Talk:Book of Fatimah

Other Views
How do Sunni see this book? Does everyone else except Bahai beleive it is Fatimah, or do they agree with Bahai or is there another belief or?? (Trying to figure out how to address this issue on the Fatima Zahra page). Bridesmill 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article is pretty clear. It's a distinctly Shi`ah tradition, so Sunnis have no opinion and do not attach any special attention to Fatimah. The Baha'i view of this is completely unrelated, and is only an interesting side comment: the fact that they believe the tradition was fulfilled. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bahai
Is there a particular reason Bahai editors feel the need to use the slightest excuse to turn a section of an article into an advert for their religion and cannot seem to stay on subject and actually illuminate the article topic?Ekwos (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go back through the history you will note that it was a Muslim editor who added the section. The section is not an advertisement, but is definitely on subject, as it is regarding the fulfillment of a prophecy. I should also add that assume good faith is a policy in Wikipedia.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary we have a book A and another book B that coincidentally has the same name as A. If Bahai belief were about book A (the actual subject of the article) it would be relevant.  As the belief is about book B (which is not at all the subject of the article) it is no more relevant to go into Bahai beliefs as it would be to go on and describe Mormon opinions of the Book of Mormon.Ekwos (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that they don't coincidentally have the same name, because it was written in fulfillment of the prophecy. That's what makes it germane, and not because they just have the same time.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of prophecy is a question of Bahai belief and not fact. As an item of Bahai dogma it belongs in a Bahai article (or at least in the article of the actual Bahai text).  All we have here is a book A, a tradition surrounding book A, and some guy who thought it was a neat idea to give his book the same name as book A.  Those are the facts.  I don't see why the item of Bahai dogma need appear in an article on an entirely separate work, any more than Christian dogmas regarding Christ would need to take up a paragraph in the Qur'an article.Ekwos (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the Bahai view section because the name of the Bahai book is "صحیفه فاطمیّه" which is different from the title of the book in discussion "مصحف فاطمه". The content is also quite unrelated. Taha (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your removal, because there is a verifiable reliable source for the content, and thus per Wikipedia policies it should remain. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Fatimah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720165047/http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm to http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch40.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

= Unreliable sources = I'll hopefully remove or replace the unreliable or primary sources in this article. Albertatiran (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)