Jump to content

Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mhhossein (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 25 May 2017 (→Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Muslims as general

Hey @Tiptoethrutheminefield: I reverted two of your edits as I though they were WP:OR. However, if you can explain how it was not violating the guidelines please discuss it here before doing further edits. --Mhhossein talk 16:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add that content, nor did I alter its meaning. I merely reworded it to make its meaning clearer. If you think it needs sources, you should have tagged it. The version of the content you reverted to is also unsourced, which makes your OR reasoning rather contradictory (indeed doubly contradictory, since both versions say essentially the same thing). I think it is crucially important content if accurate because it reflects on WHY the attack took place - so I am going to restore my edit (the version you have reverted to simply badly written) but I will tag it for a source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the source - Sayed Khatab, "Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism: The Theological and Ideological Basis of Al-Qa'ida's Political Tactics" - and my edit (in particular the content indicating that the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims) does accurately reflect the content on page 74 and 75 of that source (the source's explanation of Ibn Bishr's emphasis on calling the Wahhabi attackers of Karbala "Muslims" being that "the Wahhabis call themselves Muslim to the exclusion of others" and that this usage indicates the attack was part of the "pattern of what they called jihad"), so I am removing the citation required tag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield: First of all, I asked you not to alter the stable version without discussing it on the talk page (refer to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle please). Secondly, please note that your version is original research because no part of the article says that "because they did not consider the Shia inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims," rather the source says that "Wahhabis call themselves Muslims to the exclusion of others," i.e. they believed that only Wahhabis are muslims and others, whether Shi'a or Sunni, were not Muslims to their eyes. Furthermore, two of your edits ([1] & [2]) show that you had not checked the sources carefully before editing this paragraph. However, I suggest to have "The Wahhabis referred to themselves as 'Muslims', as Ibn Bishr did, since they did not consider others to be Muslims." This version has the benefit of being strongly in accordance with the source. --Mhhossein talk 06:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be being weasily deceitful, probably for personal pov reasons. The Wahhabis did not simply "refer to themselves" as Muslims. The source, in the context of explaining the use of the term "Muslims" in the contemporary Wahhabi chronicler's account of the Wahhabi attack on Karbala, quite explicitly explains that Wahhabis considered only themselves to be actual Muslims, and that the attack on Karbala was done in the context of a jihad against those they considered to be non-Muslims. Thus, it is entirely in accordance with the content of the source to say that the Wahhabi attackers did not consider the town's inhabitants to be Muslims (this also of course allowed them to neatly avoid the convention that Muslims should not wage war on other Muslims) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield: I warn you against making further personal attacks. You should know the outcome of commenting on editors instead of commenting on the content. Did you even read my comment? The source never says that "they did not consider the Shia inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims." You are misinterpreting the content of the book. The source, as you already verified, says that " Wahhabis considered only themselves to be actual Muslims." The source never restricts Wahhabi dismissal belief to Karbala inhabitants or Shia Muslims. Pay attention to the exact sentence from the book which says:"because Wahhabis call themselves Muslims to the exclusion of others." Moreover, I refer you to this source where it says "It is significant that whenever the term "Muslims" occurs in `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr's chronicle, `Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd, it refers exclusively to the Wahhabis. But the Wahhabi dismissal of all Muslims other than themselves as non-believers is of more than historical significance." Finally, we are not talking about their understanding of 'Jihad' and I have no idea about it. --Mhhossein talk 14:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to give you a lesson on how to write content? You do not copy exact passages from sources, that is breach of copyright, instead you use the content in the sources to accurately summarise what those sources contain. It is an entirely accurate summary of the content in the cited source to say that the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims. Are you actually denying (despite the source saying that Wahhabis considered that only followers of their interpretation of Islam were Muslims) that the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims? If you are, what is your sourced explanation for the reason behind their attack on the town? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoethrutheminefield: Stop speaking in this harsh and impolite manner. As it seems, you have no idea of WP:OR! no, no part of the book says that exactly. The author insists on Wahhabis dismissal behavior towards all other Mulsims except they themselves, while you're restricting this behavior to Shi'a Muslims. If you insist on putting that sentence, you need to build a consensus via gathering more views and/or opening RFCs. --Mhhossein talk 06:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to initiate a RfC on whether there should be text in the article that would say that the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia Muslim inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But your RFC should be on whether the source says that "Wahhabis referred to themselves as 'Muslims', as Ibn Bishr did, since they did not consider the Shia Muslim inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims." --Mhhossein talk 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That I think is too vague for the RfC subject, all that would be in the accompanying reasoning for having the text, (i.e., that it is, in my opinion, sourced and that the source gives the content in the context of Ibn Bishr's account of the attack on the town). The RfC would be about whether that particular text, or something close to that, should be in the article because it is that particular text that you have been objecting to and removing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, you can't misinterpret the source! It's called WP:OR. --Mhhossein talk 16:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says you. However, I say it is not OR, that it accurately sums up what the source says without indulging in copyright violation by reproducing a large chunk of the text of the source. This is what the RfC will decide on! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that "The Wahhabis referred to themselves as 'Muslims', as Ibn Bishr did, since they did not consider the Shia Karbala inhabitants to be Muslims" is not OR considering the source saying: "Ibn Bishr emphasized the world 'Muslim' in the above quote to signify the Wahhabis, because Wahhabis call themselves Muslims to the exclusion of others."? As you already confessed above, 'others' refers to 'all other Muslims except Wahhabis' and the author never intended to restrict this Wahhabi dismissal belief toward "Shia Karbala inhabitants" as you are insisting. --Mhhossein talk 04:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. (Everyone except Wahhabis) clearly does include the Shia inhabitants of Karbala, while not being limited to them. And, those who suffered in the massacre were mostly (presumably not all) Shia inhabitants of Karbala. We may debate exactly what form of words to use, but we may legitimately write "Shia inhabitants of Karbala" if we want to. And, alternatively, we may fairly use short quotations where they are appropriate. What exact changes to the article would you two suggest? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Keatinge: It's WP:OR because although "Everyone except Wahhabis" clearly does include the Shia inhabitants of Karbala," is not restricted to that. And as we know that the source does not appear to be restricting it, we can't make our original research by using "The Wahhabis referred to themselves as 'Muslims', as Ibn Bishr did, since they did not consider the Shia Karbala inhabitants to be Muslims." --Mhhossein talk 10:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you have a problem with the current version, which is "Wahhabis such as Ibn Bishr referred to themselves simply as 'Muslims', since they believed that they were the only true Muslims."? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. However, it reads that not all Wahhabis had such a belieg and just Wahhabis such as Bishr were so, while the source attributes the belief to all Wahhabis. Please fix this problem.--Mhhossein talk 17:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't - Ibn Bishr is given merely as an example. The sentence mentions what Wahhabis believed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it, if it does not have that problem grammatically. Mhhossein talk 05:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein - this article is not about the general beliefs and attitudes of the Wahhabi, or an overall account of their oppressions directed against Shia Muslims, it is about a specific attack by them on a specific population who held specific religious beliefs. So details about what the Wahhabis believed should be directly related to the subject of the article and worded to make that clear: the Wahhabi chronicler referred to the attackers as Muslims because they held that the town's Shia inhabitants were not Muslims. The quote, and the explanation, are in the source in the context of detailing the attack on Karbala, they are not in the source to explain Wahhabi attitudes to all other Muslims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we do not have text in the article that says why the Wahabbi army attacked and sacked Karbala and paid such special attention to killing as many of its Shia inhabitants as possible, killing thousands including women and children. It was because the Wahhabis did not consider the Shia Muslim inhabitants of Karbala to be Muslims. There are plenty of sources that say this. Such as "Muslims had, therefore, been traditionally wary of takfir, the practice of declaring a fellow Muslim to be an unbeliever (kafir)". "Abd al-Aziz Ibn Muhammad, Ibn Saud’s son and successor, used takfir to justify the wholesale slaughter of resistant populations. In 1801, his army sacked the holy Shia city of Karbala in what is now Iraq, plundered the tomb of Imam Husain, and slaughtered thousands of Shias, including women and children", a quote from "Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism", New Statesman, 27 November 2014 [3]. "At that time, Shias, regarded as infidels by the Wahhabis, has been forbidden passage through Najd ..." page 59, "Kuwait: prospect and reality", Harry Victor Frederick Winstone, Zahra Dickson Freeth, 1972. "The massacre was viewed as an atrocity by the outraged Sunni scholars in Baghdad, who had their disagreements with the Shia but did not consider them as being either apostates or heretics. They condemned the slaying of innocent Muslims, almost to a man". page 135, "The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516–1918: A Social and Cultural History", Bruce Masters, 2013. What we do have in the article is a quote containing a contemporary account of the arrack from the attackers' viewpoint and an explanation about the usage of the word "Muslims" in that account. These are both lifted unchanged from a single source, which is more than fair use can justify. There would be no need to go into the explanation to this depth if there was content that actually explained why the Wahhabis were there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an event

I'll revert your un-discussed edit. The incident can not be counted as a military conflict. Wahhabis faced no resistance and in fact there were no conflict were both sides are involved. I hope this revert does not offend you. However, we may consider this issue further more if you still think other wise. --Mhhossein talk 16:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox used doesn't categorise the actual article as either a military conflict or an event, so I think that is of secondary importance. The more important issue is which version shows the information best. Personally I think it was the military conflict one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Event" is so unspecific, try {{Infobox civilian attack}}. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Qrmoo3 and Emir of Wikipedia: I think HyperGaruda's suggestion matches better. What do you think? --Mhhossein talk 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to that but as I stated above the infobox used is of secondary importance to the actual output. If the civilian attack template produces the best output then I whole heatedly agree with using that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motive

Fundamentalism

The editor Mhossein keep unilaterally making changes. He added "Islamic fundamentalism" as a motive. Ever since rise of ISIS, some people have started tagging Islamist extremism or fundamentalism to attacks without proper sources or sources saying what they claim. The source he used [4] however nowhere itself calls it "Islamic fundamentalism". However it makes no such claim like "Wahhabis attacked Karbala because they were against Shi'ites". At most what it says is "who regarded the Shi'ites reverence of the Imams as polytheism". That's it, nothing else and it doesn't claim they attacked strictly because of it or because of it. Simply because they have negative attitudes doesn't mean we can add whatever we want in the motive. Also the article itself cites that Karbala was also rich, claiming it as another reason [5]. This also gives the weakned defences as a possible reason. In this case it is completely unfair to mention one reason, and neglect the other. The only one near to is only this book [6], which says that Wahhabis didn't limit themselves to academic confrontation but doesn't claim it as an explicit cause for it.

In addition, even if it said they attacked Karbala because of it, at most it will be "Sectarianism". Calling sectarian feud as "fundamentalism" especially by yourself is completely OR. There are many articles relating to sectarian violence but that doesn't make them automatically fundamentalism. Have you seen anyone use "Christian fundamentalism" here or any other religion? No, because that will be unsourced and OR.

He is also priortizing one source over the other through his edits. That is wrong as all views must be presented. This raises serious doubts about his actions. The edits are OR and shouldn't be added. Besides, we shouldn't compare archaic raids to modern attacks that too on our own. The destruction and killing may have something to do with sectarianism but that doesn't make the whole raid simply based on one thing. There is additionally primary source attesting these reasons. There claiming any such thing aboit a vwry old raid is OR and self-interpertation. Serious rule violation is going on here. 117.215.225.19 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) See this source where it's explained how where Wahhabis of Najd "launched Jihad to extend their community." Also, Brokking's "THE BLACK PRINCE: NAYEF BIN ABDUL-AZIZ" sheds light on this matter. There are many other sources on this, but I would like you to see this source saying: "...the Al-Saud supported campaigns by Wahhabi zealots to cleanse the land of "unbelievers". In 1801, Saudi-Wahhabi warriors crossed into present day Iraq and sacked the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing more than 4,000 people." (take a look at this one and don't miss this one, too.)
2) Which source is priored over others and what counter views are dismissed? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Mhhossein You are making claims based on sources not present in the article. Let me clarify something which you don't see clearly. What you are claiming is "sectarianism" and not "fundamentalism" in itself.:

1) All you presented in the book Longman guide to living religion was a search term "sacking Shi'ite". All it says "Shi'ism was attacked" in reference to Shia majority population of Karbala. Of course there may be an ideological motivation for killimgs of civilians but it cannot be described as the only reason for the attack which has multiple. That at most is "sectarianism", calling it fundamentalism is OR and self-interpertation.

2) Brooking's "THE BLACK PRINCE: NAYEF BIN ABDUL-AZIZ" is talking about Wahhabis purging Ottoman era symbols in Mecca and Media they saw as deviant, the Karbala raid isn't given any reason. Their tribal armies conducted raids into today’s Iraq and pillaged the Shiite holy city of Karbala, then turned west and conquered the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, purging them of any symbols of Ottoman rule and anything that struck the Wahhabi faithful as deviationist.

The Online Opinon source is not even a hostorical and scholarly source that does historical research. Besides actually about the ideological motivation of military campaigns of First Saudi State since 1744 and contacts of Wahhabis with Sauds. Nowhere it explicity refers to it as the only reason.In 1744, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab forged an historic alliance with the Al-Saud clan and sanctified its drive to vanquish its rivals. In return, the Al-Saud supported campaigns by Wahhabi zealots to cleanse the land of "unbelievers". In 1801, Saudi-Wahhabi warriors crossed into present day Iraq and sacked the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing more than 4,000 people.

Please only stick to scholarly and historical sources with proper historical research.

3) I already detailed the other reasons. The article itself states multiple reasons like its wealth and religion. Also the article itself cites that Karbala was also rich, claiming it as another reason [7]. This also gives the weakned defences as a possible reason. Isn't that forming your own POV and nelecting facts? We shouldn't edit based on our own opinions about anything. Please try to be careful. 59.96.132.131 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those what I mentioned are WP:RS. Btw, you are making WP:OR. --Mhhossein talk 20:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Fundamentalism = "...the Al-Saud supported campaigns by Wahhabi zealots to cleanse the land of "unbelievers". In 1801, Saudi-Wahhabi warriors crossed into present day Iraq and sacked the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing more than 4,000 people." --Mhhossein talk 21:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein How am I making OR? I am not committing any self-interpertation. I am going by what they say. They claim no fundamentalism and in this case us claiming it so about an old raid without the sources saying it so will be OR. You cannot call it something even if you think it might fit the definition. It fits at most the definition of sectarianism, but even that cannot be called completely correct. A simple they were "against Shi'ites" doesn't make it complete "fundamentalism". The article itself gives multiple reasons, so do some sources. I am not the one making OR. Some of the sources you used here aren't historical nor are involved in historical research. Their topic seems to be modern terrorism and attaching Wahhabism to it as a cause. That is not what we are here for. Historical and scholarly sources should be preffered. You cannot pick and throw anything in the article. Regardless, even those sources are making no fundamentalism claims. Your edits are not only OR, but it also doesn't present all viewpoints and facts which are required. 59.96.132.131 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the original version before the IP edits was better, but at the same time I do recognise that we need to replace the citation needed tag with at citation soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emir of Wikipedia How is it better? You cannot simply say it is better or should be used instead. Give reasons as to why you think so. 59.96.132.131 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source supporting fundamentalism as the motive. --Mhhossein talk 13:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein This is another example of you committing OR and adding what is not mentioned in the book. The source you used [8] nowhere made any claim about Islamic fundamentalism as being the specific cause. All it says is they wanted to return to the fundementals. At most what the fundamentalism can be about is destruction of Sufi shrines but even that is OR. All it says about Karbala is they attacked and sacked it in 1802. That in itself is not Islamic fundamentalism. Sectarianism and fundamentalism can be one of the reasons behind some of the destruction as I've been already saying. But it doesn't mean the whole attack was carried out simply because of religious motives or sectarianism or fundamentalism.
Also you are again overrriding the other facts if the article and other reasons given in it, including the wealth of Karbala and the probably weak defences. You seem to just want to prove yourself correct rather than see what you're actually saying is an actual fact and mentioned by source. There shouldn't be a hint of self-interpertation or OR in edits, but you commit it multiple times by ignoring the facts and cherrypicking what you want to add by self-interpertation of what you think is in the source or what you want there to be. 117.199.94.94 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks too much for writing too much. Please stop making further edits until a consensus is formed. I'll tag the article with POV. --Mhhossein talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source once again and it's regarding fundamentalism as the cause. The was removed and will be restored if another involved user can thinks otherwise. --Mhhossein talk 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I removed was an old unsourced material. However, any other motivations based the on reliable sources are welcomed. I'm not going to say that "Fundamentalism" were the only reasoning behind the attack. --Mhhossein talk 18:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein It's you who should explain why hve you reverted thrice and added back Islamic fundamentalism? Just becuae you claim a source doesn't mean everything's fine. You know your edits are being discussed so why do you keep readding them. Even if you added back woth another source, it is still a kind of revert. And mpst of all you are not witing for the discussion to be complete. You are indirectly igniting an edit war. If you try to do so, then I won't revert again, I'll straight away complain. Whether or not your source says what you claim can and should be discussed before making disputed changes. You are not the sole right-holder on this article, others have equal right to edit and opinionate. Unless an edit meets the rule and verifies itself without a doubt, it shouldn't be there. All edits must be verified. Please stop thinking you can add or remove what you want. I have tried multiple times to avoid an edit conflict, but editors like you keep trying to reignite it.
Whether I make long comments or shot is irrelevant. They aren't a page long. You are creating an unnecessary issue and harming your own arguments. And you cannot claim consensus for an unsourced edit. Consensus has nothing to do with unsourced edits. Edits have to be sourced and verified. That is a rule. Don't tell me to stop editing while you yourself edit in addition to edit-warring. I have checked this [book clearly. There is nothing said that "Islamic fundamentalism" was a cause. Simply dismissing it as "yes it said fundamentalism" is a cause isn't a reason. Again as I've already stated, all it says is they wanted to return to the fundementals. At most what the fundamentalism can be about is destruction of Sufi shrines but even that is OR. All it says about Karbala is they attacked and sacked it in 1802. That in itself is not Islamic fundamentalism. Sectarianism and fundamentalism can be one of the reasons behind some of the destruction as I've been already saying.
You say any other motivations are welcome. But why haven't you added them yourselves when you know they along with sources are already mentioned in the article? It's clearly you priortizing what you want to add over other facts, nothing else. I find that the source isn't saying what you claim and it is OR, then I can add templates that it's not in the source and is original research. I am not trying to impose my own version of edits like you are doing. You have no right to remove edits of others that don't really interfere with yours and only bring attention to the deficiencies in the article quality and your additions
You don't care about properly soircing as well as discussion, instead you do what you want. You must discuss and correct the issues raised by me in the templates on the article. You cannot unilaterally remove them. Your edits are effectively unsourced. I am not waiting for any consensus because you think it can allow you to edit in the way you want. Of course others are free to opinionate amd their opinions can be considered per rules. Verify your edits, there is no exception. If you cannot then undo them. 117.199.94.94 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that instead of making any further reverts and removal we first discuss. I've constantly tried to strike a compromise and adjust with you. Earlier my change of the civilian attack infobox to military conflict was reverted, I let it go. My removal of the motive was reverted multiple times, I then simply added templates raising issues of original research and information not in source. Even that was removed. Let's discuss the thing instead of removals. 117.199.94.94 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I promised myself not to burn my hands on these attack-pages-in-disguise anymore, so I am staying out of this. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Muhammad Ibn abd-al-Wahab (1703-1792) sought to return to the "fundamentals" of the tradition-the Quran, the Sunna, and the Hanbali school's legal positions in reference to the "Islamic Fundamentalism". In reference to the Sack of Karbala it states In 1802, they also attacked and destroyed the Shi'i Holy City of Karbala., but this sentence doesn't explicitly the motivations and could be where confusion has risen. What is established in the source is rather the groups ideology is Islamic fundamentalism, and it then goes onto to states examples. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Emir of Wikipedia: To be more precise, the sentence on the attacks starts with adverb "accordingly" which clearly implies that those actions were in accordance with those of followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and hence Ibn Taymiyya. In other words, they destroyed many buildings in the peninsula and also attacked Karbala. --Mhhossein talk 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein We aren't supposed to wander what a source is trying to say and are preferring the source again over others. You are again making self-interpretation. As I already said some of their actions like destruction of buildings may have been related with fundamentalism as it says they "attacked and destroyed the holy city of Karbala". But was the whole attack because of it? Per sources, the attack on Karbala was because of practice of Shiites as said by other sources which can also make it sectarianism. In addition to already mentioned Karbala's wealth and poor defenses. Under this circumstance, you are using only one source that too something that's not what you are claiming, simply trying to prove yourself correct with anything. This is OR and ignoring other facts as yet again. As I've already said, we should not get involved in interpretation that too about old attacks. 117.199.92.214 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not self-interpretation as you saw above. Accordingly, you may add any other motives, sectarianism or etc, if they are supported by reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I already know it is. You're just trying to find sources to prove yourself correct. I don't go in for any kind of self-interpretation nor adding any other motives might solve the problem. But we are discussing the wrongs of your edits. This isn't a modern terror attack, this was an old military raid. But none of the sources provide any convinving evidence the whole attack was because of some "fundamentalism". Your motive should be removed this instant, it's OR, unsourced, ignoring other facts, and looks like an attempt to just add what you wanted to. 61.0.200.167 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "the whole attack was because of some "fundamentalism"," although it could have provided a strong motivation at the time. The accumulated wealth could be a reason (which needs a source similarly), but watching the trend, you'll see that not all where they attacked were wealthy. However, we work based on reliable sources here. --Mhhossein talk 00:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So first you are saying you didn't commit OR, then you say I did not say "the whole attack was because of some "fundamentalism"," though you use that as a motive and never bothered to do anything else. Then you claim but watching the trend, you'll see that not all where they attacked were wealthy. What kind of comment is that? That is like saying not everyone in an wealthy city is wealthy. And what is it being based on? Complete OR and nonsensical reason. And the sources clearly state they robbed the wealth contained there. If you agree that there were multiple reasons, why haven't you added it yourselves? You seem to be only interested in one thing and seem to keep citing multiple sources and rasons to prove yourselves correct. That is not what we are here for. As I already said this old military raid cannot be compared with a modern civilian or terror attack. Please correct your edits. 117.224.78.138 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When participating in TP discussions, please try to express your words in a nutshell. I did not add more motives, simply because it needs to be mentioned by RSs. Btw, Wahhabisa attacked more cities other than Karbala, such as Thaif and etc. --Mhhossein talk 12:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are already there. You didn't add others because you're fixated on others for so long. Misrepresentation is against rules. What do other cities have to do with this? Saudis captured Medina too so they could toss out the Ottomans. But that doesn't have bearing on this. Do you have any source that says the attack was solely because if fundamentalism? Even your current sources aren't saying so what you claim. Please remove your edits right now. Neither sources nor consensus seems to be expressly in your favor. 59.89.47.162 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: I do accept that the greater precision proves the point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: Emir please note that what Mhossein is talking about is actually about destroying Sufi shrines not Karbala itself or why they sought to attack it. "Based in the Arabian Penisula, the Wahhabis, as his followers called, accordingly destroyed many mosques, shrines and tombs on the peninsula that they believed to be dedicated to the memory of Sufi saints." It doesn't mention anything of why the whole raid was carried out. Only that the destruction of Sufi tombs and shrines was inspired by fundamentalism. However, the attack on Karbala was not just on a city and it didn't consist of just Shias as well. Nor there is any proof or statement that fundamentalism was the reason. 117.199.83.46 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided proof and statements. I am not sure how good your English skills are IP, but with this edit Mhhossein clarified what would prove this. However I do accept that the source does not say it Islamic fundamentalism, but Wahhabi fundamentalism or general fundamentalism only. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Wikipedia How dare you impose your own version when discussion is ongoing? Please revert your own revert of mine now. Also what proof you are talking about? While you comment on "my English", please read the source carefully. Mhhossein claimed that the sentence about Karbala raid started woth "accordingly", however it's about destruction of tombs, shrines etc. and not Karbala attack. Your interpretation raises serious doubts about your own knowledge and you are misrepresenting the source. Read it again:

"Based in the Arabian Penisula, the Wahhabis, as his followers called, accordingly destroyed many mosques, shrines and tombs on the peninsula that they believed to be dedicated to the memory of Sufi saints."

Please revert you revert now. You didn't even wait for the RfC to be over. Stop edit-warring please yourself while blaming others. 61.1.82.149 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see Emir that Mhhossein is engaged in meatpuppetry with you and is trying to influence you to be on his side. There is no consensus at all under such circumstances. Please revert now. 61.1.82.149 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fanatiscm

Mhhossein You have violated the rules again. Instead of discussing, you decided to remove the templates. You also added fanaticsm as a motive, despite tge source only saying based on an orientalist tthat the raid was an example of fanaticsm, not that it was the reason. You cannpt add just what you think is there. The duscussions about thd motive is ongoing, your edits are highly disruptive. Regardless we don't use such reasons. You are deciding what should be added and what is correct by your own. As such I have removed your edits till you discuss as you don't care for cooperation. Regardless of what reason you give, you cannot add or remove what you want even if you think you think you are correct. If you edit war then you will be complained. This is your last warning. Discuss first. 59.89.47.162 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way you write and edit is not constructive. It's clear that when it's an "example of fanaticsm," fanaticsm is a cause! However, instead of bothering by avoiding to respect the consensus among the involved editors, please try to gather more views by starting a RFC. --Mhhossein talk 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I am not here to discuss how I write. How is an "example of fanaticsm" a cause? Will an "example of cruelty" make cruelty a motive? That is complete OR. That is an assessment by the author of what he thinks it as, and he never says fanaticsm was the cause or simply what someone sees it as. Please remember that there must be proof for their motives, not mere assessments of what might be the cause. Which consensus are you talking about? You're going on to do what you want despite it not being jn your express favor. That is pure disruption. Please avoid OR. I am not starting an RfC just because you want to be correct. You have failed to prove yourselves correct in any form. Please provide sources that clearly detail and prove what you say. All content must be verifiable. 59.89.47.162 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No civilian attack

Mhossein classifies this as a civil attack, but it's not like modern terror attacks. This was a military raid. As such classifying it as a "civil attack" is irrational. The Ottoman garrison fled, likely because they couldn't win and their hold was weak. But regardless that doesn't mean it isn't a military conflict. It fled because of the raid and the Wahhabis were prepeared to war. Also saying they met no resistsance at all is inaccurate, as there may have been civilians who fought back. This source [9] says they met almost no resistance, but not that therewas none. This is another OR. The military infoboc in no way should be changed and can not be treated in modern terms. 117.215.225.19 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Who the hell is Rousseau??

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

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

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

ARBSCW&ISIL Ds now in effect

Please not that ARBSCW&ISIL/Ds are not in effect, limiting all users to 1RR. Thanks. El_C 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Did you mean to type Please note that ARBSCW&ISIL/Ds are now in effect, limiting all users to 1RR., and not Please not that ARBSCW&ISIL/Ds are not in effect, limiting all users to 1RR.? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, that was a brain melt. El_C 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does Syrian civil war and ISIL have to do with this? I know ISIL had a radical Wahhabist-inspired ideology, but bringing the arbitration regarding them here is non-understandable. I am not against 1RR but I think it's better if it's given independent of any existent arbitration on unrelated topics. 117.241.119.6 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C:This article has nothing to do with "Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"? It's a weird sanction, to be honest. Could you please find a more suitable scope? --Mhhossein talk 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The scope can be imposed on the basis of related-ideology, even if it does fall outside the time frame of the event and organization in question. El_C 19:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about motive of the attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

  • No You would need secondary sources that discuss Rousseau. He is a dated primary source, and it's WP:OR to use him as primary. The quote should not be included unless it has been discussed in secondary sources. What do secondary sources say about it? Seraphim System (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No For at least two reasons, firstly because a single opinion is not strong enough unless that opinion is the principal RS on a subject, secondly 'fanaticism' isn't a motive, it's a judgement on the degree of motivation and wholly uninformative. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: I agree that we cannot rely on some opinion of a long-dead person who wasn't even there in the immediate vicinity to witness it's reasons or investigate. Normally in an attack, we will add reasons based on what the investigators divulge or what the perpetrators themselves admit, not based on opinions of someone involved. And this is a histprical incident unlike today's attack so first-hand accounts are more important. Simply that they were Wahhabis and their ideology is considered as fundamentalism cannot be a justification. Also a word like "fanatisicm" isn't neutral and is insultive to use it for someone, it's like calling someone a tyrant and can be relative. And again it's just opinion of writers about Wahhabi ideology. Sorry but these so-called reasons cannot be added. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"fundamentalism" probably needs a separate RFC. --Mhhossein talk 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Also IP, please read WP:3RR. Your claim cannot act as an excuse for edit-warring whether true or not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MonsterHunter32: Note that the sentence uses "also" to say that besides "destruction of religious buildings" they attacked Karbala. According to the English grammar, attack is added to the previous examples because of the "also". Moreover there are other sources supporting the claim: "Ibn Taymiya spoke against innovation, saint worship and pilgrimages to shrines, which is called Bida. The followers of Sheikh Wahab would translate his words into action. In 1801 they sacked Karbala and destroyed Hussain's tomb..."
Another motivation is presented here, too. --Mhhossein talk 11:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what you originally said, when you said the sentence began with accordingly. But still, I can clearly see what the book is saying. Simply saying it uses "also" cannot be said to be the reason behind it, this is a mention of the attack. It needs to be detailed. Besides the same source you are using has Wahhabis destroying Hussain's tomb. Simply calling it fundamentalism for again destruction of shrines won't suffice and first-hand witnesses or accounts of the background are completely absent. But then again the author is not even a historian, look at it on About the Author part: [10]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how you ignored the first phrase, i.e. "sacked Karbala" and just noticed the second one, i.e. "destroyed Hussain's tomb," both of them being emboldened. Of course, we are not necessarily bound to historical works in this regard, simply because we are not reporting history! The historical aspect (what happened, when did it happen and how it happened and etc) is already discussed. --Mhhossein talk 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring? It is written there clearly and appears similar. Some tombs cannot be equated. And this is a historical incident over 215 years old, yes we are absolutely reporting history at every step in what we write. Now sorry if my view doesn't agree with yours, I have more important things to do then repeatedly go around this. In case the RfC doesn't solve anything, I advice dispute resolution. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Mhhossein stop trying to influence other editors! You have already been trying to commit meatpuppetry by tryng to bring the editor Emir of Wikipedia to your side and calling me disruptive. You are acting like you are obsessed with this one single thing. I have never seen a person so obsessed as you with such a small thing. You don't care about facts, you only seem to care about what you want or think should be added. Stop treating this as your private project. And most of all stop your attempts at meatpuppetry or influencing others to get "votes". 117.199.84.101 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, ignoring your long comments containing accusations seems better to my eyes. Sorry IP! --Mhhossein talk 10:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein Sometimes you should read the comments. It contains the truth unlike your own typical accusations. 117.199.80.60 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wahhabi_sack_of_Karbala&oldid=782152816"