Talk:Aisha/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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)

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. Baalthazaq (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. I was asking for a reliable source to use in the Jewel of Medina article. I wasn't saying that the novel should be used as a source anywhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

[Scriptural Evidence] Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Sahih Bukhari [the most venerated and authentic Islamic source] Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).72.225.231.210 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2009 (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? 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)

Scholars can be used as a source Ghamdi is a reliable source and spellberg too suggests that the accepted age is doubtful --Gnosisquest (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

2009

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. 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 (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. 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, & you 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).

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. 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 Can translated works of scholars be used ?Gnosisquest (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To save everyone time, I'm listing the next few replies to Gnosisquest: Ali is not a "qualified academic scholar" (x5) 64.7.147.22 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[1] The world famous, most ancient and widely-recognised Islamic institution and authority of Al-Azhar, Cairo, Egypt, has recently endorsed some English books of Maulana Muhammad Ali as being authentic Islamic literature. Please edit the article as soon as possible--Gnosisquest (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He is not an academic scholar. He can't be used in the history section. Sorry.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a website named "muslim" can be considered impartial, especially with regard to information muslims don't want you to know. I know this is embarrassing to muslims, but that doesn't mean it can be censored. 64.7.147.22 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) Check the section regarding religious sources organized academies like Al Azhar can be considered as reliable sources. --Gnosisquest (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try but you just added that whole section in yourself. You tried to do it anonymously, but you forgot it tracks your IP address. You even put as the comment "(clever)" like you were bragging. Wikipedia is not for you. Take your lies and evil thoughts elsewhere. The rest of us want to enjoy our freedom of information. 64.7.147.22 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable: Wikipedia:RS. Again the scolars of Al Azhar have approved Mohammed's works--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Al-Azhar has classified Muhammad Ali's works as "authentic Islamic literature", not as academic scholarship. Also, "Muslim.org", the homepage of the Amadiyya movement, is not a reliable source in and of itself. None of this is usable here. You are grasping at straws.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable and verifiable source.The publishers vouch for the fact that their book has been reviewed by Azhar university.This makes it reliable enough to be used in the section Marriage to Muhammed.Please edit the article as soon as possible or allow me to do so.--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have been told why your citations are not valid. No edit is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.140.98 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), organized academics can be used as a reliable source.The site of the publishers can be trusted for the reliability of a book published by it. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available.Being reviewed by scholars makes the book scholarly.Maulana Ali was a scholar himself,what we needed was its reliability which has been provided by Azhar university.--Gnosisquest (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)