Jump to content

Talk:Fadak/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Praise be to God, Lord of Creation; the Compassionate, the Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help. Guide us to the straight path, the path of those whom You have favored: not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray.

Sunni Point of View

This article fails to include the Sunni POV regarding the incident of Fadak. As far as I know, the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr that Prophets do not leave any inheritance also applied to this land. I'm fairly certain that Sunnis regard the land as Mohammad's as that it would fall under the guise of inheritance, while Shias view it as gift to Fatima. Pepsidrinka 05:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He did say so, Fatimah objected to that and said she had goten it earlier, Abu Bakr demanded evidence, Ali and Hasan and a female servant volutaired to be wittnesses, Abu Bakr dissmised Hasan as a child sayin he can not wittness for the mother, thus leaving Ali and the servant not adding two two male or one make and two females, thus Fatimah was ignored.

Nobody else wanted the land, not even the wives when they demanded the land.

It was her personal property, as shown by Umar II giving it back to them, he would have not if he did not belived it was their personal property to begin with. Here you have a Sunni site agreeing that it was her personal property and had nothing to do with inheritance: Read

Also, you have Sunni tafsir of her geting it in the same event of the revelation of a verse. I can write more if you want. --Striver 05:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The property was not hers according to Sunni sources. There are multiple sources from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud about the fact that Fatima went to Abu Bakr in return of her share of the inheritance, not for her property. I have listed several of the hadith's below and I will list the remainder if anyone so desires to see them. And if it was her property and Ali testified to that fact, why did Ali not return the property to Fatima's heirs during his reign?
Bukhari 1
Bukhari 2
Bukhari 3
Abu Dawud 4

I'll agree that this article is Shi'a-POV and needs a rewrite to be more neutral. The tag should stay up until then. Zora 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Allrgiht, i agree that Some Sunnis regard it as inheritance. At the same time, this proves that other Sunnis do not. We will need to represent both. --Striver 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


"Furthermore, Muhammad stated that whoever makes Fatima angry makes him angry as well. This hadith is included in the two main Sunni sources, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

They also deny Sunni claims that prophets do not leave inheritances. They argue that the Qur'an clearly states that Dawud (David) made Sulayman (Solomon) his heir, even though David is, according to Muslim belief, a prophet.

[edit] Sunni version of Fadak Sunnis believe that prophets do not leave inheritances, based on Muhammad's sayings:

"I heard the Prophet of Allah saying, 'We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.'" (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no 49) "We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs." (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462) Sunnis also cite a Shi'a tradition supporting this position:

According to Abu 'Abdillah (Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq), the Prophet of Allah said: "The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge." (Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) "

Bold texthow come in sunni point of view you have stated the whole hadiths while in shia point the hadiths r hyperlinked??

Shia POV

Striver had added a lot of SHia POV material. Please put evidence that Fadak was a gift into the Shia view section. Because in the Sunni view, even IF Fadak was a gift, and that the Prophets leave inheritance, you would accuse Muhammad (SAW) of performing a haram act by not following the Qur'ânic rules of inheriting from each other. Thus, every man could just "gift" all of his property before he died and thus violating the Qur'ânic rules. Also, according to Shi'ism, a woman cannot inherit land nor property anyway, so whats up at all? In the main article section, you should stick to what is FACT and in the Shia View-section, you can argue that Fadak was actually a gift. Also, under the Fatimah-subsection, you refuse to mention all the Major sunni tafsir's that do NOT think of the AL-Hashr:6 as that Muhammad (SAW) handed over Fadak to Fatima as a gift. Tafsir ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Muhammad Asad, Tanwir al-Miqbas and Tafhim al-Quran all does not mention nothing about Fatima in connection with these verses! In fact Tanwir al-Miqbas says the opposite in connection with Al-Hashr:7, saying that "it remained under his (i.e. Muhammads) control during his lifetime". You really SHOULD NOT be arguing outside the Shia View-section. I request a huuuge edit... Marouane —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.51.211.84 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I have added quotes from Sunni historical sources. What you are mentioning is arguments and the Sunni views. views go in the views section, and historical quotes goes into the history section, not the other way around. If some tafsir does not mention it, it means nothing more than it does not mention it. "In fact Tanwir al-Miqbas says the opposite in connection with Al-Hashr:7, saying that "it remained under his (i.e. Muhammads) control during his lifetime"." Now, THAT is interting, please add it to appropriate section. In any case, we seem to have a dissagrement. Please lets start talking about it to see how we can get over it. What specific changes would you request? --Striver 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just added some of the points you raised. --Striver 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Allright, look. Now you say that Sunni Tafsir belongs to the View-section, but under the Fatima-subsection, you quoted a Tafsir by Suyuti to legitimize your viewpoint. You also quoted another interpretion from minor sources. You even quote a Tafsir book in the overview section! Well, how come the major and famous Sunni-Tafsir's should be placed under the View-section, while a minor and relatively unknown Sunni-Tafsir is realiable enough to be placed under the Fatima-subsection? Now thats strange. You state that "If some tafsir does not mention it, it means nothing more than it does not mention it". Thats incorrect. It is well known that both Al-Razi, Ibn Kathir and others used narration and historical facts in order to interpret Qur'ânic passages. The historical books you quote are - no matter if you are sunni or shia - minor and relatively unknown books, and the major Sunni Tafsirs appearently does NOT find them realiable at all. In the article, you write that they "IGNORE" these sources. Thus, you indirectly are saying that its those Tafsir's who are unreliable, not those sources. Anyway, most major sunni scholars does appearently not find these narrations authentic, so why do you make it look like they do?

Here is my proposal for edit: 1) Tafsir, viewpoints and arguments is to be placed under the View's section - INCLUDING Shia POV! This also include the viewpoints of Shah Abdul-Aziz, the deobandi scholar. Don't tell me that And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it's sin is on his head is more than his own view. 2) The Abu Bakr-reign section needs a rewrite, since it make it look like Abu Bakr arranged a Coup d-Etat (i.e. he SEIZED power????), which is nothing more but the Shia view. In fact Abu Bakr was elected, which is a fact even through the Shia does not trust the election. Also, the Abu Bakr section does not mention that Abu Bakr gave Fadak as charity, which in the sight of a reader who does not know, is making it look like he seized Fadak for himself. This is however minor edits, so if you dont mind, i'll go ahead. 3) The 'Umar view section needs a minor rewrite in order to make it easier to read. Since this is also a minor edit, i'll go ahead. Please let me know if you are unstatisfied. 4) It Muawiyah II who held the caliphate in 683, and he was succeded by Marwan. So regarding Umar II, how could he held the caliphate the very same year? I am confused! 5) Regarding al-Mamouns era. Was'nt it he who restored Fadak as charity? Then howcome the quote from Wafa al Wafa states that he handed it over to the descendats of Fatima? The quote does not mention al-Mamoun by name. Are you sure that this quote in referring to Umar II instead of Al-Mamoun? 6) The arguments from Answering-Ansar.org in the Shia-Section is far to long. Please shorten it in order to make it easier to read. This article is not a debate-forum, so lets refrain from making the View-section into a long presentation of all arguments from the Sunni and the Shia. Instead, lets make it a summary of the views, proofs and arguments used by the two sects. If you shorten the argumentations from Answering-Ansar, i shall improve the Sunni-view section with sunni-arguments similiar in lenght, thus letting the reader judge. Then afterwards we will together take a look at View-section, and see if there is something we can do. Okay? Marouane 87.51.211.84 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I have performed the edits on the Umar and Abu Bakr subsections. In the Umar-subsection, i have deleted a quoted hadith because the reference was not working. Feel free to insert the quotation again if you can get the reference to work. I hope that you are statisfied. Marouane87.51.211.84 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Wow.... That came out fast. I apologize for all the spelling-mistakes i did.

Great, thanks for engaging in dialog. I reverted you earlier, but that was before i read this, sorry. Ill give you an answer soon. Again, thanks for talking about it. --Striver 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I am sorry if you felt i spoke harshly. This was simply because i thought you were'nt interested in dialog. Could'nt you please undo your reversion? I dont know how to do it. Marouane

No problem. I hate when people refuse to dialog. --Striver 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Shia POV 2

I created a new headline so that we can spare some space. I've reverted your revertion. Let me know how you feel with the my requests. Marouane —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.51.211.84 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I will address this soon, i have real life issues, and i am also involved in the Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident article, so it might take a while before we can reach a versio we both are content with. Until then, ill lett you have the article. Try giving a proposal of who you would to like it, and then, when i get back, we can continue talking about it. Also, i would recomend you to creat an accont. Peace. --Striver 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have now created an account. Thank you. I'll go ahead. I hope that you will solve the issues that you have. When you come back, i'll appreciate it if you discuss it here with me before you do major changes in the article. Don't worry, i am on vacation so i have all the time i need to perform these edits with you. I will refrain from performing anything else than minor edits in the Shia view-section. May Allah (Swt) protect you and help you solve your issues. Hamid-Masri 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Allright. I have now edited the Umar II-subsection in order to make it easier to read. I have also improved the Sunni-View section a little bit and performed edits on the Fatimah-subsection. I have provided it with the sources that claims the opposite. This is not in contradiction with me earlier requesting you to put all Tafsirs into the View-section. I just feel that IF the main article should contain Tafsir, it should contain all the important tafsir. Thank you. Bye Hamid-Masri 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, inshalla we will both be protected and helped in our lives. --Striver 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Should'nt we merge this article with Hadith of Fatima, Fadak and Abu Bakr? Hamid-Masri 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a geographical location, that article is about a specific even in time. --Striver 15:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

History section

I have perfomed some improvements on the History section. Striver, if you in any way do not agree that this material belong in this article, feel free to revert me. Thank you. Hamid-Masri 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

this was a good edit, good job. As i said before, i have no comments regarding the rest, so keep up doing a good job and sometimes in the future ill return and start talking about some points i do not agree with. Peace. --Striver 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

pleased?

I am a bit offended with this: "she ultimately became pleased with him again". Both Sahihs state explicitly that she was angry till she died. Again, i am offended by this. --Striver 14:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, brother. You are absolutely correct. Sahih Bukhari explicitly states that Fatima did not talk to Abu Bakr until she died. And i did mention that in the article! "In a narration recorded in Sahih Bukhari, Fatima died six months after this incident, and during this period, she refused to talk to Abu Bakr. However, other Sunni sources states that Abu Bakr was greatly saddened by Fatima's displeasure with him, and that she ultimately became pleased with him again. Thats just wat is actually mentioned in the narration i'd present. If this still offends you, i'll write it in another way. I dont intend to offend anyone. Hamid-Masri 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No bro, i truly do know that you did not mean to offend me, i just stated that to make you aware of how Shi'a i perceive it. Now, please do not take this the wrong way, but in my view, it is beyond a doubt that she died unhappy, and that even both your most trusted sources stand by this, even if it would be in their bias to include the other ending, not doing so being a indication that they did not view the other ending as authentic. Now, when i see other people putting both endings together, i feel it as you are ready to go to such great length in justifying the person that saddened her that you even put less regarded hadith to dispute hadith in Sahih Bukhari, and i view this as a historical revision that is insulting towards Fatimah. Now, i know that you did not do this to insult Fatimah, but rather since you prefer to tone down the conflict since the other person in it is regarded as very pious in your view. I know that you meant no harm, and i am sharing my view of it to inform you of how i see it, not to accuse you of anything, you are my brother in Islam.

Maybe this can be solved by inserting the value Sunnis put on the two Sahihs, and state that only one version is used in that, and then also present the Sunni view of the credibility of the collection in were the other narration is included?

Or even better, just state that Fatimah became angry, not mentioning for how long, and then moving the whole bit to he sub-article were we put it in greater detail?

Peace. --Striver 15:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay brother. Thank you for writing it this way. No, i do not want to put doubt upon Sahih Bukhari in any way, this is the most trusted collection in my view, and ofcourse, if Bukhari says that she did not talk to him, and Baihaqi states that she did, i believe in the version of Al-Bukhari. No doubt upon this, brother. The only reason why i posted it is to give the reader a view on the narrations about this incident, olso the one i do not actually believe in. But i understand what you are saying. I have a Sunni-Website who explains how to understand the two narrations, and this website does not view these two to be in contradiction with each other. I agree with you at your request, but should'nt we just create a Subsection under Abu Bakr's era, regarding if Fatima died unhappy with him or not? Peace 87.51.211.84 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the above comment was made by me. I forgot to sign in. Hamid-Masri 10:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Allright. I've wrote a Subsection regarding Fatimahs anger. I know that the shia view is not fairly represented, please improve this or request a particlar improvement. If you in any way disagree with what i have done, please let me know. Peace. Hamid-Masri 11:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer brother.

Ok, it is good to have all views represented, this is after all what wikipedia is about. If we now are going to in order to balance the less-well known Sunni narration, we also should include a narration that Shi'a cite. This is from Peshawar Nights:



The Bukhari narration, at least the part that she was angry till she died, is agree upon by Shi'a and Sunnis. Now, if a less agreed upon narration is to be introduced, then this one needs to be included to, so balance is reached. Also, the Bukhari narration explains that she was buried in secret and that they could not attend it, and that Ali refused to give bay'ah as long as she lived. How does the site you quoted explain that she was buried in secret if they had made peace with each other?

And yes, i agree with you that a sub-section for that time would be appropriate. Ill create one. Peace brother. --Striver 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Brother, a reason could be that Fatima acutally wanted to get buried secretly, and that this had nothing to to with Abu Bakr and Umar. But this is not a Sunni/Shia discussion, this is you and me trying to create a wikipedian page about an event in history. And regarding the tradition you quoted (the part about burning down the house), this is a late tradition and is NOT considered Sahih by Sunni's. This narration is not included in any major sunni sources, not even lesser sources such as Sunan al-Bayhaqi. And brother, i can and have provided Sunni sources rating the narration i'd present as Hasan. If you cannot do the same, then we should consider your narration as a Shia tradition. But since shia sources should be included as well as sunni sources, we can include it if you want to. But i will exclude the part regarding Umar and Abu Bakr burning down Ali and Fatimahs house, since this has nothing to do with this very event. You can cite this part as a shia source in the article regarding Fatima's anger.

- And yes! The narration that Fatima did not talk to Abu Bakr IS agreed upon amongst Sunni's. No doubt about that, and i believe in this tradition rather than the other, because in Sunni Islam, if a narration has two versions, then the one recorded in Bukhari is considered the strongest. I will go ahead on the article regarding Fatima's anger, and i will quote your narration as a shia source. Do we have an angreement? Hamid-Masri 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fatima buried in secret

I forgot to mention in the article that Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her) wished to be buried in secret. I have added that know. May Allah Almighty forbid that i forget such a elementary fact again. I hope that no of my Shia brothers reading this is offended. Hamid-Masri 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the "Disputed Tag"

Striver, when you have the time, then please write a list here regarding the edits that you request so that we can remove the Disputed Tag. Take your time brother. Hamid-Masri 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill rest my disputes for the moment, although i have my reservation. You are free to remove the tag if you prefer it. I usually concentrate on one subject at a time, and right now i am focused on Banu Qurayza and the Siege of the Banu Qurayza, so it may take a while before i return to this. take a look at the afd of the later and you will understand. Thanks for your patience, peace. --Striver 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay brother, thank you. I'll remove it then. I've read the Talk-page about the Beit Hanoun incident and Siege of the Banu Qurayza, and you are doing a great job. Please don't feel stressed by me. When you are able to return to this, we'll seek to solve our disputes. It's always a pleasure to work with you. Hamid-Masri 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, the pleasure is on both sides :) --Striver 02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunni View altered??

Someone altered the Sunni View section, and somehow changed it into a Shia response to the Sunni view. I will revert this. This is Wikipedia, not ShiaChat. We should focus on exposing the Sunni and Shi'a viewpoints, not actually argue. And the arguments posted in the Shi'a view section actually was there already. Please refrain from such edits. Hamid-Masri 14:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To avoid future edits containing personal viewpoints about the hadith of Fatimah's anger with Ali (like "this is all a result of misreading"), i will post the arabic version of the hadith. Thus Anon are free to read the arabic version and tell me what i got wrong. Anon, you are free to reject the hadith in your heart, but you can't just insert your personal viewpoint in an article at Wikipedia. 87.51.211.84 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of changing the Sunni view to a Shia response to a Sunni view. Why would a Shia hadith be quoted in the Sunni view in the first place? Second, it isn't a matter of rejecting a hadith or expressing a personal view; the hadith quoted clearly says Ali denied the accusation. If this is a section on the Sunni view, either that Shia hadith should be omitted entirely, and if it stays it should be quoted fully. Otherwise, it is entirely reasonable to say that the hadith was not quoted correctly. How is it arguing to correct and respond to an incomplete and therefore misleading quote from a Shia source, but not arguing to quote the Shia source in a section that is supposed to be about the Sunni view in the first place? I think the best solution would be to cite the Sunni view without mentioning the Shia sources or any debate about what they say or mean. Barring that, the most reasonable compromise would be to mention these sources within the Shia view and discuss what they would mean from the Shia perspective. Otherwise, discussing them within the Sunni view gives the impression of a polemic, and that is what legitimates giving a Shia response--which is not a "Shia response to the Sunni view" as you said, but a "Shia response to a non-Shia interpretation of Shia sources."

Okay, so you think that the hadith is incomplete, and you dont feel ashamed of presenting this viewpoint as a fact at Wikipedia. May i then ask you to prove this? In my view, there is no doubts: "The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah"... Who pinches somebody that is not guilty? Why would our beloved Prophet (pbuh) put his foot on Ali, if he was'nt to blame for this? Our Prophet (saw) is mistaken, or what? I truly know of your honest intentions to defend Ali, but you cannot just reject the narration as a result of "misreading" Shia sources without mentioning any proofs or evidence. Did you actually read the arabic version? There is no doubts in this that the Prophet (pbuh) blamed Ali (ra) for this incident. It is also a fact that this argument is oftenly used by Sunni websites, so posting that hadith as an argument is fully legitime. Now look around at Wikipedia, many of the Shi'a view sections contains references to Sunni sources, yet nobody is arguing against that. And regarding your accusement that the hadith is not entirely quoted, please read this and tell me which part of the hadith should be included. If you cannot do that, then the article is fine as it stands. Anyway we have several other Shia narrations confirming that Ali (ra) angered Fatima (ra) on several ocassions. You are asking me: How is it arguing to correct and respond to an incomplete and therefore misleading quote from a Shia source, but not arguing to quote the Shia source in a section that is supposed to be about the Sunni view in the first place?. The answer is very simple. You have not even once tried to prove why you view the narration, thus you can hardly think of this as anything other than your personal view. That is arguing. The quoted narration is a part of the Sunni arguments about Fadak. Thus, quoting this in the article is a presentation of the Sunni view, and nothing more. This is not arguing. By the way, i will recommend you to create an account or at least sign your comments. I have reverted the article once again. From now on, lets make our changes together so that we can solve the problem. Hamid-Masri 14:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From here on, I'll just give my suggestions in this space and let you make the edits. That will probably work more smoothly. I apologize if it seems like I was offering a personal interpretation of the Shia hadith quoted from Bihar al-Anwar. I thought you had read the entire hadith in that source and it would be apparent that I was just trying to objectively correct what that source says, not subjectively interpret it or the historical incident it describes. There are other reports about this same incident which narrate the events in a slightly different manner, and whether they are more valid than the source quoted or not is a separate issue. But the version of events in this particular report does not support the idea that Imam Ali angered Fatima. This can be illustrated with an example--and I do apologize for restating the obvious here. Let's say I tell you a rumor about one of your friends that makes you angry. By telling that rumor, I am a direct cause of your anger. But can your friend--the victim of the rumor--also be considered a cause of it? If the rumor is true, he would also be a cause of your anger, because it is his action that, when reported to you by me, made you angry. But if the rumor is false, the sole responsibility for you anger rests with me, and your friend is no more responsible for angering you than some random guy in Tokyo. With that in mind, what does this hadith claim about the truth of the rumor? In the first place, it starts out by saying "A wretched man came to Fatima, daughter of Muhammad (s), and said..." which indicates that the rumor monger had malicious intent. ("Wretched" or "lowly" and not "miserable" is the proper translation of "shaqi", as "miserable" would be "baa'is" in Arabic.) Whoever that wretch was did intend to cause anger to Fatima and ended up angering her and the Prophet (s). The hadith doesn't mention who this was (though arguably it hints at the culprit). As for Imam Ali (as), the hadith quotes him as saying in answer to the Prophet (s), "By Him who sent you with the truth as a prophet, nothing of what reached her is true, nor did I [even] entertain such [a thought]." And it quotes the Prophet as replying "You have spoken the truth, and she has spoken the truth." Once again, I do not want to give a subjective opinion or evaluate whether this version of the event is authoritative. But as an objective and unbiased statement of fact, this source is claiming exactly the opposite of what it is cited as saying: that is, it absolves Ali (as) of guilt in this matter. My suggestion would be to omit this hadith altogether. If you still feel that it should be mentioned because it is cited by Sunnis to support their view, then I think the actual meaning of the hadith does need to be mentioned. It doesn't have to be in the form of "This is how Shias respond," of course; maybe it could just be by quoting the hadith upto this point and letting the reader decide who it holds as the cause of the anger. But the introduction of the hadith should then read, "Furthermore, regarding Abu Bakr angering Fatima, Sunnis point out a couple Shi'ite hadith that can be seen to indicate that Ali angered her too on several occasions" or something similar. If that still seems to back-and-forth to you, the remaining option would be to add mention of this within the Shi'ite view; obviously, how Shi'ites reconcile hadiths of a supposedly contradictory nature is a valid part of their view, just as the Sunni View section mentions Sunni attempts to reconcile their hadiths that may seem contradictory at first sight.

The other hadith quoted from Bihar 43/147 also, I think should not be introduced as a Shi'ite hadith, but being as it is narrated from Waki' and ibn Isra'il, as a Sunni hadith quoted in a Shi'ite book. This was not unusual practice for scholars and is not valid criterion for considering something either a Sunni or a Shia hadith. That determination is based not on which scholar quotes a hadith, but on the criteria that scholar uses to separate valid from invalid hadiths. It is entirely possible that a Shia hadith will contain one Sunni narrator but still be able to be considered a Shia hadith because it fulfills those criteria, but being quoted by a Shia scholar doesn't make it a Shia hadith by itself. If Bihar al-Anwar, or Shaykh Saduq, quotes Bukhari, that does not convert the hadith to a Shia hadith; if ibn Taymiyyah quotes a Shia source, that does not automatically make it a Wahhabi hadith. With this hadith as well, it would not be out of place to discuss it within the Shia Views section, as in addition to being a non-Shia hadith, it is also blatantly ahistorical, since Abu Zar (ra) had no recorded migration to Abyssinia.

These are my suggestions. I will leave the edits up to you, and I'm sorry if I didn't initially adhere to Wikipedia etiquette, because I am new here. Peace.

Thank you for engaging in dialogue. I am very grateful for that. It is always a pleasure to work with a man engaging in dialogue. Now firstly, to make sure that you understand my intentions, i will try to have a conversation with you here, and work that we can reach our goal, which is making the article as factual as possible. First of all, regarding the word "Shaqi". Here is what the dictionary says: "Shaqiy شقي; unhappy, unlucky, miserable, wretched, damned, wretch, villain, culprit, criminal, scoundrel, rogue, nasty, naughty, mischievous". So initially, miserable seems as an acceptable translation. However, i could make a note to the word, so that the article mentions all of the meanings attributed to "Shaqi". Would that be okay? Secondly, regarding the hadith itself. If we shoudl have it in the article, then we should have the enitre hadith. Since your english is probably better than mine, please provide us with a proper translation to this: "فقال علي : بلى يا رسول الله قال : فقال : فما دعاك إلى ما صنعت ؟ فقال علي : والذي بعثك بالحق نبيا ما كان مني مما بلغها شئ ولا حدثت بها نفسي فقال النبي صلى الله عليه واله : صدقت وصدقت". Then we will either put this as a part of the narrations, else we will delete it entirely. We'll see then. Writing this Furthermore, regarding Abu Bakr angering Fatima, Sunnis point out a couple Shi'ite hadith that can be seen to indicate that Ali angered her too on several occasions as an introduction to the mentioned narrations is all okay. I will do that right away!

And you are correct in your observation about the other narration, but... There are many, many mawdoo', gharib and da'if ahadith amongst both the Sunni and the Shi'a source. Even some of the classical history works as Tabaqat ibn Sa'd contains ahadith with narrators recognized as Shi'a by all Shias. Answering-Ansar.org was discussing this point in an article about Umm Kulthum's (ra) marriage. You can read this here. In that article, the AA team judges a narration as a sunni narration, even though its isnad is Anas ibn Iyad El Laythee - Jaafar al-Sadiq - Mohammad al-Baqir. Correct me if i got anything wrong. According to this standard, a narration is a sunni naration if it is quoted as such by a sunni scholar. You write: "If Bihar al-Anwar, or Shaykh Saduq, quotes Bukhari, that does not convert the hadith to a Shia hadith; if ibn Taymiyyah quotes a Shia source, that does not automatically make it a Wahhabi hadith", but as i see it, this argument it useless, unless Allamah Majlisi clearly stated that he was citing a Sunni source? If he did'nt, then i view the narration as a shia narration, not that it makes it an authentic narration among Shi'as. I hope you understand me. Hamid-Masri 14:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have performed some lesser edits. How do you feel with these? Hamid-Masri 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those edits; they are an improvement. For "shaqi" I think the context of of the hadith clearly supports "wretch", and although unlucky and miserable are among its meanings, the connotation of the word is negative. In any case, if you prefer to keep "miserable" and have the explanation in a footnote, I don't have an issue with it, even if it is contrary to the context (siyaaq) of the hadith. For the translation of the hadith, how is this? "So Ali said, 'Yes, O Messenger of Allah.' He [the Prophet] said, 'So what made you do what you did?' Ali said, '[I swear] by Him who sent you with the truth as a prophet, none of what reached her is true, nor did I [even] entertain that thought.' At that the Prophet (s) said, 'You spoke the truth, and she spoke the truth.'" As for determining whether a hadith is a Sunni or Shia hadith, I read the answering-ansar article and I think their point, though they don't make it effectively, is basically valid. A scholar doesn't need to explicitly state he is quoting a hadith from another school of thought. Within any school of thought, the criteria on which hadiths are accepted or rejected are clear, and that should serve as determinant of whether a particular hadith can legitimately be seen as belonging to that school of thought. There are innumerable Shia narrators found in Bukhari and other Sunni books, and their narrations are Sunni hadiths. There are numerous Sunni narrators (eg. al-Sukuni), whose hadiths, found in Shia sources, could legitimately be considered Shia narrations. Waki` and ibn Isra'il are not such narrators, as is demonstrated by their not figuring in Shia isnads. For example, Waki`, in spite of being such a prominent scholar and muhaddith, is not even mentioned in Shia rijal books in terms of being reliable or otherwise, which is because his traditions were not within the Shia tradition. In any case, this too is not a big deal for me; if you aren't convinced you can leave it as it is and if I get the chance I'll try to revise the "Shia View" section (and post it in the discussion section) to make it more comprehensive. Hope that's helpful. Two more quick points: (1) Was I able to clarify why I think it was wrong to suggest that it was only an "opinion" that the hadith does not claim Ali angered Fatima? (2) It wasn't Allamah Majlisi who cited a Sunni source, but the source he quoted--Shaykh Saduq, a scholar of the fourth century AH who used to quote extensively from both Shia and Sunni sources in his secondary hadith collections. In view of that, it is that much more improper to say that a hadith quoted by him should be assumed to be Shia unless he explicitly states it is Sunni. Also note that in respect to "fadaa'il" of ahl al-bayt it was common for Shia authors of all eras to quote from Sunni scholars.

I can accept your translation, and yes, you were able to clarify why you felt what you felt. All i wanted you to do was telling me why. I will perform some edits with regards to the hadith. Please let me know how you feel about the edits i'll perform. Regarding the second hadith; the mentioned hadith from Tabaqat ibn Sa'd have an exclusively shia isnad but still AA view it as a sunni narration, because it is mentioned by a sunni scholar in a sunni book. If you find this argument valid, then howcome is the same not the case among Shia scholars? Anyway, if we assume that the narration is a shia narration, it does'nt make it a valid argument against the Shi'a, since it depends on the hadith is consideres reliable or not. For example, a lot of ahadith found in both Sunni and Shia books is claiming that the Qur'ân has been a victim of Tahreef. But it is invalid for a Sunni to claim that Shi'as support the idea of tahreef, since the Shi'a does find ahadith reliable if they contradict the Qur'ân. So claiming this a shi3a narration does not make it a valid argument against the Shia. Anyway, is it your opinion that if all person in a random isnad is mentioned in Shia rijjal books, then this makes it a shi3a narration? Anyway, i will mention these as ahadith from Shi'a sources instead of mentioning these as shi'a ahadith. Hope thats okay. Bless, Hamid-Masri 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of Fatimah's anger with Ali

Since the actual statements of the ahadith regarding this subject is disputed, i suggest that we create a new article especially about this subject, in which these ahadith will be discussed. Then we could make a reference to it in this article, instead of simply summarizing the ahadith. Anyone disagree? Hamid-Masri 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Then i'll go ahead. Hamid-Masri 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fadak isnt in Chaybar!

It is far in the north of Chaybar.--212.34.68.23 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide us with evidences?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fadak/Archive_1&oldid=154172423"