Talk:First Islamic state

Unsourced maps

We have two maps in the infobox ([1], [2]), which is odd or excessive in itself, but both of them are completely unsourced. Unless these maps come from reliable sources and those sources can be retroactively found, then these need to be removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm inclined to do that now, but I'll wait in case someone has an easy fix in the near future. R Prazeres (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Seeing no replies so far, I'm going to remove them. If one of the maps was actually based on reliable sources but someone forgot to add the citations, then please say so here and add the citations. This seems unlikely, however, as I have found at least two maps from reliable sources that can serve as reference and they differ in important ways form the current maps; among other things, they indicate that parts of the Arabian peninsula were not subdued until after Muhammad's death. The references are Ruthven 2004, p.27, and Roolvink 1957 (around p.3, but the full images are not available online). Ruthven 2004 seems to be the most useful and is fully available online (see link). There are other similar scholarly historical atlases that may be useful.

As a suggestion: this recent map by SPQR10 could be modified relatively easily to match the Ruthven 2004 reference, if someone has the tools to do so. R Prazeres (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

What is the proposition? SPQR10 (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey SPQR10, the content of the maps so far is not verifiable, but I believe the cleaned-up version you made ([3]) could be modified to match the content of a map from a reliable source, specifically this one on page 27. If we can at least modify the borders of the light green and dark green zones to match the reference, I think that would be reasonably sufficient to satisfy WP:V. The borders of the neighboring kingdoms are a little different too, but since this isn't the focus of the map, they might be a secondary concern; though it would be good to add the labels from the reference to the blank Nubian states (Nobatia, Makkura or Makuria, Alwa or Alodia). Another minor improvement would be to shorten "Orthodox Caliphate" to just "Caliphate", as "Orthodox" is redundant here and a little anachronistic. I tagged you in the hope that you might have the time and tools to make these modifications at some point, if you're up for it. Of course, there's no rush either way, and other editors might also be able to take up the task eventually. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Hmmm... page 27 seems to show a comparison of the expansion of the Prophet's era and the era of Abu Bakr. Is this okay, or should we just adjust the borders to the peak of the Prophet's power, or maintain the comparison that exists in the source? ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 02:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I think Ruthven forgot to mention Ghassanid and Lakhmid, perhaps this detail should also be added? Given that both of these vassals were supporters of the Sassanid–Romans, and there is no record of the Prophet conquering them (he sent an expedition to Mu'ta but it failed). ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 03:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong. The Persian Lakhmid dependency was dissolved before the birth of the Prophet. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 03:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

New Map

Map.

@R Prazeres: I have made a map based on Ruthven's source, with some minor changes including correction of names. In this case I took the border lines purely in the era of the Prophet, and considering that the Sasanids had lost Mazun after the death of Khosrow II (see Badhan hadith), and the Gassanids did not disperse until the Rashidun era (they had a conflict with the Prophet at Mu'tah and the Muslims retreated); then, roughly, this is it. What do you think? ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 05:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this looks good. Great job and thank you for doing this. And yeah, I think a map either with or without the conquests of Abu Bakr's time is fine, as long as it's labeled or captioned clearly either way. R Prazeres (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Then, I will include it to the article. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 06:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Fazoffic Nice work, tho I hate to pick on the small details, but placing the "al-Yamama" in the Bahrain region of Arabia feels off. It should be moved below, right above that long green arrow and the "630" date 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Noted. I will change it soon. Thanks for the correction. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 19:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Title and lead sentence

I agree with Ahammed Saad move to lowercase "First Islamic state" ([4]), as this is not a capitalized proper name in reliable references. But I also want to point out more generally that nothing in the article or on this talk page substantiates any particular conventional or proper name for the state, and I don't think there is any. This means that the title of this article should be/remain a neutral descriptive title (for which "First Islamic state" seems fine). The lead, in turn, should not go out of its way to repeat the title in bold as if it's the proper name of the state, per MOS:REDUNDANCY. I've modified the first sentence and the infobox heading accordingly ([5]), as the current formulation ([6]) is effectively WP:OR.

A couple of points on this matter:

• I can't find real evidence that Muhammad's state in Medina has a conventionalized proper name in modern historiography (or in other words, a clear WP:COMMONNAME and/or one that would be capitalized per the sources). The citation in the lead ([7]) doesn't use "State of Medina" as a conventional name either (if anything, it uses "city-state of Medina" multiple times). "State of Medina" is occasionally used with uppercase in some sources but it's far from standard (e.g. [8]). "First Islamic state" does not appear to be conventionalized or capitalized either; even the book entitled The Hijaz: The First Islamic State uses the term in lowercase throughout its text, amongst other terms altogether ([9]). A well-known reference on this era such as Kennedy's The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates doesn't hint at any proper name ([10]). And so on.

• This article used to be called "Muhammad in Medina" for a long time, until it was moved without discussion in July 2024 ([11]) to "First Islamic State". It was moved in August 2024 to the lowercase version ("First Islamic state") by Iskandar323, who correctly pointed out that it is not consistently capitalized in sources ([12]), which is in line with WP:NCCAPS. Then it was moved again without discussion or explanation in November 2024 to the uppercase version ([13]). Ahammed Saad's recent move in April 2025 is now the latest. If this is to be moved again, then it clearly needs to go through a WP:RM.

R Prazeres (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @R Prazeres. In case of conventional name, Medina can be preferable. It was Yathrib before the arrival of Muhammad, and was renamed Media (lit. 'City of the Prophet') upon his arrival. Medina continued to be used the documents (such as Constitution of Medina). Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand all the points, but I think Medina should be mentioned in the title. Since the title should be completely descriptive, it could simply be called, for example, the First Islamic State in Medina. This would also further differentiate this proto-state from other groups like ISIS. --Rolodaro (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone would confuse "First Islamic state" with ISIS, nor is there any other "first Islamic state" to begin with, so adding Medina to the title is an unnecessary loss of WP:CONCISE. The current title is sufficiently descriptive and not ambiguous with any other state.

Not true. If you search "Islamic State" or even "First Islamic State" on Google or even in the Wikipedia search bar, the first thing people see are references to ISIS or ISIL. But it's up to you... --Rolodaro (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The only minor imprecision I can think of here is a descriptive overlap with the Rashidun Caliphate, which is the direct continuation of this state with its capital in Medina, merely after Muhammad's death. The article's original title, "Muhammad in Medina", might be one way to keep that precision in the title. But the difference in scope between these two articles is pretty obvious in the leads (or can be made more so if needed), so I don't think there's any difficulty in practice. R Prazeres (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

"Title" of Muhammad

This is a minor issue, but if the infobox really requires a "title" for the leader (i.e. here, the leader being Muhammad), it would probably be "the Prophet" or "the Prophet of God", if we were to follow the wording of English secondary sources (e.g. [14], [15]). But as Names and titles of Muhammad shows, he also had many other titles attested in Muslim religious or historical texts, so I'm not sure that picking any "title" to include here is really productive. In any case, leaving this note here in case it needs further discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The text of the article had no source and contained unsourced statements. The new text is based on Islamic sources that are affiliated with Shiite religious scholars in Iran.

The text of the article had no source and contained unsourced statements. The new text is based on Islamic sources that are affiliated with Shiite religious scholars in Iran. صابر حامدی (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Sheikh Hassan Saffar, a Saudi cleric, gave a speech on the Prophetic Leadership Approach, or the Prophet's Leadership Approach, and in that speech he said that, according to Shiite and Sunni religious sources, the title of the Prophet was the Messenger of God, and the title of the Prophet of Islam during the ten years he ruled was Qa'id or Qa'id al-Mu'minin.

Sheikh Hassan Saffar, a Saudi cleric, gave a speech on the Prophetic Leadership Approach, or the Prophet's Leadership Approach, and in that speech he said that, according to Shiite and Sunni religious sources, the title of the Prophet was the Messenger of God, and the title of the Prophet of Islam during the ten years he ruled was Qa'id or Qa'id al-Mu'minin. صابر حامدی (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A sheikh's speech or other religious sermon is not a reliable source, especially for Wikipedia's purposes. Also please stop removing the maintenance template about citations at the top of the page, which has nothing to do with this issue. R Prazeres (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)