Talk:Tatbir

Changes

I redid the changes except the part about Tatbir starting from Ashura. I've changed that to starting from Muharram as you've suggested.

The main changes I made were:
- Tatbir is also performed by women
- I don't think there should be a list of countries where tatbir is performed. Tatbir is performed all over the world.
- Tatbir does not mean cutting one's chest or back. Tatbir is the action of striking one's head. However, I have still put in the edit that those practices are also things which some shias do.

I noticed in your copy you refer to Yazid as a sunni ruler. You can do that if you like. I don't know whether it would be better to put "ruler of Iraq" or "sunni ruler"... it's probably better we write sunni ruler because it's more historically accurate and also portrays the well known fact that if Saqifah never happened, then Ashura would have never taken place.

Pls present a proof that Tatbir is done by Women as well...your claim will not be inserted unless references are provided. Your are also not well equipped with the subject info..Yazid was the Umayyad [Uammayd dynasty is revered by Sunnis for their Caliphs belong to this] ruler of Syria with empire expanded in most Arabian parts. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mother, sisters, nieces, friends who are women, all to Tatbir every year. How can I prove this? There's no way I can prove this because it means posting pictures of them without Hijab. They go every year and do Tatbir in the mosque called Hussainiya Rasool A'dham in London, where the men and women do Tatbir separately.--78.147.136.161 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added very many references to Hadith which prove the permissibility of the shedding of blood. I have added 7 or 8 references for the hadith about Hazrate Zainab (sa) and also another hadith regarding Imam Zain al-Abideen (as). I have also cleaned up the english and made it easier to follow and understand, as well as making it more historically accurate. I know very well who Yazid was, hence I have kept you original statement about him. Also, I don't need to provide proof that women perform Tatbir. It may not be something that Pakistanis or Indians do, but Arab women do perform tatbir. Please do not revert the article to a previous one if you don't agree with me, as I have spent lots of time adding new and important information. If you don't agree with me on the fact that women perform tatbir (which would be very strange because you accept Hazrate Zainab (as) did it), then simply delete that sentence. DON'T REVERT THE WHOLE ARTCILE. --78.147.136.161 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Incorporated

IP User - 78.147.136.161, I have incorporated the changes done by you, anyways have made slight changes manually and did not revert your edits. 1. Your change of the subtitle [Historical evidences regarding tatbir] to [Historical evidences regarding tatbir and other forms of spilling of blood in mourning] adds nothing new to the existing title and makes it a bit complicated and ultimately shares the same meaning, after all this article is about Tatbir and that has been explained here.

2. After a detailed search on internet I came across a snap of a lady performing tatbir in Lebanon so I have left your changes untouched regarding Women performing Tatbir.

3. As per Wikipedia MOS Honorific titles for personalities are not allowed, like [peace be upon...] or Hazrat etc. I can understand your emotions nevertheless its Wikipedia policy, you may honor these personalities in your heart like how most other editors do.

4. Your replacement of the word "Shed" by "spill" is not suitable to an act like Tatbir where for most of the related articles use the word shed.

Final wording as advice, while best effort was put in, please provide some textual authentic and reliable source regarding Women tatbir, since I do agree with you on that, Wikipedia requires references. I have kept that with a hope of reference soon. Happy editing. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference for a video where women who performed Tatbir were interviewed. --78.147.136.161 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions

@Faizhaider:Salaam Alaykom brother. I noticed your recent edition in this article. I can't recognize the reasoning behind your reversions. Please consider that:

Some parts are an apparent copy-right violation case. They are copied verbatim from other sources. Have you checked them before reversion? your insisting on its reversion might be reflected to the Administrators' noticeboard.
The removed references are not reliable. The Challenging needs to be verified from reliable sources. Please find Verifiability and read it carefully.
By the way, why did you remove materials from the lead section regarding Ayatollah Khamenei's view point? At most you could balance it using others view point.
The ref improve tag should be restored. The article really lacks citation to reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Walekum. I think your removal of content is part of general POV-push going on this article for some time, which tries to remove most of the Tatbir supportive content on one pretext or other. Now to answer your points,

copy-right violation case: can you list the source which you think content is copied from?
I'm aware of Verifiability can you list down the the sources which you think are not reliable and why?
If you want to put content based on the source why you include your POV only i.e. Khomeini & Khamenei forbade it why didn't you balanced it out saying traditionalist clerics not only support it but practice the act themselves.

Also, do you think the citation (if we call it one), " A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372" is verifiable & reliable? But I left it there because I know Aqa e Khamenei has spoken against the practice. But you and few IP editors have been trying to paint the article as that all scholars are against tatbir and people just defy them and perform them (even in Haramain of Syed ush Shohda a.s. & Abul Fazl a.s.).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizhaider: No one may deny that some of the traditional shi'a clerics allow the followers to do this action and please consider that most of them are not alive now (may Allah rest their soul in peace). For this problem we may make two sections; one for the clerics who oppose tatbir and regarde it as "Haram" and for the clerics who allow the followers to do this. Please consider that this violent scene of tatbir is now used by western media to tarnish the peaceful image of Islam and specially shia. Do like to be recognized as such? These actions, nowadays, is preventing the everlasting message of Imam Hossein (a.s) reach to the world, so we must be careful. I believe that this is one of the reasons they forbade tatbir. But regarding your bullet points:

You are unfortunately ignoring an obvious copy-right violation, I'd like you to google the pharse "Question: Some individuals say that I do not see shedding my tears as enough to express my grief for Imam Hussain (AS)". This will be the last time I'm asking you not to insist on copy right violation.
Jafria News Network, Imamshriazi.com, "A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372", are not of course reliable sources. Who is responsible for the fact checking in these sources and how can you guarantee their reliability? (Most parts are copy pasted from the first two sources)
Of course I don't want to put the viewpoints of Khomeini & Khamenei only. I'd like the article to be neutral and to satisfy the Wikipedia qualifications. I'm in favor of having all the view points but from reliable and available sources.
By the way why did you removed the tags? Mhhossein (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Dead scholars doesn't means that their opinions & verdicts carry no weight or place. For your information 99% of Hawza study material consists of works of these dead scholars. Also, any article is not just about current status & affairs, on this specific article even for arguments sake if we assume your point that only living Maraji are important then too comments/edicts/fatwas of dead scholars give perspective that current stand (whatever it is) has been evolving in recent times. Also, I'm not here to do WP:Synthesis & skew article as per my thinking & believe FYI I myself (& nobody in my family) have ever practiced any form of tatbir/zanjeerzani(with chained knives) but then that is my personal life and belief, and I don't bother western media creating negative image of Shia Islam & muslims because they'll tarnish our image on one pretext or other until we become like them or get finished; but then all these belives are my personal & I don't allow them to spill over my work on WP, so, please I suggest you to edit the article based on actualities & facts and not based on personal POV & belief.

Regarding copy-right violation, the content was added back in 2011 apparently after some discussion on this talk page, so, I was assuming good-faith that it would not be WP:COPYVIO violation. But my point is even if it is copy-right violation then too why whole thing is being removed like it doesn't exists, the matter can be summarized to avoid copy-right violation, but entirely removing it is definitely POV-pushing by removing counter view about tatbir. Now as you have already referred the matter to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014 November 30, we have only two option either we allow it to be resolved thru investigation & arbitration or the content is adopted to avoid copy-right violation because you have referred it to WP noticeboard the ball is in your court now.
So, as per you nothing is Reliable Source, but I think Jafria News Network, Imamshriazi.com are RS. You can report these sources to WP Noticeboard for investigation too, until they are blacklisted they'll be treated as RS (& that too verifiable one).
If you don't think "A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372" to be RS and you want "all the view points but from reliable and available sources" then why didn't you removed section "Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei"? IMHO you didn't because it was in prohibition of tatbir which supports your POV. So, although you talk about "article to be neutral" but your edits show simply that you have removed content in support of tatbir on one or other pretext but kept content against tatbir even if they were not from RS even by your own standards.
It seems the tags got removed during general roll-back, FYI I have restored them now.

Your "Copyviocore template" had entirely jeopardized the article style/layout, it seems you have used the template first time, anyways I have fixed it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizhaider: Dear Sayyid, I never meant that the ideas of dead scholars carry no weight or place. I know that they are treasure of knowledge left for us and we should thank Allah because of them. FYI I never wanted the article to reflect my opinion and my editions was based on the assumptions that some parts are truly violating the copy right and some parts are based on unreliable sources and as the materials are challenging they had to be removed. Know that we have red lines for our self beyond which they are not allowed to express their ideas. Shiite would better be wise and know the situation of his /her world. We won't be finished and won't let them do propaganda against us.

How do you think that the mentioned sources are reliable?
As I told you before we'd better reflect the ideas of the two groups in the article so that one be able to get familiar with the clerics attitude toward this issue.
I did not end the "Copyviocore template" because I thought that same copy right problems may be found in other parts of the article.
Thank you for restoring the tags. Mhhossein (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of material

How can we have this material in the article:

This action is forbidden by some Shi'a clerics because it is considered as self-damage and haram in Islam. Ayatollah khomeini and khamenei forbade it and hence Hizbullah does not allow the members to perform this violent action. Instead, they encourage the members to donate their bloods.^[1]

Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: The statement "This action is forbidden by some Shi'a clerics because it is considered as self-damage and haram in Islam." is already present at start of section "Views of Grand Ayatollahs regarding Tatbir". Rest of the sentence "Ayatollah khomeini and khamenei forbade it and hence Hizbullah does not allow the members to perform this violent action. Instead, they encourage the members to donate their bloods." can be added to section "Performance of Tatbir" or "Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei".--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Monsutti, Alessandro; Naef, Silvia; Sabahi, Farian (2007). The Other Shiites: From the Mediterranean to Central Asia. Peter Lang. pp. 146–. ISBN 978-3-03911-289-0.

absence of two important title

Salaam Alaykom. Unfortunately this article is too messy along with some bias. But most importantly the absence of two title is annoying anybody; a title to indicate the reasons for accepting Tatbir, and a title to indicate the reasons for rejecting it.

Furthermore, concerning to view of Ayatollah Sayid Ali Sistani regarding Tatbir, I reviewed his website and nothing was mentioned about it. On the other hand the reference which cited here is a book with non-Muslim authors. In this situation I think it is better to remove it, unless you have a better references.M.Sakhaie (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with M.Sakhaie, the article is too messy. However I reckon we need two different titles to separate the viewpoints rather than titles to express the reasoning. I mean we'd better separate the different viewpoints and then explain their reasoning (if there exist any) under each title. Let's see what Faizhaider suggests. Mhhossein (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Sakhaie and Mhhossein: I too think that having two different titles to separate the viewpoints will be good idea.

Regarding the point that we should remove view of Ayatollah Sayid Ali Sistani regarding Tatbir because "reference which cited here is a book with non-Muslim authors", I don't agree because it'll be against WP policies of RS referencess.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.jafariyanews.com/articles/2k4/28feb_azadariverdicts.htm and http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234927649-matham-a-protest/. 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 according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if 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. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tatbir. 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/20090910063717/http://www.pasbaaneaza.com:80/Fatawa_qama_zani.html to http://www.pasbaaneaza.com/Fatawa_qama_zani.html

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:Offline} 06:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Qumazani into the this article. This merger had some some supports at this AFD page. Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this AFD, it's proposed that Qumazani be merged into the this article. Mhhossein (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits on 12/5/2016 to clean up for English, fix citation

I have mostly cleaned up this article to comply with English language rules, for the English version of Wiki. No quotes were altered, however.

I removed:

like 21 Ramadan (the day when the first Imam, Ali, was killed in Kufa), 28 Safar (in commemoration of Muhammad's death and the second Imam, Hasan ibn Ali) and any time between 10 Muharram and 8 Rabi' al-awwal.

as a citation link was added over 5 years ago, and it doesn't delineate which followers practice on which of these days.

In regards to citations for Sayyid Sadeq Rohani, the tag was placed in 2013. As a non-native speaker, I cannot confirm or deny, so I left this entry in the list. Someone should come and clean it, if they can provide the proper citation but I am not comfortable removing it entirely as a direct quote.
In addition, "Message of Mohaqeq Kabuli in Muharram" as a source does seem to notate tatbir either. Mohaqiq Kabuli's entry is a bit garbled and is not referenced at all in the translation on tatbir itself.
I have also added a citation tag as a reference was "A speech given to scholars of Kahgiluyeh and Bavir Ahmad, Muharram, 1372" and not up to Wiki standards.

References from the Talk Page

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Ali Khamenei crop.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Ali Khamenei crop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Brooklyn Museum - Ghamezani Muhharran One of 274 Vintage Photographs-colorized.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ayatullah Bashir Hussain Najafi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[MonsuttiNaef2007-1] Monsutti, Alessandro; Naef, Silvia; Sabahi, Farian (2007). The Other Shiites: From the Mediterranean to Central Asia. Peter Lang. pp. 146–. ISBN 978-3-03911-289-0.

[1]