Talk:Ahl al-Bayt - Misplaced Pages

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam: Muslim scholars / Salaf / Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim scholars task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Royalty and Nobility

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility

Archives

Archive 1

Too much original research

As a whole, this article contains an inordinate amount of original research. There are numerous instances where factual claims are made with only "according to such and such person" as citation. I just removed the worst section, which literally contained nothing but original research and not a single citation. I'm going to start combing through the rest of the article during the next few days; I would encourage anyone else with the time to do so as well. We need to get more outside sources to verify what's in here, because as it is i'm having one hell of a hard time cross-referencing everything. MezzoMezzo 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and as mentioned above, the whole article reads like a pro-Shia screed. ITAQALLAH 23:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag everything with dates. Delete everything already tagged. Be mindful however not to delete things merely because they seem to support a Shia standpoint, however. I'm all for burning away all of the OR in this article, frankly I think that will contribute greatly to cleaning it up. Peter Deer (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Performing major cleanup and purge of original research

I've been asked to come in and clean up the article and remove the original research. I'm going to tag it up for now and over the next few days I'm going to try and find sources personally for most of this, and anything that seems even remotely dubious if it isn't sourced I'm just going to delete it.

I'm going to put a little list here of certain issues I would like help on in my edits and I welcome any I can get. I'll probably work on this more as I

The Kisa Tradition section is just a total mess, almost to the point of being unreadable. It contains some reference to Hadith, which albeit a primary source is still a source, so I'd prefer it be cleaned up by someone who knew what they were doing instead of bulldozed by me.
The Sunni Interpretation section has similar problems.

If anyone can think of anything else tell me. Peter Deer (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is the article focusing on the concept of Ahl al-Bayt from the general Islamic perspective, then we can have a views section where the variances between the Sunni and Shia approaches can be discussed. I do agree that substantial changes are needed, and I shall try to incorporate citations where possible. ITAQALLAH 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the whole section "Ahl al-Bayt in hadiths" for now because it's an amalgamation of copy-pastes taken from various websites such as this. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd like to see much more compounding of things into common ground as opposed to conflict. I'd also like to fix the lead section and the second "Ahl Al-Bayt Family" section, because it seems to me like the second section is just a lead section that got too long and was cut off into a different section. Peter Deer (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Though for the record I do think that the mentions in Hadith are important to the article and should be incorporated moderately and responsibly and only when relevant. Peter Deer (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend using third party reliable sources to establish the significance of any primary sources relevant to this topic. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the interpretations sections and have rewritten it to reflect the EoI's coverage of the topic, with contributions from Madelung. I thought it was a bit redundant having a section on the Ahl al-Bayt in Qur'an/hadith, because you'll inevitably end up discussing their interpretation in the section too. Thus I've put it all together into one section. I've added another section too about 'Significance' which I intend to rewrite/expand, which will basically discuss the significance of Ahl al Bayt in Muslim thought (including specific Sunni/Shi'i perspective) - where the information about the other Qur'anic verses and hadith narratives (thaqalayn etc.) will be more relevant. I've also rewritten the lead as well. ITAQALLAH 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think insofar as notability is concerned that Hadith should, of course, have some inclusion (as it's so expansive it may be preferable for Ahl al-Bayt in Hadith to have its own article) but I think that the current deletion is necessary to getting this article back on the right track from the train wreck of unverifiable and obscure selections it had become. Peter Deer (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the stuff at the bottom of the "Shia View" section about Twelver/Ismaili Imams? Is that even relevant here? Maybe just a link to a page about Imamate would suffice? Can I do that? Shabaniyya (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that makes any sense. The current section is one paragraph with links to the Imamate and Ismah pages... what, exactly, would you delete? Ogress _smash! 05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Twelver and Ismaili branches of Shi'a Islam differ in regards to the line of Imamate. While the Twelver believe in a lineage known as the Twelve Imams, the Ismaili believe that the descendants of Isma'il ibn Jafar were the inheritors of the Imamate instead." This doesn't seem to fit in the article. In fact this section is kinda just a recap of the opening paragraph where the Shia view of ahl ul-bayt is already expounded. Maybe just a "see also" with links would suffice?Shabaniyya (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt vs. Ahl al-Kisa

So the Ahl al-Bayt means People of the Household and refers to the household of Muhammad. Ahl al-Kisa means the People of the Cloak and refers to the persons in the Hadith of the Cloak. Ahl al-Bayt is often by Shiites considered to be referring only to the persons also considered the Ahl al-Kisa, and Sunnis consider Ahl al-Bayt to be more inclusive and pertain to all persons under Muhammad's household, not merely His descendants and son in law.

Does that seem accurate? Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems about right. ITAQALLAH 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've really only fairly recently started familiarizing myself with a lot of this terminology, so you'll have to bear with me as my English-speaking mind catches up with a lot of this. Part of the reason I'm doing this is to make this more comprehensive to Western peoples so that people have a place to learn a scholarly English presentation of Islam instead of having to learn about it from their preacher or from the war coverage on the news. Peter Deer (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ahl ul-bayt actually refers to the larger pool of Muhammad's descendants, like the children of the Imams and so on. This is why Shias visit the graves of these people, as well as those of the Imams. Shabaniyya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

It must be noted that in reference to the Quraanic verse related to Ahl al-Bayt: , one cannot neglect the verses and , as verse is not an ISLOATED verse, but a continuation of previous verses, which starts from: O wives of the Prophet!

Ahl al-Bayt in Quran and Hadith

I disagree with some part of Itaqallah's edition. He's removed information but left the source which lead to misinformation. He's also made the issue to some extent confusing. For example when the name of Salman al-Farsi is mentioned under the verse of purification, the reader may misunderstand the issue completely. Thus I reverted some part of the former editions and rearranged his works. I think it's inappropriate to write one tradition says x is among them, another one says the same thing about x and y, the other says something about z and so on. I think the reader wants to see the conclusion. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, do what you feel needs to be done. I'd include Itaqallah in the discussion as well of course. Peter Deer (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, please consult the Encyclopedia of Islam. It is quite clear about Salman al-Farsi. I left in Lewis, because I read his passages and then implemented them. I didn't remove any information except that I replaced it with something better. Sources like Ordoni and Tahir ul Qadri really don't compare to the EoI in terms of reliability. I don't see why you reinserted the information about the pronouns, I discuss it below as part of the Shia argument.

I know that it is quite clear about Salman al-Farsi, but why did you put it exactly under the verse. We can make a separate part and discuss about the expansion of the usage of this title for the other people. We can also some other reliable sources such as encyclopedia Iranica. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what the 'Interpretation' section is for, to mention the different interpretations about who ahl al-bayt are. I don't see anything in the Iranica entry with regards to interpretation that isn't already covered in the prose. The tradition of the mantle, for one, is certainly mentioned. ITAQALLAH 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't agree with why the sections names have been changed, and why you altered the lead to emphasise the most minimal of acceptance - which over-simplifies the issue at hand. ITAQALLAH 12:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Becouse I can't understand the rational of them. The verse of purification is the most important and significant verse. So why shouldn't this verse be under Significance subtitle. I don't agree with you about oversimplification. Do you want to add all Islamic article with such approach? For example Shia and Sunni interpretation about Tawhid or prophet differ to some extent. Now what's your idea to rewrite Islam and emphasize on the differences instead. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation section is about who exactly is part of ahl al-bayt. 33:33 is extremely important to that discussion and is central to the discussion of whether or not the wives are included, as well as who else is included. That's why the kisa issue is also mentioned in that section as it contributes to the understanding of who is in ahl al-bayt.

The significance section is about the importance, or the value, of ahl al-bayt in Islamic thought. Which again, is an issue where opinions may differ. This is where we discuss the obligation to love them etc. and in the case of the Shi'a, their status as infallibles. This is also where we mention other narratives like thaqalayn and the different understandings. ITAQALLAH 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, about the oversimplication, then your analogy is off IMO. There are fundamental differences in who ahl al-bayt are and how they are regarded. The agreement is in fact pretty small. Mentioning only 5 of the ahl al-bayt, then emphasising their virtues and their mention in Qur'an/hadith isn't fair at all. The wives are at the center of ahl al-bayt for the Sunni (majority) perspective, so you can't just simplify and say "Everyone agrees about Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn. Look how the Qur'an/hadith glorifies them. Some people add wives as well." - which is a very unfair way to cover the issue, because it carries implicit bias. ITAQALLAH 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at your revert again, and I see that you almost completely undid my changes to the body of the article, which I don't find acceptable. If you think I've misrepresented sources, then please say where and how. But I can't see any rational basis for commenting the whole passage out which is, in my opinion, much more encyclopedic and coherent, and looks far less promotional. ITAQALLAH 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to make Hadith collection. As I told above I think it's inappropriate to write one tradition says x is among them, another one says the same thing about x and y, the other says something about z and so on. I think the reader wants to see the conclusion. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow. I have only mentioned narrations that EoI has mentioned. There is no reason why the different interpretations, and the different reasoning behind them, shouldn't be covered in a neutral, clinical manner with reliable sourcing. If we don't want hadith collections, we can start by removing these 'hadith of' articles. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, you reinserted: "All Muslims agree that Ahl al-Bayt includes Muhammad, Fatimah, his daughter, Ali, his son in-law, Hasan and Husayn, his grandchildern. These five persons known as Ahl al-kisa or "people of the Cloak". This family is glorified by Muhammad frequently and he declared them as his Ahl al-Bayt in events such as Mubahala and hadith like Hadith of the Event of the Cloak. They were also glorified in the Qur'an in several cases such as "the verse of purification"." - That is quite biased IMO, as it talks about 5 of the ahl al bayt, and then talks about how these five alone are apparently glorified in particular hadith and Qur'anic verses. That's unduly promoting of the Shia perspective, misleadingly presenting it as something 'All Muslims' agree to. On that same basis, I disagree with mentioning the minimalist acceptance before ever recognising any dispute - because again, it caters towards a Shia perspective just because they happen to accept the least as compared to others. ITAQALLAH 13:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I remind that Shia considers all Shia Imams as Ahl al-Bayt, thus I don't think that it's emphasizing on Shia view. I think the problem is that it's a centeral issue for Shias but it's not for Sunnis. This leads to your misjudgment. I don't emphasize on adding that sentence but I completely disagree with emphasizing on Sunni/Shia disagreement while there is agreement aamong them.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While both Sunnis and Shias accept Ali etc., the impression created is that the Shia interpretation is favoured just because it's the most minimalist. This impression is supported by the fact that the passage then goes on to talk about them and how they are glorified, and then tags on at the end: "Sunni interpretation includes wives as well." Discussing agreement is inherently flawed when wives are the main constituents of ahl al-bayt in Sunni thought - so it is necessary to say from the outset that a) there is disagreement, b) Sunnis include such and such, and c) Shias don't include some of those mentioned. Thus, no view is implicitly favoured. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, with regards to this passage: "The great majority of the hadiths quoted by Sunnis and Shias such as Hadith of the Event of the Cloak tell that prophet introduced Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn as the people this verse refers to. However according to Sunnis' Hadith the verse also refer to Prophet's wives." - then Ordoni and Tahir ul Qadri aren't particularly reliable. And the passage certainly doesn't adequately represent what Madelung and EoI say about the matter. You're making the prose seem to insist upon acceptance of the five in a way that isn't neutral, which is what I perceive from your lead edits too. ITAQALLAH 13:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to mention that according to Sunnis' Hadith the verse also refer to Prophet's wives, and you can clarify it more by adding whatever you want. But instead you make the issue unclear and complicated. I think the reader will be confused when he/she sees the name of Salman al-Farsi under the verse. As you now, Shia glorify Salman and agree with that Hadith. So this is not a biased position. I just want to make a readable, correct and NPOV article. Finally in this case like every other case we have different views based on different sources. I think we are not here to write all of them but we should emphasize on the most important ones and try to make a clear conclusion. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my version isn't readable, correct, and NPOV. Have you read the EoI article on Ahl al-Bayt? The Salman al-Farsi interpretation is the first one they include. Why should the reader be confused? The inclusion of Salman is an interpretation.

I haven't read that article and we don't want to write similar article here, because it does exist.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe Misplaced Pages articles should aim to reflect what is present in the highest quality of reliable sources available (which is, in this case, the Encyclopedia of Islam). ITAQALLAH 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Presenting things in a way that favour a Shia perspective isn't neutral. I have simply replicated concisely the discussion of the EoI article. The differences in interpretation should be mentioned, as should be the reasonings involved, especially as the issue is not black and white. ITAQALLAH 16:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Main disagreement(in brief)

If you don't have enough time to read long discussion this is a brief version. I think these are the main problems of Itaqallah's version.

Overemphasizing on Shia/Sunni differences.
Collecting of more important and less important hadiths beside each other.
Mixing different issues which can be separated to make the issue more readable.
Finally, we shouldn't judge on the article on the basis of its effects. I agree that if we say there is consensus among all Muslims that Ahl-Kisa are among Ahl al-Bayt, it's in favor of Shia perspective. But it's not good reason to remove the issue and try to mixed the issues and Overemphasize on the differences.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait for me to finish writing the significance section so that the content can be assessed as a whole. In any case, we shouldn't try to gloss over the point that there are fundamental differences in interpretation which have doctrinal implications, and we should mention that before we discuss the specifics of what is accepted/rejected. 2) All hadith related to ahl al-bayt are relevant here, especially if they contribute to understanding the differences in understanding, and especially if they are mentioned by a third party reliable source (which is the case here). 3) I don't believe issues are being mixed in my version. I have categorised content according to whether it pertains to the issue of defining ahl al-bayt, or whether it pertains to understanding the religious significance of ahl al-bayt. Both are distinctly separate. 4) A neutral way is simply to tell the readers what Sunnis accept/reject, and then tell them what Shia accept/reject - which is what I have tried in my version of the lead. That makes things a lot more neutral as opposed to implicitly favouring one perspective. ITAQALLAH 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For convenience, this is my version, and this is Seyyed's version. ITAQALLAH 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to defend the old version. This is not the version which I defend. We can write our versions in another pages such as our personal pages and then compare them.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get to looking at these in a while, but for now I think it would be beneficial to say prayers for forbearance and try and achieve harmony. I know it's a lot to ask to put aside a dispute which has been raging nonstop for over a thousand years, but if you could give it a shot... Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose disputes are sometimes inevitable on controversial articles, which is unfortunately what many Islam-related articles are. I don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing, all I want is an article of high academic, scholarly, and professional quality, which covers the issues in a clinical, dry (almost boring!) manner. I believe that Islam-related articles, this one included, deserve that much at least, and so do our readers. ITAQALLAH 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but looking at the arguments the main issue between the two of you is whether emphasis is being given to one side or the other. Peter Deer (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the previous version of the article was unduly slanted towards one perspective. But I don't see my conflict with Seyyed as some sort of personal Sunni v Shia thing, which is what I (mis?)interpreted from your comment. Sorry if I misunderstood. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't see this as a Sunni v Shia thing but the result of your work is that.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is bound to be about differences in Sunni and Shia conceptions, which should be recognised and appreciated. The whole point is to not implicitly favour one argument over another. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you guys should calm a bit down.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. We can discuss later.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the current version of the article: One paragraph on Sunni view and another paragraph on Shia view. Let's not mix them all in one single paragraph. Shia paragraph can be written from a shia point of view of course and it can cite whatever hadith they consider relevant. Then there can be one section on Shia view and one on Sunni view. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not have separate sections for Sunni/Shia views, I think they should all be mentioned together as I think it's a more neutral presentation (sections according to POVs are generally not advisable). Three paragraphs in the lead for what is a relatively small article should IMO be joined together to make two instead. I don't see any problem in mentioning the Sunni/Shia perspectives alongside eachother. ITAQALLAH 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt is a more important and loaded concept for Shias I guess. It might be even appropriate to have an article on Ahl al-Bayt in Shia thought. The reality is that there is a distinction between the two views and creating subsections makes this distinction more clear. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He has a point. I feel we have basically two completely different concepts that we are trying to force into one article. --Enzuru 08:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Quran 33:33

Consistency in prose

I'm thinking a good idea would be to replace most instances of Ahl al-Bayt with something in English like Muhammad's kin/family/relatives/household etc. It makes things much more readable for English speakers IMO, as opposed to unnecessarily crowding up the text with Arabic phrases (which can in most cases be mentioned in brackets). It's also beneficial from a stylistic perspective. ITAQALLAH 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In general, I follow this myself. For example, you will see on Shi'a templates I put English versions of things like salat (a phrase which half of Muslims themselves don't even use, namaz is the popular term in Pakistan, India, Iran, etc) or hajj. But, when it comes to Ahl al-Bayt or Ahl al-Kisa, there is no scholastic term, there is just a translation as "family." We need a proper noun, and until someone can find one that is used by scholars, I believe we should stick with the Arabic phrase. On another note, Ahl al-Kisa, People of the Book, is actually used by many scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim. --Enzuru 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are plenty of English renditions available in scholarly texts, such as kin, family, household, and so on. ITAQALLAH 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Aql

I can quote the Aql phrase by scholars (Tabatabai can be our reference or citation) and even its hadith, it's not just a popular idea unimportant to Shi'a creed. I haven't put it back in myself because perhaps you want to put it somewhere else? --Enzuru 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can put it back if you find an academic scholarly reference for it (I don't mean Tabataba'i here, as there is disagreement over whether such sources qualify as reliable on Misplaced Pages), but it'd probably be better placed in the body of the article than the lead. If this is an important theme then it should be pretty easy to find verification in an academic text. ITAQALLAH 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no issue. Is Corbin fine? --Enzuru 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If he talks about the conception of Aql in Shi'ism, please feel free to incorporate it into the article (my preference would be in the Significance section). ITAQALLAH 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Please refer to our former discussion below Ahl al-Bayt in Quran and Hadith.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bayt or Bait

About 520,000 google hits for AhlulBayt (many of which are anyway mirrors of this site) vs 580,000 google hits for AhlulBait. Isn't there a wiki policy about article names following the most common version of the name?81.103.121.144 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Meaningless section

I am unable to make sense of the section that reads:

Loving Ahl al-Bayt according to Sunni Islam

First Caliph Abu Bakr Said :

Look at Muhammad through his family.‏

I don't even know if Said is part of his name or a miscapitalized verb! The section needs to be rewritten by someone who has the communication of encyclopedic knowledge in mind. --Haruo (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Qur'an

It says in the text that Ahl al-Bayt in the verse 33:33 refers to the wives. That is incorrect according to the Shia view, which can be proved. First of all, in the same verse God says "houses" (buyut in Arabic) in plural form when talking about the wives, but house (bayt in Arabic) in singular form when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Secondly God uses the pronoun "kunna" (you group of women) when talking about the wives, and "kum" (you group of at least one man) when talking about Ahl al-Bayt. Thirdly there is the famous hadith of the Cloak, al-Kisa, that says Ahl al-Bayt are Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn, and that shows that no wife is included in Ahl al-Bayt. Other historic references are about this. The only argument Sunni Muslims have for including the wives in Ahl al-Bayt is their own scholars interpretations, which are wrong according to the Shiite viewpoint. 4. When talking about Ahl (folk) in Arabic here, it must be taking into consideration that in verse 11:46 God doesn't include Noas son in his family, "laysa min ahlik". Why is that? That is because he wasn't pure. And the persons in Ahl al-Bayt are pure like the Prophet himself and the Quran, and therefor they are the successors of the Prophet (see hadith al-Thaqalayn) and can touch the Quran, and have all knowledge of it, (56:79). Thank you and hope you correct this fact in the text.--AronSimonEli (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@AronSimonEli: welcome to Misplaced Pages. It is structured to support your above opinion by Reliable Source. Quran is classified as a primary source and secondary sources are needed.Saff V. (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit war and subpar sources

There is quite a bit of ongoing edit war here and there are also several subpar sources in the article (almaany.com, Mufradat al-Qur'an, Faith and Reason, al-Islam.org, ...). It's often the case that these sources can be safely replaced with more reliable ones. In the next few weeks, I'm hoping to look into these issues and also copy-edit the text, where needed. Albertatiran (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Edited the section "In the Quran" and incorporated the quotes from secondary or tertiary works into the text & removed the reference to the Princeton Encyclopedia since it's in the context of Muhammad's wives and potentially misleading. Elsewhere this same source lists also other views about Ahl al-Bayt & replaced any poorly sourced content (primary or unreliable) with very similar views from better sources & expanded and better ordered the views (and brought some order to the chaotic back and forth between various editors over time) & removed the content that might be better suited for "Significance" (and would be moved there soon), e.g., obviously the content about imamate in Shia Islam & shortened the quote from the Quran to its relevant part (though the revised article mentions that the previous injunctions are addressed to Muhammad's wives) & the mention of Banu Muharib is the previous version was apparently a typo. Albertatiran (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Edited and expanded the section "Significance": The mention of al-Tabarani instead of al-Tabari was evidently a typo. There was some noticeable mismatch between the text about Ahl al-Bayt's state of purity in Sharia and the source (Madelung), which was corrected. Expanded the content about the Verse of Mawaddah. Expanded the hadiths and added the Hadith of Noah's Ark. Expanded Muslims views, particularly the Shia views. Albertatiran (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Edited the lead: The claim in the opening sentence "Ahl al-Bayt...is a term used to refer to the extended family of the Islamic prophet Muhammad" doesn't exist in the source and is evidently just one of the existing views. Likewise, the claim "In Sunni Islam,... Muhammad himself, his wives, his daughters, Zainab, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum and Fatima; his cousin and son-in-law, Ali..." doesn't exist in the source. These were all replaced with reliably-sourced statements. Likewise, 'Etymology' was rewritten from reliable sources instead of websites and such (with very similar content). Seems reasonable to remove the unreliable tag now. Albertatiran (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No target errors

I've made all the corrections I can to clear the no target errors on this page, but there are still two outstanding. Both Glassé 2001 and Sharon 2014 have nothing to link to, the cites should be included in the Sources section. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take care of the two remaining ones. Albertatiran (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to father of Mosu

This link links to the father of Maryam 46.144.128.210 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Zaynab and Umama?

Why are the Prophets other daughter and his granddaughter not included? The article says nothing about the reasons. —- 2003:C0:972F:1A00:E8FC:DF0B:2EE6:E0C9 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: