Talk:Battle of Karbala

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

the family of rasoolallah won the war, not the umayyad caliphate 148.252.128.76 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

false information

data is not collected properly and words used are also not suitable 119.157.85.33 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Trimming needless details.

Revised the section to provide a concise and balanced overview of scholars' views on Husayn's motivations. Removed direct quotes like "reaches out to the moon like a child" and "convinced that he was in the right, stubbornly determined to achieve his ends" that may be seen as subjective. Replaced them with a more neutral presentation of their perspectives. The streamlined content maintains the scholarly viewpoints in a proper manner. StarkReport (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

StarkReport, in my view your proposed revision (here) is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel.

I agree though that the quoted views from Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 ("reaches out to the moon like a child", "a person who disturbs public peace"), which I can only describe as character judgments, feel very outdated and out of place. I think these views should either be contextualized and more strongly juxtaposed to recent views (I can't imagine that later scholars wouldn't have reacted to moralizing pronouncements like these?), or simply removed (do they really add anything of importance? can we agree that even though they were mainstream 100 years ago in the context of great man theory-esque historiography –or in this context, 'small man historiography'–, they are not so anymore?). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport and Apaugasma: Instead of relying so much on the outdated Wellhausen 1901 and Lammens 1921 (WP:DUE?), perhaps we could add the more recent views that are missing, e.g., those of Moojan Momen in An Introduction to Shi'i Islam or Najam Haider in EI3. I'd welcome their addition to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If you want to have a go at it that would be great. Personally I won't be working on this or any other Wikipedia article, but I'm willing to review your proposal to revise the text if you should make one (the easiest way is to edit the article and directly self-revert). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else would like to take the lead and I'd be happy to support them as much as possible. @StarkReport: I hope you're still interested in revising the views section... Albertatiran (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read both of your replies, so here's what I came up with: The first paragraph could be written as:

"Wellhausen and Lammens, have characterized Husayn's revolt as a premature and ill-prepared campaign led by an ambitious individual. They argue that Husayn made significant demands but failed to take substantial action, relying on others to handle the situation. Moreover, they view Husayn's actions as leading to disturbances in public peace. According to Heinz Halm, Husayn's revolt can be understood as a struggle for political leadership among the second generation of Muslims. Fred Donner, G. R. Hawting, and Hugh N. Kennedy see Husayn's revolt as an attempt to regain what his brother Hasan had renounced."

As for the second paragrpah:

"On the other hand, Vaglieri interprets Husayn's motivations as being driven by ideology. He posits that the available historical materials suggest Husayn was deeply convinced of being in the right and was resolutely determined to achieve his objectives.[90] Similarly, Madelung contends that Husayn was not a "reckless rebel" but instead a religious man, motivated by pious convictions. According to him, Husayn was convinced that "the family of the Prophet was divinely chosen to lead the community founded by Moḥammad, as the latter had been chosen, and had both an inalienable right and an obligation to seek this leadership." He was, however, not seeking martyrdom and wanted to return when his expected support did not materialize. Maria Dakake holds that Husayn considered the Umayyad rule oppressive and misguided, and revolted to reorient the Islamic community in the right direction. A similar view is held by Mahmoud Ayoub. S. M. Jafri proposes that Husayn, although motivated by ideology, did not intend to secure leadership for himself. Husayn, Jafri asserts, was from the start aiming for martyrdom in order to jolt the collective conscience of the Muslim community and reveal what he considers to be the oppressive and anti-Islamic nature of the Umayyad regime."

I tried to present the scholars' viewpoints without relying on direct quotes while ensuring that the content wasn't excessively condensed.

While I have not read An Introduction to Shi'i Islam, it is likely to contain information about Husayn that may reveal the author's view. Currently, there is a mention of Moojan Momen's perspective on Husayn in the article , where Momen briefly discusses Husayn while criticizing Iran's policies towards Baha'is. So how about we include his view in the second paragraph as:

"Moojan Momen emphasizes Husayn's actions within Shia beliefs, stating that being persecuted, martyred, and displaying resilience, as exemplified by Imam Husayn, is considered essential markers of true faith."

Might I suggest incorporating the views of German scholar and Orientalist annemarie schimmel on Husayn. StarkReport (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Hi StarkReport, thanks for the drafts. For the record, I think you're doing great. Here are some thoughts and suggestions: 1) I also support removing Wellhausen and Lammens, and replacing them with more timely views, say, that of Donner or someone else. 2) Here is a summary of what Momen says in his Introduction in pages 31–32, "Momen sides with Jafri, adding that Husayn was warned about the collapse of the Shia revolt in Kufa. Instead of changing his course, however, he pressed on toward Kufa, urging his supporters to leave him and save their lives on multiple occasions." 3) You can access many of these sources on Internet Archive for free. You can also access Brill Reference works through the Wikipedia library; please see here. In particular, Haider's EI3 article about Husayn can be found here. If anything else comes to mind, I'll update my response here. Albertatiran (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that is really a bit off with the current revision is the outdated and therefore perhaps wp:undue nature of Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views. Summarizing these rather than quoting doesn't really solve that.

With regard to Momen's view, encyclopedias do not make pronouncements on what are "essential markers of true faith", and so this seems out of context here. This is probably due to the source being used (iranwire.com), which is not a reliable source for historical subjects on Wikipedia. Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources. The sources proposed for Schimmel's views, al-islam.org and hawzahnews.com, also do not meet this requirement.

With regard to al-islam.org, this is a religious organization promoting Shi'i views, and so is not a reliable source for any kind of subject on Wikipedia. Please never use it here. StarkReport, if you're not familiar with scholarly sources it might be a good idea to avoid editing historical and religious topics on Wikipedia, and spend some time with such sources instead. When editing Wikipedia it's very important to have some experience with the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable for any given subject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Momen's perspective. Also, would it be appropriate to integrate his contribution without explicitly using the term 'Islamicist,' as it might inadvertently introduce unnecessary labeling? StarkReport (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns about the notions of Wellhausen and Lammens, which may seem somewhat out of place and gratuitous in the current context. Given the evolving scholarship and focus on more recent perspectives, it might be appropriate to consider removing these views to ensure the section remains balanced and relevant to modern understanding.

As for annemarie schimmel views, would newspaper like Dawn or The Herald be suitable as sources: StarkReport (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

No, newspapers are generally not reliable for historical subjects. Wikipedia content should be based on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources, which in the context of historical subjects are sources coming from academic publishers (e.g., Cambridge University Press, Brill, De Gruyter, etc.). This generally includes monographs, academic journals, edited volumes, encylopedias and other reference works, all published by such academic publishers. The Wikipedia Library offers free online access to many of these sources to long-term editors, so be sure to try that out. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thanks for opining here. I generally hold your opinion in high esteem, however this time I believe your position is wrong. The section is dedicated to assessment of Husayn's motivation and would obviously contain "character judgments", so remarks like "which I can only describe as character judgments" are perplexing. Moreover, Wellhausen and Lammens, along with Goldziher, are among the founders of critical study of Islam. Their views on a range of things are reported on a variety of a our articles, but more importantly in the professional academic literature. Wellhausen's Arab Kingdom is used a textbook on Umayyad history, whereas his Oppositionsparteien was the first critical of study of Shi'im and Kahrijism (although on Kharijism Brünnow's work was a bit earlier). Lammens' Le Califat is to-date the only dedicated study of Yazid's reign and he is a middle-link between Goldziher and Schacht in the field of academic hadith criticism. Regarding Wellhausen and Lammens irrelevant and their views out of place simply shows, sadly, that one needs to acquaint oneself a bit more with the academic study of Islamic history. Adding views of more scholars is, of course, welcome. But in the end, one always needs to select a sample from each camp of views, while giving due weight (which is what the section currently does). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean character structure (i.e., a person's general psychological characteristics, both positive and negative), but moral character (i.e., a person's virtues: empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, loyalty, etc.). With "character judgment", I mean a negative evaluation of a person in relation to these virtues: Husayn failed because he was too childish and lacked the humility and fortitude to carry through.

Of course Wellhausen and Lammens are highly –and I mean highly– respectable scholars. It's just that 100 years ago scholars in general tended to more easily ascribe historical events to the moral character –or the lack thereof– of its actors. This approach is generally outdated: one will not find recent scholars proclaim that Husayn acted "like a child". Nor would they assume that an analysis of this type, even if it were possible given the state of the sources, would explain anything.

Old sources can often be valuable, and in the case of Islamic studies they are not rarely better than newer ones. But they should also be used with caution, which often means: selectively. When they go all preachy and judgmental about morals and personal virtues, they are often better left aside for an instant. In my experience, modern academics generally either do just that and ignore moralizing views in older but respected literature, or they directly criticize them. It would be good for us to follow suit and either pick up on such criticisms if they exist, or simply ignore the older views. But that's just my opinion; there's nothing so problematic here that we couldn't just agree to disagree on that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Wellhausen is sure old, but not too old/outdated to be ignored. In fact, as Halm puts "[oppositionsparteien] is still the most authoritative work on the subject to date" (Halm, Shi'ism, 2nd ed., p.3. this was written in 1991 and I suppose you won't label that is too old too). As for moral character judgments are concerned, that is not for an encyclopedia to decide which RS to choose from based on their moral declarations. As late as 1997, Madelung wrote of Mu'awiya as an "odious little imposter" and what not. Does that make him irrelevant for the article on Mu'awiya? Certainly not. But based on your position, we ought to delete to his criticism from Mu'awiya's article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the point you are trying to make here is largely rhetorical, but I'm not sure that description of Muawiyah is character judgment - the man's actions themselves were odious enough without one needing to guess at his moral character. Converting the caliphate into a dynastic property and generally opposing if not outright murdering members of the prophet's family were hardly the actions of a devout convert true to his outward professions of fealty and faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Is that so? Then describing an unplanned expedition against an empire as childish desire is also not moral judgment too. Hope that helps. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The salient point here is that modern scholars generally don't regard Mu'awiya's moral character, however they may judge it, as a relevant explanatory factor for historical events. Madelung is being rather old-fashioned in making such moral pronouncements, and is precisely rejected by other scholars to the extent that he uses these as 'evidence' for his political and military analysis. I linked above to 'great man theory', which regards important historical events as due to the personal virtue of some men and the moral degeneracy of others. This approach has persisted in some circles throughout the 20th century, but it has been gradually abandoned, and in 2023 it really is completely out of date –or so I believe. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

AhmadLX, I certainly hope we don't quote Madelung on that?! But that just means that we are being selective, and that we do practice editorial discretion. DUE is all about being selective in RS. Now I'm talking from a general experience of reading 100+ years old academic literature, which has that certain moralizing tendency. It is this tendency, not specific scholars like Wellhausen or Lammens, or these two scholars' views in general, that is outdated. I say this as a historian. But maybe you've got a different experience, or just don't see what I see, and that's fine! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That would certainly apply if we were to make declarations in Wikipedia's voice. But that is not what we are doing. We are reporting what two scholars think of his rebellion. And in reality, all views presented in the section are character judgments. Summarizing top scholarship on a subject is what we do. It is simple as that. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If it were as simple as that, almost no discussion would ever be needed here on WP (bless me, if it only could be so). But what actually is top scholarship in any particular case is not something self-evident, unfortunately. That's why we are all the time discussing on WP the quality and relevance of any particular source with regard to any particular subject or statement. Calling one's preferred source in a specific case "top scholarship" is just begging the question. To be clear: though I appreciate other opinions, and though I do regard Wellhausen as a top scholar, it is my editorial opinion that the specific quote we are giving from Wellhausen is not top scholarship. It's severely outdated. You disagree, it seems, because Wellhausen is just top of the line in everything he writes, and you don't see any particular problem here? As I said, that's fine, and I understand.

I can also see your point: the rest of the paragraph does contain some further 'moral analysis' (not accidentally, it seems, by Madelung!), so why not include all of it? Then again, maybe only the moralizing stuff can be trimmed? On the other hand, maybe the whole paragraph is wp:undue. If the question of Husayn's "motivations" comes down to the question of whether he was a reckless rebel or a pious hero (Madelung's framing), I don't see much value in it, and I refuse to believe that recent top scholarship regards the question of Husayn's motivations in that way (both images are stereotypes which only exist in the moral imagination and as such explain nothing about historical reality).

But I also see why other editors would take that latter opinion of mine with a grain of salt: perhaps it's too colored by my own views on proper historiography, or on what can reasonably be regarded as knowable given the state of our primary sources. It's also important to note that I'm by no means an expert on this subject, and that I did not read the relevant secondary sources. But merely the fact that an editor like me brings up something as possibly wp:undue is not to be dismissed with an argument which regards everything as due for inclusion if it's RS, because that simply is not how WP works. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well you know what? Wellhausen's being top scholarship doesn't need anyone's certificate here. His peers views are what matters. You wanna show his work reflects that theory you have been consistently pointing to, you gotta show that from RS, not from your personal opinions. How can you stereotype scholars without even reading them? That some folks from the 19th century believed in the theory doesn't mean all disciplines of history were plagued with that. As a true history student, you gotta do better than that. If Vaglieri writing for EI2 quotes Wellhausen and Lammens, and Halm calls Wellhausen's work among the best on the subject, we don't really need OR-based opinions. You gotta problem with Wellhausen's assessment, then show from RS that this assessment is outdated/wrong/ whatever. If not, you are welcome to start RFC, instead of patronizing. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing. I might be completely wrong, but I don't believe that the specific 100+ year old views we are discussing here are still taken very seriously by recent scholars. If you want to look to peer review (a good idea of course, scholars discussing scholars' views are effectively wp:tertiary, which "may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other"), the onus to show from tertiary sources/statements that these specific views are still being discussed would be just as much on you as it would be on me to show that they are not. If Wellhausen 1901's and Lammens 1921's views are explicitly discussed by other scholars, we should include what other scholars are saying about them in our article (as I said above, juxtapose and contextualize, that would be a fine approach and discussion here could end immediately). On the other hand, if they are not discussed by other scholars, we have no 'peer review' basis to go on.

If there is no 'peer review' basis to go on, all we can do is evaluate as editors. Are Wellhausen's and Lammens' specific views here about Husayn having acted "like a child" still upheld by anyone? Does anyone still take it seriously enough to even mention it (we are mentioning it!)? It's not because Vaglieri or Halm still extensively rely on Wellhausen that they agree with everything he ever said. Respect is often shown by passing over outdated or obsolete elements in silence. The general good reputation of a scholar does not guarantee that every last thing they have ever written is still regarded as valuable, that should be obvious. Questioning whether an individual and specific statement of an old but well-respected scholar is still taken seriously in modern scholarship is not OR, that too should be obvious. I think it's perfectly fine to answer the questioning with 'yes the source is old, but I don't agree that moral judgments are somehow outdated (Madelung's still doing it), and so this is not a sufficient reason for exclusion'. We can agree to disagree on that matter. But what I do take great exception to is the idea that Wikipedia editors should not even question sources in the first place, that this should be somehow illegitimate.

As someone who both does original research and edits Wikipedia, I'm well aware of the different norms and standards that apply. One of the big differences is that in the former, one is generally expected to be habitually skeptical and critical about other scholars' views, while in the latter it is generally expected to simply follow scholarly views without too much criticism. But Wikipedia policy would be crazy if it were to disallow all forms of source criticism, and so fortunately, it does not. More than that, it specifically prescribes source-critical norms such as WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:BESTSOURCES, etc. It also encourages WP:CONSENSUS-directed discussion about the contextual reliability and relevance of sources, and it puts the WP:ONUS to get consensus for inclusion on those who want to include a source (that would be you here). I'm sorry for all the wiki-lawyering (I'm really sorry to be arguing with you at all in fact), but since you seem to believe our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of policy, I felt I should clarify that I do understand policy.

That said, I don't think an RfC is a good idea, at least not yet. First someone should create an alternative revision with a proposed text that we can put up for a RfC. A possible RfC question could be "Should the section on the motivations of Husayn contain text A, B, or C?" If A would be the current revision, B and C could be alternative proposals. But these proposals should be well worked out and at least have a chance of being accepted. At this moment, I still support the current revision, which while not ideal is fine really. There's not often an occasion to say things like this, so I will say it here: I think you've done a great job with this article and other WP articles. I truly appreciate it, that's also why your articles are on my watch list and why I tried to help out here with explaining to StarkReport why their initial efforts were unacceptable. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

While the 'Modern historical views on motivations of Husayn' section is tempting, its inclusion deviates from the primary focus of the 'Battle of Karbala' article, which aims to provide a historical account of the battle itself. Moreover, the existing 'Historical analysis' section already covers significant modern perspectives on Husayn as well as the battle, reducing the necessity for a separate section.

Consolidating key insights from the 'Modern historical views' section into the existing 'Historical analysis' section can maintain coherence, readability, and minimize potential disputes among contributors. This approach allows us to present a well-rounded account of the Battle of Karbala without compromising the central narrative and relevance of the article.

Also, no one is dismissing Wellhausen or Lammens. However, including their views on Husayn's motivations, which appear outdated or tangential to the central narrative, could detract from the article's primary focus. Their assessments are perceived as character judgments rather than direct analyses of Husayn's motivations within the context of the battle. It definitely seems to introduce bias or undue emphasis on certain perspectives.

With regards to WP:NPOV and WP:NOT, we all know that Mu'awiya I is infamous for his controversial actions. The comparison to other historical character judgments, such as Madelung's view on Mu'awiya, may not be entirely analogous, as the context and relevance of character judgments can vary significantly between different articles. In the case of the 'Battle of Karbala,' the focus is on Husayn's motivations in a particular historical event, and character judgments from sources outside that specific context might not directly contribute to understanding his motivations.

How about bringing other editors and seeking broader consensus to evaluate whether the "views" section is necessary and if it aligns with the article's primary focus. Maybe we can initiate a formal voting process to gather input. StarkReport (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport: I see your point about a vote but a consensus seems out of reach, either way. At the same time, there are many related articles that are in desperate need of major revision to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. I'm slowly working on Ashura and Mourning of Muharram, and haven't even checked Tasu'a, Muharram, Ta'zieh, to name just a few. Albertatiran (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I understand your perspective on the consensus issue. Indeed, finding a common ground can sometimes be challenging. StarkReport (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Should add Zaydis to ‘Legacy’ as a distinct branch

https://minorityrights.org/minorities/zaydi-shias/#:~:text=The%20Zaydis%2C%20known%20as%20Fivers,than%20to%20Shi'a%20Islam.

Zaydism#:~:text=Unlike the Twelver and Isma,ʻAlī or Husayn ibn ʻAlī. 2601:285:103:1D70:3472:DAAD:AD6C:54CA (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

I have noticed the lack of Sunni views of the Battle of Karbala, thus I would like to edit the page and give the Sunni view using authentic sources from Sunni books. Abu Lahja (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

Instead of death of Hussein put martyrdom 37.186.46.235 (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2024

trsut = trust 2603:8000:D300:3650:3C32:3DC7:C049:4B92 (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)