Talk:Aisha

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: [1] or here: [2] 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, [3], 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)

Maybe this is why he took so many wives? But anyway, I think having few children may have something to do with how many of his wives were older women? Does it say they consummated frequently? Perhaps Muhammad might embellish consummation so that his wives loyalty to him would not be doubted, but in reality he did not bother them with that because they were too busy spreading Islam to have sex for many babies? Tyciol (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (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)

How about if we put a general statement since we don't have sources about Aisha herself. This is an exact quote from the book Mohammad: Prophet and Statesman by Watt: "We must remember, of course, that girls matured much earlier in seventh-century Arabia." If Watt thought it was important to mention this, perhaps we can mention it in this article. Does anybody object to this? OpTioNiGhT (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It helps to contribute to understanding Aisha's advanced maturity, however being of advanced maturity does not mean you are of puberty. Usually that's determined by first menstruation. Tyciol (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (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 [4] --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)

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?). Among those source that were according to you rejected, please let me explain again why you think "Islamic sciences and Culture Academy" [5] 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 [6]. 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" [7]. 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.

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 [8]. --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)

I just would like to add, on the issue of whether a majority of muslims agree or disagree; I find it interesting to note that all the sources on Aisha's age are done by secondary sources (mostly quoted by orientalists - even the 'hadiths; quoted are translated by USC) whereas the sources in Asma's article, are actually arabic sources, and all are reputable, old, and respected commentators on islamic history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hajar_Asqalani, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Dhahabi) I leave it for other to infer which is more credible on the topic of islamic history. But I would make the point that the alternative (alternative in the western world at least) be given sufficient consideration, and at the very least be included in the article for balance sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.89.56 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2009 (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 am not sure if it is relevant even if she were playing with her toys. Marriage to children is not allowed in Islam? The key issue is whether or not she remained a child when the marriage was consummated, not when they married. As in, it's okay if she played with toys while she was living with her parents (despite being married to Muhammad) however when she moved out and moved into Muhammad's home, while it seems clear she brought her dolls with her, did she continue to play with them, or were they brought out of sentiment for past times and to give to her future children? Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I totaly agree since the Hadith mentioned 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)

Cuchullain, your re-wording is completely misleading. We don't know if the sources mention anything about the spirit. We have a hadith that mentions the toys but does not refer to whether this is before or after the wedding. I will remove the sentence until you provide me with any source (other than Watt) that mentions the spirit of Mohammad in any way. Please post your comments here before re-introducing this phrase. Perhaps we can come to an agreement about the toys, but I really doubt you will find anything to back up the mention of the spirit. OpTioNiGhT (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it to reflect what Watt says. There's no need for another source, he's an emminent authority on the subject. And reliable secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, as those can be interpreted in various ways (as brought up at WP:PRIMARY).--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the title of the book. I still think we can come to an agreement on this statement. I am not asking to use primary sources. All I'm saying is that Watt is not the only source on Islam. The reference to spirits is so unconventional that another source would be good idea.OpTioNiGhT (talk) 15:47, 12 August 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 apologies. 62.56.124.27 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The hadith is from ibn ishaq ,it's not authentic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosisquest (talk • contribs) 12:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unforgivable-Aisha

I find that certain members here are acting in very unprofessional ways by excluding reliable and authticate sources for Aisha's age when being married to muhammad. Maulana Ali has traced the Isnad of the Hadith and re-validated all of its authenticity when it comes to the subject of Aisha's age of betrothal. Here is a direct quote: "A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

It would be completely biased to disregard that there is valid evidence for upholding the dispute. Furthermore, Bukhari and Barlas (two of the sources used to validate the article's claimed Aisha age at 7) contradict themselves later in the text. BOTH, not just one, but both of them recount the participation of Aisha in the battle of Uhud. The other two sources acknowledge that no women were allowed to fight in battles unless they were older than 15. Thus, a reasonable and far more educated gues at Aisha's age when her marriage was consummated is at least 13 or 14, which is when puberty begins. I do not understand why some members here choose to concur that consummation did not occur until after puberty but then go on to agree that she was consummated at age 9. Completely unprofessional and unacademic. Secondly, should you really decide to ignore the evidence supporting aisha's much older age of consumation, at the very least a sentence or two noting that such a disagreement exists is necessary and required. Finally, wikipedia is an academic source. As such, it should be in accordance with the enterprise of providing the reader the full and complete unbiased perspective which means that the young age of Aisha's marriage MUST be put into context of the times in which she lived. As someone already mentioned no Hadith or contemporary critics have ever listed Aisha's young age as a criticism of Muhammad. Therefore, she was either 13 or 14 when it happened or if she was 9 then it was not uncommon at the time. Leaving the sentence like this "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" robs the modern reader of the context of which this statement belongs.

Finally, why is the word consummated linked to its definition? In my opinion that is just short of having 'sex' there. By linking it you entice the reader and reaffirm the sexual aspect of the statement rather than its objective history. It is a very biased sentence. Why not link a definition to the word "Betrothed" in the same sentence and take away the emphasis on the sex? --RafiMando (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC) TrueGnosisquest (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Year

So in which year was the marriage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngest wife of Muhammad?

Was Aisha Muhammed's youngest wife? I know that she was young when he married her, but they remained married for many years and he took many other wives — so were any of them younger than Aisha?

I'm asking because someone has added a citation to The Jewel of Medina pointing to what appears to be an anti-Islamic website. This probably isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If the statement that Aisha was Muhammad's youngest wife is incorrect, it should be removed from that article; if it's correct, the unreliable source should be replaced with a reliable one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Baalthazaq (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Aisha was supposedly Mohammed's youngest wife, but the Jewel of Medina is a fictional biography written in 2008, and therefore should not be used as the source when there are plenty of reasonable sources that are not 1300 years after the fact.

Are Wiki editors too Islamophobic to use arithmetic???

Hey kiddies, let's do a simple math problem: An Arabian dude named Mohammad fled Mecca sometime around the year 622 of the Christian era -- the same year he consummated a marriage with Arabian dudette Aisha. Aisha had a sister named Asma who was 10 years older. Asma died 73 years later at the age of 100. So, kiddies, how old was Arabian dudette Aisha when she and Arabian dude Mohammad first "got busy between the sheets" (one hint: it wasn't 9 ....)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.220.111 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and direct your anger at the evil mean islamophobic "kiddies" Muhammad al-Bukhari and Abu Dawood instead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Per HaeB, less the "kiddies" stuff per wp:civil :) fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable sources on age of Aisha

Cúchullain, how do you want me to show that the sources are verifiable? Can you also please point me to if that is the standard, and where is it documented in wikipedia? Sorry, but I am not too much versed into the rules, so I need to understand this.

The book I referred to is printed and is available, you can buy it online. I did point a link to understanding-islam.com, which is one of the official sites of Al-Mawrid - you can read their Wikipedia entry to verify, and read their opinion at the link I referred to (which luckily happens to be in English). Also, read their wikipedia entry to understand what Al-Mawrid is. Please make an effort to understand Al-Mawrid and their opinion.

Secondly, if a work is published in a non-English language, how do I 'prove' it exists? Does everyone do that in all articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiqbal (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I read through verifiability and no original research pages. I think I am still not convinced how can I 'prove' that the source is reliable when it is located in Pakistan? They do have an online page with the information: http://dar-ut-tazkeer.com/Book.aspx?id=3 where one of the books I referred to appears. Omer (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is on you to demonstrate that any source you use is reliable. As I've said above, this subject is so controversial that we must use only the very best of sources - those written by qualified historians. As your sources directly contradict what the primary sources say, it will take even more to show why they should be used. However, you come into a real problem with the foreign language issue: According to the verifiability policy, at the English Wikipedia, "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." The italicized words are important here, as there are plenty of English language sources for this that are extremely credible. As such, your material has to be left out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I want to still drive your attention to the English work on understanding-islam.com by scholars from Al-Mawrid. Since you have mentioned that this opinion contradicts 'primary sources', I think in fact we're not to use primary sources as our references, rather secondary sources. The interpretation of primary sources is not upto Wikipedia editors, instead we have to point to the scholars who are doing this work. Al-Mawrid is a leading institute in Pakistan, headed by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi - I am proposing that you go through both Ghamidi's and Al-Mawrid's profile because both are not only famous, but considered leading sources in Muslim world. The opinion that I cited is published by Al-Mawrid on one of their websites and is their official stance.

I will open a separate section for non-English source on the issue once this is resolved, because I want to isolate issues at this point. Having said that, I agree that this is an important issue, at the same time, I find it rather challenging that an encyclopedia is going to have inaccurate information because English scholars are not at par with Arab and Asian scholars, and have neither translated the works nor critiqued them. In addition, the policy is very clear that it is preferred and not required. Omer (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is true it that it's not our job to interpret primary sources, but in this case the hadith all say Aisha was six or seven when married or betrothed and nine when the marriage was consummated. No hadith says she was any older, and all the reliable secondary sources introduced thus, such as the highly reliable Montgomery Watt and Denise Spellberg, have accepted it. As such, you can't just add some new material sourced to Islamic scholars and assert that "there is much controversy" about Aisha's age, you have to demonstrate that these scholars' opinions carry as much weight as the sources given already. As for the policy on English-language sources, it's there for a very good reason - so that English-speaking editors can vet the sources. At any rate it is very clear that foreign language sources should not be used when there are English sources of equal quality, and there are plenty of English sources of equal quality.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of hadiths is irrelevant. No historical narratives say that Ezra or Jesus did not exist. Yet, that does not, and can not stop scholars from speculations. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has more followers (from general public) than either Montgomery Watt or Denise Spellberg. That there is a minority who says other things is a matter of fact. Western historians do not mention it because they don't agree with it and that they are not usually writing on current views of Muslims on Aisha. That there is a minority who says other things is a matter of fact. Such factual errors can never occur in a peer-reviewed book published by Texas University Press (Barlas's book). Reputable publishing presses and the peer-reviewers need not exclude the opinion of the writes (as drawn from the facts) but they are careful about the underlying facts. This is all common knowledge and agreed upon and not accepting them is nothing but a denial of clearest. --AAA765 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to address Cuchullain's comment. You have not addressed my assertion regarding Javed Ghamidi and being a very reliable scholar - if not more, at least as reliable as Watt and Spellberg. If you choose not to read about Ghamidi, then I cannot 'demonstrate'. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate this by copying his intro to bio here:

"Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (Urdu: جاوید احمد غامدی) (b. 1951) is a well-known Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist. A former member of the Jamaat-e-Islami, who extended the work of his tutor, Amin Ahsan Islahi.[1] Ghamidi is the founder of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences and its sister organization Danish Sara.[1] He is a member of Council of Islamic Ideology since January 28, 2006,[2][3] a constitutional body responsible for giving legal advice on Islamic issues to Pakistan Government and the Parliament. He has also taught at the Civil Services Academy from 1980 until 1991.[1] He is running an intellectual movement similar to Wastiyya in Egypt on the popular electronic media of Pakistan.[4]"

Clearly, this should demonstrate that he's at least at par, if not more, than Watt and Spellberg, who are primarily professors while Ghamidi is not only in the educational field but serves in the government as an advisor on Islamic issues, as well as leading a social movement in Pakistan (please see his complete Wikipedia profile for details). As for the 'minority' opinion - it is only perceived effect in the English world because of their lack of proximity with Islamic works which are far greater in Arabic and Urdu. From a scholarly point of view, not only Ghamidi, but Khalid Zaheer, [Khalid Masud], and a number of other scholars have also held this opinion. For instance, see Khalid Zaheer's opinion on his website here. And I will also add this reference too to substantiate this opinion. The number of sources and opinions, and the caliber of the people I am putting forward, shall suffice as evidence that both the opinion as well as the scholars are extremely reliable.

As for the primary source, Watt and Montgomery have not argued on the chain of narrators. In fact, the English translations referred to the works do not contain chain of narrators because they are 'abrdiged' and used primarily for linguistic analysis and not for Sanad analysis (see Science of hadith). That is where the difference lies. It is for this reason that apparently the primary source is not really simple and thus, out of the scope of wikipedia editors. All these scholars (Ghamidi, Zaheer, Masud) have contested the reliability of the hadith. In addition, they have (and this is documented on understanding-islam.com's link that I forwarded you as well) produce evidence from alternate ahadith which are contradictory to these and that contradiction is not resolvable otherwise. As a result, both because of the problem in the hadith as well as in line with Wikipedia's policy, I am going to have to ask you to demonstrate that in fact the reasoning you have put forth can be used as a criterion to judge which sources are reliable and which ones are not.

I will wait for your response. I am going to request you to directly address the issues I have raised after considering the texts I have forwarded, and let me know if you still believe there is not considerable evidence to produce this as a differnece of opinion. Omer (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I read about Ghamidi, and while he may be reliable for some things, he certainly does not have the level of reliability of Watt et al. While Watt was a professor at the highly prestigious University of Edinburgh and is widely considered one of the West's great authorities on Islamic and Arab history. Denise Spellberg received her doctorate from no less than Columbia University and her work on portrayals of Aisha is very respected. However, what you've shown of Ghamidid indicates that his expertise is entirely within Islamic scholarship, not within the science of history. The fact that Ghamidi is affiliated directly with the government of Pakistan does not contribute to his reliability (in fact, one could argue such a vested interest might compromise his neutrality as an unbiased sholar).

And are you really claiming that Watt and other scholars were relying on unreliable English translations of the hadith? You seriously damage your argument if so. Watt was perfectly competent in Arabic and would have used only the most scholarly of editions and methodologies to work with. It is true that the "primary source" issue is out of the scope of us Wikipedia editors, which is why we rely on secondary sources. And the most reliable secondary sources available to us include Montgomery Watt. Contradicting their findings on this issue, on which they are virtually unequivocal, would require sources of that caliber or higher, and in my opinion no one has provided such sources.

All that said, I've always supported an additional section on the age issue. Such a section would include the views of notable minority scholars on the issue, including Islamic scholars like Ghamidi. However, it must be clear that this is in fact a minority view and that it is rejected by the vast majority of scholars (and not just Western scholars).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On re-reading my post, I think I understand the confusion it may have caused - I'll take the blame for it, and will try to be more careful. I was pointing out to the fact that there is no reasoning done by Watt on the chain of narrators whatsoever, for instance in "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman". Watt does point out his sources including Ibn-i-Ishaq's sira, Maghazi, and the traditions (what is being referred to, perhaps incorrectly, as hadith here.) While he may have done the investigation of Sanad, it is not clear from his book, and we would go purely by the arguments he provides, and not by what he 'may have done'. You are right in that my argument is weak on English translations - Watt does not cite the references in this book and I was unable to get access to "Muhammad at Medina", so I take back my that argument.

As for the comparative reliability, my point was not about who is more reliable and who is not, but more from the point of view that, based on his credentials, Ghamidi should be considered at least as reliable as others - If you look at his profile, he is a 'fellow' at Al-Mawrid, equivalent of a dean in a Western university - nonetheless, it is not important so long as we accept him as reliable. Similarly, I would say that Khalid Zaheer is a reliable source as well - He's a PhD in Islamic Economics from University of Wales, and have been associate professor at Lahore University of Management Sciences before joining Al-Mawrid as an educator and director.

So to summarize: My premise is that Ghamidi, Khalid Zaheer, Khalid Masud are all reliable. From verifiable sources point of view, Ghamidi's and Khalid Zaheer's sources are available in English and verifiable. Masud's is not, so in this discussion, I will exclude him and have a separate one on non-English ones.

I will now attempt to craft something that portrays this as a minority review, but I do want to have a discussion on other sources as well as on whether it would be 'minority view' or not.

Thanks for your time. Omer (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the changes I am making. Please provide comments. 1) I am removing 'according to hadith' since that constitutes primary sources and technically the word 'hadith' is the wrong usage - even if left, it should be 'tradition'. Nonetheless, I think all references to primary sources should be removed, and we can use secondary sources since all material is available and there is a dispute on the reliability of primary sources cited by the scholars we're using. 2) I am writing 'popular' opinion and 'some scholars have opined' to clarify that majority opinion and minory opinion. If someone thinks that this can be made better, please advise. 3) I am creating a new section on age. This section is a subsection of "Marriage to Muhammad" and would be added after the first paragraph. The paragraph is split from the sentence 'The marriage was delayed ...' with the latter part appearing before this section (as part of the first paragraph).

Aisha's Age at Marriage

According to the popular opinion, 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. Some scholars have opined that Aisha's age to be no less than 16 when she was married to Muhammad. American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce A'isha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."

Please advise for additional improvements. Thanks. Omer (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A few things. We may accept that Ghamidi is reliable within his field. However, there's nothing to indicate that he's a historian - like I said his expertise is entirely within Islamic scholarship, not history. The same thing goes for Khalid Zaheer, whose degree is in economics. And again, I don't think we need to go into non-English sources when we have emminently reliable English sources, which can be vetted by any of our readers who want to make a trip to the library, available to us. As such, I don't think we can use what these scholars say as if it has equal weight with the conclusions of the historians, and so I object to the sentance "Some scholars have opined that Aisha's age to be no less than 16 when she was married to Muhammad."

Like I said however, I've always believed these alternate views have a place in this article, but with the clearly-stated caveat that this is a minority view not born out by the weight of scholarship. I would like to see a section or subsection on the controversy of Aisha's age, with a sentance explaining that such a marriage was not in the least improper given the cultural context, and that critics of the Prophet at the time never used it to criticize him. Then we explain that there are a number of Muslims and even Muslim scholars (of different disciplines) who deny that Aisha was nine at the time, but make it clear this is a minority view. Then a brief sentance about reactions from non-Muslims and critics of Muhammad.

As for your other suggested changes, I agree that using hadith here is potentially confusing; I'd prefer saying "According to the traditional sources..." What are your feelings about a new section?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any sources handy about claims that such marriages were not considered proper in the cultural context. If you have handy, that'd be great, otherwise I'll have to go back and search through it.

I thought that 'some scholars' would satisfy the 'minority' requirement, but looks like language like 'There is a minority opinion that Aisha was not nine at the age of her marriage' is precisely what you are looking for, correct? If so, I am fine to start off with that. For non-English sources, I want to have a discussion but after this one issue is closed otherwise it will be too many things to handle for me at one time.

I am ok with a separate section, but would it be a subsection under 'Marriage to Muhammad' or a completely separate one? I was proposing a subsection under Marriage to Muhammad. Omer (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a quote saying that child marriages were not improper at the time from Colin Turner at Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. As for a separate (sub)section, that's exactly what I was thinking. That would be the place to discuss minority views as well as the controversy over Aisha's age that has arisen in the 20th and 21st centuries.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Views

I added views because it is important for people to realize the Shi'a view of Aisha and so i could link the main article. I just gave a quick brief of the already obvious Sunni view and just pasted the intro from the main article for the Shi'a view. If anyone wants to rephrase both then go ahead.--IsaKazimi (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of fake reference

Today a user edited the article adding that some sources suggest Aisha was 15 when she got married to Mohamed, putting "Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari" as a reference. However, this reference doesn't say anything about her age or year of birth; it only says that Abu Bakr (Aisha's father) married Um Ruman (Aisha's mother) in the period of Jahiliya i.e. before 610 CE. Let me make it clear that there are absolutely no historical sources from Muslim tradition that state Aisha was not 6 when she got married to Mohamed, so if you see any edit claiming otherwise, the user is either knowingly putting a fake reference or they are engaging in original research. Ykou3 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

“All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period” (Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14-15 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself.

The reference number 6 should be deleted as it deals with a hadith related by Hisham ibn urwah

Tehzibu’l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq” (Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

I want to now your view on this before editing the article again Gnosisquest (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the correct quote from that book: "He [Abu Bakr] married, in Jahiliya, Qatila who then brought him [his children] Abdullah and Asmaa. He also married, in Jahiliya, Um Ruman who then brought him Abdulrahman and Aisha." Other than this, all of what you are saying is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia, let alone being based on a misquote. The "No Original Research" principle is non-negotiable. This also applies to what you are saying about the hadith; Sahih al-Bukhari is a well recognized book by Muslims and it's mentioned in the article that this is all according to Muslim tradition. Ykou3 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gnosisquest, this has been discussed with much frequency above. The problem is that no one has ever produced a reliable source that contradicts what appears in the primary sources (at least, none condradict it without the employment of selective ommision and creative mathematics). I encourage you to discuss the material you want to include here on the talk page so that it may be vetted by other editors. As I have said before, this is a highly controversial article, so we must make sure that only the best of sources are used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It was first published in the minaret 1999`edition (a reliable source) In arabnews jan 2009(again reliable) The primary source tells us the hadith cannot be trusted I've given the reference above “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50). 1) I suggest we remove these hadith

2)We add a sentence about the view of other sources (secondary sources have been used throughout this article)--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a primary source is. The primary sources in this case are the hadith, which all indicate that Aisha was six or seven when she was married to Muhammad and about nine when the marriage was consummated. For determining whether these primary sources are reliable, Wikipedia (and any other encyclopedia) must use secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). In this case, the issue is whether or not the material you have introduced is a reliable secondary source. As the one introducing the challenged material, it is on you to demonstrate that this material is reliable. Simply reverting without the necessary discussion is not productive (and can get you blocked). If you feel so strongly about this, be productive and discuss the material here on the talk page. There have simply been too many attempts to include spurious material in this article to take anyone's word for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And he did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl. The age of Ayesha has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith (traditions of the Prophet) regarding Ayesha’s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn ‘Urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source

Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life.

Tehzibu’l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq” (Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly” (Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301).

CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable.

CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam:

pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation 610 CE: First revelation 610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam 613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly. 615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia 616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam 620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet 622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina) 623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal

According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years.

However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period” (Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself.

CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima

According to Ibn Hajar, “Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old... she was five years older that Ayesha” (Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978).

If Ibn Hajar’s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha’s age at marriage would be 12 years.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha’s Age in relation to Asma’s Age

According to Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d: “Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: “She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqribu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif, Lucknow).

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah.

If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age.

Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d, Ayesha’s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen?

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud

A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab karahiyati’l-isti`anah fi’l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: “when we reached Shajarah”. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi’l-nisa’ wa qitalihinna ma`a’lrijal): “Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].” Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr.

It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati’l-khandaq wa hiya’l-ahza’b): “Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.”

Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud

CONCLUSION: Ayesha’s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: “I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)” when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu’l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa’l-sa`atu adha’ wa amarr).

Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet.

CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine.

EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha’s name.

All those who know the Arabic language are aware that the word bikr in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier, is jariyah. Bikr on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word “virgin” in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a “lady” (bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut).

CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is “adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.” Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage.

Here is an extract from the minaret magazine This article first appeared in The Minaret in March 1999.

and arab news jan 16 2009 Friday 13 July 2007 shares somewhat a similar view

Suppose a primary source tells me X is a president of a country

The president of a country is above 40 Secondary source X is above 40 on consideration of the primary sources

Thus if a secondary source tries to add 2 and 2 we can accept or atleast mention the point of view of that source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnosisquest (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have an objection please tell me, we can discuss it here dont go on changing my edits for no reason. --Gnosisquest (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the prosses. As the one introducing the challenged material, the burden of proof is on you to defend the material. You should not engage in a revert war, hoping that other editors will eventually give up and let you have it your way. I have protected the page until the dispute is resolved.

Basically, your problem is still sourcing. No matter how many mathematical tricks and creative readings of sources one can do, in order to be included here, we rely on reliable, third party sources. This means that a statement arguing that Aisha was older than 9 must (a.) appear, in those words, in a secondary source, and (b). that source must be proven to be as reliable as the sources currently used in the article. You may not take individual statements from other sources to synthesize an argument, which is what most of your "evidences" above are doing, and you cannot just state baldly that a source is reliable without proving that it is. This is a controversial article, so we must make sure only the very best of sources are used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no creative reading (any other derogatory words) did you check the sources I provided , without checking the sources how can you accuse me I advise you to find a good library and check my sources I may have to report you for reverting my edits without any reason or participation on the talk page http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5&section=0&article=98423&d=13&m=7&y=2007

Hope this link helps youGnosisquest (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have tried several tactics to try and insert the same information. First you tried to reference Tabari, and another user called you out, demonstrating that that text cannot be used to back up your assertion without original research. More recently you have tried to use news articles to back up the same assertion, but as I said before you must need to demonstrate that the sources you have introduced are as reliable as the ones we are using. From what I can tell they are just news articles, which are never as reliable as academic sources. The Arab News piece you provided a link for is not acceptible; it does not indicate the author's credentials (if he has any) and does not provide sources. As I said, an article this controversial should only use the very best sources available. As for reporting us for reverting your edits, I'm afraid you won't get very far, since it is you who is re-inserting challenged material without waiting for discussion to finish, despite requests that you stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hail the 'IMPARTIAL' Mod I provided references on 9th you were online reverting my edits but failed to respond on 12 I requested you again to talk before reverting the article You keep on writing about things being controversial here but this article seems to be one sided I appreciate your constant efforts on shattering my view (wikipedia being neutral site ) The author of the article in The Minaret Is Mr T.O Shanavas M. D., Vice President, Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc

Adil salahi the authour of the article published in the Arabnews (date provided above)

Adil Salahi is the Executive Director of Al-Furqan Heritage Foundation. He teaches Islamic Studies at the Markfield Institute of Higher Education, Leicester, England. After working for the BBC Arabic Service for several years, he worked for the Arabic daily, al-Sharq al-Awsat . He continues to publish a column, "Islam in Perspective", in its sister publication, Arab News, an English daily published in Saudi Arabia. He has produced an English translation of several volumes of Sayyid Qutb's commentary, In the Shade of the Quran (Leicester, Islamic Foundation), as well as several other books on Islamic subjects.

So how do I report unfair administrators who do not respond on the talk page ? I'm not changing your edits but I am adding a new one based on facts --Gnosisquest (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, it is on you to defend the material you are trying to add. I do not accept that newspaper sources, especially partisan ones, will ever be as reliable as academic scholarship, and so are not appropriate for an article as controversial as this one. Especially since these sources only seem to regurgitate the same spiel as everyone else who tries to "prove" that Aisha was older (if you ignore certain hadith, but take others very, very seriously, you can finagle the dates into saying what you want them to say.) As for my own actions and those of the others who reverted your edits, all we did was revert back to the status quo; as the one trying to introduce material you need to let discussion proceed before you go on adding and re-adding it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper articles can be used as a source according to Wikipedia (whether you accept it or not they are accepted by wikipedia.),It is written by Adil Salahi a reputed scholar. Regarding the hadith narrated by hisham ibn urwah

 Those Hadith are not valid,they were relatd by Hisham ibn Urwah to the people of Iraq 
Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people orticle should not be one sidedf Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly” (Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301). CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable.

Thus the primary sources themselves tell us that it is not authentic The dates are correct maths does not lie.

I am not trying to remove the hadith I am simply adding another statement about her age.

Since this is a controversial matter the article should not be one sided.

Please tell me how do I contact a neutral administrator.--Gnosisquest (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers can be used in certain cases when there is no academic literature on a subject. Historical issues--like religious figures--should not rely on newspaper sources. We are also not trying to 'prove' what is the 'real' age of `A'isha. Wikipedia is not here to say which viewpoint is correct but to express all notable viewpoints from reliable sources. Unfortunately newspaper sources are not reliable for this article. If you can find this in academic books then we would be happy to add it. I understand you're just trying to add more information but the problem is a newspaper is not reliable enough to be added. Here are the problems with your edits:

1. The citations you added are not proper, fully citations. Please read WP:CITE. "The Minaret in March 1999." is not acceptable, we would need full bibliographic information so that we can verify the contents
2. Look at the other sources. Most of them are academic or primary sources. Your source was need to be an academic source and not just a newspaper.
3. Your style. "However it can be concluded from some sources that Aisha might have been atleast 14 at the time of her marriage" is trying to lead the reader to a specific conclusion which you believe is correct. Wikipedia is not trying to convince the reader of any single point of view but just to let the reader know the notable points of view on this subject. What you'd need is a reliable academic source rather than a newspaper and then phrase it more like this: "15th century scholar Ibn Madeupname argues that because Ibn Hisham's memory suffered quite badly when he was old, hadith which report the age of `A'isha at marriage as 6/9 should be ignored for the more reasonable age of 14". But the problem is Malik ibn Anas does not make the claim that this applies directly to the `A'isha case so it would be original research to state that he thought the age of marriage was different. We need to cite a reliable source which makes such an argument.

I know sometimes Wikipedia policy can be difficult and if you the idea you're presenting is notable then it will be discussed in an academic source somewhere. We have this process in order to try to make sure we can create neutrality. I hope I am a "neutral administrator" and I am definitely not here to argue about what age `A'isha really was... but I do know what process we use on Wikipedia to add controversial claims to article and we will need to find a better source to add your claims. gren グレン 11:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, gren, for articulating the problems so well. Hopefully this will do something to move the discussion forward.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad the Prophet: by Maulana Muhammad Ali http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/mali/muhammadtheprophet/muhammadtheprophet.shtml (check page 183 of the book or 193 of the pdf format) fulfills all the criteria of wikipedia. The Extract from the source being All these sources showing that her age was not less than ten years at the time of her marriage.........consummation took place in the second year of the Flight,it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen years at that time."

Maulana Muhammad Ali is an Emir and scholar of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement,

He was rational and logical in his views and they were based on facts and logic, I agree that he is not a historian but he is a reputed scholar and deserves attention. Thanks Gren Hope the neutral 'MOD' accepts this contribution.Since this article is controversial it should not be one sided. Wikipedia is not here to say which viewpoint is correct but to express all notable viewpoints from reliable sources.Hopefully this will do something to move the discussion forward . (P.S this is not a personal battle.)--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali has been discussed before, for example here. The result was that there was no consensus that he is a reliable source for history (he was not a historian). As such he should not be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's no historian... but no historian takes a guess at Aisha's age unless they accept the traditions as factual source material. Most historians just use it because it's the best they feel we have access to. I think he should be represented as an important point of view, of course, he is an Ahmadiyya and probably doesn't represent most Sunnis (although, there are varying degrees of acceptance of his translation). gren グレン 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali was a scholar well versed in Hadith which can be considered as primary sources for information regarding Aisha and her marriage to Muhammad, thus as a scholar well known for his reputed works and as a close companion to Ahmad who is considered to be a Prophet, so Maulana Muhammad Ali's writings can be considered as a reliable source.As such his writings should be used. Are all the people mentioned in te reference or notes section historians (Kareth Armstrong and the rest)? I doubt it, Again I would like to remind you that I do not want to change the original edits but would like to add a statement that according to Maulana The age of Aisha was so and so. This should not be taken as a personal battle.--Gnosisquest (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on this please edit the article Please add a statement taking Maulana's view--Gnosisquest (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not agree on this. As I just said Maulana Muhammad Ali has been discussed above and there was no consensus that he was a reliable source. He was not a historian, he was a religious figure. Armstrong is a red herring; she's not being used to source anything we don't have another, more reliable source for (we could remove her if you wish). I've said for a long time that the best bet would be to have a separate section on the controversy surrounding Aisha's age at the time, but we cannot make statements based on unreliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Maulana Muhammad Ali was a scholar,a scholar is a person who has read and understood different scriptures of Islam such as the quran and hadith e.t.c, The hadith are the primary sources as we agreed earlier,Now Muhammad Ali was an expert in these sources as such he can be considered as a reliable source.The statement we add can be framed in such a way that it is clear that he is a secondary source.--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you will read through the section I pointed out earlier, you will find that Muhammad Ali has been discussed, and the result was that there was no consensus that he was a reliable source. That's not to say his view can't be included, but it must have the caveat that he's an apologist and not a historian. I've alway though there should be a section dealing with modern takes on Aisha's age, which would include notable people like Ali, as well as the controversy the issue has caused. But that's different than saying that Ali is as qualified to discuss the issue as Watt or Spellberg.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus that he was a Historian(not a reliable source), It is not necessary that only a historian with a degree from a university must be right.A scholar who knows hadith can be a reliable source too.Ali uses logical arguments to prove his point( In my opinion he is simply stating the truth).He was a companion of Ahmed who is considered to be a prophet.Calling Ali an apologist would amount to original research moreover the word apologist can have a pejorative meaning.Instead the word an Islamic or Ahmadiya scholar can be used.A simple statement can suffice, there is no need to start a new section on it.--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Therefore serious credentials in the field of Islamic history is crucial here; we must accept only the very best sources in an article this controversial. Ali certainly was an apologist, whether you find that term pejorative or not, and he certainly was not a historian. Were his works peer-reviewed, or published by university press with a reputation for reliability? If not, he should not be used here. Further, I don't know who this Ahmed is, but his claims to being a prophet has no bearing whatsoever on the scholarly reliability of his friends. Sorry, but barring an upswing of consensus saying otherwise, Ali cannot be used to source anything but his own opinion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The book is verifiable,it is a reliable source, Maulana Muhammad Ali was a reputed author.The neutral moderator agrees with me.Since the article is controversial it should not be one sided.As for Ali being an apologist where did you get this from ? Please provide an adequate reference. Calling him a dā‘ī or an eminent scholar of the Ahmadiyya movement or an Islamic Preacher would be more preferable. We can add 'Maulana Muhammad Ali an eminent scholar of the ahmadiya movement cites reasons in his book ( reference) that Aisha was atleast 10 at the time of her marriage and not less than 15 at the time of the consummation of the marriage'. This statement is neutral and can be considered as an opinion by some and a fact by others depending on the readers point of view. Hope wikipedia agrees N u too --Gnosisquest (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you want to add it, you demonstrate that it's reliable. Just saying it again and again doesn't make it so. Since Ali is not a historian, he cannot be used in a section on history (though he can be used in a section on notable opinions) for an article like this. I'm not going to repeat it again. And yes, he can safely be identified as an apologist because he wrote works of apologetics such as Muhammad the Prophet (but see here for a source indicating it directly).--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And as to whether the "neutral moderator" agrees with me, read what he actually said: "I think he should be represented as an important point of view, of course, he is an Ahmadiyya and probably doesn't represent most Sunnis..." (emphasis mine). He's saying Ali should be used here for his own opinion. I agree. But that's different than jamming him into the history section because you don't like what the historians are saying.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already provided an exact reference above.Maulana Ali being a scholar can be considered as a reliable source according to wikipedia. In Islam with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship.....well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam for editing Islam articles

Main article: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) If you are a newcomer, the most important and often over-looked point to remember while editing Wikipedia is: You cannot insert your own particular viewpoints into articles. Articles should typically reflect the verifiable opinions of qualified academic scholars, in neutral and balanced prose. ...... if you feel a viewpoint merits mention, you can find some material which may constitute a reliable source by checking books, journals, articles, newspapers and other sources. I imagine the guidelines allow me to include the views of scholars and magazines journals and newspapers too

Since articles in Wikipedia should reflect the point of view of reliable scholars like Maulana Ali or Adil Salahi and they must be represented in the section Marriage to Muhammad as it represents significant viewpoints on the article subject.--Gnosisquest (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that Ali is not a "qualified academic scholar" and is thus not a reliable source. And as both I and Grenavitar have said (over and over again in my case), newspapers and magazines should not be used as sources in an article this controversial (they may be used in some places, if no better sources are forthcoming).--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The views of Ali reflect the views of The Ahmadiyya group of muslims,Adil Salahi's opinion on a newspaper can be used too as per WikiProject Islam.There is no such rule that an opinion of a scholar from a newspaper can not be used in a controversial issue.Plase include their view in the section Marriage to Muhammed itself.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would make the point that the alternative (alternative in the western world at least) be given sufficient consideration, and at the very least be included in the section for balance sake.Since the article is controversial the research of Maulana Ali deserves to be mentioned.He is a well recognized religous theologician (you can use the word Islamic apologist if you wish.)Well-regarded religious experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Can translated works of scholars be used ?Gnosisquest (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

HOW OLD WAS SHE AT MARRIAGE?

I am trying to figure this out, because I heard somewhere she was young. How young? Why is this not mentioned in the wikipedia article. I am so mad I see that wikipedia is just protecting Islam all the time.