Talk:Muhammad's wives

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Andrewa (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RM:

• Muhammad's wives → Mother of the Believers —(Discuss)— As a result of merge discussion the page with the most active discussions and information is currently used to hold the article. --Tigeroo (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives and Mother of the Believers merge

After cleaning up this article I found the Mother of the Believers article. I started cleaning that up but found that most of it was a copyvio from here. I turned the article into a redirect and brought the rest here. Arrow740 removed it here which I reverted and added unreferenced section tag and was reverted again. Since then I added a fact tag to the opening sentence in the "Muhammad's widows" section as it's very similar to the opening sentence of the deleted "Mother of the Believers" section. While I make no claim as to the validity of the sources that I found given in the Mother of the Believers article I do think that they need merging. And if the sources are not valid then it should be tagged as such and not deleted out of hand. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right. As a title given to Muhammed's Wives, the MotB article is best merged into the main article. Yarkod 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merging this article and Mother of the Believers.Bless sins (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell from this discussion but I think the page should be called "Mothers of the believers" not "Muhammad's wives" as that is the specific term that refers to them. What do others think?--Salikk (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the above discussion there was consensus that there should be one article not two of them. You have raised an important point about the title of this one article we agreed upon. Frankly, I have seeen "Mother of the believers" as a much more common title that "Muhammad's wives", both in Islamic texts and Western scholarly works. Thus, I will incline towards "Mother of the believers".Bless sins (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be inclined to go with "mother of the believers", if only because Maria al-Qibtiyya, who is called a "mother of believers", may or may not have been married to Muhammad, but remained a slave.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the lead we will have to make clear that the term is used by Muslims (and is not meant to be factual).Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have agreement can someone make the merge? I seem to have done a botch job at my last attempt. If no one has given it a shot in the next couple of days I guess I will take another shot at it.--Salikk (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't do it, an admin has to delete the other page before this can be moved. I'll do it, but I want to be sure everyone agrees on the title. Is "Mother of the Believers" good with everyone?--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and listed the article at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_proposals for this move as this seems to be outcome of the discussion so far.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• The name "Mother of the Believers" is obscure to most people except Muslims. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the term Umm ul' Momineen is quite significant and prominent to those with even a modicum familiarity with Islamic history. Maybe the Arabic term is more appropriate for the article page and would serve much better in disseminating information.--Salikk (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• But by far the majority of non-Muslims have NO familiarity with Islamic history, or not enough to know anything about Muhammad's wives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By far the majority of anyone who comes to wikipedia is to learn about something they do not know. At anyrate a sole dissenting opinion noted. We still seem to have consensus on the naming change.--Salikk (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an English transliteration of a title accorded to them and in widespread scholarly usage. Plus as Cuchullain has noted it definitely includes Maria, who as some hold, may or may not have been a wife of Muhammad.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose naming change. We are not in the business of forcing information down our readers' throats; we are here to communicate with them. Include the fact, bu all means, that a wife of Mohammed is called Mother of the Believers; but please do not call this article by a term which 95 out of a hundred anglophones will not understand, when there is an easy and intelligible phrase available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  I get 1,950,000 hits on google on mother of the beleivers and only 350,000 for Muhammads wives apparently its quite a common term out there which people get. Then there is also a redirect, they are not going to be left rudderless if the search.--Tigeroo (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Tigeroo's first search forgot to put "quotes" around the search terms. As a result, it picked up any page containing "mother" and "of" and "the" and "believers" together or separately in any order, including oceans of junk references such as about Mother Teresa, Mother India, web site authors' mothers, etc. Repeated with quotes that search got "about 59,100" ghits. His second search repeated with quotes got "about 5,940" ghits. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Anderson, this is not a term most anglophones are going to recognise. I would expect more than 216 hits on Google Books for a main term in a religion (Virgin Mary, for example, nets over 4000). Narson (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what search you did but I got 1205 on Muhammad's wives and 1820 on Mother of the Believers, would you change your mind?--Tigeroo (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as well, per the above arguments. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia not for ourselves, but for the average reader, who likely knows little to nothing about "The Mother of the Believers". Parsecboy (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but see above comments on average reader. They are not really as uninformed as we think.--Tigeroo (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Muhammad's wives" is the best, most clear article title for someone seeking information on this topic. No one is likely to know what Mother of the Believers refers to. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Perceptions of Marriage

I have moved the section titled perceptions of marriage here. I think it is irrelevant to the topic Muhammad's (saw) family and so I have removed it. Anyone who thinks it should not be removed please discuss here.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, the institution of marriage was characterized by unquestioned male superiority. Marriage was viewed as a "status". There was no limitations on men's rights to marry or to obtain a divorce. Upon marriage a bride price was paid to the girl's father. A man could have several wives^{[citation needed]} but a woman could not have several husbands at one time and could only take another husband after divorce

Mushoo (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the numerous 'types' of marriage I do think it is wise to give some context. It is problematic if someone reads this article and comes away thinking that marriage in the context of Muhammad is the same as the rather recent middle class experience of 'love marriage'. So, we need to either have it in this article or a link to an article that explains the marital circumstances of the time. A link to marriage will not do much to increase the understanding of the reader. gren グレン 07:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the passage above about the perception of marriage in the pre-Islamic period is warranted so that there is some perspective. I also think it's important to give context to the marriages of Muhammad themselves as many were, as academics note, in the interests of political/social cohesion - which may not be immediately apparent to a casual reader. ITAQALLAH 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List

The section "List of Muhammad's wives and children" is completely unnecessary for the following reasons:

• A list of the prophet's wives is available on the right hand side as part of the template.
• His children should be mentioned where the wife is being mentioned.
• Information regarding the tribe, status before marriage, age, motive etc. is/should be provided in the "history" section.
• "Motive" is a very complex and contentious section. For many marriages scholars disagree on the proper motive, and thus I don't see any concise way of listing this.

Bless sins (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can second that.--Tigeroo (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

missing redirects

• Mohammad's wives, Mohammed's wives, Muhammed's wives, Mahomet's wives
• Wives of Mohammad, Wives of Mohammed, Wives of Muhammed, Wives of Mahomet

70.55.88.176 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A list providing dates and children where possible would be very useful. I am sure the information is already there, but such a list would provide a simple time-line. --Mindline (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

References

That section is a very special one, so I have not been able to insert one important book of Fatima Mernissi. "Her most famous book, as an Islamic feminist, The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Islam, is a quasi-historical study of role of the wives of Muhammad. It was first published in French in 1987, and translated into English in 1991." See for further information [1]. would somebody technically more skillfull please insert it?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

His wifes

There was an article I was reading some time ago, claiming that one of his so called wives was only 8 or 9 at the time when he married her? Wouldn't this make him a pedophile? No offense intended to anyone. Norum (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This refers to his second or third wife Aisha (R. A.) who was 8 or 9 when engaged to the Prophet Mohammad (P. B. U. H.) however she did not begin to live with him until after the migration to Medina when she would have been at least 14 or 15, some sources even state 16 but I would take that with a pinch of salt as he spent quite a bit of time with her and she was only 18 when the prophet passed away. Twenty-first century standards of morality cannot be imposed upon those of eighth century Arabia. We always err in trying to impose our views on every environment that this is the way it functions. SEMTEX85 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned in the article then? True, we can't impose our morality view with the ones in a seventh century Asia, but I am sure that even back then thinking parents would not engage their 8 year old daughter to a man old enough to be her grandfather.

On the other hand, we can still see thinking like this in the XXI century, in the rural areas of most of the Muslim countries and, especially, India.

Norum (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Norum, are you thus suggesting Islam is the cause of modern child marriages? In fact, this is not uncommon in cultures around the world, premodern and modern (to which I add that it makes my blood boil to hear about it). There is also no evidence he was a paedophile, which is a condition where a person is sexually aroused primarily by children... mind you, his first wife was 42 when he married her and he never took another wife while she was alive. The evidence instead is that he had a child bride for political reasons and specified that he did not engage in adult relations with her until she reached the age of maturity (check the ages of Romeo & Juliet for a reality check on what the age of maturity was in premodern societies). Ogress _smash! 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that many societies throughout the world are still quite primitive, especially in very remote areas.

Norum (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says our morality is correct? Why the arbitrary age of 18 for adulthood when one can reproduce at the age of 10 upwards...? One only has to look at what teenagers around the world experience after puberty to realise it makes sense to structure the social system to allow marriage puberty onwards. We maybe should step out of our ideological mindsets and consider other civilisations may actually have better ways of doing things.

Actually, Aisha was 6 or 7 when they got married and 9 when they consummated it (had sex). There are many good Reliable Sources for this info and it should be added here. 67.173.185.224 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A prophet of God would obey God's unchanging morality and commandments (see Abraham/Moses/Jacob/Isaac). Therefore the "moral relativism" argument does not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.112.150 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely all the wives of Mohammed should be in this article?

This article is titled Mohammed's wives however just a couple are mentioned - surely the rest should be in here and material not relevant to this title should be stripped out - what do people think?

I've added titles to indicate where marriages are, some random insertions have been made so that a couple of wives are treated twice at different points in the prose. I think a summary list or table with the first name, full name, tribe, previous status (married, widowed, infant, etc.), year of birth, year of marriage and year of death would be good; it could also include a brief "notable for" statement, e.g.:

Safiya: Safiya bint Huyai of the Jewish tribes Quraizi and Banu Nadir, married to Kinana treasurer of Khaibar beheaded on the day Muhammad took her; born ?, married to Muhammad at 17, died ?; notable as a Jew, the wife of a murdered captive and because Muhammad violated his own Koranic injunction ^{[Quran 2:234]} by marrying a widow before 4 months after her husband was tortured and killed (at Muhammad's behest), indeed he married her immediately.

Something like that for each wife would be most helpful, the rest could probably then be spun off to the articles on the individual wives unless they are general statements. Pbhj (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Poorly cited - please be clear with citations

Some of the citations are quite poorly made. For example the F E Peters citations just says "FE Peters 2003" but the page on Peters shows he wrote at least 3 books that year - which is this referring too. We can't verify that the prose is supported which means someone must either find another citation or obtain all the books and try to see which was intended. The Esposito reference is as bad. Please try to be clear: usually the full citation is given including title of the work and where it can be found (eg ISBN or URL); subsequent references can be e.g. "ibid Peters (2003)". WP:CITET for info about citation formats. Pbhj (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Formatting and structure

I find the headings confusing, sometimes just the name others Married to <name>, can we be consistent.

Also, Is it ordered chronologically? should the date of marriage be placed(if known) or date range.--Paul Lewison (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary needs cleanup

Hello,

"All but two of his marriages were contracted after the Hijra (migration to Medina)."

This is not clear or even useful information,since the list identifies only one (I know the second being Aisha, hence the word contracted) but this makes it like rocket science.

"The verse's interpretation mandated that Muslims were forbidden to marry Muhammad's widows and should regard them as they would their own mothers."

Which verse?--Paul Lewison (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New material

This new material, added by Kushsinghmd, is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. It is poorly written, largely irrelevant, and relies on a personal interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. Perhaps some of it can be worked in, but the user refuses to engage in discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Poorly written >> try to improve not to delete

irrelevant : How ?! it is all about his marriages!

personal interpretation >>> wrong, please check the references

I am very willing to discussion, who said I am not willing to ?! probably you just don't know me.

thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your material is very poorly written and in some places barely coherent; it is not particularly productive to insert this repeatedly and then demand that other editors to clean up after you. And no, it is not properly referenced. Once again, virtually all your references are to primary sources, and you are pulling together a bunch of stories from the hadith and medieval histories to imply that "The relationship between Muhammad and his wives had faced a lot of criticism [sic]". Other references are to other Wikipedia articles, which is certainly not appropriate. I've looked through it, and I don't see any part of your swath of edits that improve the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you position. If you are not willing to improve the article and do some work, then why you are concerned on deleting the recently added material?!Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to improve the article, but your material is not an improvement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you not willing to improve my material, then no need for you to delete it. Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going around in circles. Please explain to us why you think the material is an improvement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I am the one going around circles .. it is you sir. Look at what you are doing: You are trying to show that deletion is an improvement. Then when we ask you to improve you say no !! then don't claim that you are willing to improve ..

improvement for many reasons: cause it is well referenced,well written, accurately representative, help to give better understanding about the nature of marriage of muhammad, see the pros and cons of these marriages, and circumstances around them, reveal many of the materials that are oftenly hidden by some people,...etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your material is *not* well written, they are very poorly written. This could just be a matter of cleanup, but the information in them is not appropriate. As I said repeatedly, your material is largely taking a bunch of material from primary sources, the hadith, the early histories, etc (in this case the histories are being used as primary sources) and then using it to draw a conclusion the sources themselves don't draw: that Muhammad is criticized for his marriages. The hadith and histories do not criticize Muhammad, you are using material from them to draw your own conclusion. This is original research and is inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cuchullain, the new material (which has been repeatedly reverted by several editors) is not useful in this article. The fact that it is so muddled and poorly written simply aggravates the situation. Kushshing, you keep admonishing us to "improve not delete", but the article was better without the material you added. The way to improve it is to remove the bad material, not rewrite it to include your POV. Please stop. Doc Tropics 13:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you are repeating yourself over and over!! you asked me why I think it is good material, and I replied. and since your repeating your claims, then let me put is again for you:

Poorly written >> try to improve not to delete

Who said that Commentaries and Biography books are primary sources?. Even in worst case scenario if you considered them as primary sources, WP is not against primary sources

personal interpretation >>> wrong, please check the references.

I hope you understand the difference between research and how it is conducted (which has: objective, method, results, and conclusion - and non of these in the new material) , and between lying down facts with references!,thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So lets deal with new content one after the other:

there was just one reference, I added another two, one of them from the same book

what is wrong here ?!

Kushsinghmd (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1: "The number of wives of Muhammad is not accurately represented in the literature, however it is suely that he combined at least 9 or 11 wives at the same time

The big problem there is the mutilated phrasing, which degraded the article's intro. But the rest of your edits are even worse. In the "Background" section, you added a couple of quotes from the Sahih Muslim and Ibn Sad, regarding Muhammad and women. Then you synthesize all of these together to say "These statements implies that the desire of Muhammad’s heart was to have sex with many women [sic]." The same methodology follows in your "Criticism" section: you bring together a bunch of quotes about Muhammad that you find unflattering, and use these to claim that Muhammad is criticized for all of this. You're drawing your own conclusion from quotes in sources, which is original research. And that's besides your edit warring.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(unintend)Sorry for not able to participate in the discussion but its good to see other editors have cleared the primary source & original research points. I tried to mention them in my edit summary when I removed the content. Actually I tried to verify sources & to find secondary sources of the claim but when I was unable to find anything reliable I thaught may be editor who has added the content may do the job once I make it clear that why the content was removed. Anyways I think matter is resolved for now. Either Kushsinghmd has taken his stance back or now he is trying to get secondary sources for his POV, in both cases its good. Thanks to everybody! --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that Kushsinghmd has given it up; he was just blocked for edit warring for his actions here and elsewhere. But I think it's clear to everyone else exactly what the problem was, and once he's off his block he's going to have to address that if plans on resuming the discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of wives

The introduction of the article seems to contradict the article and the list on the side when it comes to Muhammad's wives. It says in the very beginning of the article that Muhammad had eleven wives, when the box listing all his wifes most certainly mentions 13 different names. The article itself also mentions more than 11 wives. I don't have very much knowledge on the subject (that's why I came here in the first place), but this contradiction leaves me with more questions than answers. Are the eleven mentioned wives certain, and the other two debatable? Some other sites would agree that there are eleven wives, and wouldn't include Maria al-Qibbitiyya or Rayhana bint Zayd. Although reading their respective articles gives the impression that there's conflict in regards to their relationship with Muhammad, it's hard to see what I should make of this.

When it comes to concrete changes, I suggest mentioning early on, that in addition to his eleven wives, there are two other women that may or may not have been his wife, and that there's uncertainty regarding their relationship. If that is the case of course. Like I said, I didn't really grasp the way things are by reading this article.Benjaminsf (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge in this topic is limited, but I think you're generally right. I think saying "11 or 13" in the lead should be the best possible option. In any case, the article, and some of the sources mentioned, seem to be merely an attempt at creating a consistent narrative of the subject. The traditional sources contain many contradictory accounts about it, so using the "or" here shouldn't be a problem. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad's wives

• Discussion moved here from User talk:Cuchullain

I do not understand why you keep reverting my edit to this page. Your right that the onus is on me to justify my edit - and that is exactly what I did - "it's innacurate/un-encyclopaedic to call a girl a woman", which is what the current text says. Please stop reverting perfectly reasonable edits, and focus on making this article more encyclopedic Santa Suit (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the preferred bold, revert, discuss method of editing, you need to discuss your controverted change on the article talk page. Please do this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people invoke BDR when really their motivation is to preserve a form of text which they personally find agreeable. I'm sure you have your reasons, but the issue here is too clear cut to warrant BRD. Quite simply it is not factual to write that "Muhammad married eleven or thirteen women" because he did not. One was not a woman, she was a girl. This description is not open to debate or discussion; it's not a matter of opinion upon which concessus can be sought - there is no middle road here - a young girl cannot be described as a woman. The Muhammad's wives article is not good and clearly has POV issues running through it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and your primary motivator should be to make this article more encyclopedic. Santa Suit (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is my primary motivation. Again, take your concerns to the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Santa Suit (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. We're having this discussion because you feel strongly about your edit but won't discuss it on the talk page, as is the standard practice.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(undent)I'll take the initiative to comment: your edit was poor for several reasons, not the least of them being that it mangled the wording. It's just poor writing. Additionally, Aisha was a child when she was married to Muhammad; she did not stay a child for her entire life. She was around 20 at the time Muhammad died, so it's not incorrect to describe her as a "woman" here. Aisha and her age at marriage are already described in the appropriate section, no need to force it in in here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The text says "Muhammad married eleven or thirteen women" - which indicates they were all women when he married them. This isn't just a matter of semantics, and it isn't a case of 'forcing' anything in; the point is noteworthy and the wording, as it stands, is not factual. Santa Suit (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

reasons of marriage

its better if there should be mentioned about the reasons why prophet married the izwaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alijamal14 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)