Jump to content

Talk:2022 Muhammad remarks controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC about adding what reliable sources say about these Comments

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Proposal rejected with no prejudice against future discussion on related topics. Closing early since RFC was started by a sock-account (of user topic-banned from Indian politics) and has attracted hardly any independent support. Abecedare (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sentence "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was six years of age when she was married to Muhammad, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[1], others say she was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;[2] and she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony.[3]" be added to the lead or under Naveen Jindal's tweet in the Comments about Muhammad section? Mossad3 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Aisha" subsubsection of the "Muhammad's marriages" subsection of the "Points of contention" section of the Criticism of Muhammad article, it says, "From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was said in traditional Islamic sources[98] to have been six when betrothed to Muhammad,[99][100][101] and nine when she went to live with Muhammad[99][100][101] and the marriage was consummated,[99][101] although according to some scholars it is assumed that the marriage was consummated upon her reaching puberty".-Mossad3 (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mossad3 Partly I do see a point in what you say. But as user @Kautilya3 says in the other RfC you opened @ We need sources that directly speak to why Nupur Sharma said what she did, and some WP:THIRDPARTY analysis on where all this is coming from. So basically information has to come in context of ongoing controversy with analysis in credible independent sources.
I tried with this content which sort of fulfills above requirement , but still is stone walled as of now and needs to be discussed more about.
In any case the ongoing controversy most likely will get covered in scholarly academic literature and likely to start appearing within a years time. So what I advice you is to keep searching https://scholar.google.com/ for "Nupur Sharma" once in a while and use those sources to update the article.
Last but not least don't be in hurry on Wikipedia specially to before starting RfCs longer discussions are supposed to follow. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - She did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Please see the sources used in those articles (linked to above). I would like it to be added to the lead so that the reader reads it right at the beginning.-Mossad3 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mossad3: As Bookku notes, a reliable source would need to say this. We can't draw together information from this article and another. See WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As one reads in the Aisha article, Islamic sources differ among themselves about her precise age, some authors finds it futile to try to establish Aisha's real age, and Aisha's age has recently become a tool of polemicists. So if we were to include the proposed sentence on traditional hadith sources we would cease to describe the Muhammad remarks controversy in a neutral way and we would start to participate in that controversy with our own view - which is Mossad3's view: she did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Interested readers can always read the article on Aisha, where that matter is adequately explained (note that I've just restored the sentence from the lead section [1], to which IMHO it belongs). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gitz6666, there is no reliable source for this sentence in any Wikipedia article, "differ among themselves about her precise age"-Mossad3 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why do you think that Spellberg 1994, p. 40 (quoted in Aisha) is not reliable? There one finds that All of these specific references to the bride's age ... suggest the variability of A'isha's age in the historical record. Plus Ali's book contains a detailed discussion on the early Muslim textual tradition (pp. 156 ff.) E.g. in Tabari's History Aisha is said to have been born before the coming of Islam, which might imply that she was 12 or 13 at the time of her marriage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologise.-Mossad3 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, but not in the lead. The comments I made at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician) do not directly apply here. That was a biography page, whereas this page is on "Muhammad remarks". So, the defensibility or indefensibility of those remarks certainly belongs here. Some kind of summary of the Aisha page or other sources would be warranted. On the other hand, we should avoid wishy-washy newspaper op-eds that simply take convenient positions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, why don't you propose something? I see that you are an experienced editor.-Mossad3 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I cite the arguments thrown at me in this discussion; you cannot have it both ways. Further, Gitz's comments point out the abuse of phrasing etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This row has nothing to do with a secondary scholarly discussion of hadith, the outcome of which, as can be seen on the Aisha, is that few conclusions can be drawn. What the row has to do with is the explicitly offensive accusation of "rape", which could be just as easily anachronistically applied if Aisha was 7 or 17, given that the age of consent in India is 18. The offense derives from the act of a person in a position of political responsibility being intentionally offensive to a figure of reverence for many others, not in the minutiae of the contents of the offensive remarks. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings @Iskandar323, Have you gone through Nupur Sharma's Times Now debate debates transcript? As I have been given to understand Sharma did not use word 'rape'.
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't attribute Sharma; I just reflected the attributed tweet in the article from Naveen Kumar Jindal. Happy to look at a transcript if you have one handy to link. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly whatever the original comments were, however, they opened the doors to all sorts of WP:PRESENTISM polemics on rape, pedophilia, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Gitz6666 has explained this very well. Also agree with comments by Iskandar323. The relevant article links have been provided and the reader is better served by reading the linked page.--Venkat TL (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now nom seems to have been blocked, RfC was started without enough previous discussion and result is obvious to experienced users, I suggest to continue discussion but as of now end RfC vide point no. 2 @ WP:RFCEND.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Bookku has tried to convey that here and I am reproducing it for others to read and understand the point,
Deleted content
Response in Hindu right media
According to a synopsis of 'Hindu right media' by Unnati Sharma in ThePrint; an editorial of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, the erstwhile spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her family are being threatened with rape, death when Sharma had only repeated what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik too had said earlier; where as other Muslim leader threatened of iconoclasm against Shivling.(Sic) [5]
Academic response
According to Ahmet T. Kuru, it is not possible to know Aisha's factual age at the time of marriage, Kuru says Sharma used a single narration, of a hadith record, which says Aisha was 9 years old by the time she got married, and that some Muslims do accept since child marriages were common in premodern times. Kuru says, but Sharma ignored alternative Muslim explanation that Aisha might have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time of marriage.[6]-Mossad3 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those passages say exactly what Sharma said; instead they are both rambling paragraphs that seem considerably off-topic. But also, it is not very important whether information can be found showing that Sharma can, from some perspectives, be seen as having said something verifiable. The controversy is about the perceived offense, and that is in the eye of the beholder; here, on Wikipedia, in the form of the reliable, secondary responses from Muslim community leaders in India and abroad to the ill-advised and polemical squabble in which the comments came. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perceived offense leading to rape threats, death threats and murders.-Mossad3 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is here. Yes, India has a history of religiously and politically motivated violence, on both sides of the Hindu-Muslim divide. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your use of the words, "perceived offense". You should probably include that in this article with sources.-Mossad3 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it is supposed to limit to ".. Muslim community leaders .." ? Why WP:censor 'non Muslims' ?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I said, I was speaking to the groups among whom the perceived offense was most pronounced. I wasn't aware too many non-Muslims were offended. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Muslims are offended that Nupur Sharma is being wrongly accused of blasphemy (the punishment for which is beheading in Islam).-Mossad3 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, Bookku, please examine what I have added just below my question (rfc) right at the top (I have labelled it, "Addendum") and let us (other editors) know if that can be used.-Mossad3 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mossad3 I already hinted @ your talk page you continue discussing but to withdraw RfC since Wikipedia community operates differently than your imagination. First there is huge list of rules you will see people citing then one has to navigate through confirmation biases of each other. Only particular list of news media sources and reference sources is accepted classified as reliable and not all. That is why I suggested to work through Google scholar as early you learn doing that you will have better say in Wikipedia content
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "perceived offence" is unclear. Is it that Nupur Sharma wrongly accused the Prophet of child marriage or is it that she rightly accused him (in the Muslim view) but it is blasphemous to do so? Benson and Stangroom[7] quote Kecia Ali describing the dilemma:[8]

If one accepts the hadith account of his marriage to Aishah, one confronts the actions of the Prophet in doing something that is unseemly, if not unthinkable, for Muslims in the West. Suggesting that he was wrong to do so raises profound theological quandaries. Yet accepting the rightness of his act raises the question: on what basis can one reject the marriage of young girls today? At stake are broader issues regarding the relevance of the prophetic example to Islamic sexual ethics and the relevance of historical circumstances to the application of precedent.[23]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is wholly irrelevant to the 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy — either there are sources about the prophet row drawing in Benson, Stangroom and Ali or this entire discussion is WP:OR — as well an exemplification of why WP:NOTNEWS encourages caution with respect to news - to prevent editors wasting time on superficial coverage of current event stories instead of actually building encyclopedia pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are underestimating cognitive dissonance. Fardin (1994) notes that a certain class of conservative Egyptian Muslims were at the forefront of demanding unrestricted ability to have conjugal relations with nine year old girls because the Prophet did so but were simultaneously publishing tracts aimed for the Western Audience, which denied that the Prophet did so! I think Ali notes the same point about how the content of Muhammad's biography from the same publisher (or author) differed on occasions depending on the particular audience. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

[edit]

References

  1. ^ "Sahih al-Bukhari 3896 - Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar) - كتاب مناقب الأنصار - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". Sunnah.com (in Latin). Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  2. ^ Spellberg 1994, pp. 39–40
  3. ^ Armstrong 1992, p. 157
  4. ^ "'This is 100% true': Saudi Islamic scholar confirms Nupur Sharma's remarks about Muhammad". NewsBharati. 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-07-07.
  5. ^ "How Hindu Right press defended Nupur Sharma's controversial Prophet remarks". ThePrint. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-07-06. ... Former BJP national spokesperson Nupur Sharma only dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik had said, read an editorial in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, referring to the former's suspension from primary membership of the party over her remarks on Prophet Muhammad. .. "A BJP spokesperson and her family were threatened with rape, death because she dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik has been saying. On the other hand, a Muslim leader says that if he had known about the Shivling, he would have broken it already," it added. ..
  6. ^ Kuru, Ahmet T. (2022-06-12). "Why Muslim countries are quick at condemning defamation – but often ignore rights violations against Muslim minorities". The Conversation. Retrieved 2022-07-06. .. According to a hadith record, Aisha was 9 years old when she got married. Some Muslims accept this record and see it normal for a pre-modern marriage, whereas other Muslims believe that Aisha was either 18 or 19 years old by referring to other records. It is not possible to know the true facts of Aisha's age. As Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl stresses, "we do not know and will never know" them. Sharma thus used a single narration, while ignoring alternative Muslim explanations, in her remarks. ..
  7. ^ Writers of "philosophical pop culture" according to Iskandar323
  8. ^ Benson, Ophelia; Stangroom, Jeremy (2009). Does God Hate Women?. A&C Black. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-8264-9826-7.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

[edit]

Please add this:-

Nupur Sharma merely said what is written in Islamic religious literature and did not fabricate anything.[1][2][3][4] 2401:4900:33B2:B5EE:EE08:A593:5BF9:8B76 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I believe this is contentious and you need to first establish consensus. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Nupur Sharma Only Stated What is Written in Hadith; Why Are Muslims So Upset? - Arshad Alam, New Age Islam - Islamic News and Views - Moderate Muslims & Islam". New Age Islam. 3 October 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
  2. ^ Patro, Sneha (3 October 2022). "Nupur Sharma How Far Has The Controversy Reached Till Now". BW Businessworld. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
  3. ^ "'This is 100% true': Saudi Islamic scholar confirms Nupur Sharma's remarks about Muhammad". NewsBharati. 20 June 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
  4. ^ "India: Instead of attacking Nupur Sharma verify the hadith says Pakistan origin journalist Taha Siddiqui". Zoom News. 8 June 2022. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
I don't know how to do that. Someone else should do what they can, "to establish consensus."-2401:4900:33B2:B5EE:E3F2:FE7D:8CE5:1B5D (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, Bookku, please do the needful.-2401:4900:3761:BAD:49C8:7A0D:6E39:D4DD (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kpddg, Webberbrad007, Extorc, CapnJackSp, IranicaEditor, Hemantha, User4edits, DockMajestic, Aman.kumar.goel, REDISCOVERBHARAT, Grabup, Tow, TheChunky, Jim Michael 2, Peter Ormond, Iamahumanborninearth, please attempt to get consensus for adding the above. That IP's request seems to be in good faith.-116.72.150.222 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential imagery

[edit]

This edit introduced an image on 22 March with no edit summary and certainly no consensus and appears to be WP:DECOR: it is of non-existent relevance to the subject, which is a controversy about a public figure, words said, and violence engendered - none of which the introduced image represents. This controversy is not about images of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and, in the absence of any source attached to the caption, I can only assume that this image has not at any point been used in the media or at any of the protests or counter-protests in connection with the prophet remarks row, which are the only ways in which such an image could really be relevant in the context. In sum, I see nothing to indicate that MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE has been satisfied, or frankly even been approached. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see loads of dubious edits since this editor got involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that image is tangential. Article has much more scope to improve coverage and balance Bookku (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I doubt, depiction of any image in the lead would not be cause promotional, still be neutral enough. Bookku (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. It is possible that it is one of those instances where no lead image at all is optimal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the name

[edit]

Where is the name of that person who passed the remarks about lord Shiva. Why that name is not there on the 2022 Mohammad controversy post? Are itni fatti kyu hai tumhari ? Nupur sharma's name is there everywhere, but who said wrong about Lord Shiva is not there?? WHAT IS THE REASON BEHIND THAT??? 103.217.132.247 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the term "consummation"

[edit]

There is not a single proof for the age of the third wife Ayisha of Muhammad at the time of the said consummation of her marriage with Muhammad neither in history nor in hadith, as per a Malayalam book (M. P. Musthfal Faisy, Vedam Yukthi Vadam(2022), p. 354.):

"We see terms such as dakhala biha to refer to their meeting both in history and hadith. Linguistically it means only 'got together', 'stayed together at night', or 'nabi(prophet) entered entered into thante(his own/one's own) aramana (mansion) "

(Ibid. p. 354)

He also says:

No interpretors we know have said "intercourse" took place as per the Quranic verse (Alu Imran : 37) though the term dakhala has been used here also.

(Ibid. p. 354). He further says in short, "had sex" is not the first meaning for the expression such as dakhala biha, dakhala alaiha etc. It is only afer knowing what happened any meaning can be ascertained. (Ibid. p. 354.).


Musthafal Faisy is a member of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of EK Sunnis. You can see him as the 25th person here.

Required change : Replace "consummation" with "started their life together" or "met together". Neutralhappy (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or a similar term such as "got together". Neutralhappy (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better choice would be began their life together or began the married life together. Any suggestion? Neutralhappy (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy&oldid=1256818041"