Talk:Omar at Fatimah's house/Archive 1

untitled comments
What more context is needed? --Striver 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you what is needed.... Sunni sources and a presentation of the Sunni view :) Hamid-Masri 22:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The more sources the better, please do help :) --Striver - talk 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would request to the authorities of Wikipedia to delete the febricated story, it does not based on fact, in this story the writer tried to demage the personalities Heros of Islam, All reference quoted are not authentic and only references of Shias book mentioned. The all Muslims belief that the personalities of Hazrat Abu Bakar R.A and Hazrat Umer Bin Khitab R.A and other companions of Muhammad PBUH are the great asset of Islam, Specially the Holiest book of Muslims QURAN declared the companions of Muhammad PBUH the gratest people, like mentioned in Quran "These are the people who are on the right path" These are the People who will get the unlimited belessing of Allah" and at another place mentioned that " Allah is happy with the companions of Muhammad PBUH and the Companions of Muhammad PBUH are happy with Allah" Muhammad PBUH said about his companions that " My companions are like Stars, choose anyone among them, you will get the right path"

It is the belief of all the Muslims that Quran is the Most Protected and Authentic Book, because this book is in the protection of Allah, in Quran mentioned that " I (Allah) sent this book and I am responsible to protect this book (from any alteration)" No book other than Quran is well protected and in its original form.

Since the Quran is the Basic and Complete book of Islam and being well protected and authentic, Muslims always consult Quran and whatever mentioned in any other book which is contraductory with Quran, Muslims simply refused.

In the article in question all reference quoted are Ridicules, shameful, Hazrat Ali R.A and Hazrat Fatima R.A were most respectfully personalities of Islam, there was no conflict amoung them with Abu Bakar and Umer R.A, and we can not accept any tale which based on un-realiable books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QManzoor (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality
al-islam.org is not a reliable source, and a number of polemical exchanges (i.e. peshawar nights) are being used as sources for this article, which is not appropriate. i don't think this topic merits an article on its own, IMO it should be redirected back to a parent article which discusses this incident in a section and simultaneously in the wider context of its significance to particular disputes.  ITAQALLAH  22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. Not a single piece of legitimate evidence is provided to back up these claims. The only source is a Shia which actively promotes the Shia religions. It does not pass the Neutrality test. --quizling22204 11/29/2007.
 * There is a more NPOV and verifiable version in the main article. I copy it in the lead.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition al-Islam.org usually gathers other sources and we can't say it's reliable or not. We should check the reliability of the author of that text. For example it gathers a book of "Allame Fadlullah" and it's a reliable source to represent Shia POV.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Article re-written: Non-Neutral Sources have been deleted
I have re-written the article with direct quotes from the earliest historical works i.e. Tabari, Masoudi, and Yaqubi. This article is no longer polemical in nature as Shia sources are provided under a separate heading. Mhaider5 (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
Rather than delete this information because of controversial sourcing, and the fact the belief is unanimous to Shi'a, why can't you just put a "citation needed" thing instead? I have to admit, I actually do agree with the sock puppet here. -- Enzuru 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No third party sources
This article has little to no third party sources. Perhaps it should be simply merged into both Fatimah and Umar.Bless sins (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake
We need to rewrite this article completely. Either it completely disregards the Sunni opinion or makes the Shi'a story seem absolutely mythical. -- Enzuru 07:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good news: the IP vandal was banned (again... his second visit). Bad news: yes, we do. Like half the Islam pages, it's half hagiography and half anti-hagiography. Snap to it, woman! ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue Criticism of this Article
I don't know what is your issue with this article. I have used original sources of Muslim History, instead of quoting from sources that are polemical in nature. These are among the earliest works of Islamic History that have survived. This is a direct historical report and not an analysis of events. If we go by your logic, it will be controversial to use the work of Herodotus to learn about the Battle of Thermopylae!! The translation of the History of Tabari was published by State University of New York, translations of Yaqubi and Masudi's work are not yet available in English, so I had to use Urdu translations. If you want I can get references of the events quoted from books in the English language (from very reputable Publsihers) that also mention these events and quote from the same sources. If you have read Islamic History books in any language and read their bibliography, you will realize that most of the historical information comes from the Sirat of Ibn Hisham (Life of Muhammad), History of Tabari, History of Masudi, History of Yaqubi, and the works of Waqidi. Everything else is an analysis of already reported events. Mhaider5 (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, it's not my logic or your logic. On Wikipedia, we are very iffy about using early sources. We generally use contemporary sources that quote these earlier sources and then make a decision on their validity. Like, most scholars don't accept lots of the earliest accounts, so this approach makes sense. But even if the approach didn't make sense, this is kinda what we at WikiProject Islam are leaning towards for our sourcing. I am glad the Shi'a view is well stated, but this won't be acceptable to the Sunni editors. -- Enzuru 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not mix in fabricated references
Please do not mention non-existent or non-neutral references as Sunni books! Since when is a European book on Amazon a "Sunni source". The attempt to fabricate legitimacy has been edited out. This is a Shia myth, so keep to Shia sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to our sources, this narration appears in several Sunni books of hadith. On Wikipedia, we are supposed to generally use contemporary secular sources, which hadith books aren't, we should use books that look at hadith books and then pass judgements, preferably by secular writers. This is the reason we cite at the start which states that it is found in both Shi'a and Sunni narrations. This is secular scholarship and is not biased towards anyone. Please overview WP:RS for more information about this topic. If you do feel that perhaps these sources are not valid, feel free to attempt to prove so. Do not use phrases such as "Shia myths" on Wikipedia, that is attacking a religious group and can get you warned or blocked. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  23:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, they're NOT SUNNI sources
The fact that the story is mentioned in Etan Kohlberg book might be yours to reference. You calling that reference as "Sunni Islam" is incorrect. This incident is only mentioned in Shia books, all historical books written within 200 years of Umar's time and Abu Bakr vehemently shows no such incident happened. Sunni books are books like Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim, or Ebn Katheer or Feqh El-Sunna. THOSE are Sunni books and references. Etan Kohlberg and Mohammed Numani, a researcher from nineteenth century India, are NOT sunni sources. The page will again be reverted as long as you erroneously mention those references as Sunni, because it gives the story a false aura of legitimacy claimed to be from Sunni Muslims, which is categorically untrue. Wikipedia does not ask to use secular sources, it asks for neutral ones, and like I said if you want to use them, go right ahead, but if you say they are Sunni sources then it is a false statement and the page will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Yale source specifically states that this event is found in both Sunni and Shi'a sources. A source can be a hadith book or later historians and theologians. Any attempt to disprove that is breaking WP:original research unless you have a secular WP:reliable source that specifically disproves this. Religious sources by nature presuppose their own legitimacy, hence generally are not neutral: they cannot be apologetic in nature. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunni View added
Since many Islamic pages has Shia view sections if there is a difference in reports, I have added a Sunni view section here to clarify the events as per the correct books of history and Sunni Tradition, not to mention a couple of secular sources as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampharo (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry sampharo but some your claims are not true: "According to Sunni books of Hadith and books of history written at the time however, this entire story did not occur." The gist of the story IS narrated in sunni hadith, but you may differ on the details. If you do some more research, I'm sure you will find what i'm referring too. I shall add some sunni versions of the incident shortly. --Pooya72 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"The gist of the story IS narrated in Sunni Hadith". Hadith ends completely with the passing of the prophet, so there is absolutely no way that an event after his death is narrated in Hadith. What we are about is that it might be mentioned in the BOOKS that speak of the history of the prophet and the Islamic nation afterwards. The books of Sunni Hadith are Six, any other even if written by Sunni people are not necessarily Sunni history books. If a Christian writes a book that examines Jesus from a Jewish perspective, does that mean we can say in Jesus's page "According to Christian sources, Jesus was a charlatan"? No, we can't, because it does not represent the Christian view at all. Now this event does not exist in History books for 200 years after the passing of the prophet whether Sunni or Shia, and the established firm Sunni view and what Sunni scholars agree on that this story is not true. That is the majority view. Nobody is trying to prevent the Shia from expressing their view by writing this story here, but a minority story must represent just that, the minority view. At the very least, taking an extract out of a book and saying that this is the Sunni view creates WP:Undue Weight and WP:POV problems, as it seems taking something out of context in order to provide majority view weight to a minority view. --Sampharo (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

^ "Hadith ends completely with the passing of the prophet, so there is absolutely no way that an event after his death is narrated in Hadith." Well now that's just not true is it? Bukhari also speaks of events after the Prophet's (saaw) death, such as in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 which discusses when abu baker stole fadak and Sayed Fatima died in anger at him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.155.159 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shia scholars
Please someone edit in the correct information about what ayatollah fadlullah has said as he list in his book Fatimah al-Ma`sumah (as): a role model for men and wome

by al-Marji' Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlullah (http://www.al-islam.org/fatimahrolemodel/) that:

(1-    The attack on her house

Historians, one of whom is Ibn Qutaybah in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, said that - after the death of the Prophet and al-Saqeefah episode - men came with wood to burn down the house of Ali and Fatimah (as), to threaten them and those whom they considered as opposition, who had gathered at the house of Ali (as). Some said to the leader of the assault: 'O man! In the house is Fatimah!'; and Fatimah was the person whom the Muslims agreed to love and respect, and whose position they agreed to acknowledge, because she was the only daughter that the Prophet (sawa) left when he died, and because she was part of him - what made her angry made him angry and what harmed her harmed him... So, how come you come with fire to burn her house?

But, he replied with his famous statement: 'Even though!'

We regard this as one of the most dangerous utterances, because it means that there are no sacred entities in this house, and so there is nothing to prevent it being burned with its people inside!

This utterance points to the mindset of the people, and what they were prepared to do. However, had they opened the door to dialogue through nice words, they would have found Ali the man of dialogue, as he had always been throughout his life, even after he became a caliph; and they would have found Fatimah a woman of dialogue, because the Qur'an, to which Fatimah above all others adhered most closely to, was the book of dialogue. However, those people had already passed the stage of dialogue by the time they gathered the wood to burn the house of al-Zahra (as). So when in reply to 'In the house is Fatimah', that man said 'Even though!' this represented the ugliest form of injustice to which Fatimah (as) was subjected.

2-    Other grievances

There were other events in which she suffered, but they have not always been substantiated fully beyond doubt. Those include the actual burning of the house, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage, the slapping of her cheek, and the beating of her and others. These are recorded in narrations that may have question marks raised against them, either in their actual text (matn) or in the chain of narrators (sanad), as is the case with many historical narrations.

Therefore, we have raised some queries, as have been raised by some scholars in the past (may Allah be satisfied with them) such as Sheikh al-Mufeed[20] who seems to question the miscarriage issue, even the existence of the pregnancy - although we disagree with him on the latter. However, we do not deny that these events may have taken place - as Sheikh Muhammad Husain Kashif al-Ghita' has done regarding beating her and slapping her cheek[21] because denying requires as much proof as accepting. At any rate, what is definite is that the numerous narrations attain the level of mutawatir as a whole, confirm that there was an assault on her if only by exposing her house, attacking it and threatening to burn it - and this alone should be sufficient to prove the degree of crime which took place. It was a crime that continued to haunt those who committed it, and this was why the first caliph declared as he was dying: 'I wish I had not exposed the house of Fatimah, even if it had declared war on me.'[22]

) wa salam

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Shia Scholars Disagree
This section's neutrality seems to be disputed due to the unreliable references and also on few Occasions Fadlullah's denial about denying the incident happened. Both sides claim either however we have no official reference for any of those. Hence unless and until we have any Fadlullah's Official website's declaration on this issue. This tag shall remain. - Hum Aliwalay (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)