Talk:Attack on Fatima's house

Authenticity of narratives

The hadith narratives do not give its Sanad (chain of narrators from the event to the writer) of book. It should write this. Furthermore there should be told that weather its chain is authentic which amounts to the reliability of narrative. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles Smatrah (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Smatrah There is a contradiction between your edit summary and content in the talk page. Now, what is the problem, original research or a chain of narrators? I propose you that read the Wikipedia:or. All the contents that you deleted, have RS. I warn you for removing to contents with RS. About chaining of narrators, this is wikipedia not Biographical evaluation class, the validity of narrators determine by RS that all removed quotations have them.M1nhm (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is original research to carefully select some hadiths from a primary source (see MOS:ISLAMOR). Besides, al-Mas'udi is known to be a Shia' not Sunni (read his article). Mistakes such as mislabeling al-Masudi is why it is best to rely on secondary academic sources that summarizes the Sunni/Shia views about this incident, not your own selection of hadiths. As for the chain of narrators, it is sometimes essential because the so-called "Sunni" sources occasionally include accounts of Shia (or proto-Shia) historians. For example, al-Tabari in his Tarikh includes accounts by Abu Mikhnaf. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is unrealistic to state that every reference on a Wikipedia page needs to include the entire chain of narrators of that reference. If that were the case, then Wikipedia pages and/or sources would be extremely cluttered with information about the references, rather than stating the actual content. This page is not an analysis of the authenticity of scholarly books; it is a page describing the event and related information. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but most articles on wikipedia are written based on secondary sources while hadith is a primary source. The fact that you keep including al-Mas'udi with sunni sources shows that you didn't quote him properly. Misquoting primary sources is exactly why we have the WP:NOR policy. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not primary sources. Many of the works cited in the "Narration of the event in Sunni historical books" section were written hundreds of years after the event occurred. Also, the part about Masudi has been fixed. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hadith is primary source you can see. If not allow me to write hadiths on every article. By the way they were written at least hundred years later. You cannot say by yourself that this is primary or secondary, according to Wikipedia guidelines hadith are considered primary source.Secondly, hadiths are to be examined. I’m not saying that you should write debate of Muslim scholars on the chain. You should cite one secondary source of Muslim classifying weather hadith is sahih( authentic) or Maudu (fabricated). You can see the guidelines I mentioned which says that hadith’s authencity should be written for your help i again write. Please reply fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Hadith

According to Wikipedia, a primary source is "an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study." The "time under study" of this article is the attack on the house of Ali and Fatimah in 632 CE. Tarikh al-Tabari, for example, was published in the tenth century, hundreds of years after the event, and therefore is not a primary source. In addition, none of the references about the event are Hadiths. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The earliest still surviving biography of Muhammad is ibn hisham. Do you think that it is secondary source? Sahih Bukhara was written in 9th century. Do you have reference which tells age of tabari collection. Is it secondary source. Do you have a reference which says that books quoted on article are not hadith? Reply fast.10:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of a Hadith is: "the record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of the Islamic prophet Muhammad." The only thing that could be considered a Hadith on this page is in the "Background" section. As for Tabari's work, Tarikh al-Tabari was published in the 10th century, according to Wikipedia. The event on this page took place in 632 CE, which is the seventh century. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear, Wikipedia itself is not source. We have to rely on published reliable secondary sources to base a claim. So if you don’t have such source then it’s original research needed to be removed. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to claim that Wikipedia is a source; I'm stating what Wikipedia's definitions of the mentioned terms ("primary source" and "Hadith") are. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself does not have definitions. All these are referenced. You have to provide that reference. Furthermore you have to provide referenc that tabari or related sources were written in the 10th century and that event happened by that time. Furthermore on the basis of two sources you cannot make a third conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material Thank you. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that Tarikh al-Tabari was published in the tenth century. A reference from Wikipedia's Al-Tabari page states that Tabari was born in the winter of 838/839, so stating that his book was published in the tenth century is reasonable. It is generally accepted that the event on this page happened in 632 CE (as this event took place shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad), and if Tabari was born roughly 200 years after this event took place, his book (published decades after his birth) could not be a primary source about this event. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Dear, you are making a conclusion from his birth. That etc. I already mentioned that is original research. You cannot give your own interpretation that book was written in tenth century. Furthermore sahih Bukhara was also written in the same time. By that it can be concluded that sahih Bukhara is not primary source. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When you say that I am "making a conclusion from his birth," are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume that Tabari's book was written after he was born? I am saying that, according to Wikipedia, Tabari's work was published in the tenth century, and the referenced date of Tabari's birth fits this statement. As for Bukhari, if it was written centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad, then how could it be a primary source? In general for authentic Hadiths, one could potentially make the argument that if a saying of the Prophet was passed down, generation after generation, until it was eventually published in a Hadith book, then that could be a primary source. But Tabari's work is a history book, and it contains more than just Hadiths. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There is contradiction in your saying. You are saying it is primary then saying not primary. Sahih Bukhara was written in the meantime of tabari.if Bukhara is primary source in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Then tabari is also primaryby using same anology you interpreted when tabari was written. Please reply fast. 15:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs)

Tabari is a history book, while Bukhari is (supposedly) a book of "Hadiths." I didn't say that Hadiths are primary sources, but one could make the argument that they are potentially primary sources. Tabari isn't a Hadith book, though, so unless you can prove that Tabari was present at an event that took place around 200 years before he was born, Tabari's book is not a primary source. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually history of Muhammad is hadith. And tabari includes history of Muhammad so it is hadith. You are not catching the point. You said that tabari was written too later to be primary source. As I have told Bukhara was also written later so it must also be not be primary source, but it is. Please reply fast. Furthermore one of the acceptable less authoritative hadith is of Muslims after Muhammad such as his companions.

First of all, if you're claiming that Tabari's work should not be quoted because of any likeness to Bukhari's work, then that comparison does not carry weight because Bukhari's work is quoted on various Wikipedia pages. Second, if you don't want to quote any hadiths, then saying that "history of Muhammad is hadith" would seem to mean that you wouldn't want any history of Muhammad to be on Wikipedia. Third, there is a difference between Tabari and Bukhari; they are not the same types of works of literature. According to Wikipedia, Bukhari's work is a "hadith collection" (sic), while Tabari's work is a "historical chronicle" (sic). Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Please reply fast You are dodging the issue. So answer me of every point following. 1-Hadith require that their authenticity should be given by at least one muslimso that it can be clarified that it is authentic or fabricated. It is according to Wikipedia guidelines you can see. Isn’t it? 2-At-tabari is hadith according to second source I have given. 3- so hadith cannot be quoted without its authenticity according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Tabari's work only consists of Hadith is false. As I mentioned before, Wikipedia considers Tabari's work to be a history book, not a book of Hadith. Also, Wikipedia's guidelines on Hadiths only apply to sayings of Muhammad. The quote from Tabari in this article is not a saying of Muhammad. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your knowledge about hadith is very weak. Actions and tacit of Muhammad are also hadith. As I have pointed the source which says that it is hadith. But you are simply asserting and pretending youcannot hear?Smatrah (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the quote from Tabari's book in this article: "Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." Can you please point out which part of that quote from Tabari's book is the words, actions, or approval of Muhammad? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have given source which tells that narratives of Muslims immediate to Muhammad is hadith. You can see reference of oxford. And you are still dodging. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems like you're the one dodging the question. You seem to claim that there is a Hadith from Muhammad from Tabari's book on this page. I'm simply asking you to point it out. You're not exactly clear what exactly your reference says, but at the least it may claim that there exists at least one Hadith from Muhammad somewhere in Tabari's book. If that's the case, then just because a Hadith of Muhammad exists in Tabari's book doesn't mean that Tabari cannot be quoted anywhere on Wikipedia. If you want to continue to claim that there is a Hadith from Muhammad from Tabari's book on this page, then please point it out exactly. Otherwise, we can conclude that the quote from Tabari's book is not a Hadith of Muhammad (which is pretty obvious from looking at the quote). Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith#Non-prophetic_hadith It proves that quotes I removed are hadith. I had pointed many times that they are hadith and proved. You are still dodging and beating around the bush. Can you not understand the matter collectively rather than cherry picking of my words. Please Reply fast. So hadith should be confirmed wether they are authentic or fabricated according to at at least one Muslim.Smatrah (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the paragraph from Tabari on this page is not just a quote from Umar. It is a paragraph that describes Umar's actions as well as something he said. If you want to remove everything from Wikipedia that describes the actions of Umar, then many parts of Wikipedia would have to be removed. Second, that quote from Umar is not only in Tabari's book. There are also references on this page of that quote from Umar from works by Ibn Abd Rabboh, Ibn Abi Shayba, Josef W. Meri, and Ibn Qutaybah. In general, a quote cannot be removed from Wikipedia just because one person does not like it, especially when it is supported by multiple references, as I indicated above. If you want to remove Tabari's quote from this page, then why would you not also want to remove the quotes/references from the other four authors that contain the same or very similar information? And if you did want to remove all the references about this event from this page, then that would simply be needlessly hiding information. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m saying to give authenticity by at least one Muslim who tells that it is authentic or fabricated as accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise it is original research ought to be removed. Previously I added hadiths on religion and sexuality, they removed them citing the same reason. So being neutral, will you contest to re-add those hadiths and these hadiths both. Or being neutral you will support removing those hadiths as well as these,??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you are looking for one Muslim to tell you that Umar did say and do that, then I can tell you that it is true, as I am a Muslim. If you mean providing at least one scholarly source that Umar did indeed do and say what this article says he did, then there are already many such references on this page that state that. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear, you should tell one scholarly view which tells that whwther it is authentic or fabricated in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Personal interpretation is original research. The same hadith which were deleted on religion and sexuality were also classed authentic by me as I’m also Muslim. But Wikipedia guidelines should be obeyed about original research. Thank you. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure! It's confirmed on page 44 of "Parable and Politics in Early Islamic History: The Rashidun Caliphs" by Tayeb El-Hibri, published by Columbia University Press in 2010. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear! You are again giving personal interpretation. He may say it. But it is not a book on the science of Hadith. Furthermore we require a Muslim person who clearly States that whether chain of this hadith is authentic or fabricated. It does not state this. Otherwise it would be improper synthesis. It is the foremost guideline to classify hadith. Smatrah (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

If you require an analysis of the chain of every single Hadith that is mentioned on Wikipedia, then you will have to remove large parts of Wikipedia. I don't want to keep going in circles about this; it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to avoid admitting that the statement is authentic. I provided a reliable source that confirms the statement to be true, like Wikipedia standards go by, so the quote from Tabari's book can stay. It is unreasonable to state that every single action of a contemporary of Muhammad must be cited by a book on the science of Hadith, and even if such a book was provided, then some people would claim that it was not reliable and would want a different source. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you obdurating despite clear guidelines of Wikipedia. You cannot provide a single source which says that hadith is authentic. The source you provide may mention the event but does not state it to be authentic. It is not my view that authenticity should be given. If you think that this should be continued to be written then hadith on religion and sexuality should also be written. There are many scholars who classify some hadith books such as al-Bani and also panel of Muslim scholars who classify hadiths. It is you who want to keep it written here so you hav to provide its authenticity otherwise it should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I think you want to keep it despite clear guidelines of Wikipedia. Because first you claimed that it is not hadith. When I proved that you were false. You started giving unclear arguments. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Not every action of someone who met Muhammad is a Hadith. 2) Tabari's book is a secondary source, not a primary source. According to Wikipedia guidelines at WP:RSPRIMARY, secondary sources are acceptable. 3) To reinforce the quote from Tabari's book, I gave a clear, "scholarly" tertiary source which confirms the quote from Tabari's book. Based on all of this, this quote from Tabari's book is acceptable to stay on Wikipedia. I think you want the quote to be removed despite Wikipedia's clear guidelines. As I have cited (WP:RSPRIMARY), Wikipedia guidelines support this quote staying on the page. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not giving a single source or Wikipedia guidelines which say that it is not hadith. Furthermore I’ve given source which tells that it is hadith though less authoritative. Furthermore I have given Wikipedia guideline which tells that it needs authenticity. Please reply if it is secondary source then sahih Bukhara is also secondary source because both were written in the meantime. How not? Furthermore you said that if You provide a source which says that it is authentic I’ll say it unreliable. Because you don’t have a source which classes it authentic.actually you want some hadiths should be stayed which though fabricated please you and remove authentic hadiths. I fear your good faith. Whyare cherry picking? Why don’t you answer every point of me and continue babbling same thing while I answer your every point? Smatrah (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Hadith#Non-prophetic hadith, quotes from "Sahabah" about Islamic law count as Hadith. The quote from Tabari's book is not Islamic law. Further, according to Wikipedia, Tabari's book is a book of history, not a book of Hadith, while Bukhari's book is a book of Hadith. They are two different types of books, so they have different standards. Look at the Wikipedia page for Tabari's book: History of the Prophets and Kings. It says it's a historical chronicle (emphasis added), not a book of Hadith. The Wikipedia page for Bukhari's book, meanwhile (Sahih al-Bukhari), says that it's a hadith collection (emphasis added). Thus, according to Wikipedia standards, Tabari's book is not a book of Hadith, but rather a book of history. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not believe in original research. Other articles which are not referenced are also original research. You have to provide a reference about your view. Secondly, sahih Bukhara and tabari are written in the meantime, you agreed. How one can be classed as primary while other secondary. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at Google Books: This listing for "Sahih Bukhari" is in the "Hadith" category (https://books.google.com/books?id=yp9RLUAS8zsC&dq=bukhari&source=gbs_navlinks_s), while this listing for Volume 5 of "History of al-Tabari" is in the "History" category (https://books.google.com/books?id=SdrtpZQphYUC&dq=tabari&source=gbs_navlinks_s). Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear! Google cannot be reliable, there are thousands of things on google which would be still considered ineligible to be added on Wikipedia. My point is that two books are written at the mean time how that can be one can be considered primary source while other secondary source in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Smatrah (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tabari's book is not a primary source because it was written hundreds of years after the event. Bukhari's book may not be a primary source either, in that case. If you could prove that Bukhari's book is a primary source, then that doesn't mean that Tabari's book is a primary source, because Bukhari's book is meant to be a book of Hadith while Tabari's book is meant to be a book of history. Also, Google Books is generally considered acceptable on Wikipedia. :) (By the way, it is common for Wikipedia articles to include Tabari's book as a source. Take a look at Yazid I#Sources, for example -- you can see that three volumes of Tabari's work are referenced on that page.) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

One original research can not justify other original research. About primary sources it is guideline that it should not be written too nearly after event. By this definition since this event happened after Muhammad but both books are written in the meantime. So using anology like yours it can be said that sahih Bukhara is telling an earlier event so it is not primary source but tabari is telling a later event so it is primary for that event for that event. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipeida's definition of a primary source, based on the guidelines at WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." Let's see whether Tabari's work fits this definition:

• Was Tabari's work written "close to [the] event"? It was written centuries later, so no.
• Was Tabari involved in the event? He was born centuries after the event took place.
• Was Tabari a witness to the event? Again, he was born centuries after the event took place.

From this, we can clearly see that Tabari's book is not a primary source on the event. Now let's look at Wikipedia's definition of a secondary source, found at WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Tabari's book contains his "own thinking", but Bukhari's book likely doesn't (his is meant to just be "Hadiths"). Thus, Tabari's book is a secondary source, but Bukhari's book doesn't fit the definition of a secondary source. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• was Bukhara’s work written close to event? It was written centuries later
• was Bukhara involved in the event? He was born centuries after the event
• was Bukhara witness to the event? No he was born centuries after the event.
• Tabari was written in the mean time of Bukhara. You agreed.
• was tabari close to this event or Bukhara closed to that event. It was tabari not Bukhara since Muhammad view is older than the event.
• does tabari uses another view or Bukhara. No they both rely on the chain which reached them.
• does tabari confess he included narrations without attaining authenticity? Yes he did.

It shows that tabari and Bukhara are of the same type in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please reply fast. Smatrah (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up Bukhari? The quote you're concerned about on this page is from Tabari, not Bukhari. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m saying that since they both are similar so they are same type of source. In accordance with this if Bukhara cannot be written then tabari can also not be written. And if tabari can be written Bukhara can also be written. I have already mentioned earlier about removal of quotes of Bukhara on a particular page. Since they both are equal. So both should be given equal coverage. What is your point. Plz reply fast.Smatrah (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly happened with your quotes from Bukhari's book on the other page, but I'm not aware of any formal Wikipedia policy that states that a chain of narrators must be given for Hadiths, as you requested was mentioned for your quotes from Bukhari's book. However, even if such a policy did exist, it would not apply to Tabari's book, because Tabari's book is meant to be a history book, while Bukhari's book is meant to be a Hadith book. They're not the same type of source. Just because two books are from the same time period doesn't mean they're the same type of source. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Analogy is used to see wether a source is primary or secondary. The analogy which you used to prove that tabari is secondary. Same anology is used to prove that Bukhara is secondary. If you don’t agree then tabari is also primary. Plz reply fast.05:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs)

Just because Tabari is secondary doesn't mean that Bukhari is as well, because they are different types of sources. Either argument could be made for Bukhari -- Bukhari's book, for example, may not have "an author's own thinking" (which, according to WP:SECONDARY, is a requirement for secondary sources) and may be focused on just trying to quote others, thus meaning Bukhari's book may not be a secondary source. Tabari's book, however, does have his own thinking, meaning that it is a secondary source. Anyway, it seems that now you're mainly focused on trying to prove that Bukhari is not a primary source so that you can add your changes back to the other page you mentioned. I am not aware of the specifics of exactly what you are trying to add to that page, but it seems that that discussion would be better held with editors on that page's talk page. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually you are trying to prove that tabari and Bukhara are not similar so that you can keep the fabricated quote here. But you have failed to prove this.

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators.

pp 13 of tabari.

It explains that authenticity should be needed like other hadiths. But you are refusing to listen. It would be better to answer rather than speaking round about. Why don’t you answer the question rather stick to leave it???????? Actually in Islam as well as guidelines of Wikipedia authenticity is needed. But if it is not needed (Let’s suppose because of you) then you have to say that for Bukhara also it should not be needed.Smatrah (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Almost all history books are based upon history that the authors have learned from someone. You don't cite any evidence to call the quote from Tabari's book "fabricated." I'm not saying that authenticity is never needed (of course it is needed); I'm saying that for Wikipedia, history books can be quoted. Do you think that for every historical event on Wikipedia, we need to include an entire chain of sources? I don't want to get into whether Bukhari's book can be cited here; that's not under discussion in this section. It seems like you're using this section to justify you adding your quote from Bukhari on the other page, or that you simply want to remove Tabari's quote from this page because you don't like it -- even though it is extremely relevant to this page. I have cited the necessary Wikipedia protocols which state that this quote can stay. I don't want to keep going in circles on this. According to Wikipedia standards, the quote from Tabari's book can stay. I am not involved in your discussion regarding the quote from Bukhari's book on the other page. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You said that tabari includes his own view so it is secondary sourc. I’ve proved that you are false. Now how can you say that tabari is secondary source? Secondly all Wikipedia articles follow same guidelines, so one page can be cited for guideline. Thirdly when does I state to give whole discussion of chain, I’m saying at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated. Fourthly which history book other than hadith has chains, can you point any one? Answer these four points separately. Otherwise I fear your good faith and will think you don’t want to resolve the issue. Smatrah (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you please cite a specific Wikipedia guideline that states that "at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated"? Anyway, even if Tabari was a primary source, then: 1) I have provided as secondary source that contains the quote from Tabari, 2) Wikipedia does not ban all primary sources, and 3) Tabari is quoted regularly on Wikipedia. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You said that tabari includes his own view so it is secondary sourc. I’ve proved that you are false. Now how can you say that tabari is secondary source? Secondly all Wikipedia articles follow same guidelines, so one page can be cited for guideline so one can use that article of sahih Bukhara to make claim that here also authenticity is needed. Thirdly when does I state to give whole discussion of chain, I’m saying at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Hadith. Fourthly which history book other than hadith has Sanad (chain of narrators from event to writer), can you point any one? Answer these four points separately. Otherwise I’ll think you are not editing in good faith and will think you don’t want to resolve the issue. Smatrah (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here you go:

1. Regardless of whether Tabari is a primary or secondary source, I have provided a recent book that mentions the quote from Tabari's book. If Tabari was a primary source, then 1) the other book I mentioned would be a secondary source, thus making it acceptable for this page, and 2) being a primary source still wouldn't exclude Tabari from this page, as Tabari's book is frequently cited on Wikipedia.

2. Just because someone says something on a talk page of another page doesn't mean it's a Wikipedia guideline.

3. The link you provided can be for pages about Hadiths, such as the Hadith of the Ark. This isn't a page about a Hadith; it's a page about an event.

4. Does Tabari have a chain of narrators? Even if it does, then the book that I mentioned that cites Tabari's book could count as a history book. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding an edit war

Hello, as some of you may have noticed, there have been some back-and-forth edits regarding the lead section of the article. To avoid an edit war, I would like to address these issues:

• The time frame in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article has been attempted to be changed from "shortly after Muhammad's death" to "after the Saqifah assembly chose Abu Bakr as caliph". Stating that the event took place "shortly after Muhammad's death" easily establishes the time period for readers without going into specifics. This complies with Wikipedia's guidelines at MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics. Saqifa is mentioned in the "Background" section, where it is more appropriate to go into more detail.
• The insertion of the phrase "According to Shia beliefs" has been attempted to be inserted into the first paragraph. This is not appropriate, as, later in the article, it clearly states that Ibrahim al-Nazzam, a Mu'tazilite, had the same belief. There was a similar dispute on the related article Muhsin ibn Ali, where a similar phrase was attempted to be inserted into the lead section until an administrator(s) had to get involved and tell that editor to stop inserting the phrase. If the article body clearly establishes that something is not limited to Shia beliefs, it is not appropriate to insert that limitation into the lead section.

Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems since then, the lead was modified without any discussion, so acting boldly, I have restored the previous version of the lead, which complies with Wikipedia's guidelines at MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics. Anyone, interested, and having any other thought is free to discuss it here before making any change to the lead.--Fz^tc_s 13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Faizhaider: I am actually confused by your revert. You stated that your version more closely aligned with guidelines regarding opening paragraphs, but this one includes far more detail than what was there previously. Could you clarify what you meant?
Alivardi (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

<bit delayed reply> @Alivardi: Thanks, for waiting on this (though not very long), I missed this one. Please, be patient and don't act in haste, at times people may miss the conversation or may be busy in real life.

I'm not sure how you are interpreting my this edit "includes far more detail than what was there previously", when it actually cut downs the lead by 237‎ bytes. Will you please care to elaborate? Meanwhile, I'm reverting your AGF reversion.--Fz^tc_s 10:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem Faizhaider, I also agree it is unfortunate when people edit in haste. Regarding your revert, yes you had cut down the lead significantly, but that wasn't the justification for your original edit. Your stated problem was that the previous opening paragraph had inappropriately gone into specifics. However, that paragraph had merely established the setting and barest facts of the event and was actually only a sentence long (note that a paragraph can be a single sentence). It therefore complied with MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, the guideline which you had cited.
Alivardi (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi:, I'm bit confused now, first you said that you have issue with my edit as "this one includes far more detail than what was there previously", now you are saying, I " had cut down the lead significantly". How can both argument be true, it seems you are trying to contest the edit for sake of contesting it, and shifting the goal-posts as per convenience. I still stand by the premises of my edit, i.e. "that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics" (as per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH), the new lead being proposed by you goes into unnecessary adjectives and also adds conclusive statement about it being uncertain, which I think is a bit of WP:Synthesis best avoided on such sensitive/controversial article.--Fz^tc_s 06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

​I said it included far more detail as an opening paragraph. That is not an issue with the other version, as I had previously stated. By the way, this is the fourth time you've insinuated that I've acted in bad faith and I'm really getting tired of it.
Alivardi (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you need more time to form a response Faizhaider?
Alivardi (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi:, I have already stated, "the lead was modified without any discussion, so acting boldly, I have restored the previous version of the lead, which complies with Wikipedia's guidelines at MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics.". Now, you need to answer why it was changed without any discussion and why the version being suggested by you is the better version.--Fz^tc_s 09:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

​1. What change are you referring to? Aside from reverts due to tardy replies, I haven't made any meaningful edits to this article in months.

2. Were my previous responses unclear?
Alivardi (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

About Sulaym ibn Qays

The text in the article that speaks about the book Sulaym ibn Qays being a later creation, does not seem to be backed up by the reference itself i.e pages 60-63 of . I propose we remove that detail. Abbas Gadhia (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Abbasgadhia: I disagree that the source did not state that it was a possible later creation. To quote the referenced text:

However, al-Kashshī makes no mention of a book of traditions attributed to Sulaym. The earliest reference to this text can be found in al-Nu‘mānī’s (4th/11th century) Kitāb al-ghaybah… Hossein Modarressi in his incisive analysis of the text and its alleged compiler describes the book as filled with anachronisms such as a prediction of black banners arriving from the East which would mark the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty. Furthermore, Modarressi asserts that the text contains theological conceptions of the Imamate which were only formulated much later.

Alivardi (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote cited does not have any such mention. In a way, this is a violation of WP:NOR and conclusion has been derived from the text. See examples in WP:NOREX that are similar to this instance. Abbas Gadhia (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." The obvious meaning of the above source quotations is that the text may not have belonged to the period to which it was attributed. This is exactly what the sentence which you are disputing states.
Alivardi (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE states to "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". Nowhere in the quote above is there any such mention. The content has not been rephrased. It has clearly been interpreted which is clearly a violation of WP:NOR Abbas Gadhia (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

​What do you believe is the implication of the above quotes?
Alivardi (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is surely not what you described in the article. It is subject to interpretation. If you try explaining to me why the above quote "means" the same thing as you wrote, I can surely come up another argument why what is quoted does NOT imply what you suggested in your edit. And that is EXACTLY what wikipedia is asking us NOT to do i.e WP:NOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasgadhia (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

​Why is it subject to interpretation? What is ambiguous about the implication of the above quotes?
Alivardi (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of shooting me questions about my understanding of it, please point out the EXACT part of the quote that you have "paraphrased". If you cannot be straight and clear, I will assume that what we are discussing is indeed WP:OR Abbas Gadhia (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

​So your argument has been that the quotes do not have the meaning that has been attributed to them in the article. Yet you are unable to suggest an alternative meaning nor a reason why it would be ambiguous?

I'm sorry, but I no longer believe that continuing the discussion as we currently are will be useful to resolving our disagreement. I've therefore placed a request for an impartial third opinion. I hope this can help us reach an amicable solution.
Alivardi (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi:, I have reverted good faith edits by you. You have opted for 'request for an impartial third opinion' saying that you 'no longer believe that continuing the discussion'. So, please be patient and wait for out come of 3rd opinion.--Fz^tc_s 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

​You've misunderstood. My revert was in regards to the previous discussion, not this one.
Alivardi (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: While I agree it is slightly vague, I do not think it is so vague to be WP:OR to say that the quote in question is suggesting that it was a possible later suggestion. By saying that the conceptions were conceived much later- that is exactly what the quote is saying. So my opinion would be to leave the article as it was. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this Nightenbelle, your input is really appreciated.
Alivardi (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

In need of a major rewrite

As it currently stands, this article is a wonderfully horrific demonstration of what happens to pages under an edit war. It makes little or no sense to someone who is not already unfamiliar with the issue. Rewrite needs to focus on accessibility to the general reader rather than catering to the ideological spats between readers belonging to related faiths. Dividing the article into shia vs sunni beliefs on the subject starting with background as to what both faiths agree on regarding the history of the issue and relationships between persons involved would be majorly beneficial.

I'm going to separate the Sunni and Shia views on this matter and revise the article in the next few days, God willing. Albertatiran (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Separated Sunni and Shia views

I separated the Sunni and Shia views. For the most part, I just reordered the text and dragged different sentences into different sections. I also edited the intro to better introduce the characters and added a couple of new Shia references. Albertatiran (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'll hopefully replace the primary sources in this article with more reliable ones. Albertatiran (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say that the article's name is terrible. I'd like to change that to "Alleged attack on Fatimah's house" which is much more appropriate. I don't expect this to be a controversial change... Albertatiran (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it truly only “alleged,” though? It appears that both early Sunni and Shia sources agree that it happened, as well as modern academic sources. Veritaes Unam (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Veritaes Unam, I guess the problem is that dropping the term "alleged" might be considered a contraversial name change which would require a lenghty process to reach (a potentially elusive) consensus.

I disagree with "alleged", it has been talked about in various sources. If you think it needs to change, "Event of Fatimah House" could be good. Of course, it is better to vote for this change. M.Nadian (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

because Some source said just part of this event I think "Event of Fatimah House" is better forom others one. M.Nadian (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@M.Nadian: Hi! While I agree that we should see if there is a better title out there, one possible criticism of Event of Fatimah house or the previous title Umar at Fatimah's house is that they might not be sufficiently descriptive because they leave out perhaps the most important bit of information, i.e., the violence or the allegations of it. Albertatiran (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but the alleged somewhat diminishes the value of the article in the mind of the reader. I try to find better title. M.Nadian (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Two (or more) confrontations

@Snowsky Mountain: Hi! There appear to be at least two reported confrontations at Fatimah's house. The first one took place almost immediately after the Saqifah meeting and is the one that also appears in several Sunni sources with the story of Zubayr being disarmed. The last one might have happened much later, i.e., when Abu Bakr's boycott had isolated Ali (and apparently after the Fadak speech). So I moved your new paragraph to Background where the Zubayr story currently is. Also did some copy editing. Feel free to undo or discuss here if you think this is incorrect. Lastly, a request for the sake of WP:V: Could you please add the publication year to al-Tabari (and even better a link to the corresponding page in the pdf of the book)? Currently, I have put 1990 but that doesn't look right. Albertatiran (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Albertatiran, thanks for making the updates based on my changes! The publication year of the book I had been using for reference was 1990, as that was when the translated edition I had been looking at was published. The original would, of course, have been published about a thousand years earlier :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)