Talk:First Fitna

old comments from 2005
I've been meaning to do this for ages. It's started, but far from done. Zora 6 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

انت مخادع. لا تقعد تخرف بالتاريخ والي يرحم والديك. علي لم يحارب عائشة رضي الله عنهم اجمعين ولم يكن راضيا بهذا الحرب. بل جيشه الذي كان معه هو الذي بادر بالهجوم.

arabic writing / english??
It's awesome that we've got some actual arabic written on the page, but would it be possible to have it in English as well? Or perhaps the arabic belongs on the arabic translation page? It's just that you rarely see THAT much of a foreign language on an english wiki page. But I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.122.138 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Care in Wording
BTW, please take care not to accuse any of the sides with bad wordings, as both sides were Sahabes and were and are precious people for many muslims. i.e. you must not call the wive of the Prophet (PBUH) as a "rebel", but maybe use "opposition" instead.

As this is an article about a faith, just take care not to insult people's beliefs and loved ones. 85.105.68.49 (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up
Forgot to tag my edit, so thought I'd leave a comment here instead.

All I did was add an infobox and clean-up the introduction a bit. Haven't really got the time to go through the entire article. --Yenemus (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider a serious rewrite?
The introduction gives a good overview of the situation but the article sort of falls apart after the Battle of Nahrawan section. There are very few details given about the actual circumstances of Muawiyah's final victory. In particular, there is absolutely no mention of the circumstances leading to or terms of the treaty between Hassan ibn Ali and Muawiyah and the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate. In fact, if I were just reading the last half of the article I would conclude that Hassan ibn Ali had won. In addition, the article needs significantly better background and better transitions between sections. As it is, the information is very hard to follow. That said I am not qualified to make the changes so I leave it to whoever wrote the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.188.24.26 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs a major rewrite
The article suffers from several issues. The style and tone is more those of a story told to school children not an encyclopedia. There are too much unnecessary content like what Umar did and how a good person he was etc. which are not directly related to the topic. There is tone of conspiracy present in the article. Finally, the article is written as if to justify that everyone was good and nice and promote a particular perspective and does not follow NPOV: this is a major disputed event in the history of Islam and one of the main contention points between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The article needs a major rewrite. 24.212.193.99 (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Recent additions are greatly exacerbating these problems. The amount of detail is utterly preposterous and non-encyclopedic. Entire conversations set forth; expansive detail on minor points; punishingly long passages pasted in with no narrative flow. It is becoming a literature compilation rather than an encyclopedia article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is horrible. Constantly repeating unnecessary things. Sentences like "Ali got along with Abu, who is cousin to Ali, well after the battle and Abu, who is cousin to Ali, got along well with Ali after the battle". That's not a direct quote but that sums it up. The whole thing just sounds like religious propaganda written by stupid people for even stupider people, unless Muslims were and are mostly simpletons and this is the best that they could do. 2601:244:8300:E073:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2601:244:8300:E073:A054:1D6B:3B81:B2D7 (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Siffeen
The Battle of Siffeen is seen as the second Fitna "Second Civil War" not the first. Majority of historians and Muslims see the battle of Siffeen as the second fitna not first. The first only pertains to the battle of jamal. And the Battle of Nahrawan is the Third fitna "Third civil war". Please move info battle of siffeen info to "Second Fitna".

Moved info to Template
This article is in violation of CC-BY-SA licensing agreement because it was copy and pasted from other articles see User talk:Qwyrxian (under Issue). I am reverting the edits to 39.50.140.127's last edit because the article is better. In addition the info added had multiple issues such as the following: I have created a template (Template:First Fitna) please correct the issues on this template before adding it on to the article. The template should be completely rewritten since it was copied and pasted from other articles. Thanks. Only add information to this article if you have done the following: Otherwise please add/correct/rewrite your information on the Template:First Fitna. Once the template issues are solved only then can we move the information to this page. Thanks. Zabranos (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect referencing (Which ones? reply by --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Copy violation ( reply by  JohnLeeds1 - I JohnLeeds1 wrote much of this text so I am not violating any copy rights--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Sub par English (reply by JohnLeeds1 - Some of the primary sources had English that could be improved, but I did not want to change it in case it changed the meaning --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Not a biography of Mauwiyah, since most of the info was copied from that article (reply by JohnLeeds1 -  The two articles are related as Mauwiyah was one of the central figures in the First Fitna. As part of rewriting that article, we researched all these events. We spent almost a year on these events and went through hundreds of books--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Irrelevant info (see Talk:Battle of the Camel) (reply by JohnLeeds1 - All the text is related to the first fitna, which bits do you think are irrelevant?--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Sounds like a narrative
 * Too many primary sources
 * Properly cited reliable sources (limit primary sources)
 * Written it in proper english
 * Information is relevant to the article
 * Thank you for removing these non-encyclopedic edits. I support this effort to improve the page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We have been working on these events for almost a year, on the Muawiya I page. Most of the text that was copied over from the Muawiya page was written by me any way, so I am not violating any copy rights. Copying within Wikipedia says:


 * "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page."


 * Since I wrote much of it, then put it on the Muawiya I page and then on the First Fitna page, I am not violating any copy right.


 * We have already been through all these discussions. The article at Template:First Fitna has the full account of the events that took place in the First Fitna. We went through hundreds of books and the references are there too. We looked at the early Sunni books, the early Shia books, the Roman books from the time, the Jewish books from the time, books by modern Western academics and every other book we could get hold of.


 * We discovered that many modern Muslims know very little about the Qurra who became the Kawarij. Even though there is a lot of literature regarding the Qurra and the kawarij in both the old classical Sunni books and the Shia books. The Khawarij were critical to the First Fitna because they were first referred to as the Qurra and then took on the official title of the Khawarij, after the Battle of Siffin. The primary sources were used in conjunction with research and literature from modern academics just to stop the edit wars. Once the Sunnis see that this text also exists in their books and the Shia see that it exists in their books, there are less edit wars. They want to see the actual text the modern Western academics used to reach their conclusions.


 * What objections do you have to this new article. We could work through any issues.


 * There were many factors that led to the First Fitna and the economic interests of the Khawarij were a very important factor in all this. These days there is no pure Khawarij sect, (Ibadiyya are different) therefore modern Muslims are less familiar with the Khawarij. But the old book are full of scholars trying to refute their ideology. I guess they did a good job of it, because there is no pure Khawarij sect left now. The khawarij are well documented. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Zabranos is blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) * is a ✅ sock of


 * My objections to the recent additions are discussed above in the section on the article needing a major rewrite. The article has excessive detail with little narrative flow tying it together.  Long passages appear to be cut and pasted in. Full conversations set forth, rather than summarized and put into context. An abrupt ending without conclusion or narrative integrating the information.  Even copy-editing it would be difficult as it is unclear what detail requires more weight and what should be discarded. Much of the detail appears to be irrelevant or of dubious value. For a general reader it is a daunting read, a jungle of detail with no discernible path through. It reads like dense history writing rather than an encyclopedic entry. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The new page is at Template:First Fitna. I will keep away from it for a month and let everyone else add their content. After two months, once everything is OK, we could go live with it. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The new page Template:First Fitna has been there for over a month now. Does any one else want to make any changes before we go live with it --Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has make any changes to it at all. As I wrote above, it is so packed with excessive detail, of dubious value, with no narrative, that editing without completely rewriting it is impossible. I object to adding further obscure detail to an article already over-burdened with a "story telling" tone. Simply waiting a month (or two, or more) does not make this mess any more encyclopedic. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Panaflex we have already spent a year going through these events and went through hundreds of books while working on the Muawiya page; which is related to this. We went through hundreds of old Muslim books written by people like Al-Waqidi and Ibn Hisham from 1300 years ago to Roman and Jewish books from the time, to books written by modern Western scholars. We have done a lot of work on this. This is the style in which many of these old books were written. I did not change the style of the text, incase the meaning changed. The style will change any way over time. It is not excessive detail, it is detail directly related to these events including the background. When the page goes live, over time, people will add more detail and it will change anyway. If you have other details please add them. You are also welcome to contribute. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Latter Part of this article
The section titled "After the peace treaty with Hassan the siege of Constantinople" and everything after it is copied from the Muawiyah article (I see this has been discussed from a copyright pov already and I don't know enough to comment on that). While I can see the relevance of most of that to the article on Muawiyah, I don't at all understand its relevance to an article on the First Fitna. The material concerning the appointment of Yazid as heir belongs in an article on the Second Fitna! The material on Umar II is even later. Furius (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Review: Suggestions to improve the article
I've just found this important article needs a lot of improvements. Most of the problem is the result of a wrong merging: -- Seyyed(t-c) 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving irrelevant information to the related articles: There are a lot of irrelevant information in this article which confuses the reader. I moved some of them to Arab–Byzantine wars and Muslim conquests. But it is not sufficient. After the peace treaty with Hassan the siege of Constantinople and the other conquests are almost completely irrelevant!!! Many years later: Marwan and Kharijites rule relates to the Second Fitna. Reforming the Umayyad rule peacefully from the inside relates to Umayyads.
 * The secondary source should be added: Some parts does not have any source while some others have primary source such as Hadith collection!
 * Structure: The structure should be reviewed. The reader may be surprised when finds family tree in the middle of the article! or "Sunni view of Uthman" below "Sabaites, Qurra and the Kharijities"!!!
 * some information about the main issues such as the Kharijites should be added.

This article is terrible
Which is a shame both because it's an interesting topic and because the talk page clearly shows that all the issues are extremely long-standing.

The article does not need multi-paragraph narrative quotations from the principal actors. It does not need long Quranic quotations to explain people's behaviour. It does not need Arabic translations. It does not need tangential anecdotes about travelling Jewish apostates. It does not need to be so long.

And that is ONE family tree, by the way, not two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.120.12 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm simply confused on the dates described.  Clearly islamic dates but I'm much used to those relative to BC so I've lost context from the dates.   Someone, please give better relative date references in the article. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Qurra"
Everything the article says about the "Qurra" is rubbish. The Bukhari Hadiths quoted refer to the qurra, plural of qari reciter (of the Quran). There is absolutely no connection between these and the Khawarij. Pjstewart (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on First Fitna. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031224027/http://quran.com/18 to http://quran.com/18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031221518/http://quran.com/63 to http://quran.com/63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The following remarks, from one year ago, are still highly topical :

This article is terrible

Which is a shame both because it's an interesting topic and because the talk page clearly shows that all the issues are extremely long-standing.

The article does not need multi-paragraph narrative quotations from the principal actors. It does not need long Quranic quotations to explain people's behaviour. It does not need Arabic translations. It does not need tangential anecdotes about travelling Jewish apostates. It does not need to be so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.114.32 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Fitna. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Fitna. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507092829/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72 to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=72
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212719/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
Recently, has begun going over my recent contributions on Wikipedia and reverting them without any explanation, e.g., my recent edits discussed in Talk:Ali. This can be traced back to a dispute Talk:Muhammad's children (which makes for an interesting read). Albertatiran (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Mark that vandalism tag on your actions. I did gave explanations and none of them had anything to do with what u did in another page. If that was the case then I would've done so in many other pages. Ishan87 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You degraded the article by reverting it to a much earlier version with unreliable sources such as Muawiya Restorer of the Muslim Faith without any concrete explanation. I also suspect that you're responsible for the recent unsourced edits from the IP address 69.47.221.69. Albertatiran (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Your suspicion is only result of your paranoia. I've no other IDs, I don't have the time or interest to make another ID just deal with some obsessed fools in the internet. Do not accuse others without evidence. For now I'm gonna allow your edits to stay bcz I'm bored. Ishan87 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ishan87 or thanks for nothing.   Sorry you are too lazy.  This article needs a lot of work - not based on my comments but from very many more. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, maybe what I said about the IP address was uncalled for. I apologize. Albertatiran (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead was rewritten by block-evading sockpuppet
@Albertatiran and other editors of this article: the lead was rewritten by block evading sockpuppet Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24 in this December 2021 edit. Would you please take a good hard look at it and remove and change things as necessary? It may be useful to know that the sockmaster generally edits from a tendentious anti-Shia point of view. Also please check the accuracy of this and this edit (Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24 is another range they've used). If you don't know that it's accurate and don't feel like verifying it, please just remove it. I personally lack the necessary background knowledge here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention, Apaugasma. I hope to address these issues over the weekend. Albertatiran (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The article lead certainly needed to be expanded. In that sense, the edits from this ip address here were perhaps justified though not everything in the lead can be paired with the cited content in the body of the article. They probably look ok for now but I also hope to edit/revise this and related articles in the coming months. I couldn't verify this edit, so this was undone for now (until a closer look during the revision). The addition of the Kharijites as a combatant here might also pass as ok. Albertatiran (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)