Talk:Muhammad's wives/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Started article 2 Umm - Ul - Momineen, Mother of the beleivers 3 A little more work 4 Thinly veiled anti-Islam, feminist POV 5 Second thought 6 Aisha 7 Anonymous hagiographer 8 Another anonymous editor 9 re: women as lesser creatures 10 libertine 11 Accusations of libertinism 12 Delegation to Abu Bakr 13 Anon Shi'a editor with grudges against Aisha, Abu Bakr, and Umar 14 Loot - spoils - revenue 15 Greatest Number of Wives at One Moment 16 having sex for pure enjoyment is forbidden? 17 Maria the Copt as a virgin 18 Rename 19 his own children 20 Shi'a view on Bukhari 21 Eek, what has happened to this article? 22 Shi'a view 23 Incest? 24 Zaid ibn Muhammad

Started article

Started article, but it needs review and references. Zora 05:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It seems rather contentious. It's very POV at the moment. Who are these detractors? Who has answered them? Do you have sources for either side? It all seems a bit salacious. If and when someone edits this, they will need to state the facts much more plainly and separate them from the comment. At the moment, this strikes me as not so thinly veiled antiIslamism. Perhaps that was, and perhaps it wasn't what you intended. Do you plan to link to it from other relevant pages? I suppose you must because no one is likely to search for "Muhammad's marriages".Dr Zen 06:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It's not thinly veiled anti-islamism; it's linked to Muhammad and the idea is to address the allegations without cluttering up the main page. I know it's lacking in references, but I've been working on the Muhammad bio for ten hours and I'm tired.

While the charges are Christian, all the facts are from various Islamic online sites. It's not the facts in question, it's the interpretation to be made of them. Zora 08:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why address the interpretations at all - let alone in a "he says, she says" format like the second half of this article? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's more appropriate to leave the polemics for external links and reserve this page for a factual overview of the marriages - about which a lot more could be said. No mention of "Mother of the Believers"? Or of the occasional jealousies between them? Or of the noteworthy status of Khadija and Aisha? This topic could be a good article, but it never will be if it's devoted to polemic and counter-polemic. - Mustafaa 00:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa, that's exactly what my feeling was. It's a fascinating subject historically and it would be good for it not to be dragged down into yet another trawl through the controversies rather than the facts. This is not to say that Zora's work is unappreciated! Far from it. I hope you didn't get that impression, Zora.Dr Zen 04:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Umm - Ul - Momineen, Mother of the beleivers

I think this topic needs to be introduced earlier in the article and mentioned, probably in a brief sentence in the intro as I beleive all titles should be. --Tigeroo 08:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A little more work

Mustafaa, I think you have a good idea in expanding the article beyond pro and con. I have at least fleshed out the pro and con. Zora 00:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I stayed up all night and redid it. It's still not long enough and it needs all sorts of references, but perhaps this is a better start. Mustafaa, get busy! Zora 16:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! I'm suitably impressed. I'll see what I can do... - Mustafaa 17:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thinly veiled anti-Islam, feminist POV

POV section heading: "Libertinism?"

It would be POV if it didn't have a question mark. Zora 07:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muslim apologists retort that he was simply a man of his time, in a time when most political relationships were sealed with a marriage. (This is actually the main reason, political alliance through marriage, and it is glossed over in the rush to feminist critique)

While some of Muhammad's marriages could be described as creating political relationships, either with his major followers or with conquered tribes, there remain a number of marriages for which no one has adduced a political purpose. Perhaps you can go down the list of his marriages and describe the political purpose for each one? Zora 07:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many of Muhammad's detractors have criticized his conduct in marrying so many wives.

If Muhammad is to be criticized for breaking the Quranic rules, he is exempted by those same rules.

This, of course, does not touch the question of whether or not it was fair, right, and seemly that a leader should have privileges denied his followers.

Only one source of attribution for all these smears: Christian critics tend to paint Muhammad as a libertine. See, for example, Muhammad and His Wives

Typos: Great rulers had dozens of wives, or more. (As did David and Solomon, according to the Jewish and Christian scriptures.)

This verges on original research. It is the typical slanted POV diatribe against Muhammad that Islamophobes use, thinly veiled in academic style. I won't bother to edit it unless someone else refuses to do so. --Alberuni 07:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can saying that there are such-and-such charges, and then giving the response to them, constitute a POV? If everyone gets an opportunity to present his/her best argument, and links are given, then the reader can do further investigation and make up his/her own mind. If you don't like the article, then you should be elaborating and buttressing the arguments with which you agree, rather than trying to delete the arguments with which you don't agree. You can't win an argument by silencing your opponents. You win it by out-arguing them. Zora 07:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even Muhammad Heikal's Life of Muhammad - an impeccably Muslim-POV biography if ever there was one - devotes several sections to arguing against the accusations of the Orientalists, particularly with regard to his marriages. These accusations are made, regularly; if Heikal was happy to mention them, why should Wikipedia hesitate? The phrasing may need some edits, but the mere fact of mentioning them should not be an issue. - Mustafaa 17:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Second thought

I wouldn't put this in the article, but after thinking about this a while, I've started to think that Muhammad acquired wives the way I acquire stray cats -- wanting to help lesser creatures in need of protection, and then enjoying their company. (I don't ask my cats if it's OK to adopt another one. I do it, even if they're jealous as heck.) I don't believe that women are lesser creatures, myself, but in the context of the times ... Zora 15:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That only works if Muhammad really did think of them as lesser creatures. The belief that a creature or person in need of protection at a given time and/or place is "lesser" is not universal. I will stop there; since anything I say beyond that might sound racist and/or politically incorrect :D

And he had a weakness for cats, too. Remember, he was, after all, the teacher of teachers for the Sufis, and if I understand what little knowledge of that path I have received correctly, neither he nor true students of his would consider cats "lesser creatures".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Aisha

I have never heard Aisha described as "his cousin" and Abu Bakr as "his uncle". I have made relevant changes. Please see.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:57, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Abu Talib article, Abu Bakr's father was Muhammad's uncle, which would seem to imply that Abu Bakr was Muhammad's cousin, rather than uncle. - Mustafaa 17:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's my careless mistake, confusing Abu Bakr and Abu Talib !!!! and I thought I'd grubbed it all out. If you see it anywhere, fire at will. Zora 20:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great job guys.. carry on..--219.12.52.77 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous hagiographer

Someone seems to have felt that this article is insufficiently adulatory of Muhammad and Aisha and added a number of POV statements, which I removed. I did not see any information in those statements that was not already present in the longer Muhammad and Aisha articles. Zora 01:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zora, here I have to disagree with you; at least partially. How is "spiritual leader", for example, hagiographic? In fact, some people might take it as lampooning ;).—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Is it better now? Zora 08:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. And provides more context.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor

Someone just edited the article and turned the second section, on more than four wives, into a repeat of the previous, accusations of libertinism. It's as if he/she didn't see any difference between accusations of libertinism and unfairness. Perhaps it would help to re-title the last section so that the point is clear. This editor also added the exact numbers of David and Solomon's wives, which I deleted, as being an extraneous detail that just detracts from the flow of the narrative. Zora 07:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: women as lesser creatures

I don't believe the polygamy practiced by Muhammad was a result of his own views of women as lesser creatures as much as it was a result of women's general status at the time.

It's important to note that Muhammad lived in a time when female babies were killed because they were viewed as a curse on the family, needless to say a grown woman without a man to look after her and speak on her behalf would face huge difficulties in living a secure day to day lifestyle.

To say Muhammad himself felt this way about women is largely speculative.

I believe there should be an extra paragraph added to this article outlining the rules as to polygamy in Islam, as they are far more extensive than the simplistic rule stated in the article that the husband must treat all wives equally.

Other rules also indicate the need for all wives to be aware of the other(s) and to be in acceptance of them. Not only that but the husband's allowable reasons for taking on a second wife are very limited in scope. I have not added this paragraph myself as I'm not an expert in Islamic marital law, but I think it adds value to the article and would clarify a lot of questions that arise after reading the article if someone did add this paragraph.

I'd have to check, but if there isn't an article on Polygamy in Islam, we should probably have one. Then we could link the Muhammad and his marriages article to it. If there's no article, you could START one and then the copy editors would descend on it <g>. Zora 08:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done a slight expansion on the topic of "Polygamy" (which was already existent) under Polygamy and Region: Islam. I did not go into any detail with regards to Muhammad's marriages, but I did expand a bit more on the meaning of the verses quoted under the "Polygamy" article. I've also done a bit more research and it seems I was wrong and that the condition that all wives need to be accepting of one another is not actually true, however the reasons for a second marriage are quite limited in scope and equality in time, money and treatment must be achieved between all wives.

libertine

I think we might want to avoid this word entirely. First of all, it is obscure in meaning, only English or political students are going to know what it means without jumping over to the article itself. Secondly, it seems odd to apply such a term in this case, as Muhammad was not a member of a 17th century European political or social group advocating freethinking philosophy. func(talk) 19:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Obscure? It's not a commonly used word for a man who persistently seeks sexual pleasure and scoffs at religious rules against his pursuits. But other people have complained that my vocabulary is too recondite, so if you can suggest a better word ...

Well, here's the list from Roget's Thesaurus:

abandoned, corrupt, debauched, degenerate, depraved, dissipated, evil, fast, hell-bent, high living, lax, lewd, libertine, licentious, light, loose, night owl, nighthawk, open, playboy, player, profligate, raffish, rakish, reprobate, slack, speedy, swift, unconstrained, unprincipled, unrestrained, vicious, wanton, wayward, wicked, wild

Hmmmm ... none of the other words seem like just the right thing. We want something like "sex-obsessed" but less medical sounding. I might ask on my copy-editing list. Zora 22:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, since Muhammad was instrumental in creating the religion it would be bad to imply that he scoffs at religious rules, especially ones that he was influential in creating. gren 1 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

It would be bad -- but the question is, is it true? It does seem plausible. "You only get four wives, but me, coz I'm special, I get as many as I want." Religious leaders have long been known for doing that. Case in point from my own tradition -- Richard Baker, of the San Francisco Zen Center, living in luxury and driving a white BMW while his followers slaved long hours at no pay and lived on next to nothing. Muslims have to explain why appearances are misleading -- and various explanations have been given in the article. It would be whitewashing not to raise the issue, particularly as it's a common criticism. Zora 1 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)

Accusations of libertinism

Firstly, I'm not sure what the relevance of "Christian" critics is. All critics do that. Also Bible.ca is a non-notable site that has no scholarly value. We can at least find a notable Christian theologian or sociologist who argues this instead of Bible.ca gren 1 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

The notable ones aren't discussing such matters, as it is "not nice". However, Wikipedia DOES get many readers who shares the biases of Bible.ca, and it's a public service to put their arguments up for public scrutiny. This may be a rightpondian-leftpondian difference. The US has a lot more um, anti-intellectual evangelical Christians than the UK does. Zora 1 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

I've removed all the "libertine" stuff. You can find criticism of any anyone if you troll right wing evangelical websites. It's barely more than hate-speech and not worth repeating in a serious encyclopedia. --Lee Hunter 1 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the article, and I started it for a Wikipedia-specific reason: to deflect the critics who were defacing and vandalizing the Muhammad article. They'd insert comments about Muhammad being a pedophile, a womanizer, etc., the comments would be deleted, then they'd go on the talk pages and scream about censorship and Muslim cover-ups. If we (we not meaning Muslims, but just non-bigots) used the Muhammad article to reply to the criticisms, then the article bogged down in argument and became useless as information for the casual reader. By shunting the arguments off to separate articles (Aisha, Muhammad's marriages, Muhammad as warrior, Banu Qurayza), we gained space for detailed argument AND we stopped a lot of the vandalism. Anyone who arrived screaming "Pedophilia!" could be referred to the Aisha article, where all the arguments were already laid out. This has stopped a LOT of the vandalism and argument re censorship, though not all of it.

Wikipedia is not subject to the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia. It can go into minute detail. It can contain all controversies, rather than screening them out. IMHO, hate speach is less toxic when it's written down and then refuted. Completely erasing the criticism as "nasty" -- even if it is -- just leads the critic to think that he's being censored because he's right, and his opponents are embarrassed. Zora 2 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Frankly it's just too bizarre putting purely moral judgements from obscure zealots from a competing religion into the article. You see a lot of this in WP, people inserting some comment from some page they found on the web as a proxy for their own opinion. It's just a cheap way of taking shots at another group, of spoon-feeding a pre-digested point of view to the reader in an attempt to slip past the POV policy. Let's put the facts in the article and let the reader make up his/her own mind. --Lee Hunter 2 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

WP includes opinions, if they're held by a significant number of people, and just tries to make sure that all opinions are fairly represented. There's no way to put "just the facts" because people don't agree on what the facts are. This is the BASIS of Wikipedia. Zora 2 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)

Delegation to Abu Bakr

I reworked Striver's additions re Muhammad's widows. Striver then added "all of" to my wording re a delegation of widows and relatives. I'm deleting the "all of", because I think it unlikely that Aisha would have been part of a delegation protesting to her father. Indeed, I'm not at all sure that I should have accepted Striver's info on this matter, as it seems that the widows and the relatives would not necessarily have been acting in concert. I'm reading Reza Aslan's popularizing summary of Islamic history, No God But God, and he asserts that Abu Bakr was trying to suppress the claims of Muhammad's blood relatives, and exalt the claims of Muhammad's widows (who included his daughter). The widows would eventually die off, leaving control of the ummah uncontested, whereas recognition of the rights of blood relatives and descendants would raise up a perpetual party of opposition to a non-Hashimite ruler -- as in fact happened anyway. Zora 3 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Well, her is my source:

It is narrated on the authority of 'A'isha who said: When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, his wives made up their minds to send 'Uthman b. 'Affan (as their spokesman) to Abu Bakr to demand from him their share from the legacy of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this), A'isha said to them: Hasn't the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:" We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4351

That's narrated by Aisha, and she's talking about his OTHER wives, and she's rebuking them. Nor does this include the blood relatives. Zora 4 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

and also:

"Ayesha narrates after the death of Rasulullah (s) I went to claim my share of inheritance that was Khayber, Fadak and the land of Banu Nadheer, but Abu Bakr gave nothing, he gave the same reply that he had given to the other wives of the Prophet and Fatima daughter of the Prophet (s)".

Source: Ma'arij-ul-Nabuwwah by Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dihalvi Volume 2 page 756

(http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/madarijul_nabuwat_v2_p757.jpg)

That various people put the same question (where's my inheritance) doesn't mean that they all asked it at the same time. If I say, "Various people asked me the time of day", that doesn't mean that they all asked me at the same time. They asked at various times. Zora 4 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

So, basicly, she whent to Abu bakr, heard the excuse, and then she retiterated ti to the rest of the wifes. that makes "all of muhammads wifes asked Abu Bakr for their inheritance".

No, that's not necessarily what happened. You're trying to fit all the hadith together into a connected narrative, and making lots of guesses and assumptions in order to do so. But the hadith are bits and pieces of opinion and memory that were passed down through chains of narrators who added their own gloss to the matter, so that they aren't all reliable or consistent.

About your book: Does it say what they claimed? Because it is ONLY abu bakr that "heard" the "prophets dont.." talk.

Yes, the book I'm reading points out that only Abu Bakr conveniently "heard" Muhammad make the comment. I believe the author was raised Shi'a and he is quite sympathetic to the Shi'a POV. I'm not sure that he would describe himself as Shi'a now -- he seems to be mainly "liberal". Zora 4 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

What is the book states, in detail?

Anyhow, i have proven my point: Only Abu Bakr heard it (nobody else), Aisha wanted the inheritance, She refuted the rest of the wifes.

Just to spice it upp:

once she (Aisha) went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance from the Prophet (after so many years passed from the demise of the Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money, and reminded her that she was one of those who counseled Abu Bakr not to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah al-Zahra (AS). So if Fatimah does not have any share, then why should she? Hearing this, Aisha became very angry at Uthman

Source: History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p206 Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141 al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v16, pp 220-223. (http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Sects/Shiite/Encyclopedia/Chapter_1a_Part09.htm)

Will you agree to "all of" ?

best regards, --Striver 4 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that "all of", or even the "delegation", is substantiated. I'll do a rewrite later -- I have to do some sewing for my daughter. Zora 4 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

Hi Zora!

1) if we have a "hadith that both shia and sunni regard as authentic" vs "Zora POV + bok POV", which should have preferance?

2) Could you tell me how you make sence of what i presentet?

--Striver 4 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

A hadith that Sunni and Shi'a both regard as authentic could be completely historically inaccurate. Unreliable. Worthless. It could also be useful. It's a matter of weighing and judging the evidence AGAIN. The Abbasid ulema who did the previous sort of hadith were doing it by 9th and 10th century standards of religious scholarship, not 21st century standards of historical scholarship. I trust scholars who have re-sifted the evidence, like Madelung. That's not my POV, that's an academic POV. Not that all academics would agree with Madelung -- academics argue too. But their standards of evidence are much higher than yours. `

That's not to say that the traditional Shi'a POV has to be erased because it's not credible. It can be described as the traditional Shi'a view. But not at inordinate length! If articles are too long, or too complicated, or too argumentative, they become unreadable. Which means that you can't just expect to insert reams of badly written Shi'a propaganda without people criticizing, editing, or reverting you. Zora 4 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

So, ok, back to the issue: Which wife did not want her inheritance from Abu Bakr? If you have no source to counterargue with, if you can not show a source or even a scholar that says some or one wife did not whant her inheritance, then "all of" stands. The book you quoted is in the first place (according to yourself) writen in a popular manner and also i does not prove anything, the wives might just as well have shifted their focus after having been denied.

have been edidtin for 9 hours now, going to sleep. Good day/night! --Striver 4 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

Anon Shi'a editor with grudges against Aisha, Abu Bakr, and Umar

Anon, I reverted your piecemeal edits and put just one big disclaimer into the article. I have generally tried to be sensitive to Shi'a concerns but in this case, it seems silly to deny that Muhammad was fond of Aisha, or that he relied on Abu Bakr and Umar. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. I am prepared to entertain the possibility that Muhammad may have been mistaken in those people, and that Shi'a complaints about their behavior after his death may have some merit. But denying all the early texts just to protect Muhammad's reputation as all-knowing and all-wise is just too much of a stretch. If you want to argue, take a username and speak up on this talk page. Zora 15:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, Shia do deny that Muhammad was very fond of Aisha. Of course she wanted to depic herself as the favorit wife, and of course did sunnis accept that in a blink. But dont forget that Muhammad almost divorced her two times, and that she was in the group of wifes that annoied him, according to Bukhari. And then we have that She was jelous of Khadija and didnt like Fatimah and went to war with Ali. Those points tell their own story, even if there was no hadith disproving of her claims that she was Muhammads favorite wife --Striver 20:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Loot - spoils - revenue

Using the word revenue is an attempt to cover up the facts. The Muslims conquered and looted, and one-fifth of the loot was to be given to the public treasury. If you don't like the word loot, we can use spoils, which is more literary and less abrupt.

The matter of revenue from the conquered lands -- the jizya from the conquered peoples or the profits from estates owned by the caliphs and worked by slaves -- is an entirely different matter, and quite complicated. Zora 07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Number of Wives at One Moment

What is the greatest number of living wives Muhammad had at one moment?

--66.81.193.100 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the answer is 10 or 11. The figure also depends on whether Maria al-Qibtiyya was actually his wife or only one of his sex-slaves.

It's 4 the surplus were only pleisure(mut3a)wives.

Hanzukik (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

having sex for pure enjoyment is forbidden?

I have removed the following recently added line from the polagmy section: "However, having sex for pure enjoyment is forbidden". To the best of my knowledge Islam does not forbid sexual relationships between married couples for "pure enjoyment". I may be wrong or missing the context - please correct me if so. Nazli 06:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that was wrong. Sex is considered a gift from God and highly encouraged between husband and wife. Zora 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maria the Copt as a virgin

An anon keeps adding the word "virgin" to her entry. We don't know if she was or not. Both Ibn Ishaq and Tabari both describe her as a "slave." That doesn't say anything about her sexual history. If she had had previous owners, they might well have "used" her. The poor girl. Zora 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename

his own children

I read the whole article, but still it is not clear to me that how many children (out of five sons and four daughters) were his own. If anyone has any idea, please tell me and add it in the article too. --nids(♂) 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view on Bukhari

"Further, Shi'a quote Sahih Bukhari to prove that the entire chapter 66 is a warning made against A'isha and Hafsa. Shi'a also quote Sahih Bukhari to state that the wives of Muhammad were divided in two opposed groupes even during Muhammads lifetime."

Big mistake, it's common knowledge that Shi'a regard Bukhari as unauthentic. Could someone please fix this?

Shi'a used Bukhari with qualifications, even if they view it as unauthentic. Anyway you canfix it yourself, but please improve it by adding a cited source, there are tons of terrible spots in this articles.--Tigeroo 07:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The book is not "unauthentic", sure he was off, but not that of that everything in it is false. The book is "not authentic", not "unauthentic"--Striver 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Eek, what has happened to this article?

I'm ill, I'm tired, but really ... this article has been worked over by pious hands until it reads like something from a mosque website. We don't capitalize prophet, we don't assume that Muhammad's revelations were true or divine (Muslims do, but WP can't), we don't adopt a religious stance. Can someone else PLEASE take charge of cleaning this up? Zora 23:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one hand who seemed to have copied pasted quite a bit. He pasted useful information as well as totally messing it up. I just marked it for clean-up and am fixing as when I get some time.--Tigeroo 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view

How do they explain the Prophet (s)'s special exemption to marry more than four wives? If sexuality is fundamentally evil, as it seems many of these Wahabis are arguing, then why was the Prophet (s) granted this privilege? Do these enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) believe that the Prophet (s) was unable to control his sexual urges, and as such he was given a special dispensation?

As Shi'as, however, we see that in fact the Prophet (s) was not given a special privilege. According to Shi'a fiqh, we know that a man may only have four permanent wives but as many temporary wives as possible. As such, a man may have more than nine wives. The Prophet (s), however, was limited to nine wives, whereas other believers were not. Furthermore, we have seen that the temporary wife does not automatically receive living support, whereas a permanent wife does. As such, the Prophet (s) was not given any special privilege at all: rather, he was limited to nine wives, and of those nine wives he had to give them maintenance and inheritance and other benefit. As such, the Prophet (s) was given more obligation and more restriction on the issue of marriage than other believers, most likely as a mercy towards his wives. The Prophet of the Sunni religion seems to be somebody who was so consumed by physical desires that he needed a special injunction from Allah (swt). Orientalists have always insulted Islam for the Prophet (s)'s supposed privilege in this regard, and Sunnis do not have an answer. However, in the Shi'a view we see a Prophet (s) who humbly accepted a special restriction on his marital life that was not given to other believers.[1]

--Striver 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? Off-topic sermon? Or am i missing the point somewhere? If you want to include it go ahead, but those answering-xxx sites sound polemic in charecter so if there is useful information to be included do it, by tie it up with a reputable name as the source.--Tigeroo 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I try. here is another issue to add: " The wives of Allah's Apostle were in two groups. One group consisted of 'Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah's Apostle. [2]" --Striver 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Incest?

Article says, it was considered be tantamount to incest for a Muslim to marry one of Muhammad's widows. Sounds made up to me.Opiner 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaid ibn Muhammad

Article now is lying about Zaid. Zaid was not considered foster son but son, NOT called bin Haritha but ibn Muhammad! Only when Muhammad wants Zaynab he says gets verse saying 'Muhammad is the father of none of you', starts calling Zaid ibn Haritha. Then Quran says its okay to marry Zaynab and say Zaid wanted divorce wwhich is probably not true. Muhammad wanted Zaynab so, disown son and play Quran games to get her. Now adoption banned in Islam! Why? Because one old man changed rules to get young wife of his son.Opiner 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)