This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Muslim history Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim history task force (assessed as High-importance). History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

As it currently stands, this article is a wonderfully horrific demonstration of what happens to pages under an edit war. It makes little or no sense to someone who is not already unfamiliar with the issue. Rewrite needs to focus on accessibility to the general reader rather than catering to the ideological spats between readers belonging to related faiths. Dividing the article into shia vs sunni beliefs on the subject starting with background as to what both faiths agree on regarding the history of the issue and relationships between persons involved would be majorly beneficial.

I'm going to separate the Sunni and Shia views on this matter and revise the article in the next few days, God willing. Albertatiran (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the Sunni and Shia views. For the most part, I just reordered the text and dragged different sentences into different sections. I also edited the intro to better introduce the characters and added a couple of new Shia references. Albertatiran (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully replace the primary sources in this article with more reliable ones. Albertatiran (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably safe to say that the article's name is terrible. I'd like to change that to "Alleged attack on Fatimah's house" which is much more appropriate. I don't expect this to be a controversial change... Albertatiran (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it truly only “alleged,” though? It appears that both early Sunni and Shia sources agree that it happened, as well as modern academic sources. Veritaes Unam (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veritaes Unam, I guess the problem is that dropping the term "alleged" might be considered a contraversial name change which would require a lenghty process to reach (a potentially elusive) consensus.

I disagree with "alleged", it has been talked about in various sources. If you think it needs to change, "Event of Fatimah House" could be good. Of course, it is better to vote for this change. M.Nadian (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

because Some source said just part of this event I think "Event of Fatimah House" is better forom others one. M.Nadian (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Nadian: Hi! While I agree that we should see if there is a better title out there, one possible criticism of Event of Fatimah house or the previous title Umar at Fatimah's house is that they might not be sufficiently descriptive because they leave out perhaps the most important bit of information, i.e., the violence or the allegations of it. Albertatiran (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the alleged somewhat diminishes the value of the article in the mind of the reader. I try to find better title. M.Nadian (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowsky Mountain: Hi! There appear to be at least two reported confrontations at Fatimah's house. The first one took place almost immediately after the Saqifah meeting and is the one that also appears in several Sunni sources with the story of Zubayr being disarmed. The last one might have happened much later, i.e., when Abu Bakr's boycott had isolated Ali (and apparently after the Fadak speech). So I moved your new paragraph to Background where the Zubayr story currently is. Also did some copy editing. Feel free to undo or discuss here if you think this is incorrect. Lastly, a request for the sake of WP:V: Could you please add the publication year to al-Tabari (and even better a link to the corresponding page in the pdf of the book)? Currently, I have put 1990 but that doesn't look right. Albertatiran (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albertatiran, thanks for making the updates based on my changes! The publication year of the book I had been using for reference was 1990, as that was when the translated edition I had been looking at was published. The original would, of course, have been published about a thousand years earlier :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's your own interpretation of the reported events. Many of the versions that mention Zubayr being disarmed also mention Ali giving his allegiance to Abu Bakr in the very same day as in Musa ibn Uqba's very early and authentic version in Kitab al-Maghazi for example. Which means that they actually contradict each other and even outrightly denies that the second one happened as a separate event. It's obviously represented here as a one event with different interpretation to what actually happened. On the top of the earliest version representing it as a one event, the Sunni sources don't usually mention anything about Fatima or Ali being beaten up so these are likely Shia Exaggerations to the very same event and to the way Ali gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, above is an example of editorial preferences, which is perfectly acceptable. It's you, by contrast, who is giving your interpretation on the basis of unreliable (primary) sources. Albertatiran (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maghazi Musa ibn Uqba is unreliable? A work Written almost less than a century after the death of Muhammad and is based on Letters and Books written by him and his companions is unreliable but 20th-21th century contromperory Shia and some Western writers are. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Maghazi is a primary source and hence unreliable for Wikipedia, which largely relies on academic rather than polemic material. See WP:RS and MOS:ISLAM and related guidelines. Albertatiran (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's full of Shia(and even outright Twelver) writers such as Vinay Khetia, Abbas and al-Jawhari (d. 935) being represented as Neutral/Secular and even Sunni sources/scholars says everything you need to know about this page and that ideology's obvious total bankruptcy. ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains both sides (Shia and Sunni) from their respective sources without taking sides. That's the definition of neutrality in WP:NPOV. Albertatiran (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is al-Jawhari called Sunni here then? and why is the Sunni section full of Shia sources instead of Sunni ones? ~2025-38592-90 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Shia or Sunni sources used in this article, only academic ones. Could you be more specific about your claim? Regarding al-Jawhari, he is not "called Sunni here" but that might be implied by the text. The content about al-Jawhari seems to be taken from Soufi's PhD dissertation. The right course of action would be to look this up in her dissertation and what she thinks of al-Jawhari. Then we can decide on what to do. Albertatiran (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the repetitiveness in the lead. Defining the attack on Fatima's house as an attack on the house of Fatima is poor prose; quite frankly, to me it looks ridiculous.

@Albertatiran, could you please explain why this

The attack on Fatima's house refers to a disputed violent attack on the house of Fatima, daughter of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.^[1] The attack is said to have taken place shortly after the death of Muhammad in 11 AH (632 CE) and was instigated by his successor Abu Bakr and led by Umar, another companion.

seems more clear to you than this

The house of Fatima, daughter of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, is said to have been attacked shortly after the death of Muhammad in 11 AH (632 CE). The attack is said to have been instigated by his successor, Abu Bakr, and led by Umar, another companion.

Perhaps we can find a common ground. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposed version. The title is clearly a description rather than a proper name. We should avoid such repetitive wording. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for explaining your edit. To me, the attack on Fatima's house is defined and put into context by the rest of the opening sentence. So while the wording might be awkward (and might require some polish), it seems more informative than the proposed version. However, if there is enough support for the new version, then I can live with that too. Albertatiran (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is retained in the proposed version, so I do not see how the former version is more informative. The disputes are already covered in the lead. When we know that the wording will be awkward and repetitive, it is best to describe rather than try to define. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]