Talk:Battle of Karbala/Archive 1

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

Arabic quotes[edit]

I was wondering, does protocol allow for Arabic quotes in an English language article? They do not add anything to the article because most readers of English articles do not understand Arabic. I feel that they only clutter up the article. I will remove them in 24 hours unless directed to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random abcd 1234 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevancies?[edit]

I find that there is a lot of irrelevant information here. Is it really important to give the age of the "6 month old baby" in the colums? I do not think similar information is listed in any other article. It seems as if this is a propaganda peice written to chastise Sunni muslims group for being baby killers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random abcd 1234 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the Shi'ite bias is evident, not helped by a poor command of English grammar. It there enough here to use a basis for a reworking it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhull101 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Passing Through[edit]

This page is a woeful mess. The Shi'ite POV sticks out everywhere. I read the discussion. Zora has been fighting the good fight, but obviously needs help. I suggest that the page have three parts. First a summary of al-Tabari's account. This will not be too easy because it extends from p16 to p183 of volume XIX of the SUNY translation - but it can be done. Given enough time I may try it myself. Second a description of the significance of the massacre (it does not qualify as a battle) from the Shi'ite POV and third the significance of the battle from the Western historical POV. I doubt that we need the implied fourth section - the SUNNI POV. I suggest we just roll up we have already and label it the Shi'ite POV. As the thing stands it is a good argument for closing down the Wikipedia. 04:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First comments[edit]

This article is featured on the main page as an anniversary; I thought the rules said no stubs for main page features? Jogback 03:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, this stub specifically says that 10 October has no relevance to this event! 66.44.109.148 15:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if the 10th of Muharram, 61 AH was really October 10, 680. What a coincidence ! (I doubt it ...) -- PFHLai 04:27, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I believe it was on October 12, 680, not October 10

I am simply wishing to state the fact that this battle was not in fact won by Husayn's faction as it is depicted on the table at right on the beginning of the page; that aside, my historical knowledge is not complete enough to engage in academic debate on this topic, however, this at least should be agreeable to all of the parties involved in this discussion. -Brady Bever, University of Idaho. Undergraduate of Medieval History

Vandalism?[edit]

This page has been vandalized by a guest who's been spreading NPOV rubbish over a couple articles dealing with the early Califs. I'm not sure what the process is for taking care of someone like this, but in the meantime I'll keep an eye on him and undo his edits. Kyle543 09:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Significant parts of the article are NPOV, for example the BATTLE section, which sounds a bit poetic for a factual encyclopedic article (i.e. "The Imam met in duel with many a man, killing them all"). Tronno 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utter disregard for neutrality and factual accuracy[edit]

This is really shameful. The article has been given an unabashed Shia POV skew. It's very curious that even though all 72 perished, such a wealth of information about what they did and said and prayed should be so concise. It is badly written, polemic and mystical-sounding POVs presented as fact. Is this an encyclopedia or a religious website?--AladdinSE 09:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is the entry for the Battle of Karbala in the Encyclopædia Britannica. It is most illuminating, especially regarding how accounts of the battle have been romanticized over the centuries. I have added the bold emphasis to illustrate western historical consesnsus view of Yazid, the battle, and the caliphate:

(Oct. 10, 680 [10th of Muharram AH 61]), brief military engagement in which Husayn ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and pretender to the caliphate, was defeated and killed by an army sent by the Umayyad caliph Yazid I. The battle helped secure the position of the Umayyads, but, among Shi'ite Muslims, followers of Husayn, the 10th of Muharram (or Ashura) became an annual holy day of public mourning.
When Yazid I succeeded his father to the caliphate (spring 680), the many partisans of Muammad's late son-in-law Ali rose in the city of Kufah and invited Husayn to take refuge with them, promising to have him proclaimed caliph in Iraq. Meanwhile, Yazid, having learned of the rebellious attitude of the Shi'ites in Kufah, sent Ubayd Allah, governor of Basra, to restore order. The latter did so, summoning the chiefs of the tribes and making them responsible for the conduct of their people. Husayn nevertheless set out from Mecca with all his family, expecting to be received with enthusiasm by the citizens of Kufah; but, on his arrival at Karbala, west of the Euphrates, he was confronted by an army sent by Ubayd Allah and under the command of Umar ibn Saad, son of the founder of Kufah. Husayn gave battle, vainly relying on the promised aid from Kufah, and fell with almost all his family and followers.
Though it was a rash expedition, it did involve the grandson of the Prophet and thus many members of his family. Husayn's devout partisans at Kufah, who by their overtures had been the principal cause of the disaster, regarded it as a tragedy, and the facts gradually acquired a romantic and spiritual colouring. Umar, Ubayd Allah, and even Yazid came to be regarded as murderers, and their names have ever since been held accursed by Shi'ite Muslims. Shi'ites observe the 10th of Muharram as a day of public mourning; and, among Iranians especially, as well as in Karbala, passion plays are enacted, representing the misfortunes of the family of Ali. The tomb of the decapitated martyr Husayn at Karbala is to them the holiest place in the world.

--AladdinSE 11:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The details are there since the tousands of Yazids (laan) army wittnessed it. The Encyclopædia Britannica has a Sunni pov, of course, since Shi'a pov and sources are and have been "exotic" for westerners, to say the least.--Striver 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply improbable that these kinds of specific, intimate details came from the opposing army. As for Brittanica being POV, well anything that does not support your view of things, no matter how widely it is believed, you call POV. Unfortunately this happens to be the Western consensus, and they are the most neutral being removed from any ideological dispute. Furthermore, Britannica is a very respected encyclopedia, probably the most respected in the world. And their comment about how the "details" gradually acquired a romantic and spiritual colouring is so apt, one has only to study your own edits to see how exact a description this is.--AladdinSE 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopædia Britannica is also factually incorrect. That is not to say that the Shia POV is correct, as there are many different Shia accounts. What is clear is that there are many sources and eye witness accounts of the battle. Please bear in mind that there are thousands of books on this subject. The Encyclopædia Britannica should be considered a Western POV that did not have access to the vast amount of literature the Shia POV has. The Battle of Karbala is extremely significant, because it represents in details the rules and practices of engaging in military Jihad (battle for hearts and minds), (but) in most adverse of conditions, by one of the leading practitioners of Islam (often dubbed the "Saviour of Islam").
Who else but Husain could bring his dehydrated and dying 6 month old son to the the battlefield, confront his enemies bent on breaking him, and force them to tears for the humanity they had lost. --IHusain 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1) all 72 perished - what about the women and children, what about the future imam? AladdinSE - I agree this article is poorly written and there are factual inaccuracies here. But both your point and Striver's point on the pre-dominant source of the information is wrong. The greatest source for the accounts of the battle was Zainab, who took on the Jihad (struggle) after all the combatants were dead. She never thought that the expedition was rash. She's the founder of religous mourning - which was a vehicle she devised to ensure the accounting and accuracy of the telling of the events of Karbala. You can't even begin to compare her accounts to that the Encyclopædia Britannica. Suggesting that the Encyclopædia Britannica has a NPOV is like suggesting that flipping coins or rolling dice to retell history provides NPOV. It is just outrageous and infact shameful :)
Point 2) How did Encyclopædia Britannica suddenly become Western consensus? I guess those Western historians who did their PhD thesis on this topic might take umbrage that statement. (If they had a Shia POV, would they still be considered Western?) :) --IHusain 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, AladinSE is quite right. Even a non-moslem such as myself who has -no- bias whatsoever to either shia or sunni can see it. Just listen to this:

"Battle of Karbala, has significance in Islamic History for many reasons but mostly for the stories of courage and great sacrifices that were displayed by prophet Muhammad's family & friends for the protection of the true teachings of Islam from being hijacked by the corrupt, brutal and power-hungry regime of Yazid ibn Muawiya."

The amount of weaselwords is simply impressive. Further, the Britannica -is- a very respected encyclopedia and regarded as somewhat "Western consensus", yes. 82.143.241.206 17:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Mark Hau[reply]

Details[edit]

we need to put a lot more details about the battle of Karbala. For example, on the 1st or 2nd of Muharram, Hurr, the general who changed sides, stopped Imam Hussein from going to Kufah and forced him to go to Karbala. also, al-Abbas, the brother of Imam Hussein, went to get water from the Euphrates river for the thirsty children and first, his hands got chopped off, then the shot him with arrows in his eyes. we should also write about the family of Imam Hussein after the battle, who were taken prisoner. this article is more like a short summary of a short summary of what happened - so short in fact, that some of the major events were taken out. i don't give if it is shia pov, because this is a shia Imam we are talking about. the Sunnis and non-Muslims don't believe in his leadership, so naturally regard almost everything that is good about him as "shia pov" Yahussain 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are whole encyclopedias on the battle of Karbala and wikipeida only has about a half page? this is really a shame. Yahussain 18:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what Shi'a Muslims "know" about the battle is of dubious historical status. There has been a lot of invention and mythologizing. Make sure that the external links go to sites that you feel represent the full Shi'a treatment of the event. Zora 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, one of the common embellishments relates to the re-telling of the murder of Ali Asgar. Specifically, the arrowhead that was used and how the baby jumped up to catch the arrowhead. Shia historian's believe it to be a latter day addition designed to milk more tears. IHusain 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been morphing again[edit]

This article seems to be under constant pressure from Shi'a editors coming from anon IPs, who want to turn it into a Wikipedia version of a Ta'ziya. I have been reverting on the basis of diffs, and I've missed a lot of the morphing. Dang!

We may need to split the article into two versions, the dry-as-dust accepted-by-historians version, and a SHORT form of the battle-as-myth Shi'a version.

None of the anon editors ever gives any sources -- because, of course, they all KNOW that it's true. I need to go back to primary sources (al-Tabari et al) and see what I find there. Zora 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good English book that I like is called Husain, the Saviour of Islam. IHusain 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy[edit]

I don't have the relevant volumes of Tabari or Baladhuri, and I don't have Encyclopedia Islamica 2nd version. Those seem to be the sources to consult. I did find material in Hugh Kennedy's work on early Muslim military forces that suggest that it was only a police detachment, at most 4500 men, who surrounded Husayn's force. That takes away from the poignancy of 72 versus 30,000, but we're not supposed to be retailing myth as fact.

Do the supporters of the 30,000 figure have any sources to cite? Zora 02:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

give me a few weeks and ill find some Yahussain 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that there were 10,000. This is because 10,000 men were the number of soldiers that swore allegiance to Muslim, before he besieged the governor's mansion. One of the books that I read suggested that these men switched sides. (Their hearts were for Husain, but there swords were against.) It is highly unlikely that Yazid could have dispatched a significant force from Syria in the short time to intercept Husain in the few days he was behind Muslim. IHusain 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits[edit]

Zora, why did you revert my edits? They were not shia pov. The only reason that Hussayn was killed was because of his refusal to accept Yazid's ruler ship (bay'at). This is not shia pov. --Aminz 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is usual for rulers to kill people trying to mount insurrections against them. You write as if Yazid and his government had done something evil and wrong to poor pitiful little Husayn. He could have emulated his brother Hasan and lived in retirement, staying out of politics. Instead, he tried to lead a rebellion. You are so used to hearing events from a Shi'a perspective that when you try to write about them, you write FROM a Shi'a perspective. You may not mean to do so, but that is how it sounds to a non-Shi'a.
I'm not saying that I especially approve of Yazid -- just that your shock and outrage at the event are not going to be shared by any non-Shi'a readers.
I divided the article so that the Shi'a would have a place to put their version of events. Right now, the section is badly written, too full of detail, and practically unreadable. You would be doing a good thing for the Shi'a if you were to work on that section of the article, making it more accessible for the casual reader who just wants to find out about the battle. My guess is that readers are going to read through the non-Muslim version, hit the Shi'a section, think, "AAGH!", and stop reading. See if you can rewrite to keep them reading. Zora 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the Shia section. Thanks for the suggestion. But regarding your comment: Yes, it is actually usual for rulers to kill people trying to mount insurrections against them, but was this the case for Hussayn? According to all I know, Hussayn were given the choice to be killed or accept Yazid's ruler ship. We should discuss based on historical facts and not what we think or guess to be the case. Regarding "He could have emulated his brother Hasan and lived in retirement, staying out of politics.", well, Hasan signed a peace treaty with Muaviyeh. Husseyn was committed to that treaty as long as Muaviyeh was alive. According to the treaty, Myaviyeh was not supposed to chose his son as his successor, but he did. He violated the treaty. I am not convinced why you reverted my edits. --Aminz 00:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction between mounting a rebellion (as Husayn was trying to do) and refusing to give bay'ah. IF Husayn had stayed in Mecca, lived quietly, and simply refused to give bay'ah, and IF Yazid had sent soldiers to surround his house and threatened him with death if he did not give his submission, then I'd say that this was tyranny. Most wise rulers don't kill people who have withdrawn from the political fray. (BTW, that's my personal reaction, not anything I'd put in an article.)
Well, according to the account that I know, he was threatened to death in Mecca in the case of not giving submission. Yazid was persisting that Hussayn should give bay'at. But the threat was not as serious as it was before the battle of Karbala (according to what I know). Thanks --Aminz 01:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what happened. Husayn tried to mount a rebellion and was killed. Killed like thousands of other Muslim warriors who have attempted to seize the caliphate, an emirate, a sultanate, whatever. Like thousands of rebels the world over. Now, if you approve of a rebel cause, this is a sad event. But WP can't assume that one side of a conflict is correct and the other is wrong. We have to be even-handed between the sides and in this case, between Husayn and Yazid. Hence taking the attitude that Husayn was justified and his death was a tragedy is POV. Zora 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the answer to my question. I have a very well defined question: When Hussayn was surrounded by Yazid's soldiers, was he given the choices of giving bay'at or death? If you say no, then based on what reference do you make such a claim. I am sure that many people were killed for their rebellion, but we are writing an article about a particular man, Hussayn ibn Ali. I need to run now, but will catch up the discussion soon. Thanks.--Aminz 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that they should have surrounded him, asked for his submission, and spared him if he gave it.

I have heard that Umar ibn Sa'ad was ordered to either brings Hussain's bey'at or his head. The following choices were given to Hussain: fighting or bey'at. It is attributed to him saying: "Death with dignity is better than life with humiliation." Had he wished to accept Yazid's ruler ship, no war would have been occurred between him and enemy troops. He himself and all his family would have been saved. But Hussain had a low view of Yazid and didn't want to accept his ruler ship.--Aminz 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if they did that or not! I'm still trying to find the earliest accounts of the battle. That would have an honorable and kind thing to do, sure, but ... it's not always a choice offered to rebels and rulers who don't offer it aren't considered evil. Those who do offer it are considered exceptional -- as Ali was when he defeated Aisha and then sent her back to Medina.

Hussain was not a typical Muslim or just some arab. He was the prophet's grandson. It is said that Muaviyeh, in his last will, recommended Yazid to be tolerant to the house family of Ali. Yazid may had felt that killing the prophet's grandson leaves a bad impression on people as it actually did. Many people, incited by his act of killing the prophet's grandson, rebeled later against him. You are talking as Hussain was a rebellious Bedouin! :(
Finally, I am not convinced at all. My question is still there. Maybe Non-Muslims's don't care but I do. The Shia account stresses that Hussain sacrificed his life. This point is totally missed in the background and summary of the event.
But the background and the summary are not there to give the Shi'a POV. They are the bare-bones view without all the Shi'a embroidery. There is now a whole section where the Shi'a POV can be given. You should bring that up to par, not try to convert the barebones view to a Shi'a POV. You MUST allow different POVs to exist. Zora 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I said a shia POV, or a fact? If the two choices of "fighting" or "bey'at" were really given to Hussain before the war starts, then that would be a historical fact and not a shia POV. --Aminz 05:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the events before the battle -- I have read that Husayn fled Medina for Mecca, fearing that Yazid would try to eliminate him as a rival. An argument could be made that he had to rebel or be crushed ... but we don't know that. It seems to me that a self-imposed exile is the usual choice of those fearing persecution, NOT rebellion. Zora 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did he fled Medina for Mecca because he was fearing to be killed or because he was threatened?--Aminz 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look Zora, it is historical fact that allegiance was specifically requested, and Husain refused. I can provide several citations. What we need to be careful with is that the barebones view does not become erroneous.

The dominant Shia POV states that the citizens of Kufa invited Husain to mentor them on Islam. This is not borne out by fact, as they swore allegiance to Husain through Muslim and rebelled against the governor. The whole issue if far more complicated than either POV. --Husain 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I rewrote it[edit]

Rather than wait for a Shi'a to do it, I wrote the Shi'a version myself. At least it's a start. Zora 06:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Zora! Thanks! --Aminz 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of the armies[edit]

I believe the Umayyads soldiers were more then 4500. I think we should change the numbers on the article. What do you guys think.--Salman 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact ! , plz re-edit it if possible[edit]

"Husayn ibn Ali" was NOT prophet Mohammed grandson , he was his Nephew ( son of his cousin Ali ) , and all Mohammed's sons died in childhood ages so he doesn't have any Grandson.

Shi'a muslims consider him as Mohammed's grandson because he was born while prophet Mohammed was in Old age , because of the distance between Mohammed's age and Ali's.

thanks , i hope you edit the mistakes Ammar 17:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isn't "Husayn ibn Ali" also Husayn ibn Fatima - the daughter of the Prophet...making him a grandson... --Aliasad 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar it shows how ignorant you are .....please read Wikipedia's articles on Mohammad and ALi Hussain 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the Background and Summary[edit]

The Background and Summary section of the article has a parenthetical remark:

Muawiyaa distory the agrements which are between Hasan First son of Ali

Shortly after that, it editorializes about the demands of "allegiance (that was not right)", and it has a broken wikilink: [[Ahlulbayt]the real]. — DavidConrad 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to keep an eye on this article, and try to keep the Shi'a apologetics in the Shi'a section, but I succumbed to severe Wikistress and haven't been monitoring this article. I shudder to look. Sorry. Zora 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I JUST READ THAT SOMEONE WROTE THE FOLLOWING : HUSAYN IBN ALI IS NOT MOHAMMED'S GRANDSON ....

WELL I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THIS PERSON : WHO IS HUSAYN'S MOTHER??? WASNT SHE FATIMA ALZAHRAA ..... AND WASNT SHE THE DAUGHTER OF THE PROPHET .... SO I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE HUSAYN A GRANDSON TO THE PROPHET , EITHER YOU WENT THE WRONG WAY IN THE FAMILY TREE OF THE PROPHET OR YOUR TRYING TO CONFUSE PEOPLE HERE , OR YOU WERE TOLD WRONG , OR TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING WRONG .............

I WISH PEOPLE CHECK THERE SO CALLED FACTS BEFORE POST THINGS LIKE THAT .... THAT WAS JUST OUTRAGOUS

Narrations[edit]

I found that other wikipedians aren't fimiliar enough with narrations about this battle. They may think reliablity of Shi'a narrations are the same and they prefer to put Shi'a narrations as Shi'a POV. So I add this part to show this idea is incorrect. We should mention that:

  • 1- Some Shi'a are historians and don't want to propagate Shiism. Do you seprate German historian books and POV from English one? So we should mention that some of the facts are narrated through Shi'a eyewithnesses like family of Hussein and you can't seprate them as if there is some fact and some other things we call it Shi'a POV and you may not find these narrations in non-Shia books.
  • 2- Shi'a narrations aren't semiliar. Some of them teragedic tales and Shi'a scholars don't accept them. So we should seprate tales from facts and we shouldn't gather all of them in one part. We should be carefull because there are too many tales about this event .--Sa.vakilian 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SV, your addition is a good idea, I think, as one wouldn't expect a thousand year old tradition, spread over many countries, to have a monolithic view on a subject. Your English is a bit shaky in places, and I'll see if I can make the time to work on it. (The first section is also severely mangled; someone who speaks English as a second language has inserted a great deal of Shi'a piety in what is supposed to be a neutral section.)

However, I have a feeling that you and I might not agree on the status of some of the Shi'a historians. If they didn't study history in a Western academic setting, they're not going to be working from the same secular premises, or using the same professional methods.

I couldn't say anything about the reliability of family traditions unless I knew exactly when and where they were written down, what manuscripts survive, etc. Oral tradition is extremely tricky stuff, particularly when matters of great spiritual or political import are involved. Contemporary manuscripts are usually much more revealing (unless they've been forged, of course, as was the Donation of Constantine). Note that I didn't say "reliable" -- just about any historical source has a POV, and historians have to figure out what that is, and how it might have distorted the record.

The problem is that I don't read or speak Arabic or Persian; just know a few words here and there, primarily through my tiny bit of Urdu. Dang, I wish I were 20 instead of nearly 60 -- I think I'd learn an entirely different set of languages. Zora 11:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned my English is not very well. You can clean it up. The reliability of family traditions can check by two way. First through Shi'a narrations. There are some books which in Persian and Arabic like Luhuf. I can't find English version of them. Second through western scholar studies which compare different narrations. I think we should use both of these ways because there isn't enough study on this issue on the basis of western methods. And Shi'a historians try to remove distortions by using different methods.--Sa.vakilian 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1 revision by Zora[edit]

I removed various bits of piety that had crept into the neutral sections, removed dead links, combined four links to one site, and removed Sa.vakilian's links to bookstores. That isn't the kind of citation we use. I also extensively rewrote SV's new section. With the bookstore links gone, there are few acceptable links in that section. I didn't want to remove the whole section, but it still needs lots of work. As I said to SV, I think it's good that we're getting some nuance into the Shi'a narrative. We just need to have it properly referenced, so that someone who completely disagrees with SV would nevertheless accept that part of the article. Zora 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but your edits are POV and unreliable. Also It's difficult for me to find English version for some of the quotations but I'll try.--Sa.vakilian 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, the edits you made are argumentative and extremely Shi'a-POV. I am distressed by your further edits, particularly as your English is so bad. You have taken good prose and mangled it. Zora 10:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How we should Write the story[edit]

We can write the story on the basis of reliable history books whether Shi'a or Sunni and in the cases which were different say it's Shi'a narration. I mean instead of writing two story one is narrated by Shi'a and another by Sunni write one story.

I suggest to use "Abu Mekhnaf" report [1] which has written on the basis of eyewithnesses of Battle of Karbala . "Translator's forward" show its reliability. Also we can use Tabari work to prevent on write the events just on one narrations. I don't have English version of Tabari but I find some part of it in Shi'a encyclopedia(Haha!)Tragedy of Karbala as reported by the Sunnis--Sa.vakilian 10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I have some of the English-version Tabarai, put out by SUNY, but not all of it. Not the section devoted to the battle of Karbala. Use of a translation from a Shi'a version of Tabari would not be advisable. I would have no way of checking your translation, or the reliablity of the Shi'a version. I will buy the relevant volume of Tabari when I can afford it, as it's simply not available in the libraries to which I have access.
Your claim that Abu Mekhnaf is completely reliable is unacceptable. It is Shi'a-POV through and through. It can only be produced as a Shi'a narrative, not as a neutral account. It is a reconstruction of an earlier work written by a Shi'a, it was reconstructed by a Shi'a, it was translated by a Shi'a, it was published on the web by a Shi'a religious group. It is not an academic quality source.
I will look over your edits, but I suspect that I will have to revert a great many of them. This article is already extremely Shi'a-centric. The only justification for that is the Shi'a are the only ones who care a great deal about the subject. However, it should not be completely Shi'a-centric -- and that means taking Shi'a argumentation out of the neutral narrative sections. Zora 10:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is wrong[edit]

  • "the citizens of Medina pressed Ali to take the". It's wrong.Also there were people from egypt and Iraq who came Madina to protest againt Otman. They had a great role in this event. You can find it in Tabari.
  • "Their choice was not accepted by all Muslims":Aisha, Sad ibn vaqqas, Abdullah ibn Umar, Marvan and Muavia didn't accept. we can mention their name instead of this unclear sentence.
  • '"Modern re-examination of Shi'a tradtions": This title is POV.Absolutly.--Sa.vakilian 13:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

How is it to re-organize this article in the following way:

1. Starting with a section on the sources. Various opinions as to how reliable our sources are. Possible neutrality problems etc etc.

On each section, we can:

2. State what the primary sources say.

3. What academics/muslim scholars think of the primary sources(which parts are more reliable, etc etc).

--Aminz 09:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For adding Shia POV, Seyyed Hossein Nasr might be a good source. He seems to be both sympathetic towards Shia and respected in academia. --Aminz 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some scholars think western academic sources are biased towards Sunnis, that can also be mentioned. Any dispute can be mentioned. --Aminz 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora has problem with the main report of the event. I think if we say Abi Mekhnaf is unreliable, then we can't said Tabari and Ibn S'ad are reliable. Because Abi Mekhnaf could speak wit the eyewithnesses of the battle and their first descendent. But Ibn S'ad and Tabari who lived 1 and 2 centuries later couldn't. I don't say Abi Mekhnaf's report is sufficient but we can't say he's Shi'a we don't want to use his report. I suggest to compare Abi Mekhnaf's report and Tabari's history. Whereever they are similar we write it with 2 refrences and whereever they are different we write Abi Mekhnaf says this one and Tabari says that one. I don't think there is another way.
For what narrate from Hussain's family we can use Luhuf and write it in seperate part as Hussain's family's report.--Sa.vakilian 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV and Aminz's edits[edit]

SV, you restored some not-very-good English and what seemed to me to be muddled thinking. You mentioned Tabari and Ibn S'ad twice.

Aminz, you added some quotes supposedly about the battle, but they are really more "study of religion" descriptions of what Karbala means to Shi'a. I'm sure that many academics would NOT agree that Husayn planned to sacrifice himself. That's the Shi'a POV, but if you look at the event without religious spectacles, you could also see it as Husayn playing the only card he had: I'm the grandson of the prophet; Muhammad loved me; how could you kill me? He might actually have thought that the soldiers on the other side would throw down their arms rather than hurt him

I'm quite willing to let the Shi'a POV be fully explained, which I think it is. But I'm not going to let the neutral or academic sections be twisted into yet another version of the Shi'a POV. That's just not right. Zora 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one fixed academic POV. Please see the main source I've used (in the next section) and the secondary sources it is using. The sources are academic but in any case, I am not sure putting academic POV and Shia POV in contrast would be 100% true for there might probably be no "one" academic POV. --Aminz 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora, I'll be grateful if you help me with my languahe. I mean please mention my mistakes.

But please don't prejudge about my editions and Shi'a POV. Your knowledge about Shiism is very low. The idea of sacrifice only one of the main idea among Shi'a and most popular one. But there are some other POV among Shi'a scholars the most important one them that he uprise because he couldn't bear Bedat(changing caliphate to kingdom), unjust government and tyranny and when he saw Kufis were supporting him went to Kufa. On the other hand some Shi'a scholars have said he did this although he knew he would be killed by Yazid but he tried to remove the legitimacy of government and woke up the people. There are also other POV among Shi'a . --Sa.vakilian 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.Vakilian, I don't think Zora's knowledge about Shiism is low. --Aminz 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic section[edit]

I rewrote it using academic sources. Please see the source here [2]

Please find the secondary academic sources on page 15. --Aminz 11:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author Heinz Halm, is professor of Islamic studies at the University of Tubingen. --Aminz 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he's NOT A MILITARY HISTORIAN. He's a specialist in the history of the Shi'a. He's concerned more with what the battle means to the Shi'a, not with what happened on the ground. Hugh Kennedy makes a clear distinction between what happened at the battle, and what the Muslims made of it.

Your references aren't complete, and it's not clear how much is quote and how much is paraphrase.

Please stop trying to turn the academic section into yet another Shi'a-POV section. That's just not fair. Zora 11:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why do we "have to" quote MILITARY HISTORIANs? Military historians agree that a battle happened but if that's all they can say, I think it is unnecessary to mention them since I don't think anybody doubts war didn't happen.

Their view is neither in contradiction nor in support of the Shia claims which were removed. I agree with your fairness argument but it is not also fair to put academia POV in contrast with Shia POV. That's unfair too. --Aminz 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your userpage, I suggested a compromise, which is another section, on the contemporary reaction to news of the battle. Kennedy -- and others -- say that many Muslims were horrified when they heard of the event. I think that the effects of the battle are relevant to an article about the battle. Historians saying that they thought Husayn was gallant, or brave, or foolhardy, whatever -- those are personal reactions and I don't think that they belong in the article. Zora 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do belong in a "views" section.--Striver - talk 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the division is a good idea but exclusion of historians word on personality of husayn from this article is debatable. It depends how much those personalities are relevant to the battle. They can be otherwise moved to the Hussein article.

I think I would relax for a couple of days and come back later with a fresh mind. Since there is not serious POV problems at the moment, there is no hurry. Cheers, --Aminz 12:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV's latest revision[edit]

SV, your latest revert doesn't help at all. You have restored effusions re Husayn to the academic POV, and garbled the historiography section again. (It shouldn't be named that, really.) Your distinction between "religious texts" and "histories" makes no sense at all. I can see why you think that hadith supposedly recording the words of the imams are special, but then you lump recorded traditions of ordinary people with historical narratives that use three different kinds of material: religious texts, traditions from ordinary people, and Sunni texts. The historical narratives deserve their own section. I think your distinction may be based on sacred (stuff we have to believe) versus secular (stuff we don't have to believe), but that's not clear at all. I'm having a difficult time working on this with you because your English is not clear, your viewpoint is so uncompromisingly religious, and you don't seem familiar with rigorous historical methods. It's very very late here, I'll return to this later. Zora 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I divide narrations in 3 groups: Religious, historic and tragedic .

What is religious text? Some books like Usul Kafi which are based on Hadith and don't want tell the story of Karballa but want to describe Shi'a Imam narrations are religious texts. These texts just contain Hadith.

What is historic text?: Some books which want to narrate the story of Karballa on the basis of narrations of eyewithnesses whether they are Shi'a Imam like Ali ibn Hussayn or not. They're authencity not because of religious position of Imam but because of hix presence in Karbala.

What is tragedic text?: Some books which want to cry people. Some of their information may wrong like the former groups. But some may be write. Even one Shi'a Imam may say some of these texts.

I hope that I can describe my classification correctly.--Sa.vakilian 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think Sunni historins report this event in detail but I'm not sure, thus I wanted Itaqallah to tell us Sunni POV and make the article NPOV.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dang![edit]

SV, it is completely and absolutely not the case that most Muslims supported Ali. If it had been the case, he wouldn't have had to fight Aisha, Ibn Zubayr, and Muawiya. The Kharjites wouldn't have abandoned him. He wouldn't have lost Egypt. He was raised to the caliphate by a mob that had just murdered the previous caliph. It was the people of Medina alone who chose him, and they were by this time a minority of all Muslims. Most Muslims were scattered from Egypt to Khorasan and they were not consulted at all. It's Shi'a revisionism to say that he was supported by most Muslims. The Shi'a tactic of picking through Sunni sources to find someone who agrees with you and then proclaiming that since Sunni and Shi'a agree, it's true -- that will not work here and it will not work with me. I'm here representing all those historians who are neither Sunni nor Shi'a. Zora 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've mixed some issues with each other. Zubayr and Talha accepted his caliphate then rejected. Kharjites had different problem with him. When I said most of the Muslims accepted his caliphate I mean "at first most of the Muslims accepted his caliphate but then some of them rejected." Only Aisha, Muawiya and Umayyads and some few others rejected him from the beginning.
"Most Muslims were scattered from Egypt to Khorasan and they were not consulted at all." Do you know there is a letter from Ali to Muawiya which he explained this issue for him. Surprisingly its on the basis of Sunni POV of caliphate not Shi'a. I can show it to you but you'll tell me that is Shi'a POV. Hahaha. Discussing with you is very interesting and I try not to loose my tempre hardly.--Sa.vakilian 06:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Shi'a POV and What is not[edit]

I think if we achieve consensus in this important issue then we can edit the article better.

For example if Abi Mekhnaf reports "Hussain abandoned Mekka in 9th Zi Alhajje and entered Karbala at 2nd Muharram and fought with Umayyads at 10th Muharram", does it Shi'a POV or a fact? I think it's a fact. Also when he reports Hussain told e.g. "Yazid is unjust ruler." it's a fact. Tabari may narrate it or not but it's not Shi'a POV. In brief when we speak about what has happened it's not important that the narrator is Shi'a or Sunni. We can say Tabari -a Sunni Historian- says this and on the other hand Abi Mekhnaf -a Shi'a Historian- says that.

But when Abi Mekhnaf and other Shi'a historians and scholars speak about why Hussain uprise and why he went to Kufi and why he didn't accept Yazid this is Shi'a POV.

I mean when we narrate the story Shi'a or Sunni POV doesn't emerge a lot. But as Zora says "that Husayn deserved the caliphate, that he was unjustly treated, that he was a perfect human being, that he knew he would die but accepted it as necessary for Islam, etc." are Shi'a POV.--Sa.vakilian 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not accept Abi Mekhnaf as a reliable text. It could be complete fabrication for all I know. It could have been "reconstructed" 300 years after it was supposedly written, by someone who wanted to present a Shi'a version of history. You keep claiming that it's very early, but unless I know the exact history of the text, I can't believe that. I was willing to accept it at first, but when I actually looked at the text, I realized that it was historically worthless in its present form. A proper version would say which manuscripts form the basis and give their approximate dates and current location. It's like a scientific experiment; someone else has to be able to do the same thing and confirm that it was done properly. Producing a text and saying "Trust me" doesn't fly in the community of historians.
Also, even when you have a certifiably old text, you don't necessarily accept everything in it as true. The author could be lying; the author could be mistaken; the author may have his/her vision warped by the beliefs of the time. That's why historians like multiple versions of events, to check them against each other. If ten people give ten different versions of an event, the part that they all have in common is likely, but not certain, to be what happened. Of course, if they all shared the same now-exploded beliefs, you'd have to correct for that too.

SV, you're too trusting. A proper historian is like a detective researching a murder mystery, who knows that all the witnesses may be lying or shading the truth. Zora 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately history isn't like sience at all. please tell me how can you check Tabari? How can you ensure his history isn't fabricated stories which he gathered after 3 centuries?
Historians believe that a great deal of it is fabricated. He's collecting oral traditions that have been elaborated and distorted for centuries. He's also viewing everything through the lens of Islam and through his own cultural presuppositions and beliefs. No professional historian accepts him uncritically. Zora 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can say Britanica might be fabricated and I can't trust in it but this is my idea. You can't say I distrust in his report because he's Shi'a historian. Please give me a reliable fact which supports your claim and shows at least some parts of it are fabricated. What will happen if anybody is allowed not to trust in a source whithout any reliable source for his or her claim?
There's a great deal in Britannica that is stated as fact about which specialists might argue. If you're feeling overwhelmed at the thought of a world in which there is no unquestioned authority ... welcome to the modern world. Zora 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I accept "Also, even when you have a certifiably old text, you don't necessarily accept everything in it as true. The author could be lying; the author could be mistaken; the author may have his/her vision warped by the beliefs of the time. hat's why historians like multiple versions of events, to check them against each other." thus I propose using more than one text and compare them. If Tabari and Abi Mekhnaf narrate same thing, we accept it. --Sa.vakilian 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Historians have to develop the quality of judgement, weighing one thing against another, considering all the circumstances of the case. Historians argue among themselves continually as to what can be trusted and what has be considered biased. You're proposing an automatic procedure, which no practicing historian would accept.

Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources[edit]

I think Abu Mekhnaf(d. 157/774), like Qur'an or other Hadiths, is a primary source and according to the wikipedia policies could be used only when it is quoted in secondary sources. If a secondary source quotes and analyzes a passage from it, then that passage should be reliable and could be used. --Aminz 03:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can use Sunni histories like Tabbari and Al-Kamil and compare them. And if just a Shi'a narrates that part we recognize it as a Shi'a POV. --Sa.vakilian 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago I showed Tabari version of this story to Zora but she said that had narrated from Shi'a sites.[3] I told her to see The History of al Tabari, Volume XIX The Caliphate of Yazid b. Muawiyah, Translated by I.K.A Howard, Paper back - ISBN 0-7914-0041-7 . But she told me she hadn't that volume.[4] This manner is unacceptable for me. This is her problem not mine. She can't order us to stay until she buys that volume. There are too many wikipedians and we can find someone who has that volume.--Sa.vakilian 04:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Aminz, I found a text in Arabic about reliability of Abi Mekhnaf in Arabic[5]. I hope you can translate it for Zora because she trust in you. This document shows Tabari knows Abi Mekhnef as reliable source [6].
I think this is the most reliable text about his reliablity we can find[7]:--Sa.vakilian 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"آثار ابومخنف به طور گسترده مورد توجه مورخان بعدي قرار گرفت،چنانكه گاه منحصراً اساس آگاهيهاي تاريخي مربوط به برخي ادوار را تشكيل مي‌دهد.اما اين نكته ماية شگفتي است كه هيچ يك از آثار او به طور مستقيم به دست محققان نرسيده و بر آنچه هم كه به صورت نسخه‌هاي خطي به او نسبت داده‌اند،شائبه جعل و ترديد سايه افكنده است(نكـ:دنبالة مقاله)،اما بي‌ترديد بلاذري و طبري،دو تن از مورخان بزرگ كهن،در رساندن ميراث تاريخ نگاري ابومخنف تا روزگار ما،سهم عمده داشته‌اند.تك نگاريهاي ابومخنف،چنانكه خواهيم ديد،به مناسبتهايي مورد استفاده و استناد مورخان ديگر نيز قرار گرفته،اما به سبب وسعتي كه بلاذري و طبري از نظر زمان و موضوع به كار خود بخشيده‌اند،كار آن مورخان،بي‌گمان به پاية ارزش كار اين دو نمي‌رسد. از آنجا كه روش بلاذري مبتني بر جمع اخبار و التقاط ميان آنهاست،ذيل شرح حال هر كس براساس نسب‌شناسي،تنها به منابع خود اشاره كرده و تقريباً هيچ گاه سلسله رواياتي را كه احتمالاً در مآخذ خود داشته،نياورده است،مگر در موارد بسيار نادر(نكـ:همان،4(1)239).حتي گاه فراتر از اين،روايات چند مأخذ خود را جمع كرده و يكجا آورده است(مثلاً نكـ:همان،5/27)و به همين سبب تشخيص و استخراج كامل و دقيق اخبار منقول از ابومخنف از آثار بلاذري دشوار است و تنها از طريق مقايسه مي‌توان به نتايجي دست يافت(مثلاً نكـ:همان،4(1)/211،جمـ،4(2)/1،1380).طريق استناد بلاذري به ابومخنف گاه از عباس كلبي است از طريق پدرش هشام(مثلاًنكـ:همان،4(1)/211،4(2)/46،155،5/18،28،جمـ)،گاه به طور مستقيم از كتب خود هشام كلبي(همان،4(2)/31)و در موارد بسيار ديگري تنها به عبارتهاي«قال ابومخنف» (همان،4(1)/234، 4(2)/21، 42،48،5/33،جمـ)،يا«قال ابومخنف في روايته»(همان4(2)/24،29،51،138،جمـ)بسنده كرده است.گاه نيز كه تنها در صدر خبر گفته است:«قالوا»،برخي محققان به درستي حدس زده‌اند،احتمال آنكه به ابومخنف اشاره شده باشد،بسيار است(نكـ:قاضي،40؛براي موارد مربوط به بلاذري و ابومخنف در كتاب انساب،نكـ:حمادي،1/329-337؛لاويدا،III/429,431؛گوتين،16-17).در اثر ديگر بلاذري،فتوح البلدان،اشاراتي به روايتهاي تاريخي ابومخنف در باب فتوح آمده،اما اين اشارات،در مقايسه با انساب بسيار اندك است.در اينجا نيز بلاذري به وي از طريق عباس و هشام كلبي استناد جسته(نكـ:فتوح،130،278،305،317،326،335،390)،يا تنها به ذكر نام ابومخنف بسنده كرده است(همان،118،122،253،326).از يك روايت هم معلوم مي‌شود كه مقصود از«قالوا»در حقيقت،ابومخنف است(نكـ:همان،241؛دربارة ديگر استنادات بلاذري به ابومخنف،نكـ:فهرست آثار در همين مقاله). منقولات طبري از ابومخنف،در بررسي و بازيافت آثار او داراي جايگاه ويژه‌اي است.طبري در بخشهاي مهمي از كتاب پرارج خود،آثار ابومخنف را گنجانيده و در اغلب موارد،سلسله سند او را به طور كامل درآورده(نكـ:سزگين،188به بعد،كه فهرستي از راويان و شيوخ ابومخنف به دست داده است)و به همين دليل اثر طبري در اين زمينه از اثر بلاذري ارجمندتر است.افزون بر اينها،آثار ابومخنف در كتاب طبري در بين ديگر اقوال مشخص شده است.اساسي‌ترين منبع طبري در استناد به آثار ابومخنف،هشام بن محمد كلبي است.گرچه طبري در بسياري جايها فقط عبارت«قال ابومخنف»را به كار برده(مثلاً نكـ:تاريخ، 5/35، 56، 73،6/63،219،جمـ)،اما در موارد فراواني هم استناد او به ابومخنف از طريق هشام كلبي است.به هر حال تشخيص اينكه چه رواياتي مستقيما از آثار ابومخنف نقل شده و چه رواياتي از طريق هشام كلبي،اكنون ميسر نيست.موارد مهمي حاكي از مقايسه‌اي است كه طبري ميان روايات ابومخنف با ديگر گزارشهاي تاريخي از مدايني(همان،6/320،396)يا واقدي(نكـ:همان،5/105،6/114)يا ديگران انجام داده است(نكـ:همان،5/91،6/535،558،7/270). پس از طبري،ابوالفرج اصفهاني نيز در بخشهايي از مقاتل الطالبيين به ابومخنف استناد كرده است:از جمله در مقتل اميرالمؤمنين علي(ع)(ص28،31،33،38)و مقتل امام حسين(ع)(ص88،90-91)و همچنين جنبش زيد و شهادت او-گرچه اين روايت با روايت طبري بسيار متفاوت است(ص133به بعد)-و كشته شدن يحيي بن زيد(ص152-153).ابوالفرج سند خود را معمولاً از طريق رجال زيديه مانند احمد بن عيسي از حسين بن نصر،از نصر بن مزاحم(مثلاً نكـ:ص50،82،88،95)يا از طريق ابوالحسن مدايني(مثلاً نكـ:95،99،108،114،جمـ)به ابومخنف مي‌رساند.گاه نيز از عبارت«قال ابومخنف»استفاده مي‌كند كه چندان بعيد نيست مستند او تاريخ طبري باشد(مثلاً نكـ:100-101،111؛قس:طبري،همان،5/366-367،5/407).در كتابي نيز كه اينك به فتوح ابن اعثم شهرت دارد،در وقايع مهم قتل عثمان و واقعة صفين و غارات و سپس مقتل مسلم بن عقيل و سيدالشهدا(ع)،در صدر اسناد،صريحاً به ابومخنف اشاره شده است(نكـ:2/147،344،4/36-37،209-210). افزون بر اينها،روايات ابومخنف در پاره‌اي موضوعات همچون جنبش مختار ثقفي،علاوه بر آنچه مورخان ياد شده از آن بهره برده‌اند،به طور كلي،مورد اعتماد و استناد برخي مورخان ديگر همچون يعقوبي و مسعودي قرار داشته است(نكـ:قاضي،43،44). فهرست تك نگاريهاي ابومخنف را نخست به صورت كامل‌تري ابن نديم(ص105-106)آورده و ياقوت هم آن را از وي اخذ كرده است(ادبا،17/42-43؛نيز نكـ:ابن شاكر،عيون،6/113-114،فوات،3/225-226؛صفدي،24/382-383).از علماي شيعه،كامل‌ترين فهرست از آن نجاشي است(ص320)كه در موارد بسياري با فهرست ابن نديم اشتراك دارد.طوسي به چند اثر ديگر او اشاره كرده است(الفهرست،155؛نيز نكـ:ابن شهر آشوب،معالم،83)؛در اين ميان،گاهي نام كتابها به گونة ديگري آمده است.طريق نجاشي و طوسي،هر دو از هشام بن محمد كلبي به ابومخنف مي‌رسد. برخي از آن تك‌نگاريها واجد اهميت بيشتري است و مؤلفان بعدي به آن آثار اقبال بيشتري نشان داده‌‌اند،ولي از چند اثر او جز چند روايت اندك،نشان ديگري در دست نيست.در اينجا به چند عنوان مهم همراه با مآخذ ديگري كه آثار ابومخنف را مي‌توان در آنها بازيافت،اشاره مي‌شود.بيشتر عناوين آثار او را اورزولاسزگين در كتابي كه به آثار ابومخنف اختصاص داده،همراه با مآخذي كه مي‌توان در آنها اثري از ابومخنف يافت،خاصه در كتابهاي طبري و بلاذري و برخي مآخذ ديگر،با ذكر سلسله اسناد ابومخنف آورده است(نكـ:ص99به بعد)." --Sa.vakilian 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian, I don't dispute that Abu Mekhnaf is not a source. It is however a primary source. Please see this [8]. Primary sources, no matter it is Quran, hadith book or Abu Mekhnaf, should be used with much caution. For example, one can not quote a verse of quran directly to prove something, rather an scholar should say that the Quran claims so and so. And then that would be his personal interpretation. I think the shia encyclopedia you mentioned is a good and enough source for shia pov, isn't it? Please also note that ".اما اين نكته ماية شگفتي است كه هيچ يك از آثار او به طور مستقيم به دست محققان نرسيده و بر آنچه هم كه به صورت نسخه‌هاي خطي به او نسبت داده‌اند،شائبه جعل و ترديد سايه افكنده است" which shows that we can not directly quote from source without explaining the doubts on its reliability. Cheers. --Aminz 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read in that encyclopedia Tabari has quoted from him a lot. So it's sufficient to narrate his story through Tabari:طبري در بخشهاي مهمي از كتاب پرارج خود،آثار ابومخنف را گنجانيده و در اغلب موارد،سلسله سند او را به طور كامل درآورده(نكـ:سزگين،188.
So please use The History of al Tabari, Volume XIX The Caliphate of Yazid b. Muawiyah, Translated by I.K.A Howard, Paper back - ISBN 0-7914-0041-7 .--Sa.vakilian 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian, I think we should narrate shia POV through a secondary source, that is a book written by a Shia scholar explaining the history, not Tabari(because it is a primary source). Cheers, --Aminz 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

من منظورم را فارسی توضیح می دهم. ببینید من پیشنهادم این است که متن طبری را هم بیاوریم و مطابقت دهیم. هرجا که طبری مطابقت داشت آن بخش را نقل می کنیم. همین طور اگر مطلب طبری ناقص بود از الکامل ابن اثیر کمک می گیریم. به هر حال من هیچ وقت نگفتم که فقط با اتکای به یک منبع شیعه کل مقاله نوشته شود. لطفا این نکته را برای زرا هم توضیح بدهید. بخصوص حالا که یک منبع آکادمیک از سزگین پیدا شده است و دیگر ایشان نمی تواند بگوید که ابی مخنف مورد تایید هیچ منبع آکادمیکی نیست.

البته همان طور که حدس می زدم گفت. لطفا این مطالب بخصوص این جمله را که از سزگین نقل کردم دقیقا برایش ترجمه کن و برایش توضیح بده که منبعش هم آکادمیک هست--Sa.vakilian 11:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can read about 50% of this most can't read any of it and since this is the english wikipedia I request that you use english on this discussion page.--Kumioko 03:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka[edit]

Finally I found a book by western writer about Abi Mekhnaf (Thanks God): "Abu Mihnaf: ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der umaiyadischen Zeit by Ursula Sezgin"[9], also you can see:[10] . There are more documents about him.--Sa.vakilian 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I can read French, Tongan, and some Hawaiian. I can't read German (or Arabic or Persian). You don't get to "win" by citing something in a language that I don't know. I think it's reasonable to expect communication in English here, since this is the English Wikipedia. Not only that, only someone connected with a university can access JSTOR.
I hesitate to ask you to translate, since your English is shaky. Can you get a translation of the two articles you cited?
Ah, how this makes me long for the great universal library, where everything is available online, to anyone, free, both as a scan of the original manuscript/book, and in e-texts in all necessary languages. I'm doing my bit for it at Distributed Proofreaders, but it's going to take a long time. Zora 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure you would say this:"I can't read German (or Arabic or Persian). You don't get to "win" by citing something in a language that I don't know." You can want Aminz to translate it for you, but know its your turn to support your claim that we can't narrate Tabari's narrations when he has narrated from Abi Mekhnaf. --Sa.vakilian 17:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Sunnis and Zora - Shi'a and Sunni POV[edit]

God helped me and I found a good article from a Sunni authentic site - Islam Online - which shows whatever I said is not just Shi'a POV but it's academic and also Sunnis accept it. Please read it carefully . [11]--Sa.vakilian 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, you are completely misreading that article. It's a translation of a book review, written by someone whom I do not recognize, about a book writing by an extremely marginal academic who revised an MA thesis and had it published by a small press in Lebanon. This is not a major book! It's a book contrasting Sunni and Shi'a views of martyrdom. The book apparently describes the Shi'a ideas in great detail, and the reviewer parrots the book. This does not constitute Sunnis accepting Shi'a ideas! This does not constitute academic accepting Shi'a ideas. It's a description of Shi'a ideas. You can't tell the difference between description and endorsement! This is very discouraging. Zora 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any other wikipedian who misunderstood my comments more than you. I don't say its endorsement of Shi'a idea. Please pay attention. I say we can write Shi'a and Sunni POV on the basis of this article and also it helps us in historiography. And also this is another article shows Sunni's POV [12]--Sa.vakilian 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, that's the opinion of one Sunni. He doesn't speak for all Sunnis. That seems to be an extremely political declaration, full of fulmination at the US and Israel.

OK. I think there isn't any site which represents all Sunni POV. I found one of them and you can find the other. That site is reliable and under Supervision of Sheik Qarzawi. So on the basis of wikipedia guideline we can use it.:"In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ." [13]--Sa.vakilian 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be running in all directions looking for academic or Sunni support for your FEELINGS about Husayn. What's at issue is exactly what happened before, during, and after the battle.

No you misunderstood again. There are two different issues. One of them is "what happened before, during, and after the battle" which is not a religious issue but a historic one. I accept there may be some differences in narrations. Another one is "What each sect of Islam thinks about it" and it's a religious issue completely.--Sa.vakilian 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also exactly how much we can know of what people said and did when everything is based on oral traditions that were written down hundreds of years after the event. The battle took place in 680. Tabari died in 920. That's 240 years later. 240 years for bazaar storytellers to embellish the tale. That's why Kennedy's description is so sparse. He's basing it on what he believes can be defended against other, sniping, academics.

If you read Tabari instead of discussing with me, You would find that Tabari has narrated the events on the basis of Abi Mikhnaf's report and not the basis of what people had said after 2 hundred years.(Sezgin-academic research has admitted this fact) Also there is academic research on the basis of your academic methodology (western) but apparently you insist on your position!!!--Sa.vakilian 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other academics have accepted more expansive descriptions -- the ones not orking in early Islamic military history :) Muslim historians have accepted yet more material, and Shi'a plays and sermons have elaborated the basic story like kudzu growing over an abandoned car. Aside from the material that has been added (characters, incidents, speeches) the main point of difference between Kennedy's spare version and the maximal Shi'a version is the size of the force surrounding Husayn. Many Shi'a versions rev up the pathos by saying that it was Yazid's entire army, 30,000 men or more, who surrounded Husayn. Kennedy cuts that way down.

However -- Kennedy still depicts a gross mismatch between Husayn's tiny force and the large one facing him, and still describes Husayn's force as dying to the last man. What more do you need, as a Shi'a? You can take the minimalist version and still hold the same feelings about Husayn.

Just to give you something to think over: a Buddhist take on this might be that Husayn was grabbing for power and he was willing to kill people to get it. A bad goal and a bad choice of means. Don't assume that everyone will or should share your enthusiasm for the man. Zora 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that why you think whatever Shi'a has said is biased and truth should be different. Your Dogma doesn't help us at all. For last time I explain that Nor is there just one narration among Shi'a neither do we believe what we(Shi'a) say is correct. Also academic research and Sunni one has used Shi'a narrations a lot. Because it's authentic in their viewpoint. Please go and read Wikipedia:Reliable sources carefully.--Sa.vakilian 04:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Abi Mikhnaf/Tabari a reliable source[edit]

I gathered this part to show Sunni Historians like Tabari and Western academicians have accepted "Abi Mikhnaf" report as a reliable source although he was Shi'a.

  • 1-Sezgin says:Tabari has included Abi Mekhnaf's reports and wrote the chain of narrators completely. (Sezgin:188)[14] for example when he's reported the events of the year 61: [15]
  • 2- "Fred McGraw Donner" studies " The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing" and Abi Mikhnaf's reports.[16]
  • 3- Some other academicians like "Wilferd Madelung" , "Patricia Crone" , "Jan Retso" refers to Abi mikhnaf in their works. [17]
  • 4- Among Sunni historians and scholars we can nominate Tabari, Belazari . Surprisingly our access to Abi Mekhnaf's report of Karbala is achieved through Tabari."مقتل الحسين(ع)،مهم‌ترين كتابي است كه موجب شهرت ابومخنف گرديده و شامل دقيق‌ترين آگاهيها از واقعة كربلاست.ظاهراً كامل‌ترين متني كه اكنون از آن در دست داريم،در كتاب طبري درج شده است.با آنكه به دقت نمي‌توان گفت طبري تا چه اندازه در نقل كامل اين اثر امانت به خرج داده،اما به هر حال،مهم‌ترين مآخذ مستند نويسندگان بعدي دربارة واقعة كربلا همين اثري است كه به مقتل ابي مخنف شهرت يافته است.ب"[18]
  • 5- Islamic Historiography By Chase F. Robinson page 34 and 35[19]
  • 6- Sezgin, Wüstenfeld and Kohlberg have studies what has found in Leiden library. [20]

Finally I should say there are two version of this book is available. One of those is fabricated and the other one which has been based on Tabari history apparantly correct and we can use it as a reliable (primary and secondry) source to write the story of Karbala. You can compare pages 190 and 120 of Maqtal Abi Mikhnaf[21] with pages 114 and 115 of Tabari.[22] There are minor differences because of translation.--Sa.vakilian 06:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Abi Mikhnaf[edit]

SV, it seems that the Abi Mikhnaf collection you want to use is put together from Tabari and perhaps other chroniclers, the same way that Guillaume reconstituted Ibn Ishaq from Ibn Hisham plus quoted snippets from Tabari. But the introduction to your source doesn't say that. Guillaume says it, and gives full references, so that someone else could check his work. Your source doesn't. In its current state, it's not usable.

The SUNY English translation of Tabari is usable, but it's something like 35 volumes, at $30 each in paperback! Not in libraries here. If you have access to it, quoting from the SUNY edition is OK. That doesn't mean that academics accept Tabari as always true. He's NOT. He was writing 240 years later than the battle, legends and self-serving political narratives had developed, and he had his own POV. That's why he's a primary source, really, and tricky to use.
I do not see any problem with quoting Abi Mikhnaf. Even Tabari used him as a refrence [Xain]

As I said before we can use Tabari.--Sa.vakilian 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're also citing other people, not translated into English, and saying that they believe thus and such. I've been letting a lot of that stand but ... really, we don't know that you're correct, do we?

Do I know you're correct when you don't show any reference which supports your claim.--Sa.vakilian 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the perfect world, academics like Carl Ernst or Juan Cole, who are fluent in Arabic and Persian, would be right here arguing with you and you'd have to listen to them. But in the current state of Wikipedia, all we have is me, with my English and French. (My other languages aren't relevant to this argument.) I'm not the best, but I'm the only one here speaking up for academic standards. I got a good dose of those at the University of Chicago. So, by those standards, the Abi Mikhnaf is not acceptable. As for the survey article re the re-assessment of Karbala stories -- it would be a good idea if you were to put up some representative quotes in Persian and then translate them into English. Then no one could doubt that the article says what you think it does.

Are you an acadenician. If not, please find an academic source which support your claim.--Sa.vakilian 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of ways to rewrite the article. I do think that the stark contrast of academic vs. Shi'a is too crude. I wrote that when I was dealing with some Shi'a who were sure that every incident in a taziya was complete historical truth. But first I have to deal with a sick cat. Zora 07:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difference in the interpretation of the history and not history by itself. I think any academician should use Shi'a source like what Tabari and Belazari did.--Sa.vakilian 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examining Abu Mikhnaf[edit]

Zora I hope you find American University of Beirut an academic place. SYED HUSAIN M. JAFRI, "The Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam" [23][24]:

"Abu Mikhnaf, one of the earliest and best Arab historians, has been thoroughly and critically studied by scholars such as Wellhausen88 and others, and recently by Ursula Sezgin in an admirable work entitled Abu Mikhnaf.89 All have found him generally the most reliable and authentic writer on the annals of Kufa and Iraq under the Umayyads. It is now established that, as a rule, he does not take his material from predecessors or far-distant sources, but rather collects it himself by enquiring in the most diverse directions from all possible people who could have first-hand information or who had been present to see and hear for themselves. The chain of transmitters with him is a reality and not merely a literary form, and it is always very short. Writing shortly after the events he describes, Abu Mikhnaf often relates from an eyewitness account with only one intermediary between himself and his source.90 Gibb suggests that Abu Mikhnaf presents an Iraqi or Kufan, rather than purely Shi'i, point of view in his narratives.91 In this his sympathies are no doubt on the side of Iraq against Syria; for Ali, against the Umayyads. Yet in the opinion of Wellhausen there is not much of a bias noticeable, at least not so much as to positively falsify fact.92

The Mqqtal of Abu Mikhnaf has come to us through numerous sources. It is, however, Tabari who used this work in full for the first time and thus becomes our main source of the text. In most cases Tabari quotes Abu Mikhnaf directly, but quite a few traditions he quotes from Hisham b. Muhammad al-Kalbi, most of these, no doubt, going back to Abu Mikhnaf himself. Tabari sometimes begins his narrative by saying: "Abu Mikhnaf said from so-and-so . . ."; and other times by saying: "Hisham (b. al-Kalbi) said from Abu Mikhnaf from so-and-so . . ." This indicates that in the former case Tabari is quoting directly from Abu Mikhnaf's work, while in the latter he quotes Abu Mikhnaf in the recension of Ibn al-Kalbi. Besides Abu Mikhnaf and Ibn al-Kalbi, Tabari also quotes quite a few traditions transmitted from other traditionists, which add a few variants to the preceding ones and in most cases confirm Abu Mikhnaf.

Another source for Abu Mikhnaf is Baladhuri (died 279/892-893), whose Ansab al-ashraf pertaining to Husayn has not yet been published, but has been used by. Veccia Vaglieri in her long and thorough article on Husayn in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vaglieri finds that "Al- Baladhuri almost always used the same sources as At-Tabari, but often made resumes of them, introducing them by qalu (they said), and he provides some additional verses." Our own examination of the manuscript leads us to agree with her findings, thus detailed references to the Ansab manuscript seem unnecessary.93

Besides these two, who have used Abu Mikhnaf in full, we have also referred to Ibn Kathir (died 774/1372-1373), a pupil of Ibn Taymiyya and a committed Sunniof the Syrian school, often very critical of the Shi'i, whom he often refers to as the Rawafid. Ibn Kathir, often selective, naturally ignores those parts of Abu Mikhnaf which are directly against his interests, such as the references to 'Uthman, etc.; otherwise he accepts most of the material of Abu Mikhnaf. On the other hand, early Shi'iwriters, like Shaykh al-Mufid (born 336/947, died 413/1022) in his Irshad, and others, relate the tragedy of Karbala, apart from Abu Mikhnaf from their own sources, often going back to Ali b. al-Husayn. This son of Husayn, twenty-three years old when he was present at Karbala, could not take part in the battle due to his illness and was thus saved from the general massacre. This makes him a major narrator of the tragedy. It is indeed very interesting and useful to note that in general outline and in all the major events, the renderings of Shaykh al-Mufid, a very committed die-hard Shi'i, are closely paralleled by those of the Syrian Ibn Kathir.

In examining Abu Mikhnaf's Maqtal al-Husayn one must particularly take into consideration the time factor to the author's advantage. We do not know precisely the date of his birth, but at the rising of Ibn Ash'ath against Hajjaj in 80-82/699-701,94 Abu Mikhnaf had already reached manhood.95 The tragedy of Karbala took place in 61/680. This means that Abu Mikhnaf must have been born about the year of the tragedy, and at the time of Ibn al- Ash'ath's revolt he must have been somewhere between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two. It is certain that many of those who took active part in the battle of Karbala on the Umayyad side were still living, and thus the author had the opportunity of meeting and interviewing personally those who had witnessed the event themselves. For this reason, in the Maqtal, Abu Mikhnaf cites his authority with the clear observation wa kana qad shahida qatl al- Husayn (and he witnessed the murder of Husayn). Without exception, throughout his narrative he uses the verb haddathani (he told me); and if his report is not directly from an eyewitness, he cites only one or two intermediaries who had received the account from the eyewitness himself. Thus in our quotations above concerning the statements of loyalty, pledges, and rajaz, the isnad runs:

1: Abu Mikhnaf—Muhammad b. Qays (eyewitness).

2: Abu Mikhnaf-Harith b. Abd Allah b. Sharik al-Amiri (eyewitnesses).

3: Abu Mikhnaf- Abd Allah b. Asim and Dahhak b. Abd Allah (eyewitnesses).

4: Abu Mikhnaf-Abu Janab al-Kalbi and Adi b. Hurmula (eyewitnesses).

5: Abu Mikhnaf-Muhammad b. Qays (eyewitness).96

Often he further strengthens his isnad by citing more than one eyewitness, for instance in 2, 3, and 4 above. Reporting the pledges of the supporters of Husayn on the night of Ashura, he says that Ali b. al-Husayn said: "I was lying sick in my bed and heard my father's speech and the replies of his supporters thereto."

The Maqtal al-Husayn of Abu Mikhnaf must have soon received widespread popularity, and numerous copies must have been made and circulated. This is evident from an examination of the isnads and reference to sources in which the work is used by other authors. Tabari's source was no doubt mainly Hisham b. al-Kalbi directly. But Mufid, Abu'l-Faraj (Maqatil al-Talibiyin), Ibn Kathir, and many others give different sources and names through whom the work reached them. For example, Mufid often begins his narrative with the prefatory comment: "What is reported by Al-Kalbi, Al- Mada'ini, and others than these two from among the biographers (ashab as- Siyar)."97 Similarly, Abu'l-Faraj quotes Abu Mikhnaf from Ibn al-Kalbi and Mada'ini, and additionally from sources such as Husayn b. Nasr, the son of the famous Nasr b. Muzahim al-Minqari, the author of Waq'at Siffin, and Awana, the famous historian. Abu'l-Faraj alone uses about five different isnads going back to Abu Mikhnaf, and quite a few other independent isnads going back to Ali b. al-Husayn, and then as usual summarises the accounts of all of them together. Basically, however, Abu'l-Faraj's source for Abu Mikhnaf is Mada'ini.98 Likewise still other authorities and different sources are given by Ibn Kathir, through whom he was able to use Abu Mikhnaf.99

Mention must finally be made of the four manuscripts of the Maqtal, located at Gotha (No. 1836), Berlin (Sprenger, Nos. 159-160), Leiden (No. 792), and St. Petersburg (Am No. 78). It was from the first two that Ferdinand Wüstenfeld made a German translation of the work entitled Der Tod des Husein Ben Ali und die Rache (Göttingen, 1883). Wüstenfeld, while convinced of the early origin of these manuscripts, doubts that the author was Abu Mikhnaf.100 The foremost argument he puts forward is that it contains some miraculous and supernatural types of stories, such as terrible manifestations of grief in natural phenomena: reddening skies, bleeding sands, and so forth. Ursula Sezgin questions Wüstenfeld's criticism at several points and suggests that while the existing manuscripts may be the recensions or rewritings made by some later unknown writers, the fact remains that Tabari's main source of Abu Mikhnaf was Ibn al-Kalbi.101

However, some of these miraculous stories or fantasies have found a place even in Tabari, which suggests that these might have been originally written by Abu Mikhnaf himself or may have been incorporated by Ibn al-Kalbi when he rewrote his master's work. But to cast doubts on Abu Mikhnaf's authorship of the Maqtal only on the grounds that some supernatural and miraculous events are recorded, as Wüstenfeld is inclined to suggest, would mean to ignore certain tendencies of the age. It would perhaps be a grave error to expect that a book written in the early eighth century about a great religious personality would not accept supernatural occurrences as a matter of course, especially when the main event itself is so charged with emotion and suffering. The Near East has produced an enormous number of books on the miracles of saints and holy men, and it would be strange indeed if Islam had not followed in the footsteps of its predecessors in glorifying the deeds of its Prophet and his family, even at the expense of their human greatness. Moreover, as explained in the first chapter, the Arabs always believed in certain supernatural powers endowed on some sacerdotal families. Similarly, certain reactions of natural elements in certain conditions were also a commonplace factor in the system of Arab beliefs. After the Arabs' conversion to Islam, the miraculous stories were growing in narration right from the time of the Prophet, to which the Sira of Ibn Hisham bears testimony.

The most extraordinary circumstances of Husayn's death, immediately followed by the Tawwabun Movement highly charged with passion and remorse, and the propaganda carried out by the Tawwabun and by Al- Mukhtar naturally produced some supernatural stories alongside the accounts of the tragedy. We can, therefore, conclude that even if a few popular legends and supernatural events related to the tragedy are described in the Maqtal, this does not mean that the work is not of Abu Mikhnaf's authorship, nor that the whole account is unreliable. The inclusion of such stories does not eclipse the fact that the Maqtal also contains and comprises the efforts of a prominent Arab historian to collect and preserve the most reliable and the most contemporary historical accounts of Husayn's martyrdom available to scholarship at a time when many participants in the events were still alive and able to contribute their knowledge to Abu Mikhnaf's research."[25] REf: N87 Ibn Nadim, Fihrist , p. 93; Tusi, Fihrist , Nos. 155, 585; Najashi, Rijal , p. 245; Ahlwardt, Nos. 9028-9, 9031-8; Ursula Sezgin, Abu Mikhnaf , Ein Beitrag zur Historiographie der Umaiyadischen Zeit (Leiden, 1971), pp. 116-23, a discussion of the Maqtal itself. On Tusi and his Fihrist , see Sprenger's preface to his edition of this work in the Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1853), and Brown's discussion of biographical authorities in A Literary History of Persia (Cambridge, 1902-4), IV, pp. 355-8. On Najashi also see Brown, loc. cit.

N88 See his preface to The Arab Kingdom and its Fall

N89 See above, note 87

N90 Wellhausen, loc. cit.

N91 EI2 article "Abu Mikhnaf"

N92 Wellhausen, loc. cit.

N93 In the Istanbul Ms. of the Ansab , Husayn is discussed in Ms. 597, ff. 219a-251b

N94 For his revolt see Veccia Vaglieri, EI2 article "Ibn al-Ash'ath", and sources cited therein.

N95 Wellhausen, op. cit., p. vii

N96 See Tabari, index

N97 e.g. Mufid, Irshad , II, p. 29

N98 See Maqatil , p. 95

N99 See Bidaya , VIII, pp. 60, 61

N100 See Der Tod des Husein , Wüstenfeld's preface

N101 Sezgin, Abu Mikhnaf , pp. 190 ff.[26]--Sa.vakilian 10:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different Versions[edit]

Would one please show me the two versions of the article? If you can show me two versions I would be able to compare them. Thanks. Once again, shia POV should be narrated through a secondary souces. If an scholar quotes Abi Mikhnaf, then we can use that. I also think Halem is giving us at least one out of possibly several academic POVs. So, that should be added. If there are doubts that this source is POV, we can always add POV tag to the section.

Please look at Talk:Battle of Karbala#Is Abi Mikhnaf/Tabari reliable. I tried to do this.--Sa.vakilian 09:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the heading of the section: "Account of the battle accepted by non-Muslim academics". Academics are academic. Why should we first check whether they are Muslim or not and then if they are not Muslims, use them. --Aminz 08:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

We can add this link[27] in biblio.--Sa.vakilian 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic section[edit]

Zora, I rewrote the section. I contrasted Encyclopedia Britannica with Heinz. I hope it addresses your point. Cheers, --Aminz 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Zora says the professors of Tehran University like "ZargarNejad" and "Jafarian" who have discussed about authenticity of primary and secondary sources of Karbala arn't reliable.--Sa.vakilian 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell whether or not they're reliable, if I can't read what they have written and if they aren't mentioned or published in the West. I have no way of knowing whether they're professional historians (doing a good job under difficult circumstances) or government hacks with personal connections that got them a job. Moreover, thought is not free there (and hasn't been free for ages, whether under the Shah or under the Islamic Republic). I can't imagine that anyone teaching in Tehran right now would be free to re-examine the Battle of Karbala from a skeptical perspective.

Now perhaps it's possible to do so using the right coded language. But I'd have to know more, and have read more, to judge.

I'll make an article for Rasul Jafarian as soon as possible. But I'm too busy now.--Sa.vakilian 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your recent edits were an improvement, SV, especially the translated quotes. I'd like to do a complete rewrite, but I'm very short of time the last few days. Short of sleep too. I think we need to have a series of descriptions of the battle, not just two. Perhaps terse (Kennedy), more expansive (detailed histories based on sources like Tabari}, and maximally expansive (works of literature rather than history). Zora 09:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

Totally biased. This is not a religious encyclopedia. New section headings are grossly POV. I put up a neutrality notice until I have a chance to revise. Zora 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reorganized the article yesterday and there are still works to be done. It was not according to terms of wikipedia. I will appreciate any help to make this article according to standards of wikipedia. I used references from scholars like Suyuti and I am placing more references from sunni as well as Shiia scholars. This article is about part of the history of Islam. Would you explain the term religious encyclopedia? Farhoudk 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed POV tag. Zora I don't understand your position. Why do you say that edition is Shi'a POV. [28] . Please pay attention . Whatever I've added here is from academic source and a Shi'a site just copy it. Please be careful and just.--Sa.vakilian 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been totally munged. What was formerly the Shi'a POV section has been put in place as WP's own view on the subject, praise of Husayn inserted here and there, a reference demonizing the Ummayads inserted in a section title, etc. It seems as if Farhoud is responsible for a lot of this. Farhoud, what you have been taught as a Shi'a is not accepted by other people.

SV, removing POV tags is not done and will get you blocked if you do it without resolving issues. Zora 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zora POV is in your eye not in the article.You'll find that what you recognize as Shi'a POV is accepted by Sunni too, if you look at the books of Sunni historians like Ibn S'ad and Ibn Kathir. In the differences are in few issues like the role of Yazid. Please go and read then return. You don't have enough knowledge in this case.
Zora, labeling article with POV tag is not acceptable without using reliable references which support your idea.--Sa.vakilian 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, you can't order me not to put up a POV tag. You can't just assert that my concerns don't matter. Your argument that both Sunni and Shi'a accept something, so it's true, may make sense to a Muslim, but it doesn't work for a non-Muslim academic. There are a great things that both Sunni and Shi'a believe that are not accepted by non-Muslims.

You are right that I am deficient in the knowledge of Arabic and Persian, and in the subject matter taught in Shi'a seminaries. However, I have also read a great deal of the Western academic material on these subjects, and on historical research in general, material that you don't seem to know very well. If you were willing to work with me, rather than trying to grab the article for the Shi'a POV, the both of us could make something better than either of us could do alone. Zora 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zora,

1. The reference to Umayyad is showing the opinions of a great sunni scholar Suyuti from Egypt whose books is very popular in hawza. Suyuti narrates several traditions from Prophete Mohammad PBUH in his exegesis book named as Dur al-Manthur or Arabic: در المنثور which interprete the verse 60 of sora 17 of Quran. The translation of the verse is: "And when We told you that thy Lord does encompass the people round about. And We did not make the dream which We showed you, but as a trial for the people,and (likewise) the Cursed Tree in the Qur'an. We warn them, so it does not augment them but a great transgression." Suyuti narrates several traditions from Prophete Mohammad which state that his (PBUH) dream of apes going up and down of his pulpit refers to Umayyad dynasty which Quran describes them as cursed tree. There is no room for narrating all traditions of Suyuti here so kindly refer to Dur al-Manthur for its full text. You see that it is a reality that the Sunni scholars are not happy with Umayyad dynasty as well as Shi'a scholars.

Suyuti is late (1500 CE) and the hadith you cite is probably a forgery. The Sunni scholars (who all wrote after the rise of the Abbasids) had good this-worldly reasons for bad-mouthing the fallen dynasty. It was politically expedient. Zora 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suyuti as a writer of about 350 academic books and paper had enough sensitivity to look after traditions which are valid documents. There is major in Hawza named as Rejal which discuss about deeds of Islamic traditions. You are right he was living after Umayyad and also after Abbasids but this is a good reason for him to freely explain his ideas abou their policies without any fear and without any bias caused by pressure from government. You should give a reference about your idea about his forgery. All Islamic scholars being Sunny or Shia know Suyuti as a great Islamic academist.Farhoudk 10:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I am sure that all ideas of Shi'a are not acceptable for other people being their Sunni brothers/sisters or their Christian or Jewish brothers/sisters etc. But the subject of this article is not matter of ideology but only description of a historical event. It is interesting to remember that a great number of traditions about battle of karbala are narrated by its participants against Hosayn.

You have accepted as a description of a historical event a great many details that are not in the earliest narrations. This is a problem with Islamic histories in general. An early history, based on oral traditions that are already 100 years old and unreliable, is sparse. 100 years later, someone writes another history that has much more material. 100 years later, another history, even more new material. All the new material is clearly fabrication. Most hadith, and most traditions about Muhammad, are of this nature. Pious lies. Zora 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you realized my acceptance? Do you mean that there is no way to find the reality or trith at all? There is a sophisticated methodology here to distinguish between realities and lies. If you are thinking in this way you should put POV on all articles in WP which have written about disciples of Jesus PBUH, since the traditions about them are verbal.

Farhoudk 14:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is a great idea to enrich the section "Account of the battle accepted by western academics" by adding western academies opinions. I only change its location in the article and did not change its contents. Would you mind making it more informative. But remember the western academists also refers only to Islamic references since Muslims were the only witnesses there. Yes, this battle was a civil war, I'm afraid. Farhoudk 10:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farhoud, the article originally had two accounts of the event, one Western academic and one Shi'a. You took off the Shi'a heading and moved that section up, indicating that you wanted the Shi'a account to be accepted as the truth, by everyone who reads the article. That's just not acceptable on WP. Zora 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zora: I don't understand why you say it's Shi'a POV and I also think it's your role to find non-Muslim ideas because I don't have access to those ideas like you.--Sa.vakilian 11:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, I put Western academic POV there since the amount of documents available in Islamic academies about Husayn ibn Ali is very very higher in quantity and quality than Western academies. And one can have better and easier access to them.

Farhoudk 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zora,

4. I have never seen and heard of a faithful muslim who does not respect and does not beleive on Husayn ibn Ali. Since all Muslims consider him as a member of the Ahl al-Bayt. Farhoudk 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? There are more non-Muslims than Muslims in the world, and some non-Muslims are bitterly anti-Muslim. Some of them undoubtedly despise Husayn as just another barbarian from the desert. Zora 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, Please don't loose your temper. Farhoudk means all Muslims glorify him not just Shi'a. I don't understand why should use Shi'a POV when our main source is Tabari and we narrate from Sunni historian and on the other hand we don't insert our interpretation of that event e.g. the role of Imam and his rights and martyrdom. When you show us how different western academicians think about this issue, We can use "Muslim POV". --Sa.vakilian 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Zora,

It is new for me to see such strange wordings about Hosayn ibn Ali from a non-Muslim or even from an anti-Muslim. It is better to make some references to your above claims but I am sure you can not do this I am afraid, since such references does not exist. Your claims is similar to say that there are so many non-Christians or anti-Christians in the world who consider Saint Peter as just another ... Zora, this is not a good methodology.

It is evident that all non-Muslims and also Anti-Muslims can contribute in this article and this is the idea of wikipedia. Why do not you do this by starting a section like "Criticism" or with other titles?

Farhoudk 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the POV tag. It seems that the disputes has been finished. Farhoudk 08:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography of the battle of Karbala[edit]

I found too many texts about Maqtal Al-Husayn. So I propose making new article about this issue.:Maqtal Al-Husayn--Sa.vakilian 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve this part. Do you agree with it now.--Sa.vakilian 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV notice[edit]

I've been asked to remove the neutrality notice. NO, I can't remove it, because the account of the battle given prominence and described as "from Islamic traditions" is in fact a romanticized Shi'a version of the battle. It is mythology rather than history and should not be given pride of place.

I've been completely out of the WP loop for days -- school started. I'm only taking one class, a Hawaiian language class, but it's demanding and thanks to my failure to keep up over the school vacation, I have had catchup to do. My last class for the week is tomorrow morning and after that, I'm going to work on a complete rewrite of the article. Zora 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why Hussain ( AS) chose to Fight[edit]

Because the time of Yazid, The Islam was being reuled by Hypocrates,in Arbic is "Moafigh" They wore the rope of Hollymen, But behaved against the teaching of God, Yazind and his fahter Muawieh, lived in castels called GREEN catle, the poor people we deprived of thier food, whome ever critisized the system were killed and branded as infidels. The leaders of UmAVI YSNASTY LIKE MUAWIEH AND YAZID, iN PULIC THE PUT SHOW OF BEING GOOD, BUT they killed many inncients, stole the food and belongins of orphans, and elderly, they raped beautiful woman as their own slaves, they live life of murderrers and called themselves the representative of prophit in the land. these people were drunk, did not pray and killed as their wish.......and they wore the suite of holly man...like the Mullahs of iran Now..Like Mr Rafsanjani and Khameneiee...these people are follower of yazid and enemy of Hussain....

That was the reason hussain rose up agains these so called leader of people.

Zora will return[edit]

I've been very busy with my Hawaiian class, and I have a freelance project (typist work on a book on the Hawaiian goddess Pele) that I must finish, but ... I do mean to try to do a rewrite of the article, which is still unacceptably Shi'a-pious. I DID spend the money on a copy of the relevant volume of the SUNY translation of Al-Tabari, so I'll be able to quote from that. (I'm hampered by being able to work only in English -- Waqidi and Baladhuri not in English yet -- can't find any mention of Husayn in Ibn Sa'd, but I have only four volumes of a partial English translation.) Zora 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Alkamil of Ibn Athir. He narrated a summary of Tabari history in this case and didn't mention the chain of narrators but their stories are similar.--Sa.vakilian 16:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significance?[edit]

I was taught that this battle helped to cause the division between Shias and Sunnis. Should this be emphasized? Saadius Maximus 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think so.--Sa.vakilian 16:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political background[edit]

"Political background " " his policies was not accepted by some companions and specially Muawiya I refused his allegiance. " why have not you mentioned reasons here.it is incomplete sentence,which policies and why(Muawiya)did so

Khalidkhoso 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the background of this article and we can refer to main article for that issue. I mean there isn't enough room to explain everything in this article and there are another articles which are more relevant. --Sa.vakilian 16:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Facts of this Battle[edit]

1. Many persons tried to convince Husayn that support of Kufans was not dependable and those people could not be relied upon.

2. The incident of Karbala was prophecised by Muhammad and he had told Ali about it and many companions of Husayn and Husayn himself knew about it, as what was going to happen.

3. Husayn kept getting bad news after bad news on his way to Karbala and yet he continued his journey.

4. After reaching Karbala Husayn established his camp it appeared as he had no plans to go any further, it was after three days when Hur arrived to stop him.

5. Husayn allowed all his companions to leave if they so wished and their was no binding from his (Husayn) side.

6. Not only all his companions volunteered to stay but also some of the Yazid's solidiers including a general i.e. Hur defected Yazid's army and joined Husayn, knowing fully well that they all will have to die there.

7. Husayn had the option to submit to Yazid and save himself and yet he decided otherwise and chosed to die.

These facts are enough to make believe that those people had some greater aim than life and the exageration in the history might be true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farhoudk (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use image[edit]

Would you explain what does "invalid fair-use claim" mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=107367802&oldid=107367147 Best. Farhoudk 19:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, re. the image at Battle of Karbala: A reproduction of a copyrighted painting can be used under the fair-use rationale of {art} only "for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs" (see Template:Art). That is, you could use it in, for instance, an article about "popular Persian painting" or whatever. But not in an article to illustrate the battle. See Wikipedia:Fair use, especially the subsection about "Counterexamples". Number 4 in the list is directly comparable to this case: "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war" is not "fair use". Thanks for your understanding, Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Use of PBUH in Battle of Karbala[edit]

Deleting PBUH may be considered impoliteness. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=107061885&oldid=106922532 See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Farhoudk 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, Farhoudk. My edits to the Battle of Karbala article were certainly not intended as impoliteness. In two of the phrases I edited, the possessive form should have been used, but wasn't. The resulting phrases (for example, "the Muhammad (PBUH) family" instead of simply "Muhammad's family") were less clear and easy to understand, not to mention being grammatically incorrect. When editing those two phrases, I also went through and removed all other PBUH's in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on Islamic honorifics. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and should be written in a manner that is acceptable to all English-speaking people (for the English Wikipedia, that is), regardless of their religion. Honorifics represent the point of view of one particular religion. Having said that, I might have included a more descriptive edit summary, and I could have brought it up on the talk page of the article. I hope you don't feel I was being uncivil. In any case, thank you for reminding me of the civility policy; we should all strive to be civil at all times. --DavidConrad 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POV tag by 141.161.60.20[edit]

Since user 141.161.60.20 is unknown and do not make any discussion about its POV tag, I removed the tag. Farhoudk 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag because there's plenty of discussion in this talk page already about POV already - the tag is what was missing, not the discussion. The article is improving (And I believe the content of your edits have been good ones) but it's still not close to NPOV yet. 141.161.43.177 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please sign in and then start your disscussions. The mentioned discussions are very old and since then there are so many changes. Please specify what you mean. I will remove POV tag to hear from you. Farhoudk 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of POV issues in the article though. Jmlk17 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image of Farshchiyan http://farshchianart.com[edit]

Image:Ashura_afternoon.jpg

Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted this image which is Miniature painting of Ashura afternoon, after martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali. The paining shows Husain's children and sister weeping around his thoroughbred horse when it came back toward their tents. — (Image by Iranian famous miniaturist Mahmoud Farshchiyan)

Future Perfect at Sunrise says: "image lacking fair use rationale". see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=107573235&oldid=107528877

Farhoudk 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Counterexamples of Fair use image: 4. A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war. (However, because of its iconic status, it is presumably Fair Use where we have a small image of Picasso's Guernica in the article Bombing of Guernika.)

Farhoudk 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Iconic status of the image "Ashura afternoon" is a reality in various countries in the middle east which may be unknown for other people around the world. The same things may happen for image of Picasso's Guernica, to be unknown for the people in the middle east. Is there any exact definition for the term "iconic" to help us better underestand which image could be used and which one should not be used in a specific article? Farhoudk 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Farhoudk's talk page. And sorry, a fair use image should also not appear hear on talk - replacing with a link. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Gregorian or Lunar calendar[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=113189530&oldid=113113250 .

The exact dates are very important for good underestanding of the battle. It is better to mention all dates as narrated in the history. Or one can mention Gregorian calendar with a footnotes showing lunar. Farhoudk 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it (the anniversary is based on Lunar calendar so the Gregorian is in parentheses). Farhoudk 11:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senan ibn Anas al-Nakhaei or Shimr ibn Dhil-Jawshan[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=116060833&oldid=116037816 See Also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=113356703&oldid=113189530

Some body tries to change the narration of the history into wrong one without any citation. why? Farhoudk 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting the fantastical[edit]

No problem with reporting the legends, but they do need to be written that way don't you think? 68.244.56.65 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


_____________________________________________________________

Hey guys, the end of the introduction where it talks about "brahmanian husseinins" (or however you spell it :P ) is irrelevant and should be removed or moved to another section...the source for this information is ridiculous http://www.defencejournal.com/2003/june/tribesandturbulence.htm), and the strong suggestive words proudly, etc.. would be questioned by any credible Islamic Theocratic institution (whether in Cairo or Najaf /Qom you can find the original sources describing the event and martyred and followers)- They are Shia Arabs who were seeking refuge in ((what is present day Iraqi-Iran border line).

Remove the Brahmanian Husseinins , at least to another section because no where else in this does it include the original descent of the people who were there, or for that matter discuss race/descent/following of religion (if Brahmanians are practicing the religion proudly, why doesnt it mention اثنا عشريةTwelvers or any other sect? it is only presenting followers of one culture, and an exotically sourced one if I may add) so I think it mentioning race is unacceptable because its irrelevant and I can't find any journal articles on it either

Removal of copypaste copyvio material[edit]

I've removed a 23,000 character section of text from the article headed "Brief History of Transfer of the Sacred Head of Husayn ibn Ali Published in Daily News, Karachi, Pakistan on 03-1-2009" as it appears to be a copied and pasted copyright violation. A lot of it matches an article at the Yemen Times here. Esowteric+Talk 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KIlling of Infant Son of Hussein[edit]

Why has it been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.60.143 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni perspective?[edit]

This battle is foundational for the Shi'a/Sunni split. Clearly, it's a bigger deal in Shi'a's story about itself, because this article has a lot of Shi'a perspective written in. But an article on an event with such present-day repercussions should not lack the other side of the story, and should DEFINITELY not lack the perspective on its present-day effects. The lede should talk about why it's important to Shi'a, and what Sunni think about it. 187.143.11.17 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


To everyone, First of all the battle of Karbala was not foundational for Shia/Sunni split rather it was Succession to Mohammad which led to division. Secondly, off-course this article should cite both perspectives from Sunni and Shia books. I have included references from some prominent Authors/Books of Sunnis like Ibn Kathir, and Al Tabari and Ibn Nama. And also have cited sources from Shiite books like Maqtal Al Husayn, in some cases I have cited Sunni references like Ibn Kathir and Al Tabari which were used in Maqtal al Husayn to make the authenticity of the article undisputed, wherever it has been asked and appropriately required. After going through the article completely I don't see any emotional statements and have deleted the ones which were found because its not appreciated as an Editor. Still I have kept the tag as it is for final review and will remove the tag once I finish thorugh review again. Humaliwalay (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Image?[edit]

The picture accompanying the article is tagged "Virtual image of Hussein bin Ali with his infant son in his hand, as he addressed Yazid's army". Why the "Virtual image" part and not simply "Hussein bin Ali with his infant son in his hand, as he addressed Yazid's army". The term virtual image is from optics and makes no sense here. Elethiomel (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No outside input in over 24 hours, therefore I made the change. Elethiomel (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.al-islam.org is not a reliable source[edit]

Please note that there is extensive use of www.al-islam.org as in-line citation for all sorts of shia-centric viewpoints that are presented as fact. This is not NPOV. www.al-islam.org is an openly shi'ite website which does not even attempt to disguise itself as mainstream, or even scholarly. I challenge the use of this website as a reliable source, and invite anyone who wishes to see the material referenced by this site to remain, to find alternative citation that adheres to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Otherwise it may be removed or rephrased to make it clear that it is a minority Shi'a viewpoint.--AladdinSE (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Islam .org has been recognized by reliable sources like Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and Library of Congress. Where the reference comes from doesn't matter. The thing which does matter is whther its reliable or not. Yes its a Shia site but is a reputed and reliable one. Tags don't apply just because you biased perception does not like it. - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site has in no way been "recognized" by a single one of the institutions you listed. The mere listing of this site as a resource for further reading does not qualify as a reliable neutral source according to policy, at least not as to presenting minority opinions as uncontested facts. A listing of websites to read is very different from a list of reliable sources for encyclopedic verification. Incidentally, one of your links is invalid, and another, just an an example, clearly states "with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought." You admit that it is an openly Shi'a website, and yet you would have us use it as verification of highly contentious material that is presented as fact and not the minority Shia viewpoint that it is. At best, contentious material relying solely on this site (or others like it) for verification must be rephrased to make clear that this is a Shi'a viewpoint. Otherwise, how can you possibly justify presenting this material as fact when you know perfectly well that 85%-90% of Muslims in the world do not believe it?? Allow me to quote from WP policy specifically:

All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.

Now, honestly, reading the article and all the statements of "fact" that are supported by al-islam.org, can you truthfully declare it to be neutral and in proportion to world muslim opinion? Of course not! All the articles regarding Ali, Husayn, Battle of Karbala, Yazid, etc, they reek of emotional Shi'a centric POV pushing. We can certainly present shia viewpoints, but NPOV policy demands that we present it as such, especially when Islam is 85%-90% Sunni. Let us use the simple, fair formula set out in the policy page, John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y. Furthermore, kindly refrain from personal attacks, assume good faith and maintain civility. Statements like "Tags don't apply just because you biased perception does not like it" are uncalled for.--AladdinSE (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am in good faith I did not intend to attack you, your edit here [29] alleged Ali of failing to do justice without any citation can be termed no more than a biased one. Secondly, it does not matter whether Islam is 80% or 100% Sunni. That does not justify replacing entire article with propaganda material just because majority agrees with that.

Last but not the least, if you have any problem with Al-Islam.org then kindly take it to WP:RS/N rather than modifying anything without gaining any consensus. I won't be having any issues with you then. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not dispute Muawiya being related to Uthman, I was just oppose to your earlier edit which alleged Ali to fail to punish Uthman's killers. I have not modified your recent edit in that section. But for POV tag please build up a consensus either here or at WP:RS/N before you tag it, as I do not see any POV in article. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the very definition of propaganda when an openly minority and shia website is used as a reference to back up contested material which is presented as fact and not as the minority viewpoint that it is. If material is contested, and your source is clearly a fervently religious website, it is simply NPOV to make clear that the material is "according to Shia viewpoints". Furthermore, in your first revert you removed the correct information that Muawiyah was kin to Uthman, even though you do not dispute it. Please be more careful in editing. I know it is easier to just click on "undo", but in the process you might remove correct and uncontested edits. Now, as far as the murder of Uthman goes, if you dispute the fact that his assassins were never caught, citations can certainly be produced to that effect. I remember seeing them elsewhere on Wikipedia. Ali came under criticism that he was not able to bring the perpetrators to justice (he was preoccupied with revolts from the moment of his succession), and Muawiyah exploited this. In any case, I in no way justify Muawiyah. There's no doubt in my mind that it was a convenient pretext for revolt. Ali's election was as valid as any election that can be pulled off in Arabia at that time, and he was a well meaning and pious man by all accounts, and therefore revered as the last Rashidun caliph. Also it was very unfortunate that Muawiyah ended the electoral aspect of the caliphate, because history shows us that dynasties always fall in the end. But at the same time, I am astounded at the hypocrisy in this article and others where Shia editors seem to think that Sunni dynastic succession is not permissible and un-Islamic but perfectly permissible for the Shi'as. Placing exclusive authority to rule the Islamic ummah in one family and their descendants (i.e. Ahl ul bayt) is just as much a dynasty as the Ummayads were. In fact, all the mullahs and Ayatollahs around the world, especially in Iran, claim decent from Muhammad and Quraysh when statistically they are not even Semitic Arabs but Indo-Aryan people and therefore cannot be descendants of the family of the Prophet. But of course every shi'ite that has political ambitions will claim decent form ahl ul bayt and wear a black turban and pretend that he has a divine right to command others no matter where he really comes from. It's laughable. Anyway, that's rather beyond the scope of this particular discussion thread, but I eventually I would like to purge all these articles of these emotional, biased and often romantic historical accounts of the shia-sunni schism. Our guiding principle should be to state when contentious viewpoints are Shia and when they are Sunni. Surely there can be no objection to that.--AladdinSE (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, www.al-islam.org is not a reliable source to be used in Islam-related Wikipedia articles. Columbia University, British Academy, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, George Mason University, Library of Congress and others are no fools to pick www.al-islam.org as their main reference on Islam. There are plenty of major academic sources (PBS (Islam:Empire of Faith), Britannica, Oxford, and others) easily available so why not use them instead? The most trusted and reliable source for Islam-related articles is the PBS, Islam: Empire of Faith documentary, which is put together by leading western experts on Islam. It's also available in videos or DVD.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your abusive comments are uncalled for. I'm not pretending to be a teacher, I consider myself a student and I'm here to improve my skills. Accept everyone and you'll find true peace.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ALY, imo your comments were more abusive as they tend to encompass whole community and definitely your comments point that iyo Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs in addition your comments tend to defile dignity of Shi'a community by accusing them of forging lineage links.
In addition it seems Allah prefers dynasties (if you have read Quran you may recall covenant of Allah to Ibrahim as regarding Imamah in His progeny and in that series progeny of Muhammad sawa as per Shi'a are inheritor of that covenant).
But, imo discussion here is not related to these points and everybody should stick to the point and refrain from attacking believes, communities, nationalities, individuals, etc.
Finally, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

size of army[edit]

the size of the army in karbala is over 900,000 men against 72 thats the actual size of army in karbala.

36,000-200,000 army ? are you serious? Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been for sometime, insha'Allah if I ever get some texts on the subject that take it in a more historical manner I shall use them to fix this article. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 22:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in response to this, Yazid did not know how large the Imam's army was until they were stopped. Also they were arguably they were excellent fighters. So it is very possible that Yazid sent an army of over 100,000 against an army of 72. Also at that time, most of the combat was one on one, thus enabling the Imam's army to wipe out a large number of the enemy, possible dealing heavy damage, considering it was fairly easy for others to take revenge for the killings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.31.182 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I tagged this article with the {{tone}} tag. Quite a bit of the writing seems to be a bit hagiographic. For example, there are plenty of references to things being miraculous. I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's place to be declaring miracles, as opposed to reporting what others have said. — PyTom (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. Further, there are very few references to sources outside the miraculous narrative, what with infants reporting for service and such. As said, the article is completely ridiculous and borders on the surreal. Far from being neutral, too. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article is written in the same way it is narrated in Islamic texts. To change this would be to disconnect it from its context. Don't forget, this is an event from Islamic history. Not an instruction manual of how to put together a table. Noaccess2k (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would suggest that it is not possible to make an article on an Islamic subject or about an event that uses Islamic text. The idea about Wikipedia is not to repeat what the Islamic text are saying. That is more appropriate for Wikisource. The idea of Wikipedia is to produce articles of encyclopaedic quality. Of course the article should mention that certain sources report about the event in miraculous terms but the article should be more then that.Scafloc (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The article, in its current form, is completely ridiculous.
      • I have no idea what that means, Noacess2k. "This is not an instruction manual of how to put together a table"? Ogress smash! 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand where you are coming from saying that this is written as in the Islamic texts but can they be called a reliable source for quotes and historical facts? I know that the Bible has gone through many revisions by different people over time so I am assuming that the Islamic texts have too? Stagehunk (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This needs to be cleaned up. I'm not a familiar with this subject but it sure doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry. Sheilaj (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't narrated from the Koran if you're asking in comparison to Bible. These have all been referenced from Islamic sources/etc but could also be considered biased. While the true story is indicative of the events mentioned in this article, the amount of close details could be wrong, especially references to God and speeches that have no backing. I would suggest cleaning it up a little because frankly I doubt anyone knows "exactly" what happened every second of the ten days in question, but to exclude it would be a crime because the whole picture painted is true at the end of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.182.177 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not about whether the fantastic narrative is true or not (and I'm using "true" in the sense that the events are "true" in regard to their own subjective plane of reality), it's whether the article should refer to the event as a real, referrable, historical event or not. I hope I'm not stepping on muslim toes here, but the events are thus as "true" as any other fantastic and miraculous story, be that story "The Lord of The Rings" or the Norse Viking creation story, what with giants and snakes and what not. I'm not writing this to cause any hurt to our muslim brothers and sisters, I'm merely pointing out supernatural stories are by their definition not factual. The article should reflect this. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs immediate attention. I notice it's been 8 months since the POV tag was put up, and this article still reads like a narration from a storyteller/performer. If the article is to remain in its current state, an additional notice should be created. I've put up the Story template notice for this purpose. 206.223.190.7 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tried to remove some of the material which has no reliable or verifiable source.86.178.128.150 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Bias, for example the author criticizes Muawiya attempt to create a dynasty through Yazid I yet accepts and glorifies the attempt by the followers of Ali ibn Abi Talib and his elder son Hasan to create their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.61.242 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the hardest thing to make NPOV--sort of like the Jesus article. Yazid was and is considered wrong by most Muslims today and by historians, because he tried to change Islam into a less strict form. The entire narrative seems and is supernatural, but I do not know how we can change it to NPOV when these events did happen. Anyone have any suggestions? I know quite a bit about Islamic history and would love to help. HaterofIgnorance (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I agree [with the statement dated 12 June 2008]. The article, in its current form, is completely ridiculous.
  • +1 Either it should be clearly put that the views on battle are not real, or most of the text should be removed. If it remains as description of mythological event, it should be considerably shortened. Also, desipte complaints from 2008, 3 years later (Oct. 2011) this has not been resolved. Editor MUST act on this, or I will erase large part of the article, forcing him/her to do something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.44.117 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you make a copy of the article and edit it the way you want at Talk:Battle of Karbala/Shorter version. Then we will understand what you mean, and you can explain the advantages of your version here.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not expert on the topic to make adequate shortening or editing. But text like "He was ambushed from behind a bush and his right arm was cut off. Abbas ibn Ali put the water skin on his left shoulder and continued his way but his left arm was also cut off. Abbas ibn Ali now held the water skin with his teeth." does not belong to wikipedia, since it is obviously impossible (unless we describe the black knight from monty python's). This is the most blatant example of other inaccuracies in the text (it is unclear what is history and what myth). You may try to separate it based on these two criteria, thus preserving most of the text and still meeting the quality standards of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.42.157 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recommend total article revision[edit]

this article reads as if it was nearly lifted from the islamic texts. too much fantasy and fiction in this for it to be on Wikipedia. i recommend some non-muslim editors co-operate on an abridged version of this article (sorry muslims, but given the hugely different perspectives on the individuals involved i thinks it's unlikely that sunni and shia could reach consensus on this topic) as for the fantastic events and numbers of men in the army (btw in fertile europe at the same time the biggest supportable army was in the region of 30,000 soldiers, in the arid arabian peninsular it would be much smaller), they are written as if they happened. not much NPOV in this one. if this article isn't cleaned up soon, i may have to get my hands dirty, as it were. 188.220.151.59 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC) user teknotiss (nearly always forget to sign in!)[reply]

Numbers of casualties[edit]

The infobox here has the casualties as 70+Husain+his baby son=72. But List of casualties at the Battle of Karbala says 128-130. Also what about casualties from Yazid's army - are these recorded? Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) ofcourse is over 50,000 laanti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.229.50 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect of the claimed citation to Tabari for the Caliph's army's casualties, I will check Tabari Volume 19 next week or the week after to see whether it mentions a figure. I will report what I find or do not find here.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page 163 of the 1990 edition published by the State University of New York Press, says that the government army lost 88 men killed, and also some men wounded.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding and adding the cite. Edward321 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real version of the battle of Karbalah that Shia Imams want hidden from the masses[edit]

Here are some historical details which are based overwhelmingly upon Shia sources and outline the build up to the oppressive and unjust murder of al-Husayn, and then look at these Shia sources to see who actually murdered al-Husayn.

These books include: al-Shia wal-Aashooraa of Ridhaa Husayn Subh al-Husnee, Seerah al-A’immah al-Ithnaa Ashar by Haashim Ma’roof al-Husnee, al-Majaalis al-Faahkirah of Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Deen al-Mawsawi, Maqtal Husayn of Abd al-Razzaaq al-Mawsawi al-Muqrim, Muntahaa al-Aamaal of Abbaas al-Qummee, Alaa Khattay al-Husayn of Ahmad Raasim al-Nafees, al-Ihtijaaj of al-Tabarsee and numerous others.

Background

After the death of Mu’awiyah (radiallaahu anhu) his son Yazid took power and he sent messengers from the seat of power (Shaam) to the various lands requesting that the prominent people there come under his obedience and give him the pledge of allegiance. Whilst the senior amongst the Companions came under his obedience, al-Husayn (and others such as Ibn al-Zubayr) did not do so for their reasons.
Promises of the Shia of Kufah. The Shia of Kufah would write to al-Husayn whilst he was in Makkah asking him to come to them to lead them, promising that they would render him obedience. Al-Husayn sent Muslim bin Aqeel to verify the matter in Kufah before embarking on his journey towards it.
Pledge of Allegiance. When Muslim bin Aqeel reached Kufah he was given a pledge of allegiance by 18,000 according to some and 40,000 by others (from Shia sources). He was hosted by Haani bin Urwah. Muslim bin Aqeel himself was apprehensive about this whole matter as he knew that these people had proven treacherous in the past (towards Alee bin Abi Taalib and al-Hasan) and are quick to change colour.
At the same time al-Nu’maan bin Basheer was already in Kufah having been it’s governor on behalf of Mu’aawiyah, and Yazeed had retained him in that position. However, al-Nu’maan, knowing of Muslim’s presence did not get involved or cause him any harm, and he did not wish to cause any divisions and hence, let this matter be.
Al-Husayn Leaves for Kufah. When this had taken place, Muslim wrote to al-Husayn informing of what had transpired, and that the people of Kufah had united behind him, and that they were now waiting for him, and that 80,000 had given him the pledge of allegiance. al-Husayn then set off for al-Kufah, though he was advised by the senior Companions not to leave, and they include Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umar, Ibn al-Zubayr, Jaabir bin Abd Allaah, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree, Abdullaah bin Amr bin al-Aas and also by his brother, Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah who warned him of the treachery of the Shia of Kufah towards his father and brother.
Even after at the point of setting out on the journey, both Ibn Abbaas and Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah pleaded with him not to go. However, it was in the decree of Allaah that he would remain firm upon his decision to leave. So he set out for Kufah.
Desertion and Treachery of the Shia. Meanwhile, when Ubayd Allaah bin Ziyaad entered Kufah the Shia who had pledged allegiance to Muslim bin Aqeel abandoned him until Muslim was left literally on his own. Muslim had in fact anticipated and feared this all along as he had known the dealings and history of these people with the Ahl al-Bayt previously. Muslim bin Aqeel, Haani bin Urwah and Abd Allaah bin Yaqtar were deserted by the Shia and were captured and killed by Ubayd Allaah bin Ziyaad.
The news of this reached al-Husayn in a letter (sent by Muslim bin Aqeel before being killed) in which it was stated that the Shia had abandoned and deserted them (Muslim bin Aqeel, Haani bin Urwah) and that whoever wished to turn back may turn back without any blame upon him. As a result the people (who had come with al-Husayn) began to depart and take to their own ways and their only remained with him his closest companions and his own household.
This is mentioned by the Shia in their works, from them Abbaas al-Qummee, Abd al-Razzaaq al-Mawsawi al-Muqrim, Baaqir Shareef al-Qurashee, Ahmad Raasim al-Nafees, Faadhil Abbaas al-Hayaawee, Shareef al-Jawharee, Asad Haydar, Muhsin al-Husaynee, Abd al-Haadee al-Saalih, Ridhaa al-Qazweenee and others.
Arriving at Karbalah. Upon hearing of the desertion and treachery of the Shia in Kufah, al-Husayn stopped proceeding towards Kufah and moved in the diretion of Shaam, coming to Karbalah. In the beginning of Muharram of that year (61H), al-Husayn arrived at Karbalah (Iraq), and the Shia of Kufah, after having deserted him, were stirring things against him. Al-Husayn gathered those with him and his household and delivered a sermon at Karbalah, and within it he reviled the Shia, calling them “taaghoots,” “throwers of the Book behind their backs,” “criminals,” “extinguishers of the Sunan,” “killers of the children of the Prophets,” “whose bellies are filled with haraam” and so on.
And this sermon is documented in the Shia works and its wording is agreed upon and cited by Ali bin Moosaa bin Taawoos, Abd al-Razzaaq al-Muqrim, Faadil Abbaas al-Hayaawee, Haadee al-Najafee, Hasan al-Saffaar, Muhsin al-Ameen, Abbaas al-Qummee and many others. It is here we now arrive at the murder of al-Husayn (radiallaahu anhu) by the criminals.
Ambush and Murder. Whilst he was in Karbalah there were discussions between him and Amr bin Sa’d (representing Ubayd Allaah bin Ziyaad) and al-Husayn implored him with one of three things, a) they take him to Yazeed (whom he knew would not kill him) or b) that he simply returns back to the Hijaaz or c) that they take him to one of the border regions of the Muslims where he will remain. But these were not accepted by Ubayd Allaah bin Ziyaad, and this eventually led to the battle at Karbala.
Amr bin Sa’d led the contingent from Kufah with Shammar bin Dhil-Jawshan and others (and they were all from the Shia of Kufah) and they surrounded him. Because they were overwhelmed in number and power, al-Husayn and those with him were killed, and the killer of al-Husayn was Shammar bin Dhil-Jawshan, from the Shia of Ali (radiallaahu anhu). Killed along with Husayn were other sons of Ali bin Abi Talib, from them (according to numerous Shia authorities themselves) Abu Bakr bin Ali, Umar bin Ali, Uthman bin Ali, and also Ali’s grandsons through al-Hasan, Abu Bakr bin al-Hasan bin Ali and Umar bin al-Hasan bin Ali.
Note: Have you just noticed the names of those killed from Ahl al-Bayt who were with al-Husayn?! Then you will understand why the lying Shia never mention their names when they tell their story of Karbala from the pulpit to an ignorant Shia audience! This is because the common Shia will realize that the Ahl al-Bayt loved the three caliphs so much they named their own children with their names!

Shia Authorities and Historians on Who Murdered al-Husayn

Shia authorities, historians and writers confirm that it was the Shia of Kufah, after deserting al-Husayn, and acting treacherously even though the pledge of allegiance they had given was still around their necks, came to kill him and take his family captive. The following quotes are all from Shia authorities.

The advice of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyyah, the brother of al-Husayn, who said to al-Husayn:

O my brother, you already know the treachery of the people of Kufah towards your father and brother. And I fear that your affair will be the same as that of he who has already passed.” al-Malhoof of Ibn Tawoos (p. 39), Aashooraa of al-Ihsaa’ee (p. 115), al-Majaalis al-Faakhirah of Abd al-Husayn (p. 75), Muntahaa al-Aamaal of Abbaas al-Qummee (1/454).]

The saying of al-Husaynabout the Shia of Kufah:

O Allaah, judge between us and between a people who requested us to aid us, but who then killed us. [Muntahaa al-Aamaal of Abbaas al-Qummee (1/535)]

The Shia writer, Husayn al-Kawraani writes:

The people of Kufah did not suffice with splitting from al-Imaam al-Husayn, but the result of their changing their colours led to a third position which is that they began to prepare to depart to Karbalah in order to wage war against al-Imaam al-Husayn (alayhis salaam). And in Karbala they would hasten (racing each other) to take up their positions, those which pleased Shaytan and which anger al-Rahmaan (Allaah). For example we find that Amr bin al-Hajjaaj who only yesterday was prominent in Kufah as if he was the guardian of the sanctuary of Ahl al-Bayt, and a defender of them, and the one who led an army to save Haani bin Urwah, went on to stomach (gulped) all of his apparent position(s) in order to accuse al-Imam al-Husayn of exiting from the religion, let us reflect upon the following text: “And Amr bin al-Hajjaaj used to say to his companions, ‘Fight the one who exited from the religion and separated from the jamaa’ah (meaning al-Husayn)…’.” Fee Rihaab al-Karbalaa (pp. 60-61)

And al-Kawraani also writes:

And we find another stance indicating the hypocrisy of the people of Kufah, Abd Allaah bin Hawzah al-Tameemi came in front of al-Imaam al-Husayn (alayhis salaam) and shouted, “Is Husayn amongst you?” Yet he was from the people of Kufah and only yesterday was he from the Shia (party) of Alee (alayhis salaam) and it is possible that he was from amongst those who wrote to al-Imaam (al-Husayn) or from the group of Shabath and others who wrote (to al-Husayn from Kufah)… then he (comes and says) “O Husayn, receive glad tidings of the Fire…”! [Fee Rihab al-Karbalaa (p. 61)]

And another Shia author, Murtadaa Mutahhiree writes, answering the question he asks himself: How did the people of Kufah embark on fighting al-Husayn(alayhis salaam) despite their love of him and their sentimental attachment to him?:

And the answer is the awe and fear which had taken root upon the people of Kufah in general since the time of Ziyad and Mu’awiyah, and which increased and grew to alarming proportions upon the arrival of Ubayd Allaah [bin Ziyaad] who upon arrival immediately killed Maytham al-Timaar, Rasheed, Muslim and Haani … [al-Malhamah al-Husayniyyah (3/47-48)]

The Shia, Kaadhim al-Ihsaa’ee al-Najafee says:

The army that set out to wage war against al-Imaam al-Husayin (alayhis salaam) were 300,000 (in number) all of them were from the people of Kufah. There was not amongst them any Shaamee, Hijaazee, Hindee, Baakistaanee, Sudaanee, Misree, or Afreeqee. Rather, all of them were from the people of Kufah and they had gathered together from many diverse tribes. [Aashooraa (p. 89)]

The Shia historian, Husayn bin Ahmad al-Baraaqee al-Najafee said:

Al-Qazweenee said: And from that which for which scorn was shown to the people of Kufah was that they reviled al-Hasan bin Ali (alayhimaa as-salaam), and killed al-Husayn (alayhis salaam) after they themselves had invited him (to be their leader). [Taareekh al-Kufah (p. 113)]

And the Shia reference point, Aayat Allaah al-Udhmaa Muhsin al-Ameen said:

Then 20,000 from the people of Iraq who had given the pledge of allegiance to al-Husayn acted treacherously to him, revolted against him whilst their pledge of allegiance was around their necks, and killed him.

And Jawaad Muhdithee said:

And Imaam al-Hasan was faced by them with treachery, and Muslim bin Aqeel was killed unjustly whilst in their midst and al-Husayn was killed whilst languishing in Karbala, close to Kufah and at the hands of the army of Kufah.

Numerous Shia authorities, from their Shaykhs, quote from Ali bin al-Husaynbin Ali bin Abi Taalib (known as Zayn al-Aabideen) that he addressed the Shia who deserted his father and killed him, reviling them, saying:

O people, we implore you by Allaah, do you know that you wrote to my father and you deceived him and you gave him the pledge, the covenant, and you killed him and deserted him? So may you perish for what you have sent forth for yourselves, and for your evil opinionn. With which eye will you look towards the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam) when he says to you, “You killed my family, and you violated my sanctity, so you are not from me.” [Al-Tabarsee in al-Ihtijaaj (2/32), Ibn Taawoos in al-Malhoof (p. 92), al-Ameen in al-Lawaa'ij al-Ashjaann (p. 158), Abbaas al-Qummee in Muntahaa al-Aamaal (1/572), Husayn Kawrani in Fee Rihaab al-Karbalaa (p. 183), Abd al-Razzaaq al-Muqrim in Maqtal Husayn ((p. 317), Murtadaa Iyaad in Maqtal Husayn (p. 87) and Ridhaa al-Qawzeenee in Tadhlim al-Zahraa (p. 262), Abbaas al-Qummee in Nafs al-Mahmoom (p. 360)]

And when Ali bin al-HusaynZayn al-Aabideen (rahimahullaah) saw the people of Kufah wailing and crying, he rebuked them, saying:

You wail and cry for us, so who are the ones who killed us? [Maqtal Husayn of Murtadaa Iyaad (p. 83), Tadhlim al-Zahraa of al-Qazweenee (p. 257) and al-Malhoof of Ibn Taawoos (p. 86), Nafs al-Mahmoom of Abbaas al-Qummee (p. 357)]

And in another narration that he was passing by them and he was ill and he said in a weak voice:

Are you wailing and crying for us? Who are the ones who killed us? [Abbaas al-Qummee in Muntahaa al-Aamaal (1/570)]

And in another narration that he said:

These people cry over us but who killed us other than them? [Al-Ihtijaaj of al-Tabarsee (2/29)]

And Shia sources quoted Umm Kulthum bint Ali (radiallaahu anhumaa) as saying:

O people of Kufah, disgrace upon you. What is with you that you deserted Husayn and killed him and you plundered his wealth and inherited it, and you took his women as captives, and you caused him distress. May you perish and may you be annihilated … what burden have you carried upon your backs and which blood have you shed … you killed the best of men after the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa aalihi) and mercy has been snatched from your hearts. [Nafs al-Mahmoom (p. 262), Maqtal Husayn of al-Muqrim (p. 316), Lawaa'ij al-Ashjaan (p. 157) and others.]

And the Shia, Asad Haydar quotes from Zaynab bint Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallaahu anhumaa), which is also mentioned by al-Tabarsee in al-Ihtijaaj(2/29-30): أما بعد يا أهل الكوفة، يا أهل الختل والغدر والخذل .. إنما مثلكم كمثل التي نقضت غزلها من بعد قوة أنكاثاً، هل فيكم إلا الصلف والعجب والشنف والكذب .. أتبكون أخي؟! أجل والله فابكوا كثيراً واضحكوا قليلاً فقد ابليتم بعارها .. وانى ترخصون قتل سليل خاتم النبوة

To proceed, O people of Kufah, O people of deception, treachery and desertion … your example is like she who spins (yarn) only to break it after its strength. Is there anything in you but bragging, amazement, rank hatred and lying … do you cry for my brother?! Yes, by Allaah, cry much and laugh little, for you have been put to trial through its infamy … and how do you consider cheap the killing of the descendant of the Seal of the Prophethood. [Ma'al-Husayn Fee Nahdatihi (p. 295)]

Muhsin al-Ameen al-Husaynee al-Aaamilee says in his book “Fee Rihaab A’immah Ahl al-Bayt” (1/9):

Zahar bin Qays, he participated in the [battles] of al-Jamal and Siffeen with Ali (alayhis salaam), and Shabath bin Rub’ee and Shammar bin Dhil-Jawshan al-Diyaabee also witnessed [the battle] of Siffeen with him. Then they waged war against al-Husayn (alayhis salaam) on the day of Karbalaa, so it was an evil end (soo’ al-khaatimah) for them and we seek refuge in Allaah from the evil end.

And in the book al-Irshaad of the well-known and famous Shia scholar, al-Shaykh al-Mufeed (2/95-96 onwards) mentions those who set out to fight and kill Husayn: وأصبح عمر بن سعد في ذلك اليوم وهو يوم الجمعة وقيل يوم السبت، فعبأ أصحابه وخرج فيمن معه من الناس نحو الحسين عليه السلام وكان على ميمنته عمرو بن الحجاج، وعلى ميسرته شمر بن ذي الجوشن، وعلى الخيل عروة بن قيس، وعلى الرجالة شبث بن ربعي، وأعطى الراية دريدا مولاه

And Umar bin Sa’d arose that morning, and it was the day of Jumu’ah (Friday), and it is said it was Saturday and he mobilized his companions, and then set out with those people who were with him towards the direction of al-Husayn (alayhis salaam), and on his right was Amr bin al-Haaj, and on his left was Shammar bin Dhil-Jawshan, and in charge of the horsemen was Urwah bin Qays and in charge of the infantry was Shabath bin Rub’ee and he gave the flag to Durayd, his mawlaa.

Then over the next twenty or so pages he gives an account of the fighting, culminating in the killing of al-Husayn(radiallaahu anhu) by Shammar bin Dhil-Jawshan.

Comments:

The sayings of Ahl al-Bayt to the Shia of Kufah, “You wail and cry over us, yet you are the ones who killed us“ exposes the fraud, scam and sham that underlies the deen of the Shia which is based upon a ridiculous type of hatred and it is a sign of the lack of intelligence and of simple-mindedness (or otherwise a sign of the deranged maniac-like nature) of those who knowing full well that their own Shia ancestry killed al-Husayn (radiallaahu anhu), harbour the greatest of resentment and hatred towards those who do not share in their simpleton type understanding of history and do not share in their bloodthirsty type of rage, based upon a fake display of anger for the blood of al-Husayn, for they (their Shia ancestors) are the very people who killed al-Husayn after deserting him and being treacherous to him.

Then this fake wailing, lamenting and crying became one of the bidahs of the Shia to this day of ours. Refer to the book “Man Qatala al-Husayn” by Abd Allaah bin Abd al-Azeez (Cairo) for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.100.15 (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. So that we could think about incorporating it into the article, please could you provide more detailed citations for all these quotations. For each one we need not just author, and title of book, but the publisher of the version you consulted, date of publication, and the page number. It is useful to also say what language the edition you consulted was in. This extra information makes it verifiable. (On one occasion I had to read an entire volume of Tabari' history to find where it gave the number of rebels killed during the battle. If you have done that, you will see why the extra detail is vital.)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis regard Imam Husain as a martyr? Sunnis Muslims regard Ashura as a holy day?[edit]

I don't find these statements accurate or actual at all? To my knowledge Sunnis don't regard Imam Husain as a martyr at all. None of these things have significance in Sunni Islam at all. Can somebody provide sources and discuss them before inserting them into the article? 69.165.246.181 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AD or CE[edit]

This article started using the AD notation from the version of 18:36, 31 December 2006 The conversion of AD notation to CE notation on 8 January 2016 was mistaken.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - CE/AD is the same to me, but the article used both which can be confusing. AstroLynx (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV and too few opinion tags[edit]

I could not find any discussion about the POV and too few opinion tags on the talk page, therefor I removed them. Of course, there may some sections which are violate the policies such as Sermons during the journey from Karbala to Damascus, but we can put the tag on those section. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed: It seems that User:Toddy1 has restored the tags without trying to discuss them and explaining why he thinks the tags should be there. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is extremely biased and full of religiosity. It fails completely to give both sides point of view. It is quite unlike NPOV histories such as Tabari. It is also a poor account of the military operations. The reader would get no clue from the article that after the battle Hurr denied joining the rebels (as mentioned in Tabari).-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward321: was the person who added the tags at 17:51, 11 January 2015. He should be invited to give his opinion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of POv in the article varies, but typically it demonizes the Ummayids and vastly inflates their numbers.. The reason for the tag on primary sources should be obvious, when it quotes hadiths and period sermons instead of scholarly analysis. Edward321 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article has a lot of problems including on the original and unreliable sources. Therefor, I did not remove that tag. However, the concern about anti-Yazid viewpoint is similar to concern about the anti-Hitler tendency in the WWII soures. I have not seen any pro-Yazid source yet, and adding such viewpoint is completely against WP:UNDUE. However, the burden is on the editors who added the tags to provide academic sources which support their claims.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edward321: You're just pointing to some viewpoints in general. I would be thankful if you were more specific so that we could solve the issues. Mhhossein (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{od)) The very comparison of Yazid to Hitler shows the problem with this article. Yazid's forces certainly violently suppressed the people opposed to him, which make him exactly like most rulers in history. It wasn't even the first time that Muslim had fought Muslim - that predates Yazid's birth. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward321: You are wrong. There are rare ruler during history who may attack the sacred symbols of their society! You have made an oversimplification of the situation base on a wrong comparison. According to Maria Massi Dakake: "In fact the Umayyads attacked both al-Husayn and Kaaba sanctuary, and it was the violation of these two sacred things, rather than any particular argument about what constituted legitimacy for an Islamic leader, that would earn the Umayyads (and the Sufyanids in particular) their infamous reputation in Islamic historiography."[39] --Seyyed(t-c) 15:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tabari was a proper historian. His history of the events of Yazid's reign therefore explains both sides point of view. Maybe you could buy it from Amazon and have your eyes opened. Perhaps in your country you can only buy censored versions?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with Tabari. In fact, Shia historical account (not popular one) is similar to his account to some extent. However, we do not need to refer to Tabari, while there are several modern academic accounts such as Wilferd Madelung[40], "Maria Massi Dakake, Charismatic Community, The: Shi'ite Identity in Early Islam"[41], "Farhad Daftary, A History of Shi'i Islam"[42], "Vincent J. Cornell, Voices of Islam: Voices of the spirit"[43], "Aaron W. Hughes, Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam" [44], ...--Seyyed(t-c) 16:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the use of Shia sources such as Madelung, et al. I am glad to hear that you have no objection to reliable non-Shia sources such as Tabari. In my opinion, it is probably a good idea to use some Western non-Shia sources as well.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1: I guess you misunderstood! Madelung, et al are not Shia sources!!! Tabari is original source. He gathered whatever he could find in the sources in his book as a collection of the records, thus we do not refer to it directly. unless we could not find information in the academic sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I have added a bit about the al-Muqarram's book Maqtal al-Husayn, Martyrdom Epic of Imam al-Husayn in the Bibliography section. This is a 20th Century book, not a primary source. See Islamic Historiography, by Chase F. Robinson, p35. I think something has to be mentioned there, because some readers might imagine this to be an ancient book, and it is not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no sure what to make of Kitab Maqtal al-Husayn, by Abu Mikhnaf, as published by the Shia Ithna'ashari Community of Middlesex (who also do Yoga classes on Tuesdays). Abu Mikhnaf’s 8th Century book does not exist any more. The pages 8-9 of the introduction to the book points out that "There is a popular work that is widely circulated in Qum, Najaf and Lebanon under the title Maqtal al-Husayn and attributed to Abu Mikhnaf. This work is most certainly a forgery and should not be trusted..." The book published by the Shia Ithna'ashari Community of Middlesex relies on reports by Hisham ibn al-Kalbi (who died 820 AD/204 AH) to reconstruct Abu Mikhnaf’s original work. The reconstruction/translation was by Wa bi-l-laahi-t-tawfiq in 1999 AD.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. The book which is known as Kitab Maqtal al-Husayn, by Abu Mikhnaf, is derived from Tabari's narration of Abu Mikhnaf in his history. The original source does not exist anymore. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That reconstruction certainly appears to fail Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. Additonally, the world "Maqtal" appears to mean "martydom", making it a heavily point of view source, which should be used sparingly even if it is considered a reliable source. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward321: Mashhad refers to Martyrdom not Maqtal! In addition, it is a "Proper noun". We could not change the proper noun, even if it referred to Martyrdom. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Sermons and separate[edit]

I want to add Sermons of Lady Zaynab and Ali ibn Hossein aftermath of battle to this articleHananeh.M.h (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large section entitled Sermons during the journey from Karbala to Damascus about various speeches various people are said to have made during the period after the government forces defeated the rebels, and the caliph showing great kindness to the prisoners and releasing them. In my opinion, the section is over-long, and written from the POV of the rebels. I think it should be condensed to a few lines, and rewritten using other sources such as Tabari, either to show a neutral POV, or to show both the government and the rebel POVs.
Alternatively, we could just delete the section altogether. What do other people think we should do?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddy1: I have written this section summarized. These speeches are whit sources, historical and quotes. Hananeh.M.h (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply on your talk page, in which you said that you had made the accounts of the various speeches more brief as a result of another editor reverting your edits on 10 January.
Why do you think the article needs as much detail as you have given?
Do you have access to The History of al-Tabari Volume 19? This gives a less-biased version of events, and says how the government forces behaved - ibn Marjana (the governor of Kufa and Basra) was harsh and the caliph was kind and merciful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Toddy1, Can you say using which reference did you call them rebels? Tabari? Mhhossein (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hananeh.M.h, you might use this draft most of which is written based on wp:rs. Mhhossein (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were rebelling against the government. Calling them rebels is a neutral POV way of describing them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a concern that too much quoting of primary sources is being done in the article, an issue that predates Hananeh.M.h's recent edits. Moreover, these quotes are almost exclusively from one side of the battle and lend undue weight to that side's opinions. A further concern is the article also has several unsourced statements that are pro-Hussein and/or anti-Yazid. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but so long as they are unsourced, the article does not follow Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. If sources are provided, the statemants still may need to be trimmed back to avoid giving undue weight. Edward321 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: I used sources of that draft for Sermons of Zaynab and Ali ibn Hossein in Yazid's CourtHananeh.M.h (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Toddy1: These speeches are part of Battle of Karbala and pointing to these speeches is necessary! in many sources are pointed to these sermons. Also speakers of those are very notable persons. Hananeh.M.h (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm in agreement with Edward321. We need to avoid using primary sources as the main sources if the article while we pay attention to the neutrality of the article. Can you suggest any sources to balance the article? Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hananeh.M.h: Wikiquote is for the long quotations. We do not use such quotations in the body of the articles in Wikipedia. Please move them and replace with the related narration of the events based on the reliable secondary sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein, Toddy1, and Hananeh.M.h: We can use reliable academic sources such as "The Woman of Karbala"[45] and "Law and Tradition in Classical Islamic Thought" [46]Seyyed(t-c) 13:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Battle of Karbala#Removing POV and too few opinion tags

Another mass removal by User:Edward321 which had not been discussed here. Such a behavior leads to edit warring between the editors, so I suggest him to stop this trend and cooperate with the community. Mhhossein (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The objections to the type of material he removed can be found on this page at Talk:Battle of Karbala#Added the Sermons and separate. Do you have any objection to your post of 17:23 being moved to that section?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Toddy is right. We discussed about removing the sermons.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There must be some mention of those sermons. Why all sections related to sermons are mass removed? --Mhhossein (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian and Toddy1: were the sections removed because of referring to primary sources? How much of them suffered flawed referencing? Mhhossein (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Why do you ping Sa.vakilian and Toddy1? The person who removed the sections was @Edward321:. What you ask for was done before the deletion of this section. The huge section on alleged sermons was objectionable for many reasons:
  • It did not tell the reader anything much about the battle of Karbala WP:Coatrack.
  • It was "exclusively from one side of the battle and lend undue weight to that side's opinions." WP:Undue.
  • Most of it used only primary sources such as Lohouf. WP:Primary.
  • It did not even attempt neutral POV. WP:NPOV.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you had spoken of a discussion motivating the removal! Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 sums it up well. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shia scholars criticisms against distortion of the Historical accounts![edit]

First, Removing information without discussion is unacceptable. Second, we work in this issue based on MOS:ISLAM and we can use of Shia scholars such as Morteza Motahhari and Rasool Jafarian in this case. Therefor, I reverted some of the information which was removed by @Edward321:.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, removing Annemarie Schimmel's viewpoint looks strange!--Seyyed(t-c) 10:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding former discussion about the reliability of al-Islam.org, due to the fact that it is a library of Shia related works, we can use it to describe Shia viewpoint whenever the author of the text is reliable.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support your restoration of material on "history distortion" and "Persian literature". One of the reasons for problems with this article are edits by people whose only knowledge of the battle comes from Shia poems or plays commemorating the battle that were only loosely based upon the known history of the event.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of studies about Karbala Folklore by the reliable Shia or western academicians. While the main article for this issue is Mourning of Muharram, we an make some sub-sections for it including "Mourning of Muharram in Shia Folklore" and "Mourning of Muharram in literature". --Seyyed(t-c) 04:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

There should be a section covering aftermath of the battle which includes the prisoners journey to Kufah and Demasque as well as the uprisings tried to revenge the battle of Karbala. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long long tangentially related material on what Asma's son did in this section, which is exactly repeated in his own page. So, I think we'd better remove it and replace it by two or at most three lines. Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section heading[edit]

I have twice removed an attempt to use "historical distortion" as an article section title. Section titles need to be neutral, because there is no place there for explanations. Sourced information goes in the section contents. And unless there is unquestioned consensus from sources on both sides of the issue that the traditional history is distortion, we can't say it. Something like that needs to be a fair sourced quotation presented in context along with all other responsible views on the matter.

Myself, I don't know anything bout the actual controversy. But I do know that trying to keep a POV section title like that is unquestionably disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see, you do not actually know anything about "the actual controversy". But if someone who reverts you once (giving an explanation in the edit summary), you give them a level-3 vandalism template.[47]
In the West, people create works of fiction that depict real events, and these depictions do not closely follow known historical facts Examples of this include: Braveheart (1995 film), Rome (TV series), and Boardwalk Empire (TV series). Guess what! People in Asia over the past thousand years have done the same. There are sections at Braveheart#Historical inaccuracy and Rome (TV series)# Historical deviations that mention "numerous inaccuracies in the... representation of various historical events and personage". These sections do not say "historical questions" or "historical controversy". There was no controversy - the works of fiction were inaccurate. The works of fiction about Karbala are inaccurate too. One of the sources cited says "At times a distorted version has at least some resemblance to the original. But there are times when distortion is so thorough that the corrupted version has not the least resemblance to the original: the matter is not only distorted, but it is inverted and turned into its antithesis." Let us call a spade a "spade".-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Historical distortion" is a bias heading. Well done DGG for making it neutral. Wikipedia needs more editors like you to correct errors by obvious PoV pushers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.138.63 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2015‎
I think there is a misunderstanding. "The traditional history" is not distorted but the distortion has added to it later. I think the title ("historical distortion" or "Historical questions" ) is not suitable but the section should be kept.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for notability[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Mass delete of the articles is inappropriate. But being a member of Hazrat Hussein ibn Ali R.A's Army does not confer automatic notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is being created to discuss the following question related to a handful of pages so that instead of discussing it in ten different places we can form an opinion here and form one consensus on the issue. Please provide your valuable input.
Is just being a member of Hazrat Hussein ibn Ali R.A's Army, or having connections with him enough to establish a person's notability? Even if he is otherwise non notable?
For example some pages, many of which are borderline hagiographic use this to establish notability, without any other substance. These pages include Qasim ibn Hasan, Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn, Abdullah ibn Ja'far, Abu Hajal Muslim ibn Awsaja, Habib ibn Madhahir, Burayr ibn Khuzayr al-Hamadani, Nafi' bin Hilal al-Jamali, Zuhayr ibn Qayn, Abdullah ibn Omayr Abu Wahab al Kalbi, John bin Huwai.
Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable. Merely being in his army, or having notable relatives or associates does not make someone notable. The essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited says "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group." The policy Wikipedia:Notability says that "notability requires verifiable evidence". One problem with the battle of Karbala is that it has been the subject of many works of fiction. "This is hagiographical literature with the feats and exploits of al-Husayn exaggerated to the point of almost miraculous actions." (Page x of the translator's foreword to Volume XIX of Tabari.) See also Battle of Karbala#History distortion. Modern novels, films and TV series also portray real people about whom almost nothing is known, for example Lucius Vorenus (Rome character). There might be a case for articles on some of these people with the words "(fictional character)" after their name in the article title.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable these people has significant lasting effect or WP:IMPACT and Geographical scope. SpyButeo (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable I should have started with my own opinion in the matter, but I forgot. Anyway, in my opinion, these pages should be mass deleted. According to notability guidelines such as the the one at WP:ONEEVENT "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Furthermore WP:BIOFAMILY clearly says that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". In addition to this there is the damning evidence of WP:SOLDIER which says "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable". The policy at soldier also says that the sources used for soldiers "does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by the unit itself or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation)". Seeing this mountain load of evidence I think most editors will agree with a mass delete or redirect. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable RFS member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had already tagged most of these for notability as well as nominating Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn for deletion.[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn] Responding to SpyButeo, the Battle of Karbala had significant lasting effect or WP:IMPACT and Geographical scope, but nothing in these articles indicates that their subjects did. Notability is not inherited. Dying in a notable battle does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abdullah ibn Ja'far might be notable based on the so far unsourced claim that he was on of Ali's four chief lieutenants during Ali's caliphate. Habib ibn Madhahir might be notable based on being in charge of the left flank of Husayn's army during the battle. The rest are clearly Not Notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can not make a general rule for all of those who participated in the battle of Karbala. Some of them have historical notability such as Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn while some others hhave folkloric notability like Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn. So, I think we can not find a solution in this RFC, but should check them one by one. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should "read" the RFC question before commenting? It always helps to avoid knee jerk reactions like this. Is just being a member of Hazrat Hussein ibn Ali R.A's Army, or having connections with him enough to establish a person's notability? Even if he is otherwise non notable?. You see the question makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that only those articles are being considered un-encyclopedic who 1)claim that their SOLE/ONLY notability is dying at Karbala or 2)claim that their notability is ONLY due to their connection with Hussain ibn e Ali R.A. So your comment in kinda knee jerk, feel free to re think. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: I think we can not make a general rule. For example, Zuhayr ibn Qayn was one of the leaders of the army, so he is notable and you can find his name in several reliable sources. Al-Hurr ibn Yazid al Tamimi is notable as well.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian: Zuhayr ibn Qayn was not "one of the leaders" except in Shi'ite hagiography/mythology where he killed hundreds of men. There were only 70 people in the "army" and sources agree that the only "leader" was Hazrat Hussain R.A, everyone else was just a soldier, there were no "generals" or "commanders", it was 70 people with minimal arms fighting a last stand. So he is clearly non-notable. Al-Hurr ibn Yazid al Tamimi "may be" notable due to the fact that he was a "general" of Yazid's Army. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: Zuhayr was the commander of the right wing of the army according to this source: [48].--Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian: The book you cited clearly proves that Zuhyr is non notable and not revered by shi'ites, Ty for providing it as a source yourself. The book clearly says that "Shi'ites revere Such and Such and Such, and Habib who was the commander of the left flank", this ends the statement about who is held in high esteem. Then in the next statement they say "The right flank was held (they don't even use the word commanded with him) by Zuhyr". This shows that even Shi'ites don't hold him in high esteem. Add to this the fact that he is mentioned only once in ten words, 'Clearly non notable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Notable - I don't think a person should be given notability based upon the mere fact that they are in an army. If they were, then every single person in that army would be warranted a Wikipedia page. I agree with the above user Toddy1 when they mention Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Also, "does not include websites, newsletters and webcasts published by the unit itself or other non-independent agencies (such as a parent formation)" per WP:SOLDIER is valid evidence that this person is not notable. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable UNLESS there is significant coverage in RS. Quote from WP:ONEEVENT: The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. While most of the people you've listed indeed fail this criterium, Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn for example seems notable, considering that he has his own article in the Iranica. But then again, coverage on him in the Iranica extends beyond the Battle: there's stuff on how he's commemorated and on how he's depicted in iconography among others. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed bag I share the perspectives voiced here already that a one-determination-fits-all approach is not appropriate. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:AfD, as each applies in this case, a discussion needs to take place for each of these articles. Additionally, the RfC question as it is presented is a little flawed. We don't determine whether article subjects are notable based on subjective evaluations of the importance of the topic, we do so based on the number of WP:reliable sources which reference the subject and the depth to which they cover it. I have not investigated each of the above articles in detail, but from what I have looked into, it seems very likely that a number of the articles do in fact cover subjects who don't get more than an off-hand reference in the sources being used to support the article. Others seem to very obviously pass the notability guideline. I know it can be a tiring affair, but I think an RfC or AfD needs to be held for each of the above articles which any party feels may fail GNG or other notability guidelines. Snow let's rap 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. As most of the discussions so far indicate, there are some articles which may pass the notability test or there is space for improvement. I don't expect we will reach an agreement with apples and oranges in the same bag.--Mondiad (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain because Notable only if better coverage is found....if not, then that's different because there are some articles such as Abdullah ibn Ja'far which surely seem questionable but familiar attention and those with access to archived sources are especially needed here. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on the role like for any other battle. The commanders of the armies, others whose role is a matter of significant historical discussion, people whose participation has led to the veneration by a major religion, all those are notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable because of significance in folklore and ritual, even where they played no significant military role or their historical existence may be in doubt. I have not read all the listed articles, but the ones held up especially for deletion (such as Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn) refer to people who are commemorated annually in Iran and among Shia Muslims as very notable people. The main problem with these articles is their un-encyclopedic, sometimes unintelligible content. They need cleanup and would benefit from brief, neutral discussion of the difference between, well, history and folklore. Article titles might also be amended in some cases to "NAME (martyr)" or "NAME (Karbala martyr)" to prevent confusion. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (added to above vote): On reflection I would support merging several biographies into a Martyrs of Karbala article (instead of the list that title currently redirects to). This could also reduce redundant content and save work in repeatedly discussing the difference between historical evidence, pious tradition, and sectarian difference if any. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that approach, and I agree with Rob that the primary concern here is the often abysmally poor quality of the content and the conflation of historical research with folklore, even where sources do exist. With regard to the prose, even in this article, the anchor for the others being discussed, we have sections that read like the following:
"At the first day of Safar, due to narration of Turabi’s, they arrived to the Damascus and captured family and head were taken into Yazid presence.[74] First of all, the identity of each head and killed guys were explained to him. Then he paid attention to a woman who was an objector. Yazid asked 'who is this arrogant woman?' The woman rose to answer and said: 'why are you asking them [the woman]? Ask me. I will tell you [who I am]...'"
This is clearly unacceptably below our quality standards, so while I feel that at least some of the articles being discussed in this RfC pass our notability guidelines, I nonetheless wonder whether this is a rare case of no content being better than flawed content until such time as minimally acceptable prose is drafted. I don't know if the current material is the result of a machine translation or authors without sufficient competence in English, but a lot of attention is due to the material if we are going to preserve it, be it in numerous articles or just one or two. Snow let's rap 09:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on the role but oppose mass deletion As I described above in several comments, we can not make a rule for "mass deletion" of all of those articles. The nominator has used a correct argument for wrong conclusion. No one wants to make article for about 100 people who were in the Hussain's army at Karbala. Only those who had historical or folkloric importance are deserved to have article and there are several cases who have reach this criteria, only due to their role in Hussayn's army. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have pointed out to you, many times I'm afraid, no one wants to delete any article of a notable person. The RFC, as clear from the RFC "Question" given at the top, is to find out if 'ONLY BEING A PART OF THAT ARMY is enough to establish notability. And as is clear from the majority of comments, it is Not Enough. Any article which relies solely on participation at Karbala, without clear sourcing that the said role was a major one like a commander or a folklore hero, will therefore be subject to deletion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, you want to mass delete a lot of the articles like those have mentioned above with this argument. This is wrong side of your approach.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mass delete articles which are of non-notable people. I started this RFC to confirm that whether participation in Karbala could be used as the Sole criteria for notability. The consensus seems to be on the fact that according to WP:SOLDIER and WP:ONEEVENT simply participating in the battle is not enough. Furthermore editors like SnowRise have voiced the concern that many articles related to Karbala martyrs are so poor that they they perhaps their poor quality can become the reason for their deletion. I have no idea why you are championing the inclusion of these poor articles when the clear consensus seems to be in favor of deletion/incubation. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the definition of a rule for mass deletion. I agree with this point "simply participating in the battle is not enough." However, I can not understand how you conclude some article such as Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn should be deleted based on this rule!!! He has folkloric importance as a symbol in Shia culture. Therefor, that true argument does not lead to want you mean. In addition, I do not support the poor condition of those articles, but based on WP:ARTN Article content does not determine notability.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose the mass deletion. This RFC is weird! We usually discuss the notability at AFD not through a RFC. The question asked in the RFC is even weird! The answer is No, but so what? we can't jump into conclusion that those articles are not notable. we have to check them one by one. Mhhossein (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein: FreeatlastChitchat is a user with weird work.Saff V. (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Seyyed. We have to check them one by one. Mhhossein (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the articles should not be mass deleted. Instead, they should be posted to AfD separately. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree However I fail to see the Logic behind this "Comment". The question is to simply form a consensus if a specific argument can be provided at AFD's or not. The clear consensus seems to me that such an argument cannot be presented. I have no idea why this is being blown out of proportion to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Karbala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

Can someone please correct the grammar in the "aftermath" section? It reads like a third grade book report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.43.60.70 (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Karbala. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn al-Zubayr's revolt[edit]

@Sa.vakilian: To the best of my knowledge, after reading related sources, I think Ibn al-Zubayr's uprising has almost no direct relationship with Battle of Karbala, unlike that of Tawwabin or Mukhtar. What's your suggestion? How is it if we remove the section? --Mhhossein (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. You can move most of it to Second Fitna.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seyyed: I trimmed the section. --Mhhossein (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Karbala/Archive_1&oldid=1136553649"