Talk:Fatima/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Good article:Review

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

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

Suggestions

1. Expand lead per WP:LEAD

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

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

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

3. Add some information about migration to Mecca.

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

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

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

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

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

5. It doesn't represent Shia POV correctly.

   Please suggest which bit is wrong. AA

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

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

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

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

   I propose to add something like this with reliable sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   I will attempt to do so. AA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   If EoI said that there were disagreements between Fatima and Ali then it's certainly not representative of Shia perspective. Most academic sources on Islam focus on the Sunni version and then treat Shias like some split off group which isn't how Shia feel about themselves. This section repeats this biased narrative - the Sunnis are normal Muslims and the Shia are different. The disagreements section should be under "Sunni perspective," or something like that.Shabaniyya (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Shia viewpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a shia, I too believe that this article doesn't represent Shia viewpoint correctly. I have never heard, nore have I read anything that shows Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatimah have had disputes with each other! Their lives and their relationship are our model! I think this part of the article was not correct and should be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzieh.parhizkar (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Shia uphold the marriage of Ali and Fatima to be an exemplary relationship of a husband and wife, and worthy of emulation - and do not agree with any Sunni assertions to the contrary. I also agree that al-islam.org is a good place to find the Shia viewpoint. It is a repository of well known Shia reference books, and is quite comprehensive and well respected. User:YAM

COI

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

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

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

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

Stable?

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

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

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

Failed

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

5. It is stable.

   

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

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

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

MY OPPINION ON FATIMA

Fatima is love so, so much and i think everyone should love her all the time I persanally think Fatima was the best daghters of the prophrer a am not saying i hate zaynab, ruqayyah and umm kulthoom i love them to but i love fatima the most out of them all i her storie i inspire the fact that ali was cosen to marrie fatima i think that she erned to get such a amazing husband she was so lucky an why am i saying was i should be saying she is still lucky because she is in jannah righ know. and thet is it for know so thankyou for reading my oppinion thankyou again for reading my oppinion on FATIMA.

THANKYOU I LOVE YOU فاتمه

your sincerly IQRA AMIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.24.90 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of Fatima

Faiz could you specify the reason to revert the addition of fatima number among the children of prophet Mohammed--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding, Fatimah (being sole daughter or not), see Genealogy of Khadijah's Daughters. As far as Shi’as are concerned they believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA had one daughter (Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA)) and one son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad). Unfortunately Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s son (Qasim ibn Muhammad AKA Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad) died in an early age. And because of that the Shi’as believe that Hazrat Mohammed SAWA’s family extended from the family of Imam Ali (AS) and Bibi Fatima Zahra (SA) children. Tabatabaei's book "Shia Islam" p. 191 calls Fatima, the prophet's "sole beloved daughter". But I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". And atleast we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

in this regards as a senior editor in WP you should mention the reason for reverting the edits, I hope there is some policy WP is following for reverting the edits and it applies to every person senior or fresher.

• Second point: if this article is about some person who is inspiration for multi sects, why not update with the perspective according to both X and Y point of view, as far i understand WP allows it. it will provide the complete information to the viewers. as what is done with the articles Like , jesus, moses and etc, please advice for further..--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully revert option does not have provision to provide reason.

Second point: I have already said, "I think we should just be inclusive and mention all theories. Like for example "X says this and Y says that". " but I also said, "we can spare lede from the topic which is not accepted by all parties".

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass tagging of the refs

Recently an editor has mass tagged long standing refs and phrases. Majority of the refs being tagged are reliable e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, USC-MSA-BIO. Also few tags were put with Dec'10 date probabaly result of copy n paste. Also various sentences phrases and words were added without nay references. For now I have reverted the edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

most of the reverences are given, but under the name of those references information is add which needs reference to justify the information provided.--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you even know what Third-party sources mean? I'll asume not. So let me give you brief idea. Quran and other primary sources of Hadiths e.g. Bukhari, Muslim, etc are termed as primary resources while the derivative works are termed as third-party source, most of the Encyclopedias are further derivatives of third-party sources. Most of the references tagged by you are accepted as reliable sources by WP editor community and are widely used across WP even on articles involving controversy. Hopefully this will give you an idea of Third-party sources, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if that so, you should remove that particular edit, why do you removed the complete edit????--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

no response is given to previous query, therfore reverting the previous edits and asking for direct reference.

Suggesting for the removal of the section Fatima In Quran as its all frictional and personal believe, not from any reliable source, where as quran does not hold any of the Mohammed's household name in particular.

Most of the references are given but generalized to Muslims where as its a particular section believe among muslims not all muslims.

related to mass tagging, i hope its allowed by WP, if not please give the reference. --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging is allowed but not in the way it is being done. A very good example of how things should be done in this regard can be found here, here, here, here, here, here & here; In the case I cited huge discussion took place before actual tagging not like somebody someday jumped up and mass tagged the article. List the concerns point by point here on talk page and we will discuss them and review the article.

Regarding removal of the section Fatima In Quran a large number of people believe that Jb. Fatima SA is mentioned in the Quran (may be not by name) e.g. she is mentioned in verses of mubahela, purification, etc. This discussion regarding name of another personality in Quran may help.

So in light of above comment I am going to restore the article in it's previous form.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

this article is not a fairytale in where if you beleive it should be mention, therfore removing the section In quran as what you provided is not a valid reason to keep the section in this article.and reverting all the previous issues as none is clarified.As its not a mass tagging its taged only for few particular section, whole article is pending to be taged for reference.--Omer123hussain (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are not aware of Islamic events of Mubahela, etc because your mullahs don't let you know anything which exalts Ahle-Bayt AS so such events seem to be fairy tale to people like you. In addition you are tagging sentences which already have references which are RS e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopedia Iranica, USC-MSA-BIO. If you think anything is out of context put your detailed research here on talk page we'll discuss & then take action.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr 123 why are you shy to put your research here on Talk page for discussion? Is it because you don't have evidence & logic to support your actions? Put up details of the claims that are not supported bu their refs on Talk. Balantly mass-tagging is no solution. I gave you example of the things being carried away in similar situation on another article but it seems you are not intrested in learning. I see your talk page is full of warnings & that shows that you need to pause take a deep breath and consider your actions and have introspection. It would be really helpfull if you leave article in peace and concentrate your efforts here on talk page to proove your point and negate other's.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you put all your additions on talk page before placing it into the every article you edit????? if you are true in your words can you give reference for any single word of my which looks like a warning to you  ??? its again your frictional beleive, which is making you to take the words in wrong way and habit of you people to fix baseless blames. Secondly: YES i do not have enough knowledge about collecting references and I hope you people are born with the degree of Ayatollah. Forget about my quit from this article (as you are warning to me in above) unless it is cleaned with one sided thoughts, Yes i do not have knowledge about collecting reference thru internet and proper resources to reach upto that data what you had used as a reference, but if i dont know any instance, i will go back and search the reference and make this article a neutral one, i will never leave it for your mercy to spoil it. Omer123hussain (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On controversial articles, yes, I prefer to put notice on talk page or act as per previous discussions, conclusions over talk page. Why are you being that personal and what do you mean by you people. You have showed your ignorance about equating title of Ayatollah to a degree, do you know that every spec of creation from atom to cosmos is ayat of Allah. And who said that anyone wants someone to quit all I urged was a systematic approach and you are jumping all over WP complaining and pleading like a kid as if I have given you shock of 440 Volts. And if you'll see history of the article I have never been a major contributor on this article I only act as patrolmen here. In over two years of my edits on this article I have did only 21 edit & at least half have been done within last one week, thanks to you and inactivity of other patrol-guys. You are welcome to contribute to the article but not to dismantle it without reason & process.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove the tag Ahlalkisa as already Islam is taged on the article.Omer123hussain (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the template. Please give sound justification for removal of the template. Is there a policy which says more than one template can't reside in an article. Also if Usman's article can have both Islam and Sunni templates why this article can't have Islam & Shia templates? Also, Imam Ali a.s.'s article have Shia Islam Sunni Islam & three other templates. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Previously when you removed the template Sunni Islam from this same article,i just said what you wrote above, but you did not understand, SO i have to make you understand practically as what you wrote above and that is the way some people understand the things. by your words in above query i understand how ignorant you are while editing the articles, I think you don't realize what you are editing while you work on the articles or just you want to follow and post the things blindly and you are trying to apply the same on WP, but its not possible do what you like, at least here on WP. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

pasted template Sunni Islam explanation already given by Mr. Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider in above opening of the query. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for comparing the articles hope in future we can compare the articles for conclusion of the queries. --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

title removal attached with the name

removed title from the name,asking for the reference (as provided reference is of WP article) --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Provided reference. Please try to create a case and then act I have reminded you several times and pointed modus operandi at article aisha, in fact lately you have tried to equate both articles at par so why are you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience to go thru lengthy discussions at aisha's talk page's archives far from creating yourself such case. buddy it will take time and effort to clean the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

i dont know how to make you understand?? do not humiliate on others knowledge, if you humiliate again i will have to report it. --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I put a reference, is that a humilation to you? And I never questioned your knowledge on contrary you seem to be quick learner seeing your track record at WP. But it is a fact that you have avoided putting up a case anywhere till now, you just seem to jumping over article & user talk pages complaining & asking for intervention & accusing. If you feel humilated by any of my actions & words I'm really sorry as I never intended to do so & IMO I nver did so. Finally I request you once more that please try to create a case and then act.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

the words you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience you said humiliates, Please i am requesting you kindly use the gentle language.

any way, what is/you mean of putting the case??? is that you practiced for your edits or one should do for his edits?? if that so, plz give the references.??? any way while i made the edit i placed on the talk page, and even gave the brief reply while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

the words you being shy to create a case or do you want an easy solution probably you even not have patience you said humiliates, Please i am requesting you kindly use the gentle language.

any way, what is/you mean of putting the case??? is that you practiced for your edits or one should do for his edits?? if that so, plz give the references.??? any way while i made the edit i placed on the talk page, and even gave the brief reply while editing.--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In your own words, "that is the way some people understand the things".

We have extensively worked to make aisha problem free and balanced, you just need to see how it is done by refering to article's & it's talk's history before & after December'10 that what a mess it was and what discussion we did to fix it up, I have been pleading you to go thru it, have you seen that yet , I don't think so becuase if you would have then you would have not asked above question. You may ask other users same question they may help you beeter tahn I can.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your advice and information --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fatimah callig.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fatimah callig.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC) New Source Denise L. Soufi, "The Image of Fatima in Classical Muslim Thought," PhD dissertation, Princeton, 1997: Has been endorsed ad follows: ((For a summary of the accounts of the early sources on Fatima, see the entry on her in the Encyclopedia of Islam, (Veccia Vaglieri)... See also Denise L. Soufi, "The Image of Fatima in Classical Muslim Thought," PhD dissertation, Princeton, 1997)) Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shiite Literature (Vol.1) 2003, Hossein Modarress, p.17 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1851683313/ For Sunnis, Fatima is often portrayed as an ordinary pious Muslim woman, but she occasionally rises to the ranks of sainthood. p. iii (abstract What is most significant about these traditions on Fatima's marriage is that none of them is told from Fatima' point of view. We see only the public aspect of the marriage; without the private side. We are not able to discover what Fatima thought about her marriage. What little we see of her has her acting out Islamic norms for women; namely in her shyness as a virgin when asked for her consent and when brought to her husband to consummate the marriage We also see a not-so-subtle polemic in Ali's favor barely concealed under the ostensible purpose of the narratives: the rejection of Abu Bakr and Umar in a favor of Ali, the emphasis about Ali's poverty, Fatima's complaints which elicit compliments about Ali from the Prophet. p.37 later in p. 45: Other traditions tell of Fatima's initial aversion to Ali. In one such tradition, Fatima cries when she finds she has been . married to Ali; the Prophet then tells her that God has ordered the marriage. In another tradition, Fatima protests that Ali is not handsome and has no money. The prophet then enumerates Ali's virtues and blessings given to him by God. This convinces Fatima and she says she would not choose anyone other than him. These traditions are similar to the Kufan traditions cited earlier which portray Fatima's aversion to Ali; as noted, they were probably originally a narrative device used to provide a framework for praising p.59: Other traditions tell of Fatima's unhappiness with the poverty of Ali's household. These traditions seem to be mere narrative devices used to provide a means to praise Ali, as in those traditions in which Fatima expresses dislike at being married to Ali. In one such tradition, Fatima complains to her father about her hunger and poverty, to which the Prophet replies: "Are you not content that I have married you to the one who is first in Islam, the most knowledgeable and the most patient of my community?" the phrases also used in the Kufan traditions on Fatima's aversion to Ali. p. 60 In some traditions prophet also consoles here with the high status of her sons in the Hereafter or with her status as Queen of the women of Paradise. p. 64-65 The Shia portrayal of Fatima and Ali as spiritually compatible and the portrayal of their marriage as harmonious and divinely ordained, contrasts starkly with the traditions which narrate her complaints. These complaints are downplayed by Fatima's eventual admission of satisfaction with her life, but they could not be erased because they were needed to enhance Ali's image for the Sunni-Shii debate over the caliphate. later in p. 202: like the Imams, she is a martyr for the cause of the true Islam. Her grief over the Prophet's death and the actions of Abu Bakr and his supporters, including the bruising and miscarriage she suffers and the hands of the latter. ultimatelly cause her slow and painful death. This part of Fatima's life became a subject for rawdah-khanis, taziyas, and elegies in the 12th/18th and 13/19th centuries, allowing the image of the martyred Fatima to take its place beside the stories of the martyred Imams. Particularly Husayn. In addition to her activist and martyr roles, Fatima is used as a foil to Ali in order to enhance his prestige; her complaints about Ali elicit high praise from the Prophet for him. In fact, whenever Fatima has any troubles or worries in her life, it is usually praise for Ali which is used to comfort For the Wedding, Ali had to provide a wedding feast. Fatima was dressed in two striped garments and two silver bracelets yellowed with ssaffron and led to Ali's house by a group of women. p. 36 Another indication of their special relationship is found in the fact that Ali never married another woman as long as Fatima was alive. Sunni sources explain this curiosity in a tradition in which Ali asks for Abu Jahl's daughter in marriage, but the Prophet does not allow him to marry her because it would upset Fatima. The three most popular versions of this tradition are related by al-Miswar b. Makhrama, a Companion who was about nine years old when the Prophet died. pp. 51-52 In the first version, ... The Prophet ... also praises his son in law Abul As al Rabi. The reference to Abu l As serves to denigrate Ali. ... The second version.. Prophet means that the son in law may either be Abu l As or Uthman... By hinting that the son-in-law may in fact be Uthman, the narrator is sestablishing Uthman's superiority to Ali. This tradition may represent the beginnings of the development of Sunni orthodoxy, which ranks the first four caliphs according to the order in which they ruled. So concerned was Fatima about her veiling that she ordered Asma bint Umays to build her a bier (na'sh) so that the shape of her body would be hidden when she was carried to her grave. p. 74 p. 78: according to Nasir- khusraw, Fatima is the Prophet's feminine alter ego Fatima's image as a part of the Prophet resulted in her portrayal as a pious, ascetic woman: since she was "a part" of him she must have been very much like him. For Sunni Muslilms, this aspect of Fatima's image makes her an ideal role model for women to emulate. ... However, for Shiis, Fatima is more than just a role model: her characterization as "a part" of the Prophet means that she is the feminine ideal, the female counterpart to the Prophet and the Imams. p. 79 He also cites Abu Bakr on his deathbed saying that he wished he had never opened Fatima's house to anything, even though they had locked it as a gesture of defiance, implying that her house may have been broken into forced open. p. 84 All this leads to the conslusion that Abu Bakr did not justify himself on the basis of the Prophet's saying " la nurathu". p. 97 A second problem was that Abu Bakr seemed to be the only person who had heard the Prophet's statement. p.99 In examining the totality of the traditions about Fatima's.death one is stuck by the lack of coherence. We are left wondering when she died, who prepared her for burial, and where she was buried. DS Magolioth surmises that "the fact that Fatima's death was intentionally concealed for a considerable period". This idea is implied by caliph al-Mansur's letter ti al-Nafs a-Zakiyya in which he states that "[Ali] nursed [Fatima] secretely and buried her at night." and is supported by the incoherence of the traditions on Fatima's death and burial. But why did Alu do this? Margoliouth opines that "Ali kept up the belief that Fatima was living until he felt that it was useless to contend against Abu Bakr any longer" however, given the insistence of the traditions on Fatima's displeasure with Abu Bakr, it seems more likely to me that it was Fatima herself who desired to keep her death a secret for a time, so that Abu Bakr, as leader of the community could have nothing to do with her funeral rites. p.126 traditions discussing her involvement in the events which took place after the death of the Prophet seem to contain some truth despite their partisan biases. This is due to the fact that the Sunnis were unable to completely suppress what was so obviously detrimental to their reconstruction of religious history: namely, that Fatima quarreled with abu Bakr over his seizure of the caliphate and the Prophet's properties, that she never forgave hime for his actions and that ther death was kept secret for some time, probably at her request, in order to prevent him from presiding over her funeral rites. What is ironic is that this small window into the character of Fatima has been downplayed or ignored by Sunnis and inflated and overemphasized by Shiis... p. 206 Kazemita1 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Introduction Normally citations are not required in the introduction of an article because it is a summary and the sources are presumed to be included in the article. Therefor, I was going to remove this edit by Kakar22, which was the equivalent of a tag. However, when I double-checked the body of the article to make sure it was properly referenced somewhere, I got distracted by a section that needed cleanup and Edward321 took care of removing the personal note/CN request from the intro before I got back to it. The thing is, I haven't been able to find any text or references in the body to support the claim that Kakar22 was challenging. I think it would be best to rewrite that last sentence so that it only mentions what is currently supported by the text we have in the article; everything seems fine except the bit about Umar's letter of confession. Since this is a minor change I'm just going ahead with it, but let me know if there is a problem. Doc Tropics 03:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Round image in the infobox User talk:Zabranos is trying to add a round calligraphic image in the infobox claiming that it makes the page look visually more appealing. This image seems unencyclopedic and unusual to me, and the page is quite okay without it. Waiting to see what the community decides. -AsceticRosé 04:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC) First of all, other articles such as Abu Bakr, Uthman, Umar, and Ali all have circle Calligraphy in the info box. Second, its not vandalism. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you can delete it. Plus, there is already calligraphy in the article under the info box. I don't see why this is any different. Remove it if the community disagrees not because you don't like it.-- Zabranos But you didn't wait for others' comments. And you are wrong at your point: some of those articles have circle calligraphic image, but they are especially designed for encyclopedic use in svg formate whereas this image is fancy and of low quality. These make the image different from the one found below in the article. Additionally, the Arabic name is not even easily readable. I don't see how this image makes the article better. And if you are a Muslim, you should know what the focus should be on ideals and teachings of these great Islamic persons, and not on visually more appealing-aspect which rather detracts the former. -AsceticRosé 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC) What is the source of this image? If you check the image used on Ali you will see it explains the image originates from the Hagia Sophia. If this does not have a verifiable source, then it is not valid. → AA (talk) — 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The use of images in infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited (MOS:INFOBOX). Calligraphies are generally used instead of portraits of early Islamic figures such as Muhammad, Ali, Fatimah, Abubakr, etc. Zabranos image is a calligraphy in nastaliq/shikastah script with a bright red rose in the background. Fatimah is highly revered in Shia Islam, I searched google's images, Fatimah's portraits, with her face veiled though, are usually decorated with flowers, but Zabranos's image in its current size and color contrast is too sentimental/romantic. I think if Zabranos could reduce its color contrast and make it bit smaller it can be saved from deletion. Another solution: Images can be used in the body of an article, so if you disagree on using this image as the lead image you can simply put it somewhere in the body of article.Kiatdd (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Will do, thanks.-Zabranos I love the calligraphy it looks awesome and refreshing. For some reason it attracts me to read the article. Unlike other article that look dull and outdated, it really attracts the eyes. Nice color scheme. I don't suggest that you change it at all it looks good the way it is. Just one question, could you make me a calligraphy like that but with a different background? Thanks. ~(Nanner-Nanner)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanner-Nanner (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks and sure I can make you one.Zabranos (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC) It seems the community is not in favor of the image to be used in the article. More importantly, the image is nor encyclopedic. So I'm removing it. -AsceticRosé 15:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC) After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam By Lesley Hazleton, pp. 71-73 The book is a Pen-USA finalist and has been praised by many including Professor Wilfred Madelung page 71 page 72 «Short of actually following through on his threat and killing all of Muhammad's closest family, Omar was left, as he saw it, with only one option. If Ali would not come out, then he, Omar, would have to force his way in. He took a running leap and threw his whole weight against the door, and when the latches and hinges gave and it burst open, all six feet of him came hurtling through, unable to stop as he slammed full force into the person who happened to be on the other side of the door at that moment. That person was Fatima, several months pregnant with the Prophet's third grandson. Some say she was only badly bruised. Others that she broke her arm as she fell. But all agree that even Omar was stunned by the sight of the Prophet's heavily pregnant daughter doubled over in pain at his feet. As Ali bent over his injured wife, Omar retreated without another word. He had made his point. A few weeks later, the fragile Fatima gave birth to a stillborn infant boy. Nobody was sure if the miscarriage was a result of her being knocked down by Omar or whether she was so frail that it would have happened regardless. Either way, some overture might have been warranted from Abu Bakr, or at least from Omar, but there was none. Indeed there was less than none. To add insult to the injury that had already been done her, Fatima would now lose the property she considered hers. Soon asfter her miscariage, she sent a message to Abu Bakr asking for her share of her father's state -date palm orchards in the huge oases of Khaybar and Fadak to the north of Medina. His response left her dumbfounded. The Prophet's estate belonged to the community, not to any individual, Abu Bakr replied. It was part of the Muslim charitable trust to be administered by him as Caliph.» page 73 «she never did recover from her miscariage or from the bitter argument with Abu Bakr. But perhaps most painful of all in those months after the loss of her third son was the ostracism she suffered ordered by Abu Bakr to force Ali into line. [...] When she knew death was close she asked Ali for a clandestine burial [...] Abu Bakr was not to be informed of her death she said. he was to be given no chance to officiate at her funeral.» --Kazemita1 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Pronunciation Instead of all kinds of references and links to IPA, would it not be more practical - and obvious - to upload a sound file? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC) "Fāṭima." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. 08 April 2014 "...but we see her support her husband so boldly against Abū Bakr that there is no question of timidity, and she appears as a woman of quite different calibre.... when it was a question of defending the interests of the family, although she was obliged to yield to the wishes of the head of the State, she did it unwillingly, refusing to I acknowledge the validity of Abū Bakr’s decision."--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Muhsin's seath Some sunni references such as Kitab al-Isbatu'l-Wasiyya of Allamah Abu'l Hasan 'Ali ibn Husain al-Mas'udi and Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha Vol.3, P351 of ibn Abi l-Hadid narrate that fatima miscarried due to that attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Grave of Fatima It should be mentioned at the end of the lead that the exact place of her grave is not clear . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC) @Sa.vakilian: Two pictures are embedded in "Life after the death of Muhammad" section as grave place of Fatima (s.a), while the caption is not referenced and this issue is disputed. We should remove the picture. Mhhossein (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Following the article work, we'll need to revisit the lead to make it conform to WP:LEAD and this can be included. → AA (talk) — 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC) @Faizhaider I noticed that you have reverted my edition. As a summary of your edition, you'd mentioned "The grave in Baqi is commonly accepted as grave of Hz Fatima s.a.". As the sources say, different views are held by the two sects. Sunni Islam regard Baqi as the burial place, while shia believes that the possibility of her burial place being in the prophet's shrine is stronger. In order to prove my claims, I'd like refer to some parts of Burial place of Fatimah showing the views of shia scholar: Some of the scholars believe that she is buried in Muhammad's shrine based on the prophetic narration which says: "What is between myhouse and my minbar is a meadow of the meadows of Jannah" Based on Allamah Askari, the last possibility about Fatimah's burial place is her house. This possibility is backed by several authenticated documents. The main documents are those received from the Ahl al-Bayt, because Shia Islam regards them as the main members of the prophetic house who knows about the incident better than others. An authenticated tradition by Ali ibn mousa al-Ridha which is narrated in Kitab al-Kafi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, Oyoun Akhbar Al-Ridha and Al-Ma'ani al-Akhbar says: "She was buried in her house and when Umayyads extended the mosque, the burial place fell in the mosque." So, we'd better mention that Baqi, as the grave place of Hazrat Zahra (s.a), is just a possibility like other ones. The existing sentence written as the caption, makes readers believe that this is the exact place! I reckon, changing the caption will be a good solution. Mhhossein (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Even if the propblem with caption is solved, no reliable sources is presented to show that, these pics refer to the grave place of fatimah so they would better be removed. Mhhossein (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC) References DoB & age contradiction I just came across contradiction in infobox regarding Date of Birth and age, Islamic Dates - DoB: 20 Jamad al-Akhar 5 BH; DoD: 3 Jumadi al-Thani 11 AH; therefore age: 15 years 11 months & 4 days Western Dates - DoB: 27 July 604; DoD: 28 August 632; therefore age: 28 years 1 month & 1 day also, infobox lists age as 28 years 11 months 12 days. I think this needs to be fixed.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) @Faizhaider: We might use information in The Fourteen Infallible. Based on this article the Date of Birth and age are as such: 605 or 615 – 632 or 633. More probably she was 18 when she died. Mhhossein (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: As far as my knowledge & opinion goes (which is of no academic weight) there are traditions which I have heard that She (s.a.) was 18 years old when She (s.a.) was martyred. But the point I was raising above is that we need to fix the inconsistencies in the article, anything which is supported by verifiable RS and which is agreed upon will be good.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC) @Faizhaider: I've heard the same thing, brother. What I quoted from The Fourteen Infallible is supported by reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: In that case, I have no issues with the dates from The Fourteen Infallible article. IMHO, Age based on both dates should be put i.e. "18 or 28 years" or should be completely omitted.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Faizhaider: Yeah, we'd better unify the dates both in the lead and in the infobox. Mhhossein (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: Agree--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Her Titles: Jaddah and Umm-ul Aaima (Mother of Imams) According to Shia Syed tradition “Fatimah” the daughter of Prophet Muhammad is also attributed with the title of Jaddah the Arabic word for "grandmother". Originally the title Jaddah is attributed to Eve but her all off-spring is not Syed lineage, therefore Fatimah is recognized as Jaddah for Syed Lineage from second to eleventh Imams and in between. Further more, in view of talk at [2] I have added her title of “Umm-ul-Aaima” (which is also Kunniyat for Fatimah) duly supported by two online refs. Approx 125 titles may be seen here [3]. Nannadeem (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC) Page protection The page is sensitive by virtue of its contents, Semi-Protection for this page has been requested, here [4] today (13 June, 2015) .Nannadeem (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks @Nannadeem: ! Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC) @Mhhossein: Are you caring the page? invite others sincere to page to have vigilance (please see editing made today 17-06-2015).Nannadeem (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I have just reverted those edits and asked for further page protection here. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) @Dhtwiki Your reversions + further protection is good credit to this page. My thanks to you.Nannadeem (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)