Talk:Early Muslim conquests

message: In wikipedia the title of the page along with its content should be OBJECTIVE and Neutral. Those conquests were made by Arabs cavalry, but not Kazakh cavalry. Many Kyrgyz and Kazakh people are Muslim, but they did not made a conquest in 7th century. What about Japanese, Indonesian or Korean Muslims? They also did not made this conquest. So, the term or phrase Muslim conquests is very religious and non-objective. What about Christian conquest made by Russian, English or French Emperors? The were many Christian conquests made by Christian kings and Emperors, but the phrase Christian conquests seems very strange. What about today's Persian and Bashkir Muslims? They did not made this conquest in 7th century. What about Hui tzi muslims in China, they also did not this conquest in 7th century.
  So, the title should be changed to "Arab conquests" or "Arabian conquests". 
This title is more objective and neutral and fits wikipedia rule of neutralness.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Засимме (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Change title to Arab conquests

message: Today hardly anyone knows (or even believes upon being told) that the world's most populous Muslim nation is ... surprise surprise, Indonesia. Not Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan. And Malaysia isn't far behind either. However, there is almost ZERO mention of the Islamic conquest of South-east Asia on Wikipedia. Can somebody well-versed with the history of this topic (Islamization of South-east Asia) please write some relevant articles (and extend existing ones such as this)? Thank you.
Yea you're right. As of National Geographic 2009 estimates, over 207 million people have adopted the Islamic faith in Indonesia, making it the world's largest Muslim poulation. Thats 86% of Indonsia's population. - Mostly Sunni Muslim. There is a good Wikipedia artcle called: Islam in Indonesia Vought109 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article Tariqah: Much of central Asia and southern Russia was won over to Islam through the missionary work of the ṭarīqahs, and the majority of Indonesia's population, where a Muslim army never set foot, was converted to Islam by the perseverance of both Muslim traders and Sufi missionaries. Sufism also played an instrumental role in spreading Islam in South Asia.Schimmel, Annemarie (1975). Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 346. . Regards--Shahab (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic conquest of South-east Asia

message: I've added the following:
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view.Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
I added it because the article is very European and Arab based.  It ignores completely the Muslim battles which spread Islam into Central Asia and China.  It also seems to imply that the conquests ended in the 8th century.  But the ottomans spread Islam to the Balkans much later via battles. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't limit its scope in geography; that limits its scope in time.  This is intentional; the article is about the initial Muslim conquests.  If you want other Muslim conquests, perhaps a disambiguation page and/or a title change is in order.  But adding conquests of later centuries (by Ottomans, for example) would make the article worse in my opinion.  After all, the Fall of Constantinople is closer in history to the present day than it is to the fall of the Umayyad caliph.  As far as other parts of Asia go, there's some in the article, and I added a bit more based on other Wikipedia articles.  I don't think any Chinese battles could be called "conquests."  So I think it's safe to remove the tag, unless you have an argument as to why it should stay. Calbaer 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tag

message: This article seems to be a bit confused about what it's doing. If I understand correctly it really should be a military history article, so the extensive sidebar providing a theological description of Islam seems inappropriate. The quotation at the start might go well in the article on the Umayyad Caliphate, but doesn't fit here. The article on Byzantine-Arab wars should probably extend past 750AD but this article can still point to it as the source for detailed information on the conquests. My intention is to write the Byzantine-Arab wars article and come back here some day perhaps. Input solicited. DavidBofinger 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can use the help to redefine the focus and hone the Byzantine-Arab section, it was a lot more confused and all over the place earlier. Basically i restructured it to capture the umayyad period and the rashidun timeframe when the muslims were a singular political entity, and serve as a portal, as per the Early Muslim Expansions template. Then just did a summary to transition to to the Abassids and the fracturing of the singular entity to the present as a legacy of the early expansions, trying to mention some of the important later political entities. The entire military history of muslim lands was in shambles and I was trying to sort out into some sort of order really and this was the first stop!--Tigeroo 16:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts we have most of the pieces already: e.g., conquest of North Africa, conquest of Egypt. What we need is some holes filled in (conquest of Syria-Palestine in more detail; conquest of Armenia; others?) and then maybe we can scratch the Byzantine-Arab wars article. 203.23.157.89 10:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: Note the titel of the Article is MUSLIM CONQUESTS, NOT INITIAL CONQUESTS. It is therefore important to include all of the wars that they saw as holy, although that may be quite a few...
None of these wars were seen holy. They were conquest wars, like those of many other peoples. They were not religious war in the sense of fighting against other religions, and also the term jihad, not used at the time of the early conquests, does not mean "holy war", even in its figurative meaning.
--Arabist 12:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means struggle for the faith. Of course they were holy wars, they were attempts to spread the word of the Islamic prophet.Tourskin 05:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TITLE 

message: "and recaptured the Muslim lands " Anatolia was not a Musliam land, whatever the hell that means anyways. It was a Byzantine territory briefly occupied by the Arabs. Lands do not belong to a religion but a political faction - people, keep this article free from ny religious bias. Tourskin 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This above statement has absolutely nothing do with what I just said. Anatolia was never a Muslim land to begin with so how could it be recaptured? What is the point? The idea that the Greeks ceded Anatolia to the Persians is absolute nonesense - the Persian Empire subjugated the local Greek cities such Pergamum (wrongly spelling but who cares) and the Greeks remained there, right until the Greek Empires of Seleucia emerged in the region following Alexander's death. Of course to say that only the Greeks broke treaties is nonesense and the above for all I know is a random person's statement. The Greeks Never ceded the territory. In Antiquity there was no such territorial loss by the Greeks to the persians, only loss of independence. Persian conquests thousands of years ago are not Muslim conquests - please don't make me laugh. The Persians thousands of years ago and the Arabs of the 6th century are completely different - don't insult westerners by saying that we can't tell the difference because we damn well can.
Further moore, I never said the land belonged to the Romans or Greeks, I said it belongs to a Political faction.
Finally, have the courtesy of signing your name, so I know who you are.Tourskin 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral 

message: The Casusbelli for all these wars was for Allah. The Reasons may have been economic or political or whatever.Tourskin 17:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get it right people - Reasons are different from Casus Belli 

message: I noticed the history section starts with the Byzantine-Arab wars (634), then regresses with the Perso-Arab wars (633), the year before. Was it intended to be out of sequence, or is it ok for me to put them in the correct order?
Also, I believe the Persio-Arab wars began a few years earlier than 633, because the Arabs took Yemen (Himyar) from the Persians in 630, according to the History of Yemen, Sassanid period section. I'd like to make those corrections sometime during the next week, unless anyone else has edits already planned. Thomas Lessman (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section out of order

message: The map (self work) of Europe in 800 is incorrect. It omits the presence of the Bulgarian Empire of Khan Krum the Terrible, which at this time was one of the three large empires in Europe, situated right between Charlemagne and Byzantium.
Please check, verify and correct it or simply remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.182.134 (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not delete content until others have had an opportunity to read your comment and understand your reasoning.  It would also be helpful if you would use an edit summary.  Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Now, having looked at the map, I see no problem.  The Bulgarian Empire to which you refer would be superfluous on this map, since it does not border the Mediterranean, which is the subject of the map.  It is not a map of Europe, per se.  Read the caption.  Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map of Europe in 800 is incorrect! 

message: I am considering entering a section for this in the article, providing different theories. Thoughts?  (stay calm please) Maxkbennett (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The motivations of the Islamic conquests

message: The very existence of this article challenges the notion of NPOV. When Wikipedia has a page dedicated to "Muslim Conquests" yet "Christian Conquests" redirects to "Christian History" it seems bias and bigotry are afoot. We either need a page dedicated to the "conquests" of all religions of similar global influence (Abrahamic religions? I don't believe Hindus have ever launched thousands of years of holy wars and crusades) and history or this should be merged into the Muslim History articles. Anything less is a glaring hole in Wikipedia's claims of neutrality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down please! These unnecessary feelings of Christian inferiority! I was just going to say something similar, except I believe the problem is not any "conspiracy" nor any "bigotry", but instead a lack of depth regarding various forces behind expansionism from countries regarded as Muslim. I'm not quite sure the motivating forces behind all these Muslim expansions are the same, like the Christian expansions were mostly motivated by political gain, and in the case of the Crusades, possibly a means to unite Christianity so as to relieve it from potential internal conflicts. When the article matures, I would propose that the article is splitup and the expansion periods are treated in separate articles. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It had been over 6 months without action on this item. Rhetoric aside, this is a pretty big discrepancy. Both religions (among others) had periods of conquest. To have one singled out as history while the other redirects to a more general "history" section seems unfortunate. Much if not all of this content is contained in the Muslim history article, so this is not only redundant, but its existence in counterpoint to the way Christianity is handled, does raise a question of POV. I recommend that this article be merged with Muslim history and that musluim conquests should redirect to there. Jbower47 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a real problem. We surely have crusades, reconquista, etc. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main flaw with the article is because of the key distinction between the initial conquests and later ones. Although Islam was indeed important throughout, the fist conquests are better referred to as the 'Arab conquests'. To do otherwise is to create a false equation between 'Arab' and 'Muslim', which is a distinction that historians have been keen to emphasize in the last few decades (contrast with Pirenne). The situation which followed these conquests was one in which a relatively secular and decentralized empire controlled vast regions. It was only in the later seventh century under Abd al-Malik that the Arab empire became centralized and more 'Muslim' in character. In 750, when the Abbasids took over, the focus of the empire shifted eastwards and 'Arab' ethnicity less important than shared religion to the empire. Hence to redirect 'Arab conquests' to this page is worrying and bears no relation to the historical circumstances. Any attempt to equate the conquests of the seventh century with Ottoman invasions is nonsensical. Welshsaint55 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Hinduism can be thought of as the institutionalization of the Aryan conquests of thousands of years ago and maintaining the status of the invaders through the caste/varna system. Ask the dravidians/lower castes/untouchables/tribal peoples if they don't feel like they've been the brunt of thousands of years of conquest and occupation. The criticism of this page is that it is cheerleading and whitewashing. Don't fall into the same trap. —joeFriday— {talk}  23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title/existence of this article 

message: The text states that the Muslim empire extended as far east as China. This is problematic as the western extent of China varies with time. The map shows an area that misses China (at the time of the map) by a thousand miles or so. These should be consistent.MartinRinehart (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  China in the east? 

message: I GADIID 
I wonder why the author/s of this article trying to hide the role of abysinia king and the people who were living the shores of SOMALILAND or GULF of ADEN, those people became muslims before MAKKA people did, archiologically proven by the mosque in SAYLAC which has 2 qiblah, it was first HIJRAH  went to eithopia(abysinia) and some of the people plus their KING Ahmed Negashi take Islam without so-call CONQUEST yet you cannot have the guts to put on your make-up MAP at least to pretend that you are neutral, academic and historian fellow. Thanxz for trying to cover your bare little hand against the sun light alike.
I Gadiid
Hargeisa Somaliland  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.255.28 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  absolutly rename it the military history article  

message: The first sentence of the article says the conquests started under Muhammad, but the article doesn't include anything whatsoever regarding this period. It begins with the Rashidun Caliphate. I'll contribute an extremely trivial improvement in the form of a wikilink to the relevant article on Muhammad's military history, but the article remains incomplete. --67.180.106.165 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "began under Muhammad" 

message: This is a query, not a demand.  This article barely mentions the words "crusade" and "jihad". Would it be worthwhile to add a section discussing whether and by whom these terms are seen as different from Muslim conquests? To me, a non-specialist, "crusade" and "jihad" seem to both mean "holy war" or "holy struggle".  Is our use of these labels merely dependent on which side we sit? Though it would be a non-traditional use of these terms, could the Muslim conquest of North Africa be described as a crusade or a jihad? If this is not appropriate for this article, leave it alone. Trying to understand. Pete unseth (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two terms that should possibly be addressed 

message: User:Torontas is using the source, Sykes, Percy, History of Persia, Vol. 1, (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1969), pg. 492, to include "Arab Christians" in the article. I will ask Torontas to provide a quote from the source stating that Arab Christians were at the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be on 493, actually; it's on Google Books, if you can view it. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "At first the advantage lay with the assailants, but Mothanna, among whose allies was a Christian chief, made a great charge which broke the Persian centre". Is this the sentence you are referring to? Which is mentioned by Sykes after the Battle of the Bridge, which would be chronologically incorrect and the "Arab Christians" fought with the Sassanids at Firaz, not against them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True...also the book isn't from 1969 (I guess that's a reprint date, it's clearly from the 19th century), and Sykes isn't really an historian. Certainly there are better and more recent histories of Persia that would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then "Arab Christians" should be removed from the article until Torontas provides a quote or better source with a quote. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's also in the archives at . His other source, Rosenwein, Barbara H. (2004). A Short History of the Middle Ages, doesn't seem to mention this at all. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am here because Torontas left a note on my talk page. I'm not sure if this is about facts or sources. I have no opinion on Torontas's sources. If they are out of date, then they are. John W. Jandora (1985), "The Battle of the Yarmūk: A Reconstruction", Journal of Asian History 19 (1): 8–21, places a Christian Arab force under Jabalah ibn al-Aiham at that battle on the Byzantine side. See here for a source placing the Sassanids' Christian Arab allies at Firaz. Both the Byzantines and the Sassanids had their Christian Arab clients, the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids. I don't generally care about infoboxes, but there's no reason (if we are going to put the Visigoths in) that we cannot put these two client kingdoms in. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the source Torontas used and a quote to prove the source states "Arab Christians". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True. It seems easy to find sources that do mention them. I reverted because it is essential that sources directly back the text for which they are used. Thanks to Srnec for those sources. I also don't like infoboxes but if we must we must and he seems right about that also. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake source 

message: Almost all literature I've read refers to the conquests at the end of antiquity as the "Arab conquests". Why is this article titled "Muslim conquests"? Does the title of this article come from an English translation of the Arabic term for these conquests? If so it should be changed. We should use the term that most English language writers use. Search "Arab conquests,Muslim conquests" on Google Ngram viewer to compare the usage. Brianbleakley (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That hasn't been my experience. As a matter of fact, the later the period discussed the more Kurdish, Persian, Greek, Turkic, non-Arabized Egyptians, Berber, and other non-Arab peoples can be found in the Muslim armies. What "literature" are you reading? GraniteSand (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course the ethnic composition changes, but I'm not trying to argue a historical point. I only mean to argue that the term "Arab Conquests" is more common in English. I'm sure we all read books that use one term or another, but look here Google Ngrams: "Arab conquests" and "Muslim conquests" to see what term is more common across the language as a whole. Brianbleakley (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a cool tool, I need to play around with it some. Regardless, the stats you've provided don't filter by the scope of the topic or meaningfully contextualize what are simply titles. Even if they did, we don't use internet search analytics to define scope or establish weight in reliable sources. This is an article about the Muslim (Caliphate) conquests of the 7th to 11th centuries, not Arab conquests. GraniteSand (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this article "Arab Conquests" 

message: The first sentence seems to be incomplete. It ends with a comma, and isn't an actual sentence. BRIAN0918 19:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Any objections to removing these sections, which are clearly beyond the scope of the article, as indicated by the lead and info box? This article should really be renamed "Arab conquests" (as discussed above) or "Early Muslim conquests". Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete out of scope sections? (Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360, Decline and collapse: 1800–1924) 

message: We typically list estimated casualties/deaths on wars/conquests. Any good sources on numbers?  (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt Wikipedia would actually allow to post it.  Norum 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Estimating historical death tolls is a tricky business in the best circumstances, and this is about a whole series of wars over decades. The Mongol invasions and conquests page lacks death toll and strength comparisons as well. They're more relevant for discrete campaigns (if good sources can be found - the early Caliphates didn't have the Chinese or Roman  predilection for census-taking so far as I know). 97.120.99.190 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The webpage https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/ suggests Muslims have killed 270 million non-Muslims.  And that'd only be half the death toll, since it doesn't include the Muslims who were killed when they were in the process of killing non-Muslims.  Although it includes recent deaths, in addition to the early conquests.  And it holds Muslims responsible for the African slave trade across the Atlantic to Christian countries, which is a bit of a stretch.  But it gives a rough estimate. - 2603:9000:E40B:7500:E1D8:4AC0:A506:D286 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll? 

message: The language and laws of the Quran were studied with equal devotion at Samarcand and Seville: the Moor and the Indian embraced as countrymen and brothers in the pilgrimage of Mecca; and the Arabian language was adopted as the popular idiom in all the provinces to the westward of the Tigris.
To my eye that reads better as a semicolon.  Correct or typo?  — MaxEnt 22:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unorthodox colon 

message: Who approves of cleaning up the article to match Wikipedia's neutrality policy? Sincerely, 98.191.196.7 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering you have been edit warring over numerous articles with NO attempt at discussion, I seriously doubt YOUR opinion is "neutral".  --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Early Muslim conquests. 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/20050721060321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.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) 00:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Zuhra ibn al-Hawiyya and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#Zuhra ibn al-Hawiyya until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zuhra ibn al-Hawiyya" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Al-Ġazawāt has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Al-Ġazawāt]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Every argument that this article should be called "Muslim" or "Islamic" Conquests is unsupported or irrelevant, meanwhile the arguments for "Arab" is substantiated with solid facts surrounding academic scholarship. The use of the term "Muslim" is pure islamophobia, presenting the great Arab Empire as fundamentally different from the western Christians. When describing conquests like this, it is standard to use the geographic term of the conquerers. Rome is just a city, but we call it the Roman Empire because it came from Rome. Similarly, we must call this Arab. Forcing conversions is forbidden in Islam. What rational is used to call this a religious war? Nothing but prejudice. 
As many have pointed out, "Arab Conquests" is the significantly most-used term  used by academic literature and books about the subject. "Westerners don't know the difference and call them all Muslims" is actually just racism, not a logical argument. Jdftba (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Conquests