Jump to content

Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copyediting

I'm copy editing, just so you guys know. TerribleTy27 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Bishr used the world 'Muslim' as the Wahhabis referred to themselves, not feeling the need to distinguish themselves from other Muslims, since they did not believe them to be Muslims.

Ahem, is it word or world? TerribleTy27 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I found another confusing paragraph.

The report is accepted by Ibn Sanad and Raymond written soon after the attack

The entire Date of Attack section is kinda, seriously messed up. I suggest you improve that while I'm away.. TerribleTy27 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you TerribleTy27 for carrying the burden of copy editing the article. I think its 'word' not 'world'. I try to take care if the 'Date' section. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Why?

This article appears to have never been sourced, and it was created by a sockpuppet account which was banned four years ago. Is there any reason for this article to exist? MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

While the article is non-existant, it should cover a significant military attack and mass murder incident committed by the First Saudi State. It is important as well, as this incident could be considered a prequel to 9/11. I would say the incident is very well attested. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This prove the intent of Saudi state and Wahhabi / Salafi beliefs to terrorize anyone else, level any tomb to the ground (as what happened to Jannat_al-Baqi' Cemetery and Jannat_al-Mu'alla cemeteries), and kill the shia muslims who are considered heretics in their eyes. Icewizard (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Who the hell is Rousseau??

There's alot of mention of him as a primary source but no mention to who he is or what does he do. So for the time being I'm going to assume he is in fact Peter Rousseau, US Congressman for Pennsylvannia's 1st District and time traveller who wrote half the information in this article, until whichever knobhead who kept mentioning Rousseau clarifies who he is.

So I guess my next question is, what is a Pennsylvannian doing in Karbala? And is this why he shortened his name to 'Russo'?

You may find some clues here. --Mhhossein talk 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
With which it was the work of a minute to identify him (which should, indeed, have been done earlier). J S Ayer (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, someone got that already; he is linked at first mention. J S Ayer (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC about motive of the attack

The consensus is against the proposed change. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a quotation by Rousseau in this book saying "We have recently seen a horrible example of the Wahhabi's cruel fanaticism in the terrible fate of [the mosque of] Imam Hussain." Considering that, can "fanaticism" be mentioned as one of the motives for Wahhabi's attack to Karbala? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 14:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: In earlier pages, the author says: "Wahhabism led easily to fanaticism. The conviction that the Wahhabis' opponents were 'infidels' and 'polytheists' was seen as justifying their cruelty towards them. Fanaticism simultaneously united and disciplined the Wahhabis, inspiring them to military exploits and campaigns of conquest against the 'polytheists'." --Mhhossein talk 14:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Mhhossein's claims: statement is actually a personal opinion of the French orientalist Jean-Baptiste Rousseau calling the raid as an example of the Wahhabi's cruel fanatsicm. If someone called ot an example of "cruelty" would that make cruelty a motive? Was Rousseau there to witness what was the reason they decided to attack Karbala? "Fanatiscm is a very negative connotation and we don't use these kind of terms by ourselves. Also note that teh autho Alexei Vasilliev is not a real historian, but an Arabist and Africanist involved in study of Arab culture and African culture. He is not a scholar

Also please note that the paragraph "Wahhabism led easily to fanaticism. The conviction that the Wahhabis' opponents were 'infidels' and 'polytheists' was seen as justifying their cruelty towards them. Fanaticism simultaneously united and disciplined the Wahhabis, inspiring them to military exploits and campaigns of conquest against the 'polytheists'." itself doesn't mention the particulars of why they attacked Karbala. Also the following para clear states that Wahhabism was also used for military advantage by emirs: "An emir derived clear advantages from adopting Wahhabi teaching as his weapon. From a mere leader of raid upon his neighbours, he became a fighter of the 'purity of faith',while his enemies were 'the devil's servants', 'idolaters' and 'polytheists'." This clearly represents that the Sauds adopted Wahhabism as it gave them a propaganda advantage over their enemies. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for activism or to label someone as a fanatic. That is akin to calling someone a tyrant. 117.199.83.46 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • No You would need secondary sources that discuss Rousseau. He is a dated primary source, and it's WP:OR to use him as primary. The quote should not be included unless it has been discussed in secondary sources. What do secondary sources say about it? Seraphim System (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No For at least two reasons, firstly because a single opinion is not strong enough unless that opinion is the principal RS on a subject, secondly 'fanaticism' isn't a motive, it's a judgement on the degree of motivation and wholly uninformative. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No: I agree that we cannot rely on some opinion of a long-dead person who wasn't even there in the immediate vicinity to witness it's reasons or investigate. Normally in an attack, we will add reasons based on what the investigators divulge or what the perpetrators themselves admit, not based on opinions of someone involved. Word like "fanatisicm" isn't neutral and is insultive to use it for someone, it's like calling someone a tyrant and can be relative. And again it's just opinion of writers about Wahhabi ideology. Sorry but these so-called reasons cannot be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Was reading the article and came across the talk page. Frankly after seeing this I'm surprised someone will even consider adding fanatic/excessively religious that too on some person's view of the Wahhabis. Why don't we just call them religiously impaired? I'm sorry but this thing is way beyond any understanding. I don't know about others but I'm not incapable of understanding. This seems way too absurd. Cannot support it. TheMadBoy (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: Please note that Mhhossein has been involved in constant edit-warring and has shown "ownership behavior", acting however he wants. Diffs:

  • No 2 revert He adds back Islamic fundamentalism even though the source he used nowhere says that fundamentalism was the cause of the whole attack. Only that Wahhabis were fundamentalists and their ideology was based on it. This may have played a part in their destruction of shrines, but not necessarily the attack itself but it is OR to wonder about this old attack.
  • No 5 revert where he removed the template added by himself claiming "it will be added if other users think so" even though the issue of unbalanced nature of his edits was already raised.
  • Another revert, No 6 where he unilaterally removed the templates of POV and OR and not in source without waiting to finish discussion and completely prove himself correct without a doubt, just because he thinks it does.

He recently made another revert. This one is recent, and he's acting like the owner, deciding himself when consensus is established. This probably stems from User:Emir of Wikipedia's ambigious comment I do accept that the greater precision proves the point.

Emir's comment is probably in response to Mhhossein's false claim in his comment To be more precise, the sentence on the attacks starts with adverb "accordingly" which clearly implies that those actions were in accordance with those of followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and hence Ibn Taymiyya.

However I have already told Emir that Mhhossein has deliberately misrepresented the source: "Emir please note that what Mhossein is talking about is actually about destroying Sufi shrines not Karbala itself or why they sought to attack it. "Based the Arabian Penisula, the Wahhabis, as his followers called, accordingly destroyed many mosques, shrines and tombs on the peninsula that they believed to be dedicated to the memory of Sufi saints." It doesn't mention anything of why the whole raid was carried out. Only that the destruction of Sufi tombs and shrines was inspired by fundamentalism. However, the attack on Karbala was not just on a city and it didn't consist of just Shias as well. Nor there is any proof or statement that fundamentalism was the reason."

After having failed to prove himself correct through sources, Mhhossein is resorting to an RfC to impose his edit but still edit-warring. However, RfC doesn't make anything automatically correct nor they allow for wilfully violating rules. He must make efforts to address the points raised in the templates about his edits. 117.199.83.46 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

My comment about "fundamentalism" is in the above section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia I read it, but as expected it seems to stem out of mistaken belief, not properly reading and misrepresentation of sources. 61.1.82.149 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have gone through this and somewhat agree with the IP. The Wahhabi ideology was of course fundamental per the definition of fundamentalism, but we cannot base the motive on the attack on that. Neither the sources seem to offer anything about the reason of their attack. There are no first-hand accounts especially. As for fanaticism, that just appears too stupid to add. It's relative and is insultive. Also I see a lot of edit-warring going on here. I have added a note and removed the disputed motives until there is any consensus in this RfC. 3 users have been involved in a long-term edit-war. I suggest users to stop fighting. If an edit-war happens again, then I'll have this article locked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32: Three editors were involved and 2 of them agreed upon the fundamentalism per the reliable source cited. Can you explain why that source did not show that? Mhhossein talk 04:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have explained the reason for my opinion quite clearly above. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: You've apparently missed this edit of mine. --Mhhossein talk 14:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 I am not edit-warring nor interested in it. I have not tried to impose my version unlike Mhhossein. And by the way, he's only starting this RfC so he can have freedom to impose his version. 117.199.82.193 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP made a comment probably aimed at discrediting one of our most important dispute resolution methods, i.e RFC. How can one find "freedom to impose his version" by opening a RFC? This is why I believe that your full surface area writing style is disruptive. Please note that the RFC gathers broader viewpoints from random users! Mhhossein talk 19:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein You who keep calling me disruptive while edit-warring and reverting are blaming me? Yes you can impose your version. By claiming "consensus" you'll think you can add or do what you wanted instead of adressing the points as I mentioned. RfC is for dispute resolution, consensus is also a way for a compromise. But of course forget about that, you are becoming a disruptive editor yourself. 117.199.82.193 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh and I'm not discrediting the RfC, I'm only stating the truth of you specifically. Don't dare to make false accusations about something which I never even think of doing. 117.199.82.193 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit Mhhossein and read the source. But the word "accordingly" is used in reference to destruction of religious buildings, not their raid on Karbala which you imply.

Also IP, please read WP:3RR. Your claim cannot act as an excuse for edit-warring whether true or not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32: Note that the sentence uses "also" to say that besides "destruction of religious buildings" they attacked Karbala. According to the English grammar, attack is added to the previous examples because of the "also". Moreover there are other sources supporting the claim: "Ibn Taymiya spoke against innovation, saint worship and pilgrimages to shrines, which is called Bida. The followers of Sheikh Wahab would translate his words into action. In 1801 they sacked Karbala and destroyed Hussain's tomb..."
Another motivation is presented here, too. --Mhhossein talk 11:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
That is not what you originally said, when you said the sentence began with accordingly. But still, I can clearly see what the book is saying. Simply saying it uses "also" cannot be said to be the reason behind it, this is a mention of the attack. It needs to be detailed. Besides the same source you are using has Wahhabis destroying Hussain's tomb. Simply calling it fundamentalism for again destruction of shrines won't suffice and first-hand witnesses or accounts of the background are completely absent. But then again the author is not even a historian, look at it on About the Author part: [1]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how you ignored the first phrase, i.e. "sacked Karbala" and just noticed the second one, i.e. "destroyed Hussain's tomb," both of them being emboldened. Of course, we are not necessarily bound to historical works in this regard, simply because we are not reporting history! The historical aspect (what happened, when did it happen and how it happened and etc) is already discussed. --Mhhossein talk 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring? It is written there clearly and appears similar. Some tombs cannot be equated. And this is a historical incident over 215 years old, yes we are absolutely reporting history at every step in what we write. Now sorry if my view doesn't agree with yours, I have more important things to do then repeatedly go around this. In case the RfC doesn't solve anything, I advice dispute resolution. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey User:Mhhossein stop trying to influence other editors! You have already been trying to commit meatpuppetry by tryng to bring the editor Emir of Wikipedia to your side and calling me disruptive. You are acting like you are obsessed with this one single thing. I have never seen a person so obsessed as you with such a small thing. You don't care about facts, you only seem to care about what you want or think should be added. Stop treating this as your private project. And most of all stop your attempts at meatpuppetry or influencing others to get "votes". 117.199.84.101 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, ignoring your long comments containing accusations seems better to my eyes. Sorry IP! --Mhhossein talk 10:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein Sometimes you should read the comments. It contains the truth unlike your own typical accusations. 117.199.80.60 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"fundamentalism" probably needs a separate RFC. --Mhhossein talk 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein Since you don't like large comments, let me make it shorter for you. You started this for the motive. You never started this just for "fantasicm" even if your first para was about it. You cannot abuse and start an RFC over the same theme again and again so it can go the way you want. The users have clear as day given their opinion on both "fundamentalism" and "fanaticism", read them. If you don't agree with it, please respect it. 61.1.82.241 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but creating another one for the same thing might be considered disruptive and not dropping the stick as an RfC for the motives is already active. You two have given both of your sides for them. In the main body here both motives are discussed - fanaticism by Mhhossein, while the IP have listed fundamentalism as well as fanaticism. However, Mhhossein has already discussed fundamentalism in above sections. Also tampering with the issues which it was about and trying to claim a change in any manner might not be considered okay. You should consult the administrators and take advice over it if you still wish to start one. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32: The uninvolved editors commented on the RFC, focused on the fanaticism. I did not want to mix the two issues here. At most two two editors (me and Emir) are in favor of "fundamentalism" as motive and two (you and IP) think otherwise. It certainly needs to be opened in future to gather more views. --Mhhossein talk 10:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay if you want it Mhhossein, just advicing that you should consult admins before opening a new RfC. That's all I am saying. The title was clearly kept for the RfC as "motive", not just fanaticism as motive, and the IP also discussed it and he/she is a party to the dispute, even if 2 editors only discussed fanaticism. By the way, I'm temporarily removing part of my opinion about fundamentalism as others aren't talking about that. Do try to discuss it as it can clear up any confusion. I can help if you need it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I have shifted a few sections as they didn't really belong there and I was thinking of shifting them for some time. Hope you don't mind. I haven't changed the content of anyone's comments. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 It will be useless to fight with multiple people that too over a comment, so I'll let it go. But you are wrong about the RfC. User:Mhhossein cannot start another RfC. I already mentioned fundamentalism and certainly you editors seem to know if that. He's trying to do the same thing he did last time when the consensus didn't go in his favor. He started this RfC just so he could feel he had legitimacy for adding his version of edits. This is not right. He thinks only he is right and is trying another attempt after his previous ones have been unsuccessful. He's beating a dead horse and doesn't want to focus on anything else except his preferred version. 117.199.88.10 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32: I'm experienced enough having done more than 13000 edits. That shifting was a good move, thanks. --Mhhossein talk 04:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about your experience or your move, but the legality (Wiki legality anyway) of it. Any editor may have less knowledge on something. I am just advicing. It's better to be cautious. But anyway no problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry IP, but your comment doesn't make sense. While you may have discussed fundamentalism and the other party too in a previous section, he hasn't mentioned it in his RfC. I don't think he is disallowed even though he may have said motive in the title. If he is then we'll see. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32: Thanks for the advice, I understand what you say regarding the probability of having "less knowledge on something." --Mhhossein talk 10:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No civilian attack

Mhossein classifies this as a civil attack, but it's not like modern terror attacks. This was a military raid. As such classifying it as a "civil attack" is irrational. The Ottoman garrison fled, likely because they couldn't win and their hold was weak. But regardless that doesn't mean it isn't a military conflict. It fled because of the raid and the Wahhabis were prepeared to war. Also saying they met no resistsance at all is inaccurate, as there may have been civilians who fought back. This source [2] says they met almost no resistance, but not that therewas none. This is another OR. The military infoboc in no way should be changed and can not be treated in modern terms. 117.215.225.19 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you see above, you'll see that this infobox was based on a consensus between the editors. Btw, it was not a military confrontation where civilians may be unharmed as an aftermath. The community was their target as above sources said. --Mhhossein talk 18:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein I can see above and it's 2 or 3 (counting the suggestion) editors. Also your langauhe seems to be very agressive, opwnly saying you'll revert though you yourself don't discuss. Regardless consesnsus doesn't authorize you to change the facts and do what you want. Which military conflict doesn't harm civilians? Many do. In many military conflicts, civilians have been harmed in the aftermath and the source doesn't suggest there was no resistance at all. This was a military confrontation even if the other side fled. 59.96.132.131 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I never said that civilians are not harmed as a result of the military conflicts! Please respect the consensus or to try to build another consensus. --Mhhossein talk 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Mhhossein I am keeping the infobox as civilian attack for now to avoid multiple disputes. What not respecting the consensus are you blaming me of? Though that isn't evena proper consensus, I only have changed it in the past but not anymore. So please don't accuse me of something I am not doing. Oh and I was referring to this statement: "Btw, it was not a military confrontation where civilians may be unharmed as an aftermath." There are many examples in which civilians have been harmed in the aftermath. Regardless the raid wasn't launched to conquer, just to plunder. Civilians killed in aftermath is against the facts as that would mean they did it after the end of the raid. This isn't like a conquest. You cannot change the article or the facts simply by claiming consensus. All information must be verified, tect that is unverified and contrary to the fact and sources cannot be added. 59.96.132.131 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wahhabi_sack_of_Karbala/Archive_1&oldid=1154048470"