Talk:Mu'awiya I

Unprecedented?

The lead claims that Mu'awiya's nomination of his son as successor was an unprecedented move in Islamic politics. But a couple of paragraphs earlier, it also says that Mu'awiya seized power from Hasan ibn Ali, the son and successor of the previous caliph. This seems contradictory: should we be saying that it was almost unprecedented? Or is there some difference between the Ali–Hasan and Mu'awiya–Yazid successions that needs to be clarified? The source cited for this claim in the body is "Lewis 2002, p. 67" but the linked Google Books version doesn't actually have page numbers, so I haven't been able to check it. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The difference b/w Ali-Hassan and Mu'awiya-Yazid is that Hassan was not appointed/nominated by Ali. After Ali's assassination, Ali's confidants nominated Hassan and he was accepted by Ali's followers as caliph (See for example, Hassan ibn Ali in Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition; or Donner 2010, p. 166). Mu'awiya himself nominated Yazid and demanded allegiance for Yazid while he himself was alive. Here is what the cited source (Lewis 2002, p. 67) says (emphasis added):

A vital problem for the stabilization of the Empire was the regulation of succession. The only precedents available to Mu'awiya from Islamic history were election and civil war. The former was unworkable; the latter presented obvious drawbacks. The method of hereditary succession was still too alien to Arab ideas to be readily accepted. Mu'awiya, with characteristic diplomacy, found a compromise by nominating his son Yazid. The process is a good example of the way in which his tribal diplomacy functioned. The decision was taken by the Caliph and the Shura of Damascus. It was confirmed by consultation with the tribes through the Wufud, and only then promulgated. The opposition was overcome less by force than by persuasion and inducement.

Also see Kennedy 2004, p. 88. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Still, I think “almost unprecedented” is better. Since it’s clear for the me that the same iraqis that appointed Hasan wanted a dynastic Alid rule. This is also evidenced by their support for Hussein as their leader after Hasan’s death and then Muhammad bin Ali after Hussein’s death. 94.129.78.165 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

According to the prophetic hadith that the rightly guided caliphate would last thirty years, the full period is only completed when Hasan ibn Ali’s six-month rule is included. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali together ruled for about twenty-nine years and six months, and after Ali’s death Hasan was duly given bay‘ah in 40 AH and ruled briefly before ceding authority to Muawiyah in 41 AH. His inclusion completes the thirty lunar years foretold by the Prophet ﷺ, making Hasan the final Rashidun Caliph. 1Qadri1 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4647

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3746 1Qadri1 (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Bukhari 3746 shows that the Prophet ﷺ recognized Hasan ibn Ali as a leader who would unite the Muslims. After Ali’s death, Hasan received bay‘ah and briefly served as the legitimate caliph. His acknowledged leadership and his role in reconciling the ummah support counting him as the final Rashidun Caliph. 1Qadri1 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

1Qadri1 You have been prompted twice on your talk page by others to familiarize yourself more with wiki policy and I encourage you to do so before continuing to edit war your proposed changes to this and other articles. This is a featured article about a historical subject and relies on secondary scholarly sources for its information. We’re not going to replace that with direct references to primary sources, including religious scriptures such as the hadiths or polemical sources such as religious scholars, whether ancient or modern. This is not the place for it. As for your edit summary regarding Mu’awiya’s titles in the infobox being unsourced, this is sourced already in the article body (neither the lead nor the infobox should have any citations, as they summarize the cited information in the article body). —Al Ameer (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"Muƹawiya" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Muƹawiya 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Muƹawiya until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Absence of the Ibadi perspective

@Chonkshonk, @Legion of Liberty The article currently includes Sunni and Shia perspectives on Mu'awiya I, but does not address the Ibadi perspective. Ibadi Islam is a third extant Islamic tradition, distinct from both Sunni and Shia Islam. Veritasphere (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I will look into it , if i find relevant information , I'll hopefully try to contribute to the article. Legion of Liberty (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@AhmadLX Veritasphere (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Legion of Liberty Thanks. While checking, I found the following source, Sharing it here for reference.

References

Veritasphere (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added the Ibadi perspective , thank you for the citation ! :) Legion of Liberty (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Veritasphere (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)