Talk:Ibn al-Ash'ath

Comments
A few minor points follow:

1) Lead: "...was a distinguished Arab nobleman and general under the early Umayyad Caliphate". I think replacing "under" with "during" will better describe the situation.

2) I would prefer removing "early", as it was not really that early. His prominence being in 690s, some 30 years after the founding of the Umayyad caliphate.

3) In "Origin and early career" three generations are discussed together, and it is a bit difficult at first to discern to whom the word "he" refers to. I think a few "he"s should be replaced with names "al-Ash'ath ibn al Qays", "Muhammad" and "Ibn al-Ash'ath".

4) "Abd al-Malik's brother Bishr put him in command of over 5,000 Kufans for a campaign against the Kharijites threatening al-Ahwaz. The Kharijites retreated before the far larger caliphal army, led by Khalid ibn Abdallah ibn Khalid ibn Asid..." It suggests Ibn Ash'ath got there first and Kharijites retreated only when they saw Khalid coming. Tabari (Vol 21, pp.203-204) says that Ibn Ash'ath & Khalid brought their troops together in Ahwaz, and when the combined forces advanced on Kharijites, they fled.

5) "There he remained in hiding until al-Hajjaj granted him pardon." Pardoned for what? EI2 article doesn't say anything about it, but I'm sure, Tabari will have some info on this.

6) "he had originally been sent to Kirman to punish a local leader who had refused to help the governors of Sistan and Sind." How can this be possible? Sind was conquered in 712.
 * I think, "Sind" in this context means Makran, which was conquered in 644 CE, or perhaps some other part of Balochistan. It was regularly beset with rebellions until the Muhammand bin Qasim's campaign, and perhaps even afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought the same, but source (EI2) says "Sind". I think it should be simply deleted.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

7) "...set out on the return journey to Iraq, picking up more soldiers from Kufa and Basra, who were stationed as garrisons, along the way.[15][19] By the time the army reached Fars...". Kufa and Basra are not on the route west from Sajistan to Fars. Is it that they first marched on to Kufa and then southeast to Basra and then Fars? If so, it should be clarified.
 * The content was added in this edit. It is COPYVIO from Wellhausen, who has the same phrase "stationed as garrisons in the provinces". It would read better if it is said as "stationed at garrisons in the provinces". And, I think "from Kufa and Basra" can be deleted as irrelevant detail. Those were the places of the origin (or at least recruitment) of these troops. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is what was meant, and I will consider editing it, but I want to note that that's not COPYVIO; there can not be a copyvio when the work you cite is on the public domain, and it is most definitely not a copyvio when you reference and explicitly state in your edit summary where it is coming from. Constantine  ✍  20:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. To me it seems that Wellhausen is referring to later strengthening of Ibn al-Ashath's army from these towns. Kennedy says "He led his army west from Sistan, through Fars and defeated al-Hajjaj’s forces at Tustar, 81/701, before sweeping on to establish himself in his home town of Kufa." From Dixon (pp.156-158) (I think it is an important work on Abd al-Malik's reign & should be present in bibliography) too it is clear that rebels came straight to Fars and stayed there for some time. Hajjaj marched against them and was defeated. So going first to Kufa, then Basra and then back to Fars, and then again to Kufa is unlikely.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dixon I was aware of, but it was not available when I wrote this article. I just recently (re)discovered it when I was giving feedback on Abd al-Malik to Al Ameer son. I still only have access to the thesis, however, not the 1971 book, so if there are any differences (Al Ameer son said there are none) I won't know. Do you have access to the book? Constantine  ✍  15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I only have chapter on Mukhtar and it is identical to Thesis. From the snippet view on Google, I can safely say that the rest is identical as well. If you need page numbers, just copy some sentences from thesis and paste in snippet view on google; page number will turn up. The above (pp. 156-158 in book) I found in this way.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid the labor, you can just cite the thesis. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This thesis was supervised by Bernard Lewis, was later published as a book and has been cited quiet a lot.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

8) Zayd's aim was mainly to restore Alid power. Other issues were secondary. You haven't mentioned it at all.
 * That's because I didn't want to get into the details of Zayd's revolt, but highlight the continuities with Ibn al-Ash'ath's, as well as the general spirit of the anti-Umayyad sections of the populace. I will add the Alid origin of Zayd's revolt for completeness, but I won't go into detail, as this is not the place for it. Constantine  ✍  20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes detailed treatment of Zayd's motives isn't required here, but it is important to be accurate. Currently it gives wrong impression that reasons behind Zayd's revolt were the same as that of Ibn al-Ashath's.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Constantine  ✍  15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi  AhmadLX , thanks a lot. Are there any more comments coming? Otherwise I'll start addressing them one by one. If there is anything at all even as a general suggestion rather than a specific troublespot, please don't hesitate in mentioning it. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  20:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

9) Infobox says he participated in campaigns against Mus'ab. Which one's? He was allied with him against Muskhtar. When Mus'ab was defeated, he allied with Umayyads. But that is not akin to participating in campaigns against him, I think.

10) Any reason for discussing Motives in the middle of the revolt story? Sources discuss them at the end, and it makes more sense in my view.
 * Well, Ibn al-Ash'ath's story is essentially the story of his rebellion. The reasons why he attracted support, the role of the qurrāʾ, and why he was uncompromising during negotiations, should be mentioned before the main events of the revolt itself to give sufficient context. I had followed a similar structure in an analogous Byzantine case, Thomas the Slav. Constantine  ✍  16:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

11) "and reportedly executed (or persuaded Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr to execute) al-Mukhtar's captured followers in revenge." This needs a bit of explanation as to what was to be avenged. A footnote would be fine, explaining Ashraf's resentment against Mawali (their former slaves) who had persecuted them in the aftermath of failed rebellion against Mukhtar.

12) "Wellhausen's analysis, furthermore, ignored the evident religious dimension of the revolt, especially the participation of the fanatical zealots known as qurrāʾ ("Quran readers")." This should be supported by citation immediately at the end of the sentence and should be attributed specifically to the author who says it. Currently it seems to be your personal view.

13) "fanatical zealots known as qurrā". "fanatical" should be removed for neutrality.

14) Dixon's views on "Motives" should also be included. He concludes that Ibn al-Ash'ath himself was motivated by his personal pride and insulting behavior of Hajjaj, but his supporters had various reasons: lower pay than Syrians, distant campaigns, hatred of Hajjaj and Syraians, and religious motivations of Qura and Shia.

15) Just noted one more thing. Infobox mentiones his participation in the battle of Karbala. Other than his role in the arrest of Ibn Aqil, body doesn't say anything else regarding the matter. Getting Ibn Aqil arrested is not actually "participating in the battle of Karbala". If you have sources which mention him being the part of the army of Umar ibn Sa'ad, please mention it. Otherwise modify infobox.

16) That's all from me. Once the issues are resolved, I think it would be ready for FAC. Of course, some points are subjective and you may ignore them if you want. But some should be addressed. Also, please see the section below. Great work. Thanks.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Iraqis
Opening a new section because the thread above is getting too long.

What we now call "Iraq" was the heart of Sassanid Iran, which had to put up with the new overlord Al-Hajjaj. We can be sure that the had no love for him. So, the "Iraqi soldiers" weren't deployed in Iraq itself but were sent out to provinces. These were the ones that Al-Ash'ath picked up on his way back to Iraq. Al-Ash'ath's "peacock army" itself was made up of mostly Iraqis, deployed to fight the Zunbils. So, on the whole it was an "Iraqi" rebellion against the "governor of Iraq".

Hawting:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * YEs you are right. I only have problem with the statement "...picking up more soldiers from Kufa and Basra, who were stationed as garrisons, along the way.[15][19] By the time the army reached Fars ...", since it suggests either these town were on the way or that rebels went Kufa first, them to Fars defeated Hajjaj at Tustar, then went to Basra, then again to Kufa. Both are incorrect in my view. So it should be modified into something like "...picking up more soldiers along the way .[15][19] By the time the army reached Fars ..."  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current phrasing is confusing. But I think it is useful to convey that it was "Iraqi" soldiers that were rebelling. So, we can say "picking up discontented Iraqi soldiers stationed in garrisons along the way..." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems reasonable to me.  AhmadLX - )¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Pic
Have you seen these coins? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed no, thanks LouisAragon. Constantine  ✍  19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)