Talk:Fatimah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Salafs article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Salaf. It has been rated - on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Shia POV 2 Opening comment 3 Praisenames 4 Copyedit 5 Name 6 Evidence Section 7 transliteration 8 Why was this article MOVED without any discussion? 9 Sayings made up? 10 What is Sunni view of relations between Aisha and Fatima 11 Rename 12 a mistake in Shi'a view 13 Undue weight 14 Dates 15 Wikify 16 Breach 17 The split suggestion 18 Date of Birth and date of Death 19 Reorganize 20 Images 21 Mary/Fatimah 21.1 Bridesmill 22 Lack of mention of other daughters in Sunni trad 23 Non-Arabic Name? 24 Works 25 rename 26 removing the honorifics 27 FADAK 28 Relevant 29 Split 30 Muhammad's lineage 31 fatima al-zahra's death 32 Rename 33 Requested move 33.1 Survey 33.2 Discussion 34 Move undone 35 Requested move round 2 35.1 Survey 35.1.1 Survey - Support votes 35.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 35.2 Discussion 36 Other Zahras 36.1 The Virgin of Fatimah

[edit] Shia POV

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

[edit] Opening comment

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

[edit] Praisenames

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ma-Salam!

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

Thank you for your contribution sister!

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

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

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

[edit] Copyedit

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

[edit] Name

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

[edit] Evidence Section

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] transliteration

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

[edit] Why was this article MOVED without any discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sayings made up?

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

[edit] What is Sunni view of relations between Aisha and Fatima

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rename

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

[edit] a mistake in Shi'a view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Undue weight

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dates

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

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

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

[edit] Wikify

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

[edit] Breach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The split suggestion

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

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

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

[edit] Date of Birth and date of Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reorganize

I reorganized the article to the standardized version:

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

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

[edit] Images

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

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

[edit] Mary/Fatimah

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

[edit] Bridesmill

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

[edit] Lack of mention of other daughters in Sunni trad

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

[edit] Non-Arabic Name?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Works

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] rename

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

[edit] removing the honorifics

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

[edit] FADAK

This is some information on Fadak.

(remove long copy and paste copyvio: it's available at [1]) Patstuart^talk|edits 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Relevant

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

[edit] Split

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

[edit] Muhammad's lineage

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

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

[edit] fatima al-zahra's death

SHE DID NOT DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES.SHE WAS MURDERED BY UMAR AND HIS MEN.THEY SQUEEZED HER BETWEEN THE DOOR AND THE WALL IN HER OWN HOME.THEY BROKE HER RIBS AND CAUSED THE MISCARRIAGE OF HER 5TH CHILD.UMAR KILLED PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S ONLY DAUGHTER AND SUNNIS STILL CONSIDER HIM AS A RIGHTFUL KHALIFA.THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THE TRUTH.

Mention a reliable source please. --Sa.vakilian 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

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

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

[edit] Move undone

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Requested move round 2

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

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] Survey - Support votes

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

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

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

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

[edit] Other Zahras

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

[edit] The Virgin of Fatimah

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

Unicorn144 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)