Talk:Yazid I/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Unexplained and unjustified undoing

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

User: HistoryofIran has undone my edit without any explanation. I have written that "Despite his reputation amongst religious circles and Muslim historians, there are other academic historians who portray a more favourable view of Yazid." Whilst the text said that "Despite his reputation in religious circles, academic historians generally portray a more favourable view of Yazid." This generalises academic historians whilst only 4 historians are referenced, and they all have relatively differing views to each other. This also does not consider the views of Muslim or Arab or Middle Eastern historians as academic. Only the positive views of Yazid have been considered 'modern' and 'academic' whilst ignoring the negative views that Muslim historians have of Yazid. The text I have written is more inclusive and accurate of the views held of Yazid amongst different historians.

I had adjusted the text "Yazid is considered an illegitimate ruler and a tyrant by many Muslims due to his hereditary succession, the death of Husayn and the attack on the city of Medina by his forces. Modern historians present a milder view of him, and consider him a capable ruler, albeit less successful than his father." to "Yazid is considered an illegitimate ruler and a tyrant by many Muslims due to his hereditary succession, the killing of Husayn the grandson of the prophet Muhammad, the attack on the city of Medina by his forces and a siege of Mecca during which the Kaaba caught fire. Some contemporary historians present a milder view of him, and consider him a capable ruler, albeit less successful than his father.".

I changed " Modern historians present a milder view of him..." to " Some contemporary historians present a milder view of him...". Again, this is a generalisation of historians. The statement 'modern historians' implies that all modern historians have a milder view of Yazid however, this is not the case. I know for a fact there are many modern historians who have very negative views of Yazid, this includes many modern Muslim historians. This statement ignores the status of modern Muslim historians as modern or as historians. This viewpoint is not inclusive and doesn't consider a lot of historians. My statement of 'Some contemporary historians' is again a more accurate representation of reality and fact.

I adjusted the death of Husayn to the killing of Husayn as Husayn and his family were attacked and massacred by Yazid's army. This is historical fact. There are no differing views on the reality of the brutality of the killing of Husayn, his family and followers and the taking prisoner of the women and Husayn's son. There are also no differing views on the mutilation of Husayn's body after he was killed. The word 'kill' is much more accurate and representing of a situation like this than the word 'death'.

I also added that Yazid ordered a siege of Mecca which lead to the burning of the Kaaba. This happened and is amongst the reasons why many Muslims have very negative views of Yazid who claimed to be a Muslim. Yet, the attack he ordered on Islam's holiest site lead to the burning of said holiest site.

Bear in mind, that the reason of different views amongst Muslim historians and some non-Muslim historians is that the Muslims are considering Yazid from an ethical and Islamic viewpoint. The way the article is written does not show where this difference in opinions may come from. Forwiki2 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Inserting anything you want without citing ref will always be reverted. HistoryofIran did just the right thing. When considering modern historical views, a representative sample is taken, not every scholar is cited. And there might be some partisan historian, but fringe views are not included here. As an example, a few modern historians doubt the existence of Jesus. It doesn't give anybody license to write on Wikipedia "Jesus didn't exist" becuase some historians think so; majority of them think otherwise. Also, lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article. Each item appearing proportionally in the lead. POV pushers often do this trick, to take material from the body of the article and present it disproportionately in the lead. Current lead contains enough important details from the article body. Also, the Ka'ba burned because of Ibn al-Zubayr, not because of Ibn Numayr's attack.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AhmadLX Your response is surprising. In the text it says "In the view of Bernard Lewis, Yazid was a capable ruler but was overly criticized by later Arab historians.". Arab historians are not a small group. The article itself admits that they are historians. You can't delegate Arab/ Iranian or other historians as 'ordinary people' and Western or other historians that hold a specific point of view as 'academic' and 'modern' historians. This itself is skewing the article and is a POV pushing trick. It is fundamentally wrong to consider historians of a certain religious or national background as non-academic or non-modern. You know that the majority of Arab/ Iranian/Middle Eastern criticise Yazid heavily for example, Dr Jafar Shahidi a distinguished scholar and a "renowned historian of Islam". His views are completely negative towards Yazid and he refutes the claims of the 4 historians the article has stated. Is he not a modern, academic historian? There are tens and more historians like him. However, you could only find the 4 mentioned historians who held more favourable views of Yazid. It makes sense that there is more Middle Eastern research into a historical Middle Eastern figure than there is Western research/ historian opinions. How can 4 historian represent the 'general view' of amongst academic historians?

And the views held about Yazid are not by "some partisan historian". Many Muslims and Arabs are not "some partisan historian" but are many historians with many different opinions and beliefs. The idea that Jesus did not exist is not in any way proportional to the negative views of Yazid. There are many people and historians with the negative view of Yazid with very few denying Jesus' existance. My sentence does not refute the opinions of certain historians, it acknowledges the many negative views held by other historians.

Also, the section of the lead that I have edited is the part listing the reasons why Muslims hold negative views of Yazid. This has to come from the general Muslim viewpoint. Even so, the fact that Husayn was killed and was the grandson of the Prophet are historically true. These are not opinions. You also say that the Kaaba burned due to Ibn al Zubayr. I am saying the siege lead to the burning of the Kaaba, many believe it was the army of Yazid who committed this act and others believe it was an act from Ibn al Zubayr's side. Either way, it was the situation of the siege that lead to the burning of the Kaaba. My statement that it was the siege is more accurate than the statement that it was Ibn al Zubayr. Either way, even if you want to contest that it was Yazid's commands that lead to the burning of the Kaaba, you can't deny that it was he who commanded the siege of the Kaaba. This must be stated in the list of reasons why generally Muslims, who hold Mecca and the Kaaba as the holiest site in which no blood should be spilt, consider Yazid negatively.

Moreover, I would like to make you aware that the reason these few historians may have more favourable views of Yazid is because they don't consider Islam, Prophet Mohammad, Medina, Mecca or Husayn holy or spiritually significant in any way. In here and in the future, I hope, that modern historians of a Muslim or Middle Eastern background are not ignored in favour of Western historians. This is incredibly dicriminatory and wrong. Finally, I would like you to bring the exact quotations of those 4 historians' research that has lead to the favourable view of Yazid that the article is presenting. Forwiki2 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"Arab historians" refers to writers of primary sources like Tabari and Baladhuri. All content in modern sources is based on these. "Modern historians" means professionally trained historians who do and publish research in the field. I'm sure you can find something concrete in Shahid's work instead of writing a wall of text that he was great. Bring citation. Of the four listed in the article, citations are given: go and find them. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"The reasons" you state above, you can publish in your blog or in a journal, not here. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AhmadLX I know who modern historians and primary source historians are, that is why I mentioned Dr Shahidi. When you know Shahidi and that there are tens of historians like Shahidi, why should you generalise the opinion of 4 historians to all modern and academic historians? Soon I will quote negative statements about Yazid from academic historians like Dr Jafar Shahidi, Dr Ali Shariati, Dr Hossein Nasr and Dr Rasul Ja'f Ariyan.

Also, I could not find the exact quotes of 'more favourable' opinions, please provide the evidence. I expect you as an editor who confirmed the content to show me direct quotes where the ideas that Yazid is a "mild ruler, who resorted to violence only when necessary" and "a peace-loving, generous prince" can be concluded from the 4 historians' works.

We are not supposed to put aside logic on Wikepedia, do you think, someone who attacked, massacred and mutilated Husayn, his family and followers is someone "who resorted to violence only when necessary"? Is this the modern viewpoint or an opinion from the dark ages, even if it is claimed that a historian has said it?

Additionally, you have not addressed several of my points including the subject of 'death' and the siege. The text I have written included only one sentence about Shahidi, it was not a wall of text stating how great Shahidi was but logical points addressing your arguments. I would not expect you to look at the text in such an unbalanced way. I hope this is not the way that you are addressing the Yazid article. Finally, this is a section called 'talk' that is for dialogue, it is not a space to advise the dialogue to be published elsewhere!Forwiki2 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha! then bring them.
Citations in the article contain full bibliographic info and page numbers. Wellhausen is available on Archive.org (link in the article), EI2 and Lewis are easily available for download on the internet, De goeje is present on Wikisource (link in the article). If you still can't find them – it's hard to believe though – it is your problem. I will not provide quotes at your directions. Seek some other venue.
What I do or do not think has nothing to do with this. The section presents views of the historians. As I said before, if it is illogical, you should submit a paper/write a book or a blog with "logical" interpretation of the history. Wikipedia is not a venue for original thought/editor opinions. Wellhausen's might have been a view from "dark ages", only if he lived in 1200s. He didn't unfortunately.
You wrote in the article: "the grandson of the prophet Muhammad". Him being Muhammad's grandson may sure be a big deal for you, but is not for everyone. Why stress that in the lead? Also, Muhammad is a prophet to those who believe in him. Wikipedia won't attest to him being a prophet. You added siege of Mecca to lead, to emphasize that he was the one to burn the Kaba. Which he wasn't. His forces plundered Medina, which is stated in the lead. I told you to publish your thoughts in a blog because you claimed that modern historians are biased against Islam and they don't consider Muhammad holy. If they are, Wikipedia is not a place to complain. A blog might be, I guess. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AhmadLX I did not say I can not find the articles, I said that the I could not find the exact quotes mentioned in the article. I expected you to prove how you made these quotations from the work of these historians.

Since you brought the example of Wellhausen, I will address this by quoting Wellhausen from the referenced page 168. He writes, "As the wrongful heir of the Khalifate, guilty of the murder of Husain and the desecration of holy towns, his memory is a bitter one to Muslims, but, in reality, he was not a despot; he kept the sword sheathed as long as ever he dared.".

Wellhausen says the "murder of Husayn" and "desecration of holy towns" (plural, meaning Medina and Mecca). The word of 'murder' has been exchanged for 'death' and only one town, Medina is mentioned in the article. The word desecration has also simply been changed to the vague word 'attack'.

The article points to page 168 which at no point Wellhausen states that "Yazid was a mild ruler". Where have these sentences and conclusions come from? You mentioned " who resorted to violence only when necessary...". The interpration of "kept the sword sheathed as long as ever he dared" is not "resorting to violence when necessary", it is dependant on his personal courage not on necessity, which can be confirmed by everyone.

Now, I will go back to my main edits that were unjustifiably undone. I had changed "death of Husayn" to "killing of Husayn", very similar to Wellhausen. The attack on Medina and siege of Mecca was added again, very similar to Wellhausen's use of the word 'desecration of holy townS'.

Also, Wellhausen says Yazid's memory IS a bitter one to Muslims. This encompasses present time Muslim historians who hold very negative views of Yazid. My edit was more inclusive to the views of these historians alongside the likes of Wellhausen. "Despite his reputation amongst religious circles and muslim historians, there are other academic historians who portray a more favourable view of Yazid.", what is wrong or opposing about this statement towards Wellhausen's or others?

It is not about Prophet Muhammad being holy to you, it's about him being holy to Muslims, this is why Muslims consider Yazid so negatively. Wellhausen himself confirms what's holy to Muslims. The section of the lead edited was the part that was listing MUSLIM people's reasons against Yazid. The reader should know that Husayn was the grandson of Prophet Muhammad as he is holy to Muslims. The anger at Husayn's murder comes from the holiness of his heritage. In terms of Prophet Muhammad's title as a prophet, I will reference you to his Wikepedia page that says "Islamic Prophet Muhammad".

You say that I have claimed modern historians are biased against Prophet Muhammad as they don't consider him holy. I would like you to go back to what I have written. I said some modern historians because Muslim historians are also modern historians and have differnt views. From the beginning I have emphasised this. I wrote that the differing views may be due to the difference in opinion to the holiness of these figures and sites.

Finally, I want to remind you that Wikepedia is not a place for a bottom up approach or enforcing opinions to others. I think I have brought accurate and justified discussion and edits to the page which is in complete accordance with Wikepedia principles and I am open to hearing othe ropinions. The tone of a Wikepedia editor should not seem rude and condescending.Forwiki2 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, religion dont mean sh*t here. This is supposed to represent a neutral, non-biased view. I suggest you to read the rules regarding sources, as your so called Muslim "historians" such as Ali Shariati are not reliable one bit. Also, pls write your long essays somewhere else, as this is not a forum. HistoryofIran (talk)

User:HistoryofIran I know this is not a forum but you should answer and give justifications for undoing my proper and unbiased edit. Since you brought the example of Wellhausen, I addressed this by quoting Wellhausen from the referenced page 168. He writes, "As the wrongful heir of the Khalifate, guilty of the murder of Husain and the desecration of holy towns, his memory is a bitter one to Muslims, but, in reality, he was not a despot; he kept the sword sheathed as long as ever he dared.".

Wellhausen says the "murder of Husayn" and "desecration of holy towns" (plural, meaning Medina and Mecca). The word of 'murder' has been exchanged for 'death' and only one town, Medina is mentioned in the article. The word desecration has also simply been changed to the vague word 'attack'.

The article points to page 168 which at no point Wellhausen states that "Yazid was a mild ruler". Where have these sentences and conclusions come from? You mentioned " who resorted to violence only when necessary...". The interpration of "kept the sword sheathed as long as ever he dared" is not "resorting to violence when necessary", it is dependant on his personal courage not on necessity, which can be confirmed by everyone.

Now, I will go back to my main edits that were unjustifiably undone. I had changed "death of Husayn" to "killing of Husayn", very similar to Wellhausen. The attack on Medina and siege of Mecca was added again, very similar to Wellhausen's use of the word 'desecration of holy townS' User:AhmadLX.

Also, it's easily understandable that modern and professional historians can have different views about Yazid and I mentioned Dr Shahidi, Dr Rasul Ja'f Ariyan, Dr Hossein Nasr and Dr Shariati so, you cannot generalise modern historians to one view point.

You are not the one who can decide which modern and professional historians are valid or not. Here, there should be a holistic view given with all interpretations, a single view should not be extrapolated to represent everyone.

Your unjustified undoing and responses seem to show that you are not following the principles of Wikepedia. If you have logical responses, you should be able to write in a more respectful manner.

I know Wikepedia is not for religion however, when it is writing about religion or any other topics, the information should be correct and unbiased.

If you are right, then you should logically approach all of the points that I have made, which neither one of you have done. Don't complicate the issue, I quoted Wellhausen as well. Respond to what I have written.Forwiki2 (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if you really couldn't understand what Wellhausen said, or are just being nasty. "He was not a despot" and "sheathed his sword as long as he could" has be reworded to (if you don't understand why I reworded it, please read WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO before writing a mountain of text) "he was mild ruler" and "resorted to violence when necessary". These two are equivalent ways of saying the same thing. If you are unconvinced, sure start an RFC. ~~I am tired of religious fanatics, who refuse to understand anything and only specialize in writing meaningless Himalayas of text.~~ Also, that he is vilified by muslims, has been discussed in due detail in legacy. See MOS:LEAD. If it doesn't convince you, start RFC for this as well. And plz don't ping me. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

:: AhmadLX / Firstly, my edit was only two sentences; "Despite his reputation amongst religious circles and Muslim historians, there are other academic historians who portray a more favourable view of Yazid." while, you have extrapolated the views of four historians to all academic and modern historians and have ignored the obvious opposing views of many Muslim historians. Clearly, this generalisation is not logical.

:: Also, if we take Wellhausen's given reasons for why Muslims have a negative view of Yazid it is closer to my edit than to what is written. "Kill" equates to "murder" more than "death". "desecration of towns" equates to the destruction of Medina and the siege of Mecca more than just a mention of an attack on Medina. As seen, I made two small edits and during this whole discussion you have lead the dialogue elsewhere and have not addressed why my edits have been undone.

:: Secondly, although I disagree with Wellhausen, I have no problem with quoting him and I did not edit Wellhausen's quote. However, your paraphrasing of his quote has more of a positive tendency towards Yazid than Wellhausen himself.

:: Here is the Wellhausen quote; "As the wrongful heir of the Khalifate, guilty of the murder of Husain and the desecration of holy towns, his memory is a bitter one to Muslims, but, in reality, he was not a despot; he kept the sword sheathed as long as ever he dared.".

:: There are two issues here. First, Wellhausen says "...as long as ever he dared.", this does not equate to as long as necessary. To say necessary is to suggest that any violent act Yazid committed is neccessary and so justifiable whilst, Wellhausen relates Yazid's violence to his courage.

:: Also, Wellhausen says: "...he was not a despot" that can be reworded simply to "he was not a tyrant" and should not be paraphrased very leniantly to "Yazid was a mild ruler...and was not the tyrant that religious tradition portrays him to be.".

:: You paraphrase "not a despot" to "mild ruler...and was not the tyrant that religious tradition portrays him to be" and simultaneously paraphrase "murder" to "death" instead of "kill". This does not seem like an equal treatment.

:: Finally, here are some unexpected phrases used by both users: "fringe views", "POV pushers", "wall of text", "you can publish in your blog", "Him being Muhammad's grandson may sure be a big deal for you", "publish your thoughts in a blog", "Look religion dont mean sh** here", "your so called Muslim "historians" ... are not reliable one bit", "pls write your long essays somewhere else", "are just being nasty", "I am tired of religous fanatics, who refuse to understand anything and only specialize in writing meaningless Himalayas of text".

:: Do you believe the use of such phrases is acceptable for editors of Wikepedia? Forwiki2 (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Yazid I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hussayn was martyred and not killed. Please correct it. Inamulhaq025 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 08:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Abbasquadir: Why are you adding citation required to the lead? You clearly didn't read MOS:LEAD as I told you. Also, for articles like these we use academic reliable sources, not random news articles by people with no profession in this field or whatsoever. I highly advise you to stop this immediately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback

Latest comment: 3 years ago46 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Al Ameer son and Cplakidas. Hope you two are doing well. Would you mind giving some feedback on the article? I plan for FAC next month or a little later. Other than prose and CE, what are your thoughts on say comprehensiveness, NPOV etc? Thank you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: I have been keeping up with your recent additions and improvements. I will look it over again a few times tomorrow, but definitely looking good. Al Ameer (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:. My comments after a quick read-through:

is nomination in 676 (56 AH) by Mu'awiya was opposed by several prominent Muslims from the Hejaz. point out explicitly that Mu'awiya was his father, and what the nomination was about.
and the empire fell into civil war add how long it lasted and its outcome.
convinced them one way or another. too vague; convinced them through flattery, bribery, or threats, or any other method he may have used.
He then ordered Marwan ibn al-Hakam, point out that Marwan was his kinsman
treat the people of the Hejaz well link Hejaz and point out where it was (western Arabia, as done further down) and that this was where Mecca and Medina are located
the Sufyanid caliphate came to an end to the average reader it is unclear what this "Sufyanid caliphate" is. Ditto for most likely a Marwanid fabrication; it may not immediately be clear that the line inaugurated by Marwan is meant. It should be clarified that the Sufyanid branch of the Umayyad family was replaced by the Marwanid branch.
I am not sure whether the Sufyani legend is relevant for Yazid specifically; this fits much better in an article on the Umayyad family or the Second Fitna, or even Mu'awiya II and Marwan. At any rate, it should be clearly distinguished in a different section from Yazid's own infamy due to killing Husayn and the Alid opposition.
evil figure by many Muslims, especially by Shias why the Shias specifically? Make clear the connection between the Alids and the Shia.
his accession is considered by whom?
I think that Yazid's reputation among Muslims can be expanded upon a bit. Specifically, that not just Shia, but even later Sunnis considered him as evil for the death of Husayn. I remember reading how during the 16th-century Zaydi-Ottoman conflicts in Yemen, both sides denounced the other as 'Yazids', or that the Shah of Iran was likened to Yazid by Homeini. The continued survival and use of Yazid (and to a lesse extent, Mu'awiya) as the archetype for the illegitimate/tyrannical ruler even for the modern Islamic world should be highlighted a bit more.
The impact of Karbala on the Alid/Shia movement should also be mentioned somewhere, i.e. the emergence of the Shi'a imamate, and the political quietism of the main Husaynid line.
It might also be necessary for the uninitiated reader to briefly explain why the hereditary succession was so radical, since this is the norm that most people associate with medieval rulership. Mention how the first caliphs were chosen, for example, or why the pro-Alids were opposed to Yazid's succession, but not Husayn's, which also rested on the heredirary principle. Constantine ✍ 10:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for the insightful comments and edits. I think I have addressed all your points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Looks good to me, looking forward to the FAC. Constantine ✍ 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Constantine. Waiting for Al Ameer's feedback. After that a little ce and then sure to FAC. Thank you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Besides some necessary copyediting throughout the article, here is my feedback:

It should be mentioned in "Early life", in the first sentence before the Kalb are introduced, that Mu'awiya belonged to the wealthy or prominent Umayyad clan of the Quraysh.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

To demonstrate the power and influence of the Kalb for context, it should be noted that they were the predominant tribe of the vast Syrian desert and the leaders of the Quda'a confederation present across Syria, and that they had attained significant experience in warfare and discipline in their service with the Byzantine military before the Muslim conquest. See Muawiyah I#Consolidation of local power.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Although all we have are fragmentary bits here and there, there should be more info and specifics about Yazid's role in the war with the Byzantines. Information could be found here.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that Yazid's command role against the Byzantines may also have been linked to Mu'awiya's efforts to foster Qaysi support for Yazid (the Qays were the major element of the northern frontier forces). It should also be noted that this effort was not very successful. See The Architecture of Allegiance in Early Islamic Late Antiquity: The Accession of Mu'awiya in Jerusalem, ca. 661 CE Andrew Marsham pp 90–91.

I couldn't find it in this source, but I remember having seen it somewhere. Will add once found. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is in Marsham's book. Added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There should be more elaboration about Yazid's nomination by Mu'awiya, e.g. brief context about the previous mode(s) of caliphal succession, how and why his nomination may have come about, the controversy (even initially among the resentful Umayyads of Medina). Some of this could be found at Muawiyah I#Nomination of Yazid as successor. I would also recommend Abd al-Aziz Duri's Early Islamic Institutions pp. 22–23 (recommended to me by Constantine for the accession section of Marwan I, have a copy if you need). "In order to win support, Mu'awiya summoned a shura (consultative assembly) of influential people from all provinces" — unless I am wrong, apparently Ibn al-Athir is the only traditional source who mentions such provincial delegations recognizing Yazid's nomination in Damascus. If so, we should attribute this to him or at least note that this was "according to one account/version". Currently, it is written here as the mainstream account. I'm also a bit wary of introducing Mu'awiya's alleged journey to Medina to enforce his will as a sure thing then following it up by Wellhausen's doubts. This could be addressed by easily tweaking it to "Mu'awiya may have went to Medina ..."

Hell yeah;) I have been thinking the same for a while now. You are right, this section was a good summary for GA, but is inadequate for FA. No doubt Constantine is a master of "sourcery" ;) Could you please send me Duri's book? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ibn Abbas supposedly warned Husayn not to trust the Kufans, but the citation (Madelung) does not say the same for Ibn Umar, only that he warned him against going. For context, note that the Kufans betrayed (if that's the best word) his father Ali and brother Hasan.