Talk:Fatima

Wrong info about Sayyidah Fatimah ra and her family

Ahlul bayt never put so much hatred for sahabah. Infact Abu Bakr ra is the best and the closest companion of Rasulullah Sollaallahu alaihi wasalam until forever. how is it possible that those who have the purity of heart and sincere faith ​​like rasulullah saw hate the good friend of prophet muhammad???? 121.121.56.61 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It is well-known that Sunni tradition has whitewashed the conflicts among early Muslims. Albertatiran (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that, you may put different sections on shia view and Sunni view. WP:NOV 獅眠洞 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Attack on Fatima's house

This Article presents the supposed attack as a FACT and continues to elaborate about it and only disputes the details Kelcoz (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz As mentioned earlier, there doesn't seem to be anything concrete about your claim so far. Quote from the article and give us specific details. Albertatiran (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, as the one who changed the article, you (not me), when challenged, need to present your case and establish a consensus. See WP:CONSENSUS. Albertatiran (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

the article presents the attack from the Shia point of view and disputes some details but doesn't give any other point of view, Kelcoz (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Abu Bakr terminated the status of purity of Muhammad's kin by forcing them to rely on general alms which the prophet had forbidden for them in his lifetime.[77]

the article mentions the "Sermon of Fadak" and the "the status of purity of Muhammad's kin" alot and relies on them many times even though they are only present in shia scriptures Kelcoz (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz First off, the article follows reliable sources, i.e., academic sources written by known Islamicists, including the quote from [77] or purity of Muhammad's kin. This doesn't immediately imply neutrality but it's a key requirement of it. As another instance, the article does mention the sermon of Fadak but also makes it clear that Sunnis reject it. This perfectly meets the criteria for neutrality. What else? Albertatiran (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

the page needs more clarification or a complete separation of the two view points, i support the latter solution Kelcoz (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz I see here that you put back the POV template. Wikipedia edits (that is, any change to the article) should be constructive and slapping a template on an article without providing any concrete reason is not. It's even worse to hide behind semantics to start an edit war over a template. At any rate, what's written on a template maintenance page is not a Wikipedia guideline to be followed. I think you should quote from the article and work in good faith with other editors to assess their neutrality. Only if attempts to fix instances of POV fail that you should go ahead and insert the POV tag.

@Iskandar323: In the past, you have significantly contributed to this article (and its talk page). Are you available to have a quick look at this thread and give us your feedback? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

it was a mistake sorry, i was supposed to send this this link anyways thanks for telling me about the issue Kelcoz (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kelcoz Re your idea of splitting the historical narratives into Shia and Sunni, that can be put to vote for sure. However, note that this doesn't have a precedent in Wikipedia (that I know of), e.g., see Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, etc. There could be something like "Shia views" and "Sunni views" sections added to the article focused on respective polemics of both sects. Albertatiran (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to add a hijri date

the article is related to Islamic history but it doesn't mention the date in Islamic calendar, which may concern for those who are much more familiar with hijri calendar like me when study Islamic history. 獅眠洞 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Explanation/reasons for replacing the Qajar era image

Proportional and Visual Integrity

• The old image lacks proportional accuracy and visual clarity — hallmarks of Qajar-era romanticized illustrations.
• The new image, retains consistency in figures, spacing, and composition, presenting a clearer and more balanced scene.

"Emphasis on Visual Symbolism over Literal Representation"

• The old Qajar-style image adopts Westernized proportions and material culture (e.g., Qajar robes, decorative settings), which may misrepresent the 7th-century Hijazi context.
• The new image prioritizes symbolism, such as abstracted backgrounds and sacred elements, resonating with the way early Islamic art avoids direct representation and emphasizes metaphysical meaning.

Relevance to the Article’s Narrative

• The previous image (The Marriage of 'Ali and Fatima, Iran, ca. 1850) is an artistic interpretation rooted in Qajar-era aesthetics, emphasizing visual beauty rather than historical or didactic accuracy. Its primary purpose appears to be art appreciation, not factual representation.
• The proposed image (Marriage of Fatimah bint Muhammad and Ali ibn Abi Talib) was likely created with didactic or explanatory intent, aiming to visually summarize the event in a manner that aligns more closely with the narrative tone of the section on Fatima’s (RA) marriage in the article.

Educational and Cultural Neutrality

• The new image presents a more universal Islamic visual language that avoids cultural biases, making it more acceptable to a global audience.
• The Qajar-era image embeds specific Persian royal aesthetics that may not resonate with all viewers and could be misinterpreted as historically accurate for the 7th century.

Most importantly

• It serves more as a decorative artwork, appropriate for display in art collections or discussions of Persian art history.
• In contrast, the proposed image, adopts a more abstract and symbolically respectful approach, and may have been created for educational contexts such as:
  • Religious textbooks
  • Visual guides in Islamic studies
  • Curricula focused on early Islamic figures

This approach aligns more appropriately with Wikipedia’s mission as a neutral, educational platform, aiming to inform rather than to display or curate historical art for aesthetic purposes. Eaglet of the East (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those reasons are sufficient for replacing an historically significant museum piece with an example of pop art with no provenance, no era, no scholarly analysis, unlike the one you are trying to remove. Your own opinions about artistic proportions, clarity, universality, speculation about what it "may represent" or why it was "likely" created or "may have been created", and other personal interpretations that aren't backed up by scholarly sources, are meaningless here.

Stop edit warring about this. The replacement image you propose is merely decorative without any historical significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The Woman and Family Portal Department of Khamenei.ir illustration is not "neutral", nor culturally unbiased. It's choice of clothing clearly is based on current government-mandated Hejab norms in Iran. Unlike the Qajar images it has almost no historical value though, it doesn't fit into traditional categories of Turko-Iranian Islamic iconography, nor is it trying to. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph should be deleted or placed under shia view heading

Its written in main article that

When Muhammad died in 632, Fatima and her husband Ali refused to acknowledge the authority of the first caliph, Abu Bakr. The couple and their supporters held that Ali was the rightful successor of Muhammad, possibly referring to his announcement at the Ghadir Khumm. Controversy surrounds Fatima's death within six months of Muhammad's. Sunni Islam holds that Fatima died from grief.[3] In Shia Islam, however, Fatima's miscarriage and death are said to have been the direct result of her injuries during a raid on her house to subdue Ali, ordered by Abu Bakr.[14] It is believed that Fatima's dying wish was that the caliph should not attend her funeral.[15][16] She was buried secretly at night and her exact burial place remains uncertain.[17][18]

This paragraph is completely based on shia view which is rejected by the main stream muslims (sunni) as a shia story. This should be either removed or placed under shia view heading. 182.190.96.200 (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)