Talk:Yazid I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject Islam / Shi'a Islam  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.

Yazid and history books[edit]

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

  • "Al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir" in his history book told us to make sure the story is correct, Because he did not, and because he give a stories from both Sunni and Shia view.
  • "Ibn Al-Athir" he copied "Al-Tabari" book in the first parts of his book.
  • "Abu Mikhnaf" he is a Shia historian, so, his idea express the Shia view of Yazid.
  • "Ibn Katheer" he said there is a lot incorrect stories about Yazid, He him self wrote some of it as if it was a true story!!
  • "Al-Dhahabi, Muhammad ibn Ahmad" he is Sunni historian, he wrote a lot about yazid as an opponent with-out prove, but in the same time he wrote two story about Yazid innocently with a way to prove it!!!!
    • Some historical events
    • Battle of Karbala:
      • according to Shia view: Husayn ibn Ali was killed by direct order from Yazid, but according to TRUE Sunni (after making sure everything is correct, as Al-Tabari said) view: Husayn ibn Ali asked was killed by order from Ubayd-Allah ibn Ziyad (with-out telling Yazid about Husayn coming or requests).
      • according to Shia view: Ubayd-Allah father's (Ziyad) was a friend of Ali (husayn father's). also, Shimr ibn Thil-Jawshan is a relative of the family of husayn bin Ali.
    • Battle of al-Harrah:
      • a lot of stories about this battle is incorrect.
      • number of dead according to one of the historian (Al-Waqidi) is 10,000 people, but according to another 3 historian more truthful it was only 306 people which they took from Al-Waqidi him self!! the most truthful number was the one mentioned by Malik ibn Anas which is 700, 4 of them are Sahabah.
    • Drinking:

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

    • His death:

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

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

Well you need need to edit the article to add these things, with citations to sources, quoting page numbers, and editions.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Sayom, should we all laugh now or wait till what you wrote starts to sound funny (?) You sound like a Saudi-Salafi influenced propagandist and pseudo-revisionist. You have stated that Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, and just about every renowned scholar of standard Islamic history as incorrect and not true. What proof have you provided that all these famed scholars are incorrect and have actually admitted that their information is incorrect. Some of these scholars have been read for well over a millennium by all Islamic academies. The scholars of the Umayyad Emirate and Caliphate of Spain corroborated so much of what was recorded during the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates. You are either the most deluded responder in this article's talk page, or one who is reading fairy tales and pure fiction...The kind written by that MEDICAL DOCTOR Shabbir Ahmed, or the obscure scholar Taqi Usmani. You forgot to include Bukhari and Muslim in your diatribe against renowned Islamic scholars. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah NEVER stood with Yazid, so I don't know where you get this information from. Ibn Ziyad was Yazid's FIRST COUSIN. Ibn Ziyad's father, Ziyad bin Abihi, was the illegitimate half-brother of Yazid's father Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan. Muawiyah appointed Ziyad bin Abihi Governor of Kufa and Basra. You sound like the Saudi-Salafi utterly false propagandists who are REINVENTING Umayyad history in standard Islam. You make the opening statement: To improve this article you should return to the old history books. Even the old books doesn't give you the correct story, ... So you aren't really sure what you are talking about, are you (?) And those old history books whom you have stated this article should return to were written by guess who: Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, Al-Baladhuri, Abu Mikhnaf, Ibn Khaldun, etc., etc... Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Flagrantedelicto, First: Salafi or not I don't care about such things. Second: I didn't say any scholar is incorrect, DO NOT LIE.
Third: I said they mentioned both Sunni-Shia view about Yazid. Al-Tabari in Introduction to his book said CLEARLY not all the stories he wrote in the book was a true stories. YOU said (corroborated so much of what was recorded), I say: Bring your sources.
  • Bukhari: mentioned the prophecy of the Prophet about Yazid.
    • Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his book "Grant of the Creator" said Yazid was the Army Commander.
  • Muslim: mentioned the rejection of Abdullah ibn Umar to stand Against Yazid.
  • Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi: also mentioned the rejection of Abdullah ibn Umar.
  • Ibn Katheer: mentioned the complete rejection of Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah in his history book.
  • Al-Dhahabi also mentioned that no one from (Ahl al-Bayt) stand Against Yazid in his book "The Lives of Noble Figures" (in battle of al-Harrah).
  • Ziyad WAS NOT Muawiyah brother, but he pretended to be Muawiyah brother (According to Muslim book, and Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim).
  • Yes Muawiyah appointed Ziyad as Governor, but he was Ali friend (Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei in his book "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition").
    An important thing, if you can't read Arabic books, do not insult others. there is two type of history books, the old one (like Al-Tabari history book) and new one (like Ali al-Sallabi history book), You should returned to the old one, and in the same time be sure the story is true.
    Be polite, don't insult people, and don't lie.__Sayom (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
First of all, you state be polite and don't insult. Then you accuse me of LYING. It is you who is LYING. Not only have you stated a plethora of bullet points without providing a single citation, you are quoting a KNOWN SAUDI-SALAFI PSEUDO-REVISIONIST, Ali al-Sallabi, as a source. Sallabi is a Libyan fundamentalist who has actively been involved in Libyan politics; his theological training was by Salafis in Saudi Arabia & Sudan. Ibn Ziyad was most certainly Muawiyah's illegitimate half-brother. Just about every scholarship of the Islamic world who has studied this history knows this...Except the frauds of the pseudo-revisionist movement of the Saudi-originated Salafi Ulama. You are quoting Sallabi, etc., etc., all of whom are the new breed of bought-and-paid for puppets of the Saudia-Salafiyya movement to re-write traditional Islamic history and distort all the original contents. How can pseudo-revisionists like Shabbir Ahmed, Sallabi, Zakir Naik, etc., provide the FACTS when they have NO MEDIEVAL CONTEMPORANEOUS sources to offer an alternative account of standard Islamic history. All modern scholars, whether Martin Lings, Madelung, Anne Marie Schimmel, Bernard Lewis, etc., orientalists of the Western world, as well as Eastern scholars like Maudoodi, Ameer Ali, Ali al-Haj Salmin, Abdur Rahman Shad, etc., have cited ALL the early and later medieval historians such as Ibn Ishaq, Abu Mikhnaf, Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al-Athir, Baladhuri, Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, etc., etc. Bukhari has been cited in his famous documentation of the two (2) narratives about what Prophet Muhammad stated about Caesar's City and The First Muslim Army to Naval Jihad ... In case you missed the direct citations to Bukhari's works.
Ziyad bin Abihi was a staunch enemy of Ali ibn Abi Talib and fought against Ali in the Battle of Siffeen. This is undeniable historical FACT. Stop LYING. The very people whom you mention: Al-Asqalani, Ibn Katheer, Al-Dhahabi, etc., have been cited and their famous works have been cited already in the article. You are falsely claiming things which these scholars have never written and have provided not one shred of evidence. All these books that have been cited are orginially Arabic material which have been translated into English and French. Don't try and pull any implied fraudulent nonsense about some WP editors not knowing Arabic. I know Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and English. Don't try to con anyone here on WP who are very well-versed with your false statements, please. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
you are the who shouldn't lie, I think you can't read all of these name ("Grant of the Creator", "Bukhari hadith book", "Muslim hadith book", "at-Tirmidhi hadith book", "The Lives of Noble Figures", "Al Minhaj bi Sharh Sahih Muslim").
"Ali al-Sallabi" wrote many history book (more than 10 books) about Islamic countries, and I said take from the old books not the new one.
about "Ziyad" he is "Ali's friend" according to the Shia view as I mentioned above (the source is Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei in his book "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition | a Shia scholar). He is not half-brother of Muawiyah,, he pretend to be,, "abo bakra" half brother of "Ziyad" was asked about what reason his half brother was pretending to be Muawiyah brother (the source is: "Muslim hadith book", "Abu Nu`aym: in his book about Sahabah (1038),, Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi: Al-'Awasim min al-Qawasim (after 1076)).
I did not mention Shabbir Ahmed, or Zakir Naik. "Ibn Ishaq" wrote about the Prophet. Abu Mikhnaf is Shia historian not Sunni so his idea about Shia only. Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al-Athi I mentioned them above. it's funny that you mentioned Baladhuri, he also mentioned a story about good relations between Yazid and Ahl al-Bayt.
about "Ziyad" he was with Ali, but after Ali died he went to Muawiyah (the source is: Al-Dhahabi in his book "The Lives of Noble Figures").
maybe you know Arabic language but you don't read anything.__Sayom (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
lol Now who is the one hurling insults. I haven't "lied" at all. It is you who are coming up with ridiculous stories, fallacies, and outright falsehood. All you are doing is mentioning all of these names and not providing anything to support your fiction. Abu Mikhnaf was not really a Shia historian as he was commissioned along with Ibn Ishaq by SUNNI Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur. Abu Mikhnaf just wrote favourably about the Hashimites and has been illogically labelled a "Shia" just because he was one of the first historians who covered the Battle of Karbala in Maqtal Husayn. Any mu'arikheen (chroniclers) or muhadditheen (narrators) who wrote the facts about the Hashimites and the Umayyads (the arch-rivals of the Hashimites even before the rise of Islam) are incorrectly considered as "Shia". And again, if Ziyad bin Abihi (literally, The Son of his Father, because he was illegitimate) was not Mu'awiyah's half-brother, which almost all the early Islamic sources documented that in fact he was, then why would Muawiyah have made him the governor of both Kufa and Basra while publicly proclaiming their fraternal kinship (!?) lol You are in never-never land. And stop saying that I am LYING. That is not very scholarly. Good relations between Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan and the Hashimites (!?) ROFL You need a very long vacation. Yazid's father Muawiyah (the youngest son of Abu Sufyan bin Harb and Henda bint Utbah) fought against Ali ibn Abi Talib in the Battle of Siffeen. Yazid's paternal grandfather Abu Sufyan and his wife Henda bint Utbah (Yazid's paternal grandmother) were the staunchest enemies of Islam and Prophet Muhammad prior to the annexation of Mecca by Prophet Muhammad and the Muslims. Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda had hired an assassin ex-slave(Wahshi) to murder Prophet Muhammad's paternal uncle Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib during the Battle of Jabal Uhud. Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda instructed Wahshi to cut out Hamzah's heart so she could drink the raw blood from it and chew on it. And Henda did just that, having spat it out after consuming a piece of it (cited by both Ibn Ishaq in Sirat Al Rasul Allah and Ibn Katheer in Al-Bid‘ayah wa n-Nihaayah 4/43); some later reproductions of the original literary works wrote that it was Hamzah's LIVER instead of his heart. However, Ibn ‘Abdu l-Barr states in his book Al-Istī‘āb that she cooked Hamzah's heart before eating it. This is known by every Muslim in the world who has even the most basic education of Islamic history. And yet, I have personally come across some members of the Salafi / Wahhabi Ulama who blatantly deny that this ever happened...When this is a fact so well known that even Syrian filmmaker Moustapha Akkad depicted this in his epic film The Message (Al-Risalah) in 1976; at the start of this film, Akkad acknowledged that what he depicted was in strict accordance with the Grand Authority of the Al-Azhar University of Cairo (A Shafai Sunnih Islamic Academy since the days of Saladin) and the Shiat Academy in Lebanon. The narrative of Hamzah's heart being cut out and its raw blood drunk by Yazid's paternal grandmother Henda bint Utbah is as famous throughout the Islamic world as is the narrative of Joan of Arc being burned at the stake or the assassination of Julius Caesar by the Roman senators. Shakespeare wrote his famous play on it: Julius Caesar. Now can you imagine if a fringe group of theocrats sprang up and claimed that neither was Joan of Arc burned to death, nor was Caesar really assassinated by the Roman senators, what do you think the mainstream reaction would be to this...? lol That is exactly what you are essentially propagating when calling serious Islamic scholars incorrect or not true...And saying that I am LYING...In Al-Dhahabi's Siyar Alam Al Nubala, what is stated about Yazid I has already been cited right to the page in this article. Anyone can look it up online. As for Al-Dhahabi, he was the scholar who coined the word NASIBI...Al-Dhahabi specifically coined this for those who opposed Ali and fought against him at Siffeen. Al-Dhahabi clearly wrote that Yazid bin Muawiyah was a NASIBI. If you deny this, you are utterly hopeless. Btw, the Ziyad who WAS Ali's friend was Ziyad an-Nakha'ai (father of Kumayl bin Ziyad), not Ziyad bin Abihi (aka bin Abu Sufyan al-Sakhr bin Harb al-Umawwi). Ziyad bin Abihi was never considered a friend by Ali at any time. Ali's relationship with Ziyad bin Abihi falls under the famous aphorism: Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer. I erroneously included Khoei with the names of the pro-Salafi scholars in an earlier response (which I have since deleted), when he was indeed a Shia. I got a little carried away with all the thoughts that I wanted to convey, that I lumped Khoei with the pro-Salafi scholars. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Btw, speaking of the SUNNI Persian(Iranian) scholar Al-Baladhuri, this is an excerpt of what he wrote regarding Mukhtar Al-Thaqafi and Ali ibn Al-Husayn Zayn Al-Abidin (Prophet Muhammad's great-grandson) and Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya:
Baladhuri writes in Ansab al-Ashraf (5th vol., p. 272) that, "Mukhtar wrote to Zayn al-Abidin to show his loyalty to him, asking if he could rally the Kufans for him. He sent with the letter a large sum of money. Zayn al-Abidin refused this offer and declared Mukhtar publicly to be a liar who was trying to exploit the cause of Ahl-al-Bait for his own interests."
Baladhuri (5th vol., p. 218) writes that, "Ibn al-Hanafiya gave Mukhtar only a non-committal reply. He neither approved nor disapproved of Mukhtar's intention to avenge Hussain, and only warned him against bloodshed."
Let's also analyze Baladhuri himself and his times (copy-pasted from an excerpt from the WP article on Baladhuri):
...he spent most of his life in Baghdad and enjoyed great influence at the court of the caliph al-Mutawakkil. He traveled in Syria and Iraq, compiling information for his major works. He lived at the court of the caliphs al-Mutawakkil and Al-Musta'in and was tutor to the son of al-Mutazz. He died in 892 as the result of a drug called baladhur (hence his name). (Baladhur is Semecarpus anacardium, known as the "marking nut"; medieval Arabic and Jewish writers describe it as a memory-enhancer)...A Persian by birth, though his sympathies seem to have been strongly with the Arabs, for Masudi refers to one of his works in which he rejects Baladhuri's condemnation of non-Arab nationalism Shu'ubiyya. (*)
-- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University.
-- Bos, Gerrit: " 'Baladhur' (Marking-Nut): A Popular Medieval Drug for Strengthening Memory", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 59, No. 2 (1996), pp. 229-236 (full-text via JSTOR; article's first page available for all).
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I was awaiting your anticipated response as to why Henda bint Utbah (paternal grandmother of Caliph Yazid I) had hired an ex-slave assassin named Wahshi to murder Prophet Muhammad’s paternal uncle Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi…But since you haven’t responded, I’ll take the initiative:
The Umayyads were the wealthiest of all the Meccan oligarchs, even though the ELECTED Emirs or leaders of all of Mecca were the Fahri-Hashimites, commencing with Qusay bin Kilab (who was elected as the first Emir of Mecca), followed by his son Abdu Manaf bin Qusay; followed by his son Hashim bin Abdu Manaf; followed by his son Shuaybah bin Hashim (aka Shaybatul Hamd; aka Abdul Muttalib); followed by his son Abu Talib bin Shuaybah (Abdul Muttalib). The Fahri-Hashimites enjoyed the social rank and prestige of Meccan leadership more than material wealth, whereas the Umayyads enjoyed material wealth more than the social rank and prestige of official Meccan leadership. The Fahri-Hashimites had a history of dynamic entrepreneurial leadership of Mecca. Qusay rallied the Meccans and established Mecca as a military force which was fully capable of protecting its pilgrimage-tourism economy and its trade and commerce caravan routes from raiding Bedouin tribes and brigands. Qusay’s grandson Hashim established trade and commerce rights with Byzantine Emperor Anastasius and the Coptic Negus of Axumite Ethiopia, as well as re-discovering the fabled Abrahamic freshwater spring well of Zam-Zam. Hashim’s son Shuaybah (Abdul Muttalib) rallied the Meccans during Ethiopian Yemenite viceroy Abrahah al-Ashram’s siege of Mecca, as well as having built the small port of Mecca named Al-Shuwaybah (later expanded, developed, and renamed Jeddah). Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim’s son Abu Talib was the earliest and most powerful supporter of his nephew Muhammad and his foundation of the monotheist religion of Islam. Consequentially, the Fahri-Hashimites had generations of pioneer leaders who greatly influenced the history Mecca, bringing Mecca great prosperity and prominence; the only exception being Emir Abu Talib, who was seen in an adverse light by the polytheist Meccan oligarchy because of his staunch support of his nephew Muhammad and his newly founded religion of Islam, which called for the abolition of polytheism and idolatry: Mecca’s economic backbone and jugular vein.
This was the root cause of the arch-rivalry between the Fahri-Hashimites and the Umayyads BEFORE Muhammad’s prohethood and the rise of Islam. Later, when the Hashimi and Muttalibi oligarchs were exiled from Mecca as outcasts (due to their conversion and support of Islam) by the rest of the Meccan oligarchy, the Umayyads gained social prominence in all of Mecca. The Umayyads eventually stepped into the leadership role in the staunch opposition to Muhammad’s prophethood and the rise of the monotheist religion of Islam. Fast-forwarding to the Battle of Aab Al-Badr (Wells of the Full Moon) in 624 CE between the Meccans and the Muslims of Madinah, the newly elected Emir of Mecca was Utbah bin Rabiah (Caliph Yazid I’s great-grandfather and the father of Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan’s mother Henda bint Utbah). Utbah was elected Emir immediately following the death of the previous Emir, Shaykh Abu Talib al-Hashimi. At the Battle of Badr, the customary Arabian battle rite to have the leaders (or champion warriors) of the opposing camps engage in one-on-one combat was observed. The Muslim camp had Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib, Ali ibn Abu Talib (Hamzah’s nephew), and Ubaydah bin al-Harith face off against Utbah bin Rabiah (Henda’s father and Muawiyah’s maternal grandfather), Utbah’s younger brother Shaibah bin Rabiah, and Utbah’s son Waleed bin Utbah (Henda’s brother and Muawiyah’s maternal uncle). Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib slew Utbah bin Rabiah, Ali ibn Abi Talib slew Waleed bin Utbah, and Ubaydah (sustaining a severe wound) slew Shaibah bin Rabiah; there is a variation of this engagement from one source which records that Ali slew Shaibah and Ubaydah faced off against Waleed. And so Henda bint Utbah (Caliph Yazid I’s paternal grandmother) lost her father, brother, and paternal uncle to two (2) members of the Fahri-Hashimites: Hamzah (Prophet Muhammad’s paternal uncle) and Ali (paternal first cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad). This took the longtime rivalry between the Hashimites and the Umayyads to a whole new level: Outright adversity and hostility. Even though Utbah bin Rabiah, his brother Shaibah, and Utbah's son Waleed were not Umayyads, Utbah's son-in-law Abu Sufyan bin Harb was the scion of the Umayyads. Abu Sufyan then became the elected Emir of Mecca after Utbah's death at the Battle of Badr.
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not up to you to consider someone a Shia or Sunni, only "Biographical evaluation scholars" can do this. and "Yahya ibn Ma'in" said he's not truthful | "Al-Dhahabi" said he's a bad historian, can't trust him | "Abu-Ahmed ibn Uday" said he's Shia scholar | "Abu-Jafar al aqili" mentioned him in his book "al-Du'afa' | Vulnerable".
  • Mu'awiyah is political and Ziyad is his enemy,, Naturally he would do nothing Ziyad, to gain his enemy by his side.
  • Mu'awiyah friend was from Ahl al-Bayt, Ali him self said "Don't hate Mu'awiyah command".
  • all what you said about Yazid grandfather and grandmother was before Islam. Yazid grandmother didn't hair an assassin (Wahshi), It was "Jubayr ibn Mut'im" who haired him (Wahshi said this, read the story again in Bukhari hadith book).
  • Good relations between Yazid family and Ahl al-Bayt is known, every year Mu'awiyah gave Hasan and Hussein a gift. "Ja'far ibn Abī Tālib" was both Mu'awiyah and Yazid friend. "Abd Allah ibn Abbas" said Mu'awiyah is "Faqih".
  • Ibn Ishaq book was lost YEARS ago, and "Ibn Katheer" in his book said "Jubayr ibn Mut'im" haired "Wahshi" to kill "Hamzah", and he didn't mention "Henda" (Al-Bid‘ayah wa n-Nihaayah, Part 5, P.363, Arabic version), and the story you mentioned is not true.
  • Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in his book mentioned 2 story about "Hamzah" death, non of them mentioned cooking Hamzah's heart, were you hungry when you wrote this?!
  • filmmaker and movies are not reasonable sources.
  • no Islamic scholar said his book is 100% true, In Islam world we have "Isnad" to make sure the story is true:
    • Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak said, “The isnad is from the religion; were it not for the isnad anyone could say anything they wanted.”
  • as I mentioned above, Al-Dhahabi wrote about Yazid as enemy, and in the same time he wrote 2 story about Yazid innocently.
  • Ziyad was Ali's friend, and he chose him to be Persia governor (Biography No. 4803 in "Biographies of Narrators of Tradition", Abu al-Qasim al-Khoei).

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

LOL...Exactly what I suspected and anticipated from the pseudo-revisionist POV pushing group. Total DENIAL and DISTORTION of long-established historical chronicles of Islamic history. All you do is go through a list of bullet points with nothing to substantiate it in terms of cited sources. Just empty refutations. There is only one reason for this: What is being taught in the education system of KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) is not exactly the same as what is being taught by the rest of the Islamic academia...Whether in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, etc., UNLESS of course where there is the Saudi-backed Salafi/Wahhabi missionary (dawah) presence. I must say one crucial thing about what is being published in KSA is that many of the publications of classical historical works by Islamic scholars Al-Bukhari and his pupil Muslim (both of who were Persian and not Arab), as well as many of the others such as Tabari, Baladhuri, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Dhahabi, etc., have been edited form their original surviving format along with interpretive footnotes which clearly distort the original works. That probably explains why there is so much confusion when supposedly citing the very same sources. Most unfortunately, because of this, anything published regarding standard Islamic history in KSA, has to be taken with a grain of salt and has to be very carefully compared to the very same works published in other Islamic countries for corroboration. This is no joke, but a most unfortunate, empirical fact.
Just a couple of brief clarifications:
-- Muawiyah gave a modest residual income to Prophet Muhammad's grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn because that was one of the conditions of al-Hasan abdicating the Caliphate.
-- You say Ibn Ishaq's work was lost years ago (!?) The original draft dated to 761 CE has not survived but faithful reprisals certainly have or today the Islamic world would never have had the Sunnah of Muhammad (which was derived from Ibn Ishaq's monumental biography). Likewise, at one point there were no less than SEVEN different versions of SAHIH AL-BUKHARI in existence (!) Bukhari himself was stated to have sifted through over 600,000 ahdadith/isnad before he settled on what he considered were probably sahih (authentic).
-- There were THREE men named Ziyad who were associated with Ali ibn Abi Talib in his tenure as Caliph of Islam: Ziyad bin Hufza, Ziyad bin Abu Sufyan (aka Abihi), and Ziyad Abu Kumayl an-Nakha'a ... Which one are you referring to (?) Also, Khoei is a Shia scholar of whom so many are just as POV driven as their Salafi/Wahhabi counterparts. In some aspects, Khoei is no more reliable than Sallabi.
-- Jafar ibn Abi Talib was friends with Muawiyah and Yazid (!?) LOL ... Jafar was killed in battle at Al-Mawta along with Zayd bin al-Harith in 629 CE. Yazid bin Muawiyah was born in 647 CE (!?) So was Jafar ibn Abi Talib friend to Yazid before or after he died in 629 CE (??) Also, Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (along with his two older brothers) was one of the members of his maternal uncle Waleed bin Utbah's Meccan hunting party during the Hijrah who were sworn to SLAY Prophet Muhammad (who sought refuge in the cave at Jabal Thawr).
-- Jubayr bin Mutim HAIRED Wahshi to kill Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib (!?) LOL (No comment on that one)...
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • about "Jafar ibn Abi Talib" I am wrong he's "Abdullah ibn Ja'far".
  • about "Ziyad" I mean "Ziyad bin Abihi".
  • We don't take Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad from Ibn Ishaq, we take it from hadith book. You need to know the difference between Sunnah and history.
  • they don't teach Yazid history in KSA schools history books.
  • "have been edited form their original surviving format", "This is no joke, but a most unfortunate, empirical fact." YOU ARE LIRE, STOP DOING THIS.
  • about Jubayr bin Mutim, Yes he is the one who haired Wahshi.
Stop accusing my country.__Sayom (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
lol...The earliest basis for the Sunnah of Muhammad was Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Al Rasul Allah ... Ahadith didn't come into prominence until the Caliphate of Mamun Al-Rashid and his inauguration of the Bayt Al Hikmah library (which was the very first standard Islamic academic library). You should know that ALL ahadith were RETROACTIVATED. There exist no contemporaneous Ahadith or any Islamic literature from Umayyad times and the earlier Rashidun Caliphate, with the exception of handwritten Kufic-scripted Qurans. Please look up the words CONTEMPORANEOUS and RETROACTIVATION in various English-language dictionaries so you have a clear idea of what I'm talking about. Again, just about everyone who has basic knowledge of early standard Islamic history knows that Henda bint Utbah HIRED Wahshi to slay Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib except of course you and your fellow deluded pseudo-revisionist brethren. And if they don't teach Yazid bin Muawiyah history in KSA, then why are you even discussing him here on WP...If what you say is true (of course it isn't because I myself have seen volumes of material on the Umayyads in KSA), then you must have minimal knowledge on Caliph Yazid I ... Which means you should end discussing Yazid bin Muawiyah. Unless you have somehow traced your family ancestry to him. Which would explain why you are desperately trying to reinvent his historical image.
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • by this comment, I can say you NEVER read a single Arabic book.
  • Hadith was wrote from the time of prophet, "'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As" is known for writing Hadith.
  • Ali wrote a paper about hadith.
  • "'Amr Ibn Hazm" had a book from the prophet.
  • Ibn Ishaq wrote about the history of prophet, not his Sunnah.
  • Did your country teach about history of America, history of great kingdom, Mayan history, Korean history, Japaness history, history of China, and every country history?
  • Jubayr bin Mutim haired Wahshi.
  • In my country they teach history of the first and fifth Umayyad caliph (in school).
  • a member of my tribe stood with Ali in the battle of Siffin. (Uwais Al-Qarni).
write about Yazid only, It's Yazid's talk page. An administrator should block you, for your bad talk.__Sayom (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL...Listen. It is quite evident what your agenda is. It did not take very long for you to reveal your POV pushing stance. As for standard Islamic Ahadith, I already stated for you to look up in a dictionary what CONTEMPORANEOUS and RETROACTIVATION mean. You obviously did not. Ahadith = Narrations. The New Testament of the Bible are also Ahadith...Nasrani or Christian Ahadith. Hadith is a narration. Muhaddith = Narrator. I repeat, from a purely archeological and epigraphical study, there are no contemporaneous Ahadith of standard Islam before the Abbasid Caliphate. NO CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature has been found or has survived from the times of the Rashidun Caliphate or the first Umayyad Dynasty or Caliphate (with the exception of Kufic-scripted Qur'ans). Any archaeologist who has a degree in Near Eastern / Islamic studies can tell you this. Again, all serious scholars of standard Islamic history are well aware that the initial physical, written documentation of the Sunnah of Muhammad derived from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Al Rasul Allah. If you don't know this, you are really deluded and lost and are at an academic level which is yet to be determined.
You state that an Amr Ibn Hazm had a BOOK from the Prophet [Muhammad] himself (!?) Are you aware that the Qur'an and virtually the ENTIRE Islamic world has stated that Muhammad was an UMMI or OMMI (!?) This Arabic word literally means UNLETTERED. The entire miracle of the Qur'an (from a theological perspective) is that it was revealed to an UNLETTERED man from Mecca: MUHAMMAD. And you are here on this talk page stating that this Amr Ibn Hazm had a BOOK FROM THE PROPHET [Muhammad] (!?) LOL
I am very glad that you have provided the very opportunity for everyone to observe what the POV driven, pseudo-revisionist movement teaches in its utterly fabricated doctrines. Your responses clearly illustrate this disturbing increase in mainstream SUNNI Islam being methodically and systematically encroached (even psychologically sabotaged) by this utterly false POV driven, pseudo-revisionism of which I have already identified by name in earlier posts. Now everyone can see its effects from one of its utterly deluded proponents and advocate. Nonetheless, I am not calling on WP admin to block you or your POV fabrications. You have the right of free thought and speech, just as much as I or anyone else who posts on WP. Maybe censorship or thought control and thought policing are the norm where you come from or reside, but it is not the democratic, civilized way. Also, this discussion allows mainstream SUNNIS, of whom so many have been the unfortunate recipients of this POV brainwash, can openly observe this POV driven, PSEUDO-REVISIONISM in action right here in this talk page. If your POV driven, pseudo-revisionist views cannot be imposed or are challenged, then you call for the administration to BLOCK other viewpoints or perspectives. Typical of the POV driven, pseudo-revisionists. That is not how things are supposed to work in a democratic society which values freedom of thought and speech.
Once again: Henda bint Utbah HIRED Wahshi to murder Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi. This Jubayr bin Mutim no more "haired" Wahshi, than did this Amr bin Hazm (??) have a BOOK from the Prophet [Muhammad]...LOL
You really need to end this discussion from your end as your credibility is dropping to the bottom of the thermostat. I cannot believe you have authored some of the utter fabrications here on this talk page in the Arabic language Wikipedia...I really feel very sorry for the Arabic speaking readers who are presented with this POV false information of standard Islamic history.
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nasrani or Christian Ahadith"!! Hadith is: anything prophet Muhammad said or did, NOT Jesus and his student.
  • "there are no contemporaneous Ahadith of standard Islam before the Abbasid" all I can say to you since you refused to believe the true history is: "Omar son of Abdul-Aziz" is the first one who order to write Hadith record, but he's not the first to write. before "Ibn Ishaq" there were Sahabah and other scholars.
  • Yes "Amr Ibn Hazm" had a book from the prophet, Did I say the prophet him self wrote it by his own hand? No, so stop lying on me.
  • Jubayr bin Mutim haired Wahshi.
  • I don't care about the rest of your words, since you deserve to be blocked fot it.
  • Arabic Wikipedia readers can read Arabic language without lying about if they can or no.
  • We were speaking about Yazid, then you changed the talk to Yazid family, then to the relation between his family and "Ahl al-Bayt", then you changed to Ziyad ibn abihi, then you spoke badly about my country, then you mentioned The New Testament!! Can't You focus on Yazid only?!__Sayom (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL...The Arabic word Hadith (Ahadith plural) literally means NARRATION (Narrations plural). The word hadith is even mentioned in the Qur'an when Allah (swt) relates a hadith. Consequently, the Arabic word Hadith is not just institutionalized exclusively for Prophet Muhammad. Any NARRATION = HADITH...In any language. You have missed this point entirely. The Apostles of Christ and/or the NARRATORS of the New Testament: Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew, etc., are both essentially and technically NARRATING Ahadith (Narrations or Narratives).
You cannot seem to get into your thought process that there exist NO SURVIVING or CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature (with the exception of Kufic-scripted Qur'ans) from the time of the Rashidun Caliphate and the first Umayyad Dynasty of Caliphs. All the material regarding Isnad (literally: Links, as in chains of transmission or citations) or Ahadith (literally: Narrations) were first documented or appeared as WT (Written Tradition) by the Abbasid Caliphate (commissioned by 2nd Abbasid SUNNI Caliph Al-Mansur from circa 754 CE). However, the bulk of the early DOCUMENTED literature (not alleged oral traditions) occurred during the tenure of 7th Abbasid SUNNI Caliph Al-Mamun (813-833 CE); when the very first standard Islamic academic library was founded: Bayt Al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom). All the Ahadith & Isnad were consequently RETROACTIVATED. In other words, they were ATTRIBUTED to the days of Prophet Muhammad, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the first Umayyad Dynasty. There exist NO CONTEMPORANEOUS standard Islamic literature (with the exception of Kufic-scripted handwritten Qur'ans) from a SCIENTIFIC (eg., Archaeological and Epigraphical) position from Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the first Umayyad Dynasty of Caliphs.
And what is this BOOK from the Prophet which Amr bin Hazm supposedly have FROM the Prophet [Muhammad] (??) The ONLY book Muhammad of Mecca (from a theological position) received and presented to the world was Al-QUR'AN (literally: The RECITATION). No one knows of any other BOOK (KITAB) which Prophet Muhammad presented to anybody...LOL This could be considered SHIRK (Association) when a claim is made that Prophet Muhammad brought to the world any other BOOK (KITAB) other than the QUR'AN. And even the QUR'AN was in ORAL TRANSMISSION. It was not known to have been COMPILED in WRITTEN FORMAT during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime. No historiographical or epigraphical EVIDENCE of this has ever been produced in Qur'anic Archaeology.
And as for focusing on Caliph Yazid I...You first stated that he was befriended by Jafar ibn Abi Talib (who died in 629 CE) while Caliph Yazid I was born in 647 CE. Then you change it to Abdullah Ibn Jafar...You see it is increasingly difficult to uphold any kind of coherent discussion or debate with you when you have made such unsubstantiated claims (without any proper citations).
And once again for your edification: Henda bint Utbah HIRED (not "haired") Wahshi to murder Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib al-Hashimi...This eventually has to sink in to your consciousness sometime in your lifetime.
Flagrantedelicto (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Change my mind about what (?) You really can't expect someone to change their mind about historical facts in favour of fiction which you are advocating...
It would be rather difficult to bring Husayn (from Jannah) or Yazid (from Jehannum). And even in a figurative, analogous context, such a statement by you (from a purely Islamist theological perspective) could be considered blasphemous to some Muslims. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope you can fathom the sheer magnitude of what you have stated (TWICE no less) in this WP talk page about this Amr bin Hazm having a BOOK (KITAB) FROM the Prophet [Muhammad]. You further qualified it by stating that the Prophet [Muhammad] did not himself write it with his own hand...This IMPLIES that it was possibly a revealed BOOK (Kitab). You did not state that the Prophet [Muhammad] gave Amr bin Hazm a book or handed Amr bin Hazm a book,, but that Amr bin Hazm HAD a book (kitab) from the Prophet [Muhammad]. You also did not attribute the authorship of this BOOK (Kitab) to anyone else other than the Prophet [Muhammad]. Finally, you also did not identify this particular BOOK (Kitab) as the QUR'AN (Recitation). Flagrantedelicto (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Since Sahih Bukhari was mentioned a couple times earlier in this discussion, I was curious as to whom the following Hadith from Bukhari Volume 9 - Book 88 (Afflictions and the End of the World) was in implicit reference to...Obviously it explicitly states the NAJD and perhaps whatever originated from there --
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The People said, "And also on our Najd." He said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet said, "There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan." Flagrantedelicto (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
lol...Let me elucidate on why Jubayr bin Mutim couldn't possibly have "haired" Wahshi...It is because Wahshi was already OWNED by Jubayr bin Mutim. Jubayr bin Mutim was a staunch anti-Muslim colleague of Abu Sufyan (who had become the Emir of Mecca following the death of his father-in-law Utbah bin Rabiah in the Battle of Badr). Jubayr's father Mutim bin Adiyy was also one of the slain shaykhs at Badr. Wahshi was well-known in Mecca and Taif as an expert spear-thrower. Through her husband Abu Sufyan's influence as the new Emir of Mecca, Henda bint Utbah procured Wahshi's services as an assassin, promising his freedom from being Jubayr bin Mutim's slave if Wahshi did her bidding. Henda bint Utbah asked him to kill one of the three persons (Muhammad, Ali, or Hamzah, but especially Hamzah) so that she might avenge her father Utbah bin Rabiah's death. The Ethiopian warrior said in reply: "I cannot approach Muhammad at all, because his companions are nearer to him than anyone else. Ali too is extraordinarily vigilant in the battlefield. However, Hamzah is so furious that, while fighting, he does not pay any attention to any other side and it is possible that I may be able to make him fall by some trick or by taking him unawares". Henda was contented with this and promised that if he was successful in performing the job she would set him free. Wahshi, the slave, says: "On the Day of Uhud I was pursuing Hamzah. He was attacking the centre of the army like a ferocious lion. He killed every one whom he could approach. I hid myself behind the trees and stones, so that he could not see me. He was too busy in fighting. I came out of ambush. Being an Ethiopian, I used to throw my weapon like them (i.e. like the Ethiopians) and it seldom missed the target. I, therefore, threw my javelin towards him from a specific distance after moving it in a particular manner. The weapon fell on his flank and came out from between his two legs. He wanted to attack me but severe pain prevented him from doing so. He remained in the same condition till his soul departed from his body. Then I approached him very carefully and having taken out my weapon from his body returned to the army of Quraysh and waited for my freedom. In the battle of Uhud the Muslims were defeated. After their rout, Henda and the other harpies (i.e., women) she had brought with her from Mecca, mutilated the bodies of the slain Muslims. Henda cut open Hamzah's abdomen, plucked out his liver and chewed it up. [Muhammad ibn Umar Waqidi, the historian, says that she made a fire in the battlefield, roasted Hamzah's heart and liver and ate them. Not satisfied with this, she cut the limbs, the ears and the nose of Hamzah, strung them into a "necklace," and entered Mecca wearing it as a "trophy" of victory.] Muhammad was deeply aggrieved at the death and at the mutilation of the body of such a stalwart of Islam as Hamzah. He bestowed upon him the titles of the "Lion of God," and the "Chief of the Martyrs." After the Battle of Uhud, I continued to live in Mecca for quite a long time until the Muslims conquered Mecca. I then ran away to Ta'if, but soon Islam reach that area as well. I heard that however grave the crime of a person might be, the Prophet forgave him. I, therefore, reached the Prophet with Shahadatayn on my lips (i.e., I testify that there is no god but Allah and I also testify that Muhammad is His Prophet). The Prophet saw me and said "Are you the same Wahshi, an Ethiopian?" I replied in the affirmative. Thereupon he said: "How did you kill Hamzah?" I gave an account of the matter. The Prophet was moved and said: "I should not see your face until you are alive, because the heart-rending calamity fell upon my uncle at your hands". It was the same great spirit of the Prophet of Islam which made him set this man free although he could execute him on many grounds." Wahshi says: "So long as the Prophet was alive I kept myself hidden from him. After his death the battle with Musaylimah al-Kazzab (the Liar) took place. I joined the army of Islam and used the same weapon against Musaylimah and succeeded in killing him with the help of one of the Ansar. If I killed the best of men (i.e., Hamzah) with this weapon, the worst man, too, did not escape its horror". The participation of Wahshi in the battle against Musaylimah is something which he himself claims, but Abdul Malik lbn Hisham says: "During the last days of his life Wahshi was like a black crow who was always hated by Muslims on account of his being a drunkard and was punished twice on account of drinking wine. On account of his indecent actions his name was struck off the army records and Umar bin Khattab used to say: "The murderer of Hamzah does not deserve to be pardoned in the other world." Just some brief analysis on the above: Al-Waqidi (748-822 CE) was no obscure historian but a court judge (qadi) for the Abbasid SUNNI Caliphs Harun al-Rashid and his son Mamun al-Rashid. Al-Waqidi is widely cited by Western/Occidental orientalist historians (eg., Martin Lings), but discredited by Wahhabi/Salafi ulama (clerics). It is quite possible that for artistic or dramatic license, Waqidi's account of Henda bint Utbah's actions in the Battle of Jabal Uhud (taken from Ibn Ishaq's Sirah) was exaggerated. However, Ibn Hisham's account is generally regarded as more accurate. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 11:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If you put half the effort that you put into these walls of text into making properly cited additions to the article, the article would be very much better.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
True. However, these walls of text are in relation to a particular point which represent the comprehensive picture. Sayom kept harping over and over again that Jubayr bin Mutim "haired" Wahshi without elaborating upon it. However, I just couldn't resist entering this info into the discussion. I think that is about all I wanted to add to this debate. The whole idea of the WP Talk Page is to iron out the differences between opinions or perspectives BEFORE whatever finalized info is included in the article. Flagrantedelicto (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

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

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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

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

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

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


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

Removing Prophecy section[edit]

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