Talk:Battle of Karbala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600–c. 1600)

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Arabic quotes 2 Irrelevancies? 3 Just Passing Through 4 First comments 5 Vandalism? 6 Utter disregard for neutrality and factual accuracy 7 Details 8 This article has been morphing again 9 Historical accuracy 10 My edits 11 OK, I rewrote it 12 Strength of the armies 13 Fact ! , plz re-edit it if possible 14 Problems in the Background and Summary 15 Narrations 16 January 1 revision by Zora 17 How we should Write the story 18 Your information is wrong 19 Suggestion 20 SV and Aminz's edits 21 Academic section 22 SV's latest revision 23 Dang! 24 What is Shi'a POV and What is not 25 Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources 26 Eureka 27 For Sunnis and Zora - Shi'a and Sunni POV 28 Is Abi Mikhnaf/Tabari a reliable source 29 Problems with Abi Mikhnaf 29.1 Examining Abu Mikhnaf 30 Different Versions 31 Bibliography 32 Academic section 33 POV tag 34 Historiography of the battle of Karbala 35 POV notice 36 Why Hussain ( AS) chose to Fight 37 Zora will return 38 Significance? 39 Political background 40 Facts of this Battle 41 Fair use image 42 Use of PBUH in Battle of Karbala 43 POV tag by 141.161.60.20 44 Fair use image of Farshchiyan http://farshchianart.com 45 Gregorian or Lunar calendar 46 Senan ibn Anas al-Nakhaei or Shimr ibn Dhil-Jawshan 47 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 48 Tone

[edit] Arabic quotes

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)

[edit] Irrelevancies?

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)

[edit] Just Passing Through

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)

[edit] First comments

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

[edit] Vandalism?

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)

[edit] Utter disregard for neutrality and factual accuracy

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Details

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] This article has been morphing again

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)

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

[edit] Historical accuracy

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)

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

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)

[edit] My edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] OK, I rewrote it

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)

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

[edit] Strength of the armies

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)

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

"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)

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)

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

[edit] Problems in the Background and Summary

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)

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)

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

[edit] Narrations

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)

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)

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)

[edit] January 1 revision by Zora

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)

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)

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)

[edit] How we should Write the story

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)

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)

[edit] Your information is wrong

• "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)

[edit] Suggestion

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] SV and Aminz's edits

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Academic section

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

They do belong in a "views" section.--Striver - talk 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] SV's latest revision

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Dang!

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

[edit] Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Eureka

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Is Abi Mikhnaf/Tabari a reliable source

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)

[edit] Problems with Abi Mikhnaf

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Examining Abu Mikhnaf

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)

[edit] Different Versions

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)

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)

[edit] Bibliography

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

[edit] Academic section

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] POV tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Historiography of the battle of Karbala

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)

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

[edit] POV notice

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)

[edit] Why Hussain ( AS) chose to Fight

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.

[edit] Zora will return

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)

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)

[edit] Significance?

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)

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

[edit] Political background

"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)

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)

[edit] Facts of this Battle

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).

[edit] Fair use image

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)

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)

[edit] Use of PBUH in Battle of Karbala

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)

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)

[edit] POV tag by 141.161.60.20

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Gregorian or Lunar calendar

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

[edit] Tone

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)