Talk:Ya'qub ibn al-Layth al-Saffar

There is absolutely no indication that Ya'qub conquered under the banner of Shiism. Had he done so, the majority of Afghanistan would have been Shia today. Ya'qub was largely responsible to restore Islam in areas where the earlier Islamic influence waned after the initial Arab advance. These areas included Kabul, Balkh, Ghazni which by no means can be considered Shiite cities. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that these cities ever became any kind of foothold for Shia Islam. Indeed, in his book, Al-Farabi and His School, Ian Richard Newton specifies (pg. 29) that the Saffarids were Sunni. Scythian1 07:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have heared he might have been Ismai'ili. But I am not sure. --alidoostzadeh 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also added some references..mainly from Britannica. --alidoostzadeh 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I removed this sentence:

He was either Khawraji or Shia ^[1]

1. In different sources he is called Sunni, Shi'a, Khawarij and his sect is obscure.

2. He is a national hero for both Iranians and Afghans and his religion is not that much important.

--behmod talk 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:SalesKeep77. who is a sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Beh-nam placed false quotes from Dupree so I removed that. He purposly removed "Afghan" from the quotes and here is the official version:

"First, the Saffarid amirs and maliks were rulers of Persian stock who for centuries championed the cause of the underdog against the might of the Abbasid caliphs." -- Savory, Roger M.. "The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3)." The Journal of the American Oriental Society. 1996. HighBeam Research. (September 3, 2012).
"The provincial Persian Ya'kub, on the other hand, rejoiced in his plebeian origins, denounced the Abbasids as usurpers, and regarded both the caliphs and such governors from aristocratic Arab families as the Tahirids with contempt". -- Ya'kub b. al-Layth al Saffar, C.E. Bosworth, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. XI, p 255. --Defensor Ursa 18:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the point:

curprev 20:19, 9 June 2023‎ HistoryofIran talk contribs‎ m  24,542 bytes +1‎  null edit 2: reading the source you mentioned, it treats Ya'qub being a devout Sunni mutaawwi as a possbility/hypothesis, not a established fact... it's literally one of the first thing the source says: "In short, we shall explore the possibility that Yaqub was a mutaawwi a religious warrior for Sunni Islam." undothank

The literal conclusion on that paper was that Yacub was a Sunni Muslim. The paper was literally on exploring the possibility and states clearly later on pages 51 and 56 that he was a DEVOUT Sunni muslim as his conclusion. Why are you removing authentic sources for, cherry picking the topic of discussion and then completely disregarding the Authors conclusion?

Galaxy21ultra (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's not what vandalism means. And I'm not going to analyse a source for you, especially when considering you're a sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juice3kh). The point remains that you added info not supported by the source, even doing it by altering sourced info [4]. Yet you ironically claim that I removed "academic sourced material"? Don't make edits like that again, or I will take you to WP:ANI again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whats a sock? It seems like you have an issue with another user and confusing me with that person. I am sorry for what happened but you should not let that cloud your judgement when it comes to other users. Like I stated above, it was a well sourced reference that stated the specific changes I made.

Also I did not ask you to analyse a source for me, but if you are not going to check for yourself, how are you angry at me for making an appropriate edit with said source then?

You cannot be angry at me for making an edit with a legitimate source, start an edit war, then refuse to read the source when I start an arbitration to get to the bottom of this conflict that you started? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's start over and do it one by one. Why did you alter info supported by WP:RS? [5]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

When did I alter info supported by WP:RS? This is another unchecked claim of yours. I am counting these Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The info you altered had WP:RS (i.e. reliable sources) cited to it (which is not the first time you have done that [6] [7]). This is not a groundbreaking statement, can you please address it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

By wpis you mean Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I removed the claims from weak sources, used a MUCH BETTER source and articulated everything prior in a much more coherent fashion which YOU then removed and started an edit war. And then claimed I started it?

The source attached put to bed any claims of said person/dynasty being a khwariji by completely rejecting it. Hence I removed that claim due the better. If you want you can put that book but say the source I provided refutes that or remove it all together now that is false and the opposite is true, he was bought up a Sunni Muslim whose job was to fight khrawij groups? Up to you Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

You could have just asked me why I changed it instead of dragging this whole thing out and reporting me? Over something so small on a small page such few people look at. Ridiculous Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good luck convincing someone that Iranica and especially C. Edmund Bosworth is a "weak source". He's one of the best historians for medieval Islamic history, and most of the modern historiography we have about the Saffarids is from him. If you disagree, feel free to take it WP:RSN. As for the rest of your comment, I was waiting for you to say this; We report what sources directly say, not what impression or interpretation we make out of it. Feel free to add info from sources, as long as you present what it says directly (by avoiding WP:COPYVIO, obviously) and being aware of WP:UNDUE too, because the religion of the Saffarids seems to be disputed, see this sourced section [8]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the source myself from C. Edmund Bosworth and I could not find what was stated. Whereas my source was direct and clear. The best thing would be to use both. |Again how is this a reason to try and block me? From what i have seen of your edits, you seem to try and gatekeep all Iran related topics, esp religion related. Are you pushing an Iranian nationalist atheist agenda? Galaxy21ultra (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "I looked at the source myself from C. Edmund Bosworth and I could not find what was stated."

Perhaps you should spend more time researching than commenting on the motives of other editors...

• • Bosworth, C.E. (1975). "The Ṭāhirids and Șaffārids". In Frye, R.N. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 4:The Period from the Arab invasion to the Saljuqs, page 107, "The early Saffarids seem personally to have had no strong religious feelings, though there is evidence that they were not unaware of the need to conciliate the orthodox religious classes. The historians nevertheless frequently accuse them of heterodoxy, above all, of Kharijite sympathies..."
  • Julie Scott Meisami, Persian Historiography, page 120;"Bosworth argues that 'the early Saffarids seem personally to have had no strong religious feelings."

• "The best thing would be to use both."
  

D.G. Tor does not definitively state Ya'qub's religious affiliation(and she makes no definitive statements in her book, Violent Order: Religious Warfare, Chivalry, and the Ayyar Phenomenon in the Medieval Islamic World). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• • C.E. Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, page 172; "It may be that Ya'qub had been a Khariji himself...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

    • "The best thing would be to use both."
    • His statement was literally that Ya'qub's religious affiliation was Sunni and that previous works on this topic (the ones you included above by Bosworth and Meisami) were based only on later Samanid sources who tried to vilify Yacubs religious affiliation due to his rebellion against the Sunni Abbasid.

    Like I said, use BOTH Galaxy21ultra (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

• "His statement was literally that Ya'qub's religious affiliation was Sunni..."

He who? D.G. Tor? Deborah G. Tor? Maybe you should know who you are talking about and she actually stated, ". Ya'qub was, in other words, untiringly and unceasingly devoting himself to the ideals of the Sunni mutatawwi'i tradition.", which is in the article.

• "These primary sources depict Ya'qub either as a religious rascal or a volunteer Sunni warrior - a mutatawwi.." --cited to D.G. Tor, page 90.

Miss that? There are also, sources by Bosworth, Meisami, and Rahmati.

In response to this silly comment by Galaxy21ultra, "When did I alter info supported by WP:RS? This is another unchecked claim of yours. I am counting these" Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You changed referenced information here stating Ya'qub grew up Sunni, citing Bosworth 1994. Bosworth makes no mention of that and Tor makes no reference to this in her journal article or book.(WP:OR)

Also, you changed on the Saffarid article, here, you added Sunni to the entire dynasty after the article explicitly states otherwise.(WP:OR)

You also changed the Religion section to say, "Most sources state that the Saffarids were Sunni, starting out as of volunteer Sunni warriors for the Abbasids - a mutatawwi, whose job was to spread Sunni Islam", cited by Tor, page 90, which she does not say that.(WP:OR)

Here, you added this sentence, "This may have been the case due to the Saffarids early betrayal of the Abbasids.", citing Bosworth, page 108. Bosworth makes no mention of this.(WP:OR)

Also, you changed a sentence to this, "Since Kharijism prospered in Sistan longer than anywhere else in eastern Iran, it was believed the Saffarids held some Kharijite sympathies despite also quelling them." citing Bosworth, page 107. Bosworth also makes no mention of this "quelling" Kharijites on page 107.(WP:OR)

And finally, you deleted this sentence, "Archeologist Barry Cunliffe, states the Saffarids were Shia Muslim.", citing Cunliffe, page 388-389.(disruptive editing)

Please refrain from changing/altering/removing referenced information, or I will contact an Admin.

So your opinion to "use them both" makes no sense, since Tor's view is already represented along with other historical aspects attributed to Ya'qub. Since Ya'qub's religious standing is disputed, none of them should be presented in the Lead of the article(per WP:WEIGHT). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply