Talk:Fatima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Opening comment

The article as it stood was purely Shi'a. I've revised to try to restore balance. Zora 09:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Praisenames

Ya Ali, I moved the praisenames section to the Shi'a view. This could be wrong, and it could be that the titles are used by the Sunni too. If so, there should be some Sunni sources for that. Then we can move the names section back.

Is there an Arabic translation for Lady of Paradise? Would it be possible to have Arabic and Farsi script next to the titles? Zora 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sunni use manny of those names, its not accurate to put it under the "shia view", its missleading.

--Striver 23:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, which ones DO they use? Do you have cites? Zora 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard the others myself, but "az-Zahra" is certainly used by Sunnis too. - Mustafaa 00:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sunni site: http://www.yanabi.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=35&threadid=61&enterthread=y

--Striver 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a chat site, not a source. How do you know whether the poster is Sunni or Shia, or whether they're well-informed? (The third poster is obviously Shia, for one.) - Mustafaa 00:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Bro, you expect to much from a humble googlre, i mean, its not my madhab... remember the Kabaa issue? Please, dont make me go through that again...

As for the "shia" poster, would a shia sign of with " Ya Abu Bakar...Ya 'Umar.....Ya 'Uthman....Ya 'Ali "?

One more thing, to say that sunni sources dont describe her being beaten by Umar is highly inaccurate. Rather, you should formulate it to say that Sunni dont regard the hadith that describe it as authentic.

Ma-Salam!

--Striver 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution sister!

--Striver 01:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Shiites do not say that Fatima was the only daughter of prophet Muhammad. - anon

Source? --Striver 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyedit

I copyedited, and removed the unsourced hadith saying that an injury to Fatima was an injury to Muhammad. Putting it up without any source, or any qualifications, is tantamount to saying that Wikipedia accepts it as true, which I don't think we can do. Zora 03:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn´t Fatima be named as Fatima bint Muhammad instead of Fatima Zahra? --213.190.195.100 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence Section

Is the "evidence" section really necessary? We do not need disclaimers on Wiki telling readers that there is two sides of the story when it is clearly shown in the above sections of "Sunni View" and "Shia'a View". Sentences like this:

The Sunni have their traditions and the Shi'a have theirs. It is extremely difficult to judge which is more trustworthy.

...do not belong on Wiki. Stoa 06:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that, but if you want to remove it, that's OK. Since then I wrote the Historiography of early Islam article which can be linked whenever we need to emphasize the difficulties in discussing such matters. Zora 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay,thanks for the reply. Stoa 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

transliteration

I put accents in the appropriate places of her name, along with the tick (') for a hamza. The other transliteration of Fatima Al-Zahra is just wrong. It's a result of people who don't know how to read Arabic. Any definite article (al) followed by a 'Z' is doubled as a 'Z', not an 'L'. So under no circumstance should anyone say "Al-Zahra", only "Az-Zahra". Cuñado - Talk 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was this article MOVED without any discussion?

Fatima is the usual English form of the name. Unilaterally deciding that the name should be Fatimah and moving the article is NOT OK! Cunardo, unilateral moves are just not collegial! Please explain why I shouldn't move the article back. Zora 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the move, i always get frustrated by not getting a hit on "Fatimah"--Striver 02:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree also: the ة in فاطمة means that it transliterates into Fatimah, with the English letter "h" in the end, though it is recommended to discuss it first before deciding to make such big change such as moving a page. Stoa 03:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you guys are thinking of the Arabic name and then transliterating, I can see why you're upset. BUT ... how many users of an English-language Wikipedia think of the Arabic spelling before looking something up? A tenth of a percent of the users? Most users are going to be looking for Fatima, not Fatimah.

You can deal with your frustration by setting up a redirect so that anyone who types Fatimah goes to Fatima. We can also say something like "Fatimah is closer to the Arabic, but the name has been Anglicized as Fatima". That explains it.

I protest privileging the Arabic when there's an English version that's been in use for a long time. Zora 04:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that the official English transliteration is Fatima? The most correct transliteration is Fatimah, and I've seen it used that way in English. I have been going around fixing a lot of Arabic transliteration done by well-intentioned people who can't read or write, and use a patchwork of Arabic transliteration methods. I'm using the most common academic version, used by the Library of Congress. It's an improvement to the article, so I didn't feel a long discussion was necessary. You might notice that 3 out of 4 people support moving it. Cuñado - Talk 17:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the same problem that we had with the Mecca article -- people kept trying to change it to Makkah. However, Mecca is the word in wide English use now. There are 17,200,000 google hits on Fatima. There are 816,000 hits on Fatimah. The former hits include a lot for "Our Lady of Fatima", but it is still the truth that "Fatima" is the spelling that English-speakers expect -- by a twenty-to-one margin. You guys are not typical of English-speakers. Zora 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you search for Fatima, the first several pages are all about the town in Spain, and Catholic related. A search for Fatimah, however, comes up with almost exclusively Islamic references to the daughter of Muhammad. Also see this dictionary entrance and this Britannica article. I still think that it should be Fatimah, although I was impressed by your google find. Cuñado - Talk 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One of those cites puts Fatima first, and Fatimah as a "see also"; the other one reverses the order. I don't see that they prove anything, other than that there's a dispute.

I suppose part of the reason that I'm upset by this is that I don't like the idea that Muslims, who value Arabic over English for religious purposes, are trying to impose Arabic ON perfectly good English words. I keep running into this on WP -- people replacing English words with Arabic words, insisting on Arabic transliterations, etc. Do you see how this might be feel "pushy" to non-Muslims? Zora 02:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to the religion issue. I am not a Muslim anyway. About a century ago people began to systematize how to render an Arabic word into English, and any "Arabic" words in English before that happened were not swept up in the standardization. That's where the word Mecca comes from (instead of Makkah), it's purely phonetic. The alternative to a standardized transliteration is basically chaos, and divergence from the original Arabic. So I guess if you want to argue that "Fatima" is preferable, then you can point to words that missed the standardization, like the town in Spain, and people's own personal preference when they write their own name down. My argument is that as a purely academic and standard way of doing things, "Fatimah" is more correct. I'm not totally convinced that "Fatima" is so deeply engrained into English that it will confuse people by writing it as "Fatimah". You pointed to Mecca as an example, but I could likewise point to Qur'an, which won out over "Koran". Cuñado - Talk 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea -- how about posting something about this at the Village Pump, and seeing what folks there say about it? Most of them probably know little about Islam and Arabic, so they're the ideal test audience. If they think the change from Fatima to Fatimah is OK, I'll stop fussing. Zora 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Although, I don't know what the Village Pump is. If there's enough people who think it should be 'Fatima' then that's fine. Cuñado - Talk 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump is the WP "general discussion" area. Stuff of concern to everyone. Zora 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The question has been up at the Village Pump (assistance) for several days. All those who responded said that the tie-breaker for WP naming questions is Google stats. Someone quoted a draft policy on Arabic names saying that the version that gets 2/3 of the Google hits is to be preferred. Since Fatima gets 95% of the Google hits, I think that we have to go with that. Cunardo, please go take a look at that discussion and then the Arab names policy (I should put a link here, but I'm late in getting to the zendo, no time to look it up). This might be of use if we have other issues. Hope this is not discouraging you. Aside from a few names that HAVE made it into English, most Arabic names should be done according to one system of transliteration, and your efforts are only to be applauded. Heck, I should get back to learning Arabic so I could help you. Zora 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would respond that the majority of the google hits are for personal names and the Catholic apparition. But to deal with it would require way more effort than I'm willing to put out for a minor detail. Feel free to change it back, just indicate that the proper transliteration has an 'H'. Maybe like this:

Fatima Zahra (Arabic: فاطمة الزهراء transliteration:Fāţimah az-Zahrā’)

Cuñado - Talk 21:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph: "They also call her Al-Zahra, the Lady of Light. The khamsa, an amulet popularly believed to ward off evil and widely used in the Maghreb, represents the hand of Fatima." seems to belong to the Shia's section, especially the khamsa.

In regards to the name Al-Zahra, it was started by the Shia but it became accepted by the Sunnis too. Still, you rarly find it (if any) in early Sunni sources. The common name that they use is: Fatima bint Muhammad.

--Islami 07:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sayings made up?

I just realized that the sayings appeared in the article one day without any source. We really shouldn't leave them up there without a reference. I strongly suspect that these are late, and fabricated. I'm going to wait a few days to see if anyone can reference them. Zora 07:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What is Sunni view of relations between Aisha and Fatima

An anon added that Sunni believe that Aisha and Fatima got along just fine. Could we have a cite for that please? I have the impression that Sunni just gloss over indications that Muhammad's household was not always happy, and that Aisha was jealous of Muhammad's continued respect and affection for Khadijah and his attachment to Fatima, Khadijah's daughter. There are hadith that Sunni accept that say as much. But I could be wrong. A couple of cites would convince me. Zora 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, You said: "Aisha was jealous of Muhammad's continued respect and affection for Khadijah and his attachment to Fatima, Khadijah's daughter." The text in italic is wrong. Aisha was jealous of Khadijah since both of them were wives of the same man (although not at the same time). However, Aisha and Fatima got along just fine. In fact, Fatima had good relationships with all of the wives of her father.

In Sahih Muslim (Book 031, Number 6004) and Sahih Bhukari: 'A'isha reported: We, the wives of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), were with him (during his last illness) and none was absent therefrom that Fatima, who walked after the style of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), came there, and when he saw her he welcomed her saying: You are welcome, my daughter. He their made her sit on his right side or on his left side. Then he said something secretly to her and she wept bitterly and when he found her (plunged) in grief he said to her something secretly for the second time and she laughed. I ('A'isha) said to her: Allah's Messenger has singled you amongst the women (of the family) for talking (to you something secretly) and you wept. When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) recovered from illness, I said to her. What did Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) say to you? Thereupon she said: I am not going to disclose the secret of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) died, I said to her: I adjure you by the right that I have upon you that you should narrate to me what Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to you. She said: Yes, now I can do that (so listen to it). When he talked to me secretly for the first time he informed me that Gabirel was in the habit of reciting the Qur'an along with him once or twice every year, but this year it had been twice and so he perceived his death quite near, so fear Allah and be patient (and he told me) that he would be a befitting forerunner for me and so I wept as you saw me. And when he saw me in grief he talked to me secretly for the second time and said: Fatima, are you not pleased that you should be at the head of the believing women or the head of this Umma? I laughed and it was that laughter which you saw.

There is no hadith in the Sunni traditions that praise and glorify Fatima as much as this one. This Obviously, Aisha will not report this Hadith if she did not have a good relationship with Fatima.

--Islamic 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Islami, that's your interpretation of one hadith. You and I know that there are many hadith, that they are sometimes contradictory, and that different scholars, and different schools of thought, interpret them differently. I can't take YOUR interpretation as representing all Sunni Muslims. What would be convincing would be quotes from popular Sunni websites or popular biographies of Muhammad. A few such quotes would greatly improve that section. Zora 02:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Most known Fatimah. --Striver 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

a mistake in Shi'a view

I think this sentence in Shia view part isn't the opinion of all of the Shiites "According to Shi'a Muslims, Fatima Zahra binte Mohammed was Islamic Prophet Muhammad's only daughter ."--Sa.vakilian 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit odd. Tabatabaei's book "Shia Islam" p. 191 calls Fatima, the prophet's "sole beloved daughter". The online edition at Howzeh Elmiyeh Qom has taken out the word "sole".

So I looked in other sources. I found this passage:

"Khadija gave birth to several children of whom only four daughters survived: Zainab, Umme Kulthum, Ruqiya, and Fatima-Zahra who was the youngest and most exalted of them all.

There is a difference between historians regarding the first two daughters, for some claim that they were the Prophet's step-daughters; but the fact is that they were his direct daughters."

It is located on p.32 of "Fatima (A.S.) The Gracious" by Abu Muhammad Ordoni. Published by: Ansariyan Publications, Qom. Balagh.net has an online edition here.

So I think you are right. But I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that".--Zereshk 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Shi'a do indeed belive she was Muhammads only daughter, however, i dont know if all Shi'a schollars agree on this. --Striver 18:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think i have fixed it now... what do you say?--Striver 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

you'd better write the name of some scholars who agree with and disagree with in the article--Sa.vakilian 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My brother I wrote that paragraph and you also spoke about this on my talk page. As far as the Shi’as are concerned Prophet Mohammed SAW had only one daughter and only one son, who unfortunately died in a very young age. Thank You Salman 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article gives Undue weight to the Shi'a view and needs to be broken up. Zora, any complaints?--Striver 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is another one of those cases where keeping it together is what allows people to get the mutual understanding of the various POVs. Although the 'Shia view/Sunni view/Christian view' articles occasionally make sense, especially on very contentious issues, I think here all it does is isolates one or more branches of Islam. Bridesmill 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i dont mind, but im keeping the tag so that "somebody" wont start deleting with undue weight as a excuse. --Striver 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be ok as long as it doesn't go from sublime to ridiculous; not overly unusual for a subject to have more input from one group than another; if nobody argues about this for a while, these discussions should stand to prevent later sillines.Bridesmill 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Can you point out in hte lead what the dates (20th of Jamadi-ul-Akhar etc) refer to? is it feast-days/traditional b'day or?)Bridesmill 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I found two of the month, but i dont get the first one... --Striver 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I think we got them now.Bridesmill 05:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

As per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout this article needs to be rewritten (one sentence paragraphs, broken prose, misplaced quotations, etc.). Kaveh 23:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Breach

According to the article the "God be my witness that you two have offended me. In every prayer I curse you and will continue cursing you until I see my father and complain against you."[6]. episode is after the injury, just before her death. Accoring to Peshawar, she said this before the threat to burn her house. That's pretty significant inconsistency ; I'll see if I can find an English Tabari...The other thing I can find no reference top anywhere is the real estate bit.never mind - found itBridesmill 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman; I pointed out in the edit whuy I deleted that - it is already in the article, two paras above.Bridesmill 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brother Bridesmill I don’t anywhere in that section the reason why Hazrat Imam Ali (AS) didn’t came out of the hours and fought Umar and his men. But I have tried my best to add it in that section of yours. If you want to make any changes to that paragraph, you are free to do so but please before you make changes can you tell us on the talk page. Thank You--Salman 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, do you have source(s) for that part? --Striver 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Peshawar website linked to with footnote 4 - read the paragraphes below this quote - they taklk about the threat toio burn the house.Bridesmill 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman; the bit you put in, I understand how it explains context, but I may reword it a bit; have to think carefully how - the problem is that the explantation sounds like she did this because that is what Shi'a are supposed to do - but at that point there was no such thing as a Shi'a tradition; so i effect, her actions established these parts of tradition.Bridesmill 23:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes man, it is the job/responsibility of a Shi’a to protect the Imam of his/her time. That’s the reason why it is very important to say it that way in the article. Please do not change around the words, and yes Striver I provided the link that backs up my statement. Thank You--Salman 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, Salman, i as a Shi'a can really se no logic behind that statment. Fatimah having responsibility to protect Ali? I don't get that. Then, why did not women go to fight in Karbalah? --Striver 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver I am very shocked by this reply of yours. How can you say that women didn't fight in the Battle of Karbala, don't you know anything about Bibi Zaynab binte Ali (AS). See when i said defending I meant by words not by a sword, Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) was pregnant at that time so she couldn't have fought with a sword; she was speaking to them and trying to explain then who Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib is and why they should respect him and go away from their house. Now let me answer your question regarding women’s fight in the Battle of Karbala. Imam Ali ibn Hussain (AS) was the only male (even thought our fourth Imam, Imam Mohammed Baqir (AS) was with him the whole time but he was a child then). Bibi Zaynab binte Ali (AS) along with other Bibis from Banu Hashim acted as soldiers in the court of Yazid. Again I am not saying that our Bibis were fighting with swords in the court of Yazid. The thing is Striver truth is more powerful then any other weapon in this word. Our Bibis were defending the holy household of Prophet Mohammed SAW (won’t you consider that as fighting). Thank You--Salman 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My question is - was Fatimah following Shi'a rules and traditions? Answer - No; there where no Shi'a rules and traditions. What this should perhaps say, is that "the Shi'a tradition of protection of the Imam can be traced back to the actions of Fatimah", what Shi'a before her did this? And when she did this, I am certain that she did not consider herself Shi'a, seeing as this was during the first post-Muhammad generation.Bridesmill 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill my brother, I think you don’t know what and who a Shi’a is. Shi’as are not only those who took Imam Ali’s (AS) side during the Battle of Siffin. Islamic Prophet Ibrahim was a Shi’a. Now I know that I am only confusing you by telling you that Prophet Ibrahim is a Shi’a because you are going to be saying to yourself that Prophet Ibrahim was born and died way before Imam Ali (AS) was born. That’s why I am saying that it is very important to understand the concept of a Shi’a and what makes up a Shi’a. Thank You--Salman 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, i understand fully what you mean, but i feel you do not understand the Shi'a position. Being a Shi'a is not following a political formation that formed far after Muhammad, we belive it to be a consept that emerged during Muhammad's own life time as a term denoting a very high degree of faith, in contrast to being "just" a Muslim (see article, the Qu'ran verse part).

Salman argues that Fatimah (pbuh) was acting in accordance to those ideal, and if true, then it is in our view totaly correct to say that being a Shi'a demnaded those kind of actions from her. Now, having that said: I question that being a Shi'a puts such a demand on a wife. I have a hard time believing that a (pregnant!) woman is supposed to endanger hereself to protect her very much able husband, him being a Imam or not. I also ask how it comes that no woman followed that supposed ideal on the day of Karbala, when every (every!) male willingly choose to sacrifice himself for Imam Husayn's sake. Again, it is it the role of the male to die for the female, not the other way around, and specialy not when she is pregnant. I still awayt a satisfactory explanation about Karbala and being convinced to the contrary. --Striver 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver my brother I don’t understand one thing and that is either my writing skill of English is very bad or your skill of understanding English is very bad (and please don’t take this personally). I clearly stated in the section that Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) faced Umar and his men as a Shi’a not as the wife of Imam Ali (AS). Thank You--Salman 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman, I see what you are saying (sort of), but when the Prophet was alive, there were not two factions already openly active. And Shi'a is followers of Ali; you know this; not some sect who was more holy during the Prophet's lifetime; the reference you give is a sermon -not anything scholarly and although it might be a nice sermon for Shi'a it does nothing to explain the history either to non-Shi'a or non-Muslims. I think the validity and importance here is Fatimah as the person who set the standard and is very much seen as the person who set that standard for Shi'a (indeed Muslim and even non-Muslim) women; not that she was following some sort of code that had been already created for Shi'a prior to the Prophet's passing. (I have just found another scholarly article written by a non-Muslim woman which speaks very highly of the influence of Fatimah outside Islam - I will put a piece on that in in the last section of the article).Bridesmill 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill it is not a code, Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) was setting an example for all Shi’as, what they should do when their time of Imam is in trouble. And like I said Prophet Ibrahim was also a Shi’a. Which proves that Shia`ism was created way before Imam Ali (AS) was born. I think you don’t know what Shi’a means, for you I think Shi’a is a person who helped Imam Ali (AS) in the Battle of Siffin (I could be wrong) but there is more to it. I think you should go to a neutral or Shi’a mosque to find out the real truth but please make sure whoever you are going to is trust worthy, you know just to be on the safe side. Thank You--Salman 03:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I still dont like this. She prevented him from going out? The source does not strike me as reliable, and its not even in english. --Striver 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman, you added a new source. Where can i find a reference to "She prevented him from going out" in that text? --Striver 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman, ?? are you telling me Shi'a means something different than Shi'at 'Ali? (Yes, I know there is more to it than that, including some older philosophy, but you are saying that there were "Shi'a" before the Prohet? One of the texts I own on history/origins of Shi'a is the Jafri 1979 I have been using in this article. The reference you give, Shariati, is also interesting; I agree with it very much(it is also a better ref because it is not so much a "sermon"), as it points to (as even the title says) Fatima is Fatima - she set the example, rather than following a previous tradition (there were no Imams before the Prophet, so how would such a tradition have been established? No disrespect, but I think this interpretation of "Fatimah was just a good Shi'a" is very short-sighted and close to underestimating her - she set the example, IMHO, and also in the opinion of Shariati & others - it is more like "she set the standard that Shi'a (and others) have since been expected to strive to". Bridesmill 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I apologize to each and every single person who was waiting for my reply. I was actually blocked from editing by an unprofessional administrator known as Grenavitar (well that’s another story which I am going to try my best to finish as soon as possible.) See my brother I can not explain each and every single thing to you guys about Islam because of the lack to time. We Shi’a believe that Prophet Ibrahim (AS) was also a Shi’a (if you don’t trust me then please ask a Shi’a scholar, he will explain it to you which a person like you and me cannot). Yes, you are right that there were no imams before Hazrat Mohammed SAW, you are 100% right. But the theory of Shi’aism is established since the times of Prophet Ibrahim (AS). Now Bibi Fatima (AS) was protecting the first Shi’a Imam and she did it to sect an example for all Shi’as, that if there Imam is in trouble then it is their responsibility to he him in any way possible. You guys can also read about Prophet Ibrahim (AS) as a Shi'a here. Thank You--Salman 01:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an says Abraham (pbuh) was a Imam. Salman; welcome back

We must have different Imams (I use the word in the sense of "teacher"). I think we can probably agree to disagree at this point - Jafri disagrees with you, as does Dr Rajaee, who if you look up his credentials is very credible; the philosophy practiced by Shi'a may predate the Prophet, but the name wasn't invented until the disagreement about succession. But whether "Shia" technically existed before the passing of the Prophet or not is not really IMHO relevant to this article. You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence; and that is I think all the article needs to say on this point - that Fatimah in protecting the Imam set an (no, "the") example; this agrees very much with how Fatimah is perceived by the authors, by Muslims in general and women (I think Muslim and to a good extent non-Muslim) in particular.Bridesmill 02:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I still dont agree with the text. Fatimah preventing Ali from doing anything? Not my Fatimah, and not my Ali. --Striver 02:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brothers I am trying my best to tell you as much as I know about Shi’aism, I am also a Shi’a. I only believe in 12 Imams and I will never considered anyone else Imam since I believe whole-heartedly that the Imam of my time is Imam Mehdi (AS) and I will never considered someone an Imam since Imam Mehdi (AS) is alive. Now striver I can not make you believe what I believe in. There is only one Bibi Fatima (AS) and Imam Ali (AS) for all Shi’as, there is no my or yours, it’s ours. Talk to your dad and please talk to the mosque close to your house, at least do not be confused about this matter. I also gave your guys a link to a website that backs up what I am saying and it also contains some sentences from the Holy Quran (and if you disagree with that then my brother your not a Muslim anymore). Thank you--Salman 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no insult intended; The second link you give, it strongly supports the position we all three seem to agree on, that she set a great example. The first link, may be useful for Shi'a, but I do not think it adds anything for non-Shi'a and especially non-Muslims - it looks like a sermon, and does not appear to be scholarly, so it will be a link that people who want to detract from the article will jump on. The bit about her preventing Ali from going out, and later the bit "Fatimah refused to answer them, but eventualy was the door opened by Ali"; neither of those phrases I can find anywhere in the hadiths or the other writings, not even in the Peshawar debates, which you have to admit are about the strongest Shi'a expression of this (some of the things they say are not found in any writings before 1920s). I think that taking those bits out will do nothing to take away from the meaning, and will do much to take away any points which people could argue about.Bridesmill 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brother Bridesmill my goal at wikipedia is to present the school of Shia’ism in a neutral way as possible. I am trying to give knowledge to non-Muslims and also my Sunni brothers (that grew up outside an Islamic nation, like me). Well I am only advocating for the Shi’as and because of that my work is Shi’a related. That link should be placed under the Shi’a section of this article (just to let the readers know that the editor is not saying something that is not backed up by source). Thank You--Salman 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the "The bit about her preventing Ali from going out", and i know that i have read "Fatimah refused to answer them, but eventualy was the door opened by Ali" in some book, maybe Then i was Guided. --Striver 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brother Striver please don’t be offended but you’re confused and you are also making others confused. If " Bibi Fatima (AS) refused to answer them, but eventually was the door opened by Ali", then how did Bibi Fatima (AS) was martyred and how did our Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib went to Abu Bakr (do you even know the way they took our Imam to Abu Bakr’s place, I don’t even know how to describe the way they took our Imam). Thank you--Salman 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman, I think you misunderstood - the bit Striver was arguing with me was Fatimah refusing to open the door just prior to her death, when Bakr came 'to apologize'; I could not find that, now I have and the ref is in. The bit both of us have a hard time with is that about Fatimah preventing Ali from going out (at the time of the threat to burn the house)Bridesmill 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Abu Bakr came to apologize from the members of Ahl Al-Bayt. Abu Bakr didn’t even give the property to Bibi Fatima (AS). Ahl Al-Bayt’s rights were taken away during the times of Abu Bakr, Umar, and maybe Uthman. Thank you--Salman 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, in the second half of the "Breach" paragraph; just before the curse quotation - its explained well in Jafri and also in the book reference Striver suggested that I just put in. No, he didn't give her nothing, but he did by all accounts try and get her to forgive him or at least be on speaking terms. Bridesmill 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver; I am surprised - First because you are right (kidding ; second because of the exact source he cites - Tarikh al-khulafa. I put it in. Salman; I know what you are saying, perhaps that can be put as an External link? I really don't think it adds directly to the passage; and in some ways it contradicts Shariati - so it leaves the passage open to attack/argument. And unless a good hadith source can be found for what Striver and I are disagreeing with, taking it out will not take away from Fatimah. PeaceBridesmill 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brother Bridesmill my goal at wikipedia is to present the school of Shia’ism in a neutral way as possible. I am trying to give knowledge to non-Muslims and also my Sunni brothers (that grew up outside an Islamic nation, like me). Well I am only advocating for the Shi’as and because of that my work is Shi’a related. That link should be placed under the Shi’a section of this article (just to let the readers know that the editor is not saying something that is not backed up by source). Thank You--Salman 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the portion Striver & I had issue with; to after the incident as it really assesses the impact (so now it is fact-fact-assessment rather than a bunch of facts with an assessment just put in hte middle, and some repeating (the door, for example)). I have also pulled out the imploring Shia to act properly bit, as that sounds like sermon and "This is how we are different"; now the focus is on the impact of Fatimah's actions and "This is why she is a good example". I have also changed the word "prevented Ali from going outside" to "protected Ali" - I am not sure it is worth saying that she was telling Ali what to do, which is what that sounds like; I think it better, more accurate, and more believable to say that she was protecting him (an if her protecting him by standing in front of him prevented him from going outside, that might be technically correct, but do you really want it to sound like she was telling him what to do? I hope this helps move in the right direction. Bridesmill 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The split suggestion

No I am against the suggestion of splitting this article into a new article titled Shi'a view of Fatimah. I think we should just divide sections in this article, one section for Shi’a view of Bibi Fatimah (AS), Sunni view of Bibi Fatimah (AS), And Western View of Fatimah (AS), and it is this way, so lets keep it this way. Thank You--Salman 00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if everyone is happy, then so i am. But i dread the moment "someone" comes and "trims" the article for "Shi'a non-sense"... --Striver 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right brother Striver, that is the reason i keep on going back to Islamic article to make sure that someone didn't add something that is not true in the Islamic world. Striver if you ever see anything like that in any Islamic article then please do tell other Muslims brothers. Thank You--Salman 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth and date of Death

I don’t understand why there are different date of births and date of deaths in the introduction of Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS). We should just say that she was born on 20th Jumada 2 (615 AD) and she died on 3rd Jumada 2 11AH (632 AD). If other Branches of Islam have there own date of birth that they can write it in their section. For example, if my Sunni brothers believe that Bibi Fatima Zahra (AS) was born on different date and died on different date, then they can talk about it in their section. By putting different types of date of birth and date of death we will confuse of western readers, and I am sure that we do not want to confuse them since we are even changing the names of some Islamic individuals just so westerners won’t have any problem reading it names. Thank You--Salman 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, a Sunni would argue the same to get ridd of the Shi'a dating. --Striver 22:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article discusses the different claims of birthdate quite well further on; the fact that there are 2 birth dates in the lead makes it obvious that there are two opinions on this; and makes a good 'hook' to convince the reader to read the whole article.Bridesmill 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree! --Striver 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool but i would like other wikipedians to think about this matter also. I am not saying that we should put the Shi'a date of birth in the introduction, i am saying that since there are Shi'a and Sunni section in the article, why not put the date og birth there and discuss it. Thank You--Salman 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Worht doing, but this will take a bit of work - what is there now is basically what is in all of the popular sources today; none really give much sources or citations. The explanations are also, on most of the websites, pretty obviously very biased and not very scholarly. My first bit of digging, most Shi'a modern sources say the dates given above, and state that Sunni claim the other dates. but at-Tabrisi (writing in 468 AH) states that she died at the age of 23 4.5 months after the Prophet; Imam Reza cites various Shi'a sources that give her birthdate variously as 2 and 5 years after Revelation; and then there are the Sunni dates which he also gives, but he does not mention at-Tabrisi which surprises me. So if the article is going to discuss it, it will have to quote and cite the old authors (hadith etc) and scholars. We have some work ahead.....Bridesmill 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry my brother Bridesmill, we will find out the truth about each and everysingle thing when our last Imam (Imam Mehdi) is going to come back to us. Thank You--Salman 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but until that happens we need to present as scholarly accurate a presentation here as possible; this article is becoming very good & professional, if it keeps moving in this direction it may make for a GA or eventually even FA I think.Bridesmill 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize

I reorganized the article to the standardized version:

• Biography
• works
• legacy
  • view 1
  • view 2
• See also
• references
• external links

--Striver 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Images

Are there nay copyright-free images, (something better than fair use?) The Ya-Fatimah image would alos be nicer if it could be replaced with one that didn;t look as if it was 'cut off'. Minor quibble, but this article is starting to look good & that would make it even better.Bridesmill 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Brother Bridesmill I uploaded some pictures that you wanted. You are free to move around the pictures as you desire. Thank You--Salman 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mary/Fatimah

I chose the Christian article to wl to, after first having put the Virgin Mary in Islam wl, because the point here is to show how Fatimah in Islam plays many of the roles of Mary in Christianity; so "How Islam views Fatimah" compared to "How Christianity views Mary", and not how Islam views Mary. I realize this may be a bit controversial, that's why I'm explaining myself here.Bridesmill 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill

Not only has your bold and courageous work in bringing to light some of the "parallel growth" of the phenomena surrounding Fatimah as Muhammed's daughter and her son and his eventual death it is even more startling to think that this injustice might be seen as the one which God Himself avenges; Mary of Fatimah has a lot of explaining to do; Muhammed's saying that the Mahdi would be descended in the people of Salvation from "the children of Fatimah" has a strange inevitability in light of the 1917 appearence of "Al-Zahra": and her Child: the Wrath of the Lamb is his name. Anyway I am writing a book about this and some other stuff: you have entered into a mystery which I hope you would like to see the outcome of: Jesus had his Magi; and this one who comes in the name of Jesus or "the Lamb" has the Sufis. Unicorn144 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of mention of other daughters in Sunni trad

This edit: Interstingly, the there isn't a single hadeeth regarding these 'other daughters' in the famous Sunni books of tradition, namely the books of Bukhari and Muslim. There is however a chapter on "The merits of Fatima" in Bukhari and Muslim. I've removed; if this is so, then what is the disagreement between Shi'a and Sunni if the Prophet only had one daughter (biologically); plus it implies that we should ignore the Qu'ran's mention of at least three. This needs cites and a serious rewording; given that it came from an anon, I question further its seriousness.Bridesmill 14:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Arabic Name?

I wonder why the article is named Fatima Zahra and not Fatima Al-Zahra or Az-zahra. Fatima Zahra is not the Arabic name. --Lanov 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Common usage? ghits is 107k for current name, 73k for al-Zahra, 9K for az-Zahra; all the english lang works I have refer to her as Zahra.Bridesmill 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by common usage?. I'm saying that her name in Arabic is not Fatima Zahra. It's Fatima Al-Zahra. If we're gonna use ghits, we have to compare between al-zhara and az-zahra only. --Lanov 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm, all for putting her Arabic name & (principal) vasriants in the lede; but being an English WP article, and the overwhelming usage in English is as titled, it is not up to us to change what is used in academia etc; although I suppose the misleading/eroneous nature of our ways could be alluded to in the lede.Bridesmill 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about Muhammad?. ghits is 47M for mohammed and 36M for the current name(Muhammad). --Lanov 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bridesmill. This is the English language WP, so we use the most accepted English name for the person. Just like there is an article on Jesus, not Yeshua bin Yusuf. Noting her Arabic name is important, but we use the commonly accepted English one. Ashmoo 02:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a move to Fatimah al-Zahra, its the proper name, per Muhammad's (pbuh) name. --Striver 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Works

I believe the book of Bibi Fatima (AS) should be in see also. There is no information about the book in the article unless you click on the link. I think it should be under see also. Thank you--Salman 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I say Yes and No? Should be in See Also as Salman suggests, but a short section summarizing with a {{main|Book of Fatimah}} should prob be there too - not sure if this belongs where it is now or under the Shia view - I'll wait for consensus before moving anything around.Bridesmill 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Bridesmill, see I don’t have any problems with the book being in the article, but there should be something about the book in the article of Bibi Fatima (AS). Just putting the book’s link in the article doesn’t make nay sense because there is no information about the book in the whole article .Si I suggest that the book should be listed in See Also. Thank You--Salman 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Asked the question at the book's article as to how rest of Islam sees this book; then I noticed Striver did most of the work - hopefully he'll answer here

. That will allow reasonbable decision on if it belongs in Works or in Shi'a section or just in See also (but given significanceI think it deserves more than 2 words)Bridesmill 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's basicly a Shi'a only book, Sunni hardly know that Shi'a belive it exists. --Striver 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

rename

Guys, seriously, this article needs to be renamed to either "Fatimah al-Zahra", Fatimah bint Muhammad" or most preferably just "Fatimah". --Striver 11:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

removing the honorifics

I think the SAW, AS, and RA, should be removed for sake of academic neutrality. I really don't see many other Wikipedia articles relating to Islam with these honorifics included and it will be distracting and confusing to the non-Muslim reader.

FADAK

This is some information on Fadak.

(remove long copy and paste copyvio: it's available at [allaahuakbar.net/shiites/fadak_area_between_abu_bakr_&_fatimah.htm]) Patstuart^talk|edits 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Above is the Sunni view, Shi'a have another view and present other evidence.--Striver 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the other evidence Striver? The She’ee evidence. I gave it. I wasn’t bias and I gave the facts. Don’t just come saying that there is another evidence and walk out not telling me what it is. But you only did that because of your ignorance. You know with this evidence it refutes the She’ee idea of Fadak with She’ee sources. So once again I ask you to give your pathetic evidence. And the Fadak section needs to changed on this article along with many other things but first we’ll start with this.

Relevant

• Fatemeh is Fatemeh --Striver 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Split

I am going to slowly start expand the non-Shia view, so to avoid duplication in the same article, i am spliting out the Shi'a view. Either way, this is long overdue, giving the Shi'a 90% of article is in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Striver 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's lineage

I'm not sure how to find references for this, but I think the only descendants of Muhammad all trace their lineage through Fatimah, because all other children or grandchildren of Muhammad died in infancy. If this is correct, it should be mentioned. Cuñado - Talk 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that all descendants of Muhammad trace their lineage through Fatimah.--Striver 12:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Move per Ali, Muhammad, Umar, Uthman and other prominent early Muslims... --Striver 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take to WP:RM. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Fatima.

Requested move

Fatima Zahra → Fatimah – Creating move survey per above request. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Weak support I find Fatimah pedantic; the English appears to be Fatima, which is now a dab page (and has no h in the listing for this article). . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Suppport for rename to Fatimah with "h". --Striver - talk 04:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fatimah should redirect to Fatima. If you think this is easily the primary usage, then perhaps Fatima should be moved to Fatima (disambiguation), and this moved there (or to h, and then Fatima redirected to h). -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that works as well. Im moving it right now. --Striver - talk 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move undone

I've moved this back from Fatima to Fatima Zahra. Fatima now redirects to Fatima (disambiguation); only an admin make move it back. The original proposal was changed halfway through voting. There was no consensus to move. Striver moved first, then the debate was closed as a fait accompli. There was no notification at Talk:Fatima, which was obviously affected by the second move proposal. As Talk:Fatima (name)#disambiguation shows, Striver asserted the default-ness of "Fatima Zahra" for "Fatima" months ago and was disagreed with. w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Fatima includes more links relating to Fatima, Portugal than Fatima Zahra. This needs a wider discussion. jnestorius^(talk) 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Fatima (disambiguation)#Requested move jnestorius^(talk) 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fatima redirects to Fatima (disambiguation) and Fatimah gets this article, what is the problem? How is Fatima affected by this moving to Fatimah? "Fatima Zahra" -> "Fatima" is not relevant here, this is "Fatima Zahra" for "FatimaH". --Striver - talk 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

right now we got Fatimah -> Fatima Zahra, what is the problem with implementing the above disscution and changing it to Fatima Zahra -> Fatimah? I think you just have mixed Fatimah with Fatima, Fatima is not affected by the above discusion--Striver - talk 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from above: "The result of the debate was move to Fatima." This is not the same as "The result of the debate was move to Fatimah." "Fatima Zahra" was moved to "Fatima", not "Fatimah". I have undone that. I have no opinion about what should be at "Fatimah" and have not changed it. I think before I reversed the move it would have been a double redirect. In any case, I left this notice as a courtesy; feel free to ignore it, or to add your opinion to the discussion at Talk:Fatima (disambiguation)#Requested move jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move round 2

Move per Ali, Muhammad, Umar, Uthman and other prominent early Muslims. Move to Fatimah with H and NOT to Fatima without H. Note that Fatimah with H already redirects here.

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Survey - Support votes

1. Support. --Striver - talk 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Why is this article not at Fatimah bint Muhammad or Fatimah Muhammad? It apparently has a wrong name. Vegaswikian 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note. Since it seems that the end result of the move will not be "Fatima" (now dab page) in any case, a care should be taken to sort out Special:Whatlinkshere/Fatima; now there are some 40 links to be fixed, most intended to Fatima Zahra. Duja► 10:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Zahras

Hi. I have just created a (stubby) page on Zahra Freeth. I wanted to redirect the page 'Zahra' to her if there was no other use, but I see there is, with 'Zahra' redirecting to Fatimah. Is there some way we could have a disambiguation page for Zahra rather than it leading directly here? I'm not very au fait with how Wikipedia works yet, so am loathe to do it myself. Many thanks Jasper33 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shia POV

The article reads too much like hagiography, but one glaring inaccuracy is the statement that she was the only daughter of Muhammad. This is a view only held by Shi'as, and even among Shi'as there is no consensus. I'm going to modify the statement so that it represents both views.Slackerlawstudent 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Virgin of Fatimah

I just wanted to add the Prescence of the Lamb that came with the "Sun" of Fatimah along with the Prescence of the holy angels that came with the children and their "angel". And more; if it was sourced right. I can show the "Door" of Noah in the "Triple Door of the Ark"; a well known esoteric mystery; and full of hidden signifigance in light of the powers of these "children of Fatimah"; they who Muhammed said the Mahdi would be descended from. I added the entire ref. of the Holy Grail by Malcolm Godwin; I will include the entire quote of his from Chapter II from Part II "A Myth for Our Time"; it's called "The Loss of the Female" and in the sub chapter "The Gnostic Female" Fatimah is examined in depth especially as the "Tree of Paradise" or "Body of Mary". Page 204; first paragraph. 71.224.69.244 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unicorn144 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn's Recurring Edits

Klaksonn, there is a talk page where you can discuss your reasons for editing the article. As you can see below, I posted my reasoning long ago, and instead of insiting on ad-hominem attacks based on what you perceive me to be, you should do the same. Just shouting "saudi salafi POV" does not lend credence to your point of view but only serves to cast you as a sectarian with an axe to grind. If you really have conclusive evidence that it is some sort of absolute indisputable truth that Fatima was the only daughter of Muhammad, then you should add the source that provides that proof. Otherwise, the opening paragraph should state the majority opinion, as well as the minority one. In the meantime, I've submitted a request for a third opinion on this dispute (even though in my opinion it should be a non-issue). Slacker 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Provide us with credible sources that show Fatima may have had other sisters and we might discuss this. Until then, spare us from your Saudi education and refrain from using "majority/minority" logic. Indonesians and Sunni Indians having too many babies doesn't make you more credible. ^Klak_Sonn^{Keep it to yourself} 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, are you even aware that there's an entire Wikipedia article called Genealogy_of_Khadijas_daughters? All the arguments on this issue are presented there, and that's the place to cite sources, not here. Perhaps we can link from here to there. The articles on Ruqayya, Zaynab, and Umm Kulthum state the position that they are believed to be Muhammad's daughters, but qualify it by mentioning that this is disputed by Shi'as and link to the Genealogy page, so for consistency's sake, the Fatimah article should be similar. As for sources, you know very well that practically every historical source or hadith collection (even those collected by Shi'as) mention four daughters. That's what I meant by "majority". However, since the only reason there's an encyclopedia article on Fatimah is because she is important to Muslims, it's important to say what Muslims believe about her, and it's relevant to speak of the majority belief as well as the minority. Otherwise it would be like an article on the Holy Ghost that only talks about the Eastern Orthodox creed and not the Catholic or Protestant. Most orientalists never challenged the view that there were four daughters either (see William Montgomery Watt, or even Laura Veccia Vaglieri who is well-regarded by the Shi'a) , and those who do, don't necessarily take the Sh'ia view and are just as likely to deny Fatimah's existence as well. If you want an initial list of sources, here you go (I'm not big into religion, but I hate to see history manipulated for sectarian reasons, and since you've resorted to silly ad-hominem attacks, I'm determined to show anyone who sees this page how narrow-minded you're being):

(1) The only written contemporary source on the life of Muhammad is the Quran, which clearly mentions "daughters" of Muhammad in the plural in verse 33:59. Yes, I realize the Shia interpret this differently, but why should wikipedia choose their interpretation over what's clear from the face of the text? At the very least, both interpretations should be mentioned instead of presenting one of them as an absolute and indisputable truth.

(2) The closest written document to the lifetime of Muhammad is the papyrus scroll of Ibn Lahia (see here [1] and here [2]), who was a judge in Egypt known for being a partisan of Ali [3]. He only mentions Ruqayya Umm Kulthum as Muhammad's daughter. So we actually have an older written reference to Umm Kulthum then we have to Fatimah.

(3) All the books of Sira such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham speak of four daughters, as do the traditional books of history such as Al-Tabari and others.

(4) Shi'a collections of hadith state that Muhammad had more than one daughter. See here [4]. This includes references to Al-Kafi, Tahthibul Ahkam, and Al-Khisal by Shaikh Saduq.

(5) Nahj Al-Balagha speech 164 (Arabic [5], English [6]), in which Ali says to Uthman: "You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage." Yes, I realize some Shi'as interpret this differently, but again, WP is not obligated to favor one interpretation over the other without evidence.

(6) Several Shi'a ayatollahs have stated this position including Muhammad Saeed Al-Hakim, Muhammad Husayn Fadhlallah [7], and as can be seen from the link above, Hassan Makki Al-'Amili. They explain that this was also the majority positions among Shi'as in earlier centuries and that the denial of the other three daughters only gained credence relatively recently.

As far as I know, there is no actual historical text to support the theory that the other three women were not Muhammad's daughters. Rather, proponents of this view use methods of historical criticism (you can see in the Genealogy article that all the sources cited for the "Shia View" are recent). That's fine, and they may well be correct, but it's dishonest and disingenuous to present this view as an absolute truth. After all, these same methods have been used to dispute the historicity of people such as Jesus, Muhammad, or even Fatimah herself, yet we don't present these results as indisputable facts in the way that you have done. Now, I suggest we state the diverging opinions (as I have done previously), and place a link to the page on Genealogy of Khadijas daughters where people can read about the dispute there. Slacker 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion This seems like an ancient dispute between Sunni and Shia (apologies for any wrong spellings here - I'm used to the Dutch transliterations). My knowledge of that area is very limited, but I do know what Wikipedia should write in cases like this. In fundamental differences of opinion/thought/belief/whatever, like "Theism or Atheism", a choice cannot be made based on reliable sources, because both points of view have been covered by many reliable sources. There are two options:

1. Write about both points of view, and provide a citation for each. A footnote citation might not be the best in this case (because of the lack of English language reliable sources available on the internet), so I would argue to rather include a bibliography with a book for each PoV.
2. Don't write about it at all.

I suggest number two is chosen until a good sentence describing both points of view can be constructed - this is hard to do. An example:

“ Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in one or more gods. ”

--User:Krator (t c) 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased 'most traditional Muslims' in the introduction to 'most Sunni Muslims'. (the "most" could be removed when sourced that this is an essential part of that faith) It is POV to call Sunni Muslims 'traditional Muslims', implying that the others are wrong/not traditional. It is also confusing, because most (those not educated at university level) citizens of non-Muslim countries don't know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni.

--User:Krator (t c) 08:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Krator, I understand your concern, but about half the sources I listed are Shia sources. One of the sources (Tabari) is Sunni but his history is considered the flagship of early Muslim historical works, and is heavily relied upon by both Shi'as and Sunnis. I did not mean to say that only Sunnis were traditional Muslims, but that the sources themselves were old, traditional sources. This is as true of the Shia works of Kulayni, Tusi, and Sheikh Saduq as it is of Sunni works such as Ibn Hisham and Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Even among the traditional (i.e. early) Shi'a works, the notion that Fatimah was an only daughter is rarely found. Slacker 08:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just keep the current content and continue improving the rest of the article. This will become a dispute on spelling quite soon I fear. I thank you for your considerate response to my humble third opinion. --User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I'll gladly yield to your opinion on whether it should be rephrased or kept as it is. Slacker 08:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn please refrain from making unwarranted edits. Under your version, the footnote no longer corresponds to the statement it's supposed to point to. Your statement about non-Muslim scholars is false, as can be seen from the references to Watt and Vaglieri (which are only two out of numerous examples. In fact every relevant entry in Encyclopedia of Islam agrees that Fatimah was not the only daughter). Your statement that only "some" Sunni sources say there were four daughters is also false. There is not a single traditional Sunni source that says Fatimah was the only daughter. Your theory regarding Othman is indeed interesting, and may even be true, but (1) it's based on conjecture and needs a source, (2) it more appropriately belongs in the Genealogy_of_Khadijas_daughters article. Why don't you work on the Shia point of view there? Finally, for the love of God, Klaksonn, use the talk page. Slacker 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't consensus among Shia scholars that how many daughter prophet has. You can read this debate in this case:User talk:Sa.vakilian/Archive1#Fatimah--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, it should say that many traditional Shi'a sources say she was not the only daughter (as per footnote). The only reason we agreed not to say that is to appease your fanaticism, Klaksonn. The only explanation for your incessant editing is that either (a) you can't tell that Saduq, Tusi, Mufid, and Kulayni are the most important classical Shi'a scholars, which would disqualify you from having a say on the issue, or (b) you can tell, and therefore your edits are nothing but blatant POV-pushing and/or vandalism. That's not to mention how you falsely claim that Western sources and "some Sunni" sources say she was the only daughter despite the ample and precise citations I've provided, or how you added a theory on Othman without citing an author, which violates the No Original Research rule. Now if you insist on reverting the article, then please provide your own footnotes and sources instead of implying that the existing footnote says something that it does not. Slacker 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, web forums do not qualify as reliable sources. Slacker 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is discussion in my talk page:

salam

I'm a Shiite and I guess there is a big mistake in Fatima Zahra. There is written "According to Shi'a Muslims, Fatima Zahra binte Mohammed was Islamic Prophet Muhammad's only daughter" . I looked for a reference for it, but I can't find anything in Persian document. Please correct it.--Sa.vakilian 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Salam,

It is a bit odd. Tabatabaei's book "Shia Islam" p. 191 calls Fatima, the prophet's "sole beloved daughter". The online edition at Howzeh Elmiyeh Qom has taken out the word "sole".

So I looked in other sources. I found this passage:

"Khadija gave birth to several children of whom only four daughters survived: Zainab, Umme Kulthum, Ruqiya, and Fatima-Zahra who was the youngest and most exalted of them all.

There is a difference between historians regarding the first two daughters, for some claim that they were the Prophet's step-daughters; but the fact is that they were his direct daughters."

It is located on p.32 of "Fatima (A.S.) The Gracious" by Abu Muhammad Ordoni. Published by: Ansariyan Publications, Qom. Balagh.net has an online edition here.

Another source here says:

در تعداد فرزندان حضرت خديجه ، ميان مورخان اختلاف است . به‏گفته مشهور : ثمره ازدواج رسول خدا و خديجه ، شش فرزند بود .

1- هاشم . 2- عبدالله . به اين دو «طاهر» و «طيب‏»مى‏گفتند . . 3- رقيه . 4- زينب 5- ام كلثوم . 6- فاطمه .

رقيه بزرگترين دخترانش بودو زينب ، ام كلثوم و فاطمه به‏ترتيب پس از رقيه قرار داشتند . پسران خديجه پيش از بعثت‏پيامبر (ص) ، بدرود زندگى گفتند . ولى دخترانش ، نبوت پيامبر(ص) را درك كردند .

گروهى از محققان معتقدند : قاسم و همه دختران رسول خدا (ص)پس از بعثت‏به دنيا آمدند و چندروز پس از پيامبر خدا (ص) به‏مدينه هجرت كردند .

So I think you are right. But I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that".--Zereshk 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These are some Shia sources which debates about this issue:

1-Khadija Daughter of Khuwaylid by Yasin T. al-Jibouri[8]

2-Khadija and Muslim Historians [9]

3-THE LIFE OF PROPHET[10]

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" Tag

Before removing it again, please look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material. Slacker 05:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Predictably, User:Klaksonn has either not read the policy, or is disregarding it intentionally. The statement that "Fatima died of her wounds" needs a historical source because you are required to source any statement that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Slacker 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a common fact, it does not need sources. Even if it has, for 1400 years, disturbed some Sunnis, it is surely undeniable. As if you were asking me to provide sources proving Hitler indeed invaded Poland. I will provide sources. ^Klak_Sonn^{Keep it to yourself} 01:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also undeniable that Sunni Muslim's believe that Fatimah died a natural death. For example, see the USC biography. Regarding the sources mentioned, they are all Shi'a sources. It is a common mistake to believe that Ibn Abi Al-Hadid was a Sunni. His name was actually "Al-Mu'tazili", which says a lot. Hamid-Masri 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You can edit the section on her death if you want; just make sure you provide proper sources. Slacker 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sufic Section

I added a clean up tag to the sufic section a few days ago and informed its creator. That I found it incomprehensible. I was hoping that some one would clean it up otherwise it might be best to delete it. Any thoughts? --Daniel J. Leivick 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope if you look at the article it is now more streamlined and not so "dense". I will add the thought that I am trying to "add" the "missing information" to the discussion and the article that the second coming of Christ might originate from a second "Mary"; the one we find at Fatimah: I mean: could it be any plainer? Think about it.Unicorn144 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section to the talk page and left it bellow. It is not coherent enough for an enyclopedia article. If anyone can clean it up please put it back. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Sufi elect it is Fatimah Zahra, as the cosmic Virgin Mary, also known as Maryam al-Kubra, who manifested herself at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 as "Al Zahra" or the "Lady of Light". As Mary had once said: "My soul doth magnify the Lord". At Fatimah the Cosmic Mary thus "magnified" the Lord by bringing forth the "Sun of Fatimah", the "Light of Al Zahra": the Lamp of Allah. It is another of Muhammed's prophecies that came true here when he said: "No Mahdi but Jesus; the Son of Mary". It was the "Mary of Fatimah" who brought forth the "Star of the Crescent Moon"; the Son of Maryam al-Kubra. This figure is the Lamb of the Virgin; the Mahdi who bears the Name of "the Slain Lamb" Christ Jesus. Thus the "Mahdi" and the "Messiah" are one and the same.The facts about Mary and her slain son Jesus also surround Fatimah and her son Ali's unjust death at the beginning of the foundation of the Islamic "world" Theocratic State. The similarities are therefore highly suggestive of "Mary/Fatimah" as the "Virgin daughter" and "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" as "Jesus/Ali"; these being the prototypical "mythical" sacrifices for both religions: Christianity and Shi'a. Both Jesus and Ali died deaths of expediency for those who had decided to "take the Vineyard" for themselves.

References

RE: Othman Comment

First of all, I appreciate User:Klaksonn's modification of his position. Now, I hope he will be more willing to utilize the Talk Page to argue for his edits.

Now, regarding the sentence on Othman, that comment does not belong in the opening paragraph for the following reasons:
(1) It is false. Sunnis "legitimize" Othman's caliphate - rightly or wrongly - based on the decision of the Shura commitee set up by Umar (see Uthman). They indeed cite his marriage to Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum as evidence of his high standing with Muhammad, but that is not what his caliphate is based on.
(2) The test for inclusion in an article is not whether or not it's "controversial", but rather whether or not it's attributable to a reliable source.
(3) The other test for inclusion is relevance, and this statement is not relevant enough to Fatimah's life to be included in her introductory paragraph. It's more relevant to articles on Othman, Ruqayyah, or Umm Kulthum, or at most it could be included in the body of the article in a section comparing Fatimah to her three sisters/step-sisters.

I believe it should either be (a) deleted for the sake of relevance, or (b) changed from "legitmizing Othman's caliphate" to "arguing for his high standing with Muhammad" for the sake of accuracy. Slacker 01:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a POV

In my humble opinion, the sentences about Fatimah's marriage is clearly made from a Shi'a POV. It is not the sunni view that God ordered Fatimah to marry Ali. Hamid-Masri 10:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If i may allow myself to say it, this is also nothing more but the Shi'a POV: Umar and Khalid ibn Walid threatened to burn the house down if they did not submit. They broke in, resulting in Fatimah's ribs being broken between the broken door and the wall, and she miscarriaging an unborn son named Muhsin. Hamid-Masri 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamid, You can add an alternative narrative, as long as it's properly sourced. Slacker 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slacker, i am also Shi'a, but lets be reasonable, we all know that most Sunnis do not agree that Umar assaulted Fatimah.--Striver - talk 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say otherwise? Slacker 23:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

True, you did'nt. I just got that impression. I generally tend to try to keep the introduction and non-Shia/Sunni view clear of controversial material, it makes editing less... frictional. --Striver - talk 11:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Slacker 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased

This article is biased tawards the Shia point of view and requires a lot of attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hasseniqbal192 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It's a terrible article. "When she attained the age of puberty, it became necessary for her to marry someone who would appreciate her status and the perfection and maturity of her virtues." Is that a fact? Arrow740 09:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Burial

Klaksonn, could you point me to the source for the following addition which you reverted saying it's all sourced:

“ was buried in secret at her request, to prevent Abu Bakr and Umar and whom she considered to be her father's true enemies from attending the funeral. ”

Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a source. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So, it was unsourced (contrary to your revert comments) - which explains why I could not find any references to it in the existing sources. Thanks for adding the source. All the sources in this article need to be reviewed for compliance with WP:RS. Could you (or anyone else) review all the sources and remove any that don't comply with the guidelines. I have seen many that point to forums and blogs which cannot be used as references. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would get a thousand sources if I had to, but I assume that if you had some knowledge of Arabic and Islamic history, you would know this is like asking for sources to prove that Hiter invaded Poland in '39, or that Hitler was indeed the Chancellor of Germany.

Also, she is the Prophet's daughter, and Abu Bakr and Umar were in fact responsible for her death, which is why we have Shi'as and Sunnis. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a chance to review this in detail now. The source shows what looks like an essay from a "Munir Bahsoun". A google search for this name shows only 4 hits - all related to [11]. Looking at the website, it's a muslim society in Australia and is therefore not considered a reliable source. → AA ^(talk) — 11:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you discuss here instead of reverting (and be mindful of your edit summaries). Please respond to my points above. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 20:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

This article is covering both Shia and Sunni views and therefore the {{Islam}} navigation template is appropriate. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Many may have views, but considering that Abu Bakr and Umar caused Fatima's death, and that the 'Islam template' covers both Shi'as and Sunnis (Sunnis having nothing to do with the Prophet's family, the article should be part of Shi'a Islam alone. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like POV to me. Considering that Sunnis would disagree with what Klaksonn said. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course they disagree with what said, otherwise 'Sunnism' wouldn't exist. Fatima is one of the 'People of the House', hence the expression 'Supporters of the People of the House'. Seeing that (accoring to non-Sunni historians) she was killed by Abu Bakr and Umar and that virtually all of her descendents are Shi'a Muslims, the article belongs to 'Shi'a Islam series'. No need to further argue. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is POV pushing (also with very weak refs in the article). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn, it is a lie that all of Fatimah's descendants are Shi'a. The royal house of Morocco is sunni, the same is Sayyed Habib Ali al-Jifri, a famous sunni-sufi scholar from Tarim. In fact, through history, many of the sunni scholars were actually descendants of Fatimah. You do not hear that often, because Sunni Muslims do not give as much importance to being 'seyyed' as the Shi'a Muslims do. In fact Fatimah is so revered by Sunni Muslims that we include her among the 4 of the best women of all times. Thus your arguments is invalid. Hamid-Masri 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:AA

Unfortunately, user:AA bravely took advantage of me getting blocked for 48 hours to radically change the content of the article. Refrain from doing so again, and from letting vandalism to the 'death' section go unnoticed. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 23:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn, we'd hoped you'd have taken this time off to familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia policies (at least WP:CIVIL) but you may wish to read up on WP:OWN before asking anyone to "refrain from making any changes" to any article. If you have an objection with any specific element of the changes I or any other editor have made, bring it to the talk page and discuss but do not revert the complete article. → AA ^(talk) — 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, why did you revert the following changes: [12], [13], [14]]? → AA ^(talk) — 23:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your revert summary "saying Ali and Fatima are insolent is a little daring and quite disturbing)", that is not a change I introduced (see here). As I've mentioned before, if you have a problem with specific paragraphs or sections, discuss them here and we can work together to improve the article (I agree with your sentiments on this point) but do not simply revert the whole article. → AA ^(talk) — 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Klaksonn's edits upon seeing them (AA's version seemed more neutral), but reverted myself after seeing that it was an edit war. Please try to come to a consensus or this page will have to be protected. ugen64 16:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored the death section back to its original form. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 16:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected article

In view of the edit war, I have now protected the article so that only admins can edit it. Please discuss the points of disagreement and try to reach a consensus. You may ask an admin to make changes by placing explaining here what you want done, and placing an {{editprotected}} tag beside it. However, please note that an admin is unlikely to agree to any changes without a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a non-Muslim with very limited knowledge of the subject, the present version does not seem to handle the diametrically opposed Sunni & Shia viewpoints well, and clearly leans somewhat to the Shia view. Different sections for each view of her death are needed, as the question of her possible siblings has. At the same time, since she is certainly more significant in the Shia tradition, that version should be placed first. Johnbod 17:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, thank you for your comments. I was attempting to make this NPOV and if you look at my edits which Klaksonn reverted, it gives the Shia view full prominence as you suggest with a simple expand tag on the Sunni view which I was hoping to work on but Klaksonn is pushing his POV and does not seem to understand that the article should be neutral. → AA ^(talk) — 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with John. AA, please continue your efforts to fix this article when it is opened for editing again. Let me know if you need any help in the way of references or research. MezzoMezzo 01:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You could open up a temp version either as a sub-page here (which anyone could edit), or in your sandbox, for drafting/discussion purposes. Johnbod 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul article (Talk:Fatimah/sandbox)

It's good to see a discussion starting here on how to resolve this dispute. I hope it will e helpful to remind editors that the reason for protecting the page is not to endorse any particular version, just to stop edit warring. Ideally, editors will use this time to try to reach a consensus, because if the edit warring resumes when the article is unprotected, it will soon be protected again. To help in achieving that, editors may find it helpful to re-read WP:NPOV, particularly the summary at WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view.

To make things easier for those drafting new versions while the page is protected, I have created a temp version at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thank you very much for your objectivity and helpfulness on the article, Brown Haired Girl. Guys, i've been sort of out of the discussions and improvements on this article so while I can see the edit history and th various versions, I may not be the best person to just jump in and start editing when the protection is gone. Regardless, I can stick around if everyone would want just to look everything over and throw in my two cents when a third opinion is needed. MezzoMezzo 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all for the initiative and support you have given. MezzoMezzo, I would welcome your input and assistance on this. Indeed, I would welcome Klaksonn's help too provided we work towards a goal of keeping the article NPOV. I think if we start from scratch and come up with a structure and section headings we want to see, it would give us all something to work on without any connotations of the article in its current form. I suggest that since it's a BIO article, we take as a template the one suggested at the Biography wikiproject to begin with. I should be able to document my ideas later today. → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography seems like a good place to start. I'm guessing they have some sort of a basic template for the structure of bio pages? MezzoMezzo 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have stubified the article with the sections I think we need to cover. The next step is to add the list of references that will be cited in the article. One of the key problems with the current article is that the majority of the references do not meet WP:RS. Could everyone please add the references they would like to cite in the References section and discuss these so we can get a solid foundation for building the article and ensure later conflict is minimised. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands right now I have some biographical type resources though they're predominantly in the Arabic language, and there might be an issue with that. For the time being I can do a quick search among my favorite Islamic bookstores and see if I can find any English language reference material perhaps either on Fatimah specifically or maybe the companions in general. For the time being, woudl anybody be interested in some web links to the Arabic text of some excerpts from said books? MezzoMezzo 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to limit the sources to books and scholarly sources as the main problem with the current article is there's lots of links to polemic sites and forums. I'm using two sources myself which are available on the net (USC-MSA bio (Sunni) & Fatima The Gracious (Shia)) plus a book I have (Great Women of Islam). If you have other book sources then that would be great - please add them refs to the sandbox. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

Please review the new article (in the sandbox). It would be great to get this to GA, so if you have further suggestions for improvement, please drop them by here. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the new version be moved into mainspace. → AA ^(talk) — 08:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth dates and sequence in birth

I think this is better, though I am no expert. I have made a few changes, especially replacing "generally accepted" etc with "generally accepted by Sunni sources" etc. More, and more referencing, is needed on the early sources of the different accounts. The section on the way Fatimah is regarded probably also needs differentiation between Sunni & Shia views. Johnbod 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for your interest in this article. Regarding your recent change, the edit by Itaqallah is in fact correct as it's not only Sunni sources which suggest these. The Encyclopedia of Islam is a neutral source which also accepts these view and therefore it is appropriate to state it as such with a subtext that the Shias have an alternative view. Hope that clarifies. Regards. → AA ^(talk) — 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it needs some more detail then. Previous version:

"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations, during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605.[1][2] Most Shia sources, however, state that she was born five years after the first revelation in 615 on the 20th of Jumada al-thani while some claim she was born two years after the first revelation in 612.[3]..."

"Fatimah is generally placed as the fourth of Muhammad's daughters after Zaynab, Ruqayya, and Umm Kulthum.[4] Shias claim she was his only daughter, believing ...."

- In both cases the views of "Shias" or "most Shias" are said to be different from the "widely" or "generally" held view. I don't think this can be right. Johnbod 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...I see. Maybe not mention the Shia view and just state the facts:

"There are differences of opinion on the exact date of her birth, but the widely accepted view is that she was born five years before the first Qur'anic revelations,[1][2][7] during the time of the rebuilding of the Kaaba in 605, although this does imply she was over 18 at the time of her marriage which was unusual in Arabia.[2] Other sources,[3] suggest that she was born either two or five years after the first revelation but this timeline would imply her mother was over fifty at the time of her birth.[2]"

The point about her place in the sequence of Muhammad's daughters is only a Shia view and the EoI does not add any subtext to say otherwise. → AA ^(talk) — 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you must see that just excluding the Shia view is wrong, and will just lead to further edit conflicts? Is the neutrality of the EoI in fact accepted by Shias? If it doesn't mention the views held by most Shia sources, as you imply, this would seem unlikely. If by "widely accepted" you actually mean "the only view given in the EoI", it might be better to just say that. Any statement like "widely accepted" or "generally accepted" must mean that the view is held by at least a good number of Shia sources. Johnbod 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly held by all Sunni sources and the EoI can be regarded as a non-muslim source. Additionally, it's accepted in Encylopaedia Britannica, MSN Encarta and other encyclopaedias so it is the generally accepted view. The Shia do have a different view (and I'm not sure if it's a universal Shia view either) and we can either report it explicitly or implicitly but it would be incorrect to label it only a Sunni view. → AA ^(talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the original article, there's a whole list of sources (including Sunni, Shia and EoI) supporting this view. I'll copy them across into the new article). → AA ^(talk) — 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a standard academic reference on Islam, and one of best scholarly sources one can use on Islam related articles. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I also notice the links to the series of specifically Shia articles are missing, and many of the links to online Shia texts. I agree that something like Umar at Fatimah's house should not be linked by the "main article" template, but they should be linked, maybe by something like [[Umar at Fatimah's house|some Shia sources. I understand your concerns about linking to inflammatory Shia sites, but I think links to historical texts online are ok. There seem to have been several of these in the old references, now missing. Of course I can't read them myself. Johnbod 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the EL section yet (been working exclusively on the article) but we should not have anything that does not meet WP:EL. Please do suggest the ones you think would be acceptable per the guidelines and we can discuss here. → AA ^(talk) — 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of links for EL section

On the language issue, WP:EL says "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English, when the link is to the subject's text in its original language ..." - as I say I can't read any of the Arabic (or Farsi ?) texts, but if they are to straight texts of historical sources, it should be ok to use them, in the absence of (or as well as) links to English translations. Several of the old links appear prima facie to be this sort of link. Johnbod 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any site can be considered an "official site" for this article so the use of non-English-language links should be avoided. I believe the criteria applies more to an official site of a product/organisation/person etc. However, I'm not sure which link you're referring to as the links in the EL section of the current article all appear to be in English. Could you paste the link here please. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the ones which I don't believe meet WP:EL. → AA ^(talk) — 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My reading of EL is that " when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" is a separate case from the preceding "official site" bit (an "or" would make this clearer). So I don't think you are correct in saying "the use of non-English-language links should be avoided". For the links, look at those attached to Note 1. Johnbod 15:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This other policy may or may not clarify the matter: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#non-English-language_sites; in any case I'm pretty sure my reading is correct the full sentence describes 3 cases, not 2. Johnbod 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I see. You're referring to the References and not the External links section, right? If so, then yes, those refs in note 1 have been copied across (note 7 in the new article). → AA ^(talk) — 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Virtues section

On the whole, this version of the article looks excellent. I noticed from the virtues section:

After Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader of all women in Paradise, and a behavioural examplar. She was the first wife of the first Shia Imam, the mother of the second and third, and the ancestor of all the succeeding Imams;

The first sentence should probably get some citation as it's a factual claim. For the second sentence, it should be included that she was the wife of the first Shia Imam and also the first Sunni caliph, I think. MezzoMezzo 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That was one of the few elements I copied across from the existing article. I assumed the ref at the end to Esposito, covers the first sentence (since the second one does not really need a ref). If not, then it may need replacing. → AA ^(talk) — 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I assume you meant third Sunni Caliph? → AA ^(talk) — 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume the two of you meant the fourth Sunni caliph (i.e., Fatimah was the husband of Ali, the fourth Sunni caliph, not Abu Bakr, the first Sunni caliph, nor Uthman, the third Sunni caliph). Pepsidrinka 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes - of course :) → AA ^(talk) — 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I found the refs and have added them in and made the suggested change. → AA ^(talk) — 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, typo on my part. Good job with the refs though. MezzoMezzo 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Klaksonn

Klaksonn, you are engaging in disruptive editing of this article. The version moved to mainspace by BrownHairedGirl has achieved a super-majority consensus. Please review her comments above and start discussing the changes in a constructive manner (and hold off on the edit summaries attacking editors. → AA ^(talk) — 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed twelve sources on how Fatimah died. Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)". ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus to move sandbox to mainspace?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As noted above, I have been asked by AA (talk · contribs) to move the version at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox to the main article at Fatimah, following a rewrite, and to merge the histories.

I have no expertise in the subject, and so I do not want to make any assessment of the article. Instead I will ask whether there is a consensus to support this move. Please indicate below whether you support the move, by simply adding a line of the form "* support move" or "* oppose move"., and sign your comment. I will weigh the comments after 48 hours to see if there is a consensus to move.

(Note that the question now is not whether the version in he sandbox is perfect, but whether it should be the starting point for future edits. If the sandbox version is moved to mainspace, it will of course be open to ongoing editing as with any other article).

Sorry if this sounds a bit long-winded, but consensus seems a better way of assessing things than a judgment by an admin like me who knows nothing about the subject! Thanks :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: this is a far-superior version to the one we had before in terms of neutrality of tone and balance of views, and should make an excellent starting point for a thorough treatment of this subject. -- Slacker 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: → AA ^(talk) — 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: The new article is a very good piece of work. MezzoMezzo 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm going to try to formulate another one in the days to come. Consensus means all parties should agree, and not two Wahhabis and a Sunni Bengal. Sadly, it reeks of Sunni POV. It seems the section on Fatimah's death in AA's version was also removed to suit Sunni POV. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure consensus does mean all parties should agree but nevertheless, I'd like to get your support in submitting the article for GA. So please, copy the relevant points you disagree with in the review section above and we can discuss it as consensus does require discussion. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the death section from the main article has been incorporated in the "Life after the death of Muhammad" section since the Shia book Fatima the Gracious gives a specific account of her death which has been used in the rewrite. Hope that's what you were looking for. → AA ^(talk) — 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note that historically, Klaksonn (talk · contribs) has not taken part in constructive discussions and indeed made no attempts to discuss the changes while they were being made over the course of the last few weeks even after requests from me (see this and this). → AA ^(talk) — 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support as starting-point, as Slacker says. I don't think the Shia view is sufficiently represented yet, so more work is needed, and general expansion. Johnbod 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support move. If this version still has a Sunni POV, as was asserted in a comment above, why don't those who feel that way fix it. This is a wiki, and even more so, its a sandbox, so it's not even a live page yet. If you have concerns about a sandbox version, edit it to express your ideas, or comment on the talk page. Just through reading this talk page and looking through the history of the sandbox page, there only seems to be one editor active in rectifying the problems that plagued this article. Pepsidrinka 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed my changes and my many comments, above, which said editor promptly (largely) reverted! Johnbod 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my edits, for which I (and another editor) gave you the reasoning. Please feel free to continue the discussion if you do not agree (I had assumed the explanation given had been to your satisfaction). → AA ^(talk) — 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I indeed did read the comments you made, and by the complete change of direction initiated by yourself (to external links), it's not hard to see why others would think that you no longer had a problem. Pepsidrinka 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, please review the talk archive which will give you a better understanding of why it has been impossible to move forward with this article. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support move - while the sandbox version has quite a way to go before becoming a good article, it is, as others have said, a great starting point. ITAQALLAH 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: the article is good the way it is. Many editors worked hard to build it. If some of you are bothered with the 'death' section, we could split the section in two and add the Sunni point of view until other concerned editors are available to give their opinion on the sandbox version User:AA created, because I noticed no Shi'a editors have edited Wikipedia in some time. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I will also be away for a few days and will also try to write another sandbox version of the article if I find any editors with non-Wahhabi POV who could help me. We should hold this discussion until everybody's available and back from vacation. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop calling your fellow editors Wahhabis. MezzoMezzo 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

.....Poverty..... section of the article:

said she was "grining corn..."

first, it should read "grinding"

second, i don't think corn was around arabia circa 623.

i was skimming the article and that caught my eye.

don't know how to approach in fixing.j

will you fix it please?

my best, allison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.225.41 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions from the discussion

I'm sorry that it has taken longer than the promised 48 hours for me to get back to this discussion, but the advantage of my tardiness is that more people have had a chance to express their views.

The first thing to note is that WP:CONSENSUS does not define consensus as unanimity, and it does not allow editors to simply veto any changes: the aim must be to work to reach agreement.

So I note that six editors above have indicated their support for the move, and one opposes it. There are various ways of considering this situation: one is to ask whether there is a super-majority, and in this case there is (6 out of 7 is 85% support). The other test is to ask whether there is a substantive point of disagreement where editors have set out their concerns and sought to create a version which reflects both POVs ... and in this case, that does not appear to have happened.

User:Klaksonn is the only editor who objects to using the sandbox version as a starting point for further development. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Klaksonn's concerns that the Shia viewpoint is not adequately represented (and indeed that view is shared by some of those supporting the sandbox version). However, I note that efforts have been made to address Kalksonn's criticisms, and that (see for example User_talk:AA#Re:) asked Klaksonn to help incorporate material to resolve those problems; wearing my admin hat, I made a similar request when I protected the article some weeks ago. Unfortunately, despite those requests, I can find no trace of Klaksonn having participated in the review discussions above.

The development of an article cannot be stopped by an editor who simply says "I don't like it" or "it's biased": that position imposes a responsibility on the objecting editor to set out in detail the nature of the concerns and to try to reach a consensus article which incorporates both points of view. So far, despite several polite requests, that has not happened.

So I have to find that there is a clear consensus to move the sandbox version to article space. As above, this is not a matter of saying that the present version is perfect, simply that there is a consensus that it provides the better starting point for further improvement.

So I will now move the version at at Talk:Fatimah/sandbox to the main article at Fatimah, and merge the article histories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Move now done, and histories merged. I have also semi-protected the page, in accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection, as a biography subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing.

Since there are outstanding areas of disagreement about the content of this article, may I remind editors again of the importance of discussing concerns and trying to reach a consensus? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

"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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fatima/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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

Last edited at 21:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)