Talk:Muharram

Unprofessional Language

I believe that this article has a very casual and unprofessional writing scheme and should be corrected. The grammar and spelling are also very poor and spelling and inconsistent. For example, Islam is spelled "islam" in the article. THis article is also biased and does not stay focused on the topic. --Coolsafe (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday

Doomsday...? Did the editor who added this reference mean Qiyamah? freestylefrappe 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Poorly worded and somewhat extreme, and unsourced, better without. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the expression "Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H)," (meaning "Peace Be Upon Him"), which is a typical Muslim expression, is a biased POV in a secular encyclpedia.--213.140.6.119 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Vermondo)

Significance for Jews

I am not sure what are the grounds for justification of this claim "It is, for example, related by the jews to the time of Moses when he crossed the Red Sea escaping from the Pharaoh. Sunni Muslims often fast on this sacred day"

The jewish calendar is different and predates Hijri calendar. There is no reason to believe that 10th of Muharram (if we go back to Moses time, coincided with the Jewish Festival being referred here. )Even if there was a time during which the date of Ashura clashed with this date, considering that the Hijri calendar moves by 10 days a year, the two days were probably different. This is like saying that since Christmas and Eid coincided in year X, muslim day of Eid is also the day when Christ was born

125.19.41.200 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Qasim

Please note; the day Prophet Moses crossed the Red Sea can be traced back and can be identified using a Hijri date converter. For example, if you inter the date "25 December 0000" into a Hirji date converter, it will work out for you what date it would have been in the Hijri calender, so in this example, in the Islamic calender, 25 December 0000 would have been "10 Jamazi Al-Avval -640". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.88.34 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Slashing

I was told that Muslims slash themselves with swords in parts of India and Pakistan during this month. The person who bleeds the most is considered the luckiest. Is this true? 165.124.95.43 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No that nots true. The maatam ( not slashing )is done by oneself and not on each other. The maatam where you beat your chests with your hands and also whip your backs with chains and attached to them knives, is done in remembrance of Imam Hussains (A.S.) sacrifice to save the true islam. Imam and his family were martyrs of a very shameful war which was waged on them by Yazeed and his army.

Shias do maatam to prove to Imam that if they were there with him in that war, they would have given their blood and life to support him win that war. Zaheer Sayed

Extremism is everywhere. Not everyone does matam. Every person shows grief in different ways. Some channel their emotion through tears. Other cry out and beat their chests. This is genuine love. It is a human attibute. Nowhere is it said that you must beat yourself and anyone who tells you this wants you to stay away from learning about Kerbala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.25.46 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

POV in section "Muharram and Ashura"

The section Muharram and Ashura contains language that is strongly POV (e.g. "Between the true Islam and the Islam which the perpetrators like Yazeed and Shimr wanted"). In particular, even within Islam this section specifically adheres to the Shi'a point of view; see also Sunni view of Yazid I.  --Lambiam 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Section is clear now. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ILOL PAHADIYA

HELLO EVERY ONE WELCOME 2 ILOL PAHADIYA PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA..........

                   THE ILOL PAHADIYA IS FAST GROWING VILLAGE IN SABARKANTHA DIST ....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.107.130 (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muharram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091126163157/http://www.usc.edu:80/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/031.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/031.sbt.html#003.031.222

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

10th of Muharram

Content on the 10th of Muharram was posted at Wikiversity under permanent link https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=10th_of_Muharram&oldid=976887. It is unsourced, but may provide ideas for anyone wishing to extend this article. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Some info

this month's name previously was Safar-l-Awwal. originally it was corresponding to hebrew Tishri. [compare: Yom Kippur/Ashura] Tabascofernandez (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Imam Husayn and Karbala Tragedy Events in 'Muharram' Article"

The inclusion of expanded information on the events related to Imam Husayn and the Karbala Tragedy serves as a crucial enhancement to the article, providing readers with a better understanding of Muharram's significance in Islamic history. These historical occurrences offer valuable insights into the sacrifices and principles demonstrated during this sacred month. Removing this enriching content would diminish the article's comprehensiveness and hinder an inclusive portrayal of the observance.

Regarding minor disagreement concerning few terms deemed non-neutral, appropriate adjustments can be made to address the concerns. StarkReport (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@StarkReport: Regarding your NPOV point: it is your responsibility to make your content POV-free. It cannot happen that you put gross POV and then discuss what should be done to make it NPOV. Make it NPOV in your sandbox or word document and then insert it here. Regarding your misrepresentation of the sources:

• Does Halm 1997 says that Husayn's caravan was blocked through treachery?
• Which of the 3 cited sources say that Ashura means 10th?
• Which of the sources say that Yazid's rule was tyrannical?
• Which one says that Husayn "stood for justice and righteousness"?
• Ditto on "humiliation and hardship". Copied response from talk page post.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The term "treacherous actions" is a general description of the events that led to Imam Husayn's halt at Karbala, but it doesn't specifically point to individual actors. However, some key figures and groups involved in the events leading to Karbala include:

Umar ibn Sa'ad: He was the commander of Yazid's forces during the Battle of Karbala. He played a significant role in leading the Umayyad army against Imam Husayn and his followers.

Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad: He was the governor of Kufa under the Umayyad caliph Yazid. He sent Umar ibn Sa'ad to confront and intercept Imam Husayn's party, contributing to the events at Karbala.

Yazid I: He was the Umayyad caliph at the time and the son of Muawiyah I. His refusal to accept Imam Husayn's legitimate grievances and demands for justice played a central role in the conflict.

Supporters of Yazid: There were factions and individuals in Kufa who initially expressed support for Imam Husayn but later abandoned him or didn't come to his aid during his journey, contributing to the tragic outcome at Karbala.

I might have been a little too quick to add the sources, but if you do a little digging of your own on the article Battle of Karbala, you will find that the information I added is true and authentic.

Nevertheless, we can remove the terms "treachery" and "stood for justice and righteousness." However, it is a well-known fact that Yazid's rule was indeed tyrannical and oppressive. Mentioning the hardships endured on that day helps clarify why this month has such solemnity associated with it. StarkReport (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"general description" by whom? By you? Ibn Ziyad and Ibn Sa'd led the battle, so what? Who decides whether Husayn's demands were legitimate or illegitimate? For this alleged "Well-known fact" you should be able to find dozens of high quality RS. Isn't it? Reading through WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT will be of help. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did I wrote that Husayn's demands were legitimate. Also you will find you dozens of high quality RS sources in Battle of Karbala and Husayn ibn Ali article. Feel free to add them to the content where you think it is appropiriate. But reverting everything appears to be an attempt at vandalism. StarkReport (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"His refusal to accept Imam Husayn's legitimate grievances and demands for justice played a central role in the conflict." If you didn't write this above, then I suppose it was Jimmy Wales has hacked your computer. "Also you will find you dozens of high quality RS sources in Battle of Karbala" Just point me to sources instead of saying vague things which don't mean nothing. I wrote Battle of Karbala article so I know what sources are used there. Now point me to sources which say above things. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I thought I removed that when I was preparing the content as I had different versions, feel free to remove that.

As you have been involved in writing the Battle of Karbala article, you should be able to realize that I condensed and presented key points that occurred during that month to give readers a brief overview of that battle. Please clarify which details you find inauthentic or potentially fabricated. StarkReport (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait a sec, now I'am in a bit of a quandary. Can you point out the exact place where I wrote "His refusal to accept Imam Husayn's legitimate grievances and demands for justice played a central role in the conflict" cause I cant find it. Maybe Jimmy Wales hacked you computer eh? StarkReport (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is in your response above. He is messing with your monitor now. Battle of Karbala article is written from objective point of view, not from the point of view eulogizing the past. You've reinserted abominable POV into the article again. I urge you to fix that, or I will report you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to my edits in the article. Not in this conversation with you. Now what "abominable POV" you are talking about. Please mention it here. StarkReport (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

We may need inputs from another users. StarkReport (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

3rd opinion

@StarkReport and AhmadLX: This is non-binding 3rd opinion as per WP:3O from uninvolved user on request from User:StarkReport

• A) Please provide synopsis/ summary of what both sides are saying. That may facilitate other users to provide their inputs in more effective manner.
• B) Before getting in nuanced details of this content dispute my primary opinion is

• 1) This article name 'Muharram' is just name of a particular month and short description also is clear about the same. Still since being landing page about Muharram User:StarkReport may be looking forward to update the same with additional details which may have been covered or supposed to be covered in Mourning of Muharram and Battle of Karbala.

Here I compare the articles Ramadan and Ramadan (calendar month).

• 2) Hence may be it is better to rename this present article Muharram to Muharram (calendar month)
• 3) Let there be discussion whether title Muharram be a disambiguation page, redirect to Mourning of Muharram or redirect to Muharram (calendar month).
• 4) Ensure mentions / links of Mourning of Muharram and Battle of Karbala more clearer (easily visible) in Muharram (calendar month) so as interested readers would get those easily. That should be possible with see also template or some other mechanism.
• 5) The content issues are actually age old and may have been discussed already at the talk pages of Mourning of Muharram and Battle of Karbala. I suggest User:StarkReport to read those talk pages and archives of those talk pages and study what discussion has already taken place. And then discuss on talk pages there first.
• 6) There after discuss at this talk page what is needed to be expanded, if at all.
• 7) Til then let this month related page to previous best before edits of User:StarkReport
• 8) Both users seem to have engaged in discussion without carrying on edit war is good, I suggest to carry on collaborative efforts and discussion without going for any edit war.
• 9) Though I have suggested article renames above, even if you find my suggestions useful please begin a fresh rename discussion in new section and invite other interested users from WT:ISLAM to seek inputs.

I hope this helps

Bookku (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bookku, for your input. Upon first reviewing the Muharram article, I observed that while some key events related to the Battle of Karbala were already mentioned, there were also mentions of unrelated occurrences, such as Sufi saints' death anniversaries and anti-British uprisings. As a result, the article lacked a direct correlation to the solemn reputation associated with the month of Muharram. To address this issue, my initial step was to separate the sections, creating one dedicated to events related to the Day of Ashurah, the most significant day of this month, and another section for occurrences that happened to have during Muharram. The info deserved Wikipedia:Due weight. In an effort to enhance the context, I made slight expansions to the existing information. Now, after modifying the content to address the concerns raised by AhmadLX, I asked him whether he finds the information inauthentic or potentially fabricated. He has yet to respond on that one.

Regarding the B): 1), I did not mention customs like Pilgrimage, Matam, Tatbir, or the weeping and processions, as mentioned in the Mourning of Muharram. Nor did I insert extensive information related to the Battle of Karbala; instead, I provided a condensed overview of key events about the battle and its aftermath. In a very concise manner, it demonstrates to the readers what all this commotion about this sacred month is about. WP:CONCISE

As per your suggestion, I concur that incorporating links to the Mourning of Muharram and Battle of Karbala on top of the section would facilitate readers seeking more comprehensive information. Therefore, I intend to include those links accordingly.

About B): 2), Upon observation, I noticed that the article "Ramadan (calendar month)" also includes a section dedicated to important events during that month. Considering this similarity, I believe that the information I added to the Muharram article should not be removed, even if the article were to be titled "Muharram (calendar month)." The inclusion of key events is consistent with the approach taken in the "Ramadan" article, and it would offer readers a comprehensive understanding of the significance of Muharram as well. StarkReport (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

False statements and poor sources

There are a number of issues with this article. Starting with the sources, the article cites several websites. In all instances, there are better alternatives available. As for the news portals in the article, they should only be cited for, well, news. There are also primary sources in the article, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih al-Tirmidhi, etc. And why cite the Turkish encyclopedia when there are dozens of EI and more credible sources available in English? Moving on to the content, there are a number of problematic claims in the article. I mention just three for brevity:

• "Before Islam, the Arabs also fasted on the tenth day of Muharram." This is not the whole story, see Ashura#Origins. Either the false claim should be removed altogether or the alternative (Sunni) origin stories should be mentioned, albeit briefly.
• "This day also had importance in other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity." This is flat-out wrong, again see Ashura#Origins.
• "Imam Husayn refused to pledge allegiance to the tyrannical rule of Yazid. In the one-sided battle that ensued, his companions fought and were martyred one by one. Eventually, Imam Husayn, struck by multiple arrows and attacked by the enemy's forces and also attained martyrdom in the Battle of Karbala." Surely, the tone of this passage is not appropriate.

The list goes on. Did I mention that a large portion of Muharram#Muharram and Ashura to the Muslims is unsourced? Finally, every claim in the lede should appear somewhere in the article (or cited). That's not the case now and the lede should be rewritten. I hope to revise the article in the coming days to address these issues. Albertatiran (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Albertatiran. Regarding the third point about the tone not appearing appropriate, I believed the content was fitting as it enables readers to comprehend the situation and the factors that contributed to the tragic events at Karbala and to demonstrate that why this month has such solemnity associated with it. Highlighting the refusal to pledge allegiance to Yazid and the resulting one-sided battle underscores essential facets of this historical event. I was hoping to provide clear overview of the Battle of Karbala, which holds profound cultural and historical importance.

However, would you consider this to be suitable?

"Imam Husayn declined to pledge allegiance to the ruling authority of Yazid. The subsequent one-sided battle witnessed his companions engaging in combat and being martyred. In due course, Husayn encountered a barrage of arrows and assaults from the opposing forces, ultimately leading to his martyrdom during the Battle of Karbala."

As for the first two points, I think your right. The content from Ashura in Sunni Islam does not necessarily imply that Ashura itself holds significant religious importance in Judaism or Christianity as it does in Islam. Rather, it suggests a historical linkage between fasting practices. So maybe instead of "Before Islam, the Arabs also fasted on the tenth day of Muharram. This day also had importance in other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Christianity.", we can write

"While certain practices associated with Ashura have historical connections with other Abrahamic religions like Judaism, particularly in relation to fasting practices such as Yom Kippur, the level of religious significance and observance differs between these faiths."

What do you think? StarkReport (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi StarkReport, thanks for the input. Words like Imam or martyrdom violate WP:NPOV. The former can be replaced with Shia imam (but only at its first appearance) and the latter should be replaced with killed. What is your reliable secondary source for the claim that the battle was "one-sided"? I'm not saying it wasn't but that it should be supported by a reliable source.

Regarding the significance of Ashura, Sunni tradition indeed connects Ashura to a number of events, primarily the parting of the Red Sea. Even if this was true initially, the Jewish and Islamic calendars have long since diverged and Ashura has been severed from its Jewish roots. (It's like celebrating the start of Ramadan on March 23 every year because this year Ramadan began on March 23.)

These issues can be avoided by rewriting that sentence more carefully, similar to the language used in Ashura#Origin. If it's ok, please give me a few days (or a bit longer) and I'll address these issues in the article. Then I'd be happy to hear your feedback and suggestions for additional revisions. Albertatiran (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A major revision to address the above issues. I've replaced the unsourced or weakly sourced content (or removed it when warranted). The two sections "Events Related to Imam Husayn and Karbala Tragedy" and "Other Historical..." were merged. There are now two separate sections "Origins" and "Ashura" in the article. The last image exceeded the length of the article and was removed. Added the citation tag whenever needed. Added a "see also" template pointing to Mourning of Muharram in the beginning of the article, which seems to be an easier (but not necessarily better) solution than renaming the article or a DAB, as suggested earlier on this talk page. Various other edits and changes. @StarkReport: Your feedback would be very welcome. Or you may instead choose to edit the article directly. Albertatiran (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Albertatiran. I see that you've implemented many changes that were indeed necessary. I don't have much issue with it but I think that the approach of segmenting the sections facilitated readers to grasp the specific significance of both the Husayn and Karbala events and the broader historical occurrences within Muharram. This way, readers can readily comprehend why the month of Muharram carries a somber tone and significant cultural and historical importance. It provided a focused reading experience for those seeking information on specific topics. From a reader's standpoint, the merging of the two sections could potentially induce confusion and disorderliness since it also includes the births and deaths of certain Sufi saints, among other events. I'm not certain but I feel like that WP:WHENSPLIT and WP:ORGANIZE may apply.

I also have an inquiry. Prior to this recent modification, I briefly elaborated on certain aspects related to the Battle of Karbala and its aftermath within a distinct section. Did you feel that the details provided there lacked proper sourcing or did not align well with WP:NPOV? StarkReport (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi StarkReport, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. As wiki editors, we only have the humble task of carefully summarizing and presenting reliable sources and academic research. So it's often said around here that it's best to start with the sources, not the other way around. That is, it's usually not a good idea to write and then look for sources for the text. That way it's much easier to avoid neutrality issues. In particular, please see the bullet about "nonjudgmental language" in WP:WIKIVOICE. That strategy also helps with WP:VERIFY. That is, it's necessary to have an inline citation for every claim made in the article, big or small. But it's also good practice (almost necessary) to also cite the precise page number for every inline citation. WP:BURDEN has a bit more info. If these two are addressed (WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:BURDEN) then there is no reason why your text shouldn't replace mine in Muharram#Battle_of_Karbala. Thanks also for addressing the tags in the article. I think applies to some of your fixes. Hope you find these suggestions useful. Albertatiran (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)