Talk:Yazid I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 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)

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 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)

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 Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.^[3]. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia article about Nero or Ivan the Terrible which evaluates either of them as St. Luke or St. Matthew (?) The Western public who reads Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

Hitti, Philip K. (1943). The Arabs: A short history. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780895267061.

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.

Hitti, Philip K. (1943). The Arabs: A short history. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780895267061.

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 chronology) 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 Wikipedia 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)

Expansion on Yazid I Article Section on Oath of Allegiance

I have cited an online upload by Faraz Haider of a 71 page excerpt from Tarikh Al-Tabari Volume XIX [1]. The pages 7-9 cited as references are the page numbers of the online upload, and NOT the SUNY Press publication or other publications of The History of Al-Tabari. The following is further reference:

The History of al Tabari Volume XIX: The Caliphate of Yazid b. Muawiyah Pages 22 - 65 [Abu Mikhnaf's Account on Muslim b. Aqil] Translated by I.K.A Howard Paper back - ISBN 0-7914-0041-7 Available at: http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=50398

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rests found or not?

In the article:

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 36 (age 38 in Hijri-Lunar calculation) 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.

Or the redaction should be modified or something is wrong here. McCuack70 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yazid and history books

Hello, I am Sayom from arabic Wikipedia, I tried to improve Yazid article and it took a lot of time from me to do it. To improve this article you should return to the old history books. Even the old books doesn't give you the correct story, For example:

• "Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir" in his history book told us to make sure the story is correct, Because he did not, and because he give a stories from both Sunni and Shia view.
• "Ibn Al-Athir" he copied "Al-Tabari" book in the first parts of his book.
• "Abu Mikhnaf" he is a Shia historian, so, his idea express the Shia view of Yazid.
• "Ibn Katheer" he said there is a lot incorrect stories about Yazid, He him self wrote some of it as if it was a true story!!
• "Al-Dhahabi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad" he is Sunni historian, he wrote a lot about yazid as an opponent with-out prove, but in the same time he wrote two story about Yazid innocently with a way to prove it!!!!

• • Some historical events
  • Battle of Karbala:
    • according to Shia view: Husayn ibn Ali was killed by direct order from Yazid, but according to TRUE Sunni (after making sure everything is correct, as Al-Tabari said) view: Husayn ibn Ali asked was killed by order from Ubayd-Allah ibn Ziyad (with-out telling Yazid about Husayn coming or requests).
    • according to Shia view: Ubayd-Allah father's (Ziyad) was a friend of Ali (husayn father's). also, Shimr ibn Thil-Jawshan is a relative of the family of husayn bin Ali.

• • Battle of al-Harrah:
    • a lot of stories about this battle is incorrect.
    • number of dead according to one of the historian (Al-Waqidi) is 10,000 people, but according to another 3 historian more truthful it was only 306 people which they took from Al-Waqidi him self!! the most truthful number was the one mentioned by Malik ibn Anas which is 700, 4 of them are Sahabah.

• • Drinking:

this was only a rumor spread by people of Madinah in "Battle of al-Harrah", Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (of the Ahl al-Bayt) stand with Yazid against the rebels of Medina, telling them it's a lie.

• • His death:

he died from an illness in his foot, he suffered from this illness for 1 years.

this is a few things i wanted to say, to help you write the English article._Sayom (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you need need to edit the article to add these things, with citations to sources, quoting page numbers, and editions.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sayom, should we all laugh now or wait till what you wrote starts to sound funny (?) You sound like a Saudi-Salafi influenced propagandist and pseudo-revisionist. You have stated that Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, and just about every renowned scholar of standard Islamic history as incorrect and not true. What proof have you provided that all these famed scholars are incorrect and have actually admitted that their information is incorrect. Some of these scholars have been read for well over a millennium by all Islamic academies. The scholars of the Umayyad Emirate and Caliphate of Spain corroborated so much of what was recorded during the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates. You are either the most deluded responder in this article's talk page, or one who is reading fairy tales and pure fiction...The kind written by that MEDICAL DOCTOR Shabbir Ahmed, or the obscure scholar Taqi Usmani. You forgot to include Bukhari and Muslim in your diatribe against renowned Islamic scholars. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah NEVER stood with Yazid, so I don't know where you get this information from. Ibn Ziyad was Yazid's FIRST COUSIN. Ibn Ziyad's father, Ziyad bin Abihi, was the illegitimate half-brother of Yazid's father Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan. Muawiyah appointed Ziyad bin Abihi Governor of Kufa and Basra. You sound like the Saudi-Salafi utterly false propagandists who are REINVENTING Umayyad history in standard Islam. You make the opening statement: To improve this article you should return to the old history books. Even the old books doesn't give you the correct story, ... So you aren't really sure what you are talking about, are you (?) And those old history books whom you have stated this article should return to were written by guess who: Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, Al-Baladhuri, Abu Mikhnaf, Ibn Khaldun, etc., etc... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagrantedelicto, First: Salafi or not I don't care about such things. Second: I didn't say any scholar is incorrect, DO NOT LIE.
Third: I said they mentioned both Sunni-Shia view about Yazid. Al-Tabari in Introduction to his book said CLEARLY not all the stories he wrote in the book was a true stories. YOU said (corroborated so much of what was recorded), I say: Bring your sources.

• Bukhari: mentioned the prophecy of the Prophet about Yazid.
  • Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his book "Grant of the Creator" said Yazid was the Army Commander.
• Muslim: mentioned the rejection of Abdullah ibn Umar to stand Against Yazid.
• Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi: also mentioned the rejection of Abdullah ibn Umar.
• Ibn Katheer: mentioned the complete rejection of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah in his history book.
• Al-Dhahabi also mentioned that no one from (Ahl al-Bayt) stand Against Yazid in his book "The Lives of Noble Figures" (in battle of al-Harrah).
  
• Ziyad WAS NOT Muawiyah brother, but he pretended to be Muawiyah brother (According to Muslim book, and Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim).
• Yes Muawiyah appointed Ziyad as Governor, but he was Ali friend (Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei in his book "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition").
  An important thing, if you can't read Arabic books, do not insult others. there is two type of history books, the old one (like Al-Tabari history book) and new one (like Ali al-Sallabi history book), You should returned to the old one, and in the same time be sure the story is true.
  Be polite, don't insult people, and don't lie.__Sayom (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you state be polite and don't insult. Then you accuse me of LYING. It is you who is LYING. Not only have you stated a plethora of bullet points without providing a single citation, you are quoting a KNOWN SAUDI-SALAFI PSEUDO-REVISIONIST, Ali al-Sallabi, as a source. Sallabi is a Libyan fundamentalist who has actively been involved in Libyan politics; his theological training was by Salafis in Saudi Arabia & Sudan. Ibn Ziyad was most certainly Muawiyah's illegitimate half-brother. Just about every scholarship of the Islamic world who has studied this history knows this...Except the frauds of the pseudo-revisionist movement of the Saudi-originated Salafi Ulama. You are quoting Sallabi, etc., etc., all of whom are the new breed of bought-and-paid for puppets of the Saudia-Salafiyya movement to re-write traditional Islamic history and distort all the original contents. How can pseudo-revisionists like Shabbir Ahmed, Sallabi, Zakir Naik, etc., provide the FACTS when they have NO MEDIEVAL CONTEMPORANEOUS sources to offer an alternative account of standard Islamic history. All modern scholars, whether Martin Lings, Madelung, Anne Marie Schimmel, Bernard Lewis, etc., orientalists of the Western world, as well as Eastern scholars like Maudoodi, Ameer Ali, Ali al-Haj Salmin, Abdur Rahman Shad, etc., have cited ALL the early and later medieval historians such as Ibn Ishaq, Abu Mikhnaf, Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al-Athir, Baladhuri, Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, etc., etc. Bukhari has been cited in his famous documentation of the two (2) narratives about what Prophet Muhammad stated about Caesar's City and The First Muslim Army to Naval Jihad ... In case you missed the direct citations to Bukhari's works.

Ziyad bin Abihi was a staunch enemy of Ali ibn Abi Talib and fought against Ali in the Battle of Siffeen. This is undeniable historical FACT. Stop LYING. The very people whom you mention: Al-Asqalani, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, etc., have been cited and their famous works have been cited already in the article. You are falsely claiming things which these scholars have never written and have provided not one shred of evidence. All these books that have been cited are orginially Arabic material which have been translated into English and French. Don't try and pull any implied fraudulent nonsense about some WP editors not knowing Arabic. I know Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and English. Don't try to con anyone here on WP who are very well-versed with your false statements, please. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

you are the who shouldn't lie, I think you can't read all of these name ("Grant of the Creator", "Bukhari hadith book", "Muslim hadith book", "at-Tirmidhi hadith book", "The Lives of Noble Figures", "Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim").

"Ali al-Sallabi" wrote many history book (more than 10 books) about Islamic countries, and I said take from the old books not the new one.

about "Ziyad" he is "Ali's friend" according to the Shia view as I mentioned above (the source is Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei in his book "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition | a Shia scholar). He is not half-brother of Muawiyah,, he pretend to be,, "abo bakra" half brother of "Ziyad" was asked about what reason his half brother was pretending to be Muawiyah brother (the source is: "Muslim hadith book", "Abu Nu`aym: in his book about Sahabah (1038),, Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi: Al-'Awasim min al-Qawasim (after 1076)).

I did not mention Shabbir Ahmed, or Zakir Naik. "Ibn Ishaq" wrote about the Prophet. Abu Mikhnaf is Shia historian not Sunni so his idea about Shia only. Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al-Athi I mentioned them above. it's funny that you mentioned Baladhuri, he also mentioned a story about good relations between Yazid and Ahl al-Bayt.

about "Ziyad" he was with Ali, but after Ali died he went to Muawiyah (the source is: Al-Dhahabi in his book "The Lives of Noble Figures").

maybe you know Arabic language but you don't read anything.__Sayom (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

lol Now who is the one hurling insults. I haven't "lied" at all. It is you who are coming up with ridiculous stories, fallacies, and outright falsehood. All you are doing is mentioning all of these names and not providing anything to support your fiction. Abu Mikhnaf was not really a Shia historian as he was commissioned along with Ibn Ishaq by SUNNI Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur. Abu Mikhnaf just wrote favourably about the Hashimites and has been illogically labelled a "Shia" just because he was one of the first historians who covered the Battle of Karbala in Maqtal Husayn. Any mu'arikheen (chroniclers) or muhadditheen (narrators) who wrote the facts about the Hashimites and the Umayyads (the arch-rivals of the Hashimites even before the rise of Islam) are incorrectly considered as "Shia". And again, if Ziyad bin Abihi (literally, The Son of his Father, because he was illegitimate) was not Mu'awiyah's half-brother, which almost all the early Islamic sources documented that in fact he was, then why would Muawiyah have made him the governor of both Kufa and Basra while publicly proclaiming their fraternal kinship (!?) lol You are in never-never land. And stop saying that I am LYING. That is not very scholarly. Good relations between Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan and the Hashimites (!?) ROFL You need a very long vacation. Yazid's father Muawiyah (the youngest son of Abu Sufyan bin Harb and Henda bint Utbah) fought against Ali ibn Abi Talib in the Battle of Siffeen. Yazid's paternal grandfather Abu Sufyan and his wife Henda bint Utbah (Yazid's paternal grandmother) were the staunchest enemies of Islam and Prophet Muhammad prior to the annexation of Mecca by Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims. Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda had hired an assassin ex-slave(Wahshi) to murder Prophet Muhammad's paternal uncle Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib during the Battle of Jabal Uhud. Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda instructed Wahshi to cut out Hamzah's heart so she could drink the raw blood from it and chew on it. And Henda did just that, having spat it out after consuming a piece of it (cited by both Ibn Ishaq in Sirat Al Rasul Allah and Ibn Katheer in Al-Bid‘ayah wa n-Nihaayah 4/43); some later reproductions of the original literary works wrote that it was Hamzah's LIVER instead of his heart. However, Ibn ‘Abdu l-Barr states in his book Al-Istī‘āb that she cooked Hamzah's heart before eating it. This is known by every Muslim in the world who has even the most basic education of Islamic history. And yet, I have personally come across some members of the Salafi / Wahhabi Ulama who blatantly deny that this ever happened...When this is a fact so well known that even Syrian filmmaker Moustapha Akkad depicted this in his epic film The Message (Al-Risalah) in 1976; at the start of this film, Akkad acknowledged that what he depicted was in strict accordance with the Grand Authority of the Al-Azhar University of Cairo (A Shafai Sunnih Islamic Academy since the days of Saladin) and the Shiat Academy in Lebanon. The narrative of Hamzah's heart being cut out and its raw blood drunk by Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda bint Utbah is as famous throughout the Islamic world as is the narrative of Joan of Arc being burned at the stake or the assassination of Julius Caesar by the Roman senators. Shakespeare wrote his famous play on it: Julius Caesar. Now can you imagine if a fringe group of theocrats sprang up and claimed that neither was Joan of Arc burned to death, nor was Caesar really assassinated by the Roman senators, what do you think the mainstream reaction would be to this...? lol That is exactly what you are essentially propagating when calling serious Islamic scholars incorrect or not true...And saying that I am LYING...In Al-Dhahabi's Siyar Alam Al Nubala, what is stated about Yazid I has already been cited right to the page in this article. Anyone can look it up online. As for Al-Dhahabi, he was the scholar who coined the word NASIBI...Al-Dhahabi specifically coined this for those who opposed Ali and fought against him at Siffeen. Al-Dhahabi clearly wrote that Yazid bin Muawiyah was a NASIBI. If you deny this, you are utterly hopeless. Btw, the Ziyad who WAS Ali's friend was Ziyad an-Nakha'ai (father of Kumayl bin Ziyad), not Ziyad bin Abihi (aka bin Abu Sufyan al-Sakhr bin Harb al-Umawwi). Ziyad bin Abihi was never considered a friend by Ali at any time. Ali's relationship with Ziyad bin Abihi falls under the famous aphorism: Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer. I erroneously included Khoei with the names of the pro-Salafi scholars in an earlier response (which I have since deleted), when he was indeed a Shia. I got a little carried away with all the thoughts that I wanted to convey, that I lumped Khoei with the pro-Salafi scholars. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw, speaking of the SUNNI Persian(Iranian) scholar Al-Baladhuri, this is an excerpt of what he wrote regarding Mukhtar Al-Thaqafi and Ali ibn Al-Husayn Zayn Al-Abidin (Prophet Muhammad's great-grandson) and Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya:

Baladhuri writes in Ansab al-Ashraf (5th vol., p. 272) that, "Mukhtar wrote to Zayn al-Abidin to show his loyalty to him, asking if he could rally the Kufans for him. He sent with the letter a large sum of money. Zayn al-Abidin refused this offer and declared Mukhtar publicly to be a liar who was trying to exploit the cause of Ahl-al-Bait for his own interests."

Baladhuri (5th vol., p. 218) writes that, "Ibn al-Hanafiya gave Mukhtar only a non-committal reply. He neither approved nor disapproved of Mukhtar's intention to avenge Hussain, and only warned him against bloodshed."

Let's also analyze Baladhuri himself and his times (copy-pasted from an excerpt from the WP article on Baladhuri):

...he spent most of his life in Baghdad and enjoyed great influence at the court of the caliph al-Mutawakkil. He traveled in Syria and Iraq, compiling information for his major works. He lived at the court of the caliphs al-Mutawakkil and Al-Musta'in and was tutor to the son of al-Mutazz. He died in 892 as the result of a drug called baladhur (hence his name). (Baladhur is Semecarpus anacardium, known as the "marking nut"; medieval Arabic and Jewish writers describe it as a memory-enhancer)...A Persian by birth, though his sympathies seem to have been strongly with the Arabs, for Masudi refers to one of his works in which he rejects Baladhuri's condemnation of non-Arab nationalism Shu'ubiyya. (*)

(*)

-- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University.

-- Bos, Gerrit: " 'Baladhur' (Marking-Nut): A Popular Medieval Drug for Strengthening Memory", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 59, No. 2 (1996), pp. 229-236 (full-text via JSTOR; article's first page available for all).

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was awaiting your anticipated response as to why Henda bint Utbah (paternal grandmother of Caliph Yazid I) had hired an ex-slave assassin named Wahshi to murder Prophet Muhammad’s paternal uncle Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi…But since you haven’t responded, I’ll take the initiative:

The Umayyads were the wealthiest of all the Meccan oligarchs, even though the ELECTED Emirs or leaders of all of Mecca were the Fahri-Hashimites, commencing with Qusay bin Kilab (who was elected as the first Emir of Mecca), followed by his son Abdu Manaf bin Qusay; followed by his son Hashim bin Abdu Manaf; followed by his son Shuaybah bin Hashim (aka Shaybatul Hamd; aka Abdul Muttalib); followed by his son Abu Talib bin Shuaybah (Abdul Muttalib). The Fahri-Hashimites enjoyed the social rank and prestige of Meccan leadership more than material wealth, whereas the Umayyads enjoyed material wealth more than the social rank and prestige of official Meccan leadership. The Fahri-Hashimites had a history of dynamic entrepreneurial leadership of Mecca. Qusay rallied the Meccans and established Mecca as a military force which was fully capable of protecting its pilgrimage-tourism economy and its trade and commerce caravan routes from raiding Bedouin tribes and brigands. Qusay’s grandson Hashim established trade and commerce rights with Byzantine Emperor Anastasius and the Coptic Negus of Axumite Ethiopia, as well as re-discovering the fabled Abrahamic freshwater spring well of Zam-Zam. Hashim’s son Shuaybah (Abdul Muttalib) rallied the Meccans during Ethiopian Yemenite viceroy Abrahah al-Ashram’s siege of Mecca, as well as having built the small port of Mecca named Al-Shuwaybah (later expanded, developed, and renamed Jeddah). Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim’s son Abu Talib was the earliest and most powerful supporter of his nephew Muhammad and his foundation of the monotheist religion of Islam. Consequentially, the Fahri-Hashimites had generations of pioneer leaders who greatly influenced the history Mecca, bringing Mecca great prosperity and prominence; the only exception being Emir Abu Talib, who was seen in an adverse light by the polytheist Meccan oligarchy because of his staunch support of his nephew Muhammad and his newly founded religion of Islam, which called for the abolition of polytheism and idolatry: Mecca’s economic backbone and jugular vein.

This was the root cause of the arch-rivalry between the Fahri-Hashimites and the Umayyads BEFORE Muhammad’s prohethood and the rise of Islam. Later, when the Hashimi and Muttalibi oligarchs were exiled from Mecca as outcasts (due to their conversion and support of Islam) by the rest of the Meccan oligarchy, the Umayyads gained social prominence in all of Mecca. The Umayyads eventually stepped into the leadership role in the staunch opposition to Muhammad’s prophethood and the rise of the monotheist religion of Islam. Fast-forwarding to the Battle of Aab Al-Badr (Wells of the Full Moon) in 624 CE between the Meccans and the Muslims of Madinah, the newly elected Emir of Mecca was Utbah bin Rabiah (Caliph Yazid I’s great-grandfather and the father of Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan’s mother Henda bint Utbah). Utbah was elected Emir immediately following the death of the previous Emir, Shaykh Abu Talib al-Hashimi. At the Battle of Badr, the customary Arabian battle rite to have the leaders (or champion warriors) of the opposing camps engage in one-on-one combat was observed. The Muslim camp had Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib, Ali ibn Abu Talib (Hamzah’s nephew), and Ubaydah bin al-Harith face off against Utbah bin Rabiah (Henda’s father and Muawiyah’s maternal grandfather), Utbah’s younger brother Shaibah bin Rabiah, and Utbah’s son Waleed bin Utbah (Henda’s brother and Muawiyah’s maternal uncle). Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib slew Utbah bin Rabiah, Ali ibn Abi Talib slew Waleed bin Utbah, and Ubaydah (sustaining a severe wound) slew Shaibah bin Rabiah; there is a variation of this engagement from one source which records that Ali slew Shaibah and Ubaydah faced off against Waleed. And so Henda bint Utbah (Caliph Yazid I’s paternal grandmother) lost her father, brother, and paternal uncle to two (2) members of the Fahri-Hashimites: Hamzah (Prophet Muhammad’s paternal uncle) and Ali (paternal first cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad). This took the longtime rivalry between the Hashimites and the Umayyads to a whole new level: Outright adversity and hostility. Even though Utbah bin Rabiah, his brother Shaibah, and Utbah's son Waleed were not Umayyads, Utbah's son-in-law Abu Sufyan bin Harb was the scion of the Umayyads. Abu Sufyan then became the elected Emir of Mecca after Utbah's death at the Battle of Badr.

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's not up to you to consider someone a Shia or Sunni, only "Biographical evaluation scholars" can do this. and "Yahya ibn Ma'in" said he's not truthful | "Al-Dhahabi" said he's a bad historian, can't trust him | "Abu-Ahmed ibn Uday" said he's Shia scholar | "Abu-Jafar al aqili" mentioned him in his book "al-Du'afa' | Vulnerable".
• Mu'awiyah is political and Ziyad is his enemy,, Naturally he would do nothing Ziyad, to gain his enemy by his side.
• Mu'awiyah friend was from Ahl al-Bayt, Ali him self said "Don't hate Mu'awiyah command".
• all what you said about Yazid grandfather and grandmother was before Islam. Yazid grandmother didn't hair an assassin (Wahshi), It was "Jubayr ibn Mut'im" who haired him (Wahshi said this, read the story again in Bukhari hadith book).
• Good relations between Yazid family and Ahl al-Bayt is known, every year Mu'awiyah gave Hasan and Hussein a gift. "Ja'far ibn Abī Tālib" was both Mu'awiyah and Yazid friend. "Abd Allah ibn Abbas" said Mu'awiyah is "Faqih".
• Ibn Ishaq book was lost YEARS ago, and "Ibn Katheer" in his book said "Jubayr ibn Mut'im" haired "Wahshi" to kill "Hamzah", and he didn't mention "Henda" (Al-Bid‘ayah wa n-Nihaayah, Part 5, P.363, Arabic version), and the story you mentioned is not true.
• Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in his book mentioned 2 story about "Hamzah" death, non of them mentioned cooking Hamzah's heart, were you hungry when you wrote this?!
• filmmaker and movies are not reasonable sources.
• no Islamic scholar said his book is 100% true, In Islam world we have "Isnad" to make sure the story is true:
  • Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak said, “The isnad is from the religion; were it not for the isnad anyone could say anything they wanted.”
• as I mentioned above, Al-Dhahabi wrote about Yazid as enemy, and in the same time he wrote 2 story about Yazid innocently.
• Ziyad was Ali's friend, and he chose him to be Persia governor (Biography No. 4803 in "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition", Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei).

This reply for your comment in (00:02, 2 May 2013). I didn't reed your new comment because we are speaking about Yazid life and not about the relationship between the Umayyad and Ahl al-Bayt BEFORE ISLAM.__Sayom (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL...Exactly what I suspected and anticipated from the pseudo-revisionist POV pushing group. Total DENIAL and DISTORTION of long-established historical chronicles of Islamic history. All you do is go through a list of bullet points with nothing to substantiate it in terms of cited sources. Just empty refutations. There is only one reason for this: What is being taught in the education system of KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is not exactly the same as what is being taught by the rest of the Islamic academia...Whether in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., UNLESS of course where there is the Saudi-backed Salafi/Wahhabi missionary (dawah) presence. I must say one crucial thing about what is being published in KSA is that many of the publications of classical historical works by Islamic scholars Al-Bukhari and his pupil Muslim (both of who were Persian and not Arab), as well as many of the others such as Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Dhahabi, etc., have been edited form their original surviving format along with interpretive footnotes which clearly distort the original works. That probably explains why there is so much confusion when supposedly citing the very same sources. Most unfortunately, because of this, anything published regarding standard Islamic history in KSA, has to be taken with a grain of salt and has to be very carefully compared to the very same works published in other Islamic countries for corroboration. This is no joke, but a most unfortunate, empirical fact.

Just a couple of brief clarifications:

-- Muawiyah gave a modest residual income to Prophet Muhammad's grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn because that was one of the conditions of al-Hasan abdicating the Caliphate.

-- You say Ibn Ishaq's work was lost years ago (!?) The original draft dated to 761 CE has not survived but faithful reprisals certainly have or today the Islamic world would never have had the Sunnah of Muhammad (which was derived from Ibn Ishaq's monumental biography). Likewise, at one point there were no less than SEVEN different versions of SAHIH AL-BUKHARI in existence (!) Bukhari himself was stated to have sifted through over 600,000 ahdadith/isnad before he settled on what he considered were probably sahih (authentic).

-- There were THREE men named Ziyad who were associated with Ali ibn Abi Talib in his tenure as Caliph of Islam: Ziyad bin Hufza, Ziyad bin Abu Sufyan (aka Abihi), and Ziyad Abu Kumayl an-Nakha'a ... Which one are you referring to (?) Also, Khoei is a Shia scholar of whom so many are just as POV driven as their Salafi/Wahhabi counterparts. In some aspects, Khoei is no more reliable than Sallabi.

-- Jafar ibn Abi Talib was friends with Muawiyah and Yazid (!?) LOL ... Jafar was killed in battle at Al-Mawta along with Zayd bin al-Harith in 629 CE. Yazid bin Muawiyah was born in 647 CE (!?) So was Jafar ibn Abi Talib friend to Yazid before or after he died in 629 CE (??) Also, Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (along with his two older brothers) was one of the members of his maternal uncle Waleed bin Utbah's Meccan hunting party during the Hijrah who were sworn to SLAY Prophet Muhammad (who sought refuge in the cave at Jabal Thawr).

-- Jubayr bin Mutim HAIRED Wahshi to kill Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib (!?) LOL (No comment on that one)...

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• about "Jafar ibn Abi Talib" I am wrong he's "Abdullah ibn Ja'far".
• about "Ziyad" I mean "Ziyad bin Abihi".
• We don't take Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad from Ibn Ishaq, we take it from hadith book. You need to know the difference between Sunnah and history.
• they don't teach Yazid history in KSA schools history books.
• "have been edited form their original surviving format", "This is no joke, but a most unfortunate, empirical fact." YOU ARE LIRE, STOP DOING THIS.
• about Jubayr bin Mutim, Yes he is the one who haired Wahshi.

Stop accusing my country.__Sayom (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

lol...The earliest basis for the Sunnah of Muhammad was Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Al Rasul Allah ... Ahadith didn't come into prominence until the Caliphate of Mamun Al-Rashid and his inauguration of the Bayt Al Hikmah library (which was the very first standard Islamic academic library). You should know that ALL ahadith were RETROACTIVATED. There exist no contemporaneous Ahadith or any Islamic literature from Umayyad times and the earlier Rashidun Caliphate, with the exception of handwritten Kufic-scripted Qurans. Please look up the words CONTEMPORANEOUS and RETROACTIVATION in various English-language dictionaries so you have a clear idea of what I'm talking about. Again, just about everyone who has basic knowledge of early standard Islamic history knows that Henda bint Utbah HIRED Wahshi to slay Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib except of course you and your fellow deluded pseudo-revisionist brethren. And if they don't teach Yazid bin Muawiyah history in KSA, then why are you even discussing him here on WP...If what you say is true (of course it isn't because I myself have seen volumes of material on the Umayyads in KSA), then you must have minimal knowledge on Caliph Yazid I ... Which means you should end discussing Yazid bin Muawiyah. Unless you have somehow traced your family ancestry to him. Which would explain why you are desperately trying to reinvent his historical image.

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• by this comment, I can say you NEVER read a single Arabic book.
• Hadith was wrote from the time of prophet, "'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As" is known for writing Hadith.
• Ali wrote a paper about hadith.
• "'Amr Ibn Hazm" had a book from the prophet.
• Ibn Ishaq wrote about the history of prophet, not his Sunnah.

• Did your country teach about history of America, history of great kingdom, Mayan history, Korean history, Japaness history, history of China, and every country history?
• Jubayr bin Mutim haired Wahshi.
• In my country they teach history of the first and fifth Umayyad caliph (in school).
• a member of my tribe stood with Ali in the battle of Siffin. (Uwais Al-Qarni).

write about Yazid only, It's Yazid's talk page. An administrator should block you, for your bad talk.__Sayom (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL...Listen. It is quite evident what your agenda is. It did not take very long for you to reveal your POV pushing stance. As for standard Islamic Ahadith, I already stated for you to look up in a dictionary what CONTEMPORANEOUS and RETROACTIVATION mean. You obviously did not. Ahadith = Narrations. The New Testament of the Bible are also Ahadith...Nasrani or Christian Ahadith. Hadith is a narration. Muhaddith = Narrator. I repeat, from a purely archeological and epigraphical study, there are no contemporaneous Ahadith of standard Islam before the Abbasid Caliphate. NO CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature has been found or has survived from the times of the Rashidun Caliphate or the first Umayyad Dynasty or Caliphate (with the exception of Kufic-scripted Qur'ans). Any archaeologist who has a degree in Near Eastern / Islamic studies can tell you this. Again, all serious scholars of standard Islamic history are well aware that the initial physical, written documentation of the Sunnah of Muhammad derived from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Al Rasul Allah. If you don't know this, you are really deluded and lost and are at an academic level which is yet to be determined.

You state that an Amr Ibn Hazm had a BOOK from the Prophet [Muhammad] himself (!?) Are you aware that the Qur'an and virtually the ENTIRE Islamic world has stated that Muhammad was an UMMI or OMMI (!?) This Arabic word literally means UNLETTERED. The entire miracle of the Qur'an (from a theological perspective) is that it was revealed to an UNLETTERED man from Mecca: MUHAMMAD. And you are here on this talk page stating that this Amr Ibn Hazm had a BOOK FROM THE PROPHET [Muhammad] (!?) LOL

I am very glad that you have provided the very opportunity for everyone to observe what the POV driven, pseudo-revisionist movement teaches in its utterly fabricated doctrines. Your responses clearly illustrate this disturbing increase in mainstream SUNNI Islam being methodically and systematically encroached (even psychologically sabotaged) by this utterly false POV driven, pseudo-revisionism of which I have already identified by name in earlier posts. Now everyone can see its effects from one of its utterly deluded proponents and advocate. Nonetheless, I am not calling on WP admin to block you or your POV fabrications. You have the right of free thought and speech, just as much as I or anyone else who posts on WP. Maybe censorship or thought control and thought policing are the norm where you come from or reside, but it is not the democratic, civilized way. Also, this discussion allows mainstream SUNNIS, of whom so many have been the unfortunate recipients of this POV brainwash, can openly observe this POV driven, PSEUDO-REVISIONISM in action right here in this talk page. If your POV driven, pseudo-revisionist views cannot be imposed or are challenged, then you call for the administration to BLOCK other viewpoints or perspectives. Typical of the POV driven, pseudo-revisionists. That is not how things are supposed to work in a democratic society which values freedom of thought and speech.

Once again: Henda bint Utbah HIRED Wahshi to murder Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi. This Jubayr bin Mutim no more "haired" Wahshi, than did this Amr bin Hazm (??) have a BOOK from the Prophet [Muhammad]...LOL

You really need to end this discussion from your end as your credibility is dropping to the bottom of the thermostat. I cannot believe you have authored some of the utter fabrications here on this talk page in the Arabic language Wikipedia...I really feel very sorry for the Arabic speaking readers who are presented with this POV false information of standard Islamic history.

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Nasrani or Christian Ahadith"!! Hadith is: anything prophet Muhammad said or did, NOT Jesus and his student.
• "there are no contemporaneous Ahadith of standard Islam before the Abbasid" all I can say to you since you refused to believe the true history is: "Omar son of Abdul-Aziz" is the first one who order to write Hadith record, but he's not the first to write. before "Ibn Ishaq" there were Sahabah and other scholars.
• Yes "Amr Ibn Hazm" had a book from the prophet, Did I say the prophet him self wrote it by his own hand? No, so stop lying on me.
• Jubayr bin Mutim haired Wahshi.
• I don't care about the rest of your words, since you deserve to be blocked fot it.
• Arabic Wikipedia readers can read Arabic language without lying about if they can or no.
• We were speaking about Yazid, then you changed the talk to Yazid family, then to the relation between his family and "Ahl al-Bayt", then you changed to Ziyad ibn abihi, then you spoke badly about my country, then you mentioned The New Testament!! Can't You focus on Yazid only?!__Sayom (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL...The Arabic word Hadith (Ahadith plural) literally means NARRATION (Narrations plural). The word hadith is even mentioned in the Qur'an when Allah (swt) relates a hadith. Consequently, the Arabic word Hadith is not just institutionalized exclusively for Prophet Muhammad. Any NARRATION = HADITH...In any language. You have missed this point entirely. The Apostles of Christ and/or the NARRATORS of the New Testament: Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, etc., are both essentially and technically NARRATING Ahadith (Narrations or Narratives).

You cannot seem to get into your thought process that there exist NO SURVIVING or CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature (with the exception of Kufic-scripted Qur'ans) from the time of the Rashidun Caliphate and the first Umayyad Dynasty of Caliphs. All the material regarding Isnad (literally: Links, as in chains of transmission or citations) or Ahadith (literally: Narrations) were first documented or appeared as WT (Written Tradition) by the Abbasid Caliphate (commissioned by 2nd Abbasid SUNNI Caliph Al-Mansur from circa 754 CE). However, the bulk of the early DOCUMENTED literature (not alleged oral traditions) occurred during the tenure of 7th Abbasid SUNNI Caliph Al-Mamun (813-833 CE); when the very first standard Islamic academic library was founded: Bayt Al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom). All the Ahadith & Isnad were consequently RETROACTIVATED. In other words, they were ATTRIBUTED to the days of Prophet Muhammad, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the first Umayyad Dynasty. There exist NO CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature (with the exception of Kufic-scripted handwritten Qur'ans) from a SCIENTIFIC (eg., Archaeological and Epigraphical) position from Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the first Umayyad Dynasty of Caliphs.

And what is this BOOK from the Prophet which Amr bin Hazm supposedly have FROM the Prophet [Muhammad] (??) The ONLY book Muhammad of Mecca (from a theological position) received and presented to the world was Al-QUR'AN (literally: The RECITATION). No one knows of any other BOOK (KITAB) which Prophet Muhammad presented to anybody...LOL This could be considered SHIRK (Association) when a claim is made that Prophet Muhammad brought to the world any other BOOK (KITAB) other than the QUR'AN. And even the QUR'AN was in ORAL TRANSMISSION. It was not known to have been COMPILED in WRITTEN FORMAT during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. No historiographical or epigraphical EVIDENCE of this has ever been produced in Qur'anic Archaeology.

And as for focusing on Caliph Yazid I...You first stated that he was befriended by Jafar ibn Abi Talib (who died in 629 CE) while Caliph Yazid I was born in 647 CE. Then you change it to Abdullah Ibn Jafar...You see it is increasingly difficult to uphold any kind of coherent discussion or debate with you when you have made such unsubstantiated claims (without any proper citations).

And once again for your edification: Henda bint Utbah HIRED (not "haired") Wahshi to murder Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi...This eventually has to sink in to your consciousness sometime in your lifetime.

Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You will not change your mind even if I bring Hussein and Yazid themselves, So way should I bother?__Sayom (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Change my mind about what (?) You really can't expect someone to change their mind about historical facts in favour of fiction which you are advocating...

It would be rather difficult to bring Husayn (from Jannah) or Yazid (from Jehannum). And even in a figurative, analogous context, such a statement by you (from a purely Islamist theological perspective) could be considered blasphemous to some Muslims. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you can fathom the sheer magnitude of what you have stated (TWICE no less) in this WP talk page about this Amr bin Hazm having a BOOK (KITAB) FROM the Prophet [Muhammad]. You further qualified it by stating that the Prophet [Muhammad] did not himself write it with his own hand...This IMPLIES that it was possibly a revealed BOOK (Kitab). You did not state that the Prophet [Muhammad] gave Amr bin Hazm a book or handed Amr bin Hazm a book,, but that Amr bin Hazm HAD a book (kitab) from the Prophet [Muhammad]. You also did not attribute the authorship of this BOOK (Kitab) to anyone else other than the Prophet [Muhammad]. Finally, you also did not identify this particular BOOK (Kitab) as the QUR'AN (Recitation). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please could you both learn to do indentation..--Toddy1 (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Since Sahih Bukhari was mentioned a couple times earlier in this discussion, I was curious as to whom the following Hadith from Bukhari Volume 9 - Book 88 (Afflictions and the End of the World) was in implicit reference to...Obviously it explicitly states the NAJD and perhaps whatever originated from there --

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

The Prophet said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The People said, "And also on our Najd." He said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet said, "There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan." Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

lol...Let me elucidate on why Jubayr bin Mutim couldn't possibly have "haired" Wahshi...It is because Wahshi was already OWNED by Jubayr bin Mutim. Jubayr bin Mutim was a staunch anti-Muslim colleague of Abu Sufyan (who had become the Emir of Mecca following the death of his father-in-law Utbah bin Rabiah in the Battle of Badr). Jubayr's father Mutim bin Adiyy was also one of the slain shaykhs at Badr. Wahshi was well-known in Mecca and Taif as an expert spear-thrower. Through her husband Abu Sufyan's influence as the new Emir of Mecca, Henda bint Utbah procured Wahshi's services as an assassin, promising his freedom from being Jubayr bin Mutim's slave if Wahshi did her bidding. Henda bint Utbah asked him to kill one of the three persons (Muhammad, Ali, or Hamzah, but especially Hamzah) so that she might avenge her father Utbah bin Rabiah's death. The Ethiopian warrior said in reply: "I cannot approach Muhammad at all, because his companions are nearer to him than anyone else. Ali too is extraordinarily vigilant in the battlefield. However, Hamzah is so furious that, while fighting, he does not pay any attention to any other side and it is possible that I may be able to make him fall by some trick or by taking him unawares". Henda was contented with this and promised that if he was successful in performing the job she would set him free. Wahshi, the slave, says: "On the Day of Uhud I was pursuing Hamzah. He was attacking the centre of the army like a ferocious lion. He killed every one whom he could approach. I hid myself behind the trees and stones, so that he could not see me. He was too busy in fighting. I came out of ambush. Being an Ethiopian, I used to throw my weapon like them (i.e. like the Ethiopians) and it seldom missed the target. I, therefore, threw my javelin towards him from a specific distance after moving it in a particular manner. The weapon fell on his flank and came out from between his two legs. He wanted to attack me but severe pain prevented him from doing so. He remained in the same condition till his soul departed from his body. Then I approached him very carefully and having taken out my weapon from his body returned to the army of Quraysh and waited for my freedom. In the battle of Uhud the Muslims were defeated. After their rout, Henda and the other harpies (i.e., women) she had brought with her from Mecca, mutilated the bodies of the slain Muslims. Henda cut open Hamzah's abdomen, plucked out his liver and chewed it up. [Muhammad ibn Umar Waqidi, the historian, says that she made a fire in the battlefield, roasted Hamzah's heart and liver and ate them. Not satisfied with this, she cut the limbs, the ears and the nose of Hamzah, strung them into a "necklace," and entered Mecca wearing it as a "trophy" of victory.] Muhammad was deeply aggrieved at the death and at the mutilation of the body of such a stalwart of Islam as Hamzah. He bestowed upon him the titles of the "Lion of God," and the "Chief of the Martyrs." After the Battle of Uhud, I continued to live in Mecca for quite a long time until the Muslims conquered Mecca. I then ran away to Ta'if, but soon Islam reach that area as well. I heard that however grave the crime of a person might be, the Prophet forgave him. I, therefore, reached the Prophet with Shahadatayn on my lips (i.e., I testify that there is no god but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His Prophet). The Prophet saw me and said "Are you the same Wahshi, an Ethiopian?" I replied in the affirmative. Thereupon he said: "How did you kill Hamzah?" I gave an account of the matter. The Prophet was moved and said: "I should not see your face until you are alive, because the heart-rending calamity fell upon my uncle at your hands". It was the same great spirit of the Prophet of Islam which made him set this man free although he could execute him on many grounds." Wahshi says: "So long as the Prophet was alive I kept myself hidden from him. After his death the battle with Musaylimah al-Kazzab (the Liar) took place. I joined the army of Islam and used the same weapon against Musaylimah and succeeded in killing him with the help of one of the Ansar. If I killed the best of men (i.e., Hamzah) with this weapon, the worst man, too, did not escape its horror". The participation of Wahshi in the battle against Musaylimah is something which he himself claims, but Abdul Malik lbn Hisham says: "During the last days of his life Wahshi was like a black crow who was always hated by Muslims on account of his being a drunkard and was punished twice on account of drinking wine. On account of his indecent actions his name was struck off the army records and Umar bin Khattab used to say: "The murderer of Hamzah does not deserve to be pardoned in the other world." Just some brief analysis on the above: Al-Waqidi (748-822 CE) was no obscure historian but a court judge (qadi) for the Abbasid SUNNI Caliphs Harun al-Rashid and his son Mamun al-Rashid. Al-Waqidi is widely cited by Western/Occidental orientalist historians (eg., Martin Lings), but discredited by Wahhabi/Salafi ulama (clerics). It is quite possible that for artistic or dramatic license, Waqidi's account of Henda bint Utbah's actions in the Battle of Jabal Uhud (taken from Ibn Ishaq's Sirah) was exaggerated. However, Ibn Hisham's account is generally regarded as more accurate. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 11:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you put half the effort that you put into these walls of text into making properly cited additions to the article, the article would be very much better.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

True. However, these walls of text are in relation to a particular point which represent the comprehensive picture. Sayom kept harping over and over again that Jubayr bin Mutim "haired" Wahshi without elaborating upon it. However, I just couldn't resist entering this info into the discussion. I think that is about all I wanted to add to this debate. The whole idea of the WP Talk Page is to iron out the differences between opinions or perspectives BEFORE whatever finalized info is included in the article. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"I repeat, from a purely archeological and epigraphical study, there are no contemporaneous Ahadith of standard Islam before the Abbasid Caliphate. NO CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature has been found or has survived from the times of the Rashidun Caliphate or the first Umayyad Dynasty or Caliphate (with the exception of Kufic-scripted Qur'ans). Any archaeologist who has a degree in Near Eastern / Islamic studies can tell you this. Again, all serious scholars of standard Islamic history are well aware that the initial physical, written documentation of the Sunnah of Muhammad derived from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Al Rasul Allah. If you don't know this, you are really deluded and lost and are at an academic level which is yet to be determined."

You arguments are refuted; archaeologist have found early hadith manuscripts believed to be dated on the first century hijrah written by Hammam ibn Munabih (a famous ancient manuscript known as Sahifah Sahihah, currently stored in the Library of Berlin and Damascus), a student of Abu Hurairah. Guess what, these hadith were all mentioned later by notable ahadith scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim. You are the one, in trying to bolster your argument, sided with the enemies of Islam, such as the like of Ignaz Goldziher and Kassim Ahmad, both whom rejected the hadith outrightly, using the same arguments that you used above. Shame on you.

And also the Quran was written down AT THE TIME OF THE PROPHET, as ordered by his famous scribe, Zayd ibn Thabit. This is evident in the discovery of the Quranic parchments from the mosque of Sanaa' in Yemen and also the discovery of the Quran written by Ali ibn Abi Talib in Medina. The only thing that was done after the death of the Prophet was it's compilation(and further evidence from the Quran of Ali Ibn Abi Talib also proved that the Quran was compiled way before this; archaeologist found the Quran of Ali is 86 percent similar to the current mushaf, with a few surah pages ravaged by the passage of time), which was later compiled under the orders of Abu Bakr, who instructed the scribe of the Prophet, Zayd ibn Thabit, to launch a committee for it's compilation.

As for Al-Waqidi, most notable Islamic scholars held him to be of a weak narrator of events; this view is prevalent amongst scholars such as As-Shafie. However, they noted that his recording account for the battles of the prophets and history of the prophets in general are trustworthy. So, it's not only Najdi scholars who accused Al-Waqidi as "weak". 113.210.7.181 (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you provide references to reliable sources that verify these statements?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For Quranic manuscripts from the Prophet's time, these finding were radio-carboned to be near the first-century hijrah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/alisanaa.html

As for the early manuscripts of the hadith, this is mentioned by scholars in these works, such as:

A. F. L. Beeston, T. M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant and G. R. Smith (Ed.), Arabic Literature To The End of Ummayyad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 272.

R. M. Speight, "A Look At Variant Readings In The Hadith", Der Islam, 2000, Band 77, Heft 1, p. 170.

H. Motzki, "The Musannaf Of `Abd al-Razzaq Al-San`ani As A Source of Authentic Ahadith of The First Century A.H.", Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1991, Volume 50, p. 21 113.210.7.181 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"al-Thaqafi (father of the Karbala & Madinah avenger Mukhtar al-Thaqafi)" I removed this passage as the author was confused between Abu Ubayd al-Thaqifi and Abu Ubaydah al-Jarrah; the former was martyred in the Battle of the Bridges from the Sassanid-Arab wars, being stampede by an elephant; the latter died due to the plague of Amwas. 113.210.7.181 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? if so please cite them.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact that Abu Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah was from the Mekkan Quraish clan of Bani Harith, and he is in no way related Al-Mukhtar ibn Abu Ubayd, who was from the tribe of Bani Thaqif in Taif. As for Abu Ubayd at-Thaqif being the father of al-Mukhtar, this is popular opinion among the Muslim historians, but forgive me that I currently cannot direct any links to it. 113.210.7.181 (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

Although this article gives July 20th, 645 AD, as the birth-date, others (for example) give July 23, 645 AD. It is likely that this is a Julian/Gregorian issue, since the difference is +3 for 645 AD. However I could not find anything that identified either of these dates as O.S or N.S., so I did not change this at this time. If someone can identify either the N.S. or O.S. date, the it would be useful to have such a better date reference.Wiseprincebambi (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

Referring to Wiseprincebambi's section, there is NO Hijri or Lunar birthday listed in LISAN UL MIZAN (by Ahmad bin Ali Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani). There is only the birth year of 26 Anno Hijri (647 CE) and the date of death (14th Rabi-ul-Awwal 64 Anno Hijri - converted to 10 November 683 CE Old Style-Julian or 13 November 683 CE New Style-Gregorian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divanerika (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing Prophecy section

I am removing the "prophecy" section. Until a source can be found which relates this prophecy with Yazid, the material will come under SYNTH. In other words, you have to show a source which says that Hazrat Muhammad SAW made a prophecy and that Yazid was fulfilled it. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

i second this. please add citation Smjafry (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Introduction/Lead Section

The current introduction/lead section has a number of problems, such as:

• The first paragraph has specific information (his succession violated the treaty) instead of providing an overview of Yazid (the main actions that he is known for) (violates MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH)
• The lead section does not provide proper scope -- it does not talk about Yazid's life before his time in rulership (other than mentioning his succession)
• The lead section does not provide a full overview such that it could count as a stand-alone article (violates MOS:INTRO).
• Statements that are potentially controversial do not have sufficient references (violates MOS:LEADCITE).
• Grammar mistakes

I updated the article to have a different introduction that fixes these mistakes. However, my changes were reverted with the explanation that "the lead was fine representation of article already" (sic), which, clearly, is not the case. The explanation that undid my edit also accused my edit of having POV without providing further explanation. I would like to urge my fellow Wikipedia editors to take a look at my version of the lead in the changelog to determine whether it should in fact stay, as I believe that it provides a much better overview of the article than what is currently in place. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Before I list problems with your version of lead, please note that:

• First paragraph doesn't give overview of the topic, it introduces the topic. Overview of the topic is covered by whole lead, not first para.
• There is dearth of info on his life before rulership. Even his DOB is not properly documented. See RS listed in "Sources" section and find what info they have on his early life.
• Lead need not have references, since it is summary of the body of article, which has citations. Perhaps you did not check the rest of the article, in hurry to rewrite the lead. Also, controversial stuff is properly mentioned in the lead.
• If there are grammar mistakes, fix them, instead of making them excuse for rewriting lead while introducing new problems, which follow:

1. Your have re-inserted POV statements, that I had pointed to in our last discussion.

2. You provide sources, which don't support what you write. Eg. "Yazid is infamous for killing Husain ibn Ali" is cited with the source which says "Yazid was the Sunni leader whom Shi'a abominate because he was responsible for the killing of Husayn ibn Ali in the seventh century". Now this statement fro source says "Shia abominate him", and you are making general statement in Wikipedia's voice that he is infamous. This is POV and SYNTH. Mind that we report what sources say, giving due weight to each point, not sharing our own analysis or over-stressing the points that please us. And article already mentions religious views on the subject, only if you care to read. Same is with other points that you introduced.

3. Having overlooked refs already present in the article with hurry to push your views, you introduced cite errors by redefining already defined sources.

4. You inserted back non-RS stuff from cifia-online.

5. Statements like " Husain was well-known as the grandson of Muhammad and was an example for many Muslims; if Husain pledged allegiance to Yazid, who was known for being corrupt, shameless, and tyrannical, it would be seen as legitimizing Yazid's behavior in Islam. Thus, in order to save Islam from Yazid's influence, Husain refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid..." belong in some religious blog, not in an encyclopedia.

6. In addition to introducing your religious bias, there is nothing in substance that you added to the lead. You only rewrote the points that were already present.

7. You seem to have problems with understanding policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS. Hope that helps. AhmadLX (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. So what if, in the updated version I proposed, we change "Yazid was infamous for" to "Yazid is known for" and consolidate the statement that you mentioned in Point #5 to something like calling Husain a "prominent Muslim," like he's described in the lead currently? I think that should fix any POV-related issues with the version I proposed as well as eliminate the problems with the current lead. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Following are the prominent details about the subject: Nomination, Accession, Refusal by Husyan & Ibn Zubayr to accept him as ruler, Death of Husayn, Revolt of Ibn Zubayr, Yazid's death, Succession, Status among religious groups, Views of academic historians. All soundly described in the article and in the lead. Why specifically add "known for", when religious views are properly mentioned? Husayn and Ibn Zubayr were seen as prominent Muslims and lead describes them as such. Your insistence on adding "Husayn was exemplary Muslim..., while Yazid was corrupt..." are religious views. While the former fragment doesn't belong in this article at all, the latter is mentioned with regard to people viewing him as such, instead of telling people "Look: to Wikipedia he was corrupt". Can you specify what problems the lead has? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

First, in my previous comment, I stated that I would be open to not including the phrase "Husain was an exemplary Muslim" in this article's lead. Anyway, some issues with the current lead are:

• According to Wikipedia standards, the opening paragraph should not be too specific (see MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH). However, the opening paragraph in the current lead contains the sentence, "In 676 CE (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty." According to the policy I referenced, this statement should not be in the opening paragraph, as it is too specific.

Agreed, will move that down. AhmadLX (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The current lead has POV issues - it says that "prominent Muslims...refused to recognize his authority" and revolted against Yazid. However, it does not mention the fact that Yazid demanded allegiance from them. Leaving out this information makes it seem as though Yazid did not do anything to cause them to revolt against him. It also does not give a brief explanation of why Husain did not pledge allegiance to Yazid; omitting this information would make this article one-sided and violate the NPOV standard.

Its given by default, but okay, will add that. AhmadLX (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The current lead does not mention Yazid's childhood or early life before coming to power.

As stated above, there is little information available on that matter. If you can bring a decent source, not religious websites like cifia-online, it can be added. AhmadLX (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I mentioned previously, there are grammatical mistakes in the current lead section.

Identify please. AhmadLX (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, I would like to present the following suggestion for the lead section (other than the first sentence in the first paragraph, as that doesn't seem to be a point of contention):

He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE. Yazid is known for killing Husain ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad, along with his family and companions; attacking the city of Medina in a battle that left many dead and the city plundered; and attacking the city of Mecca in an attack that left the Kaaba partially burned.

Yazid was born in 647 CE to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, a Syriac Orthodox Christian. While Yazid was a child, he was brought up by his Christian relatives; he reportedly moved to Damascus, Syria to live with his father when he was around 15 years old. When Yazid was around 16 years old, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the treaty that Muawiya had made with Hasan ibn Ali when Muawiya seized power.

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance from Husain ibn Ali as well as others. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid's being in power was against the Hasan-Muawiya treaty and his actions were widely viewed as un-Islamic. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army brutally killed Husain as well as many of his male family members and companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule.

In 683 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. In what is regarded as the second-most infamous event of Yazid's rule, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the deaths of thousands. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The months-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE. Yazid is known for killing Husain ibn Ali,[1] the grandson of Muhammad, along with his family and companions; attacking the city of Medina in a battle that left many dead and the city plundered;[2] and attacking the city of Mecca in an attack that left the Kaaba partially burned.[3] [Redundant. Each to be mentioned in relevant para on Husyans revolt and Ibn Zubayr's revolt, as you've done in paras down below.]

• Yazid was born in 647 CE to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, a Syriac Orthodox Christian.[4] While Yazid was a child, he was brought up by his Christian relatives; he reportedly moved to Damascus, Syria to live with his father when he was around 15 years old. [Not based on reliable source.] When Yazid was around 16 years old, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent;[5]this was regarded as a violation of the treaty that Muawiya had made with Hasan ibn Ali when Muawiya seized power.[6] [Redundant, you are mentioning it twice.]

• In what is regarded as the second-most infamous event of Yazid's rule,[10][11] Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the deaths of thousands. First one is POV as mentioned twice before. Regarded by whom? Religious people. Just look at references you've brought. It can't be overstated, RS are not religious, partisan, and unverifiable sources. Look at the other sources used in the article for an idea. And what is religious belief is to be treated as such. Second one, "Deaths of thousands", maybe given if sources say that. I haven't seen that so far. If some sources say that, it should be mentioned. But again, by sources I mean RS.]

• Sources [7] [8], again, quiet unacceptable, a religious website and a highly partisan source. I fail to understand why you keep bringing such dubious sources back. Do you really not get what RS means, or you do it deliberately since RS don't quite say what you want to be in here?AhmadLX (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• There should be one para on revolts of Husyan and ibn Zubayr. Each point shuould not have a separate para, otherwise we end up having six to seven paras

How about this (I added one new reference):

He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE.

Yazid was born in 647 CE to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, a Syriac Orthodox Christian.[4] Yazid grew up with his mother's tribe, Banu Kalb. When Yazid was around 16 years old, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent;[5] this was regarded as a violation of the treaty that Muawiya had made with Hasan ibn Ali when Muawiya seized power.[6] (I think it would make more sense to mention the treaty here and remove mention of it in the next paragraph, rather than the other way around.)

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance from Husain ibn Ali as well as others. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and his actions were widely viewed as un-Islamic. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army brutally killed Husain as well as many of his male family members and companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners.[9] This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the death of many Medinians. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The months-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Will look into this later, but plz give page numbers. If possible, google books link, and isbn are also good things to add. AhmadLX (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's the Google Books link: https://books.google.com/books?id=nwlrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&dq=yazid+childhood+goldschmidt&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjehIv_jd_gAhWFON8KHRUKBsUQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=yazid%20childhood%20goldschmidt&f=false The ISBN is 9780429850455. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up a credible source. Finally you did it, nice work;) Have added the info in body. Comments on lead will follow. AhmadLX (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yazid was born in 647 CE to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, a Syriac Orthodox Christian.[This is no important detail to be included in lead, but should be added in body.] Yazid grew up with his mother's tribe, Banu Kalb. When Yazid was around 16 years old,[His age at the time of nomination is uncertain. 16 is based on dob reported in Tabari, other reports are -3,+5 wrt Tabari's date] Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the treaty that Muawiya had made with Hasan ibn Ali when Muawiya seized power.[Not seized power, this is inaccurate, in addition to being POV. Hasan abdicated power to him. See below:]

• In 676, Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan–Muawiya treaty. AhmadLX (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! So then the perhaps the lead section could be like this:

He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE.

Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. While Muawiya was in powerSome time before his death, [former gives whole 20 year range.] he made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar.

• This one is okay now. Mention of opposition suits here, so included. AhmadLX (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance from Husain ibn Ali as well as others. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and his actions were widely viewed as un-Islamic. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army brutally killed Husain as well as many of his male family members and companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the deaths of many Medinians. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The months-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death.

• This para is approximately equivalent in content to the one that is in the lead right now. But it has some problems:

1. "He demanded pledges of allegiance from Husain ibn Ali as well as others." You are making good progress, but still, I feel, you are not in npov-regime ;) Why single out Husayn?

2. "was considered an illegitimate ruler and his actions were widely viewed as un-Islamic" By whom? This passage attempts to give the reasons for refusal by Husayn and ibn Zubayr. It is true both despised him. But neither gave any reason for not paying allegiance. One said "I will do it in public" and then left, while the other left quietly. Public in Hejaz started despising him when Medinese delegation returned from Damascus. On the other hand, if you see sources, almost all of them tend to express that both Husayn and ibn Zubayr wanted to rule; Husayn based on Ali's caliphate and ibn Zubayr based on his father's membership of the 6 men Shura formed by Umar. I omitted this detail, although it is opinion of modern historians, it is still opinion and can not be presented as fact.

3. "brutally killed", is true in reality, but here we better avoid that for npov. Just "killed" is fine.

4. "Husain as well as many of his male family members and companions" is also not okay. Lead is supposed to be brief and concise summary. It should be replaced with something like "Husayn was killed along with his companions". "Companions" includes family members and supporters. Likewise, no need to mention "male". Such detail is suited for the body.

5. "after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners" → "his family members were taken prisoners".

6. Husayn's death and Ibn Zubayr's revolt are not connected, but are presented as isolated events. If you see in the para currently in the lead, it connects the two in a logical way.

7. Mention of diplomatic means to end the rebellion is missing. See current version.

8. "Deaths of many Medinese" should be better replaced by pillage/plunder, since it was not only killing, but rape and looting as well. So the latter word better describes the situation.

9. Siege lasted for a few weeks, not months.

10. Considering above points, net difference between this version and 2nd para of current lead would be that of Husayn's family being take prisoners. It can be mentioned in body as well as in lead. AhmadLX (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, about the number of causalities in the Battle of al-Harrah -- the Wikipedia page for the battle states that the number of supporters of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubyar killed was between 4,000 and 11,000, so maybe it would be fitting to say "the deaths of thousands"? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

4000 figure is cited with an entry in a Persian language encyclopedia. If you know Persian, you can check for the source in this encyclopedia uses. AhmadLX (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Mentioning Husain's opposition to Yazid's rule there is a way to lead into talking about the Battle of Karbala. But we can mention the others there as well if you'd like.

2. Before leaving to go to Iraq or while on his way to Iraq, Husain is reported to have said or written, "I did not move out for deception or for arrogance or corruption or for wronging anyone. I moved out solely to seek to rectify the affairs of the Ummah of my grandfather. My purpose is to enjoin good and forbid evil." As far as Yazid's anti-Islamic character, there are sources in the "Views" section that support this. Western books also support this; for example, in the book "Shared Idioms, Sacred Symbols, and the Articulation of Identities in South Asia" by Kelly Pemberton and Michael Nijhawan (published by Routledge in 2009), the authors write, "Imam Husain refused to swear allegiance to Yazid or ignore cruelties that Yazid had perpetrated in the name of Islam, although he foresaw that in the course of the conflict in the Karbala desert, he, his children, and his companions would be slaughtered, and his female relatives imprisoned" (page 30). For another reference, in Volume 23 of the Journal of the Henry Martyn Institute, it says, "So he made all attempts to extract allegiance from Husain. But Husain refused. He would not compromise with Yazid's tyrannical rule and thereby disgrace Islam, which championed the oppressed and had always stood for a life of simplicity".

3, 4, 5. Okay.

6. Yeah, it's true that they're not connected. But the current version makes it seem like they are, by saying, "Killing of Husyan led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina." Ibn Zubayr had encouraged Husain not to go to Karbala. Can you find a source that specifically says that ibn al-Zubayr used the outrage caused by the killing of Husain to further his revolution in Mecca?

He did advise Husyan against Kufa plan, but it in no way proves that Husyan's death didn't benefit ibn al-Zubayr. See, for example, Wellhausen (2000) pp. 147–148. AhmadLX (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

8. Agreed.

9. Okay.

10. The body says that Yazid tried to first bribe and then arrest Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, but the current lead says that Yazid tried to stop his rebellion diplomatically.

Yes, gifts and bribes are diplomatic means. And before sending troops to Mednia, Yazid invited Medinese noblemen to Damascus to persuade them.AhmadLX (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE.

Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar. (Do you have a source saying that they opposed Yazid's nomination before Yazid came into power? Or did they only publicly oppose Yazid once he requested allegiance from them? If the latter is the case, then maybe they should be mentioned in the next paragraph rather than this paragraph.) See sources used in the article, eg. Wellhausen (2000) pp. 141–145, Donner (2010) p. 177

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The months-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: Here's a list of sources regarding #2.

Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up so many sources. But unfortunately, except a couple sources, which I was unable to access, the rest do not prove your point.

1. Author presents not his views but views of Shia Muslims (i.e how they view Husyan's revolt).

2. I could not verify this.

3. This quote is from some Shia writer "Al-Sayyid". I could not see the full citation due to limited preview, but the author makes it clear in the paragraph He is reporting Shia narrative and then cites Al-Sayyid (2008).

4. Could not verify.

5. The quote starts with "Hence Hazrat Hussain ..." ;) It clearly shows this is a partisan source.

6. The quote "I am ready for martyrdom because Yazid's becoming the caliph of the Muslims is the death and disintegration of Islam", in addition to be being inaccurate (Husayn had told Walid that he will pay allegiance in public the next day), is not by the author of this book. Author is quoting the a publication The Infallible, published by Ansariyan Publications Qum, Iran ;)

7. Although here too author is quoting someone, however I could not verify whom as I don't have the whole book. But passages like "Imam Hassan had swallo bitter pill by making peace with Muawiya" make it obvious.

8. Authors presents views of Husayn that he saw Yazid as such.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, sources so far used in the article (eg. Donner, Hawting, Kennedy) all say Husain was trying to regain what his brother had given up, and that Hejazi people didn't like Yazid because of his christian mother, Muawiyah's agricultural reform and that problem was less of Yazid's habits and more of hereditary succession. AhmadLX (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide quotes from those sources that show that that is the reason Husain didn't pledge allegiance to Yazid? I went to all three of those books but couldn't find any quotes from them that say that those are the reasons Husain didn't pledge allegiance to him. As for source #8, the author writes, "They saw Yazid as a tyrant manipulating the forces of good and evil" (emphasis added). Thus, he's showing what the view was then, not just adding his own views. Also, here's a link to source #4: https://books.google.com/books?id=SCoXAQAAIAAJ&q=Hussain+mir+zohair+refuses&dq=Hussain+mir+zohair+refuses&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj90YykrObgAhXMT98KHah4CfEQ6AEIOzAD Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• "To prepare the way for a bid to be amir al-mu'minin, Husayn sent to Kufa his cousin Muslim ibn 'Aqil...". Donner (2010). p. 178
• "Ali’s elder son al-Hasan had abandoned his claims to leadership but his younger brother al-Husayn was prepared to take up the cause.". Kennedy (2004). p. 89
• "...Husayn, the son of ‘Ali and the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, was persuaded to make a bid for power." Hawting (2002). p. 49.
• Yeah man, I know the link to source 4, but its without preview.
• Source 8 says Husayn and his companions who went to KArbala viewed Yazid as usurper. AhmadLX (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Those three sources support the fact that Husain believed he had a right to be calpih, but they don't specifically say that's why he didn't pledge allegiance to Yazid. How about these sources: .

Above argument of yours is funny;) Off course, if he wanted to be amir-al-mumnin he would have to make some excuse for it. Same is with ibn Zubayr. He too used to give sermons in Mecca, saying, "Yazid the drinker", "Yazid the dancer" etc, while superficially arguing for Shura, he started taking oath for himself long before Yazid's death. :D AhmadLX (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As for Source #8, it's possible that they did view Yazid as a usurper; that's not necessarily the author's own view. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what I said. AhmadLX (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm not going to check this painful list again. If you feel that sources are saying this, then mention it, without interpolation, that according to these (a couple authors) Husayn didn't consider Yazid worthy of rule so he didn't pay allegiance. AhmadLX (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so then how about we settle on this for the introduction:

He ruled for three years from 680 CE until his death in 683 CE.

Born in 647 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and Maysun bint Bahdal, Yazid grew up with his maternal tribe, the Banu Kalb. Some time before his death, Muawiya made Yazid his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty. The nomination was opposed by a few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husain ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, and Abdullah ibn Umar.

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. (Many of the sources I listed specifically mention Yazid's corruption when mentioning that Husain didn't pledge allegiance to him.) Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No. You are going in circles. Our discussion so far has come to naught. After every round round you are reproducing the same passage. As said before:

• Single out Husyan = No.
• Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt = No. This is not fact, but opinion of Husyan and his followers. You are not seeing things clearly. Historians view him capable ruler. That weighs more than religious beliefs. Still it is presented as views of historians, not as facts.

Rest is same as before. See above points. AhmadLX (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned Husain first to lead into the Battle of Kerbala, which was the first of the three main battles during Yazid's rule that are being discussed in that paragraph. Later, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr is "singled out" to lead into the Battle of al-Harrah and the Siege of Mecca. The second paragraph doesn't just single out Husain; it also mentions Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar as well. As for the part about Yazid being corrupt -- many sources mention that when discussing Husain's refusal to pledge allegiance to him, as indicated above. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

No you are singling him out and emphasizing on " a prominent Muslim...". I will remove that for all of them. No "prominent" at all. Just "...a few Muslims from Hejaz". You brought 8 sources yesterday, none of which say what you want to say. Then you keep on bringing more sources. On the other hand, many sources, see bibliography and discussion above, praise him. If that is presented as views of certain historians, then in no way "corrupt" thing is gonna be presented as fact. No POV pushing! AhmadLX (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

How about this: we get a neutral, third-party editor to decide which introduction, mine or yours, should be in the article. We can perhaps go to the Arbitration Committee, each present our suggested introductions and why our introduction is the best, and have them decide. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom is not going to look into this;) I will start a RFC. Since the main issue is NPOV, I think taking it to NPOV Noticeboard is a better option. AhmadLX (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton:. Okay so, there were mainly two issues, in addition to some minor ones. So coming to major issues first: Snowsky Mountain (talk · contribs) has retracted one of his points. Thus remains only one; mentioned above. Your opinion on the second, as you offered at NPOV/N, is sought. The other ones can be discussed later. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: could you be more specific about what that remaining major issue is? Eperoton (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Following is the proposal by Snowsky Mountain for the second para of the lead. Stuff that is objectionable in my view, marked red:

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, a prominent Muslim and the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, as Yazid was considered an illegitimate ruler and corrupt. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news of arrived of Yazid's death.

Proposer has retracted the first. The second is not okay in my view. The reason is that it portrays as if it was widespread belief at the time and Husayn revolted because of this concern. Fact is that Yazid's nomination was rejected by a few (not more than 5) person, out of which three accepted him after his accession. Only Husayn and Ibn Zubayr refused to recognise him, So "widely regarded" thing is bogus. As to why these two refused, historians mostly say that the two had their own aspirations (see above for example). But I am inclined to omit this as well (i.e their intentions to become caliph) as they suit in respective articles on these two. But proposer holds that Husyan's refusal was based on "widely held corruption of Yazid". For that, he brought a few sources to support his claim. On examination, it was found that sources were either reporting Shia narrative, or personal views of Husayn and his companions. So I proposed that Husayn's opposition be given as something like "Husayn, considering Yazid corrupt, refused...", but proposer stresses that it should be left as it is in his proposal. Hope to have clarified the issue. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned, I retracted the first issue highlighted in red. As for the second issue, as can be seen from the many sources I presented, many authors mention Yazid's corruption when mentioning that Husain refused to give allegiance to Yazid. Yazid was seen as an illegitimate ruler, as his nomination was against the treaty that brought his father into power (which is already mentioned in the introduction). Many sources cite Yazid's corruption, and this can be found in both Shia and Sunni works. From that's, it's clear that it was a widely-held belief at the time. User:AhmadLX says that modern historians call Yazid a capable ruler. However, this is only the view of some modern historians; others still call him corrupt. In addition, someone can be both corrupt and a "capable ruler." Here are some sources that mention this: . As you can see, they are not just Shia sources. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. WP:NPOV is about "proportional" representation of significance in the body of RSs, both from the standpoint of WP:PROPORTION (relative weight of material) and WP:WEIGHT (relative weight of viewpoints), so we need to ensure that we select a representative sample of significant viewpoints for our consideration, and not one that's biased towards some viewpoint, e.g., through the choice of search keywords. This article cites standard references on the subject and other strong sources, and these would make one reasonable sample to work with. I don't have these sources at hand, so I'll use academic encyclopedias instead. I don't know how Snowsky Mountain selected the sources above, but it doesn't seem to be based on scholarly prominence and some are from books devoted to other topics. The two that come from university presses aren't even reliable for our purposes: one is collection of primary sources and the other seems to be a Master's thesis.

1. There is only one article devoted to Yazid himself that I have at hand, in the Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed, by Gerald Hawting. The text only mentions to the other refusal of allegiance: Following his father's death in Radjab 60/April 680, Yazid was faced with the continuing refusal of Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr and al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib [q.v.], both then in Medina, to give him allegiance.
2. The article on Husayn, also in EI2 (Laura Veccia Vaglieri): There were only two occasions when Husayn acted boldly: when he defended against some powerful Umayyads his right to certain possessions (Aghani, xvi, 68-70) and when Mu'awiya asked the high officials of state to recognize his son Yazid as his successor; Husayn was then among the five persons who refused to submit to this claim, which introduced a new principle in the succession to the caliphate.
3. The article on Husayn in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (Mahmoud M. Ayoub): Ḥasan died in 671, and Muʿāwiyah appointed his own son Yazīd as his successor. Yazīd is reputed to have been a lewd character given to drinking and other illicit pleasures. Many, particularly in the Hejaz and Iraq, opposed Yazīd's appointment, and a small number of notables, including Ḥusayn, withheld their allegiance.
4. The article on Husayn in Encyclopedia Iranica (Wilferd Madelung): Jointly with the sons of several other prominent Companions of Moḥammad, Ḥosayn resisted Moʿāwia’s demands that they pledge allegiance to his son Yazid, whom he had appointed as his successor in breach of both his treaty with Ḥasan and ʿOmar’s principle of election by the consultation (šurā).
5. The article on Husayn in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Michael M.J. Fischer) mentions only the other episode in the section summarizing "Western historians as well as Sunni accounts": Mu'awiya became caliph, and he appointed his son, Yazid, to succeed. The Hejaz refused to recognize Yazid, and Kufa invited Husayn to lead a revolt. He then has a longer section summarizing Shia accounts and their religious significance.

None of these articles apply the epithets "corrupt" and "illegitimate" to Yazid, or even cite them as subjective grounds for Husayn's refusal, so I don't see a NPOV rationale for them.

The fact that the only article about Yazid himself that I found doesn't mention the episode in question makes me wonder if it's due in the lead at all. It seems that a more general statement from the same article would be more appropriate: Yazid's caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna [q.v.], during which the Umayyads came close to losing the caliphate. Eventually they re-established their hold on the institution but in the person of Marwan I b. al-Hakam [q.v.] and his descendants rather than a representative of the Sufyanid branch of the family, to which Yazid belonged. The passage about "corruption of the caliphate into a kingship" in this passage (not the same as someone being "corrupt") also seems pretty significant: As the caliph under whom the Prophet's grandson al-Husayn was killed, the two holy cities of Arabia attacked, and the Ka'ba set on fire, and as the one who benefited from an appointment presented in Muslim tradition as a crucial stage in the corruption of the caliphate into a kingship, it is not surprising that the tradition generally is hostile to Yazid. Eperoton (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. So then I guess something more similar to what User:AhmadLX mentioned would make sense. How's this:

Upon Muawiya's death in 680 CE, Yazid assumed power. He demanded pledges of allegiance to him, including from those who had opposed his nomination. Husain, the grandson of Muhammad, refused to pledge allegiance, as he considered him morally corrupt. Husain went towards Kufa but was stopped at Karbala. Yazid's army killed Husain and many of his companions in the ensuing Battle of Karbala, after which they took many of the remaining members of Husain's family as prisoners. This sparked widespread outrage against Umayyad rule. Later, in 683 CE, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and his supporters rose up against Yazid's rule in Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent his army to Medina; the ensuing Battle of al-Harrah led to the city being plundered. Later in 683, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The weeks-long siege led to the Kaaba being damaged by fire and finally ended when news arrived of Yazid's death. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That still doesn't seem NPOV-compliant. Hawting, Veccia Vaglieri and Madelung, are leading academic authorities on the subject and they all highlight introduction of a new principle of succession. The connection with seeing Yazid is corrupt didn't appear in my sample, and I have trouble justifying why given these sources we should give any weight at all to someone like Kinnard, who doesn't have a single peer-reviewed publication in early Islamic history. Based on the sources we've looked at so far, I think we could use two statements for a NPOV summary, one stating broadly that Yazid's appointment diverged from a previously accepted principle of succession, and another stating that several notables, including Husayn refused to pledge allegiance to him. It seems appropriate to follow Hawting in not placing Husayn's name first, since this article isn't about him, but this is a minor point. Eperoton (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Based on your input, I assume current lead is more or less fine. I am pasting it below (excluding intro sentence). You can make changes as you feel necessary.

In 676 (56 AH), Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination.[5]Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and escaped to sanctuary of Mecca. When Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala. Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid, and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After failed attempts to regain confidence of ibn al-Zubayr and people of Hejaz diplomatically, Yazid sent an army to end the rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later on siege was laid to Mecca, which lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. The siege ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war.

Yazid is considered an illegitimate ruler and a tyrant by many Muslims due to his hereditary succession, death of Husayn and attack on the city of Medina by his forces. Modern historians present a mild view him, and consider him a capable ruler, albeit less successful than his father.

Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Escaped to the sanctuary of Mecca" sounds biased against Husayn and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr.

Why is "escaped" biased?

Escaped to the sanctuary implies they were going towards safety. They both ended up in battles. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

They "escaped" from Walid, who wanted to arrest them. Please read the article again. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "While Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid" -- perhaps this could be re-worded. Husayn would have been killed in Mecca if he had stayed there, and he didn't want Mecca to turn into a place of bloodshed.

That is SYNTH. AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, we can keep it like that. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The article contents say that Yazid tried to bribe and then arrest Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr...does that count as "diplomatic"? According to Wikipedia's definition, diplomacy is negotiations.

Duh. AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, bribing someone or trying to arrest them isn't exactly negotiating. "Diplomacy" has more of a peaceful, non-bribing connotation to it. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like you are not reading the sources. It was a silver chain brought by Numan ibn Bashir who wanted to negotiate with him. I omitted ibn Bashir for brevity. (Reader of the article is not expected to read the sources, but a person who participates in editing or writing an article MUST read sources first). Secondly, he also invited Medinese delegation to Damascus for negotiations. He gave them gifts as well, but this was a norm in ancient diplomacy. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment in Hejaz, where Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr centered his opposition to rule of Yazid" -- there was resentment against Umayyad rule in many parts of the empire. Maybe "the killing of Husayn led to widespread resentment against Umayyad rule; Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr built on this opposition to revolt against Yazid in Hejaz."

It was limited to Kufa and Hejaz. Here Hejaz is mentioned for context. AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It eventually led to the downfall of Umayyad rule, and that definitely wasn't caused by Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr's revolt alone. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No it didn't. Husayn and ibn Zubayr were both defeated. Abbasid revolution brought down Umayyad caliphate 70 years later. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Later on siege was laid to Mecca" -- We should highlight the fact that Yazid's army lay the siege; otherwise, what's the connection of the siege to Yazid? Maybe "Later, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca."

That is implicit to it. Which army is being discussed in the preceding sentence? Certainly not US army. AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How's this: Sometime before his death, (already agreed on that) Muawiya made him his heir apparent; this was regarded as a violation of Hasan–Muawiya treaty. A few prominent Muslims from Hejaz, including Husayn ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar, refused to accept his nomination. Following his accession after Muawiya's death in 680, Yazid demanded allegiance from these three, but only ibn Umar recognized him, while the other two refused and went to Mecca. While Husayn was on his way to Kufa to lead a revolt against Yazid, whom he perceived as morally corrupt, he was killed with his small band of supporters by forces of Yazid in the Battle of Karbala; his surviving companions were taken as prisoners. This led to widespread resentment against Umayyad rule. Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr subsequently centered his opposition to rule of Yazid in Hejaz and was supported by many people in Mecca and Medina. After first trying to bribe and then arrest Abduallah ibn al-Zubayr, Yazid sent an army to end his rebellion. The army defeated Medinese in the Battle of al-Harrah in August 683 and the city was given to three days of pillage. Later, Yazid's army lay siege to Mecca. The siege lasted for several weeks, during which the Kaaba was damaged by fire. It finally ended with death of Yazid in November 683 and the empire fell to civil war. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ready to comment on this whole paragraph, as I haven't looked closely into the entire subject (I'll just note that "diplomatically" has connotations of "sensitively", and "through diplomacy" would be better if it's in fact appropriate here). It sounds like no one has objections to the first couple of sentences, which means that the major issue seems to have been resolved and I'll let the two of you work further toward consensus. I think we should signal the significance of the topic to the general reader in the first paragraph, before having them wade through the names and chronology that may cause them to give up mid-paragraph without understanding what this is all about. Something like this: Yazid's appointment was the first hereditary succession in Islamic history and his caliphate was marked by the death of Muhammad's grandson Husayn and the start of the crisis known as the Second Fitna. Eperoton (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Great idea; I completely agree that a sentence like that should be added to the first paragraph. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eperoton, thanks for the input. Yes will add that then. Added. AhmadLX (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Any comments on the paragraph in its entirety? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Sometimes before...": Nomination in 676 is certain. See for example Madelung (1997). p. XVI. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "whom he perceived as morally corrupt": I was inclined to include that previously because I didn't want to check every-list of sources you would bring. Since Eperoton has checked your second list and found it to be unreliable, based on his comments I concur with him on omitting this. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• "taken prisoners" thing is not in the article yet,I will certainly include that included in body, but this is not something to be included in lead. AhmadLX (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last source I'll bring for this right now. If you find this unacceptable, then we can omit the "morally corrupt" part. But take a look at this reference, please: It's from Infobase Publishing, which seems reliable, and the author is a professor at Portland State University. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw the book. Yes it is by a professor of Geography. He has bachelors in agriculture and PhD in geography. AhmadLX (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the website of the college he teaches at, his courses cover "Middle East geography, history, art, culture, politics, and foreign relations". His area of expertise isn't limited to geography. Anyway, if the publisher thought he wouldn't be qualified to write the book, why would they have published it? The publishing company looks reputable. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly as before. You ignored what Eperoton explained to you regarding wp:WEIGHT & WP:PROPORTION and restarted the same thing. So Hugh N. Kennedy, G. R. Hawting, Wilferd Madelung, Bernard Lewis, Laura Veccia Vaglieri, Julius Wellhausen, Henri Lammens are all stupid, and this Geographer is a bigger authority on Islam. I don't know how you see things. I would suggest you restrict yourself to editing non-controversial areas until you are more comfortable with policies and your religious beliefs don't prevent you from editing the encyclopedia in an unbiased way. We are not on a missionary activity here. We are here to report as things are. AhmadLX (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yazid I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX. It's been nearly a year since I assessed one of your GANs, so I'll pick up this one.

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check.

• The lead looks a little long to me. Would it be possible to trim it?

Thanks for picking it up. Trimmed.

• Could you link "AH" to Islamic calendar.

Done.

• "ibn Aqil" or "Ibn Aqil"? You need to decide on one and stick to it.

Done.

• Sources: Hawting and Morony are not used as sources. Suggest moving them to "Further reading".

Years (2000 and 2002) got mixed up for Hawting. Separated now. Morony was also removed somehow. Readded. Tabari Vol 19 deserved to be in further reading, so done that as well.

Ah. I should have noticed that re Hawting.

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "He discontinued Muawiya's policy of raids against Byzantine Empire and focused on stabilizing borders. Islands in the Sea of Marmara were abandoned." This sits very oddly on its own under "Legacy". It needs to be moved, possibly to "Reign".

Yes you are right. Actually, there was a section on foreign campaigns and I had added this line into that section. But the problem was that all the other stuff in that section was either unreferenced or dubiously attributed to sources which didn't support anything in that section. So I removed that altogether. It was odd to keep a section for one sentence. But yes, this stuff is odd in legacy as well. Perhaps it would best to add it to section "Reign" for now? Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It is looking good. A couple of minor points:

• References: Where you have a page range, it should read 'pp.' not "p."

Thanks, done.

And refs 24-27 inc.

O yes, dunno how missed them

• Lammens should have an OCLC - 474534621.

Done.

I am going to leave this for a day or two now, and then go through it again with fresh eyes. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Yazid was born in 646 to Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan" I find "Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan" confusing. Is there a reason why you don't just use his common name, Muawiya I?

Done.

• "However, in 676, a few years before his death, Muawiya nominated Yazid." I would propose deleting " a few years before his death,"

Done.

• "Muawiya and the Shura declared for Yazid" Who were "the Shura" in this context. I thought it meant what it is Wikilinked to, but this doesn't seem to match what you are saying. See shura#Shura and the caliphate.

The section is anything but the "Caliphate and Shura". It was Umar's invention to appoint a caliph through consultation. But only Uthman was chosen through consultation of high-ranking Muslims of that time. Nevertheless, people subsequently expected that every ruler should be elected through Shura. Muawiya twisted that, it was less consultation and more flattery and payments.

• The section "Reign" doesn't seem to be about his reign as such. Could I suggest retitling it 'Oaths of allegiance'? Or reorganising like this.

Reorganized. Nothing much of importance happened during his reign other than feuds of legitimacy. If I find something more on this supported by RS, will certainly add it.

• "In Mecca Husayn received letters from pro-Alid Kufans" What does "pro-Alid" mean? If it means supporters of Husayn, it may be less confusing to a reader to say this. If you are going to use "Alid", it needs linking at first mention.

Pro-Alids means political supporters of Ali. This differs from "Shia", which originally had this same meaning (partisans) but later came to mean a religious sect. Pro-Alid is used to keep religious "Shia" and political "Shia" seperate. Note added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Great work. I have moved the Wikilink to Alid to its first mention. Meets all of the GA criteria and I am happy to promote. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild for the review, ce and passing. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'm contesting these references

Hello I wanted to say that I'm against these references who qualify him as an alchohol drinker and as a dancer(??) Like it is written in "Hawting, Gerald R" references. Why when you talk about a muslim you don't use muslim historians as reference ? Never heard about alchohol drinking and dancing(seriously ?) in "Waqi'a Karbala" of Imam Sanbhali and in Ibn Taymiya books. I just ask for changing these references is it possible ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumtaz Bugharda (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, for detailed reasoning for why the references can't be changed, please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I will give a brief response here. The sources used in the article are among the best available, and also Muslim writers have been included, like Farhad Daftary and Tabari. As for Ibn Taimiyya, he was not a historian, but a cleric. His did not write to report what happened in the past, but to prove that his religious viewpoint was correct. As such, his writings on the historical matters are unreliable and tendentious. Also note that the article doesn't say Yazid was a drinker. It just says what allegations against him were raised by his opponents. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Smear

Yazid is the target of annual smear campaigns by contemporary Shi'ites from Pakistan and the Middle East. This article should produce fair facts and needs more protection. 07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)~\07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re3st567 (talk • contribs)

Cursed

Yazid and the entire family of Baby Umayya is unfairly smeared, demonized and cursed by contemporary followers of "Shia Islam", editors must help explain how the dynasty is constantly attacked annually by Shi'ites. Re3st567 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)\17:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Re3st567 (talk)\Re3st567 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)\\\\\Re3st567 (talk)

What they do is no concern of Wikipedia. If you think this article presents something unfairly, please point out specific instances.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Even the sunnis, barelvis, etc etc curse Yazid