Talk:Attack on Fatima's house

1506:, we need to include an entire chain of sources? I don't want to get into whether Bukhari's book can be cited here; that's not under discussion in this section. It seems like you're using this section to justify you adding your quote from Bukhari on the other page, or that you simply want to remove Tabari's quote from this page because you don't like it -- even though it is extremely relevant to this page. I have cited the necessary Knowledge protocols which state that this quote can stay. I don't want to keep going in circles on this. According to Knowledge standards, the quote from Tabari's book can stay. I am not involved in your discussion regarding the quote from Bukhari's book on the other page. 989:

Second, that quote from Umar is not only in Tabari's book. There are also references on this page of that quote from Umar from works by Ibn Abd Rabboh, Ibn Abi Shayba, Josef W. Meri, and Ibn Qutaybah. In general, a quote cannot be removed from Knowledge just because one person does not like it, especially when it is supported by multiple references, as I indicated above. If you want to remove Tabari's quote from this page, then why would you not also want to remove the quotes/references from the other four authors that contain the same or very similar information? And if you did want to remove all the references about this event from this page, then that would simply be needlessly hiding information.

1303:: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." Let's see whether Tabari's work fits this definition: 1458:, is a requirement for secondary sources) and may be focused on just trying to quote others, thus meaning Bukhari's book may not be a secondary source. Tabari's book, however, does have his own thinking, meaning that it is a secondary source. Anyway, it seems that now you're mainly focused on trying to prove that Bukhari is not a primary source so that you can add your changes back to the other page you mentioned. I am not aware of the specifics of exactly what you are trying to add to that page, but it seems that that discussion would be better held with editors on that page's talk page. 1111:

be continued to be written then hadith on religion and sexuality should also be written. There are many scholars who classify some hadith books such as al-Bani and also panel of Muslim scholars who classify hadiths. It is you who want to keep it written here so you hav to provide its authenticity otherwise it should be removed in accordance with Knowledge guidelines. I think you want to keep it despite clear guidelines of Knowledge. Because first you claimed that it is not hadith. When I proved that you were false. You started giving unclear arguments. Please reply fast.

1154:

source then sahih Bukhara is also secondary source because both were written in the meantime. How not? Furthermore you said that if You provide a source which says that it is authentic I’ll say it unreliable. Because you don’t have a source which classes it authentic.actually you want some hadiths should be stayed which though fabricated please you and remove authentic hadiths. I fear your good faith. Whyare cherry picking? Why don’t you answer every point of me and continue babbling same thing while I answer your every point?

1322:: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Tabari's book contains his "own thinking", but Bukhari's book likely doesn't (his is meant to just be "Hadiths"). Thus, Tabari's book is a secondary source, but Bukhari's book doesn't fit the definition of a secondary source. 953:

Hadith from Muhammad somewhere in Tabari's book. If that's the case, then just because a Hadith of Muhammad exists in Tabari's book doesn't mean that Tabari cannot be quoted anywhere on Knowledge. If you want to continue to claim that there is a Hadith from Muhammad from Tabari's book on this page, then please point it out exactly. Otherwise, we can conclude that the quote from Tabari's book is not a Hadith of Muhammad (which is pretty obvious from looking at the quote).

760:

this statement. As for Bukhari, if it was written centuries after the death of Prophet Muhammad, then how could it be a primary source? In general for authentic Hadiths, one could potentially make the argument that if a saying of the Prophet was passed down, generation after generation, until it was eventually published in a Hadith book, then that could be a primary source. But Tabari's work is a history book, and it contains more than just Hadiths.

298: 2294: 1095:

provided a reliable source that confirms the statement to be true, like Knowledge standards go by, so the quote from Tabari's book can stay. It is unreasonable to state that every single action of a contemporary of Muhammad must be cited by a book on the science of Hadith, and even if such a book was provided, then some people would claim that it was not reliable and would want a different source.

156: 209: 188: 2009:… Hossein Modarressi in his incisive analysis of the text and its alleged compiler describes the book as filled with anachronisms such as a prediction of black banners arriving from the East which would mark the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty. Furthermore, Modarressi asserts that the text contains theological conceptions of the Imamate which were only formulated much later. 22: 90: 80: 53: 1173:, quotes from "Sahabah" about Islamic law count as Hadith. The quote from Tabari's book is not Islamic law. Further, according to Knowledge, Tabari's book is a book of history, not a book of Hadith, while Bukhari's book is a book of Hadith. They are two different types of books, so they have different standards. Look at the Knowledge page for Tabari's book: 219: 541:

are to be examined. I’m not saying that you should write debate of Muslim scholars on the chain. You should cite one secondary source of Muslim classifying weather hadith is sahih( authentic) or Maudu (fabricated). You can see the guidelines I mentioned which says that hadith’s authencity should be written for your help i again write. Please reply fast.

825:

Muhammad is hadith" would seem to mean that you wouldn't want any history of Muhammad to be on Knowledge. Third, there is a difference between Tabari and Bukhari; they are not the same types of works of literature. According to Knowledge, Bukhari's work is a "hadith collection" (sic), while Tabari's work is a "historical chronicle" (sic).

1631:, where a similar phrase was attempted to be inserted into the lead section until an administrator(s) had to get involved and tell that editor to stop inserting the phrase. If the article body clearly establishes that something is not limited to Shia beliefs, it is not appropriate to insert that limitation into the lead section. 1522:

of chain, I’m saying at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated. Fourthly which history book other than hadith has chains, can you point any one? Answer these four points separately. Otherwise I fear your good faith and will think you don’t want to resolve the issue.

2055:, "source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." The obvious meaning of the above source quotations is that the text may not have belonged to the period to which it was attributed. This is exactly what the sentence which you are disputing states. 1553:

You said that tabari includes his own view so it is secondary sourc. I’ve proved that you are false. Now how can you say that tabari is secondary source? Secondly all Knowledge articles follow same guidelines, so one page can be cited for guideline so one can use that article of sahih Bukhara to make

1537:

Can you please cite a specific Knowledge guideline that states that "at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated"? Anyway, even if Tabari was a primary source, then: 1) I have provided as secondary source that contains the quote from Tabari, 2) Knowledge does

1283:

One original research can not justify other original research. About primary sources it is guideline that it should not be written too nearly after event. By this definition since this event happened after Muhammad but both books are written in the meantime. So using anology like yours it can be said

1047:

Dear, you should tell one scholarly view which tells that whwther it is authentic or fabricated in accordance with Knowledge guidelines. Personal interpretation is original research. The same hadith which were deleted on religion and sexuality were also classed authentic by me as I’m also Muslim. But

910:

This is the quote from Tabari's book in this article: "Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out

862:

Please reply fast You are dodging the issue. So answer me of every point following. 1-Hadith require that their authenticity should be given by at least one muslimso that it can be clarified that it is authentic or fabricated. It is according to Knowledge guidelines you can see. Isn’t it? 2-At-tabari

732:

Dear, you are making a conclusion from his birth. That etc. I already mentioned that is original research. You cannot give your own interpretation that book was written in tenth century. Furthermore sahih Bukhara was also written in the same time. By that it can be concluded that sahih Bukhara is not

596:

The earliest still surviving biography of Muhammad is ibn hisham. Do you think that it is secondary source? Sahih Bukhara was written in 9th century. Do you have reference which tells age of tabari collection. Is it secondary source. Do you have a reference which says that books quoted on article are

1521:

You said that tabari includes his own view so it is secondary sourc. I’ve proved that you are false. Now how can you say that tabari is secondary source? Secondly all Knowledge articles follow same guidelines, so one page can be cited for guideline. Thirdly when does I state to give whole discussion

1110:

Why are you obdurating despite clear guidelines of Knowledge. You cannot provide a single source which says that hadith is authentic. The source you provide may mention the event but does not state it to be authentic. It is not my view that authenticity should be given. If you think that this should

1004:

I’m saying to give authenticity by at least one Muslim who tells that it is authentic or fabricated as accordance with Knowledge guidelines. Otherwise it is original research ought to be removed. Previously I added hadiths on religion and sexuality, they removed them citing the same reason. So being

988:

First of all, the paragraph from Tabari on this page is not just a quote from Umar. It is a paragraph that describes Umar's actions as well as something he said. If you want to remove everything from Knowledge that describes the actions of Umar, then many parts of Knowledge would have to be removed.

972:

It proves that quotes I removed are hadith. I had pointed many times that they are hadith and proved. You are still dodging and beating around the bush. Can you not understand the matter collectively rather than cherry picking of my words. Please Reply fast. So hadith should be confirmed wether they

688:

page states that Tabari was born in the winter of 838/839, so stating that his book was published in the tenth century is reasonable. It is generally accepted that the event on this page happened in 632 CE (as this event took place shortly after the death of Prophet Muhammad), and if Tabari was born

452:

It is unrealistic to state that every reference on a Knowledge page needs to include the entire chain of narrators of that reference. If that were the case, then Knowledge pages and/or sources would be extremely cluttered with information about the references, rather than stating the actual content.

2560:

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.,

2113:

It is surely not what you described in the article. It is subject to interpretation. If you try explaining to me why the above quote "means" the same thing as you wrote, I can surely come up another argument why what is quoted does NOT imply what you suggested in your edit. And that is EXACTLY what

1078:

Dear! You are again giving personal interpretation. He may say it. But it is not a book on the science of Hadith. Furthermore we require a Muslim person who clearly States that whether chain of this hadith is authentic or fabricated. It does not state this. Otherwise it would be improper synthesis.

819:

Actually history of Muhammad is hadith. And tabari includes history of Muhammad so it is hadith. You are not catching the point. You said that tabari was written too later to be primary source. As I have told Bukhara was also written later so it must also be not be primary source, but it is. Please

660:

Knowledge itself does not have definitions. All these are referenced. You have to provide that reference. Furthermore you have to provide referenc that tabari or related sources were written in the 10th century and that event happened by that time. Furthermore on the basis of two sources you cannot

1618:

The time frame in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article has been attempted to be changed from "shortly after Muhammad's death" to "after the Saqifah assembly chose Abu Bakr as caliph". Stating that the event took place "shortly after Muhammad's death" easily establishes the time

1243:

Dear! Google cannot be reliable, there are thousands of things on google which would be still considered ineligible to be added on Knowledge. My point is that two books are written at the mean time how that can be one can be considered primary source while other secondary source in accordance with

1204:

Knowledge does not believe in original research. Other articles which are not referenced are also original research. You have to provide a reference about your view. Secondly, sahih Bukhara and tabari are written in the meantime, you agreed. How one can be classed as primary while other secondary.

1031:

If you are looking for one Muslim to tell you that Umar did say and do that, then I can tell you that it is true, as I am a Muslim. If you mean providing at least one scholarly source that Umar did indeed do and say what this article says he did, then there are already many such references on this

759:

When you say that I am "making a conclusion from his birth," are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume that Tabari's book was written after he was born? I am saying that, according to Knowledge, Tabari's work was published in the tenth century, and the referenced date of Tabari's birth fits

540:

Hadith is primary source you can see. If not allow me to write hadiths on every article. By the way they were written at least hundred years later. You cannot say by yourself that this is primary or secondary, according to Knowledge guidelines hadith are considered primary source.Secondly, hadiths

1501:

Almost all history books are based upon history that the authors have learned from someone. You don't cite any evidence to call the quote from Tabari's book "fabricated." I'm not saying that authenticity is never needed (of course it is needed); I'm saying that for Knowledge, history books can be

1485:

It explains that authenticity should be needed like other hadiths. But you are refusing to listen. It would be better to answer rather than speaking round about. Why don’t you answer the question rather stick to leave it???????? Actually in Islam as well as guidelines of Knowledge authenticity is

1389:

I’m saying that since they both are similar so they are same type of source. In accordance with this if Bukhara cannot be written then tabari can also not be written. And if tabari can be written Bukhara can also be written. I have already mentioned earlier about removal of quotes of Bukhara on a

1094:

If you require an analysis of the chain of every single Hadith that is mentioned on Knowledge, then you will have to remove large parts of Knowledge. I don't want to keep going in circles about this; it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to avoid admitting that the statement is authentic. I

952:

It seems like you're the one dodging the question. You seem to claim that there is a Hadith from Muhammad from Tabari's book on this page. I'm simply asking you to point it out. You're not exactly clear what exactly your reference says, but at the least it may claim that there exists at least one

418:

is known to be a Shia' not Sunni (read his article). Mistakes such as mislabeling al-Masudi is why it is best to rely on secondary academic sources that summarizes the Sunni/Shia views about this incident, not your own selection of hadiths. As for the chain of narrators, it is sometimes essential

2075:

states to "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". Nowhere in the quote above is there any such mention. The content has not been rephrased. It has clearly been interpreted which is clearly a violation of

1405:

I'm not sure what exactly happened with your quotes from Bukhari's book on the other page, but I'm not aware of any formal Knowledge policy that states that a chain of narrators must be given for Hadiths, as you requested was mentioned for your quotes from Bukhari's book. However, even if such a

824:

First of all, if you're claiming that Tabari's work should not be quoted because of any likeness to Bukhari's work, then that comparison does not carry weight because Bukhari's work is quoted on various Knowledge pages. Second, if you don't want to quote any hadiths, then saying that "history of

2378:

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

1626:

The insertion of the phrase "According to Shia beliefs" has been attempted to be inserted into the first paragraph. This is not appropriate, as, later in the article, it clearly states that Ibrahim al-Nazzam, a Mu'tazilite, had the same belief. There was a similar dispute on the related article

1153:

You are not giving a single source or Knowledge guidelines which say that it is not hadith. Furthermore I’ve given source which tells that it is hadith though less authoritative. Furthermore I have given Knowledge guideline which tells that it needs authenticity. Please reply if it is secondary

878:

The claim that Tabari's work only consists of Hadith is false. As I mentioned before, Knowledge considers Tabari's work to be a history book, not a book of Hadith. Also, Knowledge's guidelines on Hadiths only apply to sayings of Muhammad. The quote from Tabari in this article is not a saying of

775:

There is contradiction in your saying. You are saying it is primary then saying not primary. Sahih Bukhara was written in the meantime of tabari.if Bukhara is primary source in accordance with Knowledge guidelines. Then tabari is also primaryby using same anology you interpreted when tabari was

1263:

then that doesn't mean that Tabari's book is a primary source, because Bukhari's book is meant to be a book of Hadith while Tabari's book is meant to be a book of history. Also, Google Books is generally considered acceptable on Knowledge. :) (By the way, it is common for Knowledge articles to

2379:

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.

2592:, 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 :) 803:

primary sources, but one could make the argument that they are potentially primary sources. Tabari isn't a Hadith book, though, so unless you can prove that Tabari was present at an event that took place around 200 years before he was born, Tabari's book is not a primary source.

1429:

Analogy is used to see wether a source is primary or secondary. The analogy which you used to prove that tabari is secondary. Same anology is used to prove that Bukhara is secondary. If you don’t agree then tabari is also primary. Plz reply fast.05:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1558:. Fourthly which history book other than hadith has Sanad (chain of narrators from event to writer), can you point any one? Answer these four points separately. Otherwise I’ll think you are not editing in good faith and will think you don’t want to resolve the issue. 1477:

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their

1130:, secondary sources are acceptable. 3) To reinforce the quote from Tabari's book, I gave a clear, "scholarly" tertiary source which confirms the quote from Tabari's book. Based on all of this, this quote from Tabari's book is acceptable to stay on Knowledge. I think 1581:

Tabari was a primary source, then 1) the other book I mentioned would be a secondary source, thus making it acceptable for this page, and 2) being a primary source still wouldn't exclude Tabari from this page, as Tabari's book is frequently cited on Knowledge.

1453:

Just because Tabari is secondary doesn't mean that Bukhari is as well, because they are different types of sources. Either argument could be made for Bukhari -- Bukhari's book, for example, may not have "an author's own thinking" (which, according to

572:

is "an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study." The "time under study" of this article is the attack on the house of Ali and Fatimah in 632 CE.

2307:

to say that the quote in question is suggesting that it was a possible later suggestion. By saying that the conceptions were conceived much later- that is exactly what the quote is saying. So my opinion would be to leave the article as it was.

2403:

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.

911:

with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." Can you please point out which part of that quote from Tabari's book is the words, actions, or approval of Muhammad?

362:

The hadith narratives do not give its Sanad (chain of narrators from the event to the writer) of book. It should write this. Furthermore there should be told that weather its chain is authentic which amounts to the reliability of narrative.

1690:

I am actually confused by your revert. You stated that your version more closely aligned with guidelines regarding opening paragraphs, but this one includes far more detail than what was there previously. Could you clarify what you

2162:

Instead of shooting me questions about my understanding of it, please point out the EXACT part of the quote that you have "paraphrased". If you cannot be straight and clear, I will assume that what we are discussing is indeed

311: 516:

They're not primary sources. Many of the works cited in the "Narration of the event in Sunni historical books" section were written hundreds of years after the event occurred. Also, the part about Masudi has been fixed.

2214:, I have reverted good faith edits by you. You have opted for 'request for an impartial third opinion' saying that you 'no longer believe that continuing the discussion'. So, please be patient and wait for out come of 607:

is: "the record of the words, actions, and the silent approval, of the Islamic prophet Muhammad." The only thing that could be considered a Hadith on this page is in the "Background" section. As for Tabari's work,

629:

Dear, Knowledge itself is not source. We have to rely on published reliable secondary sources to base a claim. So if you don’t have such source then it’s original research needed to be removed. Please reply fast.

2440:

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...

1554:

claim that here also authenticity is needed. Thirdly when does I state to give whole discussion of chain, I’m saying at least one Muslim scholar should clarify that whether it is authentic or fabricated. See

2183:

So your argument has been that the quotes do not have the meaning that has been attributed to them in the article. Yet you are unable to suggest an alternative meaning nor a reason why it would be ambiguous?

894:

Your knowledge about hadith is very weak. Actions and tacit of Muhammad are also hadith. As I have pointed the source which says that it is hadith. But you are simply asserting and pretending youcannot

1658:, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics. Anyone, interested, and having any other thought is free to discuss it here before making any change to the lead.-- 1978:

The text in the article that speaks about the book Sulaym ibn Qays being a later creation, does not seem to be backed up by the reference itself i.e pages 60-63 of . I propose we remove that detail.

1803:. How can both argument be true, it seems you are trying to contest the edit for sake of contesting it, and shifting the goal-posts as per convenience. I still stand by the premises of my edit, i.e. 2477:

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.

1763:

had inappropriately gone into specifics. However, that paragraph had merely established the setting and barest facts of the event and was actually only a sentence long (note that a paragraph

2573:: 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. 2473:, 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. 1623:, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics. Saqifa is mentioned in the "Background" section, where it is more appropriate to go into more detail. 1614:

Hello, as some of you may have noticed, there have been some back-and-forth edits regarding the lead section of the article. To avoid an edit war, I would like to address these issues:

1716:

Thanks, for waiting on this (though not very long), I missed this one. Please, be patient and don't act in haste, at times people may miss the conversation or may be busy in real life.

2186:

I'm sorry, but I no longer believe that continuing the discussion as we currently are will be useful to resolving our disagreement. I've therefore placed a request for an impartial

577:, for example, was published in the tenth century, hundreds of years after the event, and therefore is not a primary source. In addition, none of the references about the event are 1284:

that sahih Bukhara is telling an earlier event so it is not primary source but tabari is telling a later event so it is primary for that event for that event. Please reply fast.

384:

There is a contradiction between your edit summary and content in the talk page. Now, what is the problem, original research or a chain of narrators? I propose you that read the

165: 63: 1063:

Sure! It's confirmed on page 44 of "Parable and Politics in Early Islamic History: The Rashidun Caliphs" by Tayeb El-Hibri, published by Columbia University Press in 2010.

1759:. Regarding your revert, yes you had cut down the lead significantly, but that wasn't the justification for your original edit. Your stated problem was that the previous 2631: 2005:

However, al-Kashshī makes no mention of a book of traditions attributed to Sulaym. The earliest reference to this text can be found in al-Nu‘mānī’s (4th/11th century)

364: 170: 2520:

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.

2569:

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

2621: 136: 1259:

Tabari's book is not a primary source because it was written hundreds of years after the event. Bukhari's book may not be a primary source either, in that case.

863:

is hadith according to second source I have given. 3- so hadith cannot be quoted without its authenticity according to Knowledge guidelines. Please reply fast.

1318:

From this, we can clearly see that Tabari's book is not a primary source on the event. Now let's look at Knowledge's definition of a secondary source, found at

1126:

1) Not every action of someone who met Muhammad is a Hadith. 2) Tabari's book is a secondary source, not a primary source. According to Knowledge guidelines at

1811:), the new lead being proposed by you goes into unnecessary adjectives and also adds conclusive statement about it being uncertain, which I think is a bit of 926:

I have given source which tells that narratives of Muslims immediate to Muhammad is hadith. You can see reference of oxford. And you are still dodging. ???

1473:

Actually you are trying to prove that tabari and Bukhara are not similar so that you can keep the fabricated quote here. But you have failed to prove this.

2636: 1005:

neutral, will you contest to re-add those hadiths and these hadiths both. Or being neutral you will support removing those hadiths as well as these,???

645:

I'm not trying to claim that Knowledge is a source; I'm stating what Knowledge's definitions of the mentioned terms ("primary source" and "Hadith") are.

2651: 2626: 1847:. That is not an issue with the other version, as I had previously stated. By the way, this is the fourth time you've insinuated that I've acted in 314: 275: 265: 2455:

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.

2616: 1595:

4. Does Tabari have a chain of narrators? Even if it does, then the book that I mentioned that cites Tabari's book could count as a history book.

479:

Sure, but most articles on wikipedia are written based on secondary sources while hadith is a primary source. The fact that you keep including

146: 388:. All the contents that you deleted, have RS. I warn you for removing to contents with RS. About chaining of narrators, this is wikipedia not 2656: 1936:

1. What change are you referring to? Aside from reverts due to tardy replies, I haven't made any meaningful edits to this article in months.

1577:

1. Regardless of whether Tabari is a primary or secondary source, I have provided a recent book that mentions the quote from Tabari's book.

1414:. They're not the same type of source. Just because two books are from the same time period doesn't mean they're the same type of source. 2641: 1908:. Now, you need to answer why it was changed without any discussion and why the version being suggested by you is the better version.-- 1726:, when it actually cut downs the lead by 237‎ bytes. Will you please care to elaborate? Meanwhile, I'm reverting your AGF reversion.-- 1349:

was tabari close to this event or Bukhara closed to that event. It was tabari not Bukhara since Muhammad view is older than the event.

612:

was published in the 10th century, according to Knowledge. The event on this page took place in 632 CE, which is the seventh century.

241: 2646: 2132: 1174: 1486:

needed. But if it is not needed (Let’s suppose because of you) then you have to say that for Bukhara also it should not be needed.

2228: 1918: 1825: 1736: 1668: 112: 453:

This page is not an analysis of the authenticity of scholarly books; it is a page describing the event and related information.

1189:(emphasis added). Thus, according to Knowledge standards, Tabari's book is not a book of Hadith, but rather a book of history. 2534:

I agree, but the alleged somewhat diminishes the value of the article in the mind of the reader. I try to find better title.

2233: 1923: 1830: 1741: 1673: 820:

reply fast. Furthermore one of the acceptable less authoritative hadith is of Muslims after Muhammad such as his companions.

2251: 1445: 1221: 1020: 941: 791: 748: 693:

after this event took place, his book (published decades after his birth) could not be a primary source about this event.

556: 232: 193: 1225: 2383:

I'm going to separate the Sunni and Shia views on this matter and revise the article in the next few days, God willing.

33: 1390:

particular page. Since they both are equal. So both should be given equal coverage. What is your point. Plz reply fast.

1848: 103: 58: 419:

because the so-called "Sunni" sources occasionally include accounts of Shia (or proto-Shia) historians. For example,

111:-related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2597: 1640: 1600: 1543: 1511: 1463: 1419: 1379: 1359:

It shows that tabari and Bukhara are of the same type in accordance with Knowledge guidelines. Please reply fast.

1327: 1273: 1233: 1194: 1143: 1100: 1068: 1037: 994: 958: 916: 884: 830: 809: 765: 698: 650: 617: 586: 522: 483:

with sunni sources shows that you didn't quote him properly. Misquoting primary sources is exactly why we have the

458: 1374:

Why do you keep bringing up Bukhari? The quote you're concerned about on this page is from Tabari, not Bukhari.

323: 1585:

2. Just because someone says something on a talk page of another page doesn't mean it's a Knowledge guideline.

2491:

because Some source said just part of this event I think "Event of Fatimah House" is better forom others one.

1555: 562: 2000:

I disagree that the source did not state that it was a possible later creation. To quote the referenced text:

2460: 2298: 2187: 2072: 2052: 389: 2578: 2525: 2446: 2431: 2409: 2388: 2321: 2313: 2593: 2555: 2456: 2171: 2128: 2084: 2042: 1983: 1636: 1596: 1539: 1507: 1459: 1415: 1375: 1323: 1269: 1229: 1190: 1139: 1096: 1064: 1033: 990: 954: 912: 880: 826: 805: 761: 694: 646: 613: 582: 518: 454: 39: 799:

Tabari is a history book, while Bukhari is (supposedly) a book of "Hadiths." I didn't say that Hadiths

2512:

Hi! While I agree that we should see if there is a better title out there, one possible criticism of

2120: 1433: 1008: 929: 779: 736: 544: 21: 1812: 1455: 1319: 1135: 1127: 1902:, I have restored the previous version of the lead, which complies with Knowledge's guidelines at 1654:, I have restored the previous version of the lead, which complies with Knowledge's guidelines at 240:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2539: 2496: 2482: 2342: 2261: 2197: 2152: 2145:

Why is it subject to interpretation? What is ambiguous about the implication of the above quotes?

2103: 2062: 2019: 1946: 1879: 1858: 1778: 1698: 329: 1764: 854:

Schacht, Joseph (1959) . The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press. p. 3.

1268:, for example -- you can see that three volumes of Tabari's work are referenced on that page.) 2589: 2574: 2521: 2442: 2427: 2405: 2384: 2332: 2317: 2309: 1903: 1808: 1768: 1655: 1620: 1619:

period for readers without going into specifics. This complies with Knowledge's guidelines at

1589: 1563: 1527: 1491: 1441: 1406:

policy did exist, it would not apply to Tabari's book, because Tabari's book is meant to be a

1395: 1364: 1300: 1289: 1249: 1210: 1159: 1116: 1084: 1053: 1016: 978: 937: 900: 868: 787: 744: 670: 635: 552: 371: 2561:

when Abu Bakr's boycott had isolated Ali (and apparently after the Fadak speech). So I moved

1048:

Knowledge guidelines should be obeyed about original research. Thank you. Please reply fast.

2180: 2167: 2142: 2124: 2093: 2080: 2038: 1995: 1979: 1352:

does tabari uses another view or Bukhara. No they both rely on the chain which reached them.

1182: 681: 609: 574: 493: 437: 344: 325: 297: 1314:

Was Tabari a witness to the event? Again, he was born centuries after the event took place.

1224:), while this listing for Volume 5 of "History of al-Tabari" is in the "History" category ( 2293: 2243: 2221: 2034: 1933: 1911: 1869: 1840: 1818: 1752: 1729: 1685: 1661: 1181:(emphasis added), not a book of Hadith. The Knowledge page for Bukhari's book, meanwhile ( 397: 2601: 2582: 2543: 2529: 2500: 2486: 2464: 2450: 2435: 2413: 2392: 2347: 2325: 2266: 2238: 2202: 2175: 2157: 2136: 2108: 2088: 2067: 2046: 2024: 1987: 1951: 1928: 1899: 1884: 1863: 1835: 1783: 1746: 1703: 1678: 1651: 1644: 1628: 1604: 1567: 1547: 1531: 1515: 1495: 1467: 1423: 1399: 1383: 1368: 1331: 1293: 1277: 1253: 1237: 1222:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yp9RLUAS8zsC&dq=bukhari&source=gbs_navlinks_s

1214: 1198: 1163: 1147: 1120: 1104: 1088: 1072: 1057: 1041: 1024: 998: 982: 962: 945: 920: 904: 888: 872: 834: 813: 769: 752: 702: 674: 663:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

654: 639: 621: 590: 569: 526: 495: 462: 439: 401: 392:

class, the validity of narrators determine by RS that all removed quotations have them.

375: 224: 1906:, which states that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics." 1355:

does tabari confess he included narrations without attaining authenticity? Yes he did.

1226:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SdrtpZQphYUC&dq=tabari&source=gbs_navlinks_s

662: 2610: 2535: 2507: 2492: 2478: 2337: 2256: 2209: 2192: 2147: 2115: 2098: 2077: 2057: 2030: 2014: 1941: 1891: 1874: 1853: 1790: 1773: 1711: 1693: 484: 2426:

I'll hopefully replace the primary sources in this article with more reliable ones.

1220:

Look at Google Books: This listing for "Sahih Bukhari" is in the "Hadith" category (

1134:

want the quote to be removed despite Knowledge's clear guidelines. As I have cited (

410:

It is original research to carefully select some hadiths from a primary source (see

327: 2304: 2164: 1559: 1523: 1487: 1437: 1391: 1360: 1311:

Was Tabari involved in the event? He was born centuries after the event took place.

1308:

Was Tabari's work written "close to event"? It was written centuries later, so no.

1285: 1245: 1206: 1155: 1112: 1080: 1049: 1012: 974: 933: 896: 864: 783: 740: 666: 631: 548: 385: 367: 95: 2029:

The quote cited does not have any such mention. In a way, this is a violation of

480: 415: 2570: 1556:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Hadith

563:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Hadith

488: 432: 428: 411: 1299:

This is Wikipeida's definition of a primary source, based on the guidelines at

393: 214: 155: 85: 1650:

It seems since then, the lead was modified without any discussion, so acting

1538:

not ban all primary sources, and 3) Tabari is quoted regularly on Knowledge.

2215: 685: 420: 1795:, I'm bit confused now, first you said that you have issue with my edit as 1343:

was Bukhara witness to the event? No he was born centuries after the event.

208: 187: 1337:

was Bukhara’s work written close to event? It was written centuries later

2303:

While I agree it is slightly vague, I do not think it is so vague to be

1340:

was Bukhara involved in the event? He was born centuries after the event

1805:"that the opening paragraph of an article should not go into specifics" 1265: 237: 1588:

3. The link you provided can be for pages about Hadiths, such as the

1170: 604: 578: 236:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 79: 52: 1797:"this one includes far more detail than what was there previously" 108: 684:

was published in the tenth century. A reference from Knowledge's

2365:

Fatima as a Motif of Contention and Suffering in Islamic Sources

1592:. This isn't a page about a Hadith; it's a page about an event. 1138:), Knowledge guidelines support this quote staying on the page. 973:

are authentic or fabricated according to at at least one Muslim.

381: 2033:

and conclusion has been derived from the text. See examples in

724:(State University of New York Press, 1989), Volume 1, pp. 10–11 330: 291: 15: 154: 2096:

What do you believe is the implication of the above quotes?

1346:

Tabari was written in the mean time of Bukhara. You agreed.

1261:

If you could prove that Bukhari's book is a primary source,

776:

written. Please reply fast. 15:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

2470: 1898:"the lead was modified without any discussion, so acting 1724:"includes far more detail than what was there previously" 2562: 2247: 1815:

best avoided on such sensitive/controversial article.--

1756: 1720: 969: 2190:. I hope this can help us reach an amicable solution. 1502:

quoted. Do you think that for every historical event

597:

not hadith? Reply fast.10:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

970:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Hadith#Non-prophetic_hadith

107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1264:include Tabari's book as a source. Take a look at 1079:It is the foremost guideline to classify hadith. 365:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles 2003: 1475: 1719:I'm not sure how you are interpreting my this 1755:, I also agree it is unfortunate when people 338:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 2118: 1431: 1006: 927: 777: 734: 542: 182: 47: 2331:Thank you for taking the time to do this 1868:Do you need more time to form a response 1410:, while Bukhari's book is meant to be a 2632:High-importance Muslim history articles 2358: 847: 713: 184: 49: 19: 1939:2. Were my previous responses unclear? 1801:" had cut down the lead significantly" 348:when more than 5 sections are present. 2622:Mid-importance Islam-related articles 2114:wikipedia is asking us NOT to do i.e 7: 1771:, the guideline which you had cited. 230:This article is within the scope of 101:This article is within the scope of 2335:, your input is really appreciated. 2037:that are similar to this instance. 1851:and I'm really getting tired of it. 1843:I said it included far more detail 38:It is of interest to the following 2637:Muslim history task force articles 14: 1175:History of the Prophets and Kings 342:may be automatically archived by 2292: 296: 217: 207: 186: 88: 78: 51: 20: 2652:Low-importance history articles 2627:B-Class Muslim history articles 733:primary source. Do you agree? 270:This article has been rated as 141:This article has been rated as 2617:B-Class Islam-related articles 2399:Separated Sunni and Shia views 1767:). It therefore complied with 665:Thank you. Please reply fast. 1: 2544:12:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC) 2530:09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC) 2501:04:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC) 2487:17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 2451:18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2436:11:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 2316:) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 1042:18:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 1025:14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 999:13:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 983:11:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 963:00:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 946:15:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC) 921:15:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 905:03:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 889:18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 873:11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 835:22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 814:16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC) 770:13:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 753:11:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 703:19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 675:04:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 655:15:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 640:04:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 622:18:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 591:13:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC) 527:01:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) 496:22:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 463:21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 440:16:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 402:14:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 376:12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 250:Knowledge:WikiProject History 244:and see a list of open tasks. 166:the Muslim history task force 163:This article is supported by 115:and see a list of open tasks. 2657:WikiProject History articles 2549:Two (or more) confrontations 2465:06:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC) 603:Knowledge's definition of a 253:Template:WikiProject History 2602:13:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC) 2583:12:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC) 1171:Hadith#Non-prophetic hadith 121:Knowledge:WikiProject Islam 2673: 2642:WikiProject Islam articles 2414:06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 2393:08:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 2374:In need of a major rewrite 1952:10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 1929:09:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 1885:17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 1708:<bit delayed reply: --> 1645:22:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) 1605:00:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC) 1568:10:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 1548:22:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 1532:14:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 1516:15:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 1496:13:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 1468:12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 1424:00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 1400:12:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC) 1384:15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 568:According to Knowledge, a 358:Authenticity of narratives 276:project's importance scale 147:project's importance scale 124:Template:WikiProject Islam 2348:21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 2326:20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 2267:10:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2239:10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2203:22:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2176:18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2158:17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2137:17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2109:17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2089:16:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 2068:13:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 2047:09:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 2025:23:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1988:16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1896:, I have already stated, 1864:10:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 1836:06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 1784:11:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1747:10:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1704:01:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1679:13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC) 1369:07:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC) 1332:16:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1294:15:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 1278:15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC) 1254:12:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC) 1238:15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC) 1215:11:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC) 1199:15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 1164:08:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC) 1148:15:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 1121:13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 1105:15:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1089:07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 1073:19:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC) 1058:04:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC) 720:Franz Rosenthal, trans., 661:make a third conclusion. 269: 202: 162: 140: 73: 46: 2647:B-Class history articles 1799:, now you are saying, I 1765:can be a single sentence 722:The History of al-Ţabarī 2518:Umar at Fatimah's house 1845:as an opening paragraph 390:Biographical evaluation 2516:or the previous title 2514:Event of Fatimah house 2250:was in regards to the 2246:You've misunderstood. 2011: 1480: 1244:Knowledge guidelines. 1032:page that state that. 680:Knowledge states that 159: 127:Islam-related articles 28:This article is rated 1974:About Sulaym ibn Qays 427:includes accounts by 158: 1610:Avoiding an edit war 1185:), says that it's a 1179:historical chronicle 2252:previous discussion 1205:Please reply fast. 233:WikiProject History 2563:your new paragraph 1573:Okay, here you go: 160: 34:content assessment 2231: 2139: 2123:comment added by 1921: 1904:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1828: 1809:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1769:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1761:opening paragraph 1739: 1671: 1656:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1621:MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH 1590:Hadith of the Ark 1482:pp 13 of tabari. 1449: 1436:comment added by 1187:hadith collection 1177:. It says it's a 1027: 1011:comment added by 948: 932:comment added by 795: 782:comment added by 755: 739:comment added by 560: 547:comment added by 352: 351: 290: 289: 286: 285: 282: 281: 181: 180: 177: 176: 104:WikiProject Islam 2664: 2594:Snowsky Mountain 2559: 2556:Snowsky Mountain 2511: 2366: 2363: 2345: 2340: 2296: 2264: 2259: 2227: 2224: 2213: 2200: 2195: 2155: 2150: 2106: 2101: 2073:WP:STICKTOSOURCE 2065: 2060: 2053:WP:STICKTOSOURCE 2022: 2017: 2007:Kitāb al-ghaybah 1999: 1949: 1944: 1917: 1914: 1895: 1882: 1877: 1861: 1856: 1824: 1821: 1794: 1781: 1776: 1735: 1732: 1715: 1701: 1696: 1689: 1667: 1664: 1637:Snowsky Mountain 1597:Snowsky Mountain 1540:Snowsky Mountain 1508:Snowsky Mountain 1460:Snowsky Mountain 1416:Snowsky Mountain 1376:Snowsky Mountain 1324:Snowsky Mountain 1270:Snowsky Mountain 1230:Snowsky Mountain 1191:Snowsky Mountain 1183:Sahih al-Bukhari 1140:Snowsky Mountain 1097:Snowsky Mountain 1065:Snowsky Mountain 1034:Snowsky Mountain 991:Snowsky Mountain 955:Snowsky Mountain 913:Snowsky Mountain 881:Snowsky Mountain 855: 852: 827:Snowsky Mountain 806:Snowsky Mountain 762:Snowsky Mountain 725: 718: 695:Snowsky Mountain 682:Tarikh al-Tabari 647:Snowsky Mountain 614:Snowsky Mountain 610:Tarikh al-Tabari 583:Snowsky Mountain 575:Tarikh al-Tabari 519:Snowsky Mountain 455:Snowsky Mountain 347: 331: 300: 292: 258: 257: 256:history articles 254: 251: 248: 227: 222: 221: 220: 211: 204: 203: 198: 190: 183: 129: 128: 125: 122: 119: 98: 93: 92: 91: 82: 75: 74: 69: 66: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2672: 2671: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2607: 2606: 2553: 2551: 2505: 2424: 2422:Primary sources 2401: 2376: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2343: 2338: 2262: 2257: 2254:, not this one. 2236: 2220: 2207: 2198: 2193: 2153: 2148: 2104: 2099: 2063: 2058: 2020: 2015: 1993: 1976: 1947: 1942: 1926: 1910: 1889: 1880: 1875: 1859: 1854: 1833: 1817: 1788: 1779: 1774: 1744: 1728: 1709: 1699: 1694: 1683: 1676: 1660: 1612: 1266:Yazid I#Sources 860: 859: 858: 853: 849: 730: 729: 728: 719: 715: 360: 343: 332: 326: 305: 255: 252: 249: 246: 245: 223: 218: 216: 196: 171:High-importance 126: 123: 120: 117: 116: 94: 89: 87: 67: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 2670: 2668: 2660: 2659: 2654: 2649: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2609: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2550: 2547: 2475: 2474: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2357: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2336: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2255: 2232: 2191: 2184: 2146: 2097: 2056: 2002: 2001: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1940: 1937: 1922: 1873: 1852: 1829: 1772: 1740: 1717: 1692: 1672: 1633: 1632: 1629:Muhsin ibn Ali 1624: 1611: 1608: 1575: 1574: 1551: 1550: 1519: 1518: 1471: 1470: 1427: 1426: 1387: 1386: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1316: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1281: 1280: 1241: 1240: 1202: 1201: 1151: 1150: 1108: 1107: 1076: 1075: 1045: 1044: 1002: 1001: 966: 965: 924: 923: 892: 891: 857: 856: 846: 845: 841: 838: 837: 817: 816: 773: 772: 727: 726: 712: 711: 707: 706: 705: 658: 657: 627: 626: 625: 624: 594: 593: 570:primary source 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 445: 444: 443: 442: 405: 404: 359: 356: 354: 350: 349: 337: 334: 333: 328: 324: 322: 319: 318: 307: 306: 301: 295: 288: 287: 284: 283: 280: 279: 272:Low-importance 268: 262: 261: 259: 242:the discussion 229: 228: 225:History portal 212: 200: 199: 197:Low‑importance 191: 179: 178: 175: 174: 161: 151: 150: 143:Mid-importance 139: 133: 132: 130: 113:the discussion 100: 99: 83: 71: 70: 68:Mid‑importance 64:Muslim history 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2669: 2658: 2655: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2615: 2614: 2612: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2557: 2548: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2509: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2472: 2471:Veritaes Unam 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2457:Veritaes Unam 2453: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2438: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2373: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2300: 2295: 2268: 2265: 2260: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2235: 2230: 2225: 2223: 2217: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2196: 2189: 2188:third opinion 2185: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2151: 2144: 2141: 2140: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2102: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2079: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2061: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2010: 2008: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1973: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1913: 1907: 1905: 1901: 1893: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1878: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1857: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1827: 1822: 1820: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1792: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1777: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757:edit in haste 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1731: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1697: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1670: 1665: 1663: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1630: 1625: 1622: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1609: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1591: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1169:According to 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 971: 964: 960: 956: 951: 950: 949: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 922: 918: 914: 909: 908: 907: 906: 902: 898: 890: 886: 882: 877: 876: 875: 874: 870: 866: 851: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 823: 822: 821: 815: 811: 807: 802: 798: 797: 796: 793: 789: 785: 781: 771: 767: 763: 758: 757: 756: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 723: 717: 714: 710: 704: 700: 696: 692: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 676: 672: 668: 664: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 623: 619: 615: 611: 606: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 571: 567: 566: 565: 564: 558: 554: 550: 546: 528: 524: 520: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 497: 494: 492: 491: 486: 482: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 464: 460: 456: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 441: 438: 436: 435: 430: 426: 422: 417: 413: 409: 408: 407: 406: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 366: 357: 355: 346: 341: 336: 335: 321: 320: 317: 316: 313: 309: 308: 304: 299: 294: 293: 277: 273: 267: 264: 263: 260: 243: 239: 235: 234: 226: 215: 213: 210: 206: 205: 201: 195: 192: 189: 185: 172: 169:(assessed as 168: 167: 157: 153: 152: 148: 144: 138: 135: 134: 131: 114: 110: 106: 105: 97: 86: 84: 81: 77: 76: 72: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2590:Albertatiran 2575:Albertatiran 2566: 2552: 2533: 2522:Albertatiran 2517: 2513: 2504: 2490: 2476: 2454: 2443:Albertatiran 2439: 2428:Albertatiran 2425: 2417: 2406:Albertatiran 2402: 2385:Albertatiran 2377: 2361: 2353: 2333:Nightenbelle 2318:Nightenbelle 2310:Nightenbelle 2297: 2291: 2226: 2219: 2168:Abbas Gadhia 2119:— Preceding 2081:Abbas Gadhia 2039:Abbas Gadhia 2006: 2004: 1980:Abbas Gadhia 1977: 1916: 1909: 1897: 1844: 1823: 1816: 1813:WP:Synthesis 1804: 1800: 1796: 1760: 1734: 1727: 1723: 1666: 1659: 1634: 1613: 1594: 1587: 1584: 1578: 1576: 1552: 1520: 1504:on Knowledge 1503: 1484: 1481: 1476: 1472: 1456:WP:SECONDARY 1432:— Preceding 1428: 1411: 1408:history book 1407: 1388: 1358: 1320:WP:SECONDARY 1317: 1282: 1260: 1242: 1203: 1186: 1178: 1152: 1136:WP:RSPRIMARY 1131: 1128:WP:RSPRIMARY 1109: 1077: 1046: 1007:— Preceding 1003: 967: 928:— Preceding 925: 893: 861: 850: 842: 839: 818: 800: 778:— Preceding 774: 735:— Preceding 731: 721: 716: 708: 690: 659: 628: 595: 543:— Preceding 539: 489: 433: 424: 414:). Besides, 386:Knowledge:or 361: 353: 339: 310: 302: 271: 231: 164: 142: 102: 96:Islam portal 40:WikiProjects 2216:3rd opinion 2125:Abbasgadhia 1996:Abbasgadhia 1751:No problem 1412:Hadith book 429:Abu Mikhnaf 412:MOS:ISLAMOR 345:ClueBot III 2611:Categories 2567:Background 2354:References 1870:Faizhaider 1753:Faizhaider 1686:Faizhaider 1478:narrators. 1301:WP:PRIMARY 879:Muhammad. 843:References 709:References 481:al-Mas'udi 416:al-Mas'udi 2301:Response: 2248:My revert 1849:bad faith 691:200 years 686:Al-Tabari 421:al-Tabari 2536:M.Nadian 2508:M.Nadian 2493:M.Nadian 2479:M.Nadian 2339:Alivardi 2258:Alivardi 2210:Alivardi 2194:Alivardi 2149:Alivardi 2133:contribs 2121:unsigned 2100:Alivardi 2059:Alivardi 2035:WP:NOREX 2016:Alivardi 1943:Alivardi 1892:Alivardi 1876:Alivardi 1855:Alivardi 1807:(as per 1791:Alivardi 1775:Alivardi 1712:Alivardi 1695:Alivardi 1446:contribs 1434:unsigned 1021:contribs 1009:unsigned 942:contribs 930:unsigned 792:contribs 780:unsigned 749:contribs 737:unsigned 689:roughly 557:contribs 545:unsigned 487:policy. 340:365 days 303:Archives 2051:As per 1560:Smatrah 1524:Smatrah 1488:Smatrah 1438:Smatrah 1392:Smatrah 1361:Smatrah 1286:Smatrah 1246:Smatrah 1207:Smatrah 1156:Smatrah 1113:Smatrah 1081:Smatrah 1050:Smatrah 1013:Smatrah 975:Smatrah 934:Smatrah 897:Smatrah 865:Smatrah 784:Smatrah 741:Smatrah 667:Smatrah 632:Smatrah 579:Hadiths 549:Smatrah 423:in his 382:Smatrah 368:Smatrah 274:on the 247:History 238:History 194:History 145:on the 30:B-class 2344:(talk) 2263:(talk) 2199:(talk) 2154:(talk) 2116:WP:NOR 2105:(talk) 2078:WP:NOR 2064:(talk) 2031:WP:NOR 2021:(talk) 1948:(talk) 1900:boldly 1881:(talk) 1860:(talk) 1780:(talk) 1700:(talk) 1691:meant? 1652:boldly 1635:Best, 605:Hadith 485:WP:NOR 425:Tarikh 36:scale. 2305:WP:OR 2165:WP:OR 968:Look 895:hear? 394:M1nhm 312:Index 118:Islam 109:Islam 59:Islam 2598:talk 2579:talk 2571:WP:V 2540:talk 2526:talk 2497:talk 2483:talk 2461:talk 2447:talk 2432:talk 2410:talk 2389:talk 2322:talk 2314:talk 2172:talk 2129:talk 2085:talk 2043:talk 1984:talk 1721:edit 1641:talk 1601:talk 1564:talk 1544:talk 1528:talk 1512:talk 1492:talk 1464:talk 1442:talk 1420:talk 1396:talk 1380:talk 1365:talk 1328:talk 1290:talk 1274:talk 1250:talk 1234:talk 1211:talk 1195:talk 1160:talk 1144:talk 1117:talk 1101:talk 1085:talk 1069:talk 1054:talk 1038:talk 1017:talk 995:talk 979:talk 959:talk 938:talk 917:talk 901:talk 885:talk 869:talk 831:talk 810:talk 788:talk 766:talk 745:talk 699:talk 671:talk 651:talk 636:talk 618:talk 587:talk 561:11: 553:talk 523:talk 490:Wiqi 459:talk 434:Wiqi 398:talk 372:talk 2588:Hi 2565:to 2218:.-- 1228:). 1132:you 801:are 266:Low 137:Mid 2613:: 2600:) 2581:) 2542:) 2528:) 2499:) 2485:) 2463:) 2449:) 2434:) 2412:) 2391:) 2324:) 2299:3O 2222:Fz 2174:) 2135:) 2131:• 2087:) 2045:) 1986:) 1912:Fz 1819:Fz 1730:Fz 1662:Fz 1643:) 1603:) 1579:If 1566:) 1546:) 1530:) 1514:) 1494:) 1466:) 1448:) 1444:• 1422:) 1398:) 1382:) 1367:) 1330:) 1292:) 1276:) 1252:) 1236:) 1213:) 1197:) 1162:) 1146:) 1119:) 1103:) 1087:) 1071:) 1056:) 1040:) 1023:) 1019:• 997:) 981:) 961:) 944:) 940:• 919:) 903:) 887:) 871:) 833:) 812:) 794:) 790:• 768:) 751:) 747:• 701:) 673:) 653:) 638:) 620:) 589:) 581:. 559:) 555:• 525:) 461:) 431:. 400:) 374:) 173:). 62:: 2596:( 2577:( 2558:: 2554:@ 2538:( 2524:( 2510:: 2506:@ 2495:( 2481:( 2459:( 2445:( 2430:( 2408:( 2387:( 2320:( 2312:( 2244: 2234:s 2229:c 2212:: 2208:@ 2181: 2170:( 2143: 2127:( 2094: 2083:( 2041:( 1998:: 1994:@ 1982:( 1934: 1924:s 1919:c 1894:: 1890:@ 1872:? 1841: 1831:s 1826:c 1793:: 1789:@ 1742:s 1737:c 1714:: 1710:@ 1688:: 1684:@ 1674:s 1669:c 1639:( 1599:( 1562:( 1542:( 1526:( 1510:( 1490:( 1462:( 1440:( 1418:( 1394:( 1378:( 1363:( 1326:( 1288:( 1272:( 1248:( 1232:( 1209:( 1193:( 1158:( 1142:( 1115:( 1099:( 1083:( 1067:( 1052:( 1036:( 1015:( 993:( 977:( 957:( 936:( 915:( 899:( 883:( 867:( 829:( 808:( 786:( 764:( 743:( 697:( 669:( 649:( 634:( 616:( 585:( 551:( 521:( 457:( 396:( 370:( 315:1 278:. 149:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.