Talk:List of caliphs

Ahmadiyya caliphate?

Should the Ahmadiyya caliphate be included? As far as I know, most sources consider them non-Muslims, so they should not be included. Moazfargal (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I appear to be rude, but I can understand why Ahmadiyya was removed, Muslims and scholars that research about Islam must be confused why it was included which led it to be removed from list, I will elaborate on it.

It appears like it was removed in this revision

Which is both odd and understandable, unlike historical Muslim understanding, Ahmadiyya consider caliph to be successor of Messiah and not the sherif and awliya of all Muslim political existence through military force.

Off part is then also ISIS caliphate should not be included that is because:

• Considering a chunk of Indian Muslims are Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah (as known as Barelvi Movement in English media), Afghan political authority fell under Deobandi movement, largest Muslim country in population falls under the authority of Nahdlatul Ulama, many other countries have a considerable Naqshbandi, Chishti Order, Mevlevi Order, Bektashi Order and Qadiriyya following. All of which differ with each other in belief but all of them are equally under takfir according to ISIS.

This even includes Taliban, even though they suppressed other Sufi groups, their Deobandi ideology in reformed sense, they do not consider ones who practice Sufism to be outsiders or disbelievers.

Deobandi_movement#Sufism

Sufism is not a different sect of Islam; it is a name of set of practices that is considered alongside Kalam and Fiqh. Then, to which populace does ISIS plan to include in their caliphate? Which can be answered by looking at their history:

• Unlike Al Qaeda or Hizbut Tahrir, ISIS never accepted to protect any Muslim group or country alleging pledge to them. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan pledged allegiance to Taliban and joined their ranks, showing a sign of solidarity, and we know Hizbut Tahrir declared a protection of Uzbek populace at least once.

ISIS instead seeks a restoration of Islam in itself according to their Salafi theology which leads to:

• ISIS understand caliphate to be not protective, which made them separate ways from Al-Qaeda, force but a Mujaddid force which urged them to destroy mosques, remove Islamic works of art such as calligraphies, destroy graves and do other things that sought a self-ascribed renewal in Islam even if it gone against the local Muslim beliefs to do so.

So, this is not case of legitimacy but their difference of understanding of Islam and issue of Caliphate compared to the traditional understanding in a number of countries.

See Also:

Takfiri - Wikipedia

Sufi–Salafi relations

Ziyarat#Salafi

This is not my personal opinion; this is claim of ISIS as they consider themselves to be reformers and restorers, therefore everything before them is kufr according to their theology.

Ethics-Symp-2017.pdf (thesimonscenter.org)

ISIS’ Miscontextualization of Ḥadīth through the Strategic Linguistic Propaganda: A Socio-political Analysis | Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization (umt.edu.pk)

ISIS considers themselves to be the Mujaddid promised in the Hadiths

So, if we are to remove Ahmadiyya for their heterodoxy and different understanding then solutions are:

1. We should include Ahmadiyya in a separate page and give them a "see also" in this page.

2. We should allow both under heading sating "other claimants".

3. We should remove both as they both only resemble in name, just like how we do not add Caliphate State, Khilafah state, House of Khalifa, Khalifa (Morocco), Khalifa (caste) or "Hidden Caliphate" in this list as this is not a list of "things referred to as Caliphates" but this is up to consensus of course and many other solutions can be applied.

Peace, and respect. Cactus Ronin (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have undone this removal. If (some) reliable sources call them caliphs, I think that any argument to not include them on Wikipedia in a List of caliphs should also be based on (other) reliable sources explicitly stating that they are not to be regarded as caliphs. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Non existent footnote #41

Both links tried under the textual footnote link and there’s no video file offered. 65.124.223.98 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why on earth is Daesh included

^^^ Chonkshonk (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Addition of Hasan ibn Ali to the List of the Rashidun Caliphs

If description of the caliphates of prior Rashidun Caliphs is not included then neither should Hasan ibn Ali's one be so , however almost every sources either shia , sunni , non muslim sources state that he's the 5th Rashidun Caliph and the last Caliph of the Rashidun Caliphate. However a discussion might arise which will question his eligibility on getting on the list due to abdication in just 6 months but however by that Mu'awiya II was on the Ummayad throne for less than a year , so should we exclude him as well ? Obviously not. Also adding his reign into a section called Other Caliphates is very misleading as it would mean that he had a different Caliphate other than the Rashidun Caliphate but we know from almost every sources that he's the 5th Caliph. So in my opinion , what best can be done to the article is to add Hasan ibn Ali to the list and remove the description to preserve the consistency of the article which was followed for the four caliphs preceding him. Would appreciate some attention to this matter. Legion of Liberty (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hasan is not considered the "fifth caliph" nor as one of the Rashidun by reliable sources (e.g. ); and Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. Attempts to push this point of view have been consistently and rightly reverted at Rashidun Caliphate and doing anything different here would appear, whether intentional or not, as a POV fork. Indeed, the question might be whether he should be included in this list at all (or as a footnote to Ali's reign), as his "reign" is really only a failed attempt to succeed to the caliphate, though I think it is significant enough to include under the "other" section for those interested. R Prazeres (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

R Prazeres is right. I have added some more info about this to the Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate articles. The first four are canonical in Sunni Islam, while proposals about a possible fifth rashid caliph have always been minority views. The concept of Hasan as a fifth rashid caliph, although based on a 9th-century hadith, was apparently first explicitly formulated by Ibn Kathir (c. 1300–1373). See Rashidun#Fifth Rashidun caliph hypotheses. Even though Ibn Kathir's views are popular among modern Muslim preachers and their followers, Wikipedia takes the broader view given by reliable sources, who regard Ibn Kathir as only one among hundreds of important Muslim thinkers, whose views should be understood in their (late!) 14th-century context and not taken as universal. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of 1974 amendment content

I noticed the removal of my edit (noted as: "Added historical context regarding the 1974 Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan and improved chronological flow." Could you clarify which specific policy concern applies to this removal? Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Pepperbeast Apologies, I forgot to ping you earlier. Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that a discussion of the Ahmadiyya Muslim's Community's legal status in Pakistan is tangential to the article subject. PepperBeast (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns and updating the article. Q3YZFU5RM4X (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)