Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 5 February 2013

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Islam: Shi'a Islam Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.

A Few Facts

I believe al, those who have described Yazid as a hated person always reffer it to shia muslim.And the so called of son reffering to yazid as able general and lover and promotor of art music and ciulture should be clear in many aspects of Islam.First music is not allowed in Islam.Yazid was born years after death of Prophet(PBUH).He never ever fought any battle nor commanded any army.He was once sent to a battle by his father but he never went there.His task was to only provide supplies to those soldiers.Even his task was not to fight.But he never made there instead went for hunting and muslims lost that battle.If we put aside shia's hatered Yazid killed many muslims,his army destroyed maddinah makkah and Masjid-e-nabwi and Khana Kabbah.All documented in history.He was an alcoholic, womeniser and a big lover of dance parties.The irrigation system reffered was never made by him.It was planned by his father and was finally materiliased once damascus was redsigned in Umer bin abdul aziz rule which is many years after Yazid.There are many other facts of Yazid despite being an evil for Shia muslim.That is the reason even sunni muslim donot consider him as a noble person.Ilmtruth78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.111.43 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
First Caliph of Umayyad was not Muawiyah but Usman or Uthman.
There is no record of Yazid's father Muawiyah and grandfather Abu Sufian of voluntarily accepting Islam, after the invasion of Mecca they might have behaved as Muslim due to compulsion for most obvious reasons.
All the three generations of this family remained at war with the corresponding generations of Holyprophet's family, Abu Sufian fought against the Holy Prophet till he was defeated at Mecca, Mawia remained aloof during first three Sunni Caliph's period as the circumstances were favourable for him, but after that when Ali was forced into the Sunni Caliphood Muawiyah drew sword against him, lastly Holy Prophets most beloved Grandson Hussain was murdered by Yazid's forces. So these are all facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baabi 99 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The essence of Yazid the Tyrant and his contributions or lack thereof as a ruler is lost in the hate, vile and filth spilt from propoganda sources that promote a particular Shia view of the man. A similar twisted suni view exists in stories passed down through generations of uneducated nomads who once buried their female children.

Perhaps his contributions to Damasucs' irrigation system, promotion of the arts and poetry and learning within his community does not sit well with those who are used to having their views and thoughs given to them from the pulpit!

It should also be noted that Yazid ( the original ) was a general, or something similar, in Muhammad's Army. He tells stories of his experiences with Muhammad and those stories called aHadith, which some Muslims treat with the same reverence as they do the holy qur'an.

So, let's leave the shia hate, suni mis information behind and write something solid about Yazid AND make note that his name comes from a noble man. By: Proud son of Yazid

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.106.21 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. --Islamic 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

yazid cult

i've deleted the 'praise' of yezid as the hadith is fabricated and there is no reliable source about the information that he attended the attack on constantinople.

Its interesting to note that the Hadith stating the Constantinople point was not read in it's entire format or the issue of the seige understood. Yazid's father Mua'wiya was amongst those involved in the initial seige, but Yazid was not the attendee of the first 7 battles in the war on Constantinople. To make the assumption he not only attended the 1st, but LED that battle is grossly inaccurate and false. This must be addressed in the article--Revolution51 (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yazid Death

How Yazid Died ? ...The article mentions nothing about his death

--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yazid died a pre mature death at the age of 38 --Notedgrant (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste materials

'Sunni Positive View of Yazid' section is direct 'copy and paste' from this website:

http://ahlulhadeeth.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/lifting-the-blame-from-the-imaams-series-part-16-yazeed-ibn-muawiyyah-part-2/

The website is blog and it is not a reliable source. It contains strong bias, errors and original research.Tarikur (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article is HORRIBLE

This article is simply awful. It needs to be re-written --Blue Tie (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

listern to this if u wanna know about yazid A reply to Zakir Naik about Yazid by Ammar Nakhshawaniutube

Very Inappropriate The material under Sunni Viewpoint and Shia Viewpoint is highly inappropriate. It appears that the writer has intentionally tried to craft a relatively softer point of view, which is very different from what is popular in Muslims. I believe that for biography one should consult some widely accepted and popular history. There are some popular islamic historians like Tibri, Sayuti etc. So I would request that someone please rewrite it according to historical facts, not on individual view points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.234.226 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove all the crap about sunni shia

This article does not need some sort of fight between two sects of a religion It sounds horrible(as stated above)I think all the views of shias and sunnis should be removed as they sound non encyclopedic they seem to be partisan views --Notedgrant (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunni and Shia view

The Shia section refers predominantly to Sunni scholarly sources for their opinion. Therefore, it would be more factually correct to refer to this section as Sunni and Shia view. To remove this and leave it as just Shia view is both nonsensical and fraudulent as the sources used are (as initially stated in the section itself!) to be from highly prominent Sunni sources and widely followed/respected Imams.

The initial Sunni view section I have changed to Salafi view. This section refers to purely Salafi recorded sources. Sunni is a very broad over view sect title, therefore we should be encyclopedically specific as to which sect is making the claims for that view etc. Before changing this back, please discuss. Otherwise, good faith aside, this will be vandalism and POV pushing.--Revolution51 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Utterly False Historical Evaluation Of YAZID I

This article is sparse on details about the historical personage of Umayyad Caliph Yazid I. The closing paragraph which presents an "historical evaluation" is only that of the very small minority REVISIONIST movement of pseudo-Salafiyya scholars who have been systematically and methodically REINVENTING standard Islamic historiography by utterly ignoring all the classical works from the earliest Islamic historiographers. However, I would like to convey that I am no amateur historian. I noticed that in the evalution section of Yazid I, that the author of that paragraph quoted on the single Maulana Mufti Taqi's opinion. First of all, I am an Islamic scholar with extensive background and research on standard Islamic historicity (not just history). The general consensus about the historical figure of Yazid I in the Islamic community as a whole for the past 1300 years is that he was viewed as the Islamic equivalent of a Nero or Commodus. Anyone can refer to any of the classical annalistic historians such as Abu Mikhnaf, Tabari, Ibn Al-Athir, Beyhaqi, Ibn Katheer, etc..To more modern historians such as the pre-eminent Maulana S. A. A. Maudoodi and his monumental Khilafat Wa Mulukiyyat (The Caliphs and the Monarchy). Those editors who are supporting this misleading article such as Toddy1 and Edward321 probably have NO KNOWLEDGE of Islamic history whatsoever. They probably cannot even READ the languages of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, (which I can). They further probably have never even HEARD of the names which I have cited to you. The one source of Maulana Mufti Taqi is an obscure author from Pakistan who has no prominence whatsoever in the academic or scholastic circles of Islamic professors or scholars. Please. I request the administrators of Misplaced Pages to take the initiative and at least return the few edits I had made to the Historical Evaluation portion of the article on Yazid I. There is a small minority of revisionist pseudo-scholars such as MEDICAL DOCTORS (not historians) such as Zakir Naik, Shabbir Ahmed and this obscure Maulana Mufti Taqi who adovcate this Saudi propagated Salafi REVISIONISM of standard Islamic historiography. The OVERWHELMING majority of Islamic scholars down the ages (for the past 1300 years) have recorded Yazid I's historical persona as that of a corrupt and cruel despot. Again, please refer to the work of Maulana Maudoodi (a Sunni btw) for clearcut evidence of this general consensus on the historical persona of Yazid I. --FlagrantedelictoFlagrantedelicto (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than claiming expertise and disparaging other editors and existing sources, you need to provide cited sources to support you views. Edward321 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disparaging?

Either (Edward321) does not read English or have you missed the sources that have been cited already: Tabari (Tarikh Al-Tabari), Ibn Al-Athir, Ibn Katheer, Maudoodi (Khilafat Wa Mulukiyyat), etc...I cited these sources. The article on Yazid I is so lacking in character and depth, with grammatical errors galore, that it begs to be edited. The historical evaluation on Yazid I is from an obscure Islamic scholar (of which there are too numerous to be evaluated) who has NO STANDING in the academic circles of pre-eminent Islamic scholarship (Ulama). Can you read or write Arabic, Farsi, or Urdu (?) Please take this into consideration. The Yazid I article is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages itself...LOLFlagrantedelicto (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

But you have not done any citations at all!.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Negative

I DID attempt to insert citations, but was interrupted by you EVERYTIME I tried. Instead, a disfigured format appeared. I would greatly appreciate if YOU insert the citations which I provide. This is a formal request to you, another editor. The historical evaluation paragraph should offer a balanced view which states that there is a small minority of Islamic scholars (i.e., Maulana Mufti Taqi) who advocate an unconventional view of the historical persona of Caliph Yazid I. The general perspective from both non-Salafi, GENUINE Sunni scholarship, as well as Shi'ite, Ismaili, Zaydi, and Nizari Ulama (Scholarship), is that Caliph Yazid I was a tyrant who was directly responsible for the three (3) major historical atrocities of standard Islamic history: The Karbala massacre of the Hashimite caravan of Husayn bin Ali, the pillage and plunder of the city of Madinah (by Yazid's general Ibn Uqbah al-Murri) in which over 10,000 Muslim citizens were slaughtered and Muslim women were indiscriminately raped, and the siege of Mecca in which Yazid's commander Ibn Numayr ordered his troops to catapult fireballs to the shrine of the Kaaba. These are cited in S. A. A. Maudoodi's KHILAFAT WA MULUKIYYAT (THE CALIPHS AND THE MONARCHY)--http://islamiclab.blogspot.com/2011/07/khilafat-o-malookiat-by-abu-al-ala.html

Tabari is available online: http://www.openisbn.com/preview/9780791407332/

History of al-Tabari Vol. 19, The Caliphate of Yazid b. Mu'awiyah A.D. 680-683/A.H. 60-64 History of Al-Tabari: Vol 19 ISBN-10: 0791400417 ISBN-13: 978-0791400418 Translated By I. K. A. Howard Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to add the citations yourself, for the statements you are citing. So if you claim that he was born on 32nd November 645, then you provide a citation next to it. Born 32 November 645.<ref>Smith, ''Book title'', 2nd edition, p21-2.</ref> This would show up as something like Born 32 November 645.. Clicking on that would take you to the references section and you would see "Smith, Book title, 2nd edition, p21-2.". You could then add some more details about the book to the list of sources.

If you need to experiment, try using User:Flagrantedelict/Sandbox1.

By the way a site called "blogspot.com" is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Blogspot

FYI, that is the site which provides the direct online link to Maududi's Khilafat Wa Mulukiyyat. It is NOT the blog I am referring anyone to...Btw, if you have NEVER HEARD of S. A. A. Maududi, in Islamic academia, he is the WILL DURANT of Islamic history. He is more reliable than you can probably fathom. Also, I unintentionally overused my quota of reverts and have been cautioned that too many reverts can result in my blockage from editing any further contents on Misplaced Pages. I will have to probably wait for some time before I am able to undo any reverts, so that it does not appear that I am engaged in an "edit war". My mistake and misfortune for not being aware of this policy. You have to understand, Yazid I being portrayed as a cross between St. Paul or St. Luke and Charlemagne or Justinian the Great, when in widespread Islamic view, he has always been perceived as a Nero or Ivan Drozny (the Terrible), is excruciatingly humourous, to the point of being painful...Can you imagine a Misplaced Pages article about Nero or Ivan the Terrible which evaluates either of them as St. Luke or St. Matthew (?) The Western public who reads Misplaced Pages would either be incensed at the absurdity, or laugh almost to the point of convulsions...As it is a clear insult to intelligence.Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2012‎

I suggest that you make the edits you want to make in the sandbox. That way you will have a chance to learn how to do it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the Historical evaluation section

The Yazid I#Historical evaluation section needs restructuring. The current structure is as follows:

• Para 1 - "Some scholars regard Yazid as a just, noble..." This is a good 1st paragraph. It is cited. It is to the point. It could be expanded.
• Para 2 - "He participated in various wars against..." Uncited and lacks detail, otherwise OK.
• Paras 3-8 - "In the chapter, Qital e Rome of Sahih..." to " Fifth invasion was in 47 AH..." This is a digression. There are two good ways to treat this:
  • Turn it into a paragraph that is relevant as a historical evaluation of the Yazid, with the paras 5-8 as cited footnotes.
  • Move this to a new section, with an introduction that summarises it and makes it clear why it is in the article.
• Paras 9-11 - "Nonetheless, most Islamic scholars of the classical period...". This goes back to being relevant to a historical evaluation of Yazid.

--Toddy1 (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yazid was a tyrant man!

This article is totally taken into one context. Its references are weak and sources being used are not authentic in Islamic history. If the writer has tried to write it in a historical perspective then I am afraid that it is a lie. All the historians both the Sunni and Shia are agree that Yazid was a tyrant man and he has oppressed the people of his time. there is an issue of neutrality in this article, even in all the languages. Poorly written, weak resources are being used to defend him. This article should be deleted and must be re-written. --Lubna Rizvi 14:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)

He massacred the family of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Sunni also believe that he was a corrupt and tyrant man. The article is poorly written and must be removed as it is misleading and hides the facts about his cruelty and tyranny. He was known as a drunk man and was killed by his horse. He is the most cursed man in the history. --Lubna Rizvi 14:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to your concern. This article has been the subject of endless, raging debate. The Misplaced Pages policy, as I have come to understand it, is one of an encyclopedic nature and format. The formal style and methodology of an encyclopedia or lexicon is academic journalism. Journalism is reporting an event with minimal subjectivity, and maximum objectivity. In media journalism of an era gone by (the days of Walter Cronkite), journalists would report, for example, an atrocity without adding their own personal comments or reaction to it.

Up until the past 40 years (since the early 1970s), the historical persona of Caliph Yazid I was unanimous among the Muslim community at large. However, the steady rise and concentrated effort of expanding the Salafiyya (i.e., "Wahhabi") ideology of the Saudis, there has been a push to REINVENT and REDEFINE the Umayyad Caliphate and its geographic expansion via conquest back during the 7th & 8th Centuries...Notwithstanding that historiographically, there is little evidence that the Umayyads propagated standard Islamic culture. The Saudi-Salafi ideology is pro-Arab & nationalistic and views the Bani Umayyah as role models in the concept of Khilafah (Successorship). The Saudi family perceive themselves as the heirs to the Bani Umayyah, consequently, they have been mass funding Islamic clerics and academic scholars to propagate an exclusivist, culturally anti-Persian (Iranian), form of Islamic historiography. Never mind the fact that the Arab Caliphate of the Bani Abbas (Abbasids) openly acknowledged the immense Persian contribution to standard Islamic culture. The big push to redefine the Umayyads, who were evidently more interested in an Arab Empire which emulated the Roman Empire, is the agenda of the Saudi-Salafi movement. They are systematically and methodically re-interpreting traditional Islamic history by going as far as doctoring the Classical works by such stalwarts as Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim. For example, the heavily Saudi-Salafi influenced cleric Shaykh Albani re-edited Sahih Bukhari's collection of ahadith (narrations) by obliterating over 400 of Bukhari's sahih or authentic hadith (narration). Albani is just one example out of dozens of such pro-Saudi/Salafi Islamic scholars & clerics.

Only in standard Islam is there such a schism in which an organized religion cannot even agree on who the heroes or villains were...Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., have no such ambivalence and confusion. In Christianity, for example, almost no one doubts Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus Christ. Nor do Christians paint King Herod as a hero. But in standard Islamic historio-theology, there is a schism in those who regard the very concept of a successorship (caliphate) against the essential spirit of Islam, while stressing the non-confrontational missionary aspect of Prophet Muhammad's spiritual leadership. On the opposite end, there are those who are pro-Caliphate lauding the military expansions of the Caliphate after Muhammad...Notwithstanding the fact that Muhammad had ratified a peace treaty with Holy Roman emperor Heraclius which included the term & condition that Sham (Syria, including its southern provinces Palestine & Jordan) not be annexed by the Muslim Arabs. However, Caliph Umar I ignored this point of the treaty with Christian Rome and pushed for conquest of Sham. Centuries later, the Roman papacy would use this very point to justify their "Crusades" to the Holy Land to "reclaim" it from the violators of this treaty.

One major point that is avoided by this group is that why was a Caliphate necessary when Muhammad NEVER officially appointed a SUCCESSOR (?) How can anyone succeed the self-proclaimed divine last prophet, messenger, warner, and evangelist ("bringer of the good message" in Greek) ? Note: angel or angelos = messenger in Greek, while evangel or evangelos = good message in Greek). Muhammad never proclaimed himself to be a KING, so what exactly was a Caliph (?) That is the question many a political theorist, sociologist, cultural anthroplogist, and theologist have been contemplating over. The Salafis and Shias have been using this article and the persona of Caliph Yazid I as a battleground to wage this ideological conflict: The traditional history which documented Yazid bin Muawiyah as a tyrant (like so many others), and those who view him as a conqueror and military hero of Arab expansion (in the guise of "true" Islam). To those who were conquered by the Romans, the Romans were cruel tyrants, but to the Italians, the Romans were heroes. That is the essential conflict about the Umayyads within the general Muslim community. One point which the pro-Umayyad Saudi-Salafi group blatantly ignores is that the Umayyads (in general) did not develop standard Islamic culture or any of its fiqh (jurisprudence) or sharia (course of law). This was the work of the succeeding Abbasid Caliphate. All four Sunnih schools of fiqh and sharia (Shafai, Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi) were established during the Golden Age of Islam (i.e., the Age of the Abbasid Caliphate). Even those cultures that were conquered by the Umayyads and the earlier Caliphate, clearly documented them as Arab conquests, and NOT Islamic conquests. This is undeniably revealing about the Saqifah Caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, and the subsequent Caliphate of the Umayyads.

The need to redefine Caliph Yazid I by the pro-Saudi/Salafi group who insist that they represent mainstream Sunnihs (like myself) is necessary for them. Even going so far as to falsely attribute Bukhari's hadith of Muhammad regarding the first jihad (endeavour) via water, and the first invasion of Caesar's City (Madinat ul-Qaisar) to Caliph Yazid I and/or his father Caliph Muawiyah I. This is clear falsification of historical facts. My contributions to this article page were in the historical evaluation section. All the Classical Islamic scholars that were cited were all my contribution. Previously, this article had only FOUR citations...And NONE from any of the most famous, classical standard Islamic works. The obscure Islamic scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani was laughable...A joke...When I first viewed the citations of this article before my contributing the classical sources. Hope this helps you understand the nature and evolution of this article page a little...Flagrantedelicto (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The word you use "classical" seems when you use it to mean "Abbasid Caliphate". The Abbasid's replaced the Umayyads, and justified their actions with anti-Umayyad propaganda. The communists who replaced the Tsars as rulers of the Russian Empire did the same.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "classical" has always meant the Golden Age of Islam (as defined by scholars): The Abbasid Caliphate. It is not "my" word, btw. If you were a student of standard Islamic history, you would see the usage often. You don't have to remind me about Umayyad and Abbasid propaganda, young lady. I have 231 books (as of my last count) in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and English on standard Islamic literature in my personal library. And it was the first SIX Abbasid caliphs who were anti-Umayyad. From the 7th Abbasid caliph (Al-Mamun), and his half-brother Mutasim onward, there was a decided shift in the way the Umayyads were perceived by Shafai-influenced Abbasid scholars. In fact, the mid-to-later Abbasid caliphs actually emulated the Umayyads and propagated a few ahadith (narrations) which were actually in their favour. Remember that the Umayyad Dynasty did not come to a complete end, but continued in Spain in an agreement with the Abbasids. The Umayyad tyranny and despotism was attested to by surviving NON-Islamic historians and scholars of medieval times from the various cultures and countries they conquered. The Abbasids were seen in a much more favourable light as there was great advances in science, literature, art, philosopy, and architecture during the Abbasid period. Some of the greatest Islamic scholars, mathematicians, scientists, artists, literary figures, etc., were the by-product of Abbasid patronage. This is not propaganda, but historical fact. There is a world of difference between the Bolsheviks and the Abbasids. The Communists were no real patron of the arts or culture, the Abbasids ushered in the Golden Age of Islamic culture...Peace.Flagrantedelicto (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Showing what is and isn't a quote in the Historical evaluation section

(Summary: Quotes and paraphrases need to be labeled as such in the text or else they might be edited for more objective wording. A footnote number doesn't mean what comes before it is a quote.)

I made the following minor edit & summary: (→‎Historical evaluation: Changed "indiscriminately raped" to "raped." The opposite would be being reasonably raped, therefore the distinction unneeded & misdirecting. It's difficult to write plainly about a tragedy. I hope I explained this edit well.)

The IP user at 99.179.148.221 replied: (Undid revision 529406547 by Geekdiva (talk)No need for exegesis here. This was quoted verbatim from scholar Maududi's work.)

Below is what I put on his talk page. Sorry I can only point this out by copying it here, but as I mention below, I have an illness that takes a great toll on me. Thanks in advance to those who can work on this!

Thank you for your informative note on reverting my edit at Yazid I. I'm not going to get too involved there, as I have severe chronic illness and only so much energy in each day. It's just a fact of life for me, so I try to help out in small ways but let people know when I can't do more.

If the text had been written in the format of a quote, I wouldn't have touched it without checking the original source. While the paragraph is indeed very well sourced (as far as I could see, because I am somewhat ignorant of this area of history), the information is presented as part of the Misplaced Pages article and not as a quote or a paraphrase of a quote.

I suggest that the section should be rewritten to clarify what part of it is a quote, what part of it (if any) is a paraphrase, and what part of it is in the objective style of a Misplaced Pages article.

I'm going to copy & paste this idea over to the article's talk page, so more people can be involved in this discussion. I started on your talk page without thinking ahead because I could see the earnestness of your edit. Thanks for that!

Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome, Geekdiva. If you had a chance to glance a few paragraphs up on this talk page, you will see my own personal objection to the way Caliph Yazid I was portrayed before I added the far more accurate reputation which he holds in mainstream Islam. Before I added Yazid's widely recognized persona as a villain in standard Islamic history (in the historical evaluation section), Yazid came across as an Islamic hero, believe it or not. I found it almost humourous...It is like a Misplaced Pages article on Nero or Commodus being portrayed as Plato or Aristotle...Or Ivan the Terrible being portrayed as St. Peter or St. Paul...LOL Also, I am sorry to hear about your chronic condition. Hope you get through this with greater ease and the least discomfort possible.Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The death of the Caliph

The current version says:

Yazid was killed by his own horse after it lost control, his remains were never confirmed to have been found. Yazid died at the age of 38 after ruling for three years and was succeeded by his son Muawiyah II. Yazid was buried in Damascus. Although it is thought that his grave no longer exists, few believe that it is located in a small street near Umayyad Mosque without any mark or distinction, as is customary in Islamic tradition.

Today (19th January 2013), 223.188.36.32 (talk · contribs) produced a new version:

As mentioned in the book, "Auraq-e-Gham", Page=550 authored by Janab Abul Hasnat Syed Mohammad Ahmad Qadri

There are different opinions about the cause of Yazids death. It is commonly said that he fell in love with a Roman girl who actually hated him. One day, she tricked Yazid to go with her to a deserted area on the pretext of having romance. The cool breeze of the place made Yazid lustful but the Roman girl said that a shameless person who is disloyal and unfaithful to his Prophet’s grandson can never be faithful to me. After saying so she repeatedly stabbed Yazid with a dagger and left him there. For a few days, vultures and crows feasted on his corpse. Finally, after an extensive search his people found him. They dug a ditch and dumped his rotten remains.

His remains were never confirmed to have been found. Yazid died at the age of 38 after ruling for three years and was succeeded by his son Muawiyah II. Yazid was buried in Damascus. Although it is thought that his grave no longer exists, few believe that it is located in a small street near Umayyad Mosque without any mark or distinction, as is customary in Islamic tradition.

This information supposedly from Auraq-e-Gham, seems to come from the following website www.slideshare.net, which is not a reliable source, as it allows self-published materials. Nevertheless the references might be of value if someone checked them him/herself.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The book mentioned in the website is sirat-e-mustaqeem.com The Miracles of Imam Hussain by Shaykh-e- arīqat Amīr-e-Aĥl-e-Sunnat (pdf). The relevant portion is on page 28 of the booklet (32nd page of the pdf). As this might be a proper source, we could perhaps incorporate the information from it in a guarded way. What do others think?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job Toddy in tracking down the proper source. It would not discredit the article page, but rather make it a little more interesting. There are indeed different "folklorish" accounts of Yazid bin Muawiyah's sudden, mysterious death (right in the middle of basically a civil war which he instigated). One thing is almost certain, he did not die of natural causes as he was 36 years old (Gregorian chonology) and in generally fair physical health. Although, he led a hedonistic lifestyle and was a heavy drinker. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Most of the citations do not have enough detail to be useful for verifying information.

• Most of them do no give page numbers.
• In some cases: e.g. "Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. pp=372-379, Tarikh Al-Tabari Vol. 3", it is not clear what book is being referred to.

--Toddy1 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there is in entire section of this article (Husayn ibn Ali and Ibn as Zubair) which has NO citations whatsoever, and it has still remained uncited on Misplaced Pages for years now. I don't see anyone remarking about that.

Besides, I don't see any problem here. You must understand that different publications of the translated works into English have different page numbers for the very same material. For example: A cited info may be listed on page 123 of one publication, and page 132 of another. Also, from the above example you gave, it is obvious that it is referring to the book Volume 3. Various publications of the same material are available at bookstores, libraries, and online website links of uploaded copies. If any WP entries cite a particular source from a publication that editor / user has access to, may very well be another publication or publisher for the very same literary work that is being cited by another WP editor / user. A little legwork should be expected by people who want to research the cited sources, I feel. Jurjyzaidan (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• Unassessed Shi'a Islam articles
• Unknown-importance Shi'a Islam articles
• Shi'a Islam task force articles
• WikiProject Islam articles