Talk:Fatima

Factually incorrect according to orthodox Islam

The page says:

When Muhammad died in 632, Fatima and her husband Ali refused to acknowledge the authority of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. The couple and their supporters held that Ali was the rightful successor of Muhammad,[4] possibly referring to his announcement at the Ghadir Khumm.[12]

However, this is not the view held in Orthodox Islam and the majority of Muslims around the world. The page should reflect the Orthodox view and if for the sake of completeness it wishes to include the claim Fatima refused to accept Abu Bakr, a note should be made that this is according to the Shia view. 86.26.78.170 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The page is supposed to reflect reliable sources about the matter and that it does well. It is also the view of the "Orthodox Islam" that Ali withheld his pledge from Abu Bakr for some months after the death of Muhammad (per Sahih Bukhari). He did so obviously because he considered the caliphate to be his own right and his wife Fatima naturally supported his claim until her death. Now the Shia view is that Ali never renounced his claim, based on numerous sayings and letters attributed to him, even though he didn't actively pursue it for the sake of the unity of the Muslim community. Albertatiran (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

In this article it states “Umm al-Aima (lit. 'the mother of Imams') is a kunya of Fatima in Twelver sources,[4] as all the Twelve Imams descended from her” please change “ all the Twelve Imams” to 11 of the 12 imams as the first Imaam was actually her husband. 92.9.61.190 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Done! Albertatiran (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A whole section about the Fatimids

Hi Caliphinspector! While a few lines about the Alid descent of the Fatimid dynasty might be relevant, your recent edit is clearly out of the scope of this article. Am I right in concluding that you have directly imported this long new section without any changes from Fatimid dynasty or Fatimid Caliphate? The new references are also missing from the bibliography, creating about a dozen harv errors at the end of the article. May I please ask you to summarize your content in one or two relevant paragraphs and add your sources to the bibliography? Thank you for your interest in the topic and for your help. Please also see WP:OOS and WP:RELEVANCE and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Albertatiran (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong info about Sayyidah Fatimah ra and her family

Ahlul bayt never put so much hatred for sahabah. Infact Abu Bakr ra is the best and the closest companion of Rasulullah Sollaallahu alaihi wasalam until forever. how is it possible that those who have the purity of heart and sincere faith ​​like rasulullah saw hate the good friend of prophet muhammad???? 121.121.56.61 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is well-known that Sunni tradition has whitewashed the conflicts among early Muslims. Albertatiran (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Portray

@Albertatiran Hello. I have added a painting of Fatima to the section pertaining to her appearance. In my opinion, the lack of such an image might have been a deficiency in the article. Alongside presenting the beliefs of Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis, incorporating this image by a western painter can enhance the understanding of the topic and contribute to the improvement of the article. But you've deleted this image. I'd be happy to discuss any problem you might have considered. Hosein (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hosein: Hi! thanks for the ping. How do we know that the painting was intended as a portrait of Fatima, the historical figure? Albertatiran (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran We can say that at least allegorically. Jules Lefebvre has painted his works, drawing inspiration from historical figures, biblical characters with mythological and allegorical themes. For example, in 1892, he painted Judith, inspired by this character. The title "Fatima" alone is also attributed to the historical figure of Fatima, and the Arabic motif in the painting further suggests this theme. Hosein (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hosein I'm sorry but this is clearly not convincing. Albertatiran (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran Clearly, "Fatima" means "Fatima," (especially with the Tasbih of Fatimah around her neck in the image) and if you think Fatima alone is not widely recognized by this name, it contradicts the existing consensus about the title of the article. Otherwise, consensus could have been reached on another name for the article, such as Fatima bint Muhammad.

If this is not the case, you should express your dissent more clearly. Especially since the article lacks any portrait of her, especially from western artists, which is a deficiency in this article. It is worth mentioning that it is true that in traditional culture, drawing images of the Prophet of Islam and his relatives was usually prohibited, but this should not be a reason for not displaying portraits that help readers' understanding. Hosein (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also not convinced that because the necklace is similar to a Tasbih, and because this article is called Fatima (instead of Fatima bint Muhammad), we should put that image in this article.Ghazaalch (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch Firstly, in addition to the Tasbih of Fatimah around her neck in the allegorical painting, even the color of her dress (ghamis or gamis) closely matches the one attributed to her in the Istanbul museum (described as yellowish cream with patterns of blue in certain areas). I'm not certain if the dress truly belonged to her, but I mean the painter attempted to draw the most inspiration from the historical figure.

Regarding the second matter, I didn't quite grasp your point. I didn't suggest that just because the article is titled "Fatima," it must include this painting. My main emphasis is that this painting contributes significantly to broadening the subject for the reader, in terms of her appearance. However, if you intend to argue that she wasn't widely recognized under the name "Fatima," my question was whether there is a consensus that she was widely recognized under this name (the title of the article), and there's no room for debate on this matter. Hosein (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hosein You'll need a reliable sources proving that it depicts this Fatima. One auction catalogue describes it as "The portrait of a handsome Oriental woman"(p.201). Wiqi⁵⁵ 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wiqi55 Usually, images in such articles (including this one) lack support from reliable sources, and I haven't read in WP:IUP that such a requirement exists. However, an auction catalog is also not a reliable source. Such descriptions can often be general and may not fully capture the artist's intended symbolism or historical references. In the case of the painting in question, "Fatima," I think several elements within the artwork strongly suggest its connection to the historical figure of Fatima. Hosein (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Attack on Fatima's house

This Article presents the supposed attack as a FACT and continues to elaborate about it and only disputes the details Kelcoz (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz As mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be anything concrete about your claim so far. Quote from the article and give us specific details. Albertatiran (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, as the one who changed the article, you (not me), when challenged, need to present your case and establish a consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. Albertatiran (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

the article presents the attack from the Shia point of view and disputes some details but doesn't give any other point of view, Kelcoz (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Abu Bakr terminated the status of purity of Muhammad's kin by forcing them to rely on general alms which the prophet had forbidden for them in his lifetime.[77]

the article mentions the "Sermon of Fadak" and the "the status of purity of Muhammad's kin" alot and relies on them many times even though they are only present in shia scriptures Kelcoz (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz First off, the article follows reliable sources, i.e., academic sources written by known Islamicists, including the quote from [77] or purity of Muhammad's kin. This doesn't immediately imply neutrality but it's a key requirement of it. As another instance, the article does mention the sermon of Fadak but also makes it clear that Sunnis reject it. This perfectly meets the criteria for neutrality. What else? Albertatiran (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

the page needs more clarification or a complete separation of the two view points, i support the latter solution Kelcoz (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz I see here that you put back the POV template. Wikipedia edits (that is, any change to the article) should be constructive and slapping a template on an article without providing any concrete reason is not. It's even worse to hide behind semantics to start an edit war over a template. At any rate, what's written on a template maintenance page is not a Wikipedia guideline to be followed. I think you should quote from the article and work in good faith with other editors to assess their neutrality. Only if attempts to fix instances of POV fail that you should go ahead and insert the POV tag.

@Iskandar323: In the past, you have significantly contributed to this article (and its talk page). Are you available to have a quick look at this thread and give us your feedback? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

it was a mistake sorry, i was supposed to send this this link anyways thanks for telling me about the issue Kelcoz (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz Re your idea of splitting the historical narratives into Shia and Sunni, that can be put to vote for sure. However, note that this doesn't have a precedent in Wikipedia (that I know of), e.g., see Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, etc. There could be something like "Shia views" and "Sunni views" sections added to the article focused on respective polemics of both sects. Albertatiran (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)