Jump to content

Talk:Yazid I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 39.60.214.46 (talk) at 11:59, 10 May 2024 (H. Lammens's source is very outdated: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleYazid I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 24, 2019Good article nomineeListed
March 28, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 11, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

caligraphy

should this calligraphy of his name be added to the article?

Light hearted sam (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images that we add to articles here are supposed to be supporting article content and be informative. We don't add images for decorative purposes. Calligraphic representations are included in articles like Muhammad, Abu Bakr etc because these are quite common representation of these subjects among the Muslims (e.g. in mosques, Muslim art etc.). User generated calligraphic content in other cases neither contributes to the encyclopedic quality of an article nor is representative of the article subject in the Muslim culture. So no, this cannot be added to the article.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What AhmadLX said is 100% correct. The question to ask seems to be "is this image illustrative (does it illustrate or demonstrate something about the subject), or is it merely decorative? If only decorative, don't add it.
For example, a picture of a calligraphy in a 400-year old mosque illustrates and in a sense proves something about the historical and enduring interest of a subject. A modern calligraphy created by one industrious internet user, even if pretty, does not show anything about the subject's historical value. For all the reader knows, the internet user may have made up the subject themselves. Or it may suggest that some modern user had to create a calligraphic image because no historical material is available. It gives the impression of puffery. But these subjects do have historical value, and in most cases illustrative imagery does exist, it simply hasn't made it to the internet yet. In such cases it is much better to wait for such historical material to become available than to add misleadingly non-illustrative material (or better yet, go to an ancient mosque or a museum and take your own pictures to upload). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 16:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute lack of Islamic Scholars in the page, leaves untold amount of questions here.

I understand the bias of anti-ummayad scholars in Islam and bias against the Yazid I's legacy, but it will be much wiser to add a separate heading of scholars, aka Anti-Ummayyad, who describe his account different. It will be better than absolutely silenting the whole segment. Alongside, the Legacy portion needs cleanup. Also there is a lack of accounts from any Islamic or Muslim scholars of the time in the legacy section. Mr Joji0 (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a section on that and It is not based on the views of man on the street but on the views of Muslim scholars and historians (Ghazali, Khomayni, Ibn al-Jawizi, Baladhuri, Ibn Asakir. So there is no "Absolute lack of Islamic Scholars in the page" nor does the article "leave untold amount of questions here". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Information, Please Review and Adjust Using Proper Sources

This page has minimized the tragedy that was the Battle of Karbala and seems to dissociate Yazid I from the crimes he had committed. For example, the current page says that Husayn's fanily who were taken "captive" were freed "a few days later". This is blatantly incorrect and insulting to the tribulations and horrors they had to face. In reality, the family (Mostly women, children, and Husayn's eldest son Ali) were dragged in chains behind horses and camels on foot to Kufa, where they were paraded in the streets as "khawarij", then brought to the court of Ibn Ziyad. They were then forcefully pushed forward even further to Damascus, where they were imprisoned and had to witness Yazid beating the severed head of Husain with a stick as he boasted about how he had finally won, while insulting the family of the Prophet and Islam as a whole. So no, they were not "freed after a few days", they were held captive and tortured, beaten, pelted with stones, ogled, and even killed for TWO YEARS prior to being freed as the people began to waken and realize what Yazid had done. This is an example of just one inaccuracy in this page. So please, instead of saying that you have "used works from renowned islamic scholars", make use of true historic accounts of Karbala, and Yazid I. Some notable works I recommend referencing are Maqtal-al-Husayn, as well as the literal thousands of articals on Al-Islam.org. I would avoid the usage of Sunni or foreign sources for anything relating to Yazid and Karbala - the Shia have documented this much more extensively and reliably, as the mourning of Al-Husayn and his family is an integral part of their faith and culture. Please fix your errors and use actual, reliable sources. Thank you. 2607:FEA8:5BA1:4800:C15F:4F89:7F1C:5BD7 (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this comment. The family of Imam Hussain was treated in the most inhumane manner, as outlined above. I would request the wikipedia team to refer to the book "Maqtal al-Husayn" which is a historical narrative that describes the events of the Battle of Karbala and the aftermath. It provides insights into the treatment of prisoners, particularly the surviving members of Imam Hussein's family, who were taken captive after the battle. This source is significant for understanding the events from a Shia Muslim perspective. I am not really a wikipedian as may not be the best at writing on such an important topic and hence bringing it to notice to the wikipedia team. 110.226.179.41 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

It is more historically accurate to have the fact that Husayn was murdered than that he just died 82.197.209.4 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H. Lammens's source is very outdated

I had a friend who told me the sources by H. Lammens are outdated. Specifically on the Islamic Jurisprudences opinion on cursing Yazid; like saying Hanbalis oppose cursing him, even though the founder himself cursed him in a fatwa he wrote, calling out his war crimes, and even popular Shafi jurists curse Yazid too. 39.60.214.46 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]