Talk:Husayn ibn Ali/Archive 1

Intial text
Hasan's role on this page does not agree with what is at Husain.--iFaqeer 20:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

His head is not really buried in Egypt...

Added Arabic script in article, removing Arabic from talk page. --Skoosh 03:52, 19 August 2005 (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)

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)

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)

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 --Salman (|talk) 01:56, 7 May 2006

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 --Salman (|talk) 16:17, 7 May 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)

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.

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)

pic
Why is not added? --Striver 14:41, 11 June 2006 (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)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

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. Patstuarttalk 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 :) DumZiBoT (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Battle of Karbala" :
 * Battle of Karbala
 * Battle of Karbala

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)

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)

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)

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 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 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)

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: 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)
 * Defence Journal: Tribes and Turbulence

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

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. Bongo  matic  10:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


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

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

Martyr of Martyrs
The article now claims that Husayn ibn Ali "is recognized as the 'Martyr Of Martyrs' by both Sunni and Shia". I've added a [citation needed] tag as the only reference I can find is "Jihad in Islamic history: doctrines and practice" by Michael David Bonner that says "Martys of Martyrs (shahid al-shuhada)" is a Shia thing.

Can someone help clarify that this is indeed also a Sunni title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elethiomel (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

remove pictures
I think the pictures should be removed. It is not allowed in Islam to display pictures. I understand that when the Blessed Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) entered the Kaaba during the Conquest of Mecca, he saw images of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh). He then had it removed. So I think its just as appropriate to remove any pictures of Imam Ali and other Sahaba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.168.236 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2010

new changes done by 46.64.93.68
First of all, let me kindly ask everyone to have a user ID so that we can talk and be responsible for the contributions we make. Other than that, I have a few concerns about some changes recently made and I will go over them one by one: 1. The section "The Sheite Treachery against Zayd ibn ‘ Alî ibn Hussain" does not belong to this article. (and let me not get started on NPOV and other violations.) I will go ahead and remove it. You can of course create a separate article for that material.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This article Hussein ibn Ali has multiple issues
I have placed a tag on the article because it contained a abundance of issues which need to be discussed and need citation and authentic references.Ashurnasirpal 05:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

Husayn's head
Hussain Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib was martyred, as we all know, in the Battle Of Karbala. The Syrian books you are talking about are copletely out of my knowledge but my knowledge says that Caliph Yazeed did not even join the battle. He was back in Baghdad where he settled himself to spread Islam. And when Hussain's head was brought in front of Yazeed, the Caliph started throwing tantrums and hurt himself by torturing himself with the slappings on his forehead and chest, which the Shiites follow nowadays. It was Yazeed who started this, which became a ritual exercised on every Muharram! Zeeshan--Zeeshan 21:22, 6 January 2011 (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)

According to all Shia and some Sunni scholars, Zeinab, Imam Hussain's sister was able to retrieve his head from Dimascus and return it to his burial place in Karbala as she knew where he was burried. Please check that and change the information if my claims hold true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.42.2 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"He was back in Baghdad where he settled himself to spread Islam." at that time Baghdad had not been built ! , so how Yazeed was in Baghdad ????? and if Yazeed did not want to kill AL-Hussein, why he treated his family as slaves ???? I think you need to recheck your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.60.254 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

''Yazeed was in Syria and as in Iranian shia books it is said that that women and Ali ibn Al Husayn went to Syria as slaves. I can prove it by the shrine of roqaya daughter of Imam Husayn.That even shows that Imam Husayn's head was sent to Yazeed who was in Syria in Damascus'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.225.105 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (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)

i am a Iranian shia myself and Imam Hussain was killed in karbala and his head went up the spears — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.225.105 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

well the correct spelling is Hussain but you can use the other names

The true spelling is Husayn!--88.111.118.234 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (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)

In Islam it is NOT wrong to show pictures of religious people, but it is wrong to commit Shirk!--88.111.118.234 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Al-Husayn or Husayn
Is his name Al-Husayn or Husayn?--88.111.118.234 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Some one needs to re-write this whole article. The information needs to be neutral though you can have sections for sunni/shia point of views about similar subjects too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.147.85 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilferd Madelung from the Institute for Ismaili Studies in London on the pay roll of Aga Khan
Much of the referenced material is from Wilferd Madelung from the Institute for Ismaili Studies in London who is on the pay roll of Aga Khan who thinks it is his god given right to rule because he is Alis descendent. Biased references. He twists the verses from the Quran like Verse 33:30 to 33:33 which referes to Muhamands wives. They even say "O wives of the Prophet..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Image


Feel free to use this image. Zabranos (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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(s.a.w.) 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)

Ciroa I cannot believe this utter nonsense which you mentioned above. You are referring to Husein as "an archetypal martyr for the Shi'a". Let me skip the rant about how ignorant you are and just move on to the fact that Husain died for Islam, not for Shia. He stood up for the religion of his father and grandfather, not for Shi'ism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.101.194 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bringing back sourced content
Apparently, they were removed in this edit (inadvertently?).--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, as I told you before, it was deliberate. See WP:NOT and WP:QUOTEFARM, among others. If you want to retain that content, you'll need to make it encyclopedic. Quotes lists properly belong at WikiQuote, not here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if this was done inadvertently? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was deliberate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate a little bit? I mean what part of it did you find inappropriate or against Wiki policies.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In (rough) order: WP:MOSHEAD; WP:'; WP:RS/WP:USERG/etc; WP:BQ; WP:PAIC; WP:LONGQUOTE/WP:IINFO]/etc. So, short answer: every change was because the original was against Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I can understand your comments about reducing the quotes, using blockquote and other punctuational concerns. But you are yet to convince me how you find Oxford University Press self-published. If I am not mistaken this was one of the policies you mentioned in your talk page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you failed to specify which part of the edit in question you were concerned about. If you re-examine the edit you questioned me about, you will note that the list of policies and guidelines mentioned above apply to different parts of the edit, in rough order. Comparing the two, you will find that WP:USERG is an objection to the inclusion of islam.wikia.com as a source - surely you agree that that is not reliable? The section in dispute on this page, though, concerns WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:NOT (among others) rather than WP:RS. I agree that Oxford is a reliable source. However, not everything that can be reliably sourced belongs on Wikipedia. The material removed did not deal with commemorations; indeed, it was a simple list of quotes without any added context. Thus, I moved it to Wikiquote, which is the appropriate venue for lists of quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the material I was including in my edit, used Islam.Wikia.Org as a source. In the interest of time, do you find the following piece against any Wiki Policy:

''Historian Edward Gibbon, author Charles Dickens mention Husayn ibn Ali in their works. According to Gandhi the historical progress of Islam, is not the legacy of the Muslim sword but a result of sacrifices of Muslim saints like Husain .''--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but the material in the edit you asked me about did. And yes, adding that alone would be problematic. It still lacks any contextualization to indicate the significance of these mentions to our understanding of the subject. Furthermore, I can't find the "according to Gandhi" statement in the cited source; do you have a direct quote to look for? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am uploading the page that reflects the statement here. As for the notability concern, I will wait for more voices since this matter is more of a judgement call, once secondary source is found for it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that's another problem, then: the material is closely paraphrased from the source. We can't include that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. That is a resolvable issue.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We may rephrase the material not violating copyright rule and giving opportunity to Wikipedians to have the information please.--Md iet (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether this is a question or a statement, but either way I'll point you to my response above: we may include information that meets our policies and guidelines, and at the moment this is not that. See also WP:NOT: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I quoted 3 people. Which one do you find "merely not true or verifiable"? From what I remember you have no problem with at least one of the srouces.--Kazemita1 (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikkiamaria did not claim that the quotes were untrue or unverifiable, Kazemita1. Dolescum (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. She is talking about Notability. I guess when a Professor talks about Edward Gibbon being touched by Husayn ibn Ali, this makes it somewhat significant, don't you think?--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, no, not in regards of who Husayn was and what he did. I'm sure Albert Einstein influenced many fellow physicists but would reciting their words add some extra truth to story of his life? I don't feel it would. Dolescum (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely no extra truth, but statement of another notable person that too of different religion definitely make it more convincing and clear. If encyclopedia brings information making things clear it is no harm.--Md iet (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What does it make "convincing and clear"? Dolescum (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to read that article. It begins with the following passage:

"At Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham, according to the LAT, who “introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with ‘world leaders who want to kill us’ and invoked Obama’s middle name — three times calling him ‘Barack Hussein Obama.’ ” [...] I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama’s name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages"

I think the message is very clear. Professor Juan Cole is trying to tell Western English readers why they should not be afraid of hearing that name; why this name is not synonymous to terrorism and Islamophobia. and he uses a Western historian's experience with this character to further draw interest of the Western audience. I therefore find it very useful to reflect such quotes in this Wiki article as well to bond the English(Western) reader with the subject.Kazemita1 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cole's message is clear, but not particularly relevant to this discussion. Perhaps you could respond to the issues of your proposed addition with regards to WP:NOT et al? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:NOT are you referring to? Please, quote the policy content and try to be clear. --Kazemita1 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the quote already provided above: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, information should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Information is put in context. The information is about the subject for which article is meant.The information is regarding views that matter most to the world. The information is referenced to independent sources. Is it not? Then why so much reservation on such a great personality? Why immediate deletion ? Is it Vandalism? Truth prevails please. Can't we make it suit to policies if there is difference of opinion on how it is presented? Being administartor your contribution may help lot.--Md iet (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid that's not correct - as explained in the quote above "truth" is not the primary criterion for inclusion, the sources used were largely primary not independent, and the material was presented as simply a string of factoids rather than contextualized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The quotes from Edward Gibbon(considering Juan Cole's article), Dickens, or Gandhi were not cited from their own works; they were cited from somebody else's book which makes it secondary. Am I missing something?--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So it would seem: in your most recent edit, the Gibbon source is an edited version of Gibbon's own book. Furthermore, the Dickens source presents only the quote, not any analysis or explanation AFAICT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good girl. Then I guess the following shall have the secondary source issue covered--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC):

Historian Edward Gibbon was touched by Husayn. Gandhi attributes the historical progress of Islam, to the sacrifices of Muslim saints like Husayn rather than military force.
 * Somewhat, but unfortunately that doesn't address the other issues raised, nor was its placement in the article appropriate. I notice you're becoming a bit impatient and injudicious with your responses, though, so perhaps it would help for you to step back from this for a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So from what I understand, your only remaining concern is the right context to include the content. Am I correct?--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. Context remains lacking, but there is also little analysis or indication of significance. Furthermore, among other issues, your proposed placement is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I must remind you that given the presence of secondary source and abundance of references to these quotes on Google, your opposition is based on personal judgement. Although, I respect your personal views, I remind you that you should obey consensus in such matters.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that consensus is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not simple head-counting. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. When I said "abundance" I had the "significant coverage" line in Notability in mind. As a general reminder, being a user or admin makes no one prevailed.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, but given the lack of consensus and the ongoing discussion, you really shouldn't be trying to re-add the disputed material. Perhaps you should seek a third opinion or open an RFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean you are aware that you used a misleading summary for your edit?(pretending to delete the disputed content in liu of copyright violation) May I ask the same thing from you; How come you are not requesting RFC that and instead hounding me by going thru the history of my edit?--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken: my edit summary specified that I was reverting a previous edit at the same time as I removed several copyright violations and did some general formatting cleanup. As for your accusation, as the page you cite makes clear, " Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" - an extensive history of copyright violations certainly qualifies. I'm sorry if you are upset by that, but the copyright issue is really not negotiable. Returning to the topic of this discussion, you don't seem to have cited any policies in support of your view - the line from WP:N that you refer to above deals specifically with topics for stand-alone articles, not content within articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Coverage does not automatically guarantee notability. David Cameron's tie should demonstrate this. Dolescum (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of undue weight
Here is what we read in the policy:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I would love to know how User:Edward321 thinks my sentence is a minority viewpoint, given the quote from Professor Wilferd Madelung in the academic and secular source of Encyclopedia Iranica: "The impact of the tragedy of Karbalāʾ on the religious conscience of Muslims has ever been deep and goes beyond its consecration of the passion and penitence motives in Shiʿism." --Kazemita1 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What does a quote about the impact on Muslims have to do with viewpoints from non-Muslims, particularly as impact on Muslims is already covered in the article? Although you continue to re-add the disputed text, you have not yet properly located or contextualized it, nor have you cited any policies to appropriately support its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References
Good Morning. Would you be comfortable if I included those quotes (paraphrased) in a section titled as "cultural references" in Husayn ibn Ali article?--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a better idea of what text you propose to include, keeping in mind the guidance at WP:IPC? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the guideline and it sort of encouraged the listing format. It also said, one may use primary sources (?). Nevertheless, this is what I have in mind. Feel free to comment.Thanks in advance.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In culture
Historian Edward Gibbon was touched by Husayn, describing the events at Karbala as "a tragedy". Mahatma Gandhi attributes the historical progress of Islam, to the "sacrifices of Muslim saints like Husayn" rather than military force.

I don't see anything at IPC encouraging either listing or primary sources? It says that "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment...Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources" and "Bulleted list format should be avoided when practical in favor of normal prose". So your proposed insertion is problematic in both respects. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. See above.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's better, but could use some more explanation per WP:IINFO. Also, do we know in what context Dickens made that statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, take another look see how it sounds.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Made some changes above, see what you think. I'd still like to know if possible what the original context of that Dickens quote was. Also, what would you think about reworking the "Shia view of Husayn" into a "Views of Husayn" section incorporating both its present content and this material? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with the section name change. As for Dickens, I will see what I find out there.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not able to find a primary source with the quote attributed to Dickens. I am therefore taking it off the text. I remember I had tried it before as well.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you're okay with my suggestion about incorporating this into a "Views" section, I think we can go ahead and do that. I would suggest though copying or linking this conversation at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice not to go to Kufa
An editor has deleted some information with an edit summary saying "Removed completely inaccurate historic information; Hussain had no choice to stay in Medina as Yazid's army was on their way to Medina to violently force Hussain to give Bayat to Yazid. Use talk page for more discussion if necessary." I do not know where the editor got that idea, but if he/she reads Tabari he would see that his/her ideas are mistaken.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of names
I do not really care whether we refer to the subject of the article as "Husayn ibn Ali" or "Hussein ibn Ali". Currently the article has the title "Husayn ibn Ali", so it makes sense to refer to him using that spelling throughout the article. (An exception to this is when citing sources, where the book title uses another spelling, or where quotations in the English language use another spelling.) Having the article use multiple spellings for the same person makes the article confusing. If you think that the article should have a different name, please use the requested move process.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The same applies to other people referred to in the article, such as Hasan ibn Ali. It is unnecessarily confusing to use other spellings, or to abbreviate his name to "Hassan' [sic].-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Toddy1 on all points. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is solved if the people 'do not really care whether we refer to the subject of the article as "Husayn ibn Ali" or "Hussein ibn Ali".' Since, internationally, the correct spelling is 'Hussein', I've been continuously editing it to make this article understood on 'international level', not only for a particular community. Also, 'Mecca', ''Medina', 'Hassan' are the other internationally recognized spellings of these names. As far as confusion is concerned, In the very beginning, it has already been mentioned by some anonymous user that the person is also referred as 'Hussein' sometimes, so that won't bother anybody, I think. To avoid any other confusion, I linked it, so that people can open the link, if feel any confusion, which has been declared OVER-LINKING by Toddy1 and Edward321. Ialiabbas (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Peacock features
Loading the article with peacock features, such as huge list of honorifics in the infobox and green text, is unhelpful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Since, my vision is to make Wikipedia a place for everybody, rather than making the article, a typical one, I made the OFFICIALLY DECLARED 'honorifics' from ISLAMIC BOOKS, visible to the viewers, hope that won't bother you as well. In my opinion, experienced users should collaborate with the newer/other ones rather than discouraging them by undoing their edits, so that more and more people can join this global service. Ialiabbas (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, I forgot to mention was the 'color'. I think, it does not matter what the color is but, it should be clearly visible and/or not create any problem for others to view it. Since, green is the native color of Hussein's tribe, Wikipedia would not mind using that color in InfoBox. For more information about green color of the tribe of Hussein and Prophet Muhammad, visit the cage-like grave with green lights in it, at the shrine of Hussein in Karbala, before undoing the green color from the InfoBox. Ialiabbas (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not be using colour for peoples names like that. And if you don't care about the colour what is wrong with black?


 * There is no need for the long list of honorifics in the box and given that this is the English language Wikipedia that should be used before the Arabic.


 * The title of the article is "Husayn" so using "Hussein" throughout is confusing to readers.


 * In the body of the article there is far too much overlinking to the same article such as "Muawiyah I began fighting Hassan and it led to inconclusive skirmishes between the armies of Hassan and Muawiyah I. Thus, to avoid the agonies of another civil war, Hassan signed the treaty with Muawiyah I. Hassan's only condition in the treaty was that Muawiyah I wouldn't name a successor during his reign and let the Islamic world choose their successor after the latter. After Hassan's death, Muawiyah I then named his son Yazid I as his successor." Muawiyah I is linked four times in that paragraph and is not at all necessary. They were also linked in a previous paragraph.


 * There are multiple examples of Prophet Muhammad. That violates the Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. Wikipedia is neutral so that, and any other honorifics, must go. Users User:Edward321 and User:Toddy1 have it correct. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Overlinking
The article has problems with overlinking - in some cases there are a half dozen links from this article to the same other article. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Own.Pak, I hope his/her reply would be useful. Don't forget to review the article again, Toddy1 and Edward321. Ialiabbas (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Having four or five links in the same paragraph to a single article is a wast of time. Especially so when the article has already been linked in a previous paragraph. See my comments in the section above. You should also read through Manual of Style/Linking. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Birth date
The cited source for his birth date is: Encyclopædia Iranica. The current URL for this is Ḥosayn B. ʿAli I. Life and Significance in ShiʿIsm. This says:
 * According to most reports, Ḥosayn b. ʿAli was born on 5 Šaʿbān 4/10 January 626; another report mentions the middle of Jomādā I 6/beginning of October 627 as his date of birth.

This morning's version of the article says:
 * According to most reports, Husayn was born on 8 January 626 CE (3 / 5 Sha'aban 4 AH).

The version from 30 January 2008 says: You will notice that they have exactly the same citation, with access date of 12 January 2008. This edit on 12 January 2008, by added the text.
 * According to the most reports, Imam Husayn ibn Ali was born on 5 Sha'aban 4 AH/10 January 626 CE. Another report mentions the middle of Jumada al-awwal 6AH/beginning of October 627 CE as his date of birth.

Since we are citing a source that says 10 January 626 (but maybe October 627), let us go back to saying that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct spelling
Correct spelling is 'Hussein', Husayn has a different meaning in arabic.Alipoor90 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A quick WP:GOOGLECHECK indicates "Husayn" is more commonly used for this particular person. Can you point to reliable sources suggesting that his WP:COMMONNAME is spelled "Hussein ibn Ali"? If not, your changes should be reverted so the name used in the article does not differ from its title.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Encyclopædia Britannica suggests "Al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī", Encyclopædia Iranica uses "Ḥosayn b. ʿAli".--Anders Feder (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the Britanica's article like this one is written by unknown persons and as I know its reliability is not more than wikipedia's article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter is clearly not right. There may be better sources than Encyclopædia Britannica on the subject, but it certainly is a better source than Wikipedia. It is less important whether the exact author is known. What is important is whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which Encyclopædia Britannica does (and Wikipedia does not).--Anders Feder (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me what is the difference between user generated content of Britannica and wikipedia. Is there editor who check and audit all of the user generated content? For example if I make an article like this, how will Britannica check it?-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Background
This section is full of irrelevant information which should be moved to the related articles such as First Fitna.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But the whole article is a  coat-rack, which ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on the religious beliefs of people who lived long after Husayn's death.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be a coatrack, but it's nothing compared to the article on his son Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn. 18kbytes long and theoretically about a child who died at 6 months. Edward321 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, due to the fact that the article is about one person's life, this section is meaningless. Second, All of the information in copied from the other articles such as First Fitna, First Fitna, etc. Therefor, I remove this section.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable Reverting
Dear, you've reverted all of my edits as well as the other editors in one action. Please, remove what you think "biased " and "unreliable" instead of reverting all of the other editors' attempts. In fact adding or moving a template can not be a biased edit. You reverted some of the clearly reliable sentences to unreliable on (check "Husayn and caliphate" section)!!! -- Seyyed(t-c) 06:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear please check the talk page before reverting the article. It is unacceptable to remove verifiable information with reliable sources like "His father's supporters (Shi'a Ali) in Kufah gave their allegiance to him. However, he told he still bound to the peace treaty between Hasan and Muawiyah I and they should wait until Muawiyah was alive. Later, Hussain did not accept the request of Muawiyah for the succession of his son, Yazid I, and considered this action as the breach of the Hasan–Muawiya treaty.[6] When Muawiyah I died in 680, Husayn refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid I, who had just appointed as Umayyad caliph by Muawiyah, because he considered Umayyads as oppressive and religiously misguided regime. He insisted on his legitimacy based on his own special position as a direct descendant of Muhammad and his legitimate legatees. As a consequence, he left Medina, his home town, to take refuge in Mecca in 60 AH.[6]" -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't act solely based on what we "think", we have to respect the community and follow the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored some well sourced information reverted by Toddy1. Hadi (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Life of imam Musa bin Jafar al-Kazim
An editor added information sourced to a book by Sharif al-Qarashi; he/she later added the title of the book: Life of imam Musa bin Jafar al-Kazim. However, there are three different versions of this book, all with different pagination. So we need to know the edition, as different editions have different pagination. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is owned by Amazon.com, and offers self publishing services. Ansariyan Publications is an Iranian publisher of religious books.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ISBN-13: 978-1502836519, The Life Of Imammusa Bin Ja'far Al-Kazim by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi, paperback, pub 15 October 2014, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 778 pages.
 * ISBN-13: 978-1496121172, The life of Imam Musa Bin Ja'far Al-Kazim part 1, by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi, paperback, pub 15 May 2014, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 400 pages.
 * ISBN-13: 978-1496121189, The life of Imam Musa Bin Ja'far Al-Kazim part 2, by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi, paperback, pub 2 March 2014, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 376 pages.
 * ISBN-13: 978-9644386398, The Life of Imam Musa bin Ja'far al-Kazim, by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi (Author), Jasim al-Rasheed (Translator), hardback, pub 2005, Ansariyan Publications. 704 pages.

Merge proposal
Merge proposal: Non-Muslim view of Husayn ibn Ali into Husayn ibn Ali.
 * support proposal to merge into Husayn ibn Ali While an article with a topic such as Historicity of Husayn ibn Ali could be appropriate, separating the views of scholars and historians according to whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You support what? Mhhossein (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Awaiting results of this AfD. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * HyperGaruda: That AFD is on another article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a discussion about a similar type of article: "Non-Muslim view of..." Thus I'm awaiting the outcome of that before making a decision, whether that would be merging, deleting, moving or simply leaving as it is. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see strong relationships between the outcome of that AFD and our discussion. We can't remove all "X view of Y" even if that AFD leads to deletion of Non-Muslim view of Ali. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation does not support content
This paragraph is not supported by the citation:
 * Shias have a very important book or letter from God about Husayn ibn Ali which is called Ziyarat Ashura. Most of the Shias believe that Ziyarat Ashura is a Hadith-e-Qudsi (the 'word of Allah')

I have added a DUBIOUS tag.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is this sentence doing in the section "Burial site#Shia view" in the first place? - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the paragraph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles Dickens?
Charles Dickens never said such words, with all due respect to Imam Husayn, we need to verify his words until then I urge you to remove it, because of the weak source. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alexis Ivanov: What are you talking about? Mhhossein (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the Charles Dickens quote, I believe he never said such words because of the weak sources. It seems made-up compared to other sources. We need verification. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Where's is it quoted? Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry I think I commented on the wrong page. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. you can transfer it to the right page. Did you mean to comment on Non-Muslim view of Ali? Mhhossein (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No the non-Muslim view of Husayn Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth
Someone has changed the date of birth in the article from 8th January 626 AD to 10th October 625 AD. They have left the Islamic calendar date of birth as (3 Sha'aban AH 4).

The article currently cites two sources for the date of birth: I think at one time it also cited the following for date of birth: Of the citations: Surely the article should say that "according to most reports" he was born on 10th January 626 AD ( 5 Sha'aban 4 AH). This would mean a change to both the AD and AH dates.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Madelung says "According to most reports, Ḥosayn b. ʿAli was born on 5 Šaʿbān 4/10 January 626; another report mentions the middle of Jomādā I 6/beginning of October 627 as his date of birth."
 * Shabbar says: "Second son of Fatima (sa) and ‘Ali (as) Husayn (as) was born on 3rd Shabaan, 4th year of Hijri (10.1.626 AD)"
 * Britannica says: "born January 626, Medina, Arabia"
 * I would not consider the 'Britannica' source reliable here, because the author is not definite for that special article. Anyway, I'd like to ping sa.vakilian as I think he can help us with determining the date of birth. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean by "not... reliable here, because the author is not definite". Please could you explain.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the IP editor has also changed the year of birth in the article in Hasan.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the ways through which we can establish the reliability of a source is 'the author', i.e. if the author of the source is expert or known in that field we can consider that reliable. While, that article is written by a group of editors whom we don't know. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Transfer of the head of Husayn in Fatimid belief
Since this section gives undue weight to the article, I suggest removing it to have a more balanced version.Marziyeh.k (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC) @User:Mhhossein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marziyeh.k (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain the issue? -- M h hossein   talk 10:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Mhhossein: The problem is this section generally revolves around the view of tiny minorities. It can be seen from the article that the section is mostly about the history of Egypt which does not have anything to do with this article.Marziyeh.k (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Marziyeh.k: Most of the section is unsourced and the section needs to be trimmed by removing the challenging materials and adding ' ' to the rest. I would maked the edits step the step and avoid mass edits. --  M h hossein   talk 17:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein: Thanks for your contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marziyeh.k (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw that you reverted Marziyeh.k's removal of unsourced content after it was tagged for some days. Could you please say why? Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 13:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the content was selectively tagged and removed. There are lot references scattered around that section and apparently lot of info in first go seems to be unreferenced but which may not be true. The article needs cleanup but after thorough check.--13:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As you know the editor was not responsible for finding sources for that paragraph. I think, be it a targeted action or not, you could revert only if you had found a reliable source. It's good if you could put time and find a source, please. -- M h hossein   talk 05:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Husayn ibn Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326073754/http://www.porsojoo.com/en/node/70869 to http://www.porsojoo.com/en/node/70869
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629162138/http://www.velaiat.com/shshow.asp?rsabs=43&id=kash to http://www.velaiat.com/shshow.asp?rsabs=43&id=kash

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Imamate
Best greetings, I edited/modified the part of Imamate (to eliminate its previous problem), its new/edited text is as follow:

When Hassan (as the 2nd Shia Imam) was killed, Al-Husayn became his successor as the third Imam of Shia Islam.

There are traditions (quoted from Muhammad) which name Hussain as Imam and even mention the number of all Imams, who are started by Ali (1st), Hassan (2nd), Hussain (as the third Imam) and other named Imams. As another reason, (Imam) Hassan willed Hussain as his successor.

In order to proving his Imamate, some sources rely on his speech, and likewise some sources refer to a part of his miracles to demonstrate that.

Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Are your concerns regarding the copy right issues of "Imamate" section resolved? A user says that he has cleaned the section. Please remove the tag, if every thing is OK. -- M h hossein   talk 13:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, oops. Didn't notice someone had checked it. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Selected Sayings of Imam Husayn ibn Ali
the word "free" in the quotation "If you do not believe in any religion, and do not fear the Day of Resurrection, then at least be free in this world." is supposed to be the translation of the word "احرارا". The exact sentence of Imam Husayn ibn Ali was "«فَصَاحَ‏ وَیْلَکُمْ یَا شِیعَةَ آلِ أَبِی سُفْیَانَ إِنْ لَمْ یَکُنْ لَکُمْ دِینٌ وَ کُنْتُمْ لَا تَخَافُونَ الْمَعَادَ فَکُونُوا أَحْرَاراً فِی دُنْیَاکُم" which was said when he was surrounded by Yazid armi, being the last man of his front, and many soldiers of the Yazid Army were preparing a raid on his women and children, so he asked them not to attack others. In another reference a more complete version of the quotation is cited as "فَصَاحَ الْحُسَیْنُ ع وَیْحَکُمْ یَا شِیعَةَ الشَّیْطَانِ إِنْ لَمْ یَکُنْ لَکُمْ دِینٌ وَ لَا تَخَافُونَ الْمَعَادَ فَکُونُوا أَحْرَاراً وَ ارْجِعُوا إِلَى أَنْسَابِکُمْ إِنْ کُنْتُمْ أَعْرَاباً کَمَا تَزْعُمُونَ أَنَا الَّذِی أُقَاتِلُکُم فَکُفُّوا سُفَهَاءَکُمْ وَ جُهَّالَکُم‏" which paints a better picture of what the word Ahrar was supposed to mean.

All in all better translations for Ahrar can be: honorable, noble, or even "faithful to your morals". free by no means can be a good translation of "Ahrar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.113.174.23 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Husayn ibn Ali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.theislamicsemiary.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010094643/http://www.happy-books.co.uk/muhammad-ibn-abdullah-lineage-and-family-tree/family-tree-diagram-of-lineage-and-relatives-of-prophets-and-companions-in-muslim-history.php?id=112 to http://www.happy-books.co.uk/muhammad-ibn-abdullah-lineage-and-family-tree/family-tree-diagram-of-lineage-and-relatives-of-prophets-and-companions-in-muslim-history.php?id=112

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Transfer of his head in Fatimid belief
Due to the previous discussion, there is not any reliable source that support unsourced material. On other hands, this case would be considered as wp:RSUW (IF you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced). As result, I try to summarize materials! Is there any suggestion? Saff V. (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I put the following sentences from the article to here. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources to support it. Also, if anyone could find, we can transfer sentences to the article.
 * The burial place is now also known as Raous (head)-us-Husain, A silver Zarih (Maqsurah) is made on the place by Dawoodi Bohra Dai, and the place is visited regularly by all Shia. The presentation of the Maqsurah is also unique in the history of loyalty and faithfulness. The Maqsurah of Raas al Imam al Husain was originally constructed for the Al Abbas Mosque at Karbala, Iraq. When this Maqsurah reached the mosque of Al-Abbas ibn Ali it would not fit in the place. The size of the Maqsurah and the site of the fitting place differed at the time of fitting, although all technical aspects and measurements of the site were taken into account very precisely. The head of Muhammad's grandson, Husayn, buried in Al Qahera, Egypt, was without a Maqsurah, thus this above-mentioned Maqsurah was brought from Karbala, Iraq to Al Moizziyat al Qahera, Egypt, it fitted upon the original position of the grave known as Mashhad of Raas al Imam al Husain.

Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Size and images
I have worked to reduce unnecessary references, like for the Arabic name of the Syrian region, and put images in places where they are more appropriate, IMO. Leo1pard (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hosayn-b-ali-i. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality of the Infobox
Re: good intention reverts by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/967911705

Hammad,

Can you please articulate precisely the reason to remove religious biography box on grounds of WP:NPOV? May be I'm missing something completely obvious and in that case I'm sorry, but I don't see how your reverts help.

Absent any discussion or valid reason, I guess it would only prudent to revert the reverts.

Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard anything about on the reason for reverts. Per WP:BOLD I'd go ahead and fix the issues with infobox that were reverted. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Inscription around front of mimbar ibrahimi mosque.jpg

Prince
Is he really a prince? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , where does it say that he is a prince?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ali is a caliph. https://bahai-library.com/winters_dying_for_god&chapter=2 SpinnerLaserz (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is original research. Although Caliphate is considered monarchy, it is not hereditary monarchy. Also, if "prince" is not used to define Husayn ibn Ali in reliable sources, then we should not add a category calling him prince (see WP:NONDEFINING) since it is not reported that he was called prince in his life time.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hazrat Ali was called Amir ul momineen (Prince of the believers) NOT Imam Hussain...Thanks,Abbasquadir (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rating of this page be revisited? (doesn't look a 'C' class to me) Suggestion
Shouldn't the rating of this page be revisited? (doesn't look a 'C' class to me) Can you look into this and do the needful? Abbasquadir (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also pinged WT:BIOGRAPHY. DMacks (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, let's hope somebody senior does the needful here!Abbasquadir (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Hello. I am going to work on this article in order to become a good article. Ghazaalch (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could clean up the article on Hasan ibn Ali first? I noticed at least on external link buried in the text - in the verse of Mubahala.  The lead of the current version has three paragraphs with no citations, whereas the 23 June 2021 version had a more concise lead that was fully cited.  -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
An IP editor has reverted the infobox, saying: Do not change the older infobox without discussion on the talk page, it will be against the Wikipedia policy So I have found when the infobox was changed from Infobox-person to Infobox-religious biography (20:50, 20 June 2021), and compared the different versions above. As far as I am concerned, the version of 08:30, 22 September 2021‎ was just fine. Can we go back to that one please? -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image Change
Hello! I want to discuss about the image in infobox can i change that? James Bond7350 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Requests like "I want to do something" are not very useful. Please explain here (a) exactly what change(s) you want to make, and (b) why you think they are a good idea.  Then allow us to comment on your proposals. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically I want to change image of Husayn ibn Ali artical to File:Hussein-Bin-Ali-Name.gif and i found this more helpfull then the File:الحسين ابن علي.svg James Bond7350 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

!| File:الحسين ابن علي.svg !|File:Hussein-Bin-Ali-Name.gif
 * -valign=top
 * -valign=top
 * الحسين ابن علي.svg
 * [[File:Hussein-Bin-Ali-Name.gif]]
 * }
 * Why do you find it more helpful? -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you find it more helpful? -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The design and the calligraphy and the full name. James Bond7350 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

? James Bond7350 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your answer has no meaning. Why do you find one design more helpful than the other? -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean the full name as you can see in the image.maybe you find this also meaning less? James Bond7350 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the proposed image (File:Hussein-Bin-Ali-Name.gif) contains the full and correct name (الحسين بن على al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī) as well as the honorific رضي ألله عنه raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu in somewhat smaller letters, while the older image only contains the shortened (modern) form حسين (Ḥusayn) and the honorific (رضي ألله عنه raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu) in larger letters. From the point of view of content, the proposed image certainly is an improvement. I don't particularly like the pale colors though. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 05:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok then what you think should i add the image?For me it's better. James Bond7350 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

? James Bond7350 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! James Bond7350 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Vision impaired readers and the new image
DMacks in his/her edit summary said: Use infobox fields per their docs (also, a key objection to recent change is that it assumes people are not vision-impared and can read stylized/decorative text of a foreign language. Template:Infobox religious biography has an alt field. I have added the alt field to Infobox religious biography, and copied the text to put in the alt field from Apaugasma's 05:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC) post on this page.  If you hover the cursor over the image it displays the alt text. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the alt text! However, please be aware that alt text should fully describe the image, so people who cannot see it at all might also get an idea of what is contained in the image. Try to think about a screen reader reading the alt text to a visually impaired user: what would in that situation be helpful? In any case, we don't help visually impaired users by having overlong captions, by duplicating a name most of them can't read anyway, or even by entirely avoiding midsized text for such borderline superfluous things as infobox image captions (again, I would support not having captions at all for this type of image). We help them by adding good alt text, and by ensuring that all important information is also and easily available to them. Accessibility is about ensuring access to information, not about making everything structurally equivalent. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a proper alt_text is a great improvement. Captions indeed serve a different purpose, and often aren't needed in infoboxes when the image is self-explanatory to those who don't already know the topic. But the infobox is supposed to be a summary of key ideas, of which "how it's written in native language" seems key (especially given it's considered important enough to include in the first sentence of the whole article, and also used as the main graphical image to represent the person? The argument "it's in the aricle itself" applies to the every field of the infobox. Conversely, all types of biographical infoboxes have explicitly been designed to support a native_name field. DMacks (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the native name is not unimportant (though mentioning it in the lead sentence is perhaps more a matter of convenience: where else to put it?), and I generally support having it in the infobox too. But of course with these articles where the lead images are the native names (which itself is entirely due to a lack of better images, not to any special importance of the native name), the native name is already there in big shiny letters. Perhaps you don't read Arabic and so won't notice, but having exactly the same thing written the one under the other just looks really bad. Removing it would be an obvious thing to do, except perhaps because of some concern for visually impaired readers. But really, what target group are we thinking of here? The contrast of the letters in the image is lower, but their size is about ten times larger. How many people will not be able to read the large letters, but will be able to read the small ones (even if enlarged by a few factors)? And frankly, is it really so important that these people can see how the Arabic letters are shaped in the infobox? Isn't there some point where 'it's also in the article body' becomes a valid reply? It's not like the entire infobox is unusable for visually impaired users. Finally, I suspect that infoboxes in general aren't nearly as useful for visually impaired people as they are for others: the purpose of infoboxes is to quickly scan them for basic information, but in many (if not all) cases such quick visual scanning is much less evident for visually impaired readers. All in all, I think a balance should be struck, where helping the visually impaired need not get in the way of a visually appealing style for those with a more average eyesight. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 22:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)