Talk:Umm Salama

Untitled

We are a group of students from Colgate University, and we are editing the Wikipedia page on Umm Salama for a Women in Islam course project. Justinfitz22, Jacoby14, Ediguglielmo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediguglielmo (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge

I merged Umm Salamah here. --Striver 12:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Internal Disagreement

This article does not really agree with itself. It states that Umm Salamah had four children by Abd-Allah ibn Abd-al-Asad, completed a four month + 10 day iddah, married Muhammad when she had three children and bore a fourth soon after their marriage. Which all could make sense if Umm Salamah were pregnant at the time of her remarriage, however the iddah of a pregnant woman is until the birth of the child -- I find it unlikely that the prophet of the faith violated that principle thereof unremarked upon. --208.101.166.24 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? The rule about iddah ending when the child is born is designed to shorten the period not lengthen it. It was instituted for the case of a widow who gave birth only days after her husband's death. Muhammad told her she was already free to remarry and need not serve the full four months. (Muslim 9:3536, 9:3537) Umm Salama married Muhammad five months after her first husband's death, when she was seven months pregnant, so the paternity of her child was obvious. Nobody remarked because no rule had been broken.Grace has Victory (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find the assertion that Umm Salama was pregnant at the time she married Muhammad in any of the standard early sources. On the contrary, Ibn Saad specifically states that the baby was already born before Umm Salama remarried (Tabaqat vol. 8, pp. 63-64, 66 of Bewley's translation).

Further, Islam the Modern Religion doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source. It is wrong about Umm Salama being Muhammad's "direct cousin" (they were only step-cousins), so I'm guessing it is also wrong about her pregnancy.

Do other editors think we should just delete the information sourced solely to this site?Petra MacDonald 05:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another internal disagreement

According to the head of the article, she lived approximately 580-680, therefore aged about 100. According to Mothers of the Believers, she lived to hear of the Battle of Karbala, and died that same year. According to the foot of this article, she "died at the age of eighty four in 62 AD in Medina." 62 AH would be shortly after Karbala, and I suppose I will make the change, but in that case either her age at death or her date of birth is wrong by more than fifteen years. Also in Muhammad's wives she claims at the time of her marriage to Muhammad to be an old woman, past interest in men, but gave birth about that time, and perhaps again later, while this article says she was twenty-nine when she married Muhammad after being widowed by the Battle of Uhud, meaning she was born about 597 AD. J S Ayer (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - the header of the article should be changed. All the early sources say that Umm Salama lived to be 84 years old and that she died either "A.H. 59" or "a few days after Karbala". This gives her a birth-date between May 596 and May 599, which is only a small discrepancy. She married Muhammad in April 626, so (counting backwards from her age at death) she would indeed have been about 29 lunar years old at that time.

Her own statement that she was "too old" can be taken with a grain of salt. First, "too old" is not a precise age. Second, she could not have been literally "an old woman" as another hadith tells us that Ayesha was seriously jealous of her beauty. Third, the context makes it clear that she said this because she was looking for excuses to refuse the proposal. She could have simply meant that she wasn't a teenager.Grace has Victory (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606204827/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)