User talk:1234567

Sorry about the auto block, I removed it now. --Whale (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (PDT)

Thanks. I fully understand why you have to do it on a site like this. It was only my own work that I deleted!

Yea that system helps prevent a lot of vandalism (e.g. logs) and saves us time. I added you in a list where it wont monitor any of your edits so it wont happen again. --Whale (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (PDT)

Muhammad and his Wives

Hi 1234567! First off, thanks for creating the new article on Muhammad's wives! The level of detail you went into looks incredible.

That being said, I have added our "under construction" template to it because it's style currently doesn't adhere to the site's guidelines. Articles should be free from sensationalist, emotional, humorous or sarcastic commentary. See this article, for an idea of what we're aiming for.

It would be great if you could edit it to conform with these guidelines. As a rough example, I have edited the conclusion of the article below:

Before:

After:

Again, thanks for such a great article. --Admin3 (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2012 (PDT)

Okay, I can convert it from "story" to "history" mode. But I'm on a time-budget so it won't happen immediately.

In fact I may be adding more information as I go. I have found several more interesting facts on Muslim sites. However, most of these do not cite sources, and it will take me a while to work out exactly how we know what we think we know.1234567 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (PDT)

Sounds great. Thanks. --Admin3 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (PDT)

Page splitting and pseudonym

Hi 1234567. Since the article is very large, I think once you're done, it's best to split it into several pages (a page for each wife etc.). You can see examples of this (we call them "in-depth studies") here and here. We would also need a pseudonym (or real name if you're comfortable with that) for attribution on the "front page" and navigational TOC. Do you have anything in mind? --Admin3 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2012 (PDT)

I think this is a great idea! Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to use the software, so someone else may have to take responsibility for that. That's the advantage of a wiki - no one person is the author.

Several of the wives already have pages, so we should think how we are going to amalgamate these old articles with some of the new information.

We could perhaps amalgamate this article with the "list of wives" article (on which I've done some work). Make the list the hub article, then link it to separate pages on each wife, plus a page for "Broken Engagements," etc.

You can use the pseudonym Petra MacDonald for the author. This is the English translation of Asma bint Marwan (with the elements reversed).1234567 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2012 (PDT)

Questions about the Wives articles

Hi 1234567, its me Whale (changed my username). I'm now Axius. Thanks again for the work you've done on the Women articles. I'm starting to look at them and trying to understand the approach you took and check if there are any issues with following our policies and guidelines. My first questions are about references.

Could you tell me a little about your sources for example:

1. What were the main/most important sources you used?
2. How did you have access to them? For example physical books, ebooks, electronic PDF or a website or all of them? Please tell me the type of format for the main sources in #1.

I'm asking this because I'd really like to have access to these sources if possible. I have Gulliume/Ishaq (book) and Tabari (40 volumes).

I'm just doing some random checks and I may do more later.

When you say "Tabari 6:19-26", do you mean the 6th volume and page 19-26? I have the 40 volume set of Tabari and I cant find mention of Khadija in vol 6, page 15.

How about:

• Bukhari 73:151. See also Bukhari 8:150. (ref #26)

The way we format Bukhari on our site is: {{Bukhari|8|76|537}}. But even if your reference was in our format (e.g. Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151), sometimes that website may not have the hadith we're looking for. The way we do this is, if the linked reference doesn't show anything, we try to quote the actual hadith in the reference so its preserved on our site and the user can see it if they want to. This is important.

For the reference you used, that one is available on the USC site. I type {{Bukhari|8|73|151}} and it comes out as Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151. Notice the complete reference for the hadith there "Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151" and note "volume 8". So the format we've used for Bukhari is based on how this website has the reference. So Bukhari references would have to be fixed and for hadiths which are not present on that site, we would need to quote that hadith verbatim in the Reference section.

Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq 155. (ref #38), which says "When they mocked his beliefs, she railed against them with counter-mockery and continued to declare to the world that Muhammad was Allah’s messenger.[38]"

I have Ishaq/Guill and I cant see anything about Khadija there (I'm looking at the book 'the life of Muhammad', translation of Ishaq by Guill, Oxford Univ Press, ISBN 0 19 636033 1). Or did you mean 155 to be the numbering on the sides? There I see some relevant matching information. Is there a reason you went by the side-numbering for Ishaq and not the page numbering?

After this I may do some more random checks and sometime later I'll be talking about policies and guidelines, for example:

• Sources: We must only talk about what the sources say. We cannot make assumptions, guesses, create facts or any kinds of derivations and embellishments (negative or positive).
• Anything not related to criticism of Islam does not belong on our site. Neutral information is fine.

thanks, --Axius (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2012 (PST)

hi 1234567, you probably haven't logged in in a while. There are additional problems with the text which need to be discussed (I can talk about those after you've responded to the above). All the text has been moved out of the main article space into WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad and his Wives until the concerns are addressed. --Axius (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2012 (PST)

Examples of problematic statements are "Muhammad liked to play with children and he must have been a good stepfather to Hala and Hind, for they remained unswervingly loyal to him." - (article on Khadija near ref 25, bold emphasis mine). The bolded statement is original research. The kids may have been loyal to him out of fear or cultural reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean he was a good stepfather. There are other statements and more may exist because we haven't looked at all the material, but these kinds of assumptions are not right for our site. We focus on simply "quoting" sources and not editorializing content. Still I believe an effort can be made to save this work and I hope you come back and talk to us about it. --Axius (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2012 (PST)

Hi Axius, sorry I haven't been in touch. I am currently travelling with limited internet access and no access at all to my books (I was using hard-copy English translations of Tabari and Ibn Saad). For this reason it will be difficult for me to do much before January.

I do intend to respond to everything you have written but I would rather not do it on the fly. Some friends who are native speakers of Arabic (non-Muslims now living in a safe country) have offered to help me and I would like their opinion on some of the English translations I have been using. To give quick answers to some of your questions...

I used Poonawalla's translations of Tabari. I have volumes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 39.

I used Bewley's translation of the eighth volume of Ibn Saad, which I'm well aware is a dodgy interpretation of the original, but no other English translation is readily available.

I used an electronic copy of Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq, converted to a word document, because a format that allows the use of CTRL F is the easiest way to track the careers of the minor characters, which throws a great deal of light on facts that can otherwise be overlooked. E.g., the career of Muhammad's divorced wife, Fatima bint Al-Dahhak, suddenly became clear when I searched for her father, whose later adventures are also mentioned in the hadiths. The use of this format is the reason for the page-numbering I cited.

I used this site http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php for Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Muwatta because, once again, a search function is the best way to ensure that significant minor information is not overlooked.

I will be logging in again but probably not before January.

No problem, let us know when you're back in/after January. Safe travels. --Axius (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2012 (PST)

I am back. Actually I have been back for a while, but I delayed contacting you because I have lent out my copy of Ibn Saad, which impedes my ability to do serious work.

However, it would be foolish to delay indefinitely. I can still fix some of the other referencing - which, I promise you, is all real.

While I was away I accessed a copy of Ali Dashti's Twenty-Three Years. One thing that jumped out at me was that he anticipated several of my conclusions. Although I reached my own conclusions independently, in scholarship the race is to the swift, so of course I shall be adding his work to my references. The other thing that I noticed was that a "mistake" that I had attributed to Dashti was not his mistake at all, but one made in transition by someone (anonymous) who had misinterpreted his list. Unfortunately, the wrong version is now all over the internet and falsely attributed to Dashti. It does pay to read the sources in their original form.

I've also been going over William Muir again. I don't have access to many of the early sources he cites, but he makes some excellent points that, if we can find a way to verify them, are well worth revisiting.

hi 1234567, welcome back (out denting for my convenience). I have some Islamic texts in addition to the volumes/books you mentioned and I can arrange for you to have access to them (let me know if you'd like that). I'd also be interesting in getting some of the texts you have if possible but this sharing can be done later. You don't have to read the text that I posted before and I'll just repeat it here. I'll number the issues for convenience (#4, 5 and 6 are important). You can respond and refer to the issue #:

• (1) When you say "Tabari 6:19-26", do you mean the 6th volume and page 19-26?

Yes.

The text for that reference is:

• Khadija was born around 568 in Mecca. She was Muhammad’s third cousin, their common great-great-grandfather having been Qusayy ibn Kilab, keeper of the Kaaba.[3]

If it means pages 19-26, thats a lot of pages for the short amount of text that is quoted (which means this makes it hard for anyone to cross-check this certain reference). Or let me know if I have it wrong somehow.

I agree this particular reference is clunky. It is the whole history of Qusayy, i.e. everything that establishes him as a historical person. Probably only the first page of the reference was necessary to make my point. In fact I think Muhammad's genealogy is easier to read in Guillaume/Ishaq, but I don't have good access to the first volume of Guillaume. (I have photographs of the pages but nothing like a pdf, let alone a Word file like the one I have of volumes II and III.) Even from Guillaume, however, it is necessary to put together two references to make one fact, i.e. Muhammad's genealogy is on page 1 and Khadija's on page 82, but it is nowhere directly stated that they are cousins.

It would be boring for the reader if I explained how I derived every single conclusion by putting together disparate references (What was Safiya bint Huyayy's connection with the poisoner of Khaybar? How old were the single women sojourning in Abyssinia?) but I can certainly supply more details if you want them.

• (2) Making references:
  • Bukhari 73:151. See also Bukhari 8:150. (ref #26)

The way we format Bukhari on our site is: {{Bukhari|8|76|537}}. But even if your reference was in our format (e.g. Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 [notice this is a USC.edu website]), sometimes that website may not have the hadith we're looking for. The way we do this is, if the linked reference doesn't show anything, we try to quote the actual hadith in the reference so its preserved on our site and the user can see it if they want to. This is important.

For the reference you used, that one is available on the USC site. I type {{Bukhari|8|73|151}} and it comes out as Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151. This is our system for making hadith references for those hadiths which are available on that site. Notice the complete reference for the hadith there "Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151" and note "volume 8". So the format we've used for Bukhari is based on how this website has the reference. The reason why we use this 3 parameter referencing for Bukhari is that the Hadith can be verified with a simple mouse click (as you can see). So Bukhari references would have to be fixed and for hadiths which are not present on that site, we would need to quote that hadith verbatim in the Reference section.

Other references would also have to be fixed for Muslim, Abu Dawud and Muwatta. We would use templates for the hadiths which can be found online on the USC.edu website. Others that are not on the website can be quoted verbatim if possible.

I can fix the references. Everyone knows it's an arduous job but I've had to do plenty of it.

• (3) Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq 155. (ref #38), which says "When they mocked his beliefs, she railed against them with counter-mockery and continued to declare to the world that Muhammad was Allah’s messenger.[38]"

I have Ishaq/Guillaume and I cant see anything about Khadija there (I'm looking at the book 'the life of Muhammad', translation of Ishaq by Guill, Oxford Univ Press, ISBN 0 19 636033 1). Or did you mean 155 to be the numbering on the sides? There I see some relevant matching information. Is there a reason you went by the side-numbering for Ishaq and not the page numbering? After your response I could possibly post a screenshot of the page.

I didn't realise there was more than one way of numbering the pages. How curious! I just went by the page-numbers in my version. But if there is an alternative numbering system, this is going to cause endless confusion. Maybe you could explain it to me?

• (4) You have statements like these which are fine:
  • Unlike the informed consent issue, which simply reveals that Muhammad was a product of his culture, this act of paederasty reveals that Muhammad was morally inferior to his own culture. He rejected the moral norms of his wisest contemporaries in order to indulge himself at Aisha’s expense. He demonstrated for once and for all that he had no timeless, universal moral insight to offer the world – in short, that he was not a prophet. - [4]

These are facts because you have referenced that even Jews at the time understood that "a girl should not be touched before puberty".

But you also have things like this:

• "It is unfair to claim that he “only married her for her money" - Why Muhammad Married Khadija

This shows a problem: There's a significant percentage of content that is actually pro-Islamic or apologetic and it brushes off valid (sometimes obvious and well-known) criticism of Islam. Although I havent looked at your work in detail but this tells me there may be other occurrences.

I hadnt heard of this Fakhita women and even if Muhammad was willing to marry her, it doesnt mean he wouldnt have wanted to marry Khadikha because she came from a powerful woman from a wealthy noble family. (from Wikipedia, I havent confirmed the sources but this is common knowledge that should be mentioned in a section titled "why he married her": "Khadija was from a noble family and at the time of Muhammad, she was a widow. Khadija was a very wealthy woman from inheriting the business her father created"). Yes you have mentioned it in the section but the "why" section refutes the 'wealthy' theory and it portrays Muhammad in a positive light and fully rejects the obvious that Muhammad must have been feeling great to be having marrying Khadija, a powerful wealthy woman. Obviously he gained a lot from that marriage. It was very useful for him.

Even if this certain issue is fixed, it makes me think about what other problems may exist. Its worrying that this kind of approach was used partly in writing it. The way we would approach it is that we would mention she was a wealthy widow from a powerful family. We would not even say "he married her because she was wealthy" (unless we could quote a reputed critic of Islam or a primary source like a hadith). We would only mention the facts and nothing else and we would let the reader judge for themselves (as to why Muhammad married her). This is an important point I want to tell you because thats how we approach things on WikiIslam.

Don't worry about asking me to take things out. I have already decided that I am going to save separately any material that you don't want and write my own e-book. (The counter-jihad is too important to be left in the hands of people who only want to make money out of it, but I still have to pay my bills! It will do me no harm at all to have a little extra material in reserve that you didn't want so I can keep it as a surprise for my commercial work.)

I am not surprised that you haven't heard of Fakhita as she is a minor player in the grand scheme of things. However, her story is as well established as any other fact from Muahmmad's life. Tabari mentions her several times, including volume 39 pp. 196-197. She was the daughter of Abu Talib, who was a poor man. Muhammad wanted to marry her, but Abu Talib gave her to a wealthy man. When Muhammad upbraided his uncle, he was essentially told that the family needed to marry for money. So when Muhammad afterwards told Khadija's servant Nafisa that he wanted to marry but couldn't afford to support a family, this was not just a conventional answer to her question but a reference to a personal disappointment that he had actually experienced.

I am quite certain that Muhammad liked Khadija's money. I suspect a selfish young man like Muhammad would have jumped at the chance to marry a millionaire even if he hadn't liked the woman, although we cannot prove this. But the proposal from Khadija was a piece of luck beyond his wildest dreams that he couldn't possibly have expected. In Fakhita we have clear evidence that he would have willingly married a poor woman if he couldn't find himself a rich one. So the assumption that Muhammad married Khadija only for the money just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts. At the very least, there was the additional motive that he simply wanted to marry, which is probably a polite way of saying that he was looking for a sexual partner.

BTW, the Wikipedia statement that "Khadija inherited her business from her father" is one of those overworked statements that we all think we know about Islam but in fact is highly doubtful. How could she have inherited the business at a date when her father was still alive? And if he personally "created" the business, why did Khadija's five siblings not take over equal shares? Unless the source material clearly states otherwise, we should consider the possibilities that the business was inherited from her first husband (who came from a clan of prosperous merchants), was set up by her second husband (who was an immigrant but nevertheless prince among his own people) or was the result of Khadija's own personal efforts.

Another example. This is an example of original research (assumptions, deductions, opinions, things that are not present directly in a text):

• he must have been a good stepfather to Hala and Hind, for they remained unswervingly loyal to him. [5] (see statement after ref # 26)

The kids may have been loyal to him out of fear or cultural reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean he was a good stepfather. There are other statements and more may exist because I haven't looked at all the material, but these kinds of assumptions are not right for our site. We focus on simply "quoting" sources and not editorializing content.

Even if we accept this as an essay/op-ed, things like this would still not be suitable for our site.

There are in fact a couple of hadiths that indicate a warm relationship between Muhammad and his stepsons. Would it be more suitable if I simply quoted them and left the conclusion alone?

Having said that, I actually believe (though it would be difficult to prove this objectively) that the "good relationship" between them was superficial. The stepchildren (including Sawda's son) were never prominent in the Muslim community; we just don't find their names on the lists. As Muhammad was often quite nepotistic, this suggests he was not close to his stepchidren after they grew up.

• (5) Embellishing text:
  • Juwayriya was sweet-natured, charming and as alluringly beautiful as a fairy; men became infatuated with her at first sight. - [6]

Things like that (bold above) are not suitable for our site. This should be a fact-based serious article, not a script for a movie or a novel which can be good on its own but thats not the approach we use. So things like these would have to be changed. Content should be like what you would see in a reputed newspaper known for rigorous fact-checking, not a novel. If the sources says "beautiful like fairy", only then we can use it as it is and then we make sure the reader knows that this was an actual quote (we would use quotation marks for things like that). Yes content that is suited for a novel may appear exciting/engaging and story-like and newspaper content that is only based on facts and has no opinions may be dry/boring, but we go for facts only and not opinions. This style of writing requires restraint and prevents us from stating opinions and deductions that we have to let the reader see for themselves.

I realise you cited this as possibly typical of other passages - but in this case, it's simply unclear referencing. The words you have bolded are directly from Aisha! I agree that "fairy" (Ghadanfar's translation) is not a particularly good rendering of jinnya, but I'm stumped as to what other English word to substitute. (Elf? Siren? Angel? Veela?) Anyway, I'll go through the whole and make it clear that when I use expressions like that, it's some person's subjective opinion.

• (6) Style of sourcing

For example:

• Juwayriya was sweet-natured, charming and as alluringly beautiful as a fairy; men became infatuated with her at first sight. When she stood at the doorway of Muhammad’s tent, Aisha’s heart sank, for she knew Muhammad would react just like all other men. Sure enough, he did. Juwayriya asked Muhammad to arrange her redemption. Muhammad asked: “Would you like something better than that? I will ransom you myself and marry you.” He did not offer to send her back to her father: the choice was to marry Muhammad or to risk his anger by remaining Thabit’s slave. So Juwayriya agreed to marry Muhammad, and he declared her manumitted.[5] - [7]

This is the same location as in #5. Statements that are shown as fact are unreferenced but you have a reference at the end which is:

• Guillaume/Ishaq 629; Ibn Hisham note 918; Tabari 39:182-183; Abu Dawud 29:3920; Ibn Saad, Tabaqat 117; Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba 4:265

Why this is wrong: Think of writing 3 pages and giving one combined reference at the end. This makes it really hard to cross-check anything. We dont know which of those statements was found in which source.

Again, I can alter the referencing. But many of the stories are clunky to reference no matter how they are approached. The six references tell the same story almost identically. I could certainly add a reference after each sentence, but each footnote would include four or five of the six total references. Or I could include only one of the references, but I would then have to sacrifice any information not specifically included in that reference.

Again, not all of the content is like that. You have some great stuff which forms a significant portion of the content and these are things that will remain hidden from the public (they will be interesting for Muslims and non-Muslims alike), unless they read your work (or if they buy all those references you have used, which is unlikely). But thats why I really want to attempt to save this work if possible and so I'm discussing it with you to see what can be done.

So I think these are issues that have to be discussed/resolved. In summary:

Minor:

• I want to make sure we are looking at the same copies of Ibn Ishaq
• References have to be converted to our template format where possible. For example {{Bukhari|3|4|67}}

Major:

• Style of references: Any 'Facts' must be referenced individually and combined references should not be used, so cross-checking can be done.
• Opinions/deductions/assumptions have to deleted from all the content, so we are left with only the facts found explicitly in the sources.
• No apologetic material must be found (especially if unreferenced). Continuing that thought, neutral content is interesting, valuable and should be retained but also remember that we focus on criticism of Islam.

Now perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, but this is the nearest thing to a content-policy you have ever given me.

This is all I have for now. Sorry its really long so take your time. I've probably made some mistakes/typos in writing this but here I go. I really want to know what you think about 4, 5 and 6.

As regards sharing texts, I am glad of anything I can get. I have only what is generally available to the public; my copies of Tabari and Ibn Saad were bought from Amazon. I have realised from reading tertiary sources (often very bad ones) that access to Bayhaqi would probably fill in some important gaps, but if a complete English translation exists, I have missed it.

I strongly recommend you add http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/ to your favourites. Professor Kister was a serious scholar who had access to vast resources and had some important insights into Muhammad's relationship with the Jews. You can read his works for free without needing to join anything.

I came across an interesting one the other day that absolutely nails the Muhammad/Aisha relationship. The reason it is not better known is that the Arabic source is so badly cited. Ockley (writing in English in 1708) cites Maracci, and Maracci (writing in Latin in 1698) cites "the book by Abdulrahman Hamdanius". This isn't quite enough information to verify the reference. But if we can track it down and if it turns out to be at all reliable (I know it isn't necessarily, just because it's written in Arabic!) it will be a must-include. You can read Ockley's twice-translated version at the bottom of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Saracens/Life_of_Mohammed/Part_I.

I know I haven't answered everything yet, but that is enough for today. I am going to work through the text one wife at a time, so I will begin with Khadija and ignore remarks that do not relate directly to her.

Muir has a very interesting take on Muhammad's "fidelity" to Khadija. He claims that all the suras in the Qur'an that concern the houris of Paradise were written in the period 614-619. I have no way of checking whether this is correct. But if it is correct, it is very significant. It means that in the final years of Khadija's life (when her health was failing and her money was running out) Muhammad was speaking openly about his visions of other women. Yet if Muir is correct, he stopped doing this as soon as he married Sawda, i.e. when he once again had a younger woman and didn't need to fantasise. It might not be a big deal, but it suggests that the marriage of Muhammad and Khadija was less idyllic than is often claimed.

Sahabah, feel free to add any additional input. I could have missed some additional important issues. --Axius (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (PST)

It's hard for me to add much, since the talk pages have been deleted and I've lost all my saved data on the PC. In fact, I wrote a lengthy reply here, only to have my device crash, so I'll have to be brief.

Yeah, material that can be construed as apologetic towards Islam is not suitable, even as an essay. And we obviously want essays to be credible.

What you have to understand is, material that is hosted on WikiIslam will remain here indefinitely (the site isn't going anywhere). It will be read or used as a resource by hundreds of thousands, even millions of readers. It will likely be reposted, quoted or cited by many of websites, blogs and forums. Whilst articles remain, most editors do not. They usually submit their work then disappear. This is fine with us because we only accept referenced and easily verifiable material. If in two years its accuracy is questioned, the editors who are active at that time can easily defend it.

On the other hand, your work could be considered "original research". Tracking down the exact reference for stated facts seems difficult and you seem to infer things and make a lot of assumptions based on your own reading of the text (where you say things like, "most probably, or "likely", etc.). Since we have no idea of what led you to those conclusions, there is no way our editors can defend it. --Sahabah (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (PST)

hi 1234567, I out-dented your quotes and am reproducing them for replies:

I didn't realise there was more than one way of numbering the pages. How curious! I just went by the page-numbers in my version. But if there is an alternative numbering system, this is going to cause endless confusion. Maybe you could explain it to me?

We go by page numbers too. Here's my page 155 [8]. Is this what you have too on your side? I dont see anything about Khadija on both pg 154 and 155. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong book or location. Here's the title page of the book [9]. The line that you wrote is here: [10] (ref 38 in that section)

So the assumption that Muhammad married Khadija only for the money just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts.

Say he had a choice to marry two women who wanted to marry him. One was K, and the other was also K, but she was as poor as Fakhita. A man who goes after war booty and organizes caravan raids to rob non-Muslims definitely would go after the rich woman. Why did he really marry Khadija? We don't know. We only know the facts: She was from a rich family, he was from a poor one and when he found out K is single, maybe his thinking was "I couldnt get with Fakhita. I'll get a job with Khadija. If I get real lucky, she might just marry me".

So we dont know these things. For our site, we keep these kinds of opinions out because these conclusions can be questioned by anyone. Just stating the facts is enough and the reader should be left to decide the rest for themselves.

At the very least, there was the additional motive that he simply wanted to marry, which is probably a polite way of saying that he was looking for a sexual partner.

Of course. No one says 100% of the motive was money. It could be: 60% money and improving his future prospects and influence, 30% sexual partnership and 10% companionship and so on. Again if another K (who had no money) also proposed to him, he would married the rich K. Even today anyone would do that and would pay importance to money, if other factors were kept equal.

Khadija inherited her business from her father" is one of those overworked statements that we all think we know about Islam but in fact is highly doubtful. How could she have inherited the business at a date when her father was still alive?

Maybe the father said "I'm tired, you can take the reigns, you're pretty good at it.". We dont know what happened. The important thing is: She was a successful business woman and very rich.

Unless the source material clearly states otherwise, we should consider the possibilities that the business was inherited from her first husband (who came from a clan of prosperous merchants), was set up by her second husband (who was an immigrant but nevertheless prince among his own people) or was the result of Khadija's own personal efforts.

Yes those are possibilities. I dont know what the Wikipedia source exactly says but we would go by whatever the source says. Again the important issue is that she was rich. Whether she got rich through a lottery, father or husband, those are interesting details but secondary when studying why Muhammad married her. Muhammad wouldn't really care exactly how she inherited the wealth.

There are in fact a couple of hadiths that indicate a warm relationship between Muhammad and his stepsons. Would it be more suitable if I simply quoted them and left the conclusion alone?

Having said that, I actually believe (though it would be difficult to prove this objectively) that the "good relationship" between them was superficial. The stepchildren (including Sawda's son) were never prominent in the Muslim community; we just don't find their names on the lists. As Muhammad was often quite nepotistic, this suggests he was not close to his stepchidren after they grew up.

Yes, most definitely. We love quotes. In my opinion, any thing that says "this happened" needs a direct reference. So we cannot say "he must have been a good stepfather", unless there's a direct source for it. But as you said, you can refer to those hadiths as they are and not make any conclusions. This way we are being historically accurate without making inferences that may or may not be true (or can be debated). In other words, if something can be debated about and there's no source for it, it should be left out.

The words you have bolded are directly from Aisha!

Then it should be made clear, because to me the words were stated by you.

"it's simply unclear referencing"

It doesn't need to be said that no reference should be unclear. The reader wants to know whether something was an invention by the author, or by the primary source (Aisha). In fact it would have been a lot more interesting and credible, if the reader was told that Aisha described Juwayriya like that.

I agree that "fairy" (Ghadanfar's translation) is not a particularly good rendering of jinnya, but I'm stumped as to what other English word to substitute. (Elf? Siren? Angel? Veela?)

The more accurate and credible way to do this would be to say something like this: Aisha once described Juwayriya as 'jinnya', a word which some arabic dictionaries describe as 'beautiful, fairy like, elf and angel.'

Would you agree that its much better to tell the reader that Aisha described her as jinnya and not you? This isnt just about this certain issue but about others as well. The reader doesnt care for your personal opinions and conclusions. They want to know the facts. When you read a news article, you want to know what really happened. You dont care about the writer's own inventions and original research. Stories that only contain 'facts' are much more valued by the reader than those containing original research. You as a writer may feel good about seeing the article as 'your own' but the reality again is: the reader just wants to know the facts.

Anyway, I'll go through the whole and make it clear that when I use expressions like that, it's some person's subjective opinion.

There should ideally be no subjective opinion in any of the text unless they are opinions of important people in the story (Muhammad's wife, Muhammad, his enemies and so on).

Again, I can alter the referencing. But many of the stories are clunky to reference no matter how they are approached. The six references tell the same story almost identically. I could certainly add a reference after each sentence, but each footnote would include four or five of the six total references. Or I could include only one of the references, but I would then have to sacrifice any information not specifically included in that reference.

Just keep this in mind: If you think something may be and can be questioned by someone, it definitely needs very clear references that can be cross-checked. Wikipedia's principle is similar: "if it can be questioned, it needs a source".

Now perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, but this is the nearest thing to a content-policy you have ever given me.

We have this [11] on our Guidelines page which says "content on WikiIslam should be based on facts, references and Islamic sources and not support any kind of fringe theories unsupported by the majority of evidence found in recognized translations of the Qur'an, hadith and quotations from Islamic". So we clearly state that content should be based on facts and references and that implies there shouldn't be any original research.

Thanks for your other information. You're definitely more well-read than I am and you're passionate about this subject and you've decided to come to this site. All these things are hard to find in an editor. If you did decide to take out all opinions and anything that is not directly stated in the references and keep it it part of the main content, that would be awesome and ideal for our site and it would make me really happy. But if you want to convert the whole thing to an essay as Sahabah mentioned, that's up to you. --Axius (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)

Considered submitting an essay/op-ed?

Hi there. It's a fairly recent development, but have you considered submitting an essay/op-ed? I know you mentioned how your research proves that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives were young, rather than the Muslim claim that most were old and widowed. So you could trim your work and make it more focused (with the obvious option of submitting further essays to include more of your research). Of course, there are still guidelines to adhere to, but this could be the ideal solution for all sides concerned. At WikiIslam we like to stick to the traditional interpretation of Islam and its history in our critique (for example, the order of revelations, authoritive tafsirs, and certainly the age of Kadijah and other fundamental issues). An essay would allow you to state your findings without them clashing with the site's more orthodox conclusions, and it will even give you space to explain how you came to your own conclusions (e.g. why you think the scholar's take on Kadijah's age is more likely than the commonly accepted one). Take a look at some of our essays here and you can find the submission form here. --Sahabah (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2013 (PST)

An essay is probably the best format for some of what I have to say. For example, it is not really controversial to state that "We don't know Khadija's age." The early traditions offer so many alternatives (everywhere between 25 and 45 when she married Muhammad) that we have to ask some pretty big questions about, "Well, who did know? Were they all inventing this?" But if you don't want this minor point argued in a "fact page" (who cares how old she was really?) I can certainly write an opinion piece about the ages of all Muhammad's wives.

Similarly, if I can follow up some other research I have started, I would like to produce a short piece on the gender balance in the Meccan Muslim community before 627. Long story short, there were far more men than women. The suggestion that the "war casualties" created a surplus of women is modern and not found in the early sources, and it doesn't seem to have any evidence in its favour. My impression is that there was still a majority of men, even after Uhud. But I can see how an opinion like this might rock the boat, and I'm having some trouble tracking references, so it's definitely a future project.

However, I think "biography" pages for Muhammad's wives are needed in addition to opinion pieces. In fact, I would also like to see biography pages for some of the other major players, e.g. Abu Sufyan, Abullah ibn Ubayy, Al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. It is very easy for the casual reader's eyes to glaze over at the sight of all those Arabic names and not recognise them when they reappear. When you track their stories longitudinally, some quite startling portraits emerge.

Yes, essays about the ages of Muhammad's wives and the gender balance in the Meccan Muslim community before 627 would both be most welcome additions to the site. Both are interesting and important topics.

I agree more biographical pages are needed. If they're approached from a traditional angle, it would be great (e.g. our approach to criticism is to use commonly accepted narratives, but to also point out the less savoury details that accompany them).

Good luck with you e-book! If you need any help with it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd probably not be very useful, but if you need someone to check for typos or maybe just give you their honest opinion, know that I'm more than happy to give you a hand. --Sahabah (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2013 (PST)

Here's my opinion. Sahabah knows that I prefer our main content to essays because essays have personal opinions. Thats why we have this linked disclaimer [12] at the top of every essay says "Views contained in essays/op-eds are not necessarily endorsed by WikiIslam. ... Thus, they may contain original research/theories at odds with the rest of our content. ". Because of the fact that a piece of content only contains facts, WikiIslam stands behind everything that is in that content and essays don't get that support (and respect and success in my opinion). I actually dislike essays for that reason but I do see that they attract readership too. For example this certain essay series [13] imported by Sahabah was picked up by some quickly and linked online on forum(s). Sometimes a reader may relate to something in an essay. But again to me an essay has secondary importance. In the Wives case, the issue is all about history and when history is written about, the reader again wants to know what really happened. For this Factual persuasion series, its pretty clear its an essay series.

So I would really like if the work was improved upon so it can be part of the main content rather than being an essay. The first step in that would be to take out original research (conclusions, assumptions) which is not present in the source. Essays are attributed to a single author. We really want something where everything is fact based and there are no opinions and everything in it is what the site endorses. No one takes (unsourced) opinions seriously unless they are by Ibn Warraq or Tabari and so on. By that I mean, statements like that cant be quoted in a debate because they'll be questioned: Who wrote it? How do they know that? How can we trust this author and believe what they've written? When a piece in a newspaper says "In 1937, 110 people were killed in a landslide", that is a fact and no one doubts that and its more likely to be quoted. If someone says "There were many landslides in that area so many people must have been killed", that is weak as compared to the first. To clarify, Sahabah also likes fact-only articles just like I do too but he also likes essays.

But again -- if you guys want to work on keeping it as an essay that's up to you. If you decide to work on it as being part of the main content, of course essays can be written later too. I really wish I had time to work on this myself and if I did, I would have made it to be part of the main content and not be an essay. There's some really great stuff in what 1234567 has done, many interesting facts and details. --Axius (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)

No, I agree 100% with you. I prefer the no-nonsense, facts only, encyclopedic/counter-apologetic pages over essays. My editing history shows that I'm ruthless when it comes to removing opinions or non-referenced statements from our pages. My concern is that it will end up becoming too much of a hassle for both the author and the site. I'd rather have several new a-grade essays over eventually having nothing at all. Plus, in this instance, the author can argue a point we'd never make, I.e. that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives (including Kadijah) were young women. This would make it an important counter-apologetic piece, and I don't think it being attributed to a single author is an issue there. Ideally we'd have both, essays and encyclopedic pages. --Sahabah (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)

Ok. "that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives (including Kadijah) were young women." - this would also be fine if its not an essay because if we've given the sources for their ages we can make that direct conclusion that they were young and its not original research. I guess its up to 1234567 to decide if she wants to keep it as essays which will have disclaimers at the top, or part of the main content, in which case it needs revisions. --Axius (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2013 (PST)

I have noted your server-change. However, I doubt I shall have anything to post before you revert to your old server because I don't currently have access to my copy of Ibn Saad, which is an essential reference. My friend knows I want the book back, but I imagine it will take a while to organise the transfer. Meanwhile, I am tidying up the article on Khadija but I am not paying attention to any of the other wives. I have found a couple of new references not available in English (I don't count Google Translate!) so I will need to ask my Arabic-speaking friends whether they really mean what they seem to.

Great, thanks for the update. I look forward to seeing what you'll have. We are now on the new server and everything is back to normal. Arabic references sometimes contain things that get whitewashed/altered/softened in translation so that will be interesting. --Axius (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (PST)

This still isn't exactly the way I wanted to write it because there are still a couple of references that I didn't manage to track. But rather than let you think I'd given up, I thought I should let you see what I have at present. I'm hoping there will be a little more to follow.1234567 (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2013 (PDT)

Hi 1234567. Nice to see you active again. I thought it would make it easier for you so I moved your work to as sandbox: User:1234567/Sandbox. Axius may be a little late in replying. Would you like me to rename your account to Petra MacDonald? --Sahabah (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2013 (PDT)

I havent read it yet but looks fine to me? I'll read it soon. I did see this:

If the report of Abdullah ibn Abbas is correct, she was a mere three years older than Muhammad, which hardly qualifies as an age-difference.

My opinion on that: We know Abbas is wrong. Its more commonly known that it was 25 and she was 40. It should be clear that this 3 year difference is a fringe theory. Fringe theories should not be given 'equal' treatment and should not be presented 'equally' visibly along with other facts. So this should be corrected with either removal of this portion, or with the addition that more common references talk about 25/40, or make a new subsection about her age and present all the various theories there along with their proper weights. This may be best because the age difference is frequently talked about.

Other than than it looks great, like the section "Khadija and Polytheism". There's lots of interesting information. Articles like this about Muhammad's most famous/prominent wives will be popular reads. After the remaining changes are made, we can see if we can move it to the main space and it may not even need an author attribution if it doesnt contain any opinions/original research. The pictures look great also. --Axius (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2013 (PDT)

Khadija the Great

By Petra MacDonald

Khadija bint Khuwaylid (خديجة بنت خويلد‎) was Muhammad’s first wife and she was his only wife as long as she lived.^[1] She is known to Muslims as al-Kubra (“the Great”)^[2] and al-Tahira (“the Pure”).^[3] Twelve of Muhammad’s wives are credited with the title Umm al-Muminun (“Mother of the Faithful”),^[4] but Khadija occupies a unique position as the Mother of Islam itself.

Khadija’s Background

Khadija was born in Mecca, a member of the dominant Quraysh tribe. Her grandfather Asad, chief of her clan, was a grandson of Qusayy ibn Kilab, Keeper of the Ka’aba and despot over Mecca.^[5] This Qusayy had also been a great-great-great-grandfather of Muhammad.^[6] Her mother, Fatima bint Za’ida, was from another Quraysh clan, the Amir ibn Luayy.^[7] The name Khadija means “premature”,^[8] suggesting the circumstances of her birth.

The traditions about Khadija’s early life are scanty and often contradictory. It is generally accepted that she was born “fifteen years before the Elephant” and that she was 65 (lunar) years old when she died,^[9] indicating a birthdate between July 556 and July 557. However, the source of this tradition is Khadija’s nephew, Hakim ibn Hizam,^[10] who was one of the many early Muslims who claimed his own age to be 120.^[11] By contrast, Abdullah ibn Abbas, the cousin who lived at Muhammad’s side through the final years in Medina,^[12] stated that “on the day Khadija married Allah’s Messenger, she was 28 years old.”^[13] If this is correct, she was born between March 568 and March 569. Variant traditions claim other years.^[14] Whatever her precise date of birth, she was still of childbearing age as late as 605.

Khadija’s personality is described as “determined and intelligent”.^[15] Although it is not explicitly stated that her father was a merchant, “the Quraysh were a people given to commerce,”^[16] so Khadija probably spent her childhood sitting in the bazaars learning to drive bargains. Her known siblings were two brothers, Hizam^[17] and Al-Awwam,^[18] two sisters, Ruqayqa^[19] and Hala,^[20] and a paternal half-brother, Nawfal.^[21] At one stage, there was talk of marrying Khadija off to her cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, but this never happened.^[22]

Khadija and her Husbands

Khadija’s first husband was Atiq ibn A’idh (or Abid), a junior member of the Makhzum clan.^[23] The Makhzumites had grown wealthy on trade, and their generosity had won them the loyalty of their neighbours. They were now serious contenders for the leadership of the city.^[24] This match was therefore a step up the social scale for Khadija, though perhaps a small step if her family also had money. Atiq and Khadija had two children, suggesting – since Khadija produced her children within two-year intervals^[25] – that the marriage lasted between two and four years. From their daughter, Hind, Khadija derived her kunya Umm Hind.^[26] Their son, Abdullah,^[27] died in infancy.^[28] Most sources state that Atiq died,^[29] although there is a variant tradition that the marriage ended in divorce.^[30]

Khadija then married a Bedouin nobleman, Malik ibn An-Nabbash, who was from the Tamim tribe. In the way of nomads who aspired to an urban lifestyle, Malik and his two brothers had immigrated to Mecca and formed an alliance with the Abduldar clan of the Quraysh.^[31] Given their highborn origins, the Tamim brothers would have interacted with their new allies as equals rather than as vassals. To complete their Meccan citizenship, they sought Quraysh wives, to whom they could offer rank, connections and probably also money. It is interesting that Malik chose Khadija, for the Asad clan was the traditional rival of Abduldar.^[32] Their marriage produced three children, suggesting that it lasted between four and six years. From their first son, Hala, Malik took his kunya Abu Hala.^[33] Their second son was, confusingly, also named Hind.^[34] Their daughter, Zaynab,^[35] probably died young, as no more is heard about her, and Khadija later mentioned that she had borne each of her first two husbands a child who had died in infancy.^[36]

In contradiction to all this, some sources state that Khadija married Abu Hala first and Atiq second.^[37] However, a kunya was usually taken from a firstborn child, indicating that Umm Hind and Abu Hala did not share the same firstborn.

It is not known when or how Abu Hala died, but the Sacrilegious War against the Qays-Aylan tribe dominated the years 591–594.^[38] Khadija’s brother Hizam was killed in the second round of the conflict,^[39] and their father Khuwaylid, who must have been some sixty years old, was a commander on the field.^[40] After Abu Hala’s death, several prominent citizens proposed marriage to the widowed Khadija, some of them investing great sums of money into their courtship, but her father vetoed every match.^[41]

Khadija’s Business

The reason why Khadija attracted so many suitors was that she was the richest woman in Mecca. By the time Abu Hala died, she had become “a merchant woman of dignity and wealth. She used to hire men to carry merchandise outside the country.”^[42] While the legends that “half the trade in Mecca” belonged to Khadija^[43] are doubtless exaggerated, she may well have been the wealthiest single trader. The traditions do not state in what commodity she dealt, but among the exports of Mecca are mentioned leather, wool, perfume, silver, cheese and dried raisins.^[44] Nor is it known how she originally acquired her business. Perhaps her father helped to set her up, but this opens the question of why Khadija became more prosperous than any of her siblings. If she had a backer not available to them, it was probably one or both of her husbands. Or perhaps the business flourished because of Khadija’s personal talents and efforts.

Muslim apologists sometimes point to Khadija’s independence and success as an example of the great opportunities that Islam grants to women. Typical claims are:

This is illogical, since Khadija’s career was established before Islam existed. What it really demonstrates is the opportunities that pre-Islamic Arabs (sometimes) granted to women, who not only mingled freely with men in the market-place but were also respected for doing so. Most merchants were men, but among the women were the very pagan Hind bint Utba^[45] and the perfumer Asma bint Mukharriba.^[46][47] After Khadija died, Muslim women were ordered to stay at home and wear veils,^[48] and it became impossible for an adherent Muslim woman to conduct any such enterprise. Khadija had no way of knowing that within a decade of her death, her lifestyle would be forbidden to her spiritual descendants.

In the spring of 595, Khadija required a new agent to accompany her camels to Syria. Her brother’s wife’s brother, Abu Talib ibn Abdulmuttalib,^[49] recommended the services of his ward, a nephew whom he could no longer afford to keep. Hearing that the young man was honest and reliable, Khadija agreed to hire him for a higher commission than she usually paid.^[50] His name was Muhammad.^[51]

Two months later Muhammad returned to Mecca with merchandise worth nearly double what Khadija had expected.^[52] Goods commonly imported from Syria included grain, oil, wine, weapons, cotton and linen.^[53] As Khadija worked on a profit-share basis,^[54] she doubled Muhammad’s commission.^[55] It is said that Khadija later dispatched him on a second trip, this time to Tihama^[56] in Yemen to import frankincense, myrrh and fine textiles.^[57] It is not clear whether Khadija took the unusual step of sending her agent southwards in the heat of summer^[58] in order to import a near-monopoly; or whether this second venture occurred during a subsequent winter, after Muhammad and Khadija were already married, and the detail that she “employed” him is an error; or whether the whole timeline has been confused, and these events occurred over a longer timespan than is usually assumed. What is certain is that by the summer of 595, Khadija had decided to marry her agent.^[59]

Why Muhammad Married Khadija

Khadija sent as her intermediary Nafisa bint Umayya, a half-negro freedwoman from Abu Hala’s tribe.^[60] Nafisa approached Muhammad at the bazaar and asked why he had never married. He replied that he could not afford to support a family. “But if money were no obstacle,” Nafisa persisted, “would you be willing to marry a lady of wealth, rank and beauty?” Muhammad asked which lady of that description would be willing to take him, and Nafisa named Khadija. Muhammad instantly expressed his willingness.^[61] When Khadija next sent for Muhammad, it was to make a formal proposal. She spoke of how his noble ancestry, good reputation and personal honesty rendered him eligible, and offered herself as his wife.^[62]

When Muhammad told Nafisa that he had always wanted to marry but could not afford it, he was speaking directly from his personal experience. He had hoped to marry his cousin Fakhita, but Abu Talib had prevented it by giving her to a wealthy man and telling Muhammad that the family needed to marry money.^[63] So Muhammad was looking for a wife and was in a frame of mind to consider any reasonable offer. Khadija’s offer, of course, was beyond reasonable. She was the Arab equivalent of a multi-millionaire, and her patronage was the most extraordinary luck for Muhammad.

Muslim commentators have stressed how Khadija was a “much older” woman and therefore Muhammad must have been noble and high-minded to marry her for her character rather than her physical charms.

It would be difficult, however, to prove that Muhammad was attracted only to Khadija’s character and not to her money. While she was to prove both loyal and sympathetic,^[64] it is not clear that Muhammad had had the opportunity to assess these character-qualities in advance. It is certain that he had had the opportunity to assess her wealth.

Nor is there any reason to assume that Khadija was physically unattractive. If the report of Abdullah ibn Abbas is correct, she was a mere three years older than Muhammad, which hardly qualifies as an age-difference. While a modern hagiography that describes her as “beautiful, tall and light-skinned”^[65] does not cite early sources, the servant Nafisa had also mentioned that she was “beautiful”.^[66] Even if Nafisa was exaggerating (the word “beautiful” in this context usually means “normal-looking” as opposed to deformed or ugly), she achieved no purpose in telling an outright lie to a man who already knew what Khadija looked like.

Camels and Swords at the Wedding

Khadija asked for a dower of 20 camels.^[67] Twenty camels would have been worth about £8,000,^[68] which was four times the dower that Muhammad gave to any of his subsequent wives.^[69] This suggests that Khadija was “worth four women” to him, i.e. that it was part of their marriage contract that he would not take another wife in her lifetime. A poor man like Muhammad would have had some trouble amassing such a hefty gift, even if he returned all the beasts that Khadija had personally given him (she had paid his commissions in camels).^[70] His good fortune in attracting the wealthiest woman in Mecca must have delighted the investment-seeking Abu Talib, and we can only assume that the family combined resources to raise the dower.

Marriage required the consent of the bride’s guardian, and Khadija’s father had refused her previous suitors. She therefore plotted to secure his permission through trickery. She plied the old man with wine until he was drunk. Then she slaughtered a cow, covered his shoulders with a new striped robe and sprinkled him with perfume, whereupon Muhammad and his uncles entered the house. Khadija extracted the legally binding words from her father while he was too inebriated to know what he was saying. As the day wore on and the wedding party was in full swing, Khuwaylid recovered his sobriety enough to ask, “What is this meat, this robe and this perfume?” Khadija replied, “You have given me in marriage to Muhammad ibn Abdullah.” The old man was as furious as his daughter had expected, protesting that he had never consented to any such thing and even unsheathing his sword. Muhammad’s kin also brandished weapons before everyone realised that the matter was not worth actual bloodshed. It was too late. Muhammad was Khadija’s husband.^[71]

Although the Muslim historian Waqidi denied this embarrassing story (even while reporting it), the British historian Muir points out that nobody had any reason to fabricate it. The tradition is from two independent sources, both of whom were biased in Muhammad’s favour and neither of whom had any reason to disparage Khadija’s father or his clan. Two further independent sources, without mentioning the drunken party, state that it was Khuwaylid who married Khadija to Muhammad. Although Waqidi claims that it was Khadija’s uncle who gave her away because her father had died before the Sacrilegious War (591-594), his pupil Ibn Saad names Khuwaylid as a commander in that war. Muir therefore concludes that the tradition of Khuwaylid’s death “has been invented, to throw discredit on the story of his drunkenness.”^[72]

This story highlights the Arab assumption that marriage was a contract between bridegroom and father-in-law in which they transferred the guardianship of a woman. It was somewhat similar to buying a camel: the purchase required the consent of the vendor. Muhammad never questioned this view of marriage. It would have been highly convenient for him to perceive some of his marriages, including the one to Khadija, as purely a contract between husband and wife. Yet there is no evidence that this concept ever occurred to him, even after he declared himself the final prophet who was wise for all time and had authority to change all the rules. To the end of his life, he was particular about meeting the legal requirement to contract with a guardian;^[73] he never questioned that every woman belonged to some man. Khadija, in outwitting the system that worked against her, showed herself a more creative thinker than her bridegroom.

This story also reveals how Khadija and Muhammad understood consent. It did not need to be “free” or “informed”; any type of consent was legally binding. This theme was to recur in Muhammad’s life. He was to extract consent at sword-point,^[74] under duress,^[75] from an immature or unsound mind,^[76] by withholding essential information,^[77] by offering a false dichotomy between two bad alternatives,^[78] by exploiting spiritual beliefs,^[79] through bribery^[80] or by making promises that he intended to break.^[81] Yet he never suggested there was any kind of ethical problem in extracting consent in whatever manner might succeed; it was the one who consented to Muhammad, no matter how, who was morally obliged to stand by his word.

Khadija and Muhammad

Muhammad and Khadija were married for 25 years. Modern biographies of Khadija sometimes include such statements as:

These creative interpretations do not accord with early records that Muhammad went into partnership with a Makhzumite, Qays ibn Saayib, and sold merchandise in his shop.^[82] Since Muhammad was not producing anything by means of a craft, he could only have sold items in Mecca if he had imported them from elsewhere; and if he could pay for imports, he must have been exporting at a profit. In other words, Khadija’s business continued after their marriage exactly as it had beforehand.

This circumstance explains a great deal about Muhammad’s relationship with Khadija. His assertion that “Khadija spent her wealth for me”^[83] indicates his keen awareness that the money was hers and not his. However important his managerial position in the family firm, and however generously Khadija shared her wealth, she remained in control of her own money. Muhammad was effectively his wife’s employee. He was in no position to displease her, for he would have lost everything if he had dared to stray. Therefore he was not only faithful to Khadija but he also allowed her to make all their major decisions.^[84] He was neither so faithful nor so obliging to any of his subsequent wives. In other words, Muhammad made the best husband to the only one of his wives who was able to dictate the terms of their relationship.

It should not be assumed that Muhammad’s fidelity to Khadija caused him any particular hardship. She was equally faithful to him; and to judge by the regularity of her childbearing, his quickness to “draw close to her” for comfort,^[85] and her deliberate ploy of using sex to distract him from his troubles,^[86] she made herself very sexually available to him. Muhammad’s compliance with this convenient arrangement therefore reveals more about his common sense than about his virtue.

Khadija and her Children

Khadija brought three stepchildren into the marriage. It is striking how little is known about them. Later historians eagerly collected every possible scrap of information about Muhammad, down to how he cleaned his teeth^[87] and his attitude to a broken sandal.^[88] People who had lived under his roof should have been in high demand as eyewitnesses. Yet by the time the traditions were committed to writing, almost everything about his stepchildren had been forgotten. This implies that their lives did not intersect very much with those of the Muslim community.

Given that girls were often married off at puberty, it is possible that Muhammad never lived with his stepdaughter, Hind bint Atiq. She married a Makhzumite cousin, Sayfi ibn Umayya, to whom she bore at least one son, Muhammad ibn Sayfi. Though this Muhammad in his turn had descendants, it was said that none of the family survived; yet there is not a word about how they met their demise.^[89]

Khadija’s two sons lived with Muhammad for several years,^[90] and it is known that he liked to play with children.^[91] Of Hala it is recalled that “the Prophet arose and saw Hala in his room. He pressed him to his breast and uttered joyously: ‘Hala, Hala, Hala!’”^[92] If this was all anyone could remember, then nobody remembered very much. Hala was later killed in a street-brawl after he challenged a man who had insulted Muhammad.^[93] This was probably before Islam,^[94] as the Muslims never complained that their Prophet’s own stepson had been martyred for the cause.

The younger stepson, Hind, reminisced to his nephew, Hussayn ibn Ali:

Perhaps Hind’s affection for his stepfather was real; there is no evidence of any conflict between them. However, he gave this memoir – and much more in similar vein – long after the Islamic empire was established, when only good things could be spoken of Muhammad; and he did not include any specific events from his childhood. It is clear that Hind was never in Muhammad’s inner circle. His name does not appear in Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, which lists all the early converts and describes, name by name, the doings of the emigrants in Medina. Nor does he appear in the ahadith covering that period. This suggests that he did not become a Muslim until the conquest of Mecca in 630, when Muhammad appointed him a governor in Yemen.^[95] The distant location of this post would have continued to keep him away from Muhammad’s intimate affairs. Hind died after 656 at Basra in Syria. “The market was cancelled that day, and there was no loading or unloading of ships.”^[96] He had at least one son, also named Hind; but it is again reported that no descendants survived to the time of writing.^[97]

Over the next ten years, Khadija bore six more children to Muhammad, attended at each birth by a midwife named Salma.^[98] From their first son, Qasim, Muhammad took the kunya Abu Qasim. There followed Zaynab, Abdullah, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum and Fatima.^[99] Some historians name two additional sons, Al-Tahir (“the Pure”) or Al-Tayyib (“the Good”), but this is a misreading of Waqidi, who clearly states that these were both bynames given to Abdullah.^[100] Qasim and Abdullah both died in infancy; the girls all grew up.^[101] Fatima, who looked like Muhammad^[102] and was his favourite,^[103] is known to Muslims as az-Zahra (“the Dazzling”) and is regarded as a great saint.^[104]

In addition to their biological children, Muhammad and Khadija freed and adopted their slave-boy, Zayd ibn Haritha. Zayd was a small, flat-nosed black boy from the Udhra tribe. At a young age he was kidnapped by slave-traders and sold on the slave-market for 400 dirhams (about £2,000). He was purchased by Khadija’s nephew, who made her a present of him. When it became clear that Muhammad and Khadija would not have a son of their own, Muhammad took Zayd to the steps of the Ka’aba and declared before the assembled citizens that he took Zayd to be his heir.^[105] Although Muhammad kept Zayd close to him^[106] and conferred many small favours on him,^[107] when the two finally had a conflict of interest, Muhammad ignored Zayd’s rights and served only himself.^[108]

When a drought caused widespread hardship, Khadija presented Muhammad’s former foster mother with 40 sheep and a camel loaded with supplies.^[109] Muhammad volunteered to relieve his uncle Abu Talib by taking charge of one of the latter’s children. Thereafter Muhammad and Khadija brought up Muhammad’s young cousin Ali but they did not adopt him legally.^[110] Again, Muhammad always made a great show of affection towards Ali^[111] and even gave him Fatima as his wife.^[112] But the apparent success of this family arrangement has to be set against the reality that Ali grew up with a remarkable lack of empathy for other human beings.^[113]

Khadija and Polytheism

Modern hagiographers sometimes claim that the virtuous Khadija could never have been an idolater.

The early sources state otherwise. Khadija kept in her house an idol of Al-Uzza, a virgin star-goddess who was the patroness of Mecca and was supposed to be powerful in war.^{[114][115][116]} The family used to worship it just before bedtime.^[117] Muhammad sometimes sacrificed a white sheep to the goddess,^[118] and Khadija sacrificed two kids at the birth of each son and one at the birth of each daughter.^[119] When Muhammad complained of the Evil Eye, Khadija used to send for an elderly sorceress to charm it away.^[120] In 605 a severe flood damaged the Ka’aba, and the principal citizens of Mecca cooperated to rebuild it. Muhammad played a prominent part by arbitrating a dispute over who should have the honour of reinstalling the Black Stone.^[121] He gave no hint at that date that he had rejected any of the 360 gods whom he thus rehoused.

However, at an unspecified date and for an unknown reason, Muhammad and Khadija became disillusioned with their traditional religion. Muhammad and his son Zayd came under the influence of the outspoken monotheist Zayd ibn Amr al-Adiyi, who told them that he never ate meat offered to idols. Muhammad then decided that he too would never again sacrifice to Al-Uzza.^[122] Finally he confessed his unbelief to Khadija.

Al-Lat was an earth-mother goddess who was revered in Ta’if.^[123] Such a placid acceptance of her husband’s apostasy suggests that Khadija in her turn had already lost faith.

It is not stated what Muhammad and Khadija did with their idol; nor is it known which religious group, if any, they joined next. Monotheists who lived in or travelled through Mecca included Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and Sabians;^[124] but Zayd ibn Amr did not identify with any of these groups. However, there is little doubt that Muhammad and Khadija learned monotheistic ideas – Heaven, Hell, holy books, prophets – from Khadija’s cousins Waraqa ibn Nawfal and Uthman ibn Al-Huwayrith and from Muhammad’s cousin Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh.^[125] Khadija began to speak as if there was only one God,^[126] though why she referred to this deity as “Allah” is a more complex question than can be addressed here.

Khadija and Islam

Muhammad took to meditating in caves, often leaving his family for days at a time to focus on his devotions.^[127] In August 610, when he was 39 years old, these meditations were interrupted by some terrifying experience. It could have been an epileptic fit, a psychotic episode or an ordinary nightmare, but he staggered home to Khadija under the conviction that he had seen the angel Jibreel (Gabriel) and that he was demon-possessed.^[128] Khadija wrapped him in a blanket and consoled him.^[129] If she had soothed away his terrors as a bad dream, history might have been different. But at this point, Khadija’s religious convictions intervened. She did not believe that Muhammad could be possessed. “Allah would not treat you thus since he knows your good character. So rejoice and be glad! I have hope that you will be the prophet of this community.” Then she put on her cloak and took Muhammad to consult her cousin Waraqa.^[130]

Waraqa was a blind old man who had converted to Christianity and had studied an Arabic translation of the Gospels.^[131] According to Muhammad, Waraqa declared: “Holy, holy! This was the great Namus [law] that came to Moses. You are the prophet of these people. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly.”^[132] If Waraqa really said this, he did not keep his promise. Although he lived for at least another three years,^[133] people afterwards had to ask whether he had even been a Muslim.

In other words, Waraqa never made a public profession of Islam. Nobody except Muhammad and Khadija ever heard him endorse Muhammad as a prophet. Muhammad even admitted to Aisha that he had required prompting from Khadija before he could answer this straightforward question.

It was not Waraqa whose confidence moved Muhammad to discard his terrors and believe in his own mission, but Khadija herself.^[134] Within hours of deducing that her husband was a prophet, she secured the conversion of her next-door neighbour.^[135] When he next announced that Jibreel was in the room, Khadija tested the visitor (whom she could not see) by standing in his supposed line of vision, stripping off her gown and enticing Muhammad to have sex with her. Muhammad then reported that Jibreel had departed, and Khadija declared that Jibreel’s modesty was a certain sign that he was an angel and not a demon.^[136]

Soon after this, Muhammad reported that Jibreel had stopped visiting him. Despite his initial terror of his strange experiences, he was now distraught by their absence.^[137] Several times he became so depressed that he considered committing suicide by throwing himself off a cliff. Although he returned home from each attempt saying that Jibreel had reappeared in time to prevent him,^[138] the angel did not remain long enough to give him any new prophecies. Eventually Khadija taunted him: “I think that your Lord must have come to hate you!”^[139] This goading, the only recorded incident in which her sympathy for her husband failed, suggests a profound disappointment with the possibility that Muhammad might not be a prophet after all. It was very soon afterwards that Muhammad reported a new prophecy: “Thy Lord hath not forsaken thee, nor doth He hate thee...”^[140]

Muhammad never again mentioned being afraid of the angel. Thenceforth he reported regular visits from Jibreel, who brought new revelations from Allah.^[141] One of the earliest messages concerned the correct ritual for the five daily prayers. After this Muhammad was often to be seen in full public view, first abluting then standing face to the Ka’aba to pray, with Ali at his side and Khadija a pace behind them.^[142] Khadija, the First Lady of Mecca, accepted from the beginning of Islam that a woman’s place was behind the men. Their four daughters and Zayd were also among the earliest converts.^[143] After the conversion of Abu Bakr, of course, there was no turning back.^[144]

Khadija in the Persecution

After three years and some fifty converts,^[145] it was known throughout Mecca that Muhammad considered himself a prophet. Nobody really cared^[146] until the day when he gathered his relatives together for a dinner-party and invited them to forsake their idols and submit to Allah. But no mass-conversions followed;^[147] the Meccans doubted, questioned and ignored him. Discouraged, Muhammad confided his troubles to Khadija,^[148] who was quick to console him. The citizens of Mecca accused him of outright lying, and Khadija continued to reassure him that he was a prophet.^[149] Debates led to angry arguments and mockery, and Khadija disparaged their folly. Notwithstanding this concise summary of Khadija’s attitude, surprisingly few specifics are recorded. The exact words of her counter-mockery do not survive, and nor is it precisely described how she “helped him in his work.”^[150] There are very few ahadith about her everyday life with Muhammad or her involvement in community affairs, although there must have been multiple witnesses to both.

Muhammad kept preaching, and the public arguments led to fights in the streets. It was a Muslim who struck the first blow,^[151] but when Muhammad continued to mock the idols in the Ka’aba, the pagans began a systematic campaign of punishing Muslim slaves and teenagers.^[152] One of the worst offenders was Khadija’s brother Nawfal, whom the Muslims called “a satan of the Quraysh.” He once tied Abu Bakr to his kinsman Talha ibn Ubaydullah and left them helplessly roped together.^[153] His attitude raises interesting questions about Khadija’s relationship with her brother – especially as Nawfal’s own son was an early convert to Islam.^[154] However, while his spiteful prank no doubt caused Abu Bakr and Talha some inconvenience, if this was deemed the action of a “satan”, then the general harassment of freeborn adults was far from life-threatening. The majority of the freeborn Muslims fled to Abyssinia, where the Christian King extended his unqualified protection; but Muhammad and Khadija, being under the protection of Muhammad’s uncle Abu Talib, persevered in Mecca.^[155]

Muhammad warned his opponents of Hellfire, graphically describing how sinners would be “thrown headlong”^[156] into “a fierce blast of fire and boiling water, shades of black smoke,”^[157] to drink “a boiling fluid, and a fluid dark, murky, intensely cold,”^[158] allowing nothing to survive and nothing to escape, “darkening and changing the colour of man.”^[159] Khadija had to take her share of the warning.

Muhammad’s conclusion is interesting in the light of the fact that all the children in question had died before Islam. He did not explain why Khadija’s subsequent conversion was retrospectively effective to save some of her children but not all of them.

After the conversions of two famously violent citizens, Hamza ibn Abdulmuttalib^[160] and Umar ibn Al-Khattab,^[161] the ruling clans of Mecca declared a boycott against Muhammad’s clan, including its non-Muslims. Thenceforth no Meccan might trade, socialise or intermarry with the Hashimites.^[162] The clan inferred that they had been condemned to outlaw status and would not be protected against theft or violence. Fearing worse hostility to follow, in September 616 Abu Talib evacuated the Hashimites from Mecca proper. They camped out in a mountain gorge “formed by one of the defiles, or indentations of the mountain, where the projecting rocks of [Mount] Abu Cobeis pressed upon the eastern outskirts of Mecca. It was entered on the city side by a low gateway, through which a camel passed with difficulty. On all other sides it was detached from the town by cliffs and buildings.”^[163] Such a narrow entrance could be constantly guarded, leaving the Hashimites safe but effectively trapped.

“The Quraysh blocked food-grain and other necessaries.”^[164] For supplies the Hashimites had to depend on smuggler-friends who were willing and able to bypass the Meccans.^[165] For example, Hisham ibn Amr “used to bring a camel laden with food by night, and then when he had got it to the mouth of the alley, he took off its halter, gave it a whack on the side, and sent it into the alley to them. He would do the same thing another time, bringing clothes for them.”^[166] As the Hashimites had no way of earning money to pay for this food, they had to expend their savings. Over the next three years, Khadija exhausted all her wealth to support the community.^[167] Whether everyone else’s money also ran out, or whether the Quraysh became more efficient at intercepting the smugglers, “the severity of the blockade became so intense that the screams of their children could be heard from behind the mountain pass. Some of the Quraysh were happy at this, while others felt sorry. [The Hashimites] remained in the mountain pass for three years.”^[168]

Khadija and her Co-Wives

Muslims speak with pride of how Muhammad was faithful to Khadija. Typical remarks are:

In one sense this is true. For example, when the Quraysh chiefs wanted to end the boycott, they offered Muhammad “as many wives as he wanted in marriage,” together with wealth, political power and a competent exorcist, if only he would stop reviling their gods. Muhammad scorned this bribe.^[169] In this case, however, his loyalty to Khadija can scarcely be disentangled from his loyalty to his own prophetic office. He responded to Khadija’s support with a nepotistic revelation that the Virgin Mary had been the best woman of her generation while Khadija was the best woman of the present generation.^[170] He claimed that although there were many perfect men, there had only ever been only three perfect women: Asiya “wife of Pharaoh,” who had rescued the infant Moses; Mary the virgin mother of the Prophet Jesus; and Khadija. He later allowed that their daughter Fatima was also one of the four “best among the women of Paradise.”^[171] How his three elder daughters reacted to such open favouritism is not recorded. When Khadija brought once Muhammad a bowl of soup, she was granted a personal message from Jibreel (of which Aisha was later intensely jealous): “Give her Allah’s greeting and the good news that in Paradise she will have a palace built of a hollow pearl, where there will be no noise or fatigue.”^[172]

Yet despite this outward loyalty to Khadija, it was exactly at this period when Muhammad frankly admitted that he was thinking about other women. It was only after 614 that he introduced to his descriptions of Paradise the “modest houris” (virgins) with “lustrous eyes” and “swelling breasts” who reclined “like pearls or rubies” on “green cushions”.^[173] According to Muir, all of the Qur’anic descriptions of houris date to the last few years of Khadija’s life; after Muhammad moved to Medina, remarried to a younger woman, there were only two brief and tame references^[174] to “companions pure”.^[175] Muir might have miscalculated, as the most detailed reference to the divine virgins^[176] is sometimes dated to the Medina period,^[177] although the German historian Nöldeke assigned even this one to Khadija’s lifetime.^[178] Regardless of the exact date when Muhammad eventually shifted his focus, it is certain that the ageing Khadija knew about the houris.

Khadija’s Death

The boycott against the Hashim clan was lifted “in the tenth year” (between August 619 and August 620), and Muhammad’s clan returned to their houses in Mecca.^[179] By this time, Khadija was dying.^[180] Muhammad comforted her in her final illness with the reminder that she was going to her jewelled palace in Paradise – so she must convey his best wishes to her co-wives. When Khadija expressed surprise at the news that Muhammad already had deceased wives, he explained that Allah had wedded him in Paradise to Queen Asiya, to “Kulthum the sister of Moses” and to the Virgin Mary. The theme of having four wives appears to have been on his mind even in his last moments with Khadija. She responded with the conventional congratulation to a newlywed: “May the union be blessed.”^[181] Khadija died on 10 Ramadan “in the tenth year of prophethood, three years before the Hijra,” i.e., on 22 April 620, and was buried in Mount Hajun Cemetery near Mecca.^[182]

“The Messenger of Allah was so grieved about Khadija that people feared for him.”^[183] For the rest of his life, he spoke warmly and often of her^[184] and sometimes seemed overwhelmed by grief at her absence.^[185] He used to say: “Khadija believed in me when they doubted me; she financed me when they tried to starve me out; and she is the mother of my children. Allah himself nurtured love for her in my heart.”^[186]

Islam changed direction after Khadija’s death. Within seven weeks Muhammad had become a bigamist.^[187] At the same time he began negotiations for military alliances with foreign tribes,^[188] although it was to be another two years before he succeeded in declaring war on Mecca.^[189] Even the sections of the Qur’an that were composed at the end of Muhammad’s Meccan period, though narrative rather than legislative, read more like the flat prose of Medina than the poetry of Khadija’s lifetime.^[190] It is frequently said that “Islam arose by Ali’s sword and Khadija’s wealth.”^[191] It is clear that what Khadija contributed to the foundations of Islam was far more than money. It is doubtful that she intended or foresaw the enthusiasm with which later Muslims would resort to the sword.

References