Talk:Yazid I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Shi'a Islam, a WikiProject related to the Shi'a Islam.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf.

It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

I just wanted to clarify that the article claims that Husayn ibn Ali marched against Yazid to seek the Caliphate, but in reality he was willing to move outside of Arabia - it was not that he was power hungry, which is evident in the fact that be brought his family. This is quite important to the history because it evinces that it was a battle based on principle. I would appreciate if this could be looked into. Thank you very much. --Establishinghaqq 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone in the know rewrite this from a NPOV? I know that nobody sympathizes with him, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to tackle this objectively! --Ardonik 10:40, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

AliHaider just made a number of edits on the article, which I reverted. I agree with him that the article doesn't present the Shi'a view of this caliph but -- English is clearly not Ali's first language and the proposed corrections were both POV and ungrammatical.

I am grotesquely over-committed to all too many Wikipedia articles, but I'll give this one a one-over as soon as I have time. Zora 19:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In what sense does the article present the "Sunni view" of Yazid? It seems to me that it simply describes his life and rule in a rather neutral fashion. The death of Husayn is mentioned prominently. john k 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yabbut ... the article doesn't really convey the depth of the loathing that the Shi'a feel for him. There's an annual festival devoted to mourning the death of Husayn, often marked by "passion plays" in which Yazid is the epitome of evil. Praps at the end of the article, a section on Sunni and Shi'a views of Yazid. The Sunni don't think all that highly of him either, of course. Zora 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if he is a very prominent figure (of evil) in Shi'a tradition, that should be mentioned. But that doesn't mean the article is "too Sunni," just that it doesn't talk enough about Shi'a traditions about him. The Sunni, along with most other non-Shi'a Muslims, don't seem to care very much about Yazid one way or the other. john k 20:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, you're right <g>. I think I was too quick off the mark in describing the article as "Sunni". Zora 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Striver 29 June 2005 11:20 (UTC)== Zora ==

In what whay? What of what i wrote is POV? Its all acknowledged facts by both Shia and Sunnis... i dont get what is POV about it.

Could you quote on of the POV statements?

--Striver 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

There are so many POV statements that it's hard to pick just one. Starting an article with "he was a bastard, just like his father was" is highly prejudicial, given that bastard is a term of abuse in English. Nor are any sources given for this astonishing statement, which I have never encountered in any of my reading of Islamic history. No, I'm not asking for a hadith dump. Find me a quote from a reputable academic historian.
Why, oh why, did you restore the article in all its POV ugliness? Striver, please STOP trying to turn Islamic biographical articles into repositories of Shi'a abuse! Zora 28 June 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Zora, im trying to inser relevant facts. I admit that it was... eh... poor chooise of word when i wrote "bastastard", i should have choosen "was son of an unknon man".

But i dont get why you reverted the rest of it, i gave sources to all of my additions... i mean, just because it looks bad when you write what he did dosnet make it POV, does it?

-striver

You see "facts" and I see unsubstantiated stories. Moreover, I see ungrammatical and misspelled prose. Sometimes you put in useful stuff -- as when you describe how Shi'a feel about something -- but mostly your "facts" are just scurrilous stories collected a few centuries later.
Does this mean, that after all the work I put into writing an article about Yazid that gave the Shi'a view of things in coherent English prose, that you prefer your version? Zora 29 June 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Your english is bye any and all means far superior to mine, and i allways see your gramatical corrections for the better.

However, i do not agree with you in that the facts i put forth are "faire tales" concorded without ground. It actualy provokes me that you say so, without motivations, since i almost always give referens.

Ther is one other thing i prefered with my version, that is the way i made chronological headlines. Its not factualy important, but i like it that way..

To sume it upp: I do appreciate your time, specialy how you make the text more coherent. I also, belive it or not, appreciate that you point out obvious POV statements from my part like "bastard". But i do not appreciat that you rv my refered material only because you think its non-sense. At least give me an alternative referense that contradicts mine.

For example, i gave two referenses that showed that 1000 unmarried women in Medina where impragnated by Yazids assault force, but you not only removed my two refernces, you dissmised the entire frase, without motivation. That is a bit frustrating.

Have a nice day!

--Striver 29 June 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Striver, all your references are hadith. Western historians are extremely wary of hadith. They -- we -- do not trust the Islamic historians who have judged the hadith, because they judged on the basis of doctrine, to a great extent, and not on historical verifiability. You think that citing a hadith "proves" something. I think it might well be a bazaar tale recorded two centuries later.

Frex, I don't believe that 1000 virgins were impregnated by Yazid's soldiers. The "1000" figure is clearly a guess, an estimate, a big impressive number. If the city was overrun and plundered, it is very likely that there was a lot of rape going on. That's usually the case in wartime. I don't think it's worth mentioning as one of the crimes of Yazid, if the crime is that these were Muslim virgins. Presumably these same soldiers were raping Christian and Jewish and Zoroastrian virgins right and left, in the course of their warfare, and no one is chalking that up to the crimes of Yazid, or his father, or Umar, whatever. (I actually think enough of Ali to guess that he'd at least try to keep his troops in hand.}

Read the article on Historiography of early Islam -- which is unfinished, alas -- to get some idea of why historians are wary of hadith. You might also try reading Madelung's book The Succession to Muhammad, because he is one of the few Western historians I trust to use hadith -- he has clearly studied them inside out, and knows all the genealogies, all the literature, and has made his own selection. He also found himself becoming surprisingly sympathetic to Ali. Zora 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)

[edit] Using article to campaign for "shura"

Aladdin, you deleted some NPOV material from the article -- particularly the bits from Hawting re Mu'awiya governing as a traditional Arab sheikh -- and added editorial material re "shura". You may be a strong believer in democracy and sure that it is endorsed by Muslim tradition, but you should NOT use this article as a pulpit from which to argue for it. "Shura" was observed rather sporadically by the early Muslim community. Abu Bakr arguably grabbed power and then bullied/argued the community into submission. He passed the caliphate to Umar, quite single-handedly. Umar decided that shura should be followed for the choice of the caliph who was to follow him, and what shura produced was Uthman, who proceeded to act like a king (mlk) and angered so many people that he was killed by rebels. Extremely informal "shura" was the rule for small tribal groups, but it didn't work as well when scaled up to an empire.

I say this even though I'd never willingly live under anything but a democracy. We would probably agree on how the world should be governed NOW. But how things actually worked in the earliest Islamic period is a different question.

I agree that the Karbala material was probably too Shi'a. I was trying to tone down Striver's extremely POV version and left too much of it there. I'm thinking the Yazid pro and con should be moved to the end of the article, and the first part NPOVed as much as possible to an account that is neither Sunni nor Shi'a. OK? Zora 8 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)



The entire thing should be scrapped. There's quite a few spelling mistakes, even in the first few sentences, and it's amazingly POV from start to finnish. A major rewrite is in order. There's an obvious Shi'a bias. Statements like 'probably some earlier version of AIDS' is, to my knowledge, completely absurd. And 'Ali greatest of all followers of the profit' is clearly an opinion. I shouldn't even have to argue this. I would suggest deletion were it not so historically important.

Ahem. Taking a closer look, it seems like most of the NPOV statements were left by a guest. I'll edit them out. -- Kyle543 09:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni Qualifiers

I urge Shia partisans to stop inserting "Sunni" qualifiers to every Islamic title or reference to which there is a Shia reservation. Such reservations are quoted chapter and verse in umpteen Islam-related articles and cannot be inserted into widely-used and recognized titles and references. The list of Caliphs is known throughout the world as the list of Caliphs not the "List of Sunni Caliphs." How would you like it if I altered every single "Imaam" reference in all Shi'a-related articles and inserted "only according to Shi'as" qualifiers?? It's absurd. Yazid is recognized in overwhelming international scholarly consensus as the sixth caliph PERIOD. The Shia view is concisely stipulated. May I suggest looking for compromises along the lines of those developed in the Caliph and El Siddiq articles. --AladdinSE 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at the main pages for all the 12 imams it says "Shia Imam". To reach compromise i am going to remove the "Shia" and just leave Imam everywhere on wikipedia. Is that ok?--Khalid! 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You take an unnecessarily adversarial attitude to this disagreement. One doesn't alter a number of articles out of spite for a disagreement in another. Why can't we examine a compromise along the lines that we reached earlier regarding "Sunni" qualifiers. The one proposed by Pepsidrinka was simply a well-intentioned yet superficial change in Syntax, and still obfuscated accepted world historical consensus, and therefor I was not able to live with it. But I started this talk section to propose the a style like the one we worked out in the Caliph and El Siddiq articles. As for the articles on the 12 Shi'a Imams, I shall have to review your changes, but on the surface, once it is made clear in the intro regarding the nature of Shia doctrine then no, the word "Imam" needn't be followed by the a name. I do not say this out of "compromise," just simple good old fashioned NPOV style.--AladdinSE 19:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And now its saying "the sixth Muslim Caliph". He was not 'Caliph of Muslims' (or atleast all muslims), he was just a ruler of the Ummayad Empire. Removing the "muslim" infront of Caliph. At first we had a edit war on wheter he should be called Caliph or Sunni Caliph, after the lengthy debate I left it as "the sixth Caliph", Like you wanted, lets just leave it like that.--Khalid! 19:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not an accurate representation. No caliph has ever ruled without ideological or military opposition somewhere, that does not alter their title in the international historical consensus. I am not treating this as a "give and take". We just can't alter international consensus wording. How many western (i.e. neutral, removed from the Islamic Sunni-Shia debate) encyclopedias have you read that refer to them as "Sunni caliphs" or that explicitly remove reference to the fact that they were the Muslim caliphs?? Of course "Muslim" is needed, they were not caliphs of the New York City Bridge Society. --AladdinSE 00:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You could add Sixth Caliph of the Muslim Empire, not Muslim Caliph. --Khalid 13:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is perfectly acceptable. I will only change it to "Islamic Empire" as that is the wording most often used when referring to the Empire. --AladdinSE 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats Ok, i have seen you had added "Muslim Caliph" to some ather caliphs aswell, i'll revert those to "Caliph of the Islamic Empire". --Khalid 13:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this phrase is not the most accurate after all. "Caliph of the Islamic Empire" is not as good as "Muslim Caliph" because the Caliphate, like the Papacy, is considered a world-wide institution that is not restricted by geopolitical borders. For example, in 1861 when the Papal States were abolished and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, the Pope did not cease to be spiritual leader of all Catholics living in the former Papal States. He only lost temporal, or political power. Similarly, during the Christian reconquest of Spain, the Muslims that gradually began to fall under the expanding Christian realms still considered the Caliph of Cordoba, and his successors after Cordoba fell, to be head of the Islamic community. Because of the divisiveness of the Yazid I and Battle of Karbala issues etc, I am happy to pursue other avenues, but I do not support that you make this change to other articles; and we must find an alternate edit for this one.--AladdinSE 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I still oppose the use of "Muslim Caliph", most of them were just political rulers, and even if they were Spirutial rulers, they would not have been the spirutial ruler for all muslims. And like you compared it to the Papacy, it should be reverted back to Sunni Caliph then. Because like the papacy the caliphate (not just political but spirutial aswell) is limited to some groups of people.--Khalid 17:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, because of the divisiveness of the Yazid and Karbala topics, I am willing to pursue other avenues then simply changing it back to "Muslim Caliph" and leaving it at that. The Papacy analogy in no way supports the edit "Sunni Caliph" because as I have said time and again, the vast international historical consensus does not restrict the Umayyads, the Abbassids, and indeed the first 3 Rashidoon as only "Sunni" caliphs. Also, quite a few popes ranged from apolitical to highly political to non-spiritual in terms of their public debauchery. It made no difference to their official tittle. You can critisize Yazid or anyone else as much as you want, and note that he had a great deal of opposition, and still grant that most histories agree that he occupied the title, if not necessarily the "dignity", of "Muslim Caliph". I think I have come up with a suitable compromise. Because of the divisiveness of Yazid's reign, I will insert the Shi'a reservation as to his legitimacy into the actual introductory paragraph, instead of exclusively in the body of the article. --AladdinSE 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyrant

And why did you revert Some Shi'as refer to Yazid as "the tyrant" and add the word Lanatullah (May God's curse be upon him) after his name.? He is not only reffered as an tyrant in India and Pakistan, but throughout the world. --Khalid 13:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it sounded POV inasmuch as "May God's curse be upon him" sounded like Wikipedia's way of describing him. Also, it did not contain a supporting source. If you wish to restore it with a source, please change it to:
which means "May God's curse be upon him".
--AladdinSE 10:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the article renamed?

I'm not sure I support the renaming of the article from Yazid I to Yazid ibn Muawiyah. If there was only 1 Caliph by that name it would not much signify, but as there is a Yazi I and a Yazid II, the "ibn Muawiyah", to my way of thinking, belongs in the intro, not in the title. I will wait a couple of days to hear arguments before reverting.--AladdinSE 07:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no reason for the move. I'm going to reverse it. john k 07:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It was done again with no comment! I am reverting.--AladdinSE 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massacre

Why is "massacre" pov? Its even listed in List of massacres... --Striver 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I removed it from that list. This is the BATTLE of karbala, not the "Massacre" of Karbala. Being outnumbered does not change a battle into a massacre.--AladdinSE 09:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I tried to remove some of it, but look at this diff....it's what two IPs added. I tried to remove a few things that looked biased, but I'm no scholar of Islamic history, so I'm hesitant to make edits. Someone help.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: I changed some more things, but I'm hesitant to do much to the views of him within different muslim groups.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, sorta, and I revised to try to NPOV the article. Zora 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing factual accuracy tag

If no one objects, I'm going to remove the tag. I'll wait a few days and see if there's anyone who feels that the article is inaccurate. Zora 07:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Its been 20 days. I'm removing it. Happy to engage in discussion, though, if someone would like to return it. --AladdinSE 05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islami, why the revert?

Islami, you reverted to a version in which one of the sentences in the introduction is ungrammatical, and introduced a citation from Ibn Kathir that doesn't have an edition, doesn't have a page number, and seems to be added just as an attempt to efface any negative impressions left by early Islamic civil wars. It has no particular historical bearing on Yazid. I hope you have noted that I'm not out to cast Islam in a bad light -- I've certainly been harassed enough by various editors to prove that. (Check my user page.) I just want articles to be historically exact, and not apologia for one side or another. Please explain why you insist on bad grammar and unmoored off-topic references. Zora 04:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Zora. The quote from Ibn Kathir's book seems be forged, or assuming good faith, someone wrote it from his memory. While that case was true for Saffin Battle, it was not the case for Karbila (unless someone can prove otherwise). I know you since a long time and I know you are not out to cast Islam in a bad light. In fact, I find most of your edits as great contribution to Wikipedia. --Islamic 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/a/z/Talk%7EYazid_I_a363.html"