Talk:Mu'awiya I/Archive 4

Truce, Anatolia, sources given
He is right. The truce was that the Byzantines had to pay tribute to Mu’awiya, not the other way round. The correct source is given, unlike before which doesn’t say anywhere that it was Mu’awiya who had to pay tribute to the Byzantines. And the source says Mu’awiya had to withdraw from some of the islands he had conquered from the Byzantines coast, which was also part of the truce. So the new version actually makes sense. And as for southern Anatolia, yes that was also conquered by Mu’awiya and remained under Islamic rule for three hundred years. Ansar908716281 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And also the Book of Tang (Chinese source) also says it was the Byzantines who had to pay tribute to Mu’awiya, and not the other way round. All Mu’awiya had to do as part of the truce was to withdraw from some of the bases on the Byzantine coast. Ansar908716281 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you provide full references/quotes to the Book of tang? The terms are mentioned in Byzantine sources, like the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. I'm not sure if Arabic sources made note of it. Since Theophanes is known to have made a few false claims about Mu'awiya, I'd consider adding "According to Theophanes ... ". Wiqi(55) 19:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First, Ansar please stop removing long-standing material supported by scholarly, secondary sources. This is disruptive editing and will eventually result in a block or further page protections to prevent circumvention.


 * As to the substance of the edits, the only source I have seen you add is the one by Fusun Tulek-I am assuming he is reliable, but have not heard of him or looked into him. He writes “Thus, Plain Cilicia became a territory of Muslims after AD 673.” I will try to research him and this information in general when I have more time (something I have been lacking lately). In the meantime, unless there is objection, both positions could be mentioned: that Kaegi holds that the Muslims achieved no permanent territorial gains on the Anatolian front under Muawiya and that Tulek notes the Muslims held onto the Cilician plain from 673, a situation that persisted for a further three centuries. If there are further scholarly, secondary RS that support one position or the other, then we could further revise.


 * As to which side sued for peace and paid annual tribute at the end of his reign, the Lilie source has it that was the Caliphate, which makes sense, as only under Abd al-Malik’s latter rule did Muslim military supremacy return on that front and force the Byzantines into an unfavorable treaty. I added this material either from the Abd al-Malik article or the Siege of Constantinople (674–678) article, which are both of Featured quality. The original contributor was . Not sure if he is active these days, but it would be great to have him weigh in. I do not possess that source unfortunately and cannot read German anyway. Ansar has not shown that Lilie or any other reliable, secondary source has it that it was the Byzantines who were compelled to pay the annual tribute at the end of the 670s, yet he has added this in place of the sourced version. Al Ameer (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For details on the peace pacts between Mu'awiya and the Romans, see Suliman Bashear (1991) in Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times, p.200 Here is a summary: Wiqi(55) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) 650CE/30AH: First truce between Mu'awiya and Constans II. (Theophanes)
 * 2) 657-8CE/37-8AH: Second truce shortly before Siffin, (Theophanes and Arabic sources) Mu'awiya paid "one thousand nomismata, a horse and a slave per day" (Theophanes), "[Mu'awiya] agreed to pay them and took hostages whom he put in Ba'albakk" (Arabic Sources)
 * 3) 678CE/59AH: "Mu'awiya agreed to pay the annual sum of three thousand nomismata, fifty prisoners and fifty high bred horses" (Byzantine Sources: Theophanes and Nicephorus). This treaty is not mentioned in Arabic sources as far as I know and "not mentioned in Syriac sources". (, p.496)

Tribute was also given from the Byzantines to Mu’awiyah
From my research it is clear both sides paid some sort of tribute. The Book of Tang (I have given the source) also says the Byzantines paid tribute and gave gold and even silk to the Arabs. So I’ve left it as a truce, to be neutral. It wouldn’t make sense to leave it as only one side paying to the other. The Book of Tang cannot be ignored here. Ansar908716281 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Justice and piety of the Rashidun
The lead section should summarize the article. I think that the "Sunni tradition" should be mentioned in connection with Mu'awiya being criticized for his lack of "justice and piety", because that's the point of the section Mu'awiya_I. --Rsk6400 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Muawiyah is criticized for his piety only in the Shia tradition, whereas the Sunni tradition doesn't state he is impious, at least in the Sunni Ahadith and Sunni Aqeedah. Why do you bring up him being criticized for his "impiety" in Sunni Ahadith when that's clearly untrue? And if you wish to debate me on that topic extensively, my discord username is Mahmoud al-Athari and my tag is #8502. Since I didn't want to express any views, I added the word "allegedly" and you, for some reason, said that it's grammatically incorrect. How? You wish to fill up the article with your propaganda. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Article content is discussed on the respective talk pages, not elsewhere, in a civil manner (see WP:CIVIL), without personal attacks (see WP:PA). --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright then. You don't wanna debate there, sure. You still haven't explained how my initial edit was grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, you still haven't shown me how Mu'awiyah was criticized for his lack of oururry BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My previous reply was posted too quickly so it didn't make sense. I meant to say: "You still haven't shown how he was criticized for his lack of piety in Sunni Ahadith." BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * When I said that article content is discussed on talk pages, I was not referring to what I want or not, but to the rules of Wikipedia. Do you really think that "considered to be allegedly lacking" is good English ? My first comment above explains why I think "Sunni tradition" should be mentioned. In my understanding, ahadith is not the same as tradition. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits without proving I'm wrong? I asked you to prove two things: 1 - That my initial edit was grammatically incorrect. 2 - That Mu'awiyah is criticized in Sunni tradition. You proved neither and just told me to avoid the use of personal attacks. Calling someone out for propaganda and using personal attacks are two different things, buddy. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Do you think that's a grammatically valid statement?" Absolutely. I asked others and they agreed. "Sunni tradition isn't the same as Sunni Ahadith." Sunni Ahadith are a subset, since Fiqh, 'Aqeedah and others are also part of Sunni tradition. My point is: When was it part of Sunni tradition to criticize a Sahabi, let alone Mu'awiyah? BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the section "Muslim views". That section is sourced to a book by a modern scholar. And the lead section should summarize that correctly. That's how WP works. I'm no Muslim scholar, so please don't use technical terms of Muslim scholarship. The question here is only about historical scholarship and about how Wikipedia works. Please also take a look at WP:EW and WP:BRD. BTW: I didn't complain about your grammar. That's a problem of style and logic. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"BTW: I didn't complain about your grammar." You literally complained about my grammar initially. Wikipedia sent me a notification 2 days ago, stating that you reverted my initial edits because "considered to be allegedly lacking" is grammatically incorrect. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Please take a look at the Muslim views section." I did. They still do not answer my question: What's your proof that Mu'awiyah was/is consisted lacking in the piety of the Rashidun? Besides, you have all the time in the world to look up the terminology I used instead of saying that it's too complicated for you. Why are you even editing Wikipedia articles related to Islam if you don't know the basics? BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As of the time I am making this post, I'm glad that the article actually says he was criticized in later sources instead of Sunni tradition. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't complain about your "grammar". My edit summary, which you can still see in the page history, says, "'considered to be allegedly' is bad English". Once again, please avoid personal attacks. I'm quite sure that I know enough of "the basics" to edit this article. The only thing which has to be proven here is that the lead correctly summarizes the body.
 * I don't have access to Hoyland, but my wording in the lead was intended to summarize this sentence from the "Muslim views" section: In contrast to the four earlier caliphs, who are considered as models of piety and having governed with justice, Mu'awiya is not recognized as a rightly guided caliph (khalifa al-rashid) by the Sunnis. Why do you think it's not correct ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with the use of "Sunni tradition" (not in the source). The Muslim views section is also more nuanced, see "Nevertheless..". Moreover, Hoyland concludes that "many of [Mu'awiya's] contemporaries would have regarded him as a legitimate, divinely approved ruler on a par with his predecessors." (p.135) So I'm not sure why the view of Abbasid-era historians is notable for the first paragraph. It seems out of place, especially after a factual statement on numismatics. Wiqi(55) 20:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of the "Muslim view" could you not find in the source? If you are referring to the first sentence, attributed to Hoyland, it is there in the source: Later scholars were unanimous that whereas the caliphs in Medina (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali) had ministered to their subjects in fairness and piety, Mu‘awiya had transformed this just rule into dynastic and  autocratic dominion after the fashion of the Byzantine and Persian emperors. (Hoyland, In God's Path. p. 134) Please also see Humphreys, Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan, pp. 115ff. Regarding the contemporaries, yes majority of them likely had a positive view of him but they were most certainly not Sunnis, whereas in the mentioned section, we are talking about the Sunnis and Shi'ites. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find where criticism of his piety and justice is attributed to "the Sunnis" in general, as opposed to writers from a specific period. Hoyland even quotes al-Ya'qubi, who is a proto-Shia historian and doesn't represent Sunnis. The rest of the section ignores important Sunni perspectives, such as traditions praising Mu'awiya collected by Abu Nu'aym, or the apologetics of Ibn Khaldun, in addition to the Sunni dogma of the justice of the Sahaba. Wiqi(55) 04:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Wiqi: This idea of a golden age of just rule followed by tyranny gained traction only very slowly, but by the mid-ninth century it had become widespread and it entered the mainstream when the highly respected Baghdadi scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855) was won round to it.27 Those who accepted this historical vision called themselves Sunnis..." (Hoyland, In God's Path. p. 135); emphasis added. As for Abu Nu'aym's traditions, I haven't found a RS yet. If you have one, please feel free to add. Thanks. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 18:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Abu Nu'aym is one example, but there are others as EI2 explains: there is considerable admiration for him in the sources. (M. Hinds, "Mu'awiya", vol.7, p.268). Also, Hoyland is referring to the Rashidun vs what came after them, not Mu'awiya specifically: Mu‘awiya and his successors were depicted as tyrants? (p.134) . His focus is on the Rashidun concept, which itself disputed (see the recent Christopher Melchert article). Hoyland nowhere implies that Sunni Muslims criticize Mu'awiya, and all his successors, like Umar II, as unjust tyrants. We should find sources that are more focused on Mu'awiya's image in Sunni Islam. <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55) 22:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If you say that something is bad English, then that means that it's grammatically incorrect. Furthermore, the reason the statement isn't correct is because we consider all the Sahaba to be rightly guided. What type of Sunnis thinks that the Sahaba aren't rightly guided? You still provided no proof that Sunnis criticized him due to any lack of piety. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Mu’awiya is criticised even in Sunnism. The famous Sunni hadith collector An-Nasā’ī criticised him, and was even killed by Mu’awiya supporters (Ansar Mu’awiya). The Sunni Al-Shafi, who founded the Sunni Shafi madhab, also criticised Mu’awiya. Here is a link I found which you may find interesting proving that Sunnis historically condemned Mu’awiya - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PeIcONbDock. You can also read about them. I disagree with both Sunnis and Shias however. I believe Mu’awiya was a great man. Ansar908716281 (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a lie that an-Nasa'i criticized Mu'awiyah. He himself says: الإسلام كدار لها باب فباب الإسلام الصحابة فمن آذى الصحابة إنما أراد الإسلام، كمن نقر الباب إنما يريد الدخول، قال: فمن أراد معاوية فإنما أراد الصحابة "Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahabah. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahabah seeks to corrupt Islam, just like how he who knocks on a door seeks to enter the house. Whoever speaks ill of Mu'awiyah, seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahabah." End quote from Tahdheebil-Kamal v.1, p.109, narrator no.48. (Notice that the page number changes from one publication to another.) Besides, an-Nasa'i has a book called "Fada'il as-Sahabah" where he mentions the merits of the Sahabah generally, and nowhere did he say that Mu'awiyah is excempt, rather in the quote he himself emphasizes on Mu'awiyah being a sahabi, and that the sahabah are the doors to Islam. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And as for the video you posted, please be careful when seeking knowledge about Mu'awiyah from Shi'ah speakers. The fact that an-Nasa'i didn't record anything praising Mu'awiyah specifically doesn't necessarily mean he hated him, matter of fact he regarded him to be one of the doors to Islam as I have shown you, so his silence could be due to his ignorance of ahadith specifically praising Mu'awiyah. Matter of fact, we have only one report that's authentic which specifically mentions a merit. Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Abu 'Umairah - and he was one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): from the Prophet (ﷺ), that he said to Mu'awiyah: "O Allah, make him a guiding one, and guide (others) by him." Sunnah.com reference: Book 49, Hadith 242 قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏ "Abu 'Isa [i.e at-Tirmidhi] said:'This hadith is hasan ghareeb [implying authenticity and that he regarded that to be a merit of Mu'awiyah.]'" BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ب. وعن الجراح الموصلي قال : سمعتُ رجلاً يسأل المعافى بن عمران فقال : يا أبا مسعود ؛ أين عمر بن عبد العزيز من معاوية بن أبي سفيان ؟ فرأيته غضب غضباً شديداً ، وقال : لا يقاس بأصحاب محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أحد ، معاوية رضي الله عنه كاتبه وصاحبه وصهره وأمينه على وحيه عز وجل.

" الشريعة " للآجري ( 5 / 2466 ، 2467) It is narrated from Jarrah al-Mawsali that he heard a guy asking al-Mu'afa ibn 'Umran saying, "Oh, Aba Mas'ood, how is 'Umar ibn 'Abdil-'Aziz compared to Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan?" Thereupon he got very angry and said, "No one should be compared to the Sahabah of the prophet. Mu'awiyah - may Allah be pleased with him - is his scribe, companion..." End quote from ash-Sharee'ah by al-Aajiri (5/2466-2467) Why are you seeking information about the Sunni figure on Mu'awiyah from Shi'ah sources? That's like seeking knowledge about Judaism from a nazi lol. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Quote evidence from the Book of Tang
You can find the passage that the Byzantines also paid tribute to the Arabs in the Book of Tang, under the heading: ‘From the Chiu-t'ang-shu, ch. 198 (written mid-10th Century C.E.), for 618-906 C.E’. Here is the link: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/eastasia/romchin1.asp

Here is the English translation of the passage:

‘The emperor Yang-ti of the Sui dynasty [605-617 C.E.] always wished to open intercourse with Fu-lin (Byzantines), but did not succeed. In the 17th year of the period Cheng-kuan [643 C.E.], the king of Fu-lin Po-to-li [Constans II Pogonatus, Emperor 641-668 C.E.] sent an embassy offering red glass, lu-chin-ching [green gold gems], and other articles. T'ai-tsung [the then ruling emperor] favored them with a message under his imperial seal and graciously granted presents of silk. Since the Ta-shih [the Arabs] had conquered these countries they sent their commander-in-chief, Mo-i [Mo'awiya], to besiege their capital city (Constantinople); by means of an agreement they obtained friendly relations, and asked to be allowed to pay every year tribute of gold and silk; thus they became subject to Ta-shih (the Arabs).’

Translation source: From: F. Hirth, China and the Roman Orient: Researches into their Ancient and Mediaeval Relations as Represented in Old Chinese Records (Shanghai & Hong Kong, 1885), pp. 35-96.

Scanned and edited by Dr. Jerome S. Arkenberg, Department of History, California State University Fullerton. The text has been modified by Dr. Arkenberg. [Any modernization © 2000 Jerome S. Arkenberg. Ansar908716281 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Now this is incredible that Byzantines paid tribute to Mu'awiya and Arab historians didn't bother to mention. This view needs vetting by academic historians. You are using a primary source to outweigh a secondary academic source. Read guidelines on sourcing. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2021
Izaan Haider (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC) i want to edit
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Final push
Plan on FAC shortly with you as co-nom. In your opinion, is there anything left for us to do here? Personally, I think we should elaborate (another sentence or two) about the matter with Hasan ibn Ali. Thoughts? Al Ameer (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (i) Yes you are right about Hasan thing. (ii) I think a short footnote mentioning that the episode of assassination attempt is doubted by historians (Vaglieri, Della Vida, and perhaps also Wellhausen, although I'm not sure) should be added. (iii) I had originally thought that the historical assessment of Yazid's nomination would suit here, instead of Yazid I. But it seems to me now that the article is significantly long, and addition of Hasan thing, and this thing would make it too long. So I think this can be dropped. Maybe I will create a spin-off someday. Other than these, I cannot think of anything worth note. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 14:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I elaborated a bit on Mu'awiya's move against Hasan. It is in a new section called Accession. Feel free to deduct or add. Also, please add that footnote when you have the chance. I will proceed to nominate. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it best to just attribute the attack and maqsura thing to Tabari instead of adding a footnote. The ret seems good. Thanks. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 15:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article extended-protected?
Why is this article extended-protected? Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and even Yazid I's article's are not extended protected so why's this? Al-Saaba 7:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because of persistent vandalism and edit warring. Al Ameer (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seal of Muawiya dismissing Abd Allah ibn Amir as governor.jpg

Greek inscription from Syria
Is there any way that this image, File:Greek Muawiya inscription of Hammat Gader, 663 AD.png, could be permissible to use in this article? It is an inscription dating to 663, unique in that it's the only epigraphic evidence of Mu'awiya's rule in Syria, and the only time we see this caliph in a Greek inscription. I do not know the current whereabouts of the inscription, probably in the possession of the Israel Antiquities Authority, so near impossible for someone to photograph. The source of the picture is a 1981 article in the Israel Exploration Journal. Because it's so old, I wonder if it could also be considered two-dimensional and thus permissible. If not, any chance a Fair Use rationale would be successful? Your advice is appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a borderline case, perhaps it should be brought up at the Commons copyright village pump, where the real experts roam... FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Took your advice. As this is a low-relief or bas-relief image inscription, looks like it qualifies as two-dimensional. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

We us straight apostrophe (') for both hamza and ayn in basic transcription
please stop what you're doing. Site-wide convention is to use a straight apostrophe (') for both hamza and ayn in basic transcription. There's no need to change this article to another style and make it inconsistent with other articles. Please consider self-reverting. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see not using either if it's anglicized, like in "Hawaii" or "Quran", but why purposefully make it wrong? Esp. in a FA? But I'll stop. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the original reason for this is that article titles are preferred to only contain straight apostrophes. From WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS: various apostrophe(-like) variants (’ ʻ ʾ ʿ ᾿ ῾ ‘ ’), should generally not be used in page titles. A common exception is the simple apostrophe character (', same glyph as the single quotation mark) itself (e.g. Anthony d'Offay), which should, however, be used sparingly.
 * It seems to me that this has been interpreted to mean that hamzas and ayns are important enough to be represented in article titles (they are real consonants that significantly impact pronunciation), but not important enough to use something different from ' as advised by the MOS (most English speakers wouldn't know how to pronounce ayn anyway, and pronounce it in the same way as hamza, i.e. as a glottal stop). From there, articles themselves were probably made consistent with article titles: if the article title uses the straight apostrophe for hamza or ayn, then it would be weird not to do the same throughout the article. And so it came to be that we use straight apostrophe for both hamza and ayn throughout Wikipedia...
 * Now WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS continues: If, exceptionally, other variants are used, a redirect with the apostrophe variant should be created. I think a good case could be made to actually allow using strict transliteration (see WP:MOSAR) in article titles (including not only ʿ for ayn and ʾ for hamza, but also ḥ ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ā ū ī) and turn the current article titles using basic ASCII and straight apostrophe into redirects. That would also be an incentive to use strict transliteration throughout articles, or at least to get the distinction between hamza and ayn correct in basic transcription. But unquestionably, a broader discussion should be had before we start implementing something like this. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by AhmadLX, we apparently have also fixed this convention in MOS:ISLAM: The characters representing the ayin (ع) and the hamza (ء) are not omitted (except when at the start of a word) in the basic form, both represented by the straight apostrophe (').
 * You also changed Qur'an to Quran in one instance. I guess we do have a convention of using Quran and Quranic rather than Qur'an and Qur'anic, though I'm not immediately finding anything about this beyond Manual of Style. Not sure if I should change this, so leaving it open for comments on the talk page. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022
It is wrote this line: Mu'awiya and his father Abu Sufyan had opposed Muhammad. This is wrong Muawiah was a Khalifa and in the khilafat when simeone maker a decision and that turns out a wrong one then this mistake is called an ijtihadi mistake it doesn't mean that they opposed the Prophet. So please delete this line. And If you say that you are right then give a solid evidence Thanx Owais.Madani95 (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Seems to be covered and sourced in Mu'awiya I Cannolis (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022
Please add the reign template infront of Ali, since there is reign templates infront of the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, so why not have a reign template on the fourth caliph 119.73.112.164 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Extended-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The intro
The term “tide turned” is incorrect and baseless. Even after the siege of Constantinople the Arabs continued ruling parts of the once Byzantine Anatolia (such as Cilicia). Thus the Arabs were still ruling parts of Anatolia even after the siege and throughout Mu’awiyah’s rule lol Loverofediting (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the summary in the lead read: "Externally, he engaged his troops in almost yearly land and sea raids against the Byzantines, including a failed siege of Constantinople, though the tide turned against the Arabs toward the end of his reign and he sued for a truce." You removed "though the tide turned against the Arabs toward the end of his reign and he sued for a truce", citing you explanation above. However, the article itself contains the following, very well-referenced information:


 * "Under Emperor Constantine IV (r. 668–685), the Byzantines began a counteroffensive against the Caliphate, first raiding Egypt in 672 or 673, while in winter 673, Mu'awiya's admiral Abd Allah ibn Qays led a large fleet that raided Smyrna and the coasts of Cilicia and Lycia. The Byzantines landed a major victory against an Arab army and fleet led by Sufyan ibn Awf, possibly at Sillyon, in 673 or 674. The next year, Abd Allah ibn Qays and Fadala landed in Crete and in 675 or 676, a Byzantine fleet assaulted Maraqiya, killing the governor of Homs. In 677, 678 or 679 Mu'awiya sued for peace with Constantine IV, possibly as a result of the destruction of his fleet or the Byzantines' deployment of the Mardaites in the Syrian littoral during that time. A thirty-year treaty was concluded, obliging the Caliphate to pay an annual tribute of 3,000 gold coins, 50 horses and 30 slaves, and withdraw their troops from the forward bases they had occupied on the Byzantine coast."


 * Do you have any sources that contradict this information and justify your removing a summary of it from the lead? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a summary on the peace pacts between Mu'awiya and the Romans.. Apparently, the peace treaty of 678CE is not mentioned in Arabic or Syriac sources. Some suggested that it has no historical basis: "Jankowiak 2013, 254–56, has convincingly argued that there is no historical basis for Muʿāwiya’s alleged 30-year peace treaty with Constantine IV of 58/677–78 or 59/678–79." I have yet to read Jankowiak's arguments, but given these doubts we should consider not mentioning this treaty in the lead. <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55) 22:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point, imo. However, I am not sure if Jankowiak's argument has become the common or accepted version. While this definitely needs to be mentioned in the body, I am not sure if we should delete the bit about the treaty from the lead. Any thoughts? Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem with not mentioning it in the lead. We can end the sentence right after 'failed siege of Constantinople'. On the rest, Jankowiak is, once a again, an interesting and valuable revisionist view, but it is not yet consensus. Constantine  ✍  06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We should mention his view in the article body. But it hasn't become the mainstream view yet, so IMO the current lead shouldn't be changed on its basis. Challenges to the established versions of historical events occur all the time. When the peers of the proponents accept the arguments, we follow suit. Until then, we stick to the mainstream view, while noting the challenge in the article body. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 11:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cplakidas's suggestion sounds reasonable. I doubt there is a clear consensus about this treaty in recent scholarship. The quote above describes it as an "alleged" treaty and further deems Jankowiak's arguments as convincing. Could you please cite a recent source that rejects Jankowiak's arguments concerning this treaty? And considering its absence from Arabic sources and later events, what makes it significant for the lead of Mu'awiya's biography? <b style="color: #4682B4;">Wiqi</b><sup style="color: #99BADD;">(55) 19:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Its absence is enough proof that it is dubious anyway. And revisionist views are only accepted from experts with a respectable degree. I wouldn't trust a random person on Wikipedia trying to disprove scientists when they themselves are not scientists. Period. Get a degree or have fun lurking on Wikpedia. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)