Talk:Fatimah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: It is almost best to have two entries on this Biography, a Shiite and a Sunni one as the positions here will always be the opposite of each other. The different perspectives on the history and personalities around the time after the death of the Moslem prophet are the causes of split between the Shiites and the Sunnis til modern times. Sam (edit) WikiProject Islam / Salaf / Shi'a Islam      (Rated B-Class) Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Salaf task force. (with unknown importance) This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force. (with unknown importance) Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) It is almost best to have two entries on this Biography, a Shiite and a Sunni one as the positions here will always be the opposite of each other. The different perspectives on the history and personalities around the time after the death of the Moslem prophet are the causes of split between the Shiites and the Sunnis til modern times. Sam WikiProject Muslim scholars     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of the article assessment section of WikiProject Muslim scholars, a WikiProject for all articles about Muslim scholars. Note: The project includes non-Muslim scholars of Islam. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Salaf This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf. It has been rated - on the quality scale. WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-Class) Middle Ages Portal Fatimah is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) It is almost best to have two entries on this Biography, a Shiite and a Sunni one as the positions here will always be the opposite of each other. The different perspectives on the history and personalities around the time after the death of the Moslem prophet are the causes of split between the Shiites and the Sunnis til modern times. Sam WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Fatimah was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: October 12, 2007

To-do list for Fatimah:	edit · history · watch · refresh
What we should do to achieve GA status criteria : Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Lead should be expand lead per WP:LEAD. Copyedit: Please check grammatical and spelling of the article. Merge: "In the Quran" section should merge in the other sections. Expand: Use Ali article to expand this article especially in the case of Ali#Family life, Ali#The Incident of Mubahala, Ali#Descendants, Ali#Inheritance Infobox: Add Template:Infobox Salaf
Priority 1 (top)

Archives

July 05-August 07 August 07-

Contents 1 Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace? 1.1 Conclusions from the discussion 2 "Virtues" 3 Improvements towards GA 4 refs 5 Good article:Review 5.1 Suggestions 5.2 Shia viewpoint 5.3 COI 5.4 Stable? 5.5 Failed 6 Fatima's death 7 External links section 8 Grave of Fatima 9 Sufic View 10 Fatima's sisters 11 Hope no one mines me taking this out 12 unnecessary caveats 13 "Views"

[edit] Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace?

[edit] "Virtues"

I don't think it's appropriate to label a section in an encyclopedia article "Virtues". Slacker 11:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What would an appropriate heading be? I think the content of the section is valid but maybe with a different heading? Would "Attributes" be any better? → AA ^(talk) — 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Importance to Muslims", "Significance among Muslims", or something like that? Slacker 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "Titles" and restructured the text appropriately. → AA ^(talk) — 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements towards GA

Putting the past behind, I'll try and continue to improve this article towards reaching GA status but need some help from experienced editors on what more is required. Could you please add the list of topics/areas that need to be improved in order to meet the GA criteria. → AA ^(talk) — 11:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• (4) Further work required on neutrality (AA)
• (3) Add details on issue of inheritance (AA) [DONE]
• (3) Add details on disagreements between Fatimah and Ali (AA) [DONE]
• (2) Improve sourcing, increasing use of a variety of academic sources; reducing reliance on less reliable sources (i.e. Abu Muhammad Ordoni). (ITAQALLAH)

[edit] refs

i have tried to neaten up some of the ref usage, such as moving replicated refs in successive sentences to the end of the relevant passages, as well as joining up common ref combinations (such as EoI and USC). i had also tried looking for other thorough biographical material on Fatimah without much luck, so i will probably try to incorporate what can be found in works such as Cambridge History of Islam, or any works focusing on the life of Muhammad and/or events soon afterwards. perhaps we could also have a section on Fatimah in Shi'ite thought/beliefs if there's enough material available on it. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have completed by other project, I'm turning my attention back to this. Very useful suggestion re: Shia view section. There's some elements of it in EoI (Fatima the Legend) and I have material from the Amin 1968. I also suggest moving some of the other Shia-only views (mostly from Ordoni) into this new section. → AA ^(talk) — 08:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article:Review

This article should be improved more. Therefor I put an On Hold tag on it.

During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2007 compares against the six good article criteria:

[edit] Suggestions

1. Expand lead per WP:LEAD

   Needs to be done. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

2. You should add reliable sources wherever I put citation needed. In some cases the information is not clear enough.

   Did all the cn tags. I will re-review the source for the remaining vn tag soon. AA

3. Add some information about migration to Mecca.

   Ah yes - failed to spot this oversight. Will do. AA

4. This article doesn't cover enough some major aspects of her life such as descendants and different point of view about her. You can use Ali#Family life, The Incident of Mubahala, Descendants, Inheritance to improve this article.

   I believe it does cover the major aspects of her life in sufficient detail for GA. Fatimah#Children, Fatimah#Inheritance. AA

   You can use Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 50 to 54.Sa.vakilian

   Multiple views now included. → AA ^(talk) — 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

5. It doesn't represent Shia POV correctly.

   Please suggest which bit is wrong. AA

   How about now following Aminz's additions. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's good and we can make it better later.Sa.vakilian

6. Add some information about importance of her descendants (the Prophet descendants)

   Mention is made of her being the wife/mother of the Shia Imams and about the Fatimid Dynasty. Again, I believe in sufficient detail for GA. Please suggest anything else that is missing. AA

   I propose to add something like this with reliable sources.

   Ali's descendants by Fatimah are known as sharifs, syeds or sayyids. These are honorific titles in Arabic, sharif meaning 'noble' and sayed/sayid meaning 'lord' or 'sir'. As Muhammad's only descendants, they are respected by both Sunni and Shi'a, though the Shi'as place much more emphasis and value on the distinction. The Idrisid and Fatimid dynasties are descended from Ali and many Muslim notables claim to be descendents of Muhammad via his daughter Fatimah and Imam Ali. The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei, supreme leaders of Iran, Muammar al-Gaddafi president of Libya, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali president of Tunis, The Hashemite royal families of Jordan and Iraq, the Alaouite royal family of Morocco, the Husseini family of Lebanon, and the Aga Khans of the Ismaili community claim direct descent from Muhammad through Ali and Fatimah.Sa.vakilian

   Sounds good. I suggest renaming Children to Descendants and adding this to the end of the section. → AA ^(talk) — 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   I've copyedited this into the article but it needs sources. Could you update please as I could not find any in the Ali article either. → AA ^(talk) — 16:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

7. Clarify which part is written on the basis of Sunni reports and which parts represent Shia narrations.

   Where there are alternative views, I have attempted to do that. If you have specific items, please discuss. AA

8. Add a template for her such as Template:Infobox Salaf.

   I purposefully omitted a template, since the discussion on her date of birth/death cannot be conveyed appropriately in a template. Having a template is also not a requirement for GA, I believe. AA

   I see you've added a new template. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

9. Surprisingly there isn't written anything about her position among Ahl al-Bayt. Add some information about the religious superiority of Fatima according to Muslim hadiths such as Hadith of the Cloak and Hadith of Mubahela.

   I will attempt to do so. AA

   You can use Madelung's work, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 14 to 17.Sa.vakilian

   Aminz has added the section an Quranic view of Fatimah. → AA ^(talk) — 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, that's nice but I prefer to add this part in her biography as we've done in Ali. I mean "In the Quran " may not sound good as the title of a section. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   I've moved the section under #Life before the death of Muhammad. → AA ^(talk) — 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

   But I meant it's not appropriate to write some part of her biography by its source(i.e. In Qur'an, In hadith, In scholars and academic book, etc). This part should be rewrote on the basis of the issues such as "The event of Mubahala"Sa.vakilian

10. New item, I put Verification needed wherever the idea was dubious or contradicts with other sources.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    I can confirm that there is no mention of Umar injuring Fatimah in the Shi'ite Encyclopedia. Even in Ordoni (which is not a reliable source per WP:RS and is highly partisan), it is mentioned in passing. → AA ^(talk) — 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

    In fact these two story which has been narrated in the article is just one.

Umar called for Ali and his men to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. Ali refused to exit. Umar sent a force led by his slave-boy Qunfud to Fatimah's house instructing them to bring Ali to the mosque. Arriving at the house, Qunfud requested permission to enter, which was refused by Ali causing Qunfud to return to Abu Bakr and Umar and relate the events, who instructed them to go back and enter the house by force if necessary. Qunfud and his men returned but were this time refused permission by Fatimah which caused Qunfud to send his men back to Abu Bakr and Umar for further instructions who told them to burn the house down if necessary in order to bring Ali to them.[As I remember Madelung narrated the story up to here p.40] Then, according to Shia sources, Fatimah came and stand behind the door to prevent Umar but he fired the door and broke in, resulting in Fatimah pressed between the door and the wall and she was injured. Men invaded, fastened Ali and pull him to the mosque. Fatimah tried to prevent them but Qunfud beat her so that she miscarried Al Muhsin. According to Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq this injury led to her death.. This story is narrated in the primary sources such as the The book of Sulaym ibn Qays, secondary sources such as Kitab-e-Isbatu'l-Wasiyya of Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī and contemporary sources such as Peshawar Nights with little difference. (See also:Umar at Fatimah's house)

Of course, some of Shia reliable sources haven't narrated it but we can't say A minority Shia view which is disputed amongst Shia scholars and not found in scholarly works such as the Islamic Shi'ite Encyclopedi. We should mention the beginning of the story up to warn to fire the house as a historical fact which can be found in Sunni, Shia and western sources and then say According to some of the Shia sources ...

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied to comments above. → AA ^(talk) — 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian asked me to comment and I have a few suggestions.

1. The second sentence in the opening needs a source as it's a major claim.
2. In the opening her birthplace is spelt Mecca but in the birth section it's Makkah. Should be the same. I'm not bothered which but the current consensus is Mecca.
3. In the "Death" section the link for "Ramadhan" leads to Ramadan, about the religious observances, should that not be Ramadan (calendar month)?
4. In the "Disagreements with Ali" section the sentence "On one occasion, a member of the house of Hisham ibn al-Mughirah put forward a proposal to Ali to marry a woman from their clan which he did not immediately reject." is not too clear. Did Hisham ibn al-Mughirah want Ali to marry the woman?

   Do you have a suggestion on how it should be worded based on the full context below? → AA ^(talk) — 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   I haven't seen this story in Shia texts. Can you please clarify according to what it has narrated.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's in the EoI referencing al-Baladhuri, Ansab, i, 403; Tirmidhi, ii, 310, etc → AA ^(talk) — 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   Here's how it's related in the EoI:

   The most serious disputes between the pair arose when the Banū ām b. īra of the Ḳ suggested to ʿAlī that he should marry one of their women. ʿAlī did not reject the proposal, but Muḥammad, when some of the tribe came to sound him on the matter, came to the defence of his daughter. “ Fāṭima ” , he said, “ is a part of me (baḍʿa minnī) and whoever offends her offends me ” (al-Balā urī, Ansāb, i, 403; ī, ii, 319, etc.) or “ what angers her angers me also ” (this ḥadī has many variants which, however, do not much change the meaning).

   I propose to say According to Sunni narrations.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   EoI is an academic source and it would be wrong to say that it's only accepted by Sunnis (as that wording would imply). If the view is not accepted in Shia sources, then we can cite the source and say it's been refuted by Shia scholars with an explanation. I may have seen this view accepted in the Shia Encyclopedia - will remember to look for it next time. → AA ^(talk) — 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

   How about something like "On one occasion, a member of the house of [[Hisham ibn al-Mughirah]] proposed that Ali marry a woman from the [[Banu Makhzum]] clan. Ali did not immediately reject the proposal and when word reached Muhammad he is reported to have said, "Fatima is a part of me and whoever offends her offends me."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks - added that in although the woman was from Hashim's clan. → AA ^(talk) — 05:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Look at Ali#Family life. The first and second sentences in that could also fit in here.

   Both sentences would require a citation. I've added cn tags. → AA ^(talk) — 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

   You can find the sources at the end of the paragraph. I added most of them at the end of the paragraphs similar to Islam.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

6. In the "Marriage" section hijra should probably be linked to Hijra (Islam) as should Uthman to Uthman Ibn Affan.
7. A look through the "What links here" would seem to show that there may be pages that should appear here. Possibly in the "See also" section. Things like Fatima the Gracious and Book of Fatimah.
8. In the titles section, second paragraph, last sentence. It might be a bit clearer if it was; "She was the first wife of Ali, who was the first [[Imamah (Shia doctrine)|Shia Imam]] and the fourth [[Rashidun]] (The Rightly Guided Caliphs), the mother of the second and third Imams, and the ancestor of all the succeeding Imams; indeed, the [[Fatimid]] dynasty is named after her.<ref>Esposito, John; ed. ''Oxford History of Islam'' Oxford; 1999 ISBN 0-19-510799-3</ref>"

Hope this is of some assistance. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia viewpoint

This article doesn't represent Shia viewpoint correctly. As a reviewer I shouldn't do a major edit but I can introduce better sources in this case.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have struggled to find reliable Shia sources and only managed to track down the Shia Encyclopedia at the local library. If you have suggestions for other Shia RS's please list them here and we can work from there. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

i think there might be some material on the veneration of Fatimah in Shi'i thought in the EoI article. i'll try to make a section on that soon. ITAQALLAH 10:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find some reliable source in al-islam.org. Some of them like speech of Hamid Algar is academic. There is a Sunni source which I found in google book[1]. If these sources weren't suitable then we could could use Persian sources.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we know who published that book? MezzoMezzo 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation: Shahid Ashraf (2005). Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions. Anmol Publications Pvt Ltd. ISBN 8126119403. 

Google returns only 29 hits and nearly all of them to distribution sites. No entries in Google News or Scholar. → AA ^(talk) — 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find any other English biography of companions. I think at this stage (GA review) it's acceptable.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Sa.vakilian, with all due respect, I think there is a conflict of interest in yourself reviewing this article for GA. It would be better (as you are doing) for you to be an involved editor and for us to work to address your concerns. I have no problems in withdrawing my GA nomination (I had assumed all interested parties had had their say). Let me know if you agree. → AA ^(talk) — 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be conflict of intrest but whatever I told above was from technical viewpoint. This article represents Shia viewpoint wrongly and I can prove it easily. Please be patient and don't withdraw it. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The review guidelines specifically mention: You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed at GA. (Instead, consider improving the article so it meets standards, rather than simply promoting it.) I think therefore for the review to be seen to be transparently objective, it is better for you to assist with the article and we can list it once we're all happy with the outcome. In any case, I don't believe the kind of changes that have been suggested is do-able within the timeframe. So, I suggest you fail it in this round and we'll improve it and resubmit later. (PS: I do not doubt that you'll provide an objective review - just the guidelines specifically make mention of the exact type of COI you'll encounter with this article.) → AA ^(talk) — 19:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If it says You are a fan of the subject, and want to see the article listed at GA. (Instead, consider improving the article so it meets standards, rather than simply promoting it.), then you can be sure that this article will be failed similer to other articles which I reviewed. I put on hold on this article and do my best to improve it but as you can see in my former reviews such as Talk:al-Manar and Talk:al-Farabi the fact that I've been the fan of an issue haven't changed my viewpoint about its quality. However I really insist on trying for one or two week.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stable?

I didn't notice until I fixed a red link yesterday that the article was semi-protected as "infinite" by User:BrownHairedGirl back in August. I think the protection needs removing and then see if the article is stable. I don't know exactly how the reviewers look at the articles but if it was me I would question why the article was protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice it was indef protected. It was done during the consensus building exercise archived at the top of this page. I think the article has moved on considerable since then and the protection can go. Could you do the honours please? Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 11:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remembered about this. Done it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

Although the article has improved during last week but it hasn't reached GA criteria. I want to declare failing if you agree.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Fatima's death

There is written

The Sunnis, however, state that following the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad summoned Fatimah and informed her that he would be passing away soon but also informed her that she would be the first of his household to join him.

This event has narrated in Shia biography with little difference. I'd rather say The Muslims state... Shias agree whit other part of this paragraph except her death's date. Shias agree with following which Fatimah was grief stricken and remained so for the remainder of her life until she died but according to most of the Shia biographies the major reason of her death was the fact that she was beaten by Qunfuz. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded it. Let me know what you think. Regarding the incident with Qunfuz, that is related here. → AA ^(talk) — 22:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shia and Sunni disagree about day of her death. Shia report from Imam Sadiq represent she dead in Jamadi al-Sani.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use Madelung's book, The Succession to Muhammad, pages 43.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There is written:

The Sunnis, however, state that on the morning of her death, she took a bath, put on new clothes and lay down in bed. She asked for Ali and informed him that her time to die was very close. Upon hearing this news, Ali began to cry but was consoled by Fatimah who asked him to look after her two sons and for him to bury her without ceremony. After her death, Ali followed her wishes and buried her without informing the Medinan people

This part is narrated in Shia sources and differences are few. So I think we can write a story which compatable with both of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sa.vakilian (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links section

Can we justify the addition of each external link per WP:EL please and discuss here the encyclopedic value. We want to keep out links to polemic sites, blogs, opinions, forums etc. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 17:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just two links relate to polemic issues and we can remove them. I think other links are suitable.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose inserting these links:

• A biography of Fatimah. — USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
• Holy Fatima, the Ideal Lady of Islam al-shia.com

Both of the above link to biographical information, which this article covers and therefore we should ensure all the relevant topics are covered in the article and not add these links since they do not provide any additional encyclopedic value (Item 1). → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Picture gallery and quotes — ezsoftech.com

There are a number of ads but they appear to be discreet so this should be acceptable. → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fatima al-Zahra — al-islam.org
• Fatima is Fatima by Ali Shariati

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

al-islam.org is not a reliable site, does not fall into any of the categories here and should not be linked per Item 2. It also states that it operates through the collaborative effort of volunteers based in many countries around the world and it in no way can guarantee the absolute authenticity of all of the data and should not be held responsible for any errors herein → AA ^(talk) — 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will review these in the next few hours and post my comments. I would request other editors to do the same. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 19:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I insist on inserting Fatima al-Zahra. It's a collection of links to reliable sources which represents Shia viewpoint. Of course we can add all of the English links in that pages directly.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a link to a search and is to be avoided per Item 10. Additionally, the search results (or the actual links if they are used) give undue weight to the Shia POV and should be avoided. We have to balance the links between all the different POVs. The See also section has links to two prominent Shia articles regarding Fatimah, so I think it will be best if we can avoid adding any further links. → AA ^(talk) — 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunnis can add links and make it balance. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So, exluding the search link, which ones do you propose to include? → AA ^(talk) — 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose adding

• some encyclopedia like Britanica, Iranica(written by JEAN CALMARD)
• Fatimah al-Ma`sumah (as): a role model for men and women by Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlullah (He's more reliable than Urdoni)
• The world’s most outstanding Lady: Fatima az-Zahra’ by Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi
• Fatima is Fatima by Ali Shariati

Can you find some Sunni books to make this part NPOV.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grave of Fatima

It should be mentioned at the end of the lead that the exact place of her grave is not clear . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the article work, we'll need to revisit the lead to make it conform to WP:LEAD and this can be included. → AA ^(talk) — 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufic View

The article is great, spoiled only by the wild imaginings at the end under the heading sufic view. I would say this has to be a candidate for deletion. It certainly would be worth adding something about the Sufi view of her (radiyAllahu 'anha), but I'm afraid the view of the main sufi tariqas would be considerably less fantastic.Baba farouq 22:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this section needs a rewrite to give the readers a better understanding of what is being said. → AA ^(talk) — 12:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to copyedit this but gave up. I believe undue weight is being given to this section and at most a sentence or two is warranted on this topic somewhere in the article. Can someone summarise based on RSs please? Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I had another stab at this and I think there's only two important points in relation to this article which I've reworded and removed the rest. If there are any issues, please discuss here. → AA ^(talk) — 15:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The two; yes; but you write like a sufi...hmmmmmmm.......................

I have read what you did: it certainly compresses the issues I expressed much better than I did; so in this I salute thee; firthermore you have left out some things that i will put in: but not here; the information about the Sun of Fatimah being the Lamb of Fatima is too controversial; because in this context I cannot go into too great detail; however; could you perhaps paraphrase anything I can put into one or two sentences? I wonder; in any case: great work; now how do I bring to light that the Christ of Islam and the Mahdi of Christianity are One and the Same? Fatimah is the Key; as Maryam al-Kubra she fulfills the prophecy of Muhammed about the only "mahdi" there was ever going to come would be Isa; the Son of Mary. The events at Fatimah are therefore where Islam and Christianity "meet". The Illuminists knew that the providence shifted to Islam when God gave them the kingdom when the Rulers delivered Jesus to death to take the Vineyard for themselves; it is thus a matter of the Grail; the Grail being Perfection; as Mary said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord": apparently in what I know Fatimah magnified the Prescence of the Lamb at Fatimah in 1917: and the Lamb is Lord of lords; King of Kings: thus is Fatimah Al-Zahra Avenged: the Lady of Light produced the Sun of Righteousness; but it is the New Lamp of Allah: this Christ is the Light of the New Heavens and the New Earth: Light upon Light! The Son of Mary! Unicorn144 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

brother unicorn, I'm genuinely sorry but I wouldn't have thought that wikipedia is the right place for your own theories. Whatever the merit of the 1917 visions, you can't really present it as the Sufi view of saiyyida Fatima (radiyaAllahu 'anha) when the Sufis themselves have placed no emphasis on it whatsoever. I'm assuming this may be a view of a few individuals in the Mariyammiyya tariqa, but if this is the case, this is an extremely small group of people who are on the very fringes of Sufism, you can't really present it as the Sufi view. Baba farouq 22:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatima's sisters

There is written Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing Khadija's three other daughters to have been from her previous marriage.

Please read this discussion and correct it. You can read this longer discussion if you have enough time.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow the previous thread. Which bit of that statement is incorrect? Do Shia not claim that she was Muhammad's only daughter? → AA ^(talk) — 13:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several viewpoints. There isn't consensus among Shia scholars.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The mass are in majority of her being the only daughter in Usoolism, and it's not even much of a question I believe for Shi'ahs on the Subcontinent. --Enzuru 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We should write there isn't consensus among Shia scholars.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hope no one mines me taking this out

I realize I haven't been too active here till recently, and hope my changes aren't trampling on what as been agreed on before. I took this out:

"Although historians cannot give a precise description of the actual events, and even though the various views have been mixed with legendary accounts, it was undoubtedly a key motivation for the hatred born by the Shias towards Umar and his supporters, and was the only political involvement of Fatimah who remained in a sombre mood for the rest of her life.^[1]"

Thanks. --Enzuru 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies bro, but I think this summarising paragraph is justified being in the article and it is sourced and relevant. → AA ^(talk) — 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unnecessary caveats

i have undone this edit of Al-Zaidi. the EoI states the issue of disagreement between Ali/Fatimah as fact - it only provides citation for the specific indicents. to describe these works as "Sunni hadith" is also misguided, for they are hadith collections generally accepted by Sunni, not collections intended to reflect Sunni understanding. it is also unnecessarily POV, aimed at implying that it's only according to Sunnis that domestic disputes occured. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never read such issues in Shia biography. Shia usually consider them as an ideal family without any controversy. You may right when you say "for they are hadith collections generally accepted by Sunni, not collections intended to reflect Sunni understanding" but it doesn't mean that Shia accept them as fact. This is what you can find in Shia sources

Fatimah (AS), with all her virtues, was a good wife for Imam Ali (AS). It has been narrated that Imame Alias (AS) sadness and grief removed whenever he looked at Fatimah (AS). She never asked him for something that he couldnat afford. It is worthy to find out their matrimonial relation from Imame Alias (AS) words as he named Fatimah (AS) the best woman and proud of her and said: I swear to Allah that I never made her angry and never ordered her to do something she didnat like and she also never made me angry and never disobeyed me. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, You must have both accounts of history the Shia and the Sunni accounts. Both are valid in their own narratives. Moreover, if there is a source that is in the EoI, then the originial source should also be stated. If EoI uses Sunni or Shia Hadith, then you must present the hadiths being quoted, it is only good citation.Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

both accounts are presented, stop forwarding this flawed argument. the only difference in my version is that they aren't tendentiously sepearated through POV sections. you are also misusing EoI in order to present certain facts as isolated Sunni viewpoiints. both editing patterns must stop. ITAQALLAH 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Zaidi, please consider stopping this behaviour of sterile reverting whilst repeating the dubious reasoning about reader convenience or primary sources (POV edits do not 'convenience' the reader; your representation of EoI is tendentious and misleading). it doesn't help convince me that you are genuinely trying to address my concerns, which i implore you to address. ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two points on which i have acted: 1. EoI cites its sources of the Fatima article from Bukhari and Tirmidhi, thus it is only academically responsible to include the original citation in the Wikipedia article. By simply citing EoI when the original sources are available does not serve any independant article or stands to the scrutiny of primary sourcing. Thus the full citation that i have included links Wikipedia to the original source of claim of the EoI. 2. This claim of EoI is sourced from the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Tirmidhi. These two along with other Hadith collections are from the historucal narrative of the Sunni schools of Islam. Hadith are not concrete undeniable sources, many are strong, whilst orthers are neutral or weak. Those sources in the Sunni Hadith may not be historically accurate and thus not accepted by the Shia collections. Vice versa, many Shia hadith are not considered accurate according to Sunni collectors. Thus we are in a situation where the historicity of the sources becomes an issue. Therefore, it is not only academically responsible for original citation but moreover it is our duty as academics to ensure that all avenues of factuality are presented so that the readers of the content will have a balanced view of the sequence of events. For example, the history of the Battle of Qadesh is presented very differently in Egyptian sources from their Hittite counterparts. Thus to avoid confusion and for the sake of clarity and academic integrity, both viewpoints are presented. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the discussion page. I hope we can continue discussing the matter here.

1) Our job on Wikipedia is not that of academics. As editors, we are simply required to verify material to reliable sources.

2) EoI makes the basic assertion and then mentions specific incidences:

ʿAlī and Fāṭima did not always live in harmony. ʿAlī treated his wife with too much harshness (shidda, ghilāẓ), and Fāṭima went to complain to her father. There are some ḥadīths which are real vignettes of family life, describing in a vivid and fresh manner how the Prophet intervened how his face shone with satisfaction after the reconciliation of those dear to him. The most serious disputes between the pair arose when the Banū Hishām b. Mughīra of the Ḳuraysh suggested ʿAlī that he should marry one of their women. ʿAlī did not reject the proposal, but Muḥammad, when some of the tribe came to sound him on the matter, came to the defence of his daughter. “ Fāṭima ” , he said, “ is a part of me (baḍʿa minnī) and whoever offends her offends me ” (al-Balādhurī, Ansāb, i, 403; ī, ii, 319, etc.) or “ what angers her angers me also ” (this ḥadīth has many variants which, however, do not much change the meaning). It seems that at same time ʿAlī was asking in marriage a daughter of Abū Ḏjahl nicknamed al-ʿAwrāʾ (the One-eyed). Muḥammad protested from the minbar against ʿAlī, who proposed to shelter under one roof the daughter of the Apostle of God and the daughter of the enemy of God (i.e., Abū Ḏjahl). On this occasion also the Prophet pronounced the phrase: Innahā baḍʿa minnī ( “ she is indeed a part of me ” ), and added that if ʿAlī wanted to accomplish his project he must first divorce Fāṭima (Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad , Cairo 1313, iv, 326; ārī, ed. Krehl, ii, 440, etc.).

Here, you are piling it all on the "Sunni Hadith" and not on the authority of the EoI - which assumes its authenticity (and cites the primary sources only for the specific incidences, not the general notion). Thus, we can cite to EoI without any such POV attributions, as EoI already accepts it. If you like, we can say "According to the Encyclopedia of Islam...", but "According to Sunni hadith" simply short-changes the above passage.

3) They aren't "Sunni Hadith" - nor are they collected with the intention to represent any particular POV - I have explained above why this reflects a very poor understanding of the original sources.

4) Do you see how Sunni/Shia view sections under every heading is a violation of WP:NPOV#Article structure, and doesn't make for fluent reading? ITAQALLAH 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make, this is why after a while i changed it from "according to Sunni hadith" to Sunni view. This is because of the sourcing of EoI, of which the hadith are from ultimately Sunni Hadith Collections. Had we been editors for them, we would have included a disclaimer, a side note or other hadiths or historical documents for a balanced view on the subject of historiocity when it comes to Hadith. If it hadn't been for Madelung, Esposito, Seyyed Nasr and Henry Corbin, the encyclopedias of the west would have had a simplistic view of the Islam and the Middle East. This situation stems from a long tradition that was brought to light by Edward Said regarding the Middle East and orientalism, this can be applied to Islam as well, including the preoccupation of Islam as being sunni and Shia as being Iranian, both of which are false. There is much debate within the muslim world and thus it is for the first time that mediums like Wikipedia not only ensure integrity but a totality of fact and history. Moreover, we are indeed editors of an encyclopedia, but we are indeed unique to the principles of freedom and fair representation that may not be the case in some academic realms including EoI. Thus the presentation of fact vis a vis Sunni/Shia view, provide a complete and enriched article from which a reader can be enlightened will all aspects knowledge and debate. Al-Zaidi —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's inappropriate to call them "Sunni Hadith collections"- they were never compiled with the intention of reflecting a particular viewpoint. I have no problem with presenting Sunni and Shia views, Al-Zaidi. I have a problem when it overwhelms the article because we are making lots of POV sections for every view. It is distracting and doesn't do justice to the article. We can discuss it without the headings. I also object to using generally non-academic/unscholarly/unreliable sources. I would prefer if we could focus on representing what the academic sources say; it isn't our job to present views/opinions not already presented in reliable sources. Regards, ITAQALLAH 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Al-Zaidi, is it alright if I remove the Shia/Sunni view section headings? I have WP:NPOV#Article structure in mind, and we might as well get the things we're more likely to agree on out of the way. ITAQALLAH 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, the reason why i have difficulty removing the title on "disapreements with ali" is due to the fact that its mention in the article gives it encyclopedic weight, and for it to have encyclopedic integrity, it must ultimately be proven, and if not proven then cited or noted with a degree of speculation. Since the "disagreements" and even the "death" sections are so very controversial, it is safer for us editors to cite the claims of history from both sides and leave it to the reader to determine what to take from the article. If we do not, then the liability lays on us, since without noting the viewpoint, we are then forced to prove or disprove the claims in the article. The reason for the POV headings is to be safe, be fair and lay the liability to the groups that make the claims themselves and not on wikipedia.Al-Zaidi (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But we are already citing the respective groups when mentioning the views. When we discuss the Shi'a view, we always say 'According to Shi'a'. When we discuss Sunni views, we say 'According to Sunni'. The article makes that clear. Because we've done that, we have little need for the section headings: the readers will know which views belong to who. ITAQALLAH 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NPOV#Article structure. We can just stick to attributing who believes what when we actually discuss it. I doubt this article will be able to improve with the presence of these extraneous section headings. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured the section so that id does not violate WP:NPOV#Article structure, i am sure you will be satisfied. Al-Zaidi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Views"

I think that a lot of the "views" of certain events would be better catalogued so that the sources of such accounts could be directly attributed to their quoted positions on the matter. (Example: execution of the Bab) as so many of these accounts are disputed and/or contradictory and knowing their specific origins would be beneficial to understanding them. Peter Deer (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear this article up -

Hi could someone clear this up, it is very biased. And alot of it simple POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensleaves112 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)