Talk:Attack on Fatima's house/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

from Wilferd Madelung's book (The Succession to Muhammad, pp. 43-44)

"Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. Al-zubayr came out with his sowrd drawn, but stumbled and lost it, whereupon Umar's men jumped upon him and carried him off. There is some evidence that the house of Fatima was searched(futtisha). Ali is reported to have later repeatedly said that had there been forty men with him he would have resisted. To what extent force was used in other cases must remain uncertain. In general the threat of it was probably sufficient to induce the reluctant to conform. Isolated reports about the use of force against Ali and the Banu Hashim who according to al-Zhuri, unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Ab Manaf whose acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather to isolate the Banu Hashim as far as possible. Aisha's comment that the prominent people ceased to speak to Ali until acknowledged his mistake and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr is significant. The banu Hashim thus found themselves in a situation strangely reminiscent of the boycott that the pagan Mekkans organized against them in order to force them to withdraw their protection from Muhammad." --Kazemita1 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

The entire section that covers the Sunnis view is original research based on primary sources. It has to be entirely deleted probably with only a short statement saying that Sunnis reject the entire incident. 5.232.154.170 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Under event, Please remove all the paragraphs starting after 2nd paragraph or else add “Shī’a View” as a sub topic after 2nd paragraph Indiewiki0001 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Sunni view"

"According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur"

Which books "written at the time"? Besides, the article cites multiple Sunni primary and secondary sources on the events, they all only differ on what exactly happened. It seems that the only people saying that the event did not occur are wahhabis, the rest of Sunnis acknowledge the event, just differ on how it went. The section has to be rewritten as it is misleading. More Sunni sources on the events can be found here [1], here [2], and here [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

:These sources are all Shia and this whole article needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner its straight out of a Shia propaganda machine by the looks of it this story is regarded as a myth by over a BILLION Muslims while a minority believe it to be true and this must be stated in the introduction. Ectomorfer (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

These sources are all Shi'ah and this whole article needs to be rewritten in a NEUTRAL manner its straight out of a Shi'ah propaganda machine by the looks of it. This story is regarded as a myth by majority of Muslims, only a minority believe it to be true and this must be stated in the introduction. I agree with the last statement, and I do not understand why wikipedia allows something to be writen from mythical accounts and other stories, without protecting the integrity of the information, as well of the rights of the reader who is trusting in wikipedia. Shame on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.237.246 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, the whole article should be rewritten. Indiewiki0001 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond doubt it's Shea made up story and far from reality. Umar can not attack the house of Fatima in any way, burning her is out of questions . It's just a propaganda. It must be removed Murtaza Khattak (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2017

Please re-read the whole article and change Fatimah's gender from male to female. For example, I found at many places it states Fatimah as a male : "Fatima died his husband Ali ibn Abi talib buried him at night." It should be "Fatima died, HER husband Ali ibn Abi talib buried HER at night." Also correct the grammatical errors such as adding commas where necessary.

Thank you Rx anon (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Al-Tabari

It has to be noted that Tabari is simply a collection of BOTH SHIA AND SUNNI narrations in his historical book so how can this be referred to a Sunni source? Ectomorfer (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

What do you mean Shia and Sunni narrations? What makes a narration one or the other? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

:::Tabari has collected historical texts from BOTH Sunni and Shia accounts but is paraded as sunni clear manipulation. Ectomorfer (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

Do you have a WP:RS saying that though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says it is Sunni source? Singnora and Monsieur (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Ectomorfer and Airtiza14: You to seem to be on the verge of starting an edit war. Please read WP:BRD before any further edits. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC) :@Emir of Wikipedia: I am the one using the talk page actually and some unrelated moron removes the dispute tags they at least need to stay I do not care much for the pre edit war copy of the articke. Ectomorfer (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

It was Darkness Shines who restored to the pre edit war version. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the essay WP:BRD, You were bold and you were reverted, now you need to gain consensus for your proposed changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

:::@Darkness Shines: The neutrality of this article has been discussed for several years and disputed what changes have I made i resisted from revert you. I have not reverted your blanket edit yet so i do not need to justify any change since I have not made any si far since your edit.Ectomorfer (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of a community banned editor.

The whole point of BRD is to justify any changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

In it's current version, the article presents the Shia POV as fact and does not present the Sunni view at all. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The article includes references from both Shia and Sunni sources. Some of the Sunni sources include Bukhari, Tabari, and as-Safadi (among many others). It also has a combination of primary sources, modern sources, and sources from the time period in between. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

avoid to riverd

@Snowsky Mountain: you committed mass-edit at once if the material about Abu Bakr break the Neutral point of view, you can put the appropriate tag instead of removing. also, I try to support primary source by finding to secondary sources but it is so wonderful that they are removed by you. finally, I remove the list of citation that did not use in the article and were shown in a red link while you reverted them to, so please do not revert again without convincing me.M1nhm (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not revert it simply because of that one change. I reverted it because the edits that you made negatively affect the page in other ways as well. You removed a noteworthy part about Zubayr being attacked. You also removed many, many references from the page. These references are important as the content has been challenged in the past; their removal should be reverted. You removed five references from the first paragraph of the "Event" section, and you also removed six references, along with relevant quotations from them, later in the article. The mass removal of relevant references, combined with adding an extremely biased statement towards Abu Bakr, led me to undo your changes. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snowsky Mountain:I am going to explain by detail about my edits, but it would be better that you presented the link of the edit which is wrong (in your opinion)

First: about Zubar, I didn't remember that I “removed a noteworthy part about Zubayr being attacked” and this edit confirmed my words.

Second: about Abu Bakr, why did you delete this sourced edit?

Third: about five removed sources in Event, Not only I did not remove any sources but also I added reliable sources to support primary references such as 1 , 2 ,3

Forth: for six sources, It is evident to misunderstand. I deleted the sources that were ref-list and they had the list-defined reference tag. but I checked them that if they had used in other section in the article, I tried to keep the sources. I did this work with the intention of improved the article and I am sure the ref-list was not used in the article and did not give a good style to the article ( for red lines), I deleted them. now that you removed my edit look at the article, does it have an appropriate appearance?M1nhm (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I left your changes in "Event" section but removed the two paragraphs you added in the "Background" section. The first paragraph is discussed in the next section; its inclusion in the "Background" section breaks the flow of the article. The second paragraph, besides being poorly written, is completely biased towards Abu Bakr. It also does not summarize material on its own; rather, it just (improperly) quotes a book that exclaims extreme bias towards Abu Bakr. If you would like to discuss Fadak in the "Background" section, then we can do it without including such bias towards Abu Bakr. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Snowsky Mountain:I did not attack to Abu Bakr, that is a quotation which was nominated in reliable sources. the part of the text is quotation directly from the source. according to the sources fadak is apart of this event and for this reason, it is better to mention in the article. in this way, in your opinion how is the text can be moderated?M1nhm (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

We could discuss the history of Fadak and its status prior to Muhammad's death, then discuss the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar without showing such bias towards them. I think that it may be better to do this without making most of this paragraph just a quotation from the book you cited. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

Most of this page is false and has no basis in Sunni Or Majority Shia Scholars Omar Ali Ibrahim (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Representing opinions as facts

There has been a wide debate over the issue (as a staple of Shi'a-Sunni dialogue) and non-Shi'a sources almost entirely deny that any corporal clashes happened.

The general non-Shi'a consensus is that Umar only threatened that if they don't come out to swear, he would burn the door. While in the article we read that they burned the house, kicked the door open, broke Farimah's ribs, killed a fetus in her womb, kicked Fatimah in stomach, struck her with either a whip or a sword or both, then they went in and dragged Ali forcibly out of his house, possibly with a rope tied around his neck (and strangely they were not enemies enough to kill them two and then left).

And the entire thing is represented as factual, which is obviously in contrast with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Also note that Shahrestani has also included the opposing views (Ranging from Judaism to Jahmiyah to Shi'a) in Al-milal wa al-nihal, according to the link provided in the article and the very name of the book. That means not any piece of text in the book is necessarily perceived as real by the author, and therefore it only represents a Sunni's description of a Shi'a belief not his record of the matter as misrepresented in the article. That part needs to be deleted too. NetBSDuser (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing about the part about Shahrastani; I removed the mis-quote from the page. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Did Sheikein(Abubakr and Umar) ever attack Ahlebayt?

Did Sheikein(Abubakr and Umar) ever attack Ahlebayt?

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

The Shias claim that after few days the Prophet(saw) died, Umar(ra) went and beat up Fatima(ra) when she was pregnant and her unborn baby who was called Muhassan died in her womb. But these fabricated stories were created by the Shias which are hard to be accepted by people who are learned and unbiased. That is why not only the scholars of Ahlesunnah declared these stories to be absurd fabrications, but even some of the esteemed and knowledgeable Shia scholars held the similar view.

The reality behind the story of the unborn baby who supposedly died in his mother’s womb.

Doesn’t this seem to be strange that an unborn child has a name before he was born and that his parents even knew he was a boy? Let us show you the reality that from where and why he got his name. And was it before his birth or was it after it.

We only know of this “Muhassan bin Ali” through the narration of Hani bin Hani who narrates it directly from Ali bin Abi talib RA with a Sahih Chain:

علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه قال : لمَّا ولد الحسن جـاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت : سمّيته حرباً ، قال : بل هـو حسن ، فلما ولد الحسين قال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت سميته حرباً ، قال : بل هو حسين . فلما ولد الثالث جاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت حرباً ، قال : بل هو محسَّن ثم قال : إني سمّيتهم بأسماء ولد هارون شبّر وشُبَيْر ومشبّر Ali bin Abi talib RA said: When al Hassan was born the Prophet PBUh came and said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: I called him Harb, he said: Nay He is Hassan, When al Hussein was born the Prophet PBUH said: show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay he is Hussein, and when the third was born the Prophet PBUH came then said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, He said: Nay he is Muhassan, then He said: I have named them after the names of the children of Haroun(Aaron) they are Shibr, Shubeir, Mushabbar. source: مسند أحمد (1/98) إسناده صحيح . Musnad Ahmad 1/98, Isnad is SAHIH.

Of course al Muhassan bin Ali RA died as little baby. source:التبيين في أنساب القرشيين لابن قدامة المقدسي 133 Al Tabyeen fi ansab al Qurashiyeen for Ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi p133.

Meangristicsh (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Meangristicsh: this is wikipedia not the personal blog, so all users have to collect any opinion which are supported by RS about the special event. Wikipedia is not the court to judge which set is right or not.Saff V. (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)