Talk:Husayn ibn Ali

Last section - purely Shia?

That last section is purely from a Shia view and takes up about half of the page. Examples include the portrayal of Salahudin as anti-ahlul bayt, attributing malicious intentions to his actions. Sunni Muslims celeberate Salahudin as a hero and reformer who regained the glory of Islam by uniting (albiet for a short period). The slader should be explicitly refered to as being from a Shia POV.

Aboomusa (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

family life

should we not remove the family life section as it is a repeat of the introduction?--prashidi 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Move

Ali is listed as "Ali ibn Abi Talib", yet, when we come to this name, despite the page being called "Husayn bin Ali", we end up having to have the name bolded as "Husayn ibn Ali ibn Talib". I think we should move this for consistency's sake since it seems ibn is the more popular in scholarly, and well, most literature I've seen recently. gren グレン 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support gren グレン 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Dragons flight 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Husayn's head

My Syrian guidebooks claim that Husayn's head is still burried in the Damascus Umayyad Mosque. Kalif Yazid of the Umayyad dynasty (Sunni) joined the battle in Karbala and brought the head to Damascus in order to be humiliated. Today this shrine is one of the most crowded of the mosque, full of Shia pilgrims (most women wearing black clothes) crying (or yelling or whatever) at the shrine.

I believe that is trueKadhumia flo 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it buried in Cairo? I'm pretty sure it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.116.70 (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture

Would someone please make a legacy section like the one we have on the Ali page, so that we can move the imaginary portrait of Hussein to there?--Zereshk 16:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

people to go the shrine to pray for imam husayn and his family and for mankind

poeple weep/cry/lament for the tradegys occured at kerbala

see kerbala

and the form of expression of greif is is by way of crying and weeping

thnk you

The drawing is misleading as it is not original and is out of one's imagination... will have to remove it, or atleast have to move it to some other inside section.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyHuman (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that it is not the right place to put depiction of an artist.. it is misleading to the readers —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyHuman (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

These ramblings do not constitute a WP:CONSENSUS to remove the image. Bongomatic 10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pic was proposed for deletion in Dec 2009 at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_28#File:Imamhusayn.png for questionable origin. Comments may be directed there. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Major revision

I did my best to make the article neutral rather than Shi'a hagiography. That included removing the purely imaginary picture, the bright green template, etc. Zora 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh heck -- I though I'd saved it, but apparently my 3-hours-labor is lost. Dang. At it again. Zora 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha, edit conflict. Got it. Zora 04:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Penitents

Someone came and changed the text to read that only Sunnis believed in the Penitents. I went back to my books and found several academic references to the Penitents. However, I couldn't confirm the detail re the first Ashurah commemoration. Momen, in his history of Shi'a Islam, says that they were a group of proto-Shi'a who organized in secret and mounted a failed rebellion four years after Husayn's death.

This material belongs in a history of Shi'a Islam (no good article at present), so I'm removing it from this article. Perhaps that will short-cut some argument. Zora 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Pentitent MuslimGuy

Ok, I think I'm getting how this works. "ZORRRRAAAAA, ZORRRRAAAAA. Can you hear me out there????" Well, if this somehow gets to you, I wanted to let you know that all the stuff you took out of "Penitents", I can cite...todos, toute le monde, and all of it, cited. Just let me know what you prefer, Arab sources, Western sources? Does the Publishing Company have to be from New England? Whatever basically;)--Muslimguy 77 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually forget about all this stuff. I just read your argument with Zereshk regarding Misconceptions about the Shi'a. I have all the sources I need for anything about Shi'a Islam, since I have a library full of material. However, I don't have the fight to nitpick all the little things like Zereshk had to do just to move the needle a little - and not liberal enough to say anything at the risk of being called an "antisemite" - I was in the theology "business" in the Lutheran Church. I can tell you one thing though: Shi'a Islam stands out as an inarguable religion, one that puts a thorn in your side the closer you get to it. There's no beating it. Ask generations of bedouin arabs, jews, and turks...and they'll all tell you the same thing. Pain in the a$*. Shi'a Islam, welcome to the West. --Muslimguy 77 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't undestand what you're trying to say. Zora 07:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because he is a Rafida idiot

Oh nothing really...I'm scandalous!--Muslimguy 77 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

... not to mention extremely rough. --Ciroa 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Revised yet again

At some point in the past, someone removed a chunk of the narrative and replaced it with a badly written para claiming that Muawiya poisoned Hassan (Shi'a belief re Hassan, no historical foundation). I didn't notice this, as I was checking just the diffs, and it was part of the article for weeks! I just rewrote the section that had been trashed.

The claims re poisoning are (or should be) handled in the Hassan article, and they don't need to be given here. Zora 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting anon's edits

An anon spent a lot of time editing this article to make it conform to a pious Shi'a POV. I suspect that English was the anon's second language, since he/she/it mangled a lot of the prose in the process. I reverted to an earlier version that is not slanted and garbled. Zora 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely it does not look that way now. Ridiculously insulting and non-historical pictures, Shi'a POV still present 5:47, 18 May 2008 (EST)

Changes

I have made some changes today be the article was poorly structured and on some places there were some spelling mistakes. But someone needs to fix the pictures the right way. Thank You Salman

Salman, I reverted your changes. You, and an anon, rewrote the article so that it read like a Shi'a-POV biography. This is a secular encyclopedia. We cannot state Shi'a beliefs as fact, or use loaded, emotive terms like "martyr" for Husayn. We are also keeping Husayn for the name, as that is the one used in all the scholarly texts I consulted. Zora 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

WHY ZORA

What was wrong with the changes i made to Imam Hussain's article? The information was basically the same i did not add in anything from the point of view of the shi'as. I just made some Grammar corrections and corrected the way some names were spelled. Okay you know what Zora you can keep the article the way you want it but as far the the shi's sections of the article is concerned that is going to be written in the point of view of the shi'as. You said that Imam Hussain (AS) can not be a martyr, i have the proofs that he is a martye, but do u have nay proofs that he is not a martyr. When u get the proofs u can edit it then.

I have changed the article the way Zora felt confortable with. But someone still has to put up some pictures and the Islamic Stuff on the right side of the article! OKAY Thank You Salman

Yes, the Shi'a section can say he was a martyr. As long as the Shi'a section stays in proportion, it IS fine to explain who the Shi'a believe him to be. That is useful knowledge for people who aren't Shi'as. It's just that you shouldn't rewrite the top section (which tries to be neutral, and just state what is accepted by all sides) so that it is Shi'a POV too. It is also useful to know that not everyone shares the Shi'a views. Zora 02:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay Zora, i am going to change the top section of the article to neutral, even though it is. But i am going to double check to make sure it is neutral.

"Sunni regard Hussein as an Imam (lord of the spiritual kingdom) and a martyr. He is believed to be the third imam. He set out on his path in order to save Islam and the Ummah from annihilation at the hands of Yazid. According to Sunni belief he was a willing sacrifice to religious necessity, and Sunni view Hussein as an exemplar of courage and resistance against tyranny. Ashura, a day of mourning and self-reflection, is held in honor of his suffering."">>>>>sunni's dont regard Hazrat Imam Hussein as the third caliph this is incorrect according to tradition and history sunni's believe in the Khalifa rashidin(the rightly guided ) who were 1. Hazrat Abu Baqr Siddiq (oldest friend and father in Law of the Prophet, he has a passing reference in the quran as well) 2.Hazrat Umar (companion and father in law) 3.Hazrat Uthman (companion and son in law) 4.Hazrat Ali (cousin, and son in law) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.96.144 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

More Shi'a edits

Someone put the title "Bibi" in front of all the women's names. WP doesn't use honorifics. Also, Muhammad was rendered as Prophet Muhammad, which again assumes a Muslim POV.

The section of quotes seems to have expanded greatly. All of them are attributed to "Imam Hussein", which assumes a Shi'a POV, and none of them are sourced. If any of the Shi'a editors want to edit down the quotes, source them, and remove POV references to "Imam", that would be fine. Otherwise, I will do it. This article should not be a soapbox for Shi'a Islam. Zora 10:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed all of the other honorifics (s.a.w.). This article is so biased that it makes Soviet propaganda seem like good journalism ... - Wikigeek

What do you know about Soviet propaganda, pathetic idiot Wikigeek? Did you ever see Muslims coming into houses of homosexuals, polytheists, and other scam checking what they are doing? In Soviet times those atheist scumbags whose views you are propagating here in Wikipedia, as NPOV, you pathetic secularist scambags of the Earth whose destination is eternal Hellfire, in soviet times those atheist scumbags woke up (drunken bastards had some will to do that in the early morning) in the early mornings during Ramadhan to check the houses of the Believers if they had smokes coming from their chimneys. The Believers, of course, did that to prepare food for Suhur before fasting the whole cold winter day in Russia. Those scumbags, may ALlah curse them, put out those fires, and you, Wikiscum of the day, have a nerve to compare anything Soviet to anything Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.99.35 (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest edits

An anon was at work on the article, turning even the neutral, non-sectarian portion into Shi'a hagiography. Portions were also excised. I restored an older version, but incorporated edits by Cunardo. I also removed all the quotes, which were too many, too long, and completely unreferenced. I found the Encyclopedia Iranica article on Shahrbanu, which dismisses her as a myth, and added that to the article. Zora 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Karbala section edited. "Even his six-month-old son Ali Asghar was not spared,Husayn fought the evil opressors with ultimate courage till his last breath, he had unshakable faith in ALMIGHTY GOD , he never never surrendered to the evil army" is now edited to: "Even his six-month-old son Ali Asghar was not spared, Husayn fought the opponent with courage till his last breath, he had unshakable faith in God, he never surrendered to the enemy." And i feel that it is still too emotional and subjective for encyclopedia.

Salman edits

Salman, I reverted most of your edits. Please stop trying to turn this into Shi'apedia! We give a fair, neutral version and there are links to various Shi'a sites if people want a fuller version of the Shi'a POV.

I found the website from which the sayings were copied, originally, and picked two of the sayings to put up. These are the sayings that display Husayn in the best light. If you put up the others, people are just going to refuse to read them. (MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over.) I also took the liberty of editing the sayings slightly, to make them read better in English. Whoever put them up on that site was not a native speaker of English and was putting up clumsy translations. Zora 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Salman, you have been very enthusiastic and active on wikipedia, and your desire to contribute is greatly appreciated. However, it seems clear that you've not given much consideration (or not been exposed to) the range of opinions wikipedia must reflect. Non-muslims, for example, do not generally consider Muhammad to have been a prophet, as per your comments on Zora's talk page.

Similarly, non-Muslims do not use "martyred" in this way. By saying he was martyred, you say he died for God. Okay, perhaps. I am no defender of the Umayyads. But it's POV, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. I suggest you take some time reading through articles about other religions, and other articles about Islam, to see the measure of neutrality and distance we're expected to apply.Timothy Usher 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The argument for not using the word 'martyr' or 'martyrdom' is flawed. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines martyrdom as "the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith". I think everyone agrees that this person was killed because of his beliefs. Therefore, the usage of the word martyrdom seems accurate. The argument that using the word martyrdom implies being in killed for God, therefore is biased, is irrelevant. The word martyrdom is a much more accurate word to use because of its definition - even if it goes against preconceived notions about the words connotations. --aliasad 04:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can not change the way ignorant think. But as far as the Shi’a section is concerned of this article. Shi’a people believe that Imam Hussain AS and his 72 companions were martyred not killed. Right cuz that’s what Shi’a community believes right, so I guess that if I put that Imam Hussain and his 72 companions were martyred in the battle of Karbala, then no one is going to have any problem with it right, regardless if they are Sunnis (even Sunni people say that he was martyred, even they consider Yazid as there Caliph), and non-Muslims. And as far as the sayings of Imam Hussain AS’s are concerned, I accept the fact that I copied it from another website but I also refereed the section to the website I go it from. I didn’t take the credit of writing the sayings I gave it to the website I got it from. Thank You Salman

Well, some martyrs are not for anybody: there are "conflicting martyrs", people that is a martyr for somebody and an enemy for some others. I believe that martyrdom meaning is clear: to be killed only (or mainly) for your religious beliefs. I believe that as the article on Martyr explicitely states, Husayn bin Ali is "an archetypal martyr for the Shi'a". Look how easily, by adding "for the Shia" you elliminate disputes about POV: you are accurately describing whom the man is a martyr for. --Ciroa 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Family Section of Hazrat Imam Hussain AS's article

I don’t understand whey Zora is providing an outside link for Bibi Shahrbanu, when wikipedia has an article for her already. And even the link is corrupted, I visited that link and there is nothing on that page for Bibi Shahrbanu. So I don’t know why Zora is adding the outside link for Bibi Shahrbanu in the family section of Hazrat Imam Hussain AS. And she is even misspelling the name of Bibi Shahrbanu father’s name, Zora spells it (Yazdjard III) but if you do research on the father of Bibi Shahrbanu, the correct way to spell his name is Yazdegerd III, and even wikipedia has an article on him. Whenever I try to fix these things Zora just keeps on reverting it. So I told Zora not to change the family section until the matter is discussed on the talk page. So I hope we are going to hear her side of story pretty soon. Thank You Salman

You're right -- the link isn't working. I don't know why. I have rewritten the Shahrbanu article, and will now add clarifying material to this article. Salman, we're willing to allow you to include your Shi'a versions of things, if they aren't stated as fact, but you mustn't remove critical material. Zora 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibi Shahrbanu VS a Myth

1. “Academics regard this story as a myth, intended to give a Persian heritage to the Shi'a Imams”. Now according to Zora’s sources, Bibi Shahrbanu is a myth. In other words a woman by that name did not exit, and a woman by that name did not marry Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. I told her that she can not say this unless she can provide us with some proof (a link to the website where she got the information from, or the name of the author, or the title of the book she got the information from). I also told her that I will take off the sentence that she wrote about Bibi Shahrbanu being a myth ACCORDING TO SOME HISTORIANS. And Zora what “critical material” are you talking about, can you please be clearer. Thank You (05/06/06)

2. Zora provided some statements, that she said proofs that Bibi Shahrbanu is a myth .But those three statements were saying that Bibi Shahrbanu was the daughter of Yazdgerd III, Bibi Shahrbanu married the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad SAW, and Bibi Shahrbanu was the mother of Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib AS. So I don’t know how these three statements prove that the wife of my 3rd Imam and the mother of my 4th Imam (Bibi Shahrbanu) was a myth. When the statements that she provided on the page, clearly states, that se was the wife (of the 3rd Imam of Shi’as), mother (of the 4th Imam of the Shi’as), and the grandmother of all the Shi’a Imams after Hazrat Imam Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib. So I told her that she will have to provide some statements that clearly states that according to her sources, Bibi Shahrbanu did not exit, as far as her connection is concerned with our Imams. Thank You (05/07/06) Salman

pic

Why is [[Image:Imam_Hussain.jpg|frame|right|Zarih-e-Imam Hussain]] not added? --Striver 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Any hint on the name-linked abbreviations? (RA, A.S., S.A.W)

Ay yi yi! This seems to be a contentious article all around, but I have a simple, naive question: What do all those abbreviations mean? (A.S.? S.A.W.?) I'm unfamiliar with them, would like to know what they stand for. Cheers,

timbo 02:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

S.A.W. means "salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam" or "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam", which means "Peace be upon him" or if you wish "May God bless him and grant him peace". This is called salawat. Is a phrase that Muslims are required to say after mentioning the name of the Islamic prophets such as Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Abraham and all the other prophets cited in the Qur'an.

Shia Muslims mention a similar salutation (aleyhi salaam - upon him be peace, I believe this is the A.S. of the text) after mentioning Ali ibn Abi Talib or one of the imams that followed Ali. Shia also uses this for Imams, particularly Ali: "Alayh wa 'ala Ahlehi-es-salat-u wa-s-Salam", meaning: "Upon him and his family be the exaltations and peace of God". --Ciroa 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There is also a modern political figure named Husayn ibn Ali. Should this page be moved to Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, and replaced with a disambiguation page? Actually, the title of the article for the modern person is Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, but the article internally refers to him more often as Hussein ibn Ali, and Hussein vs. Husayn is just a different way of transliterating Arabic as far as I know. It is currently difficult to find the modern Hussein ibn Ali, if you don't know he was the Sharif of Mecca. Morngnstar 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it should be renamed to: Husayn

• Support per Ali, Umar, Muhammad, Uthman and all other prominent early Muslims. Say "Husayn" and everybody thinks of this person.--Striver - talk 04:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Say "Husayn" and I think you're misspelling Hussein. So not everybody thinks of this Husayn when you say "Husayn". Besides, using the more descriptive name doesn't hurt, does it? I mean, "everybody" knows who you mean when you say "Hillary", but that's no reason to move an article. :) However, I really don't know anything about Islamic history, so if a lot of scholars weigh in supporting the move, I won't object. Just piping up with the layman's perspective. --Quuxplusone 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Quuxplusone. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Correct Spelling Of Husayn is Hussain

i think correct spelling of "Husayn" is "Hussain".if any one have any thing to say ,beacuse i will make changes with Spelling Hussain.

Khalidkhoso 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google to check but it confirmed my memory -- in western English it's usually "Hussein". I noticed that in South Asia, it's often "Hussain" but it's rarely "Husayn" in any usage.

Unless I'm confused! It's all the same name, right? "Hussein" vs. Hussain" vs. "Husayn"?

In any regard, it should be consistent in the article. --Calan 05:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of Husain in Arabic language
First: In Arabic, if anyone would speak of Husain ibn Ali they would say it "al-Husain" in Arabic, although Husain is an arabic name by itself, "al-Husain" is only used to refer to Husain ibn Ali. Second: The Name Husain in arabic is not written with the "Shadda" mark. "Shadda" mark in the arabic language is used to give the double letter pronounciaton insted of using the same letter twice. The "Shadda" mark looks like the number 3 in english, but it is lying on its back and is written over the letter. So, "Husain" is the correct way to write it and not with the double "S". comment added by: EmJay911 on 07/2/2007

The cprrect spelling is HUSSEIN not HUSSAIN.

Martyrdom details?

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that he was beheaded at the Battle of Karbala? The only reference is in the burial section: "Most accounts say that his head was later retrieved and interred with his body...." Actually, the Battle of Karbala section doesn't even mention that he was martyred there. That would seem to be important, no?

Joeknize 03:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias, Unprofessionalism

Read the last paragraph of the Battle of Karbala. I assume this needs correction/deletion. I'll leave that for someone better educated of the Battle than myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.8.89.251 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think you'd need to be a specialist to see that this sentence was completely biased. It struck me as soon as I read it. Also, even had what it said been an undisputed fact, here was not the correct place in the article to state it. Lastly, the sentence was full of typos. For all those reasons, I took the freedom to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.192.140 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed biased paras, added historical facts

I've just edited this article, removed extreme opinions (both for and against) and added some history that was missed out. Will soon cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhair naqvi (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting

This article was too weak and violated copyright as well as WP rules. Therefor I rewrote it.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV

There is a lot here that doesn't seem neutral to me. Beautiful, noble, and right maybe, but not neutral in an encyclopedic fashion. For example...

It thus becomes clear that the objective of Husayn's campaign was not caliphate. It was the honor of prophet Mohammad which he stood for.

I don't want to remove it myself. I'd really prefer if someone were able to rewrite this in a neutral way, as I cannot consider myself wholly detached and neutral on this issue. Peter Deer (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is hopeless. It's a shia hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. Giordaano (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather defeatist attitude. It can certainly be cleaned up. Peter Deer (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite that part and removed that sentence.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed instances of "Peace be upon him" and the like because it's stupid and unnecessary. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is an awful article. Someone intelligent and well educated needs to rewrite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.42.226 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Books on Imam Hussain

I moved irrelevant information to here--Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Qateel-e-Nainavah A Comprehensive Treatise about Karbala Based on Rational Argument

Qateel-e-Nainavah, is a unique and a rare document, being a comprehensive and a detailed account of the life of Sayyad-u-Shuhada, Hazrat Imam Hussain (AS), right from his birth to his martyrdom. What sets the work apart is that it not only depicts the blessed life of Imam Hussain and the complete history of Karbala in Urdu but together with the philosophy of the martyrdom, unmasks the wickedness of the Umayyads, particularly Yazeed, giving a detailed reply to objections and questions related to the Hussaini revolution. It is not a mere recounting of the events of Karbala, but it forcefully refutes the concocted writings and misleading speeches of the present day acolytes of Yazid, Ibn-e-Ziyad, Umar-e-Sa’ad, and Shimr. By scripting a devastating reply to objections being raised, and the lies being purveyed, about the events of Karbala, the late Maulana has produced a masterpiece of 'jehad with the pen' by his bold and courageous scholarship, one that is a dangling sword over the heads of the Yazids of today.

All these topics had not been brought together in a single volume till date, therefore Qateel-e-Nainavah meets all requirements and demands of present-day scholarship, and is a complete and a comprehensive historical document.

Shia POV concerns

The Shia are notorious for forging hadiths, making things up, passing along innovations and mixing in legends and outright lies and treating it like factual information. We must combat their efforts to put a Shia spin on every article relating to Ali, Hussein, Hassan (r.a) and so on. Therefore, check the citations they provide, and research the author and context. Many times you will find that it is nothing more than conjecture by one of their so called imams. This entire article reeks of being from a Shia point of view. I clicked on it, and without any prior knowledge of who wrote/edited it, I could tell just by the tone that it has been glossed over by the Shia. It is a joke that they add "Shia point of view" to the article, because the entire thing is a Shia point of view. I propose splitting the entire article up into two major sections, Shia view and Sunni view, so that people can get the facts from us normal Muslims, and the Shia wont constantly vandalize the article (hopefully).

HolyMuslimWarrior (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about how you express your concerns. If you feel the article gives undue weight to the Shia viewpoint, that is okay. It is not okay to say that "Shia are notorious for...making things up", characterizing Sunnis as "us normal Muslims," etc.

Splitting every Islam-related article into a Shia view and Sunni view is thoroughly impractical, not to mention that it goes firmly against the spirit of consensus and neutrality. Where there are diverging viewpoints, this should be clearly explained, but the majority of the article should cover the topic as accurately and with as much historical veracity as possible.

Do you have specific concerns about Shia bias in this article? I have to admit, I know nothing about the subject. If you could point me to sentences that you feel are biased, maybe we can figure it out? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say I agree with the Shia school of thought and object to the incredibly biased statements made above, but nonetheless I will agree that there is much of this section that is biased in favor of a Shia viewpoint. Take, for example, certain parts such as "It thus becomes clear that the objective of Husayn's campaign was not caliphate. It was the honor of prophet Mohammad which he stood for." or "Secondly, Mu'awiyah and his aides made use of every possible means to put aside and move out of the way the Household of the Prophet and the lovers of Imam Ali and his sons and thus obliterate the name of Ali and his family" stated as fact rather than attributed. There's a lot of other examples, some subtle, some not. The whole article really needs an overhaul with some good historical sources, but of course the zealously disputed nature of the article's subject combined with its importance and being very well known in the east (and sadly not so much in the west) means that the article receives regular abuse and POV editing while not receiving the maintenance and care it requires. It could do with some copyediting and wikification too. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Battle of Karbala" :
  • {{cite encyclopedia | title=Battle of Karbala | encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Britannica Online | accessdate=2007-10-13|url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9044710/Battle-of-Karbala}}
  • [http://www.al-islam.org/history/history/marsiyya.html Battle of Karbala]

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed a huge block of presumably copyrighted text

I took out a huge block of text that would seem to be a complete, verbatim reposting of an article from the Daily News of Karachi. This would have represented a rather blatant breach of the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy, and so it needed to be removed. If whomever added the material happened to be the author or other copyright owner (as is sometimes the case when things like this happen), he or she should refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Dynaflow babble 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The black and blue mess bothers my eyes; too many links. This problem isn't unique to this article, but it certainly is pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.10.188 (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Mukhtar ibn Abi Ubayd al Thaqafi

can we please have a section for this man he avenged karbala inshallah--94.193.42.11 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture of Hazrat Hussain should be removed its not appropriate

In Islam it is wrong to show pictures of religious people.Talalqazi (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to configure your browser to not display images, but Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it illegal under the laws of Florida to show pictures of religious people. It is already established consensus that images of Muhammad are acceptable for display; see Talk:Muhammad/images. By extension, images of other religious people may be shown. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war: Hindu sub-section and martyrdom of Hindus

Recent edits by 94.182.151.151:

• Edit diff #1 Re. changing countries mentioned
• Edit diff #2 Re. blanking of Hindus section

From my talk page:

IP: "There has been no indian martyred with Housyn ibn Ali in Karbala. This is pure a fabrication. the names of all of those who were killed is known and is available for research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.151.151 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)"

IP: "neither India nor Pakistan are a shia majarity country Azerbijan and Lebanon are much better examples of Shia dedication —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.151.151 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)"

If you have a valid point, all you have to do is go to the article and click on the "Discussion" tab. Then discuss the matter with other editors, rather than simply deleting the text without giving any indication as to why you object to the content. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IP: "No indians were martyred with Housyn ,this is a lie. The names of all of those who were killed is available for research at the tomb of Zeynab in Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.151.151 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)"

Okay, I'll copy what you've said to the article talk page and see what others say. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss here. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference used in the article is:

• Defence Journal: Tribes and Turbulence

and presumably the bit of the source referred to is: "... Muhiyals are composed of seven clans; Datt, Vaid, Chibbar, Bali, Muhan, Lau and Bhimwal. Though small in numbers but all these clans have a rich military history. In India, they are also called ‘Hussaini Brahmins’ as Muhiyals proudly claim that though being non-Muslim, a small number of them fought in the battle of Karbala on the side of Hussain ..." Esowteric+Talk 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a Muslim and find some of the Christian "anectdotes as fact" disturbing. Phrases like "Muslims claim" or "Some Muslims claim" would go a long way to making this article secular/neutral. I'm a newcomer here and have read discussion pages on many Wiki articles. I know you all are constantly chasing your tails editing/reverse-editing/deleting/reinstating but at some point a "head editor" needs to step in and lock an article from vandalism. Currently the process appears unmanagible. For this article, it seems as if Sunni-Shia arguments by some contributors are over-riding academic rules. HammerFilms1 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)HammerFilms1

Karbala Shrine pictures

Can someone please kindly upload a picture of the inside of Hussein's shrine in Karbala, Iraq? There is one uploaded from Cairo and Damascus but not one from Karbala.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Ali Shariati

The traditional narration "Every day is Ashura and every land is Karbala!" is used by the Shi'ites to live their lives as Husayn did on Ashura with complete sacrifice for Allah and others. The saying also signifies what happened in Ashura on Karbala must always be remembered for there is suffering everywhere.

This "traditional narration" (everyday is Ashura, and every land is Karbala) is a quote from the works of Dr. Ali Shariati. Traditional would imply that this saying has existed for a long time, well, perhaps the concept has (that is, fighting for equality, justice, and dignity everyday of your life no matter where you are, much like the martyrdom and sacrifice of Imam Hussein in the name of justice, equality, and dignity) however this term originated in the works of Shariati some 3 decades ago, so I think it is misleading to say it is a traditional saying. And please cite and source where you got this quote from...

24.80.97.19 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)ditc