Talk:Aisha

Two sections were removed + I reverted

Accusation of adultery and story of the honey were removed (and I reverted this). If this is to be done it needs to be agreed upon. gren グレン 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

O_o, oh... I am not vouching for the sections. I just wanted to report why I re-added them--although, my section heading and text was probably confusing. I think? gren グレン 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PBUH's in the article

Several places in this article insert "peace be upon him" after naming Muhammad. I am aware that this is the custom among Muslims, but shouldn't this article take a more religiously neutral point of view? I mean, Wikipedia doesn't refer to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" when talking about him in a purely historical sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchip (talk • contribs).

Removed. If you see any more, please take them out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aisha according to Central Mosque

Interesting link [1] hope this helps. Hypnosadist 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hideous prose

Compare the following sentence:

The age of Aisha is believed by the majority of Muslims and by the Western scholars of Islam to have been six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.

with what it replaced:

Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.

Why are we using the passive? Why are we reifying an abstract as the subject, when perfectly concrete subjects (two of them, in fact) are available?Proabivouac 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Because not everyone is sure, they had the first thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.211.213 (talk • contribs)

You're not getting my point. If we wish to say that someone believes something, we say "A believes B", not "B is believed by A." That's writers' workshop 101.Proabivouac 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Puberty

There appears to be a bug in the software, as this revision contains changes not shown in the diff window. One of them is, "stayed in her parents' home till [sic.] she had reached puberty at nine…" From which of the cited sources did you get that, Aminz?Proabivouac 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am quoting F.E. Peters here: [2] or here: [3]

Karen Armnstrong says that unconditionally. --Aminz 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the 3 day delay in response. At the time he was quoting Spellberg, Asma, and the hadith, [4], which either don't mention puberty or, in the case of Spellberg, clearly state that the Muslim biographies draw attention to the fact that Aisha had not reached puberty. Arrow740 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, that appears to be a good source, though for the life of me I cannot discern upon what basis he draws that presumption. However, Peter's "presumably" is less than an assertion of fact, and I don't see that we can in the business of blindly repeating other's presumptions. We can attribute them, though.Proabivouac 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain why Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years when she was Muhammad's wife? --Aminz 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You answer me this question, Aminz: Why did she never have a child? Arrow740 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reason. Muhammad didn't have many childs either. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How should I know?Proabivouac 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now tell me: why is it enyclopedically important at what age Aisha reached puberty? A couple of lines below the puberty speculation, Peters writes that Aisha was about eighteen when Muhammad died, so she was about nine when the marriage was consummated. If the insertion was meant to make her appear older than she was, then it was a nice try. Beit Or 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No. It makes sense of the reason Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He couldn't guarantee her safety in Mecca. Arrow740 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is enough to say that she stayed until reached the age of nine. If puberty were the commonly accepted explanation, then we would certainly cite it. Otherwise, it's out of place. Note that Peters does not state causality. Beit Or 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Paedophile

There's a fairly common modern attack on Islam of "Muhammad is a paedophile", based on his six-year-old bride. Shouldn't this be addressed, probably with some historical background (was this controversial in the past).

It seems unbalanced to just say "He married her when she was six" with no further comment on the age, which seems outrageous to modern eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.166.240 (talk) 22:21, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

The section used to be much larger, and there was even a page dedicated to her age at marriage. There ought to be some further discussion, I feel, but it seems that primarily only dedicated critics or defenders of Islam have published about it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions, tho, the marriage was not seen as controversial at the time, even for Muhammad's critics. I believe the article once had a reference to that point (probably from Montgomery Watt), but it also had a lot more of the polemical nonsense from one side or the other which we can do without.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I went through most of the posts related to Aisha's age at the time of marriage. The article does not address that there is a difference of opinion about her age at the time of marriage. Many scholars, for example Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khalid Masood, and others, have published research quoting from earlier sources the conflicting reports about Aisha's age at the time of marriage. Many people accepted six and nine because it is in Bukhari, but that does not discount other sources, such as Ibn-e-Kathir, who have noted events or reports which conclude a much higher age. In addition, even Bukhari's reports have been interpreted by Ghamidi, a philological scholar of Quran and Hadith, as in fact using a style of Arabic where assumed part (i.e. 10) is ommitted and the narrator only ends up saying six (which implies sixteen). In support of his opinion he presents the reports in which Laylat-al-Qadr has been told as one occuring on 3, 5, 7 or 9th night, whereas in fact, it refers to 23rd, 25th, 27th or 29th night during the month of Ramadan. I can point to resources of these scholars - I believe, given the large number of scholars and a significant number of Muslims accepting this view, it is only neutral to put in that point of view and explain the difference of opinion. I would like to put this in, unless there're objections to it. Omer 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please do so! At the very least, we need a statement saying that modern interpretations of Hadith and such have left Aisha's age in dispute, with some suggesting that Aisha may have been a mature young woman capable of leading a household at the time of consummation of marriage.

• Isn't there any material out there that illustrates her mental maturity? I know I must've read it somewhere. Can we find some source material on her intelligence and maturity at that age, and perhaps use that to balance out the age issue.
• Just because she still played with dolls doesn't make her any less mature or younger. I know I played with my "action figures" and "matchbox cars" well into my teens, and a lot of grown adults play video games.
• And regarding the "consummation" of marriage. That doesn't necessarily imply sex. Yet nowadays, it's mainly construed as the thing that seals the marriage.
• Please let's at least put one contrasting statement and source material next to the line about her age, because this issue is not going to go away.

--Fshafique (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic is controversial enough that we need to use only the best sources. Some of those named, such as Maulana Muhammad Ali, are not reliable sources. We certainly do not need a statement saying that "modern interpretations of Hadith and such have left Aisha's age in dispute" if it can't be backed up - and after years of bickering, no one has been able to. As for consummation, that does in fact imply sex. I think the only thing to do would be to reiterate that child marriage was not unheard of in that time and place, and that no contemporary critics used that fact to criticize him. However, I've not been able to find a reliable source saying that. And most of the Islam defenders who edit this article seem to be more concerned with inserting dubious scholarship to make the claim that Aisha was not the age the historical record says she was than with providing context for Aisha's widely accepted age at marriage.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we do need good sources. I'm no expert on this field, but just reading through Wikipedia's articles on Mohammed and his wives, and Aisha, and finding citations from Grunebaum, Moshe Gil, Irving M. Zeitlin, and others, I'm beginning to see a slight bias, and for Grunebaum, the term Orientalist came up, and Edward Said's criticism of this way of analyzing Arab and Islamic History.
Despite all this, I feel it is justified that it be mentioned that a sizable percentage of Muslims believe that the age is in dispute, provided that we back that up with a citation from a scholar or expert in the field.
And as far as consummation goes, it's all a confusing mess. Some of the Hadith translations say she was engaged at 6, and married at 9, and others say she was married at 6 and "consummated" at 9. Even Wikipedia's own definition of "consummate" suggests it is the actual wedding ceremony, but the sex part is used "in a colloquial context". And I know that translations can really play havoc with the meanings of words.
I'm lost!--Fshafique (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be justified to say that a "sizable" number of Muslims believe the age is in dispute - if it were verifiable. So far no one has found any reliable source indicating it (Asma Barlas' quote to that effect was disputed.) I personally doubt there really is any sizable number. I'd image most don't know about it, or accept it as a fact. As for what sources we use, well, if you have any specific problem with them, bring it up, otherwise it's just vague allegations of bias. As for consummation, you should look for the Arabic meaning rather than the modern English meaning. I've never heard anyone, even strong apologists, argue that consummation in this context means anything other than sex. You are right, however, that some hadith (or English translations of them) say she was betrothed at 6 or 7 and married the prophet at 9, and don't say anything about consummation. However, these verses do not imply that Muhammad waited to consummate the marriage until some later point. Also note that other hadith use the term "cohabitation" rather than consummation, this strongly implies physical relations. As I said above, the real way to handle this would be to simply report it, then state that this was not considered a big deal at the time, even by Muhammad's enemies and critics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a mention of the song "Islam's not for me?"

It has to go in greater depth the criticism of Muhammad this marriage created. Jknight 98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.210.199 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that song is a satirical critique of Islam (I wish I could use harsher words) and not a scholarly presentation of history or facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshafique (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Age at marriage

I have restored the section on Aisha's age at marriage. There has been a controversial debate on this issue for at least a decade or two, and I see no reason for it to be excluded from the article. It seems the section may have been removed due to a lack of prominent adherents of the opposing view, but now I've added Maulana Muhammad Ali as a prominented adherent, and may add more adherents later. Jagged 85 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed previously not because there were no "prominent" adherents the the view, but because the opinions of the people presented were not notable in and of themselves. Was Maulana Muhammad Ali a historian? Your version certainly gives Ali's view undue weight with that long, uncontextualized quote. I don't object to the controversy over her age being discussed, but that's different than making it seems like only "'Western' historians" and "Muslim conservatives" believe Aisha was married young. I'm sure Japanese historians and many other Muslims will come to the same conclusion based on the evidence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be original research to remove the arguments presented on the basis of personal opinion of how "convincing" we find them. How the section is written or whether it should stay depends on how the debate is viewed by scholars in reliable sources, not by how we personally view them. I am currently planning to re-write and shorten Muhammad Ali's argument in a non-quote form, which should balance out any undue weight issues. Jagged 85 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Maulana" Ali is not a historian. Please read the record of the development of the concensus on this issue. Thanks. Arrow740 07:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to summarize the minority view as following (sourced to Asma Barlas): "A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19. These Muslims base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina; Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry, genealogy, and the the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics at her marriage." --Aminz 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminist political scientists can be safely ignored on these matters, thanks. Arrow740 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not Barlas's opinion. She is reporting of Muslims who do so and so. No analysis of her own is involved here. --Aminz 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this too many times already. If you have anything to add to the old discussion, where you forwarded that Barlas was talking about people even less reliable than herself, add it. Otherwise please spare us the effort of pasting the old rebuttals here. Arrow740 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. --Aminz 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it that you're satisfied with the quite conclusive past discussion and have nothing to add. That is the case for me. Arrow740 08:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"CONCLUSIVE?" --Aminz 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be more discussion on the subject, considering it has come up with critics of Muhammad and critics of Islam. If it were expanded, then perhaps we could have a sentance that some Muslims believe she wasn't so young, and probably point out that it wasn't seen as a problem at the time even with Muhammad's contemporary enemies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to separate polemics from history here. Every historian of Islam unequivocally states that she was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 at marriage. Arrow740 08:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. But this comes up enough to warrant discussion, perhaps in a different section, and after making it clear that the primary sources all say she was that young.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, if by historian, you mean those who study Islam in west it is correct. They accept it because the primary source say she was that young, because early marriage were not in anyways un-normal at that time, that there are reports of Aisha playing with dolls etc. But as a matter of fact there are contradictions in the reports implicitly touching the age of Aisha in the primary sources, and again as a matter of fact a minority of Muslims accept those reports. --Aminz 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not just "Western historians". You've never been able to provide a single historian, non-Western or otherwise, who concludes that Aisha was older.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Reliable sources have already answered the question for us. The only people disputing it are people who are not scholars of Islam, and have an axe to grind. We can't give their wishful thinking undue weight. Arrow740 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not following me. It wouldn't be giving them any weight at all, it would just be giving the basic points of a notable modern discussion. If anything, I think that just saying she was six and not bringing up how this looks to modern eyes makes it seem like we're dodging an issue, covering it up to avoid offense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the real and authentic "scholars of Islam" include exactly those who study Islam in west, nor have they ever made this claims of themselves. They look at the events from a certain perspective and based on certain principles and assumptions; and so do others.--Aminz 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've searched through the archives and I have found nothing on Maulana Muhammad Ali or Asma Barlas being unreliable sources. Ali is a notable Islamic scholar who has written many books on Islam, and is therefore a reliable source on Islamic issues by default. As for Balas, her book in question was published by the University of Texas Press and is therefore also a reliable source. There is absolutely no reason why the views from notable Islamic scholars or writers from reputable publishing houses should be excluded from the article, regardless of whether of not it is a minority view. Excluding significant minority views from the article is nothing more than a suppression of information which goes against the fundamental Wikipedia policy of neutrality, which holds that all majority views and significant minority views should be presented in Wikipedia articles. It is only tiny minority views without reliable sources that should be excluded according to the undue weight guideline, not significant minority views with prominent adherents. The fact that this view has prominent Islamic scholars adhering to it like Maulana Muhammad Ali, Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi, Khalid Masood, etc. means that this view is a signficant minority view and cannot be excluded under any circumstances. My suggestion is something along the lines of what Aminz suggested earlier, i.e. stating that there is a minority view which disagrees with the majority view. Not doing so would be a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Jagged 85 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Fringe theories which are not even addressed by serious scholars have no place here. Read the talk page from the old article and you'll see explained that Barlas is reliable for some things but not all, as is the case with anyone. History is outside her area of expertise. Further Maulana Ali is undeniably an apologist and highly partisan. We will not include his propaganda here. It is already included in the criticism articles to a worrying extent. Arrow740 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On who's authority do you claim it to be a fringe theory? Like I said, personal opinions and original research have no place of Wikipedia. If you're claiming that the consensus is that Aisha was nine, then you will need to cite a reliable source that confirms your claim of consensus. The only reliable source that even discusses any kind of consensus on the issue is Barlas, therefore you will need to reference her to confirm your claim either way, regardless of whether you agree with her views. I've read some of the previous arguments on her at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage and find their reasons to be biased and unencyclopedic. All I saw was just personal opinions being thrown around with hardly any references to Wikipedia's own policies. Barlas has written many books on Islam which have been published by reputable publishing houses like the Cambridge University Press and the University of Texas Press, therefore she is a scholar of Islam, and yet some users still try to claim she is not a reliable source based on their own biased opinions rather on Wikipedia policies? Like you said, propoganda does not belong here, and the suppression of information is by far the worst kind of propoganda. Suppressing such vital information is misleading and is, again, a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Jagged 85 03:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

She's a feminist political scientist. Those are her qualifications. Read a biography of Muhammad by a serious scholar. They all endorse the explicit statements in the sahih collections regarding her age. This makes the silly attempts at obfuscation by apologists such as the ones to which you are giving undue weight fringe theories. Arrow740 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not giving them any undue weight, as I have explicitly stated in the article itself that their view is only supported by a minority of scholars. The reason why Barlas is an important source is because she is the only one who actually confirms what the the majority and minority views are, therefore she cannot be ignored. I honestly don't see how her being a feminist is even relevant to the discussion. She is a scholar of Islam who has written plenty of books on Islam published by major scholarly publishing houses like the Cambridge and Texas university presses, therefore she qualifies as a reliable source in every way by Wikipedia's standards. Jagged 85 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

She is an unqualified polemicist. Read the work you are citing for some bizarre statements. Arrow740 06:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what exactly you are referring to, but like I said above, we should not be judging her based on our own personal views. It really does not matter whether we agree with her or not, but what matters is how other academics view her work. If her work has been published by reputable publishers (which it has) and not received any negative reviews from other scholars (which it has not as far as I know), then her book qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Jagged 85 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not the case that everything published by a reputable press can be produced here. That has been an issue with Bat Ye'or and others. Barlas' statements are simply ludicrous. I have shown some of the humor on the other talk page. "Some Muslims..." and as Aminz found out, those "Muslims" likely includes other political scientists, sociologists, and the like. Something stated by the sahih hadith and confirmed by mainstream scholars is what we present. Something in direct contradiction of that needs quite a case, and you haven't presented one. Arrow740 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Arrow740. We don't need to include polemics from unqualified sources. -- Karl Meier 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Karl: Barlas is a fully qualified source by Wikipedia's standards. Read my reasons above. Jagged 85 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arrow: Again, it would be original research to be presenting our own case for what we think about the topic. If you are not satisfied with Maulana Ali's argument however, you can read Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi's book for a full rebuttal of those hadiths and he presents substantial alternative evidence from the hadiths and other sources. Jagged 85 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. Barlas has no qualifications as a historian. Arrow740 07:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagged 85: Please be careful about that strawman. I have read the comments and I believe that no one has argued that his personal opinions should be included. What we are dissatisfied here are the sources that you want to include. As mentioned, we do not have space for all published polemics by partisan sources such as the above mentioned: We are supposed to be concise and such things can be omitted per among other things WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, in order to avoid wasting our readers time. As for Barlas specifically, it is clear just from reading her article, that she doesn't have the necessary qualifications to be a useful source on the subject of Islamic history. -- Karl Meier 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arrow: Again, on who's authority do you claim Barlas to be an unreliable source for Islamic history? She has written works on Islamic history published by the likes of Cambridge and Texas university presses. It is not up to you or me to review her work, and it would be original research to do so. Your opinions on her work are irrelevant unless you can find scholarly reviews that actually support your view. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Karl: The undue weight guideline states that only tiny minority views may be ommitted, NOT significant minority views. Using the undue weight guideline to justify the removal of ALL minority views would end up breaking another rule: the Space and balance. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arrow & Karl: If both of you believe that there is a consensus regarding Aisha's age, then you will need to cite a reliable source to support your claim of consensus... And the only source that actually claims the majority view is nine years old is none other than Barlas. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The "claim of concensus" clause refers to claims stated in the article. Nice try. According to WP:V, you have to show that your source is reliable. You can't. Arrow740 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please read continue discussion here [5] --Aminz 08:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Forum-shopping. You lost the argument the first time and are losing it again, so you prolong it. The result will be the same for the same reasons. Arrow740 08:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all your imagination Arrow. --Aminz 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll continue the discussion over there. Jagged 85 10:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Over at Wikisource we are discussing the deletion of s:Age of Aisha, which appears to be copyright. If anyone has evidence that it is public domain, that would be great. I suggest everyone who is interested in the age controversy go read it one last time before it is deleted from Wikisource.

That document used to be a source on the article "Aisha's age at marriage" which has been gutted and eventually redirected to this article, because apparently there were no named scholars except for Barlas (see Talk:Aisha's age at marriage#Redirect). From a quick review of both talk pages, I cant believe that the entire debate has been reduced to : "Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated.^[][][][]".

That sentence is no where near enough to explain the amount of scholarly research that has been done on this topic, which was more adequately covered 12 months ago on the previous article. Without having dug very deep into what has happened here, my guess is that three aspects need to be revisited here:

1. published opinion that is held by a significant number of people is notable, and warrants mention. If Barlas is being a reliable source of that modern opinion, I cant see why it is entirely excluded. In my opinion, inclusion of "modern opinion" is desirable as cultural themes and how they are shifted over the centuries are as important as the historical facts. That said, modern opinions need to be kept in perspective - they may be short lived.
2. there is a systematic bias to omit or reject reliable sources from non-Western sources - removing chunks of text that do not have sources should never be done unless the person removing them is absolutely certain that no sources exist, including at a library - such removal of unsourced text makes Wikipedia into an amateurs encyclopedia.
3. that sentence on this article does nothing to mention that age 9 was not an unusual for the era, which is a crucial point as it is often used to quell the controversy over the age of consummation.

John Vandenberg (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Did she do sex with Prophet Muhammad at the age of nine?

It is amazing and unbelievable.Scientifically speaking,it must be very dengerous for her.222.225.108.100 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the question whether Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine or not.That is very important problem on Islam and the Prophet!210.235.223.102 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read the article for yourself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are sentences which says that Muhammad married Aisha when she was nine.However,there are no sentences about their sexual activities.

If Prophet Muhammad had married Aisha when she was nine but he did'nt have sex with her,he must be normal,not pedophil.And it should be written in the article to protect his honor from anti-Islamists.But if he did the deed,he must be pedophil...This is very important question about the dignity of Islam.210.235.223.102 15:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you can read the article for yourself. It says pretty clearly that he married her when she was about six and that the marriage was consumated when she was nine, according to the sources. How to deal with this on Wikipedia has been discussed to death on this talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not certain that to consumate the marrige actually means having sex! If there are no reliable sources that clearly suggest Muhammad actually had sex with Aisha when she was nine,it should be noted clearly in the page!Unless,that's equal to push Anti-Islam propaganda in the article!It's against NPOV!210.235.223.102 15:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, the definition of consummating a marriage is having sex for the first time. You can check any English dictionary to discover that for yourself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is not pedophil!It mustn't be the truth!You must be anti-Islam!All sources in the article are from the anti-Islam side!Do you know what you are doing!?This article is completely nonsence!!!210.235.223.102 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures source

Aminz recently added a number of citations to the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures. This may or may not be a reliable source (I know nothing about it), but assuming that it is, Aminz, you're going to have to do much better with your citations (as in page numbers, the title of the entry, the author of the entry, etc) rather than just attributing all statements to the "Encyclopedia". Forgive me for being skeptical, but you have a history of trying to include the view that Aisha was older than the primary sources indicate, and most of the sources you have introduced have been rejected as unreliable. Please include the authors' reasoning for their claim that Aisha was 12 when she was married; I assume they have a reason to be disagreeing with the hadith and Tabari. If they don't, or offer only circumstantial evidence, that would be a strike against their credibility in this particular instance. This has been discussed so much here that I think explanation is warranted.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am using the online version of the encyclopedia (like EoQ and EoI). So, I don't have page numbers. I have provided the title and author of the entry however.

Please don't write your statements in their general form "most of the sources you have introduced have been rejected as unreliable" (by whom?). --Aminz (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Among those source that were according to you rejected, please let me explain again why you think "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" [6] was a non-reputable source. --Aminz (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you got it from the online version, can you provide the links? I'm sure there are also names for the individual entries you are using, this needs to be included too. Finally, some context is necessary - please explain where the authors get their numbers from, and why they go against what is said in the hadith. One of the major problems you have been facing here is that you just dump in uncontextualized quotes with no explanation of how it's relevant.

As to your last statement, the sources have been roundly rejected by consensus at this page. However, I'm sorry I directed it at you, you were not the only one introducing such sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, here is the link [7].

The authors say that there is even a wide belief that Aisha married at 12, but do not explain the sources they got their information from (nor do I think Wikipedia requires us to investigate because the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth). They also mention that the minimum age for female marriage was between 11-16(and in a few cases up to 21) in medieval times based on Sharia.

Cuchullain, Barlas mentioned the reasons of those who believe Aisha was older FROM HADITH LITERATURE(And Asma Barlas is a perfectly reliable source when it comes to reporting facts - when it comes to interpretations she has her own view). The other source "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" provides similar arguments. I don't remember anybody has ever mentioned any argument to show the unreliability of "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" [8]. Can you please show me where a consensus was formed against the reliability of this source. A diff would suffice. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, you have removed a whole lot of material that I had added. For example: In Arabian culture, marriage was generally contracted in accordance with the larger needs of the tribe and was based on the need to form alliances within the tribe and with other tribes. is the fact that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr through marriage with his daughter is an opinion and I have separated fact from opinion (pointing out where the opinion has come from). If you think we should know where the opinions come from, please explain why you removed this? --Aminz (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with the Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy. I recall no discussion of it at all. Is it relevent to the discussion at hand? Barlas was also discussed to death previously, and consensus was against using her interpretation (her book is still is used to report certain facts in this article).

At any rate, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, but that not mean we include everything that can possibly be verified by a reliable source. In this case the quote has no context and no assertion that it's important. Additionally, what you've just said is different than what you had in the article: do they say that Aisha was 12 when she married, or do they say that there is a belief that she was? These are two entirely different things. But in either case, the article is not served by dropping in uncontextualized quotes. I see that the encyclopedia is not freely available, so links are not necessary. However, you will need to provide the necessary context and assertions of importance.

As for what I removed, I just reverted your blitzkreig. I didn't go through it to separate out the uncontroversial material from the material I have challenged above. Some of it can probably be put back in, but that's your prerogative. Do not, however, add the challenged material back in until we have resolved this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, you have been unjust to me. You shouldn't have removed well-sourced material in the first place before discussing them. You reverted me two times on this. You were expected to know what you are removing both times. --Aminz (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, your edits are not admissible as a tiny minority view per WP:NPOV. And I must support Cuhcullain that your editing history is overwhelmingly apologetic, so scepticism would be warranted even if your edits were defensible. Beit Or 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Beit Or. Aminz, I'm not going to pick apart your vast amount of edits looking for stray good material, when the majority of it is disputed, and when you have a history of adding apologetic material into this article. This is just a side note to the discussion anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, is this a personal attack? You might want to check out Isaac, Ishmael, Islamic view of Ezra (and recently to-become-GA Anger) and other GA articles I have significantly contributed to and show me my apologetic bias. --Aminz (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said: "adding apologetic material into this article". I said nothing about your other contributions. I also said only that the material was apologetic, not that you were inherently an apologist yourself. I think we would all be served by disengaging for a while, so we can all chill out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, how can you say that "I have no idea what you're talking about with the Islamic Sciences and Culture Academy. I recall no discussion of it at all. Is it relevent to the discussion at hand?" when I mentioned this a couple of times on your own talk page that this source supports Aisha being much more than 9? --Aminz (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's non sequitur. You may try settling personal issues on user talk pages, but I would discourage you from doing so. Beit Or 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I forgot you had posted that to my talk page. However, you could have been more specific. That was 2 months ago, I've had a lot to do since then, both in my real life and on Wikipedia. At any rate, I can't see that it has been brought up over here before, so obviously there won't have been any discussion about it. But again, this is not particularly relevant to the current discussion about the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

while i agree that the disputing over the age reflects the perspective of a minority (and, IMO, a largely rejected view), i cannot see anything unfactual with the notions that a) people were married young in premodern Arabia (in fact, premodernity in general), or that b) Muhammad delayed consummation until the onset of puberty; and i don't see why the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater in this instance.

as for the Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures, i would say that any material published by Brill Publishers is reliable, considering the prestigious publishing history they have in the field of Islamic studies and the Near East in general.ITAQALLAH 01:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Itaqallah. I regret that some potentially good material got cut out, but it is easy enough to reinclude. As for the challenged material, as I explained, the problem is not that the encyclopedia is unreliable (it looks reliable to me), it's with the use of it here. I explained the true issues above - it is not acceptable to drop in quotes expressing a minority viewpoint with no context or explanation of why the authors disagree with the primary sources. This is a controversial subject, and we must be very fastidious in what information we include.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, the source does not provide the information you would like to know.

Cuchullain, please let me know if you agree that when Barlas reports a facts (not her own interpretation of something, for now), it is usable. --Aminz (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) We are not discussing Barlas here. That was already discussed at length above and at different forums. We are currently discussing the Encyclopedia you recently introduced as a source. To that, I'm very disappointed that they apparently don't back up their assertions. But you can clear one thing up: when you dropped the quote into the article, you said that "According to Barbara Ibrahim and Alyce Abdalla, Aisha was betrothed when she was nine and married when she was twelve." But here on the talk page, you said "The authors say that there is even a wide belief that Aisha married at 12..." These are two different things. Which do they actually say?--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Additionally, I almost have to believe that the authors somehow explain their claims. I don't believe they would simply make bald statements about things like this with no backup whatsoever.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is all that the source says (I have provided a much longer quotation so to include everything):

The Prophet Muhammad is widely believed to have married his third wife ʿĀʾisha when she was 12. They were betrothed by her father in order to forge a political alliance when she was 9. The Prophet deliberately delayed consummation of the marriage until she reached physical maturity. His example set a religious standard for the appropriate age for marriage of females just after the onset of menses. Engagement or betrothal, however, often took place much earlier. This pattern of female marriage soon after reaching reproductive capability is typical of premodern societies in many parts of the world. In those settings, fertility is central to adult female identity; childhood ends and adult responsibility begins with physical maturity. When Arab nations emerged into statehood in the middle of the twentieth century, they often enshrined in law the low marriage ages allowable under Muslim Sharīʿa law. Thus, marriage is legal for females at age 11 in Sudan, 14 in Yemen, and 16 in Egypt. (But there are exceptions: Syria and Jordan set the legal age at 18, while it is 21 in Libya.) Meanwhile, understandings of what constitutes childhood and how children are to be protected have evolved rapidly in recent years. Countries such as Egypt have adopted comprehensive legislation to protect children and enforce their rights to such social benefits as education and health care. Governmental agencies now exist in nearly every Arab country to protect the interests of children, and girl children are often subject to special remedial programs and protections. Childhood in these recent legal codes is commonly defined as extending to the age of 18, following international United Nations standards.

--Aminz (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After this, I'd like to discuss Barlas again (because I don't think any consensus was formed previously). --Aminz (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is disruptive to bring up the same issue time and again, hoping that the new mixture of editors will be more favorably inclined towards your POV. Beit Or 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The authors do not seem to explain where they got the age of 12 from, nor from where they got the claim that Muhammad had delayed the marriage until puberty. This contradicts all the other sources, and offers no explanation for it. While the claim does appear in what looks to be a reliable source, I can't see how including this information would benefit the article. All it would do would be confuse things (or push a POV). I'd say unless a show of consensus for including it develops on this talk page, there is no need to muddy the waters with this.

As for Barlas, I think that has been discussed to death. There was consensus - to not use Barlas (remember that consensus does NOT equal total agreement: it "does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.") Notice, however, that Barlas' work is still used here to support certain facts. Unless you have some new information, or if someone new wants to weigh in, I can't see what further debate over this will achieve.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many academic sources do not explain where they have got their information for every statement they write.. common... But in the case of Muhammad delaying his marriage, the source does seem to provide another evidence: Later jurists took this example and said that marriage should be consummated after physical maturity. So, at least that should consistent with the Muslim view.

Cuchullain, I don't remember there was any consensus of any form, merely edit wars that ended up in one direction. When did I or others agreed to "abide by the outcome"?

The question is not whether "Aisha was nine years old", the question is "are there a minority of Muslims who think otherwise and why?". Barlas reports "there are such Muslims" and explains why they think so. This is a simple report of facts. What she herself thinks is her opinion. I have already showed you another prestigious religous organization in Iran that mentions the new view on the age of Aisha. If this was Persian wikipedia, no further discussion was really necessary. A simple google search will show that many websites mention that Aisha was older than nine. Even websites that are engaged in refuting Islam mention and refute this in detail [9]. --Aminz (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First, as I said above, we must be very fastidious in what is included here. We should not use sources that make claims contradicting the other sources without backing up their assertions, simply because we like their conclusions. Second, the idea about later jurists following Muhammad's example says nothing about whether Muhammad actually waited, only that people hundreds of years later thought he did.

As to consensus, I think you have a misunderstanding of how it works. There was no agreement that it should be added, so it was left out. There was some discussion over the issue, but it did not result in any agreement. Then there was a period silence, which "implies consent", according to the policy page. At that stage neither you and the others who agreed with you brought in any new evidence to the discussion, and did not seek dispute resolution. This indicates that consensus had been reached to leave out the information, even if you still didn't like it. Again, I don't see what discussing Barlas again will achieve, unless you have something new to say, or unless someone new wants to weigh in.

I agree that we should report that a minority of Muslims believe Aisha was older than nine, with the caveat that (a). they are a minority, and (b). that this view is not supported by the hadith or the vast majority of scholars. Above, I suggested putting this in a separate section dealing with modern views on the subject, which would also include how Aisha's age has been used by critics of Muhammad. In such a section I believe Barlas could be used to report that Muslims believe Aisha was older than 9. However, she should not be used to try and make it sound like Aisha actually was older. However, this suggestion has gained no traction amid the endless fighting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, all we know of Aisha was written at least 150 years later after her, enough time for ancient "star treatment". Of course if we are going to mention this minority view, we should mention that "it is minority", "western scholars of Islam don't accept it" and that "there are hadiths that clearly say that she was nine" and that this could have very well happened because it was not unnormal in that society. But at the same time, we should mention the arguments of those who say why she was older than nine. And of course since these are all modern views, we can add them to a separate section on modern views. What western critics have said can also be mentioned in that section. Thanks for the suggestion. --Aminz (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see such a section introduced. I would also like to see some historical context about marriages at the time. It should be said that child marriage was not unheard of back then, and that no contemporary critic of Muhammad used that against him. Just stating baldly that Muhammad and Aisha's marriage was consummated when she was nine and offering no context or explanation is ridiculous, considering how it seems to modern readers. However, we must note that the view that Aisha was older is held only by non-specialists, and not by historians (and no, not just "Western" historians.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

not sure if this is contentious - "The Prophet deliberately delayed consummation of the marriage until she reached physical maturity." (from the above source) this is what the source asserts, which it then states is the basis for later followers specifying menses for the appropriate age of marriage or consummation. ITAQALLAH 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Cuchullain's proposal is a good suggestion. Regarding the usage of "western historians", I don't mean historians that are in west or are ethnically western, but rather "academic historians". But "specialist" is a vague word. The traditional Muslim schools did/do not have the strict credential system we have in academia; the status of a person is rather defined based on the recognition he receives from his peers. And their views regarding the age of Aisha don't matter to ordinary people except when juristic applications is made. So, maybe "academic historians" might be a good term. (?) --Aminz (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Aisha was born in 603 A.D.

According to Wikipedia's own article on Asma bint Abi Bakr, Asma (Aisha's older sister) was 10 years older than Aisha and died at the age of 100 in 693 A.D. (or 73 A.H.) This is agreed upon by the majority of Islamic scholars. So just do the math, if you can: Aisha couldn't have been any younger than 17 when she was married to Muhammad -- if Khadija (as is also agreed upon) died three years before Muhammad departed for Medina.

4.157.11.153 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Dhimmicrat

Unfortunately that's original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. It is also directly contradicted by the several hadith cited in this article, in which Aisha is clearly described as 9 when the marriage was consumated; this includes hadith attributed to Aisha herself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bill Delaney alias Cúchullain: if you think the Wikipedia article on Asma bint Abi Bakr is "original research," then have it removed. As well, you are clearly ignorant of the subject of which you profess authority: Hadiths (and even parts of hadiths) can be subject to human error, even on the part of their narrators. Any real Islamic scholar would know this -- yet you act as if hadiths are infallible and that anything that contradicts one of them is in error. Not only that, but you also have sought to suppress any views to the contrary of your rather narrow view of Islam -- including removing views that have been proposed by internationally recognized scholars. Asma Barlas, for instance, teaches at the University of Amsterdam and at Ithaca College (a fairly well-known, highly selective, liberal arts college in New York State.) She has a doctorate in the subject and has been recognized for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam." In other words, she's an expert in her field. I would suppose that her views -- especially concerning the life of Aisha bint Abi Bakr -- would be far more credible than readings of hadiths made by a student at the University of North Florida specializing in Arthurian legend and Celtic mythology. So please do us all a favor and either improve your knowledge of Islamic scholarship or stick to a subject you are clearly more qualified to discuss (and desist from vandalizing this article.) 4.157.11.47 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Dhimmicrat

My friend, you need to calm down, and comment on the content, not the contributor. I don't believe I've ever said I was an authority on the hadith, nor did I ever say that hadiths were infallible. I fail to see why you are singling me out. If you read my comments above, you will see that I wished to introduce a section about Aisha's age, and include the views of the minority of scholars. My main caveat was that we must not portray this as if there was substantial disagreement, when most scholars, notably Watt, take it as fact that Aisha was nine, lest we give to much undue weight to a minority opinion. You mention Barlas as one of those who disagrees, she has been much discussed at this talk page, but several contributors (not including me) did not feel she ought to be used as a source here. At any rate she appears to be one of the only scholars who disagrees, at least that anyone here has been able to find, though many have looked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Toys and Spirit

I would like to remove the sentence "After the wedding, Aisha continued to play with her toys, and Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[7]" Just because Watt was an expert on Islam doesn't mean everything he wrote can be stated as fact. Arrow740, you can save me the trip to the library by telling me what source Watt used for this statement. Is it a Hadith or a quote from a historian of that time? OpTioNiGhT (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Either way it doesn't look like it's very controversial point. I'm restoring it as it looks like a relevant fact from a very reputable secondary source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a cheap way of asserting the POV that Aisha was still a child. Also, there is no similar reference to the spirit of Mohammad in any of the historical sources about his life. It is a fringe point that is rather ambiguous. What does it add to the article? OpTioNiGhT (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree since the hadith mentionned in Sahih Al-Bukhari # 6198 narrated by Aisha may Allah be pleased with her says she used to play with her friends with toys during the presence of the prophet Peace be up on him. The hadith has nothing to do with what Watt wrote that the prophet Peace be up on him entered into the spirit of these games. Please remove this sentence since it's not authentic according to the Hadith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.90.224 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also question the sources for Watt. The point made above (the Hadith) stands against Watt's perspective, and if the source for Watt is not clarified and authenticated with more strength than the Hadith mentioned above, then this point is to be corrected (especially if it proves to be just a personal interpretation of Watt's understanding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.90.224 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were just a personal interpretation of Watt's words that would be one thing. But if it's what Watt says it's relevant, as it reinforces the fact that Aisha was quite young.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went to the library and checked out Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman by Watt. On page 102 it states: “The sources do not comment directly on her [Aisha] tender years, though they describe how she went on playing with her toys, and how Muhammad entered into the spirit of her games.” I find that this is taken a bit out of context and presented as fact, when Watt himself was simply referring to what the sources say about it. In the section “Note on the Sources”, it is explained that the Quran was the primary source for this work and that other sources include Sirah or Life by Ibn-Is’haq, and Maghazi or Expeditions of al-Waqidi. Seeing that there is no reference to “the spirit” of Muhammad in any of the major Islamic sources, I don’t think we need to keep this statement. As for the playing with toys, the hadith mentions Aisha playing with dolls (not toys) with her friends. There is controversy concerning this hadith because it is not clear if this happened before or after the marriage. I would like Arrow740 to come up with at least one more source (other than Watt) that talks about this issue. OpTioNiGhT (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on death please

As a naive reader, I read the following.... "Sirah Rasul Allah, states that during Muhammad's last illness, he sought Aisha's apartments and died with his head in her lap. The Sunni take this as evidence of Muhammad's fondness for Aisha. The Shia deny this, and say that Muhammad died with his head in Ali's lap.[14] "

So one side says he died with his head on her lap, and the side disagree saying....exactly the same thing. This must be an error - but my knowledge of islam would fit on a postage stamp. A large one, but still a postage stamp.

Please fix? 62.56.113.72 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ali and Aisha are not the same person. Ali is Mohammad's cousin and son in law. OpTioNiGhT (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats my mistake - my appologies. 62.56.124.27 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)