Talk:Ridda Wars

[Untitled]
I am removing the external link; it is not what I would consider a credible source, it has little information related to this article, and it is strongly biased. Take, for instance, this quote from the article: "One shudders to think what would have been the fate of Islam, if Abu Bakr had, God forbid, failed in suppressing apostasy." Definitely not neutral. I'm replacing it with link to a short history of the insurgencies during Abu Bakr's rule. Kafziel 14:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this article on Wikipedia? It appears to be legend passed off as a historical account. I think after the introductory lines acknowledging the lack of evidence or consensus, the article should end. Or perhaps insert, "One version is..." [MP] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.79.161 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Death and taxes
From http://www.persocite.com/Orient/osullivan1.htm

''The main reasons for the rise of apostasy being utilised as a source to kill those who are perceived of having left Islam, are often argued to have been derived from the circumstances following the death of Prophet Muhammad. When the Prophet died in 11AH/632AD, the new, early administration of the Islamic community faced a very dangerous situation, of some crisis. Widespread disorder arose throughout the Arabian peninsula, with many tribes refusing to pay forth their zakat. However, the tribes defended themselves stating that they had remained as devout believers within Islam, because they claimed that paying zakat was not one of the ‘Five Pillars’ of Islam. They also believed that the zakat was merely a tax to be paid to the government, which is why they refused to do so, as their commitment was to God’s Prophet, as opposed to an elected leader. However, this whole period of battles at that time, as repercussions to this refusal to pay the zakat tax, became known as Al-Ridda : The War of Apostasy.

--Striver 16:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Muslim view
"Most non-Muslims have a view close to the Sunni view."

Actually, most non-Muslims know nothing of this dispute and have no opinion. I'm a non-Muslim, and I don't know much, but from what I've heard, I'm unwilling to uncritically accept the claim of either party.

Timothy Usher 07:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FALSE PROPHET???
There's a line in this article about a "false prophet". It seems absurd that a quasi-scholarly ;) article would state as fact opinions as to the merits of prophets. Couldn't someone come up with a better phrase?  I haven't yet read the entire piece, but a reader starting out with this phrase expects little in the way of objectivity from the rest of it.

Adam Holland 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole second section is unintelligable
I can't understand it. The grammar needs to be cleaned up.

I completly agree. Half the sentences make absolutly no sense and any information in the article is lost in the mire of confusion this article creates. Hopefully, someone with knowledge on this subject can help this article, which is perhaps the worst article I have ever read on Wikipedia. 71.17.19.139 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shi'a View
There is absolutely no credible evidence for Shi'a belief that the "Apostate" tribes were withholding their alleigance to Medina out of support for Ali's claim for the Caliphate, yet this article presents it as though it were a reasonable, fact-based conclusion.

What are you saying? That the Shi'ia's are wrong? Well then we can add "this is disputed." NPOV, remember, which in the end means your point of view gets a place equal to everyone esles Fudk (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikify & Syle
I added the Wikify template. This article needs a lot of work. Seems particularly biased (just check the lead paragraphs) and obviously not written by a native speaker of English (which isn't to say they are wrong). I wish I knew more about it to be able to research this more properly.

Too bad, I was looking forward to reading about it.

I've changed the Medinahs and Makkas to Medina and Mecca. That is how the cities are referred to in English. Bahrain was also written as "Behrain" (which wikilinked to a 1 line article about Pakistan). 翔太 「Shouta:talk」 22:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it now? J S Ayer (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PLAGIARISM
Hello. I didn't know much about the ridda wars and was reading a book (a pretty biased one at that) and was supplementing its information using wiki. I found large sections of this Wiki page are plagiarised and directly paraphrased from a book called "Khalid bin Al-Waleed. Sword of Allah. A biographical study of one of the greatest military generals in history. Author Liet-Gen. A. I. Akram. First Published 1969, version in my hand published 2007 edited by A.B. al-Mehri 2007, publisher Maktabah Booksellers Birmingham." Chapter 12 and a few later chapters have had whole sentences / paragraphs and lists that have been copied ditto and are unattributed to the book. It's sad that the list of commanders sent by Abu Baker to fight the 'apostates' is directly lifted from the book as are other sections. It's really quite sad when people lift stuff from other books and do not attribute it. It's really important as the book in question is a hero-worshipping book about a Khalid bin Al-Waleed, and it also makes it clear that he also did some rather barbaric things to people like burning them alive on the instructions of Abu Baker, a fact the author of the book suggests is perfectly acceptable as the people were 'infidels'. Wiki is about correctly sourced thoughts and ideas not dogma being passed off illicitly using covert means of propaganda for a religious viewpoint. It's pathetic.

Just thought I'd pass the message on. And no I am not the author. I imagine he is probably long since dead as he was a general somewhere in the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDITOR124000 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

6 commands by Abu Bakr - completely unsourced
Under the heading "Campaign of Apostasy", at the end there is a list of 6 alleged commands by Abu Bakr. Where did this come from? Why isn't there a single reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.36.227.146 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see this in secondary sources, including EI2 which also cautions about the contradictory and tendentious primary sources (used uncritically in this article in violation of WP:PRIMARY). Hence I've removed this passage. Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone know where this originally came from? The original authors are inactive.

Apart from their specific objectives, the corps commanders were given the following instructions: −		 −	−	−	−	−	−	−		 −	With these instructions Abu Bakr launched the forces of his Caliphate against the apostates.
 * 1) Seek the tribes which are your objectives
 * 1) Call the Azaan.
 * 1) If the tribe answers with the Azaan, do not attack. After the Azaan, ask the tribe to confirm its submission, including the payment of zakat. If confirmed, do not attack.
 * 1) Those who submit will not be attacked.
 * 1) Those who do not answer with the Azaan, or after the Azaan do not confirm full submission, will be dealt with by the sword.
 * 1) All apostates who have killed Muslims will be killed.

Oz freediver (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mohammad adil-Riddah warcs.png

"Ridda wars"
Someone explain the reasoning for "wars" being uncapitalized in the article's title. Supposedly it was changed to this to fit Wikipedia conventions, but this doesn't seem to be the case with major articles on other wars (see Wars of the Roses, Anglo-Dutch Wars, French Wars of Religion, Northern Wars. —General534 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, that was so big I didn't notice it. You're right - I'd support a Move... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ridda wars → Ridda Wars For some reason, 'wars' is uncapitalized in the article's title. It should be capitalised as most major articles on other wars have capitalised wars (Wars of the Roses, Anglo-Dutch Wars, French Wars of Religion, Northern Wars. Mohhsiinn (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support; nice move and Google Ngrams results also show Ridda Wars over Ridda wars. [See here]
 * Support; agreed Ahendra (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, this is about a specific series of wars, not just wars in general involving Ridda. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Ngrams results don't seem very reliable. For example, if I precede each phrase with "the" (as it would appear in running text), then "Ridda wars" narrowly prevails in recent usage: . But regardless, MOS:CAPS doesn't say that whatever capitalization is more prevalent automatically wins. It requires consistently capitaliz[ation] in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources, which sets a higher threshold for capitalization than not. Also, the first page of Google Scholar results generally uses the lower-case version: . Rublov (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are the first Ngrams unreliable? Yes Ngrams for 'the Ridda wars' slightly prevails capitalised 'Ridda Wars'. Google Scholar's first page generally favors 'Ridda Wars' in a majority of independent, reliable and secondary sources such as Hargrove. Mohhsiinn (talk) 17:39 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , the Ngrams are not very reliable because making one small change which should not materially affect the result in fact does materially affect the result. On Google Scholar I see 7 out of 10 results on the first page use the lower-case version. I don't find the evidence presented so far to be conclusive, which is why I have refrained from voting, but no one has yet demonstrated that a substantial majority of sources fully capitalize the title. Other wars like the Syrian civil war use a lower-case title for exactly this reason. Rublov (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased and speculative article
Throughout the article all prophets except Mohammed are dismissed as phonies. Calling them "self-proclaimed prophets" gives the impression that Mohammed was ordained by God while the others were fakes. No encyclopedia can makes such claims.

The duty of Wikipedia is to be impartial. Accepting a claim of prophecy as "genuine" while denouncing the authenticity of others who made the same claim is a biased approach. If these people were only "self-proclaimed" they would not have any followers, armies etc. and dealing with them would be quite easy for Muslims. The fact that these bloody wars lasted for years is proof alone of their ability as religious leaders. Of course, their claims were not accepted by the Meccan ruling class of the time but their feelings on this issue does not matter at all. These people were considered as genuine prophets for many and denouncing this fact should not have a place in Wikipedia, a medium which claims to be neutral.

This article should be rewritten. The sources are quite archaic, as well. They do not tell much about the social, economic and political aspects of the wars and depict them merely as a religious conflict between a "real" and "fake" prophets). 85.97.55.130 (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)