This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Fatimah article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bahá'í Faith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

- Talk 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Unreliable sources

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