Talk:Khadija bint Khuwaylid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Khadijah's Beliefs Prior to Conversion[edit]

I was looking for this article to find some information regarding Khadijah's religious belief's prior to her conversion to Islam, and I can't find anything. I think this article should have something because I've heard some wacky theories that she was a Catholic who gave Muhammad the idea to base the religion on Christianity and I don't think that's true, but I can't find anything to the contrary. 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

She was a monethiset!-- (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's safe to say that the Catholic theory is "wacky". There were no known Catholics in Arabia at that date. I've heard about a conspiracy theory that Islam was devised by the Catholic Church to spite the Jews and the Protestants in one blow. In real life, it's difficult to imagine the Catholics would want to do any such thing, or that they could carry it off if they did try it. I don't think Wikipedia needs to address this kind of absurdity unless there is clear evidence that such a theory is gaining traction in the general community.
The evidence is that Khadija was an ordinary Arabian polytheist until a few years before Islam but that at some unknown date she rejected the traditional gods. It isn't really known what she believed between that date and the start of Islam, but new evidence may turn up later.Grace has Victory (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Grace has victory what evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Info omitted[edit]

Some information was lost in this edition. --Striver 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is NOT clear that she was 40[edit]

Khadija's age, and the number of children she bore, and to whom, are hotly contested by Sunni and Shi'a polemicists. People have been trying to wrench the article one way or the other. We need to have both sides represented. We give the Sunni arguments and the Shi'a arguments. Then the reader can decide. Can some other editor help with this? Zora 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is because it is not clear if she was born in 555 (that will make her 40 year old) or 570 (that will make her just 25). Hassanfarooqi 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that some anti-Islamic racist group has come up with a song claiming that Muhummud married his wife when she was 6 years old, but did not take her to bed until she was 9, and that he was a pedophile. These claims, which from my limited knowledge of Islam and the Koran, I knew where wrong from the outset, have been posted, unfortunately, on YouTube. Without quality control or significant public record of debate - often from uninformed people who simply repeat assertions made by others - these videos are allowed to go unhindered as truth.
Although the impact on the large majority of citizens will be negligable, there are some groups which I believe are at risk. Especially young Christian youths.
Wikipedia is often a second port of call for these YouTube viewers, so we need to clear up debate on the issue of Muhammud's wifes age to refute these arguments.
Simple removal of anti-Islamic videos is a violation of freedom of speach (aka the freedom to talk bu11sh*t), and only leads to other radical claims.
--Mohammad did indeed marry a girl who was 6 years old. Her name was Aisha, and she later became one of the most influential and important of all of Mohammed's wives, (he had about 6-7 by the end). This is completely factually accurate. He also did sleep with her at the age of 9, this is also true, and any good Muslim, Shi'a or Sunni will tell you that it is true. The truth is that he was not a pedophile, it was a political marriage to a friend's daughter solidify his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not a political marriage by intention. The order of the marriage came from the God and Muhammad(peace be upon him) initially did not say yes to Abu Bakr (peace be upon him), Ayesha(peace be upon her)'s father's proposal because she was not old enough to decide. Muhammad(peace be upon him) waited til she became old enough to consent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This discussion about Aisha is not relevant to Khadija. We should not be discussing Aisha here. Nobody has ever suggested that Khadija was a child-bride; her age is only debated within an adult range. So this debate is not about anti-Islamic scandal-mongering. It is only about whether the traditional view is factually correct.Grace has Victory (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Khadija's age is debated!-- (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's something that may "help". It proves that Khadija's age has always been debated, but it does not prove her age. Ibn Kathir (p. 417 of vol. 4 of Le Gassick's translation) summarises the debate as follows.
“In one account, al-Zuhri stated, ‘The Messenger of God (SAAS) was 21 years of age when he married Khadija; it is also said that he was 25 and that the marriage took place around the time that the ka’ba was being reconstructed.’ Al-Waqidi added to this, ‘And she was 45 years old.’ Other scholars state that his age at that time was 30. Hakim b. Hizam is quoted as having said, ‘The age of the Messenger of God (SAAS) was 25 years of age the day he married Khadlja, and she was 40.’ Ibn ‘Abbas is quoted as having said that she was 28 years old. Ibn ‘Asakir gives both these accounts.”Petra MacDonald 09:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In vol. 1 pp. 190-191 he also adds these traditions.
“Al-Bayhaqi stated: ‘Khadija is said to have died at age 65 or at age 50, the latter being more likely.’”
Ibn Kathir vol. 1 p. 191. “Similarly, al-Bayhaqi transmitted that the age of the Messenger of God (SAAS) when he married Khadija was 25 and that she was then 35. It is also said that she was 25.”Petra MacDonald 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


When he married, the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not seek young virgins, women with no previous sexual experience, or members of his family. Since neither he nor Khadijah were Muslims at the time they married, the question of being Muslim did not arise. His first choice was a twice-married 40-year-old lady with at least 4 children. Marrying when he was 25, he remained monogamous until her death 25 years later. He never considered taking another wife, although all his friends, uncles, and peers were polygamous. [1] --Striver 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Are you representing this statement as a plausible POV or as an absurd one? Is it something that should be added to the article or some popular misconception that the article should try to refute?
It is certainly not true that "Muhammad did not seek ... members of his family." His first choice was his cousin, Fakhita bint Abi Talib, and he only courted Khadija after his uncle prevented the marriage to Fakhita. The reference for this detail is Tabari vol. 39 pp. 196-197.
Nor is it likely to be true that "all his friends, uncles and peers were polygamous". There weren't enough women for all of them to have plural wives! Is it really necessary to list all the monogamous and celibate men in Mecca in order to reference this fact, or can we just appeal to basic common sense?Grace has Victory (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, some info was lost here --Striver 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

More info: Lubaba bint al-Harith - Claimed to be second woman, the same day as her close friend Khadijah --Striver 03:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Information regarding Waraqah ibn Nawfal should be moved to his entry. --Islami 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing info[edit]

The Quran states [33:59] that Prophet Muhammad has daughters (three or more).

I looked at different English translations of the Qur'an (in reference to Surah 33 Verse 59), and nowhere in any of them does it state the number of daughters that he had. Although there is mention of the idea that he had some (i.e. more than one). Silver crescent 18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In fact, that verse use the word (بناتك) "your daughters" which is plural. Plural in Arabic language can refer to three or more, while in English it can refer to two or more.
BTW, is there a standard way to put a reference to a Quranic verse? There is one for the Bible (using Bible Gateway) but I would like to know if there is a similar thing for the Quran. --Islamic 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay, thanks for clearing that up. In regards to using Qur'anic verses as references, I'm not sure as to whether or not there's a standard. But I mostly use this site, since it consists of more than one English translation after another, by three different individuals (i.e. Pickthall, Shakir and Yusuf Ali). Silver crescent 00:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I use -- (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

When was it decided (and voted on) that the page name should be moved from Khadijah bint Khuwaylid to Khadijah binte Khuwaylid? Stoa 22:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the correct name. Right now it reads "Khadija daughter Khuwaylid". Binte = daughter of.

It looks like someone changed it back. Can someone please fix it? -John Rigali 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Either is technically correct, but she was known as Khadijah bint Khuwaylid!-- (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Older version[edit]

When i just looked back, i see that some time ago, i made a redirect that messed with history. Sorry.

I in this version, we see:

Khadija's distant cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal, was a monk and a convert to Nestorian Christian sect. When Muhammad reportedly started receiving revelation, Waraqah identified him as the Prophet.

And in this version, we see:

A follower of Judaism, according to traditions she became the first female convert to Islam, the new religion Muhammad had begun to preach.

Those edits are now not present. Are they accurate? Sources? --Striver 00:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both were incorrect. First, Waraqah was a close cousin, and not a distant one. Second, there were no Jews in Mecca. Probably the confusion is because Muhammed married a Jewish convert to Islam named Safia when he migrated to Medina. Hassanfarooqi 21:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with using the Quran as historical text, is that whilst it can support historical data, it should not be a replacement for historical data. was Khadijah's distant cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal, a monk and a convert to Nestorian Christian sect? What was Khadijah's previous religion? When the article refers to Muhammed and Khatijah facing the Kabah when they received the revelation, was this before or after the Kaabah was transformed? Please clear this up. —Preceding

--Mindline (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edits[edit]

Bro, you messed up the age reference, it only sources that one singel age. Also, you cant use a wikipedia-clone as a souce.


I'm actually not a bro ... Because each one of the references in the first sentence (for example) consist of the number 1, I didn't think that they had to be repeated several times in the same line if they came from the same source, which is why I made the edit(s) that I did. As for the wikipedia clone, I wasn't sure as to whether or not it was one since I didn't notice the disclaimer at the time. Regardless, I added a citation from another site to back up the info instead. Silver crescent 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Sis, i presume :). I know that it can look messy, but puting a [1] at the end is missleading, everying there can not be found in the source. Therefore, it necesary to put the [1] directly after the necesary part. --Striver 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


According to the Khuwaylid ibn Asad article, Khadijah is his daughter. According to this article, she is the daughter of Asad ibn Abd-al-Uzza, Khuwaylid's father. Which is it? -John Rigali 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

His father was Khuwaylid bin Asad bin Abdul Uzza bin Qusayy. In other words Asad bin Abdul Uzza bin Qusayy was his grandfather, not father. Hassanfarooqi 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue of neutrality[edit]

The phrase "out of his love for her" when used to explain why Mohammed remained faithful to Khadija is disputable. There are many viable alternatives, and that phrase is definately more a matter of opinion and not fact. It should at least hint at that being one of many outside opinions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) It's fixed now.  dmyersturnbull talk 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Converted from?[edit]

Perhaps I missed it in the article, but from what belief system did she convert? An earlier edit said she was Jewish, but discussion above claims that is false. Jack Chick claims she was Catholic, but... yeah. Was she Nestorian like Waraqah, or is it not certain if she held any particular belief system? And again, sorry if it's in the article and I just missed it. -BaronGrackle 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

She did not hold a specific belief system, but was a monotheist who believed in the one God of the prophet Ibrahim .-- (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Ahmad ibn Hanbal's Musnad (volume 4, page 222) refers to Khadija worshipping Al-Uzza (the Arabian Minerva) but then losing faith in her. So she was once an ordinary Arabian polytheist but later changed her mind.
It is not clear what Khadija believed between giving up polytheism and becoming a Muslim. In Ibn Ishaq (p. 106 of Guillaume's translation) she says, “Allah would not treat you thus..." This suggests she was either a monotheist or, at least, that she believed Allah to be supreme over the other gods in the Kaaba. And even this has to be read with the understanding that Ibn Ishaq was writing nearly 150 years after the event and might have paraphrased Khadija's actual words into something more culturally normal for his readers. We don't really know what kind of deity she understood by the name "Allah".
Having said this, it is perfectly appropriate to talk about her "conversion" to Islam. She was not a Muslim in the modern sense of the word until the day she recognised Muhammad as a prophet.Grace has Victory (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Status of Khadijah[edit]

If she was a successful (and, I presume, educated and literate) businesswoman, how do some Islamic societies, such as the Taliban or the current Saudi Arabian regime, justify their own rules for what women may or may not be permitted to do, in terms of the history of their religion vis-a-vis Muhammad's wife Khadijah, who was clearly a liberated, independent, educated, and economically successful woman? Badagnani 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a very interesting question, but I don't think it belongs in an article about Khadija. Khadija lived and died before Islam was fully revealed. She became successful before Islam, so she was living by the norms of pagan society, which are not necessarily what Muslims want to emulate. She died several years before the hijab was mandated, so its restrictions never applied to her.
It is nowhere stated that Khadija was literate. She would have had more need to be numerate. Pre-Islamic Mecca was a very non-academic and illiterate society - it was even claimed that only 16 men in the whole city could write. (There would have been a higher number who could read but not write.) This does not mean that the Meccans were incapable of thinking clearly. Non-academic people are often highly gifted in the field of "business smarts", and it is obvious from this Wikipedia article alone that Khadija knew how to drive a bargain.Grace has Victory (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Became the first Muslim among females: question of structure[edit]

I just want to give an advice regarding this part of the article. It is related to logic and clearness rather than content. 

By reading the tittle of the article one gets the impression that Khadija was the first among women to convert to Islam but when reading the text we find out that she was the first among men and women to convert to Islam. I suggest that you change the title to "became the first Muslim among men" or simply " khadija became the first muslim". I think if you do so text an tittle acquire a better cohesion.

thank you Yseutz 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


This article is unencyclopedic, very apologetic, and lacks sources. Arrow740 00:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed Jdmontoya36 14:30, 13 March 2012 (PTC)

Catholic[edit] No mention is made of Khadijah's Roman Catholic faith, that I have often read about.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

bring your sources &references for this claim & it will be mentioned at appropriate place with appropriate style.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvitalk! 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this info missing?[edit]

This isn't even a complete sentence:

"By 585, Khadijah , even though she was sought for marriage by many honorable and highly respected men of the Arabian peninsula, throughout which she was quite famous, due to her business dealings."

I am assuming this is an intro to a passage about her first marriage. But no more information of that nature follows.


"She also trusted Maysarah's account regarding her new employee's conduct, an account that was most striking, indeed one that encouraged her to abandon her decision never to marry again."

There is nothing about her having been married at all prior to meeting Muhammed.

There is another heading with a link to some additional information, why isn't it in the article?

Ashabhosle (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)asha

Agreed - this section is almost indecipherable for the reader. Besides, the whole business of Khadija's "decision never to marry again" is a fantasy. There is nothing in the sources that states any such thing. There is simply a list (a rather confusing one) of the men whom she married. They don't even state how long she was a widow before marrying Muhammad. Some Shia believe that Khadija never married anyone but Muhammad, and such assumptions may have powered some of the unclear sentences. It would be better to begin a new paragraph called "Controversy" and then present the arguments for and against Khadija's previous marriages.Grace has Victory (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over no. of Daughters of Khadijah[edit]

Recently there have been removal of content from the Relatives section of this article. It has been claimed that the removed section was good faith, not relevant, original research & unsourced.

I want to analyse the situation of this section.

First I'll start with section of the article which is being removed, following is the section:

  • Section:Marriage rules

Based on narrations found even in Sunnī[1] sources, Muhammad said that daughters of his household could only marry those who were from Banū Hāshim.[1].

But(if it is assumed that Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum were daughter of Muhammed and Khadijah) this argument does not seem to be correct as:

This section has states narration from Muhammad and then states that actual situation(of marriage) for three of his attributed daughters was contrary to the narration. It has got two references; one for narration and other for marriage situation. So, here two facts are being presented and corelated which does not constitute original research, as this content is sourced so it is verifiable and seeing the situation of controversey over status of these three ladies as daughter of Muhammad (or even of Khadijah) this section gives coverage to other(Shia) point of view and gives the neutral point of view of article by balancing the counter-opinion. Hence, this section is according to the Wikipedia's three core content policies.

Now I'll analyse remaining section one by one:

  • Section: List of daughters:

The daughters attributed to Muhammad are;

  1. Zainab bint Muhammad, married to her maternal cousin Abu al-Aas ibn al-Rabee before al-Hijra
  2. Ruqayyah bint Muhammad, was married to Uthman ibn Affan
  3. Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad, also married to Uthman ibn Affan after the death of her sister Ruqayyah
  4. Fatimah, the youngest was married to Ali ('Ali bin Abi Talib)

Although it has got no reference but as it is a fact we can do without it.

  • Section: Shia Muslim view:

According to some Shia sources she only had one daughter, Fatimah. The others either belonged to her sister or were orphaned girls raised by her.

There is no source specified. This can count as original research & no verifiable.

  • Section: Statement with no affliation:

Possibly, all of them were Khadijah's but only Fatimah was born to Muhammad.

There is no source specified. This can count as original research & no verifiable.

  • Section: Sunni Muslim view part 1:

Sunni Muslims however do not contest the parentage of her daughters. They affirm what the Qur'an states: "O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers...".[3]

Source specified for Ayat of Quran but not for opinion. This can count as original research & no verifiable.

  • Section: Sunni Muslim view part 2:

The famous Sunni scholar Yusuf ibn abd al-Barr says: "His children born of Khadīja are four daughters; there is no difference of opinion about that".[4]

Source specified. This is sound.

  • Conclusion:

Sections Sunni Muslim view part 2 & Marriage rules are the only factual, verifiable & neutral point of view sections. All other sections are either original research, non verifiable or non neutral point of view. So, either we should remove those sections or source them to proove that they are factual, verifiable & neutral.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Sunni Muslim view part 1 means that since the Qur'an uses the expression "your daughters," Muhammad must have had at least three daughters. I.e., it is in contradiction to the traditional Shi'a view that he had only one daughter. To avoid the charge of original research, it must be possible to cite some reputable secondary scholar who also said this; it isn't exactly a new idea. The Qur'an does not, of course, state that Muhammad had four daughters, nor does it give their names.Grace has Victory (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I think, this implies OR & POV. Anyways, if there is any merit in the claim Qur'an uses the expression "your daughters," Muhammad must have had at least three daughters. then there is another case when a similar contradiction exists in context of event of Mubahila for which Quranic verse 3:61 ([Quran 3:61]) was revealed, though the verse calls for (in 'Arabic) at least 3 "sons", at least 3 "women", and at 3 least "selves" from each side in the Mubahila, only Imam Hasan ibn 'Ali and Imam Husain ibn 'Ali represented the "sons" of the Prophet, only Fatima al-Zahra represented the "women", and only 'Ali ibn Abi Talib represented as the "self" or "soul" of the Prophet. And the translation of the verse (i.e. it is pluralistic) and people who were actually participants (i.e. less than that of no. in verse) of the event have no contradiction in both Shia & Sunni sources.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Information[edit]

There are allot of wrong information in the text. They should pick their refrences more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly2k (talkcontribs) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At the same time you shouldn't replace referenced information with your own opinion. If you think the material is wrong then find better references. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues with "Becoming the First Muslim[edit]

Hi everyone, in reading over this article for the first time today, there are some definite issues with it: namely, in the subsection "Becoming the First Muslim." Why are two modern authors quoted as sources for the events here, especially considering that one is actually an author of fiction? There seems to be absolutely no reason why they should be included there, as they certainly can't be considered reasonable sources for events that occurred more than 1300+ years before they lived. Before I start editing things here, however, I figured I'd ask regarding the reasoning. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting your case here at Talk page. Can you clarify your point? It seems section Becoming the first Muslim contains at least five references, which references are you talking about?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Faizhaider, I didn't mention the specifics as I thought it was fairly obvious. I am referring to the quotes from Washington Irving and Ronald Bodley (refs. 5 and 6). It seems they could be put in a "legacy" section or something similar, but their current placement implies that the two authors are giving information on the actual events which they simply couldn't have had. Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Maulatena Kahideeja is first Muslim. And if I am not workn Shias and Sunnis both Agree to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husainalisaifee (talkcontribs) 08:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Surely there is no problem here? The earliest historian, Ibn Ishaq, asserts: "She was the first to believe in God and his Apostle, and in the truth of his message." It's on page 111 of Guillaume's translation, exactly as referenced here. It is not a controversial statement; as Husainalisaifee states above, there is no dissident theory. In such a case, isn't one strong reference sufficient? The others can be deleted.Grace has Victory (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Khadijah's Photo is offensive to Muslims[edit]

The portrait of Khadijah as seen on this article is offensive to Muslims as she was the wife of their Prophet.

Please remove it as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervisor2011 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

So how is this offensive, the removal of it is offensive!-- (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Some Muslims consider all images of animals and humans to be offensive. Some Muslims are only offended by images of humans. Some Muslims are only offended by images of Muhammad's family. Some Muslims are only offended by images of Muhammad himself. Some Muslims are not easily offended. The reaction to the picture is a valid point of view, but it is not a neutral point of view, as it is a Muslim point of view. I think images of Khadija should follow the same guidelines that govern all Wikipedia images, whatever those guidelines are.
I do believe that the image in question was long since out of copyright and that it did not meet any Wikipedia definition of "obscene". However, it ought to have been made clear that the image was in no way pretending to be a "portrait" of Khadija, but was made 900 years after her death as a purely symoblic representation.Grace has Victory (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Very convincing points. So why was the medal removed ? (by a user with the IP TheseusX (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The consensus on the English Wikipedia is that the images should be posted, and while the objections from devout Muslims are understood, we have decided it is important to show the images. Therefore they will be restored. The Arabic Wikipedia has chosen to not show such images, and that is the project's right to make its own decisions. @TheseusX: [{ping|Grace has Victory}} @Supervisor2011: WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Khadijah's Marriages[edit]

The Biography section of this article says Khadijah refused all offers of marriage, but the very next section lists her as a widow when she married the Prophet Muhammed. When and who did she marry? Perhaps this is all quite evident to those raised in the Islamic faith, but as an outsider I am rather confused. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ِ:I haven't seen reliable secondary source about this, as such matters have not yet been studied by academic scholars. To answer you from primary sources, Shia historians and some Sunni ones (like Abul-Qasim Ismail ibn Muhammad al-Isfahani) have reported that Khadija was virgin while some other Sunni historians have reported opposite thing. This fact is related to the origin of two girls (Zaynab and Ruqayya) who some believe were daughter of Khadija from her first marriage, or were daughteres of Haala ,(sister of Khadija). If you need more info, or some primary ref. write on my talk page.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
If all you want is quick information about Khadija's family, here is a word-for-word quote from Aisha Bewley's translation of volume 8 of Muhammad ibn Saad's Tabaqat, page 151. "The first woman that the Messenger of Allah married before prophethood was Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Before him she had been married to Atiq ibn Abid al-Makbhzumi and bore him a girl called Hind. Then after Atiq, Khadija married Abu Hala at-Tamimi, the ally of the Banu'd-Dar, and she bore him a son called Hind."
The same book, however, on page 9, states: "She married Abu Hala. His name was Hind ibn an-Nabbash ibn Zurara of Tamim. His father was a noble among his people. He settled in Makka and formed an alliance there wit hteh Banu Abdu'd-Dar ibn Qusayy. Quraysh used to marry their allies. Khadija bore Abu Hala a son called Hind and a son called Hala. Then after Abu Hala, she married Atiq ibn Abid of Makhzum. She bore him a girl called Hind, who married her cousin, Sayfi ibn Umayya ibn Abid of Makhzum, and she bore him Muhammad. This clan was called the 'Banu Muhammad' because of the position of Khadija. It existed in Madina and eventually died out. Khadija was called Umm Hind."
This is several conflicts of information already, suggesting that the facts are by no means certain.
I have found no source for the assertion that Khadija refused her subsequent suitors. Even if she did, it does not follow that she had "decided not to remarry"; it could equally mean that she hadn't liked the particular men who proposed. I did find a statement in Volume 1 of the Tabaqat that Khadija's father claimed: "The notables of the Quraysh made proposals which I rejected!" If he was telling the truth, this means it was her father who had prevented her from remarrying.
We don't need to "decide which version is correct". We just need to source every statement and point out contradictions.Grace has Victory (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

marriages of muhammed after Khadija's death[edit]

According the article, Muhammad was married to "mother of Jesus" which makes me think of the mother Mary. Now, asides from theological beliefs of marriage occurring in the afterlife, I want to know how this is possible since Muhammad didn't exist until 600 years after Jesus and Mary. Furthermore, give to accredited citation/reference, not a random website.

You have answered your own question. Muhammad had theological beliefs that he would be married to the Virgin Mary in the afterlife.Grace has Victory (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

marriages of muhammed after Khadija's death[edit]

According the article, Muhammad was married to "mother of Jesus" which makes me think of the mother Mary. Now, asides from theological beliefs of marriage occurring in the afterlife, I want to know how this is possible since Muhammad didn't exist until 600 years after Jesus and Mary. Furthermore, give to accredited citation/reference, not a random website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmontoya36 (talkcontribs) 21:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of Jesus in the article is in this sentence "After her death, the Prophet placed her in the rank of four perfect women, Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), mother of Jesus, and Fatima." which is taken from Edward Gibbon's book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. There were two problems with that quote. First the qoute does not say "Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh)" but "the sister of Moses" which is a different person. Second the reference used does not include the quote. I have fixed both. However, it does not imply that Muhammad was married to Mary but just states that the four women were seen as being perfect. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe we should use Gibbon as an authority. He was a busy man who did not spend much time researching this particular statement, which, as you say, is wrong. There is a reference to Muhammad's afterlife spouses in Majlisi's Hayat al-Qulub volume 2 chapter 26. Majlisi was citing someone called "Ibn Babawayh". Majlisi is in no way an original source, as he lived a thousand years after the event, but he had better access than Gibbon to early sources. I have also seen a citation of Zurqani's Sharh al-Mawahib for similar information.
I doubt these early sources are readily accessible to English speakers, but they would make an interesting addition to the article.Grace has Victory (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I own Hayat al-Qulub English version (all 3 volumes).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Great! Perhaps you could cut and paste the exact quotation, together with an appropriate comment on how far it could be taken as the literal words of Muhammad?Grace has Victory (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


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 consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Khadija bint KhuwaylidKhadija – Per common name. The earliest notable usage of this name comes from the subject of this article Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Pass a Method talk 14:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Don't move. The earliest notable usage of this name does indeed come from the subject of this article, but there are also many other notable women called Khadija. Normal practice in such a case is to disambiguate. What should happen is that Khadija becomes a given-name page like Catherine. -- (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have in fact done that. I am open to moving the current Khadija to Khadija (given name), but the name is so culturally important that it needs a given-name page. -- (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The name page is now at Khadija (name), with Khadija as a redirect. I think Khadija should redirect to Khadija (name), although I'm open to it redirecting to this page. However, I do not think this page should be moved. -- (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2013 (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.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Revert undiscussed move back to immediately prior RM result (non-admin closure). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Khadija (Islamic figure)Khadija bint Khuwaylid – Suggest revert back to original name. The article was moved to Khadija (Islamic figure) without discussion, following the lack of consensus in the move discussion above. Virtually all the links go to Khadija bint Khuwaylid. And a character this important in history deserves her patronymic. (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support reverting the undiscussed move, since parenthetical disambiguation of people ought to be avoided when we can avoid it. I have no strong opinion about whether the article should be at Khadija or not. (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


There are several english mistakes in the introduction. As I am neither a native speaker nor particularly knowledgeable on the subject of Muhammed's wives, I don't dare to correct them myself: "Khadijah was the closest to Muhammed and [he?] confided in her the most out of all his following wives." ("following" seems wrong here too. Either write "he confided in her the most out of all his wives" or "he confided in her more than in his later wives".) "She is regarded as one of the most important women in Islam and certainly the [one?] classed as [the?] most important, in terms of the progression of Islam, out of all [of?] Muhammad's wives." (I'm also not sure what the phrase "in terms of the progression of Islam" is supposed to mean.)

An unrelated issue: The excerpts from the hadiths are badly formatted. Furthermore, I don't see why they were included in the first place. Is this supposed to add some 'muslim flavor' to the text? They certainly add color to the article, but I would recommend moving that kind of material either to a footnote to the sentence "It is narrated in many hadiths that Khadijah was Muhammed's most trusted and favourite among all his marriages" or---even better---to a separate subsection. The introduction to an article in an encyclopedia should IMO be as terse as possible, and this is frankly clutter. TheseusX (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b * al-Haythami, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Hajar (1965). al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqah. Maktabat al-Qahirah. p. 160. 
    * Ibn Qutayba, Abd Allah ibn Muslim (1960). Kitab al-Ma'arif. s.n. p. 70. 
  2. ^ Al-Mubarakphuri, Safi-ur-Rahman. Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar). Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam Publications, 1996
  3. ^ Quran 33:59
  4. ^ al-Istī`āb fī Ma`rifat al-Aşĥāb (Yusuf ibn abd al-Barr, The Comprehensive Compilation of the Names of the Prophet's Companions) vol.1 pp.50