Talk:Fatimid Caliphate: Difference between revisions

By /

Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

 

Line 94: Line 94:

I don’t think the use of the term “conquest” is appropriate in this case, as the movement started within Aghlabid territory (even if largely autonomous) and the Fatimid state wasn’t established until 909, “overthrow” or “revolution” would be a more appropriate term. [[User:Dabi24|Dabi24]] ([[User talk:Dabi24|talk]]) 16:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the use of the term “conquest” is appropriate in this case, as the movement started within Aghlabid territory (even if largely autonomous) and the Fatimid state wasn’t established until 909, “overthrow” or “revolution” would be a more appropriate term. [[User:Dabi24|Dabi24]] ([[User talk:Dabi24|talk]]) 16:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Originating during the [[Abbasid Caliphate]], the Fatimids initially conquered all of [[Ifriqiya]]|q=yes}} is rather misleading as it doesn’t explain how hey conquered Ifriqiya. That’s why I changed it to {{tq|Originating during the [[Abbasid Caliphate]], the Fatimids established an Isma’ili State with the help of the [[Kutama]] before conquering all of [[Ifriqiya]]|q=yes}}.

:Perhaps, a better alternative is to replace:

:{{tq2|Originating during the [[Abbasid Caliphate]], the Fatimids initially conquered all of [[Ifriqiya]] (roughly present-day [[Tunisia]] and north-eastern [[Algeria]]). They extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast and ultimately made [[Egypt]] the center of the caliphate. At its height, the caliphate included—in addition to Egypt—varying areas of the [[Maghreb]], [[Sicily]], the [[Levant]], and the [[Hejaz]].}}

:with:

:{{tq2|Staring in [[Ifriqiya]] (roughly present-day [[Tunisia]] and north-eastern [[Algeria]]) during the [[Abbasid Caliphate]], the Fatimids extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast and ultimately made [[Egypt]] the center of the caliphate. At its height, the caliphate included—in addition to Egypt—varying areas of the [[Maghreb]], [[Sicily]], the [[Levant]], and the [[Hejaz]].}} [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Let’s please stop adding hypothetical flags to the infobox. We do not know what Fatimid flags looked like. Simply citing sources that mention in passing that the dynastic colour was green or white does not allow us to reconstruct an actual flag or banner, even if we leave aside the disagreement between the cited references and the mention of red and yellow in one of them. There’s no reason to think the Fatimids flew plain green or plain white banners. That’s WP:OR, and not very informative to readers anyways (see also the recent discussion at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate). I’ve moved the text of the flag caption (from this addition and an apparently forgotten text from before that) provisionally to the “Dynasty” section (it could go elsewhere if preferred), and removed the flag image from the infobox. R Prazeres (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @R Prazeres, I sourced this Fatimid Flaghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:White flag 3 to 2.svg, the Fatimids according to arab sources were literally called “Those who wear white” (المبيضة) just like the Abbassids were called “Those who wear black” (المسودة). Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we should be adding any flags to the infobox here. Like the issue discussed at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate, all we have are reports of a colour, but no direct representations of a standard flag. This is true for most pre-modern states in the region too. Some references refer to the Fatimid colour as being green instead, which makes the issue all the more confused. Since it’s not straightforward and it’s not essential information that needs to be at the top of the article, it’s best to keep it out of the infobox, but it can certainly be mentioned in the body of the article, if it isn’t already. R Prazeres (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a bit confusing I agree, the Umayyads, Fatimids, almohads and merinids were reported having or using white flags. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Rectangular national flags were anachronistic to the early Caliphates era, but dynasties definitely did have dynastic colors, and sometimes banners of that color (see Black Standard), though not necessarily rectangular. The Fatimids don’t seem to have had a fully consistent and invariable color association (as the Abbasids did with black), which hinders attributing to them a flag of their dynastic color… AnonMoos (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The language list should link to this German Wikipedia article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimiden for German. I am a once-every-ten-years editor, so I don’t find it very obvious how to add this directly myself. If someone in the know could do this and remove this text afterwards, many thanks! 2001:1708:2302:DA01:3D8F:1C3F:CAA2:8B39 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. This is done through Wikidata, which connects equivalent articles/topics across different Wiki projects (e.g. links Wikipedia articles with Wiki Commons categories, English Wikipedia with non-English Wikipedia equivalents, etc). It seems that in 2022 someone unlinked the German article de:Fatimiden from the data item for Fatimid Caliphate ([1]) and linked it instead to the data item for “Fatimids” ([2]_, which is what the English article Fatimid dynasty is linked to. The distinction between these two topics is superficial, so in my view, since there don’t seem to be two German articles on the topic (as there are in English, French, and others) and since the main article for the overall topic is Fatimid Caliphate on the English Wikipedia and it’s likely the same in other languages (judging by the much larger number of wikis linked there), I’ve undone this and linked the German article back to this one (i.e. the Fatimid Caliphate topic). You should be able to see German in the list of languages now. I don’t monitor Wikidata though, so it’s possible someone will change this again. R Prazeres (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this flag based on the descriptions given in sources (found in commons). Does it look reliable enough ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there was never any unified banner of the Fatimid, the concept of flags is pretty recent Folkrolex (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map used cites unreliable sources (Euratlas and Qantara-Med) Folkrolex (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary and academic sources specializing in the history of the Fatimids in the Maghreb and the history of the Berbers explicitly identify Ikjan and Tazrut as the earliest capitals of the Fatimids. It is not objective to ignore or downplay this important phase, as it represents the core of the Fatimid Caliphate.

Ikjan was explicitly described as “Dār al-Hijra wa-Mustaqar al-Īmān” (“the abode of migration and the residence of faith”). The official letter announcing the Mahdi’s arrival was written and recorded by Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān, acting on the direct order of Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shīʿī, and it was issued from Ikjan, confirming that the site served as the effective first capital and administrative center of the early Fatimid state.[3]

The Kutama were the origin of the Fatimid Empire. Their first capital was Ikjan. They seized Ifriqiya and installed Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah in Kairouan after freeing him from Sijilmasa.[4]

  • Farhat Dachraoui, The Fatimid Caliphate in the Maghreb (296–365 AH / 909–975 CE), p.115.

In Ikjan and Tazrut a fully functioning state was established, with Abu Abd-Allah setting up a divan, involving the Kutama elders in governance, imposing military service, and building the system on a solid foundational structure.[5]

According to the source, Ikjan and Tazrut are explicitly identified as the early capitals of the emerging Isma’ili–Fatimid state. They served as the main religious, military, and doctrinal centers where followers from across Kutama territory were organized under strict discipline. From these strongholds, coordinated campaigns were launched that expanded the movement’s strength, enabling the advance into Ifriqiya and ultimately the overthrow of the Aghlabids. Both Ikjan and Tazrut functioned as the foundational capitals of the early Isma’ili–Fatimid state.[6]

Mostasem gridi (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)✍️[reply]

You don’t need to explain the history, it’s already explained in the article. Putting them in the infobox is not that simple, see the earlier discussion above. R Prazeres (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres I would like to emphasize that proposing the inclusion of the earliest capitals is not an “interpretation” or a “personal opinion,” but is based on primary Fatimid sources and academic references such as the Encyclopédie Berbère which explicitly use the term “capital”.
I have carefully read the previous discussion:
  • Article title Fatimid Caliphate: The term has several autonyms (Fatimid State, Fatimid Imamate, Fatimid Empire), so the article’s title does not prevent mentioning Ikjan and Tazrut in the infobox.
  • Form of rule: The early period can easily be represented in the infobox as “Kutama governance,” as noted in the sources, or by listing Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shīʿī as Da’i / deputy of Imam.
Moreover, the Fatimids themselves adopted them as Dār al-Hijra, a term in Islam that carries a sacred significance, confirmed by Ibn Khaldūn and Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān. These cities served as the spiritual and political capital, just as Medina did in the Prophetic era, fully justifying their inclusion in the infobox.
Mostasem gridi (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)✍️[reply]
Another experienced editor already opposed this previously and I’m not seeing any new arguments that weren’t considered back then. Please keep in mind that the infobox is summary of key facts that should be kept simple. As I said before, introducing more detail is optional, not necesssary. Interested readers can get all the details they want in the article, which is where content actually matters. The dates of the Fatimid dynasty/state’s existence are almost invariably counted as 909 to 1171 in both generalist and specialist references (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10]) and those are the dates the infobox reflects. As I said previously, I’m not opposed in principle, but introducing facts before that date requires further explanation that would most likely be cumbersome or confusing to readers trying to understand the topic at a glance. Many references on the matter don’t devote much attention to the pre-909 events, so Wikipedia’s summary is not exceptional in this regard.That being said, I’ll keep thinking about other possible solutions (maybe footnotes?); but for now we should leave it as is. R Prazeres (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @R Prazeres. The Fatimid Caliphate did not exist until 909 when al-Mahdi Billah was proclaimed caliph in Raqqada. Including Ikjan as a “capital” to the infobox is chronologically impossible and factually inaccurate; it served as a Kutama base/power center before the Fatimids seized power. Skitash (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
R Prazeres, Skitash
I would like to clarify that adding the early capitals does not change the narrative; rather, it directly implements fundamental Wikipedia policies, specifically:
Primary and Fatimid sources themselves Al-Qadi al-Nu’man’s Iftitah al-Da’wa, Ibn Khaldun, as well as the Encyclopédie Berbère, The Cambridge History of Africa, and The Institute of Ismaili Studies clearly document the existence of political centers since 893, explicitly using the terms “capital” and “Dar al-Hijra”. Omitting this phase from the Infobox contradicts information substantiated by reliable sources.
Restricting the infobox to the year 909 reflects only the Caliphate phase, completely disregarding the foundational phase of the Fatimid State before the declaration of the Caliphate. This is not neutral; it presents only one side of the story, even though most sources cover the period 893–909 as the actual founding stage of the state.
The infobox is a summary, yes, but it must present essential information and not ignore fully documented stages within the article’s body and its sources. Adding the early capitals before the declaration of the Caliphate.
​The core idea here is that there is a clear distinction between:
Mostasem gridi (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Fatimid Caliphate. You’re not going to change the scope of the article without consensus. Skitash (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the use of the term “conquest” is appropriate in this case, as the movement started within Aghlabid territory (even if largely autonomous) and the Fatimid state wasn’t established until 909, “overthrow” or “revolution” would be a more appropriate term. Dabi24 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originating during the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids initially conquered all of Ifriqiya is rather misleading as it doesn’t explain how hey conquered Ifriqiya. That’s why I changed it to Originating during the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids established an Isma’ili State with the help of the Kutama before conquering all of Ifriqiya.
Perhaps, a better alternative is to replace:

Originating during the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids initially conquered all of Ifriqiya (roughly present-day Tunisia and north-eastern Algeria). They extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast and ultimately made Egypt the center of the caliphate. At its height, the caliphate included—in addition to Egypt—varying areas of the Maghreb, Sicily, the Levant, and the Hejaz.

with:

Staring in Ifriqiya (roughly present-day Tunisia and north-eastern Algeria) during the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast and ultimately made Egypt the center of the caliphate. At its height, the caliphate included—in addition to Egypt—varying areas of the Maghreb, Sicily, the Levant, and the Hejaz.

M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version