Talk:Qarmatians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing April 2008[edit]

This paragraph was removed according to User:07fan without 'a valid rational' (sic) and has now been restored:

"Pre-Islamic Persian religious influence on the Qarāmita was significant. The conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, which happens every 960 years, produced millenarian excitement among Persians. The date of the conjunction, 27 October 928 CE, produced a messianic fervour that the Qarāmita interpreted in light of Islamic revelation. They interpreted this new period as a return of Persian dominance."

In fact this paragraph hasn't been deleted but moved down towards the end of the page and edited to removing the patronising phrase "millenarian excitement" and to make it read better. The only sentence in it that's been deleted reads:

Pre-Islamic Persian religious influence on the Qarāmita was significant.

This is an unsourced unsupported statement. In the text I've gone further and highlighted specific aspects of pre-Islamic Persian religious influence on the Qarmatians. If you want to restore this sentence it makes a lot more sense than restoring the entire paragraph - at the moment there's duplicated paragraphs saying the same thing on the page.

Dilmun (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conjunction October 928[edit]

In the Journal of Islamic Studies 17 (2006) 200 one can find a review of Theology, Ethics and Metaphysics • Edited by HIROYUKI MASHITA (Royal Asiatic Society Classics of Islam). In Volume III, pp. 196/7 is discussed the millenarian excitement. In a book on conjunctions by Abu-Abdallah Al-adi can be found the prophecy that the rule of the magi would be restored in the 18th conjunction after the birth of Mohammed. Islamic astrologers let coincide the birth of Mohammed with the triple conjunction of the year 571 C.E. The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of October 928 took place 18 conjunctions aftetr 571. It occurred in the constellation Saggitarius, also mentioned in the book of Al-adi in connection with a 10th millenium (?). Siffler (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaili or Not?[edit]

As I know anti-Shia figure such as Mahmud of Ghazni consider them as Shia while Ismaili Hujjat, Nasir Khusraw, didn't consider them Shia in his Safarnama. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Ismaili, not at all. They were not even Muslim. They changed the qibla to fire, attacked Mecca and stole the Black Stone, and promulgated distinctly pagan traditions and teachings. They were properly a millenialist Muslim-influenced sect, no more Muslim than Aum Shinrikyou are "Buddhist". em zilch (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica calls them Ismaili. I don't think emilyzilch knows more than Britannica. GreenEcho (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're tracing my edits to harass me? Very uncool - and very telling of your perspective.
As for the situation at hand, why not examine the evidence: they rejected Islam openly and tried to defile Mecca to prove their point. They openly identified themselves as a new religion. It's in the quotes and cites. Calling them Ismaili is misleading at best. em zilch (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure you don't intentionally add your disinformation to Wikipedia. So first, you were questioning John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan's credibility, and now, Britannica is wrong too? Wow. That's sad. GreenEcho (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, step off. Your hostility is unacceptable. You are taking this personally and personal issues are not appropriate.
Second, There are cites on this page that discuss this very issue. Read the cites. Some scholars dispute that the Qarmatian founders were even Seveners in the first place; others note that while they may have had instruction in the Sevener faith, they believed in a replacement of Islam with Persian religion - qibla of fire, desecration of the Haram ash-Sharif and Mecca to "destroy" Islam, stealing the Black Stone. Read the cites on the page, I'm not going to repeat them in the Talk page. The consensus of the scholars can be read that "they likely had some Ismaili origin", so I reworded to note that.
Finally, yes, I take the word of specialist scholars over that of an encyclopaedia, just as I think Esposito - and even Nissan - has less of a handle on Druzism than a Druze scholar writing the introduction to a comprehensive bibliography of Druze primary and secondary texts. em zilch (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica defines a Qarmatian as "a member of the Shīʿite Muslim sect known as the Ismāʿīlites". Respect what the sources say and don't add your personal analysis. GreenEcho (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The sources disagree! I remind you that an encyclopedia is not the end-all, be-all of scholarly consensus. If you read the Qarmatian page, you'd note that "the desecration of Mecca and the stealing of the Black Stone was to symbolise the 'end of Islam" (Farhad Daftary, The Assassin Legends: Myths of the Isma’ilis)" and Saunders' statement that “they may not have been Ismailis at all at the outset, and their conduct and customs gave plausibility to the belief that they were not merely heretics but bitter enemies of Islam.” (Saunders p130). I also have at my fingertips Mystics, Monarchs & Messiahs", which also notes, "Islam was to be abrogated, for a complete revelation of past hidden esoteric truths was to take place.... The Isfahani Messiah abolished the Shari'a and sanctioned the worship of fire and the cursing of Muhammad and his family... the truth meant a return to a Persian past." (pp.276-277) I will add this to the page. em zilch (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ERASED the insults to the well-intentioned utopian quarmatians by a fundamentalist ismaili, who dislikes them and heavily bias (-; -- 14:27, 17 February 2011 77.210.10.102

Qarmatians in Multan (Pakistan) 985-1175 CE?[edit]

I'm seeing some references to the Qarmatians having fled to Multan (in modern Pakistan) after having been driven out of Egypt, and clashing with Sunni Muslims and sun worshippers out in the east. Is this generally accepted in academic circles? Is it worth covering in this article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Religious beliefs[edit]

"There is a general tendency in the Sunnite and Shiite sources, when referring to the Ismailis, often erroneously call them Qarmatians without perception of the distinction between them."

This is an article about the Qarmatians and this is everything the section has to offer about their religious beliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.174.194 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism[edit]

There's a passage in this article that appears to be lifted almost word-for-word from Slavoj Zizek's The Year of Dreaming Dangerously. From the article: The Qarmatians aimed to build a society based on reason and equality. The state was governed by a council of six with a chief who was a first among equals.[8] All property within the community was distributed evenly among all initiates. The Qarmatians were organized as an esoteric society but not as a secret one. Their activities were public and openly propagated, but new members had to undergo an initiation ceremony involving seven stages. From The Year of Dreaming Dangerously: The Qarmatians' goal was to build a society based on reason and equality. The state was governed by a council of six, with a chief who was first among equals. All property within the community was distributed evenly among all initiates. Although the Qarmatians were organized as an esoteric society, they were not a secret one: their activities were public and openly propagated.

The Year of Dreaming Dangerously is not cited anywhere in the article, much less after the passage itself (citation 8 points to a different source). 204.213.244.97 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraph in question. Also, Slavoj Zizek, is not a historian nor does he have any specialization for the time period in question, therefore he can not be considered a reliable source. Thanks bringing the plagiarism to our attention. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of the Qarmatians[edit]

In the "Collapse" section of the report it says "After defeat by the Abbasids in 976 the Qarmatians began to..."

It would be helpful if the report were more specific as to what "defeat" is being referenced. I have searched and been unable to find reference to any specific battle or event. As such, I find the explanation somewhat confusing.

Thanks, V Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qarmatians. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the sources state[edit]

@Ali banu sistani:

  • "ABŪ SAʿĪD JANNĀBĪ, ḤASAN B. BAHRĀM, founder of the Qarmaṭī state in Baḥrain (b. between 230/845, and 240/855, d. 300/913 or 301/913-14). A native of Jannābā on the coast of Fārs and of Persian origin..." -- Madelung, Wilferd (1983). "ABŪ SAʿĪD JANNĀBĪ". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica, Volume I/4: Abū Manṣūr Heravı̄–Adat


Where exactly does the article or reference state Iranian? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dayaram Gidumal writes that a Balochi legend is backed up by the medieval Qarmatians.[1] The fact that the Karmatians were ethnic Baluchis is also confirmed by the Persian historian in the 16th century Muhammad Qasim Ferishta.[2] ? Ali banu sistani (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If only Ali banu sistani spent less time edit warring and attacking other users and more time on reading guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:SPS that would be great. This is more pseudo-history WP:OR nonsense. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ali banu sistani, please refrain from commenting on other ?editors? "Luis Aragon", and refrain from using self-published sources(Lulu.com), and outdated unverifiable sources.
Also, please do not remove reliable sources and the information they cite since that is tendentious editing. Post your sources including quotes and page numbers here so they can be verified and checked to be WP:RS. Thank you.

References

  1. ^ Gidumal, Dayaram (1888). History of Alienations in the Province of Sind: Compiled from the Jagir and Other Records in the Commissioner's Office on the Authority of Bombay Government, Resolution No. 12, Dated 2nd January 1878, Revenue Department. Printed at the "Commissioner's Press".
  2. ^ Gazetteer. Government Central Press. 1880.

Anachronism[edit]

I believe it is very anachronistic to call the Qarmatians "socialists" because the concept of socialism didn't exist back then and would be completely alien for 10th century Muslims. Calling them just utopian or even "Proto-socialists" would sound better. 2804:14D:7848:8CD9:7034:55AC:91C9:87FB (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest group which has been subject to comparisons of this type is Mazdakism, called "pre-modern communism" by its Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Applying the term ‘socialist’ to them seems completely anachronistic. Not to mention the fact that the sources (the ones that are available that is) don’t seem to provide evidence of them being socialist. They were also a state that depended to a large extent on slavery which seems to to be a contradiction with what we consider to be socialism. Theworks84 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on that point. Ussr, China, North Korea etc all used slavery. There's not really anything stopping socialists from creating any "class" of person they need 46.7.28.113 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point but I would argue that what socialists states created in many cases was a modern form of serfdom, I.e the individual was bound to the state in such a way that curtailed their freedom, movement and life in general, but people still possessed limited rights. Slavery is the physical ownership of a human by another human which, at least in theory, socialism disagrees with. I think the main point though is that the term socialist is out of place as it did not exist as a concept in this time period Theworks84 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qarmatians&oldid=1194752107"