamic Art. As such, I think there should be a section on it.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 18:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputing "Abbasid Khanate of Bastak" - proposing removal or change

I am proposing the deletion or some drastic change of the "Abbasid Khanate of Bastak" due to the following objections:

1. Nearly all references in the section come from "Baniabbassian, M. (1960). Tarikh-e Jahangiriyeh va Baniabbassian-e Bastak (in Persian). Tehran." Judging by his last name, he appears to hail from the "Abbasi" family in Bastak which ruled this khanate. Information provided thus is subject to possible bias and I would suggest making it at least shorter and more concise

2. The "Abbasid Khanate of Bastak" is a real dynasty and khanate, yes. But as shown by sources provided by the Arabic article of the khanate (إمارة بستك العباسية), including the following:

- محمد أعظم؛ (العباسي)بني عباسيان بستكي (1993م). أحداث و وقائع و مشايخ بستك و خنج و لنجة و لار. البحرين، المنامة: مؤسسة الإمام للصحافة والطباعة والنشر.

  • The sources indicate that this "Abbasid khanate" in Bastak began in 1673 and ended in 1967. It did NOT begin with the arrival of Abbasid prince refugees in 1258. This provides ample time (415 years to be exact between 1258 to 1673) for someone to claim Abbasid descent for prestige and legitimacy as being kings descendants of great kings (the Abbasid caliphs), all while providing no real evidence except a genealogy tree that could be easily falsified.

Unlike the Abbasid caliphs in Cairo whose genealogy was checked by a group of Egyptian jurists around the time of the fall of the Abbasid dynasty. That is why the Al-Mustansir (Cairo) and his successor Al-Hakim I were accepted as Abbasid figureheads for Egypt. No such historically documented verification of the "Abbasids" of Bastak.

3. The section states the following:

"In 656 AH/1258 CE, the year of the fall of Baghdad, and following the sack of the city, a few surviving members of the Abbasid dynastic family led by the eldest amongst them, Ismail II son of Hamza son of Ahmed son of Mohamed,[nb 8] made their way into the region of Fars in Southern Persia."

"A few surviving members of the Abbasid dynastic family"???? "Made their way into the region of Fars in Southern Persia."????

Why would a number of Abbasids venture into PERSIA which was controlled by the Mongols whom are slaughtering every single known member of the Abbasid family? Especially in 1258 AD.... when Baghdad had just fell. It would make far more sense for these Abbasid princes to go west into Syria and Egypt like Al-Muntasir and Al-Hakim did, not deep into Mongol-controlled territory?

If the Mongols knew that a number of Abbasid princes fled into Iran, not even just one, then I don't doubt one bit that they'd rush to kill them off. Even if Bastak is in the mountains with a somewhat rough terrain, then the Mongols would besiege it like the besieged the Nizari Ismaili castles on the mountains.

4. The section instead of focusing one on dynasty could focus on several dynasties whom claim desecent from the Abbasids

- The dynasty of the Wadai Empire in Chad and Sudan which held power between 1501–1912 claimed descent from the Abbasids.

- The dynasty of the Bahawalpur (princely state) in India which ruled between 1802-1955 also claimed descent from the Abbasids.

Both with a similar origin story to the Bastak Abbasids and like the Bastak Abbasids, they offered no real evidence. I think the section would be far more interesting with the inclusion of these.

To surmise:

I believe this section is biased, written by a member of a deposed dynasty in southern Iran with no verified ties to the Abbasids and thus it should be either removed completely or amended significantly to show that this dynasty of khans merely claims descent from the Abbasids but there is no real historical evidence to suggest that they are descendants of Abbasid refugees. DunhamMyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Abbasids capturing Mogadishu

Why would you dispute this? Can you explain. I would like to hear your side. I have the sources to support this. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Ozan33Ankara, next time it might be helpful to name or ping the person you are wanting to have a conversation with. Drmies (talk)

New Map

Hello everyone! I was thinking the current map for this page was lacking, so I decided to improve it a bit by adding cities, rivers a legend and make it in a more appropriate format. I was wondering if there are any more details I should add or change before we adopt this new map. Cattette (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Old map
New map
Perhaps this map could be of help [2]? It uses various sources and is made by one of our best editors in this topic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Updated the map, let me know if there's anything else I should add, tweak or modify before I replace the main map of the article. Cattette (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Important provinces such as Jibal, Sijistan, Khurasan, Tabaristan, Uman are missing, perhaps they could be added? And perhaps Irak -> Iraq? Makran is way too vast as well. And if I'm not mistaken Ghur was not conquered by the Muslims until the advent of the Ghaznavids. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran: Updated it according to your suggestions Cattette (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Ray was part of Jibal, and Khurasan was much bigger, encompassing of the cities of Nasa, Merv (should be spelled Marw), Merwrud (which should be spelled Marw al-Rudh), extending to the Oxus River. And Gurgan was part of the Abbasid Caliphate as well. The lands of the eastern caliphate by Guy Le Strange is still pretty good when it comes to the geography of the Abbasids, I would advise using this [3] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Updated it. Cattette (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
In the same book I advised using, if you click here you can see a okay map of the whole caliphate and its provinces [4]. As you can see, Makran is nowhere that big, I guess Sistan extended all the way to Kabul? Or maybe they created a province named after the region Zabulistan? not sure. And Gilan is missing. Seems like Ma Wara' al-Nahr (Transoxiana) was also a province, I would advise basing its frontiers on [5]. Also, I would advise correcting some of the following names; Boost -> Bust. Badasir -> Bardasir. Hamedan -> Hamadan. Samarakand -> Samarkand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

A very good effort, thank you, Cattette. Some observations: In Sicily, the northeastern corner, around Messina, was the last to be actually conquered. In c. 850, the island was divided in the middle, with Enna, the centre of Byzantine resistance in the middle of the island, not falling until 859. However, the Aghlabids had captured Bari and Ragusa (Dubrovnik) in the years before (you can find sources in the Muslim conquest of Sicily article). The actual western borders of Ifriqiya are a bit excessive (cf. Fall of the Aghlabid Emirate.svg). Bilad al-Sham contains a typo (missing 'l'). I am unsure whether Arran extended that far south, and would recommend using the Arabic form Adharbayjan, rather than modern Azerbaijan, for the province. Khurasan for Khorasan, and what is labelled as 'Tahirids' is Transoxiana, not the area under the actual Tahirid dynasty, which actually ruled Khurasan and some other eastern territories (cf. Tahirid Khurasan ca 836 AD.svg). 'Turan' is incorrect, that was Sind. Add the Yamamah and Bahrayn regions/provinces in Arabia, and extend the map to include Yemen, if you can. Cyrenaica was a distinct sub-province (Barqa). I'd also recommend distinguishing the autonomous dynasties (Tahirids, Aghlabids, Afrighids, Crete) from the geographical/administrative names, and from the directly ruled territories/provinces (different font for the dynasty and other shade of green?), and possibly also add Ifriqiya and Sicily somewhere as the geographical designations. Antakya -> Antioch as the common name for the medieval city. Draw the border a bit more north above Malatya (cf. Asia Minor ca 842 AD.svg. Finally, may I suggest uploading it as an svg file? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Updated it to your specifications. @Constantine: @HistoryofIran:. As for the cut off at the bottom that @Srnec: asked about, it was because I thought that including the entire empire in one map would leave too much whitespace/unused space on the map. Cattette (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cattette: Mazandaran and Gilan were certainly autonomous, and I think that applies to several other regions as well, but I'm not really well-versed in that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran:If we aren't quite sure on what areas are autonomous and not, perhaps we should consider not distinguishing autonomous areas at all, especially since I think the line between who is and isn't autonomous may be blurry. What do you think? Cattette (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice map, Cattette. But what does the dotted lines signify? I doubt that those regions had well-defined borders back then, so the map would be more accurate without them. I'd also consider reducing the font size used for Al-Yamama, Sistan, Uman, Egypt, etc. It's a bit distracting and gives undue attention. The size used for Iraq and Jibal should be good enough. Wiqi(55) 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not quite right, as shown in the work of Le Strange for example. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Wiqi55 I can resize the labels. The dotted lines are in no way an attempt to denote be exact political boundaries within the Caliphate, just roughly. I think we do know enough about who ruled which cities and over what areas at least make an attempt at visualizing it. Cattette (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I assume by Le Strange you mean this map? Compared to the other map, some provinces have different borders (e.g., Oman; al-Yamama; Mosul not being part of Jazira). Some have better names, like Khwarizm. Wiqi(55) 20:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I was referring to the link up above. Anyways, that's not important, it was just an example. My point is we have more than enough information to determine the provincial borders of the Abbasid Caliphate - such as the sources cited in [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The map

Why aren't Al Mu'tasim's conquests of Amorium and Ankara included in the map? Under Al-Mu'tasim, the Abbasid Caliphate achieved its territorial hight, nearly conquering all of Asia Minor. Iranophile (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The map is obviously inadequate and does not show the Abbasid Caliphate at its greatest extent at all unlike pretty much every other empire covered on Wikipedia.--Photomenal (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

“Persian this” “Persian that”

In The Achaemenid Empire

1- Babylon was the principal capital.

2-Aramaic was the official language and lingua franca.

3- The Persian language was written in cuneiform, a Babylonian script.

4- Religious emblems from Mesopotamia, such as " Faravahar ", were adopted.

The Achaemenid Empire was More Mesopotamian than Persian, The Achaemenid kings embraced Mesopotamian clothes and culture, however this is not mentioned in the Wikipedia page on the Achaemenids.

In The Abbasid Caliphate

1-The main Capital wasn’t located in Persia.

2- Rather than Persian, Arabic was the official language.

3- Arabic was written using the Arabic alphabet rather than the Pahlavi script.

4- it was banned to use non-Islmaic religious symbols.

The Achaemenids were influenced by Mesopotamian culture far more than the Abbasids were influenced by Persian culture!

Unlike the Achaemenid page, however, the Wikipedia page on the Abbasids focuses more on Persians and Persian culture than on the Abbasids themselves! Isn't that odd and hypocritical? And, like the Barmakids, the so-called "Persian bureaucrats" were more Arabs than Persians! What remains of your "Persian identity" if you converted to Islam, took an Arabic name, lived in an Arab empire, and served Arab Caliphs? If we look at the pages on Wikipedia about the Seljuk and Mughal empires, we will note that they are both referred to as "Persianate Empires" because they embraced Persian culture and language. So why aren't the Bermakids considered "Arabs"? They adopted the Arabian religion of Islam, spoke Arabic, had Arabic names, and served Arab Caliphs, again why aren't they considered "Arabs”?

No one can deny that Wikipedia is being used to disseminate a terrible, dreadful propaganda. Jasmkssnksskskskskz (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:JDLI and WP:SOAPBOX Take this somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone sounds quite salty here. You do realize that cuneiform, winged sun, etc. are not Arabic or Semitic inventions yes? They originate from Ancient Egypt, Sumer, and other pre-Semitic civilizations. Something being Mesopotamian (which is a regional and not ethnic term) does not make it mutually exclusive with being Persian, Semites have no historical monopoly over that region, they weren't even the first to live there. Furthermore you've clearly never read the Qur'an seeing as it explicitly states that Islam is not an ethnic religion and ethno-supremacy is considered shirk. The "Islam = Arabic" nonsense was buried with the rightful destruction of the Umayyad "caliphate". As for the Abbasids, in what universe is an empire whose soldiers were Turks and whose bureaucrats were Persians an "Arab empire"? To others your rants look like nothing more than envy. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


Jasmkssnksskskskskz Completely agree and you will hardly find any serious nor objective historian or academic who would deny some of your criticism. Anyway there is a reason why Wikipedia cannot be used as an academic source and inherent biases are obviously a well-known problem across the board. The solution is for knowledgeable Arab editors to correct some of those obvious biases using academic sources. I also wonder how it is possible that neither this Abbasid article or the Rashidun or Umayyad articles state that those were empires/caliphates ruled by Arab dynasties.--Photomenal (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the ignorant comment above, Semitic or not (oldest civilizational ethnolinguistic group in existence in the MENA region), those regions and civilizations are native to the Arab world and its inheritors are the Arabs of today. Nobody else. Arabized Mamluk soldiers and a few foreign bureaucrats does not change the facts on the ground, namely that Arabic culture, language, civilization, ruling elites, majority of bureaucrats, soldiers (throughout the most important Abbasid conquests) were Arab. Why should Arabs have envy of any regional people? Makes no sense historically, in terms of ancient civilization, global influence and outreach, culturally, linguistically, religiously, geographically, economically, militarily etc. A strange comment considering the legit criticism.--Photomenal (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In 'Power (752–775)' section the link for khorasanian arabs links to an alleged alqaeda subgroup, with the disputed conventional name Khorasan group/Khorasan. But it shouldn't right? Even in the Khorasanian Group wiki page there's a section that disputes the very name of the group, albeit for different reasons. I'd suggest just removing the link all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.139.215.19 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeulCassiopeia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period

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?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

if I'm to give my understanding, 

early Islamic period is the period from the beginning (since Adam) till the great flood during the lifetime of Noah.

middle Islamic period is between Noah and Jesus. late Islamic period is from the Prophet Muhammad till the end of world (may peace be upon them all). Because the Qur'an clearly says Islam is the only religion. Islam means peace. Islam means peace acquired by submitting one's own will to the will of the Creator of all. Alexwharf001 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexwharf001: besides the fact that we are not a religious encyclopaedia you are posting at the wrong place, read the original post again. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

proper use of Arabic terms.

while using terms or words belonging to a different language, due care and effort is given for correct pronunciation and spelling. Why does Wikipedia use caliph, mecca, mosque, and many other Arabic words as some form of mockery rather than using the exact arabic word? it's same as writing churus for church. correct this huge fault. Alexwharf001 (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexwharf001: because we use the language found most often in English reliable sources. There is no mockery. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Though any religion with more churros would certainly be one worth signing up to. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up on edit

This might be trivial, but this is a quick follow-up on this edit where I removed the image due to lack of verifiable information. After some searching I managed to actually find a detailed source that describes this building and notes its popular name as the "Abbasid Palace"; see pages 316-219 here. (The current façade nonetheless appears to be a modern reconstruction and the original late Abbasid remains would be inside the courtyard.) There is still no reason to include the image as it was, since it's not relevant to the section where it was placed and the article is a little overloaded with images for much of its length already. The building is explained with more context at Abbasid architecture#Palaces instead. R Prazeres (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Caption of Samarra palace image

Hi SonOfBabylon1. With regards to this edit: I don't strongly care what name is used in the caption of one image on this overview article, but I want to be clear that the wording of the caption change was chosen for a reason. I recommend that your edit be reverted or that the caption be re-edited to reflect the following: Dar al-Khilafa and Jawsaq al-Khāqānī (or more rarely Qaṣr al-Khilāfa) are the only names used in any scholarly English-language sources discussing Abbasid Samarra. Here are some of the many relevant examples:

  • Northedge 1993 (a frequently-cited article)[7], Northedge's chapter in A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture (2017), p. 169[8]
  • Ruggles 2011, p.26, 183-184[9]
  • el-Hibri 2011, p.188-189[10]
  • Tabbaa 2007, "Architecture", Northedge 2012, "ʿAbbāsid art and architecture", and Milwright 2021, "Iraq, art, architecture, and archaeology", all in Encyclopedia of Islam, Three (online) (see also "Sāmarrāʾ" entry in the older Encyclopedia of Islam 2)
  • Bloom and Blair (eds.) 2009, Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, see "Abbasid" (Vol 1, p.2), "Architecture" (Vol 1, p.80), and "Samarra" (Vol 3, p.177-178) entries (and others) [11]
  • Abbasid chapter in edited volume "Islam: Art and Architecture", p. 102[12]
  • Hoffman 2008, The Wall Paintings of Samarra and the Construction of Abbasid Princely Culture p.107, 123 [13]
  • Greenbagh 2009[14]
  • Cooper 2016 p.137-144[15]
  • Milwright 2010[16]
  • Westbrook 2014, p. 140[17]
  • Bennison 2009, p. 72[18] and Ettinghausen, Grabar, & Jenkins-Madina 2001, p.55[19] (these two examples only cite the name "Jawsaq al-Khaqani")
  • And others...

I could find no English sources at all that use the term Baraka Palace or Dar al-Baraka (e.g. [20], [21]). "Dar al-Khilafa" is not only perfectly sensible as a term for a palace complex, it is also apparently (per some of the sources above), the name used in historic Arabic sources to refer to that palace. Per those sources, the complex was begun by al-Mu'tasim, with doubtless later additions by al-Mutawakkil. Whether "Dar al-Baraka"/Baraka Palace is commonly used in modern Arabic sources I can't judge, but since this is the English Wikipedia there is no reason to ignore the clear majority of English sources. It is also, incidentally, the name used in other relevant articles like Abbasid Samarra and Islamic garden.

As for the page number of the source I provided (Bloom & Blair 2009, Grove Encyclopedia): I only had the electronic version, so I provided the specific encyclopedic entry ("Samarra"), which should be plenty for anyone given the structure of that book. Still, the page number, after looking it up (per above), is p. 177 (Volume 3). Or you can cite one of the other sources listed above. For clarity, the edited caption should also specify "Samarra", to avoid confusion with the Dar al-Khilafa of Baghdad; a detail I missed in my previous edit. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

PS: Alternatively, the caption could simply identify it as a part of the "Samarra palace complex" founded by al-Mu'tasim, or something to that effect, since the exact scholarly name isn't essential to a reader's understanding of this article. R Prazeres (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Horrifying

exclamation mark  I have been editing for a couple of hours caliphate-related articles. I stumbled on the timeline of the end of the Abbasid empire at the hands of the Mongol horde. With a context of Wikipedia and editors' efforts to advance knowledge for humanity, it was horrifying, incredibly saddening, and even painful reading how the accumulated knowledge and prized culture of centuries was so brutally destroyed. How were people and intellectuals mercilessly murdered. It really touched deep in my soul. I have to point out that coincidentally or work of the Fates, February 2023 marks 765 years of that utterly despicable and horrifying event. May all those innocent victims rest in peace. In memoriam. Thinker78 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

"Separatist dynasties" and "Decline" sections

Initially I was going to tag the "Separatist dynasties and their successors" section as unsourced, but on second thought I don't think we should keep this section. I went bold and removed it ([22]). Aside from being unsourced, it also contains various errors, includes some recent nationalist POV insertions, and the framing as "separatist" dynasties is dubious since many were part of the Abbasid Caliphate or, as the section mentions, nominally acknowledged their authority. More fundamentally: listing every dynasty in the history of every region of the Islamic world is not reasonably within the scope of this article and we have plenty of articles that cover the full history of each region. The trouble it would take to add sources to verify all the dates and names, plus sorting out inconsistences and arbitrary choices over what is included where, does not reasonably seem worth it.

It would make more sense to simply revise and expand the preceding "Decline" section, which already summarizes some of the same information, to cover the immediate successor states and dynasties that emerged in the 9th-10th centuries. It would probably be better to also merge that section with the History section, with which it already overlaps and which also needs some work. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @R Prazeres dunno if it's fitting to post this here, but according to those sources: [23][24][25][26][27] (p 132), Abassid caliph Al ma'mun adopted the green flag when he declated the shiite imam Ali al-Rida as his heir. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abbasid_Caliphate/Archive_1&oldid=1256342895"