Talk:Children of Muhammad

Unexplained content removal

To the IP editor: please stop removing "and/or concubines" from the article without explanation. It is reliably referenced and accurate. Truth be toad (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Adoption

Should this be edited to include the child(ren) adopted by Muhammad ibn Abdullah? Primal Groudon (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes 2601:681:4B00:D240:AD9C:8ABB:CF8C:13B2 (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Restore

I'm restoring the article to this version by Citation bot at 19:29, 18 November 2021‎, which was reverted by Ishan87 to a much earlier version without an explanation but was not caught in time and went unnoticed. Albertatiran (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've explained everything Ishan87 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your new statement There's nothing disputed about the status of these children. A few shia claims doesn't overrule the vast majority overwhelming historic evidence and tradition, I hope you realize that objectively this is the definition of a dispute (here between Sunni and Shia) and that both views have to be included in this article. To avoid the word "disputed", you reverted the article to the poor mess of primary and unreliable sources that it was earlier, and you did not show the courtesy to type "Shia" instead of "shia". If you were to be mindful of both views here, what would be your suggested wording instead of "disputed"? Albertatiran (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The mention of the shia take about this issue in this article alone covers this topic. Leave it at that. There's overwhelming evidence of them being the prophet's children. A few claims can't change history. If you want to mention dispute then you should know that even the status of shia as Muslim itself us heavily disputed. You want us to go there do you? Don't try to create controversy in a historic article, specially in the box jus because of you sectarian bias. Ishan87 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not leaving any room for discussion and conflict resolution here: "even the status of shia as Muslim itself us heavily disputed" I also see that you're reverting my other contributions on Wikipedia without any explanation, like here or here. Well done! I'll shortly report this to a few of the admins. Albertatiran (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I was discyssing with you here but you're showing imaptience and removing my edits even before I responded. I reverted your edits on other pages because of your obvious bias of shi'ism. You're rewriting completely out of your head with little to no sources. You can't change other peoples writing which's based on citations that say otherwise. Ishan87 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that your statements are false. Your edits were reverting mine and I responded to you here before undoing your edits. @Al Ameer son, Mhhossein, HistoryofIran, Toddy1, ParthikS8, Sa.vakilian, Ahendra, M.Nadian, and Apaugasma: May I ask you to please look into this exchange? Albertatiran (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No you didn't brother. You kept changing mine back even before I replied. You're editing based on your own sectarian faith not accepted history. Even though I explained to you, you're being personal about this for no reason. Good that you tagged other people, I hope they'll help you understand this issue better. Ishan87 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The talk about sectarian bias comes from the guy who just said "even the status of shia as Muslim itself us heavily disputed". But, please, do give one example of my sectarian bias. Albertatiran (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

calm down you two, first you need to state both your arguments and reference source for your edits. need @Vice regent: to view this case too. just avoid editing the article for while until the case solved Ahendra (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ishan87 please calm down and be more respectful. Albertatiran, I don't think putting the phrase "disputed" everywhere is helpful. There is probably a better way to organize the content that reflects all perspectives.VR _talk 03:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Albertatiran. The user does not observe neutrality in the article and creates problems in the process of articles, the user must read the wiki rules again, otherwise it should be prevented with restrictions. M.Nadian (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ahendra, Vice regent, and M.Nadian: Thank you for mediating. The current version is here and the one before the edit war is here. As evident from the latter, I had copy-edited the article, removed unreliable or primary sources, and improved its organization. The Shia view in my version is sourced from de-Gaia, Susan (2018). Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440848506. I had already asked the other party about alternatives to the disputed tag but they instead chose to revert the article to the much earlier version and did the same to two other unrelated pages to which I have recently contributed (here and here) with no explanation. I'd be happy to discuss an alternative way of presenting the minority views but I think any such modification should be done to the version before the edit war to preserve the recent improvements to the article. Albertatiran (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@VR Exactly my point. The very reason it started is bcz he put those controversial- "disputed" tag and thought it was a good idea, still I'm clam trust me. And I've explained my reasonings behind restoring versions on the other two pages in the talk pages of those respective articles. Ishan87 (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is redundant

I don't see much of a point of this article. Almost all of Muhammad's children (biological or adopted) happened during his marriage to Khadijah. So almost this entire article can be merged to Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Alternatively, this article can be merged with Muhammad's wives to create a broader article called "Muhammad's family".VR _talk 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree it should be merged, my mom also told me that. No muslims will believe that Prophet adopted them. It's really fact in history, All historians & hadith narrators are agree. Historical facts can't be changed by the argument of some "self-proclaimed" author alone. Really a controversial article it is. Abbas has no significant reliable source to make that he is not a self-proclaimed author, yes! he is a self-proclaimed author. He wrote a book by the name of The Prophet's Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib, that Albertatiran's quoted here; that's not a reliable source at all. -- ওহিদ ^{(💬 | 📝)} 05:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I imagine that "Muhammad's children" is a common search query and I wonder how many people view this article every month and find it useful. As a side note, I earlier merged Genealogy of Khadijah's daughters with this article. Albertatiran (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: Yes, I saw that and thanks for merging that. I think we can redirect this article to a section called "Children" at Khadija bint Khuwaylid so readers will still find it. Or we can redirect this article to a new article Muhammad's family that combines the children and wives.VR _talk 09:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@ওহিদ: Please note that the main source for the Shia view is de-Gaia, Susan (2018). Encyclopedia of Women in World Religions. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781440848506. As another source, I also included Abbas, Hassan (2021). The Prophet's Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300252057. I'm also not sure how to interpret your remarks. What your mother has told you does not necessarily reflect the Shia view which, while a minority, must be represented in this Wiki article. My suggestion was to do this with a "disputed" tag next to the claims but I'd be happy to discuss other alternatives. Albertatiran (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Albertatiran, I've no problem with "disputed" term but Ishan has. I agree that you are mention others point of view as well. You have to admit that most people believe that they were the children of the Prophet. If 90℅ or more than 90℅ people believe that they are his own childs, you shouldn't write "dispute" term in this case when you are also mention it into a separate paragraph. The way you want to change this article it's looks like full shia's point of view; just based on few Shia's authors. That's totally wrong. -- ওহিদ ^{(💬 | 📝)} 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vice & @Ohid, Good suggestions. I agree. Not just this article, there's too many articles that doesn't help people much learning about our prophet (S). @Alb bro everyone doesn't even need to know shia view, where's ur taqiyah? (Anyway that was a joke) Ishan87 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spacing and sources

Albertatiran I assume that you're a Twelver who does not agree with the literal interpretation of the Quran that Muhammad had more than one daughter. However, that does not mean that you can vandalise a page by making spacing unequal, or removing WP:reliable sources like that of Michael Fishbin. And as for your argument that the book by Yusuf ibn Abdul-Bar is not reliable, a number of books in pages like Ali are of a similar category, in that they date to old times, so your edit suggests that we have to remove a whole lot of content (especially for those that carry viewpoints of the Shi'ah) in those pages! Leo1pard (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC); edited 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

And as for your argument that "there are instances where the Quran does not observe the rules for singular/plural words," I know what you're talking about. For instance, the verse of Mubahalah (3:61) talks of women, whereas ahadith speak of Fatimah being the only woman there, and Twelvers accept these ahadith, so that could be mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC); edited 15:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Leo1pard! A number of comments on your post:

1. My religious views are irrelevant to this discussion. I've also removed lots of poorly-sourced Shia content; your edits are no exception.
2. History of the Prophets and Kings by al-Tabari and translated by Fishbein (and not "Fishbin") is obviously a primary source, rather than a reliable one as you claim. You should use its content via a reliable secondary or tertiary source.
3. In any case, your citation Ṭabarī (1997, p. xii) is irrelevant to your content (quoted below for convenience) as you can see here.
4. The Quran is similarly considered a primary source, see here. You should quote the Quran and its interpretation from a reliable source.
5. It's good that you agree with me that your content from Yusuf ibn Abdul-Bar is unreliable. Regarding similar sources on Ali (I doubt there are any now), many editors (myself included) have worked hard to remove unreliable sources from Ali and elsewhere, including from this article. You can help them by adding reliable content instead of being part of the problem by inserting poorly-sourced polemics into articles.
6. To summarize, all the content you have added (quoted below) is unreliably sourced. That said, I'm sorry for messing up your corrections to the spacing by reverting your edits as a whole. Now that you've reinstated your edits (and overridden my revert), I suggest that you partially revert your edits and keep the good part (the spacing).

Vice regent, would you consider moderating this dispute? Thanks for your time.

As people like @Ishan87: would say, the majority of Muslims believe that Muhammad had 4 daughters (Zainab, Ruqayyah, Umm Kulthum & Fatimah), so this view held by Twelvers (not even all Shi'ites), that Fatimah was his only biological daughter, is a minority view, and you haven't even added sources to support either (despite the lack of sources which this article needs), which is why I assumed that you're of the latter group. The primary sources here are the Quran and ahadith. At-Tabari was a historian whose works are not considered as books of ahadith, unlike say Muhammad al-Bukhari and Muhammad al-Tirmidhi. I didn't say that the book of Yusuf ibn Abdul-Barr was "unreliable", but that it dates to old times, similar to a number of books in other articles. I mean, take for instance Shi'ite beliefs regarding Ali, which differ from Sunnis. Ultimately, these beliefs too come from old books (whether or not they are treated as books of ahadith), and most Muslims today wouldn't interpret Muhammad's use of the word Mawla for Ali as necessarily meaning "Master", considering its ambiguous nature! Leo1pard (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

An exception to the rule is Nader Zaveri, who argued from some Quranic verses, as well as other scholars, that Zaynab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum were also biological daughters of Muhammad.

In the Quran (33:59), the plural word banātika (بَنَاتِكَ) is used, rather than the singular form bintuka (بِنْتُكَ), signifying more than one daughter. In addition to this, Zaveri quoted the 5th verse to say that had Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum not been Muhammad's daughters, then they would not have been referred to as such in the 59th verse. The 4th and 5th verses decree that adopted children were not the same as biological children, and that they were to be called by their fathers' names. These verses were revealed concerning Muhammad's adopted son Zaid ibn Harithah, who was referred to as "Zayd ibn Muhammad", prior to their revelation.

مَّا جَعَلَ اللهُ لِرَجُلٍ مِّن قَلْبَيْنِ فِي جَوْفِهِ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَزْوَاجَكُمُ اللَّائِي تُظَاهِرُونَ مِنْهُنَّ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ ۚ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ: قَوْلُكُم:

بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ ۖ وَاللهُ يَقُولُ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ يَهْدِي السَّبِيلَ ‎﴿٤﴾‏ ادْعُوهُمْ لِآبَائِهِمْ هُوَ أَقْسَطُ عِندَ اللهِ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ تَعْلَمُوا آبَاءَهُمْ فَإِخْوَانُكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَمَوَالِيكُمْ ۚ وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُم بِهِ وَلَٰكِن مَّا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ ۚ وَكَانَ اللهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا ‎﴿٥﴾

...

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ اللهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

4) Allah has not put for any man two hearts inside his body. Neither has He made your wives whom you declare to be like your mothers' backs, your real mothers, nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons. That is but your saying with your mouths. But Allah says the truth, and He guides to the (Right) Way.

5) Call them (adopted sons) by (the names of) their fathers, that is more just with Allah. But if you know not their fathers, then (call them) your brothers in faith and mawālīkum (your freed slaves). And there is no sin on you if you make a mistake therein, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

...

59) O Prophet, tell your wives, wa-banātika (Arabic: وَبَنَاتِكَ, and your daughters), and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

• @Albertatiran: and @Leo1pard: I'm happy to help mediate. I'm trying to understand what the dispute is. It seems there is a dispute over whether to include the following content:
  • Tabari's interpretation of certain Quranic verses to mean that the Prophet Muhammad had multiple children. I agree that because of the age of that text it can effectively be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, and modern texts are needed (whether by Muslim or non-Muslim scholars). Might I suggest "The Study Quran" by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an or a modern work by a major scholar at List of tafsir works. Can you find such a secondary source Leo1pard?
  • Whether Zaveri's views on twelvers believing Muhammad had multiple children should be included. I'm not sure whether Zaveri is reliable or not for stating things in wikivoice, but he is certainly reliable for his own views. So the question is whether his views WP:DUE in this article or not. What do you think about this Albertiran? VR _talk 18:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Vice regent! Thank you for the input. I don't think it'd be undue weight to include a) some Shias believe that Muhammad had four daughters or b) some Shia sources write that Muhammad had four daughters. But it also seems to me that such claims should be reliably sourced. Otherwise, this and other articles might be flooded with poorly-sourced back and forth between various editors which would degrade the quality of articles even if the claims are not made in wikivoice. Albertatiran (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• The only thing I found in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an: The daughters of Muhammad are sometimes addressed, as in q 33:59, “Tell your wives and daughters (qul li-azwājika wa-banātika).”. It doesn't of course refer to the whole number of daughters dispute, but doing a literature search might turn up some references to this dispute.VR _talk 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Verse_of_Wilaya#Singular_and_plural_forms might have some relevance here to the Quranic use of singular and plural forms. The text is quoted below for convenience.

  The use of wali in this verse, instead of the plural form awlia', supports the Shia interpretation that the verse exclusively refers to Ali. Yet 'those' in the verse suggests otherwise. In response, the Shia al-Tusi (d. 460/1067) lists other instances in the Quran where the plural form is used but a single person is meant, including verse 3:168 in connection with Abd Allah ibn Ubayy. Alternatively, Shah-Kazemi is of the view that 'those who believe' in this verse are symbolized by Ali, referring to the prophetic hadith that described Ali as "faith, in its entirety." In his view, the authority in this verse is limited to God, Muhammad, Ali, and those believes who reach the rank of sainthood, regardless of their religion.

  Albertatiran (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Albertatiran and Vice regent: Like I said above, there are ahadith (narrations), which Twelver Shi'ites accept, which say things like that Fatimah was the only woman present at the event of Mubahalah, even though the word used in the Verse of Mubahalah (3:61) is nisāʾanā (نِسَاءَنَا, meaning "our women", not "our woman"), and that Ali was the only man who gave Zakat (specifically a ring of his) while bowing, even though the wording in the Verse of Wilayah (5:55) is "and those who believe, those who perform the prayer, and they give zakat, and they bow" (وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ), not "he who believes, he who performs the prayer, and he gives zakat, and he bows". But strictly speaking, this is not what the Qur'an says, but ahadith or secondary sources which were published many years after the Qur'an! Take this section in Verse of Wilaya:

In contrast, Shia and some Sunni commentators, including the early influential Ibn Abbas (d. 687) and Mujahid, consider this verse a specific reference to Ali. Such reports are included in the works of the Shia al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) and the Sunni al-Baydawi (d. 685/1286), Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari (d. 310/923), al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144), al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076), al-Razi (d. 606/1210), Ahmad al-Tabari (d. 1295), and al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505).

Basically, with the exception of Ibn Abbas (who was a child during Muhammad's lifetime), these guys, who claimed that Ali was the only guy who gave Zakat while bowing, lived several years after the incident! But anyway, for the purpose of WP:neutrality, these arguments (which Twelvers support), accompanied with the relevant verses of the Quran, could be mentioned, but again, it is a minority view that Fatimah was the only biological daughter of Muhammad, not the view held by the majority of Muslims! Leo1pard (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC); edited 16:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: what you are saying may be valid, but you need WP:Reliable sources to say this. Nasr is a reliable source, what does he say about Islamic beliefs on the topic of daughters of the prophet Muhammad?VR _talk 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 9 October 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Muhammad's children → Children of Muhammad – Consistency with other articles such as Wives of Henry VIII. Interstellarity (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• This was moved the other way in 2020 so probably needs discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support: The proposed way of writing it is more suitable for a formal context such as an encyclopedia, and the article about his wives is at Wives of Muhammad. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes it was

Muhammad have 7 son 223.123.87.37 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)