Talk:Wives of Muhammad

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)

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 sectiontag 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. 105.112.210.95 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2023 (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)

Wow 105.112.210.95 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2023 (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 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)

The basic problem with the above paragraph about marriage in pre-Islamic Arabia is that it is factually incorrect. First, not much is known about pre-Islamic Arabs because they left no written records. Second, there is some evidence that the basic point of mutaa marriage was that it imposed serious limitations on the husband's right to initiate a divorce. Third, there were forms of marriage in which the wife had significant powers of divorce, including the absolute right to keep the children. Fourth, there is clear evidence that the bride-price was paid to the bride (not to her father) well before the time of Muhammad, even if it was not so in the earliest times. For one thing, he was "pre-Islamic" when he paid the twenty camels to Khadija! Fifth, there were in fact two distinct forms of polyandry in practice, beside two forms of polygyny. The fact that the situation was so complicated probably reflects the reality that customs varied from tribe to tribe.

I don't know who wrote the paragraph above or on what assumptions it was based, but it doesn't sound like anything a scholar would have written. The little I know was derived from Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, which can be downloaded for free. But surely there has been more up-to-date research in the century since then. I think it would be very interesting for Wikipedia to host an article on marriage in pre-Islamic Arabia, but only if it were based on genuine research and not speculation.Petra MacDonald 05:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

References

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 wives

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.

This issue has become something of a hot potato, with the recent YouTube video. There is dispute amongst Islamic scholars about Aisha's age and it worries me that this is not mentioned. It could easily turn into "original research", but the existence of an article such as this summary of the conflicts in accounts is surely sufficient to justify a statement that the claim is disputed. This looks like one of those things that "everyone knows", which isn't so certain.--88.110.14.82 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

If it would be true that she was 6-7 Year old when she was married to the Prophet of Islam,how old was she at the time as she was already betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im?Like u can read under:Aisha bint Abu Bakr "Aisha was the daughter of Muhammad's close friend Abu Bakr. She was initially betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im"... The fact that Aisha was already betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im,guides me to the conclusion that the Narrations about the age in the Sahih Bukhari are wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.209.168 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2014 (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)

References

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)

The article names only twelve women. Zaynab bint Khuzayma (his fifth wife) is missing from the list. There seems to be no good reason for this omission. Her status as his wife is not in doubt (unlike Rayhana and Mariya). She was a "Mother of the Faithful". She belongs under the category "war widows," between Hafsa bint Umar and Hind bint Abi Umayya.Grace has Victory (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The first line says 12 but the box on the right shows 13 including Zaynab bint Khuzayma and the section Muhammad's wives#Hafsa bint Umar and Zaynab bint Khuzayma also mentions her. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2012 (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)

(←) 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)

I agree with you - this would be really interesting! Unfortunately, it is not practicable. Contemporary observers did not give reasons why Muhammad married these various wives; they simply recorded that he did marry them. Most of the suggested reasons come from non-scholars who are not so much researching as guessing according to bias ("He did it to give homes to poor and elderly widows"; "he did it out of lust for beautiful teenagers"). The few serious historians who have suggested reasons (only their opinions, of course; this kind of thing cannot be proved) all contradict one another. If you have access to the opinions of these serious scholars, by all means insert and source them. My suspicion is, however, that this matter has never been properly investigated. It's certainly a Ph.D. project for someone.Petra MacDonald 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment left in article

Moved here from the article:

Wiki writes in the section titled "Aisha bint Abu Bakr": Child marriage was common in some cultures, including Western Christian countries until fairly recently. For example, in as late as 1880, the majority of those making laws in the United States agreed that a person who was ten years old was old enough to consent to sexual relations. Since children and women were still property at that time, the father would be the one consenting to this act which may be against her will. This is only a single year older than Aisha was when she consummated her marriage to Muhammad more than 1200 years earlier.[21][22]

Yet, by clicking on footnote #22 from above, this is what is written: By 1880, the first date chosen, many western nations had established an age of consent for the first time, typically of 12 or 13 years. By 1920, when the influence of reform campaigns that established a new link between the age of consent and prostitution had run its course, most had revised their age upward, to 14 or 15 in European nations, and 16 in the Anglo-American world.

Obviously the two accounts do not match. Moral equivalency much? Additionally the comment "1200 years earlier" needs to be corrected. It is now 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annemalcolm (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 June 2012

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed that section per your comment, and also because, even the statement had matched the cited reference, it would have been violating Wikipedia's guidelines about original research and neutrality. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems much of the comment is still there. Apart from the way it misrepresents information in a way that implies this was commonplace in nineteenth-century Western Europe, I have serious doubts about the relevance of this addition to the article. What does the official age of consent in some parts of Western Europe around 1880 have to do with the age of Muhammad's wife when their marriage was consummated over a milennium earlier in a town where few people even knew what Europe looked like? It seems to me that the only reason to include that irrelevant information is moral justification. I'm looking for information on one of Muhammad's wives, not the official age of consent in Luxembourg around 1880.

I've heard similar statements when I was discussing the influence of Islam on current global cultural and political conflicts. "Yes, but Christianity also did horrible things!" is something I tend to hear very often. While that's true, it has absolutely nothing to do with what those discussions were about. I consider the comment left in this article an unrelated comparison used as justification for documented information that doesn't need moral justification. Windowolf (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that section out as i also thought it was unrelated and opinionated. I saw that there was a source which I double checked such as it was. That is why I didn't take the whole section out but tried to rewrite what was cited in a way that would make readers understand that only the lawmakers could have been in the majority. In fact the whole reason I got a Wiki account was to edit and try to comply with their policies that day I read it . I hate to undo something that someone has written but I was so disturbed by that section that I did the best I could with my very first try. I know I could have done better it appears. It didn't seem related at all to the story and I saw previous attempts to fix opinions that having a six year old for a wife was fine in the 700's which may or may not be true which were unsuccessful by the common consenses on this talk page. It pains me to stifle freedom of speech but I was disturbed. I'm not trying to start a religious war here and the only reason I was on this Wiki was to find information and oh, well, I tried. Thank you again! I AM BECAUSE I AM (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Narration removed

I have removed the following narration because its not relevant to this article:

Saffiyah says, "I was my father's and my uncle's favorite child. When the Messenger of Allah came to Madinah and stayed at Quba, my parents went to him at night and when they looked disconcerted and worn out. I received them cheerfully but to my surprise no one of them turned to me. They were so grieved that they did not feel my presence. I heard my uncle, Abu Yasir, saying to my father, 'Is it really him?' He said, 'Yes, by Allah'. My uncle said: 'Can you recognize him and confirm this?' He said, 'Yes'. My uncle said, 'How do you feel towards him?' He said, 'By Allah I shall be his enemy as long as I live.'" Reference: Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, vol. 2, pp. 257-258

This narration isn't about Safiyya or about her relationship to Muhammad. It's something Safiyya narrates. Aisha, for example, has hundreds of narrations and they all can't be mentioned in this article.Bless sins (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

About Mohammads Wife Aisha and her Real age at the Marriage!

I wanted to make clear that those Narrations from the Sahih Bukhari are false and that Aisha s age at the Marriage were not 6-9Years as they claimed,but 20-23Years of age!

The Bakhris narrated that the Prophet married Aisha ,while she was between 6 or 9 years old(as they claim).It is recommended not to believe in the creditibility of this Narration from the Sahih al Bukhari[24],because if it is narrated that she was already betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before the marriage with the Prophet of Islam.How old was she,when she was engaged by Jubayr ibn Mut'im then?3-4Years of age?And if we factor in the date in which she died, and her age we can conclude that she was around the age of 20, because her marriage to the Prophet was before the Hijrah.[Refer to Al-Ma`rif le Ibn Qutayba, Pg. 59] [25]. Ibn Hajr has also narrated, from Abi Na`eem about 'Asma bint Abu Bakr -- the sister of Aisha -- that was born 27 years before the Hijra of the Holy Prophet.This would mean that Aisha was about 20 years old, when the Messenger of Allah married her (since it has been narrated that 'Asma is about 10 years older then Aisha)[Refer to Al-`Esabi le Ibn Hajr, Vol. 8, Pg. 15] [26]. From these sources we can conclude that the Prophet had married Aisha and she had already passed the age of puberty, and maturity.Meaning she was not a child at the age of 6 or 9 as she claims in the narrations present.When the Messenger of Allah married Aisha, Abu Bakr said: I was about to marry her to Jubyar son of Mut'im, let me ask them for permission. He asked permission from them, and divorced Aisha from Jubayr ibn Mut'im, and the Messenger of Allah then married her.[Al-Tabi'qaat Al-Kobra le Ibn Sa`d, Vol.7, Pg.59]. [27]. So, from this we can see that Aisha was married (engaged), and then she divorced then married again (from the Messenger of Allah). This also shows us that she did reach an age of maturity, and she had passed puberty, and that she was not a child. Looking at the narrations, Abu Bakr said that 'He gave her to Jubyar', and at the time of Jahilliyyah, they would not wait for intercourse if they were married, for it would be an act done.If we look at Aisha's biography we see she had innovated in her life time,it is to notice that she was never patient meaning it is possible to expect from Aisha that she did lose her virginity. In conclusion,that she married the Prophet while she was not a virgin, by looking at verses of the Holy Qur'an whilst marrying the Prophet. Some sources prove that Aisha was 19-20 Years Old,when the Prophet married her.Tahdheeb al asma of Nawawi Vol.2 Page 329 [28]Biography of Asma daughter of Abu Bakr Sister of Aisha.Asma was 10 Years older then Aisha and Hafeez Abi Na'eeem says:Asma was born 27 Years before the Migration of the Messenger of Allah.According to this and other sources,Asma the older Sister was 10 Years older then Aisha,Asma was born 27 Years before the migration of the Hijra,so Aisha was 17 Years old in the Year of the Migration.Aisha were Married from the Prophet in the second Year of the Migration,when she was about 20 Years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoAzrael (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Muhammad's wives. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927133302/http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=933 to http://www.islamonline.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=933

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad's wives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509100919/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad's wives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820120526/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/008.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/008.sbt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

timeline

I have a suggestion for supplementing the chart image. One with text (since blind people can read text using tech, but not images) which has columns listing the year of the marriage, Muhammad's age at that year, the birth year of the wife, and the wife's age at that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.193.44 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Dates of marriages and timeline

I have just noticed that the dates in the infobox of the Muhammad article do not concur with the diagrammatic timeline in this article. I know that there is not certainty about all dates, but it would be good if someone has the time to cross-check the evidence here and in the other article so that they concur as far as is able to determine from sources. Where uncertain, the date should be prefixed by "c." as per MOS:CIRCA. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

The term Mothers of the believers origin. I am not a Shia but I have done a lot of research about Shia and I know that both Shia and Sunnis state in their books that one day Talhah Ibn 'Obidillah said that if Muhammad (the prophet) died I will marry Aisha. Talhah Ibn 'Obidillah is the cousin of Aisha. At that time the Aya which says (And his wives are the mothers of believers) came. The meaning of the Aya that no one can marry the wives of prophet Muhammad even if he died because they are their mothers and Quran has declared that for that reason and this is mentioned in many books of Tafsir(interpretations) in both Sunni and Shia books. That, in my opinion, should be clear in this article because a lot of people think that the title "Mothers of the believers" makes Mohammed's wives like holy women and etc. Although in the Quran Surat Al-Mohsanat God says to Aishia and Hafsa(doughter of Omar) that they should ask for forgiveness because their hearts have not been clean and there is Qutilah that was married to prophet Muhammad and later become Kafir.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me? I am trying to think of an encyclopedic passage that would be like this "It is disputed among Muslim scholars whether the term is a honorific term or a was used to forbid marrying Muhammad wives after his death or after he divorce them"

This is from Tabari Tafsir

He didn't mention the story of Talhah but he says the interpretation of the Aya is that the wives of prophet Muhammad are haram as their mothers (which means they are not allowed to marry from them) http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura33-aya6.html And this is from Ibn Kathir Tafsir He also didn't mention the story of Talhah but says that the meaning of Aya that the Muslims were not allowed to marry the wives of Muhammad (after his death) http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary-katheer/sura33-aya6.html#katheer The Sa'di Tafsir also says the same thing http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary-katheer-saadi/sura33-aya6.html#saadi Qurtopi Tafsir says the same thing but adds that this is a honour title for them http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary-katheer-saadi-qortobi/sura33-aya6.html#qortobi

Some of these sources state that there are disputes among scholars whether the term is a honorific term or a was used to forbid marrying Muhammad wives after his death or during his life. I will try to find the sources for the story of Talhah (Aisha's cousin)--SharabSalam (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really help because I can't read Arabic, but I'm just going to tag @Eperoton: here as s/he may be able to help or have a suggestion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to find non Arabic interpretation books (called Tafsir in Arabic) but I found Al-Suyuti book who's Tafsir is one of the most accurate Tafsirs in the Muslim world https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

This is the Tafsir of the Aya that mention the term "Mothers of believers" the term "Mothers of believers" appears as a honorific term when someone see it at the first look but the actual meaning of it is "the Muslims [at that time] were forbidden from marrying the wives of Muhammad after his death or divorce. This (in my opinion) should be clarified in the article. I will also talk about the story of Talhah Ibn 'Obidillah who is the cousin of Aisha (prophet Muhammed's wife) later when I get more sources--SharabSalam (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The article lead says Muslims often use the term "Mothers of the Believers" prominently before or after referring to them as a sign of respect, a term derived from the Quran. in the terminology section it says that the term is from Surah 33 Aya 6. However, what is ignored here is that the term was not actually used as a sign of respect in the Quran I mean it wasn't meant to be a honorific term but to forbid marrying Muhammad wives as most of Tafsir books says. I know this interpretation sounds weird for even both Arabic-speaking people and non-Arabic speaking people but in old times the Arabs used to say "You are now as my mother/sister/anut" to their wives if they want to divorce this was a parctice in pre-Islamic Arabia called "Zihar" or "Thihar". It sounded very obvious to people in the past because they know what it means because they used it all the time. Most of modern Arabs and non-Arabs don't know this and usually when they see "Mothers of the believers" they think that this term is a sign of respect not a term that was used to forbid marrying Muhammad wives. This has also lead extermist Muslims or ISIS or even ordinary people to further misinterpretation that anyone who is going to criticize any wife of Prophet Muhammad is a not a Muslim because Allah has said that they are the mother of believers and some go further and say that if anyone criticized any wife of Muhammad would be like insult all the believers mothers like they interpret the term "Mothers of believers" literary. not even a sign of respect but it's a fact and this has made these people hate Shia soo much and many of them join the so called ISIS to kill Shia. The thing that made this problem so big is the Saudi media who goes to the TV and say these misinterpretations and then show Shia saying Aisha was not a Muslim. In almost all books of Sunni Tafsirs it says that the term was used to forbid marrying Muhammad wives but they ignore that and 99% of ISIS followers are not aware of that.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the ping... This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of classical commentaries, per WP:PRIMARY, since it involves an editorial judgement about the significance of a particular narrative within various Islamic traditions. We should not be mining them directly to highlight a particular interpretation, but instead reflect how the subject is treated in secondary sources. Since this has to do with interpretation of Quranic passages (33:6 for the phrase "Mothers of the believers" and 33:53 for prohibition of remarriage), I've consulted The Study Quran from HarperOne, which is a useful compendium of classical tafsir put together by academics. Here are the relevant passages for the two verses. For 33:6: This verse and v. 53 elevate the status of the Prophet’s wives. Thereafter they were known as the “mothers of the believers,” and marriage to them after the Prophet’s death was forbidden. Their position as the “mothers of the believers” implies by extension that, although the Prophet is not the biological or adoptive father of the believers (see 33:40c), from a spiritual perspective he is the father of all believers (Qm), which is also the basis for their brotherhood (Ts). For 33:53: The prohibition against marrying the Prophet’s wives is linked by some to the prohibition against marrying one’s mother (4:23) and against marrying those women whom your fathers married (4:22), since the Prophet is closer to the believers than they are to themselves, and his wives are their mothers (33:6). This may also be because the Prophet’s wives are believed to continue to be his wives in the Hereafter (IK, Q) Qm stands for Tafsir Qomi, Ts for Majma' al-Bayan, IK for Ibn Kathir and Q for Tafsir al-Qurtubi. Eperoton (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton and Laterthanyouthink. Here is the story of the man who wanted to marry one of prophet Muhammad wives after the death of prophet Muhammad from Ibn Kathir book. https://books.google.com/books?id=-QpjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52

Ibn Kathir says that the man is Talhah Ibn 'Obidillah and then says that Muslims are not allowed to marry prophet Muhammad wives because they are the "mother of believers".

The information that I am trying to add to this article is this: (the term "Mother of believers" was used to forbid marrying Muhammad wives after his death.) because I think we should explain more what the term was interpreted as. currently the article only states that the term is used as a sign of respect.

I know that Ibn Kathir would be considered as a primary source but I don't have access to academic sources that analysis this. For now I think we can use your source to add that information. Do you think adding the story of Talhah Ibn 'Ubidillah is needed? I am not sure.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We can add a statement reflecting this part from the RS: The prohibition against marrying the Prophet’s wives is linked by some to the prohibition against marrying one’s mother. Your proposed phrasing is a stronger assertion that's not supported by our RSs. Eperoton (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Eperoton. On a related note, would you suggest including or leaving out the phrase in the infoboxes of the various wives? I added it to Khadijah as Aisha's infobox had it, but it's not included in the others and I'm wondering now whether appropriate at all. Remove? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to fall under the category of honorific titles. Similar articles either put them under the name as you did there or in "title" parameter. I don't have a strong opinion about this choice. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton and Laterthanyouthink: do we have a source of what "Mother of believers" means other than that it's was to forbid marrying Muhammad wives?. Where is the source that says it is used as a sign of respect? I can't find it--SharabSalam (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Stowasser calls it an "honorific epithet" in her book. Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how the author concluded that it is a honorific title but the author in page 116 talks about the term of being to forbid marrying Muhammad wives after his death and link 33:6 with 33:53 (as most of commentary books do)

It seems like if it is considered as a honorific title because it looks like a honorific title.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can also reflect that statement about "Muslim Qur'an interpretation". I also don't know how Stowasser made the conclusion about honorific title. Perhaps it's discussed elsewhere in the book -- I haven't read it yet. Her book is a solid RS, and our uncertainty about her reasoning shouldn't influence our use of the passage. Eperoton (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I do understand the rationale behind saying that it is a honorific title. It sounds like a honorific title but classical Islamic books don't agree with that. It was clear for Arabs in that time(sixth century) that it is not a honorific title because -as I said- Zihar was a common practice at that time.

I want also to point out that Shia Muslims don't agree with the idea that the title is a honorific title. would it be a neutral point of view if we used the title in the infobox?. I am a Sunni and I agree with the classic interpretation of the term "Mother of believers" not the neo-Sunni interpretation which creates many problems. Like how can I as a Sunni say that Qateelah bint Qays (one of Muhammad wives) is an honored person although later after prophet Muhammad died she became an apostate and married to another one? it blows my mind when I see them saying (may Allah be pleased with her) after mentioning her name. I see many neo-Sunnis straggling to dismiss this fact although it is mentioned in Sunnis books. These problems made modern Saudi scholars shut down any debates regarding these issues claiming that they are Shubhat. Unfortunately many Sunnis are following this Saudi school which in my opinion is not a Sunni school but a Wahhabi school. I am saying this to make my objection clear.SharabSalam (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, we do have a RS calling it an honorific title. Other RSs indicate that some interpreters have made a connection to marriageability, but we don't have a RS stating that the use of the phrase as an honorific title is disputed on that basis. To infer that the two interpretations are mutually exclusive without a RS making that assertion would be WP:SYNTH. It sounds like there's some controversy surrounding this, but we would need to find RSs discussing the controversy itself to reflect it in the article. Eperoton (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Aisha bint Abu Bakr and "challenged in modern times"

"This timeline has been challenged by a number of scholars in modern times."

Something written before 1000 CE isn't "in modern times" by any usual measure. And neither is something written by one person "challenged by a _number of scholars_" --jae (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There's better developed content on this question in the main article, which I've just used to improve this one. Eperoton (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

She married when she was 19 not 9 as:

To anyone who is reading this

Aisha married 19 not 9 according to many authentic scholars (For example Zakir Naik) as she was able to write 2000 hadiths (2010 to be exact) and could make logical debates as well!

If it even were to be nine (6 or 7 is UNAUTHENTIC), Women used to mature faster in the deserts and in the olden times and their appearance would look like a teen.

Please do not spread false information about Aisha

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ALRALR (talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Like your edits to the article page, your comments are totally unsourced and contradict the multiple references you keep deleting.
In addition, please sign all posts on talk pages (but NOT in articles) with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp - Arjayay (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

All evidence points to between 6 and 7 years of age. 71.59.196.190 (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@ALRALR Although this issue has been dealt with before. This page is not for this debate. Btw, your claim is false as well. Dr Zakir Naik actually admitted that she was 6 or 7 at the time of marriage and 9 when he was sent to prophet(S)'s house. Dr Jonahan AC Brown also holds this view. You claiming it to be unauthentic is not true at all. The hadith are from Sahih bukhari & sahih muslim. Also most historical accounts subscribes to it as well. If you still want to debate, go to the Aisha page. This page is not the place for this kind of issue. Ishan87 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wives of Holy Prophet

Please remove the word concubine 182.191.34.99 (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mariyah: slave girl/concubine or wife?

Mariyah: slave girl/concubine or wife? Please Present a few references well before correcting the data. Ripon talukder1000 (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Rayhana (Wife or concubine)

@Rasnaboy: Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it was written in the article that he got married to her. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rasnaboy: It was reported with two sources that marriage took place with dowry. I don't why you reverted it. Can you enlighten me on it? Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

121.6.31.145 (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Rayana and Mariah are his wives not concubine

 Done: described ambiguity – small jars tc 20:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Plz fact check why is the page not delivering facts 10 wife’s after Bibi Khadijah and in list we have e13 wife’s nothing about his kids plz give right info

Plz fact check stop 🛑 spreading wrong information if u fear who ever your God is 99.60.82.169 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Please Give Reference about Um Al momineen Bibi Khadija of being 'a Widow' at the time of her Marriage..

I am unable to find any reference about Her being widow before Her marriage with Last Prophet May Peace be upon Him. Please enlighten the general public with valuable and irrefutable data... Much Obliged. ZafarAbbasMir (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wifes of the prophet

the prophet wasn't granted unlimited wife as a section of this Wikipedia says he was said to not have more than he already has 103.214.61.142 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2024

Mohammad (SAW) did not have any concubines. Stop spreading false message about The Greatest Man in the world 2409:40D0:102D:A120:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

He was pdf file

He married a child. He had relations with her at 9 2001:BB6:9E0E:B900:C918:2F03:2A41:2A60 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)