Talk:Aisha/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Revert (Hadith sources on Aisha's age)

TrangaBellam has removed this but please add it back or explain why it should not be in this article.-Mossad3 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC) :Gitz6666 and Kautilya3 seem to want something like that in this article (from what they've typed above).-Mossad3 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling upon editors that you believe will support your position is known as WP:CANVASSING @Mossad3, and is considered a disruptive editing behaviour. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding material backed by primary religious texts is rarely of benefit when reliable, secondary sources are available and adding such matter in the lead is worse. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So, I can't use the Sunnah or hadeeth/hadees as sources at Wikipedia is it?-Mossad3 (talk)

Secondary sources, when available, are indeed preferable to primary sources, as you can read here WP:RSPRIMARY. I argued for restoring that sentence in the lead because it is balanced, informative, well-sourced and roughly reflects the importance of the topic based on reliable sources (which are not necessarily scholarly sources: a significant coverage can also be coverage by public debates, political controversies, etc.). The discussion is ongoing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

My position is that Aisha's own words as quoted by SECONDARY sources should be included, not necessarily in the lead. This issue has now become too controversial for hand-waving. People pretending that there is scholarly consensus about it are not being accurate. It is just as controversial in the scholarly domain as it is in the real world. For example Benson and Stangroom write:

There is something quite shocking about Armstrong's unreliability on this issue. It seems inconceivable that she does not know that the balance of textual evidence supports the view that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated (even if this issue hasn't been settled definitively), yet in her two biographies of Muhammad she implies that it is an established fact that consummation occurred at puberty.

WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints should be represented. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You desire to quote "Aisha's own words" but our article already has:

Aisha herself recollected to have been married at seven years of age — as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari —, and would leverage her being the only virgin-wife of Muhammad to attract support in the successional disputes that ensued upon Muhammad's death.

People pretending that there is scholarly consensus about it are not being accurate. - Huh? We write,

[B]oth Spellberg and Ali remain interested in the atypical attention of Muslim biographers on Aisha'a age and converge upon the explanation that the references were meant to reinforce "her pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."

Ophelia (2009) is not a remotely reliable source for our purposes, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Both [Benson and Stangroom] write works of philosophical pop culture, so not particularly fantastic sources for our purposes here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant the Spellberg quote provided by Gitz6666 should be included. (No idea why a new section has been opened for the same issue.) There are no arguments about Spellberg's reliability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words, what matters for this issue is not only what the historians say about the matter, but also what the "textual evidence" says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the references cited here may interest you.-Mossad3 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There are more references cited here.-Mossad3 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not very acquainted with sources of Early Islam, I suppose.

There exists a total absence of contemporary sources about Muhammad which have even led some reputed academics (consult Hoyland et al) to doubt whether Muhammad had any significant role to play in the foundation of Islam! The hadith corpus was transmitted orally for generations before being put to text and unlike the Vedas (which you might be inclined to compare with), their transmission trees are often internally inconsistent. This had led classical scholars to classify the reliability of hadith etc based on a variety of non-scholarly techniques including Biographical evaluation etc.

There is a reason why there exists a Revisionist school of Islamic studies. There exists a reason why Spellberg asserts that it is impossible (and nonsensical) to find out the age when Aisha's marriage was consummated. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is very interesting (no irony) but I'm afraid we might be missing the point of the thread. The text removed from the lead was not about Aisha's real age (which I understand may well be unknowable) but rather about "traditional hadith sources" and contemporary scholarly controversies. The text we're discussing about is the following:

Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7; other sources say she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony; but both the date and her age at marriage and later consummation with Muhammad in Medina are sources of controversy and discussion amongst scholars.

Now, I think we should discuss, first, if the text is accurate and verifiable enough, and secondly if it is worth of being included in the lead. I've made a bit of research on the sources and my answer to the first question is "yes", but I'm not at all an expert and I'm more then ready to change my views on the subject. With regard to the second question, however, I strongly feel that we should include a few lines of high-quality, neutral and fully verifiable text on Aisha's age. The question is highly notable and the very amount of discussions on this in this talk page proves the point. Or do you think otherwise? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the following text is simpler and yet equally accurate?

Some traditional hadith sources report that Aisha was six or seven years old at the time of her marriage, and nine at the consummation, but both the date and her age are subject to controversy and discussion amongst scholars.

I don't understand if there's a consensus on removing any mention of Aisha's age and related controversies from the lead section. Before restoring a reference to Aisha's age, I ping interested editors so as to solicit further discussion, if needed. @Doug Weller, Iskandar323, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and Toddy1: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... I would not say that no one responding is achieving consensus - I would say that if we have to resort to repeating what hadith say directly without any secondary sources actually saying that secondary analysis supports this, then that tells you exactly how accurate (or not) this information is. The random things that would start entering leads just because some hadith said it, and a secondary source repeated that a hadith said it, would be legion. For a lead summary, one really has to go with the secondary analysis itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to a mention that defers to secondary analysis and mentions the modern friction on the issue, as suggested on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

With regard to consensus, note that a text mentioning traditional hadith sources on Aisha's age has been in the lead section since the very creation of the first stub in 2001 and then through all subsequent revisions (e.g. 25 August 2013, 2 June 2014, 1 February 2019). I don't see any talk discussion on this prior to TrangaBellam removing the text on 5 July 2022. I immediately restored the lead on 6 July 2022 and was reverted on 7 July 2022; now you reverted my edit saying that no firm consensus has been reached on talk, which is true - but that means that WP:NOCON applies. Pending this discussion on whether to remove any mention of hadith sources from the lead section, contents shouldn't be removed and the article should remain as it was prior to the 5 July bold edit.

With regard to the subject of discussion, I think that your mentioning The random things that would start entering leads just because some hadith said it is somewhat disingenuous. You are neglecting the huge impact (not only in terms of scholarly debates, but also political controversy and even legislation) that those hadith sources have had in many countries and for an extended period of time. Sweeping them under the carpet is not a way of promoting religious understanding and tolerance, which rather require objective and neutral knowledge of all relevant facts. What those sources report is way more important than Aisha real age, that no one will ever know: what people know, or believe they know, about Aisha's age depends on them. I think that the best we could do is to report their content, say that they are subject to controversy and discussion amongst scholars, and also say that Aisha's real age is indeterminable from a scholarly perspective. The text could be the following:

Some traditional hadith sources report that Aisha was six or seven years old at the time of her marriage, and nine at the consummation, but both the date and her age are subject to controversy and discussion amongst scholars. Though indeterminable from a scholarly perspective, Aisha's age has become a source of ideological friction in modern times.

I'm now publishing this text. Please don't remove it unless you want to restore the text prior to TrangaBellam's bald edit of 5 July. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given how patchy the editing is in Islam-related articles in general, I would not set any stock by material simply being around since 2001 - the accolade of inertia is one that can be applied to many forms of relative junk on Wikipedia, and I never understand the argument from this angle. I see the WP:ONUS in this instance being on justifying why we should make an unusual exception in this instance to paraphrase primary religious texts when we have secondary analysis clearly stating that this material is useless bunk. And no, I don't think we should have the above - as I said, my version already WAS the only thing that can be said from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective - otherwise, all of this crap about her age has no place in the lead summary. I am equally happy with nothing. By all accounts, Aisha had a long and quite extraordinary life, became a scholar, led troops into battle - in such a biography, this very modern and tedious controversy really has no place being unduly weighted. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

1. "Traditional hadith sources say X" is what multiple reliable secondary sources tell us.

2. "It has always been here" is not an argument about accuracy or notability, it's an argument about consensus (for inclusion) based on silence, which I think is the rationale of ONUS: many people read this in the past, didn't object to it, edited and improved the text on hadith sources, so if you want to change that text you need a consensus.

3. "Very modern and tedious controversy" is like saying "I don't like it!". That controversy and the associated hadith sources have had an impact on the life of lots of people; many people are aware of the controversy and want to have information about it. Like most religious controversies it is inherently a-rational and based on ancient fragmentary sources reinterpreted to serve today's needs; yet it's out there and Wikipedia ignoring it wouldn't be in anybody's interest. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, 'very modern' means this is a historic biography that should be reflecting scholarship, not following the whims of the news. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Precisely - this does belong at the article but not at the lead. Brill's EOI or EI, standard encyclopedias on Islam, do not mention anything either! TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If by "very modern" you mean something that's been around since the Victorian age, then you're right: the controversy about her age is very modern, but that's not a reason for sweeping it under the carpet, as we all leave in modern times. WP:NOTNEWS obviously doesn't apply here, as we're not indulging in routine news coverage and there's an abundance of scholarly sources on Aisha's age.

With regard to being too modern, dully following the news of the day and avoiding serious scholarly sources, I'm now sharing a citation from vol. I of the 2nd edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam in 12 volumes (first published in 1960, reprinted in 1979):

Some time after the death of Khadidja, Khawla suggested to Muhammad that he should marry either A'isha, the six-year old daughter of his chief follower, or Sawda bint Zamca, a widow of about 30, who had gone as a Muslim to Abyssinia and whose husband had died there. Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. It had already been agreed that A'isha should marry Diubayr b. Mut'im, whose father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common consent, however, this agreement was set aside, and A'isha was betrothed to Muhammad. Since Muhammad had a political aim in nearly all his marriages, he must have seen in this one a means of strengthening the ties between himself and Abu Bakr, his chief follower. The marriage was not consummated until some months after the hidjra (in Shawwal i or 2/ April 623 or 624). A'isha went to live in an apartment in Muhammad's house, later the mosque of Medina. She cannot have been more than ten years old at the time, and took her toys to her new home. Muhammad sometimes joined in her games with them. She seems to have possessed great beauty, both as child and as young woman, and to have remained Muhammad's favourite even after he had married several other beautiful women.

This is what a "serious" "scholarly" "academic" and not so modern secondary source writes on the subject, and I suspect you don't want us to have this kind of frank and open report on what the prevailing primary sources say on the matter - or am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

And what am I do with this text-wall?

The lead obviously needs a line about Aisha's marriage which ought to mention her age at consummation as about nine years, going by by the preponderance of Islamic sources. The waxing on "controversy", "indeterminacy", "ideological friction" are all unnecessary and creates undue focus on the particulars of her age. This is not as difficult as it seems to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So, if I understand what you say, you are proposing to remove from the lead any mention of traditional hadith sources, controversies, indeterminacy, etc., and straightforwardly say that she married when she was six years old and went to live in Muhammad's house when she was nine or ten - pretty much as the Encyclopedia of Islam does. If that's what you're proposing to do, I agree with you. I thought that your edit was meant to remove any mention of Aisha's age from the lead (and I though so because that's what it unintentionally accomplished: [1]), but if that's not the case and you're OK with including these contents, then I'm happy to set aside any mention of scholarly controversies and political squabbles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the existing way of incorporating it, with a standalone paragraph, is distinctly undue. Blending it into the existing lead summary material is also tricky, however - I agree that most parts could be dispensed with, but if we are to mention an age then I think it should also be noted that the dates/age involved are, if not indeterminate, at least not agreed upon in/born out by scholarship. This material is no more than a tenth of the article, and if we were to strictly enforce MOS:LEAD should make up no more than a tenth of the lead, which would be about 30 words, e.g.: "Islamic tradition suggests that she may have consummated her marriage with Muhammad at as early as nine years of age, though her date of birth and age remain matters of dispute." Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I can also agree with that. My point in this conversation has always and only been that we need a brief, well-sourced sentence on Aisha's age, I strongly feel that we should include a few lines of high-quality, neutral and fully verifiable text on Aisha's age, because Aisha's age has become highly notable in contemporary debates. Having a self-standing paragraph on this wouldn't be unjustified, IMHO, based on MOS:LEAD, but it's not necessary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

We're on the THIRD edition of Encyclopedia of Islam now, so why you would go out of your to seek 1960 info? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the third edition, which doesn't seem to be included in the Wikipedia Library Services. If you have access to it, could you please publish an excerpt on what it says about Aisha's age at the time of marriage and consummation? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Aisha's age

If we assume that the story of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha at the age of 9 is correct, there must be at least one text from which it can be understood that she was a child, such as: "My hand does not reach ..." Or "she's young" or "I want my mom" but there's nothing like that. 212.237.118.150 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Facts

She was not part and parcel of Ahlul Bait 197.237.238.164 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahl al-Bayt is our article about this. If there's sectarian disagreement about this, I think un-labeled use in the infobox is suboptimal. I'd prefer to clarify that her inclusion is a common Sunni belief or cut it entirely (as the infobox is mostly for uncontested, basic facts). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Influx of sources

• Some booklet published by "Islamic Presentation Center International" and authored by the head of religious education at a Hull secondary school.
• An opinion-article by "A. Faizur Rahman", described as a Chennai-based peace activist.
• An internet forum that offers answers to questions about Islam premising upon a Salafist ideology.
• Gibril Haddad, an archconservative muhaddith with no relevant academic training.

Needless to say that none of the above sources are reliable enough to be used in any form. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, What is your basis for claiming that?

Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaking Islamic scholar who holds ijazas from over 150 scholars across the Muslim world.. He was featured in the inaugural list of The 500 Most Influential Muslims and has been called "one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world", a "prominent orthodox Sunni" and a "staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law."

And you claim that he has no relevant academic training? Lol. Androvie (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting from our lead but how does being a prominent orthodox Sunni or a staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law or one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world render him a scholar at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al? In the realms of Wikipedia, "academic training" has a very narrow meaning. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Who are you to claim Gibril Haddad is not at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al, lol. Androvie (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOURCETYPES:

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources [..] Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? then do the books of Tabari meet the above criteria or not? Androvie (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

They do not which is why I had not cited Tabari directly. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this article cites his work directly though, not attributing it to the author of the secondary source who cites his reports. Androvie (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Androvie's version	Banlhge453's version 1 & 2	Banlhge453's version 3	Banlhge453's version with sources acceptable to Iskandar323
While a number of Muslim cast doubt on the reports of Aisha's early age of marriage by suggesting that she was up to 19 years old at the time, by cherry-picking their sources; Some Muslim legal scholars (ulama) such as Muhammad al-Munajid in his website, IslamQA.info, and Gibril Haddad provide detailed rebuttals to their points by further emphasizing that reports of Aisha's age of 6-7 years at marriage and 9 years at consummation were mass-transmitted (mutawatir) via multiple authoritative chains of narration (isnad).	Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.	Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.	Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.

Commment: Ah. I should apologize. I didn't actually have a problem with Banlhge453's initial addition, and had only meant to undo the second, based purely on it being sourced solely to Islam Q&A (as in the edit summary). Rolling back both was totally accidental, and I didn't realize I'd done it. Again, apologies to all. I'm perfectly happy with Barlas as a source. The Brown one is fine too. I am not fine with several aspects of Androvie's version, not least accusing any parties of cherrypicking: as we all know, all sources have bias, but this is a bit off. And then again, Islam Q&A is not a reliable source. Muhammad al-Munajid is a polemicist, but not a particularly qualified scholar. So, he only really ever reflects a highly conservative viewpoint, and not with much authority. Gibril Haddad is a much more qualified scholar, but whatever that rather strange Q&A pdf is, it falls quite a way short of our typical expectations in terms of reliable sourcing. Overall there's little to be recommended from Androvie's version, while Banlhge453's version is fine supported by Barlas and Brown. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's good to finally have reliable sources standing up the modern estimates - they've been flying around for a while unsourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah ha, hadn't realised it had come from Muhammad, squirrelled away under Household - that explains why it checks out. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to only promote one view, when there is an opposing view. Besides, an administrator has already said that it is okay to quote from Gibril Haddad as long as his words are attributed to him. Androvie (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

An administrator's view is not implicitly more valuable than that of another editor's, so you can dispense with that argument from authority right there, but more importantly, yes, we could quote Gibril Haddad as published in a reliable source. A pdf from livingislam.org is not that source. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, at the end of the day, it's still his writing, and the admin ok'ed the using of that source, also why did you write only the claim that estimates she was not 6-7 yo when was married from your source, but left out this part:

More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet's life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind 'Aqqad's defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari's august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus of marriage age. No member of Egypt's religious establishment showed more displeasure with 'Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excrocriating the famous wordsmith's book on the Prophet's most active wife.

At the heart of Shakir's criticism was the question of the prophet locus of truth in Muslim life. He states and restates that Aisha's recollection of her own marriage is the lynchpin of historical and scriptural truth on this issue. Her report was categorically authenticated by the great Hadith critics of the classical era and sealed by the consensus of the medieval jurist. 'Aqqad's insinuation that she exaggerated her youth was thus tantamount to calling the Prophet's wife a liar. Against Aisha's own authenticated testimony, moreover, 'Aqqad brought nothing more than a flimsily cobbled-together argument, which Shakir contends rested on flawed premises. For example, there was no 'normal' engagement age for Arabs of the era.

Androvie (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, if it's not presented in the form of reliable publishing, we actually know very little about the veracity of a text, how it was produced, if it is accurately transcribed, if Gibril Haddad gave permission for it to be disseminated, or if it coherently reflects his scholarly viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding answering the issue of why you left out an important part of your source that I quoted above?

btw I copied this sentence from verifiability

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Androvie (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And as I have mentioned above, we have no real evidence that the pdf in question was self-published. We in fact know nothing about that document's origins, or by whom it was produced. Even the self-published nature of the source is an assumption with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Dragoon17 has given a detailed explanation in the section above. Androvie (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I added no sources, but if you would like to make further suggestions from Barlas or Brown, feel free to. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

References

To Doug Weller

Dear @Doug Weller, please explain why did you revert my latest edit on the grounds that you aren't convinced the sources are reliable, while you allow one part of Banlhge453's edit regarding Kecia Ali which is not clear on what page the information is located. The citation indicates that the pages are 133 and 155-199. On the page 133, I don't find anything like that. But the pages 155-199? that's so broad, I need him to pinpoint on what page specifically Kecia said that. Androvie (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Pinging for user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Because I was only looking at Androvie’s sources. I’m off to bed now. I’ll try to look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rejection of LivingIslam as a source

Dear @Doug Weller

Can you explain why LivingIslam is not reliable?

It's an article by Gibril Haddad, a reputable Islamic scholar, refuting the arguments made by the ones claiming that Aisha was not 9 year-old when consummated.

He stated that nowhere did Tabari report that "Abu Bakr's four children (including Aisha in that context) were all born in Jahiliyya (before the dawning of Islam)".

If you can point out where Tabari reported that, what book of his, what volume, what page; then please do.

If you can't then please don't revert my edit, because that would be vandalism.

Also, even if LivingIslam is not acceptable as a source, why did you reject all my edits which included the addition of sources from Sunnah.com, the actual Tabari's book, Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad (in arabic), etc.?

Are those also considered unreliable as sources to you?

Androvie (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie First how do you justify changing "Some hadiths" to "Traditional hadiths" ?

Then you change "differ" to "fairly consistent'.without changing the source (which doesn't use the word "traditional" by the way.

I'm not sure that sunnah.com actually backs the bit about her recollection, but The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9 does.

LivingIslam itself isn't an rs, eg [https://www.livingislam.org/english.php] would be useless. Who is the author of [https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf]? Doug Weller talk 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to cite The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9, please make sure you give the publisher, and edition, and the page number. These details are needed because pagination is sometimes completely different in different editions of the same book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you.

I've provided the URL and ISBN as well. :) Androvie (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

The author of that LivingIslam article is Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad. It's written multiple times there:

https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf

Please read first before claiming something is not reputable. He was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world,"

Sunnah.com is a very well-known website for finding hadiths including from Sahih al-Bukhari. And the sentence of this wiki that talks about Aisha's recollection mentioned "as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari", it was already there before I edited it. Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there?

About "differ" one that I changed to "fairly consistent", I've read the book, there is not a single sentence there saying that, "Islamic sources of the classical era differ among themselves about her precise age at the time of marriage and consummation"

Best regards, Androvie (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there? Because something published by the State University of New York (SUNY) Press has a lot more credibility than the website.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't you know that Sahih al-Bukhari wasn't written by Tabari?

This is the sentence before I edited it looked like.

Aisha herself recollected to have been married at seven years of age — as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari Androvie (talk) 15:00p, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth adding that just because someone is influential does not mean that they are well informed (for example David Cameron made laughably ill-informed statements about World War II).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then please provide us with where Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam?

In what book, what publication, what volume and what page. Androvie (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I said the website is not an RS in itself, it depends on what you want to use. I never used the word "reputable." Sorry I asked again about the author. If you want to use him you should attribute it to him. I see we now have "both the date and her age are subject to controversy and discussion among scholars;" in the lead and in the Age at time of marriage section you put "Islamic sources of the classical era are fairly consistent among themselves about Aisha's precise age at the time of her marriage and consummation" I don't care what Tabari didn't say. But Spellberg does seem to back that so ok, he seems to suggest that among the early writers it was just Ibn Sa'd who questioned the dates, but that really needs more research. And yes, influential does not mean they are a reliable source. I hope you see that. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the author, Gibril Haddad himself used the website to host his arguments.

The problem here is that this wiki article about Aisha stated (before I edited it) that Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam.

Where Gibril Haddad holds that nowhere did Tabari report that.

So if you can point out where Tabari reported that then please provide us with in what book, what volume and what page Tabari reported that. Androvie (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.) This means that statements in the article are meant to be backed by citations to reliable sources. So what statements in the article are you challenging? Do you dispute that those statements backed up by reliable sources? Have you read the sources cited?

As regards Gibril Haddad - not our problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I saw the changes and looked into this. It is a complicated web of citations so it’s difficult to find.

This ("born before the dawning of Islam") is cited to Ali, who in turn cites:

Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past, 197–198, n. 4. which says:

Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad.

This directs readers to: "see al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, 4:2135 and its contradiction within the same chronicle, Ta'rikh, 4:1262"

This is actually volume 11 in the English translation, about page 141.

"All of these four of his children were born in al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named" (The other reference Spellberg mentioned is from vol 7 of the English version, page 7, quoting Aisha: "the Messenger of God married me when I was seven")

In the Haddad link above it states that Abu Bakr only married his wives at that time and nowhere did Tabari say that his children were born then. Looking at the Arabic original, I can see why this is his impression, as it can also be translated as "All of these four of his children were born from his two above-named wives, who we named/listed during al-Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period)", meaning these wives who were listed above as marrying him during that period (versus his later wives, who are mentioned directly after that). The modifier is unclear due to the insertion of the phrase "whom we have named" in the middle of the sentence. However, as far as I know there is only one translation of Tabari’s work into English so the first one is the one that all English scholars have been working off of. Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaker and so he probably read it in Arabic rather than the English translation.

I have included the Arabic original here in case people are curious. https://ia802207.us.archive.org/9/items/WAQ17280/trm03.pdf

Here I will write out what it says if it may be of use: فكل هؤلاء الأربعة من أولاده ، ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلية

It’s on pg 426 of the pdf.

I hope that is helpful.

Dragoon17 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Then it's true what Gibril Haddad said, which means there are no contradicting reports among early Islamic sources that Aisha was married when she was 6-7 and consummated when she was 9-10. Androvie (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you continue with challenging the reliability of Spellberg et al, based on your interpretation of primary sources, I will ask that your ability to edit this page be revoked. If you think Spellberg mis-cited his sources etc., go publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed venue and we will see. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, who are you? you're not an administrator in the first place, man. Instead of fear-mongering and edit-warring, why don't you first provide a counter-argument to dragoon17's explanation above? Androvie (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not see what the fuss is all about and Dragoon17, your variant translation is ridiculous. Blankinship is a scholar of repute and his own footnote goes,

This statement appears to contradict the alleged age of Aishah of nine years at the time of the consummation of her marriage to the Prophet in Shawwal I (April-May 623), for which see al-Baladhuri, Ansab, I, 409-11; Ibn Hajar, Isabah, IV, 359-60. Even if she was born at the end of the Jahiliyyah period, in 609 C.E., she would have been at least thirteen solar years old by the year I/622-23.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I put the original arabic text into Bing Translator and this is what came out. "All of these four of his children, born of his two wives, whom we named in ignorance."

Seems to match what Gibril Haddad and Dragoon17 said.

Thus, the reports of Aisha's age at marriage in the books of Tabari are not contradictory at all. :) - Androvie (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but Wikipedia accepts peer reviewed scholarship. Not Bing Translate or blogs by Islamic muhaddiths. Esp. when they go against scholars like Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Kecia Ali, and Denise Spellberg. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

So, western scholars can be quoted regarding the history of Islamic figures, but Islamic scholars (ulama) can't? lol. How funny. Androvie (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is how we operate. For example, such a stance appears to have prodded the launch of WikiIslam etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, red herring fallacy, what does this have to do with wikiislam?. It's Islamic Scholars (ulama) saying about an Islamic figure, and you reject that because some western scholars draw conclusions from a mistranslation of Islamic book. Lol. And who are you to claim that's how Wikipedia operate, you're just playing admin all along after all. lol. I'll skip this man for now and wait if there's any admins or reasonable person who can moderate the issue. Androvie (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie I’m an Admin but we normally have no authority over content unless there are policy violations. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Btw, may I ask? In case there is a mistranslation of part of the content of a non-English book that causes contradictions within it and disapproval from some scholars, shouldn't we attribute the problematic part to the translator or/and the authors of the secondary sources who cite the translation, and provide the other view as well, so that readers can evaluate? Androvie (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

...Arabic is my native language. It is an unclear modifier. I was answering a question about sources and Mr. Haddad's paper, I am not trying to cast doubt on Mr. Blankenship or say that he is wrong. Simply that the two individuals interpreted a vague sentence differently.

As an aside, I take issue with your characterization of Mr. Haddad. He is published in several peer-reviewed journals and has non-self-published books, in Arabic and English (usually as GF Haddad). He is referenced and cited by other authors. You may look at this on Google Scholar/Books. As for whether or not this LivingIslam site is useful for wiki purposes I do not know as I have never looked at it, but I do not think it is fair or reasonable to characterize him as an "ultraconservative" (he is not) with no relevant expertise.

Anyway, I can see the direction this is headed in so I will refrain from commenting any further. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It is an unclear modifier. >>> Responding soon.

He is published in several peer-reviewed journals >>> Like being the resident-author for "Islamic Sciences"?

cited by other authors >>> Example of some prominent scholars citing him approvingly? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as I said, I am uninterested in continuing a discussion with you as I do not think it would be productive. You may search his name on the sites I indicated if you would like to learn more about him. Feel free also to consult with other Arabic speakers if you doubt my words. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie: OK, this was driving me crazy because I know that I'd seen it somewhere before. In fact I'm almost positive it was on the Arabic wiki page for Aisha at some point. So I've finally tracked it down. The pdf you linked on LivingIslam is just an archive of an old page that was from another site. The original page was on a site called SunniPath. (I found the original on wikiquote, of all places: here on archive.org)

So, SunniPath is like a 15 year old site that no longer exists which is why that other site probably archived it. It morphed into Qibla then SeekersHub and then SeekersGuidance (current name). Faraz Rabbani is the founder of those projects. Basically people submit questions to Islamic experts on history, fiqh etc and have them answered which is why the PDF looks like a Q&A... since it is. They also have online free courses on various Islamic matters.

Now that does not solve the reliability problem and again I am not the person to ask about this. I searched for opinions on Google Books and Scholar. Here are links to various iterations of the site SeekersHub SunniPath SeekersGuidance To me it seems fairly reliable but again, I am not an expert. Probably it depends upon the specific person answering the questions? Hopefully that puts things on the right path to resolution at least.

(Last edit, sorry! I may have found a compromise?: [this article] in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit not in English, summarizes Haddad's statements. Perhaps this will suffice? Dragoon17 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to compile all this. Also, for the journal you brought up in your last edit, I happen to be a native Indonesian speaker so I guess reading it will be a breeze.

I'll be reading the journal first, but if you want, feel free to edit this wiki article. :) Androvie (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done making a rough edit. If there's anything you want to improve, please feel free to do so. :) Androvie (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the page looks OK to me. This is a topic that makes people very emotional and can quickly devolve into thousands of points and counterpoints, but I think it summarizes the situation well enough. Sources are all noted scholars or peer-reviewed journals and books. I personally am done editing this, but good luck to everyone else still working on it! Dragoon17 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There was some needless divergence from Wikivoice that I've now addressed with further copy editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie: this edit, aside from being incredibly unilateral, just made the section dysfunctionally long. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is it that instead of answering my questions in the section below, you reverted my edit under the pretext of unilateralism and consensus? The edit was not made by me alone, but also by Dragoon17, and some of the sources are also given by him to provide the views from both sides. The view of some muslims who deny the the reports of Aisha's age being 6-7 at the time of marriage on one side, and the rebuttals of their view by the muslim conservatives on the other. But your edits make it seem as if the arguments that rejects the report of Aisha's age of 6-7 years are the correct and irrefutable one.  Even though Wikipedia upholds neutrality. Androvie (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To Iskandar323

Hi @Iskandar323 :), I have some problems with this part of your edit:

Islamic sources of the classical era differ on the subject of Aisha's age at the time of her marriage and its consummation,

1. Spellberg does not state this anywhere on the page of his book mentioned in the citation.

2. This sounds as if the sources contradict each other, even though the variations are only between 6 to 7 at the time of her marriage, and 9 to 10 at the time of consummation. And the reports are fairly consistent within those ranges.

3. Even assuming it is true that Spellberg said so, the remark must be attributed to him because not all scholars agree with it. Androvie (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2022

---

- oh yeah, I just remembered, can you point out on what specific page Kecia Ali said this?

Attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation have been described as an exercise in futility

I have looked it up and can't find it. It should also be attributed to her because the large majority of Islamic scholars (ulama) accept that Aisha's age at the time of marriage has already been proven by the hadiths. Androvie (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That the classical sources differ hardly seems a point of contention or opinion - perhaps it is misattributed to Spellberg, and that reference should be moved, but it would still stand up as a perfectly adequate opening summary without any attribution. As to the Kecia Ali-linked part, I am not sure who added it, but it has been present in the text for quite some time, attributed originally not just to Ali, but to both Ali and Spellberg I believe. You'd have to ask its originator which statements it paraphrases. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If the information can't be found in the source, then it doesn't meet the verifiability requirement.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced..

Androvie (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have full access to both the sources such that you are able to clearly verify or factcheck both statements? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Androvie (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And? What do Ali and Spellberg say in overall summary of the evidence related to Aisha's age, and its veracity? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is red herring fallacy. You're the one pushing the information with those sources, why are you asking me instead? Bring here the inline citations to where Ali and Spellberg say those, also the specific pages, because if you can't then they should be deleted. Androvie (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to email me the pages and I'll happily look at them myself. 39-40 from Spellberg, 133 from Ali. If you're not willing to tell us what the quotes on the page actually say, how does anyone know you actually have the sources? We can always tag it as 'failed verification' (according to you) and wait for someone who is more forthcoming to reveal what, precisely, the sources have to say on the matter, rather than obfuscate. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Or, as I mentioned, you can track down/use a tool to find out who added the lines and ask them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The original 'futility' line read: Spellberg finds attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage (or consummation) as an exercise in futility; Kecia Ali agrees. - so the material paraphrased may also be linked to pages 39-40 from Spellberg. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Here, Kecia p. 133

https://i.ibb.co/27zcGxn/Kecia-Ali-133.jpg

Spellberg p. 39-40

https://i.ibb.co/VQ0Pvc8/Spellberg-39.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/VxKWzjG/Spellberg-40.jpg

Nothing like that can be found there. Androvie (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Spellberg and Ali have described this issue in a great detail and summary of this detail is that proving real age of Aisha is an exercise in futility. However if we delete this statement then we have to present the all the arguments and fact which were brought by Ali and Spellberg which will have same message (just in a broader way) And i think, you would be upset from this. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Read again my comments above, I'm tired of repeating the same thing again and again. Androvie (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

To Banlhge453

Hi @Banlhge453, as I've told you many times already, please join the discussion here rather than just giving a short note on your repeated reverts of the edits you disagree with.

Your version of edits creates the impression that the Islamic scholars who adhere to the hadiths are just idiots with blind faith who follow something that is clearly wrong.

Even though a number of them have given their rebuttals to the arguments made against the hadiths regarding Aisha's age at marriage. Some of which I have included in my edit.

Regarding the reliability of Sunnipath and Gibril Haddad, it has already been explained by Dragoon17 in the section above.

Wikipedia emphasizes neutrality, not bias towards a particular side by rejecting reports or remarks that do not fit its agenda. Androvie (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie no, NPOV is not neutrality. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hm... okay maybe it's my error since I'm not a native english speaker, but it still doesn't invalidate my point.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Androvie (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We frankly have little need to reference any primary religious texts or religious opinions because we have secondary sources such as Ali and Spellberg that summarize the entire saga of this storm in a teacup from the classic era through to present. Ali is a gender specialist who covers it all in meticulous detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly stated on Wikipedia:Reliable sources that

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Whereas some of the arguments in this article, such as that "Aisha's age cannot be proven", are disagreed with by Islamic scholars who believe the hadiths have proven that thing. Androvie (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic. It cannot be proven, objectively, because there were no birth certificates around at the time. This was noted in a much early version of this section, but if such a glaringly obvious piece of information genuinely need stating out loud, we can restore it. Basically your claim here is that some Islamic scholars say it can be proven so we should believe them? Interesting arbiters of truth that you're choosing there. Probably not the most NPOV ones, methinks. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are actually hadiths that trace back to the person herself saying that she was 6-7 years old when she was married, that's more than enough I think. Asking for a birth certificate even though the person herself has given the information about her age is tantamount to a red herring fallacy. Androvie (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

In case it needs spelling out, hadiths cannot prove a thing. They are fairly rubbish primary sources. Not contestable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but the Islamic scholars (subject-matter expert) say otherwise. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not the place to accommodate only your opinion. Androvie (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six years old at the time of marriage. They have clearly no historical evidences because historical reliability of hadith and sirah, is itself, a topic of debate in academic circles. Nothing is proven. You're waging an ongoing discussion. Like (hadith reliability, opinion of individual scholar, list of arguments and counter arguments of both side). Unfortunately wikipedia page is not a place for all of this stuff. Banlhge453 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No, hadiths in Islam already have their own qualifications after they were evaluated by the imams of hadith (such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc).

Those qualifications are saheeh, hasan, daif, etc.

The majority of Muslims accept and recognize the hadiths of hasan grade and above as fundamental sources.

Plus we are talking about a character (Aisha) whose life story is found nowhere else but in the hadiths.

The funny thing is that you cast doubt on the authenticity of hadiths but accept some of them (of a lower grade) as true and others of a higher grade such as those from Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim as false. Androvie (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do not care about Islam's internal grading system for hadith. All hadith are primary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hence we defer to secondary sources written by subject-matter experts whose precise job it is to scrutinize all of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And those subject-matter experts include the Islamic scholars who refute the arguments made against the authenticity of the hadiths regarding Aisha's age being 6 to 7 at the time of marriage. But why are you deleting them? Androvie (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what the material from either of the Islamic scholars you recently added adds to the page. It basically amounts to: 'they don't like the modern assessments because they don't adhere to their traditional frameworks' - do we really need to state that traditional Islamic scholars do not like it when their traditions are challenged? Something of a guaranteed result. Also more linked to them not liking hadiths being disputed than the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So that's why you deleted it? because of that assumption of yours that they just don't like those assessments, not because you've already looked into it? Actually those Ulamas, such as Gibril Haddad, provide reasonable rebuttals, for example, the modern assessments say that all the narratives (regarding Aisha's age being 6-7 at marriage) are reported only by Hisham. Gibril Haddad refuted this by saying that there are more than eleven authorities among the Tabi'in that reported it directly from Aisha, and he's correct, as I've searched for it, there are more than one hadith regarding this that doesn't have Hisham in the chain of narration.

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3379

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422d

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3255

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422c

Regarding Asma's age too, there are multiple sources regarding this, not one of them is in the collections of saheeh hadiths, though, which means they do not meet the criteria of the highest reliable reports. They are from the tarikhs. The one that says Asma was ten years older than Aisha is from the less reliable one, which is from Abi al-Zinad; but the more reliable one from al-Dhahabi says there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, which matches the hadiths that say Aisha was 6-7 at the time of her marriage. Androvie (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation by Imam Bukhari and Muslim doesn't gurantee the authenticity of hadith. There is a huge debate on hadith reliability and just because some imam who was guided by God, collected those hadith doesn't mean that they will become automatically historical accurate. Historians like Patricia Crone and Hoyland have cast serious doubt on these issue. Just because only source to know about Aisha is hadith also doesn't mean that it becomes a historical fact. However it has been already mentioned that according to Bukhari, Aisha was seven at the time of marriage. What do you want know? Yes, I cast doubt on hadith because many well established scholars have and as far as Aisha's age is concerned, I've already made it clear that majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and while some disagree. There is no need to go in depth of both side's arguments because they are endless Banlhge453 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Saheeh means authentic, fyi. And wikipedia stressed neutral point of view which means

representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

It's fine for you to doubt the accuracy of the hadith and give some rebuttals, that's why I included them as well in my edits, but that doesn't mean you can reject if there are also rebuttals by the Islamic Scholars to the rebuttals from your side. Androvie (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

'Authentic' by Islamic standards does not mean 'of merit' here. An authentic primary source is still just a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In Islamic terms, hadith with a saheeh grade, means that hadith is one of the most reliable. All the records regarding Aisha come from the hadiths. It's funny that you talk about the history of Aisha but you dismiss the only sources about her as rubbish, etc. Androvie (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite, literally endless. Hence Kecia Ali dedicated a 45-page chapter of her book to the subject of issues such as this pertaining to Aisha, and her book makes no less than 30 mentions of Aisha in relation to her age. We do not need to repeat that exhaustive exercise here in this encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For an analogy, in the Wikipedia article about the earth, if we write:

- Scholars A based on the evidences that have been obtained concluded that the earth is sphere shaped

- But scholars B's assessment of the evidences concluded that the earth is actually flat shaped.

If we stop just there it's the same as we're creating the impression that the opinion of scholars B is the right one here, even though actually scholars A have given rebuttals to scholars B's rebuttal.

It's the same case with your edit now.

- Islamic scholars based on the Saheeh hadiths concluded that Aisha was 6-7 year at the time of marriage

- Some Muslim writers (actually Ahmadiyya), made an assessment based on one tradition regarding Asma's age concluded that Aisha might have been in her late teens when married.

If we stop there, it's the same as making the impression that the opinion of that some Ahmadiyya Muslim writers as the right one, even though Islamic Scholars, such as Gibril Haddad have given rebuttals that the tradition used by those Ahmadiyya Muslims was from the less reliable one, and the more reliable one about Asma's age actually matches the age Aisha of being 6-7 when being married. Androvie (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been already discussed. Bukhari mentions, she was seven at the time of marriage and majority of Muslim scholars take Bukhari as an authority while some disagree on this issue. Repeating the same thing and going in depth of both side's arguments is a waste of time. Because there is not only argument of Asma and Hisham, there are many arguments like death year of Aisha, conflicting hadith of Bukhari etc. Therefore if you present that some scholars say Aisha would have been older at the time of marriage and other scholars have countered it then this not end. There are also counter arguments from first side and then and then, it will go on. Therefore, please keep it brief as far as possible. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've explained regarding this above. Androvie (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References

New draft

User:TrangaBellam/Aisha Age - Currently under construction but feel free to suggest constructive improvements. Sfn-referencing is a MUST. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Hello everyone, I see the controversial part of this page is getting out of hand again. If it may be helpful I have gone through every sentence and looked into the citations. I've pasted the text below, except in cases where there is no controversy attached to any of it. I hope this is formatted correctly...

Sentence	Source	Source text
Islamic sources of the classical era differ on the subject of Aisha's age at the time of her marriage and its consummation	Spellberg 39-40	“The second list confirms the particulars of the marriage by explaining that A'isha was seven when she married the Prophet and nine when the union was consummated. A'isha's age is a major preoccupation in Ibn Sa'd where her marriage age varies between six and seven; nine seems constant as her age at the marriage's consummation. Only Ibn Hisham's biography of the Prophet mentions that A'isha may have been ten years old when the Prophet consummated the marriage.”
but it was a subject of considerable interest for earlier Sunni Muslim biographers, as her pre-menarcheal held implications about her virginity and Muslim virtue	Ali 133/155-199	In her magisterial study of the shifting treatment of Aisha over the centuries, the historian Denise Spellberg suggests that competition over status may have generated a need to affirm Aisha’s youth and purity: “All of these specific references to the bride’s age reinforce ‘A’isha’s pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity.” Insistence on her chastity is likely to have been prompted by other accounts that embroil her in scandal, such as the “affair of the necklace”
The claim of being the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to attract support in the disputes that arose over the succession to Muhammad.	Spellberg 34-40	"A'isha states that she was the only woman the Prophet married "as a virgin". This obviously prized though fleeting physical asset allowed A'isha to remind her husband that all his other wives, as widows, had been physically intimate with other men.” (pg 40) "The political implications of her proximity to the Prophet on his deathbed and, by extension, that of her father is suggestive in the matter of succession." (pg 38-39)
In a hadith from the Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at seven years of age	Spellberg 34-40	(uncontroversial)
Ibn Sa'd's corpus of biography holds her age at the time of marriage as between six and seven, and gives her age at consummation to be nine, while Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad suggest she was ten years old at consummation.	Spellberg 39-40	(uncontroversial, see first citation)
Al-Tabari notes that Aisha stayed with her parents after the marriage, which would be consummated only at nine years of age upon her reaching sexual maturity, but elsewhere remarks her to have been born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.	Ali 133, 155–199	(Ali citation refers back to Spellberg, page 197-198: "Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad.")
The topic "generated no significant reflection" among later Muslims and generally went unremarked-upon by early Orientalist writers, who viewed Muslim Arabs as engaging in exotic and unusual sexual practices that tended to "diverge from Western Christian norms"	Ali 133/155-199	“Aisha’s age preoccupied early Sunni scholars but generated no significant reflection by later Muslims.” “ Nor did medieval or early modern Christian polemicists care; they were bothered instead by Muhammad’s general debauchery, as manifested in his polygamy, his followers’ practice of sodomy, and—if they had to single out any—his marriage to Zaynab, which raised the specter of incest.” “For authors of this era, Muslims represent only one instance of a category of backward or primitive Others who diverge from Western Christian norms”
Aisha's betrothal and marriage to Muhammad are presented as ordinary in Islamic literature, with Aisha's marriage fitting the norms of Arabian tribes in that era.	Ahmed 51-54	"The details of Aisha's betrothal and marriage indicate that parents before and around the time of the rise of Islam might arrange marriages between children, male or female, and their peers or elders. and supervision”
From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works addressing the criticisms	Ali 133/155-199	“In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the political motivations behind it. A less common strategy recalculates Aisha’s age at marriage based on other indicators in the source” “Purportedly objective American and European accounts may wax somewhat less rhapsodic about Muhammad’s sterling virtues as a husband, but like apologetic biographers, they still emphasize both the connection with Abu Bakr forged by the marriage and the context of early Arabia”
Some modern evaluations of Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, have produced estimates that she may have been over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.	Barlas 128, Brown 146-147	(Barlas already given in citation)
Attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation have been described as an exercise in futility.	Ali 133/155-199	“Aisha and possibly Khadija are the only wives whose ages have been the focus of any real interest. In both cases, any attempt to corroborate or refute specific figures is doomed to failure. Better to ask why the sources care.”

Having looked at all of these, I think most of the sentences are accurate. There are only a couple of things I’d change, and I think these are non-controversial: “The claim of being the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to attract support in the disputes that arose over the succession to Muhammad.” I think is sort of accidental synthesis of two different ideas cited above, perhaps “Her status as the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees” or something would be better. I think one of Androvie’s additions should remain, namely changing the first sentence to “Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation”, which is in fact what the cited sources say and the current version is needlessly vague. Also the word “status” should be added after pre-menarcheal.

I also have a proposed addition: a note about Abbas Aqqad was added, I believe by Androvie. To me it is directly relevant to mention the first Arab to pen a revisionist take as well as the backlash to it (and why these works existed in the first place), as this was a matter not just of opinion or faith but of law. This is from Brown's book:

It would be much harder to extricate Islamic reformist ideals from the tangle of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. ... The person who rose to challenge ‘what the orientalists say about Aisha marrying when she was a child’ ... Abbas ‘Aqqad was an accomplished and prolific Arabic prose stylist ... His modest hesitance evinces respect for the classical Islamic tradition of Hadith criticism while constructing an argument against its consensus on the issue. Historical reports differ on Aisha’s age, he explains, going on to argue that she was actually between thirteen and fifteen years old when her marriage was consummated ... Aqqad cleverly skirts the authenticated Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari in which Aisha herself reports that she was nine at the time, addressing it only obliquely by suggesting that Aisha was fond of emphasizing her childhood spent in the nascent days of Islam ... More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet’s life... Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari’s august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus on marriage age. No member of Egypt’s religious establishment showed more displeasure with ‘Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir.

The text mentions that "exposure to Western norms and moralization efforts" prompted the review of the commonly-accepted young age of marriage allowed for girls at the time, which was itself based on Aisha's young age. Brown seems to be an accepted source here so I would argue for a sentence or two about this to be included. Of Androvie's other additions, the ones pulled from the Indonesian paper, I do personally think Muhammad Ali (the Ahmadi figure not the boxer) is relevant, both because he put forward the first known recalculated-age publication and because several figures within his sect built off his work and propagated those ideas; certainly to me this seems as worthy of a note as the current penultimate sentence in the section. But I would not specifically fight for its inclusion.

To me, with those changes, this section would be as good as it can be.

Does anyone have any issues with any of this? I will make a draft if there are no objections.

Dragoon17 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia Policy WP:RS requires:

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

I think this line:

Al-Tabari ... remarks her to have been born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

should be attributed to the translator (Blankinship) who translated volume 11 of the Tabari's tarikh (each volume has a different translator it seems), or the secondary sources' authors, because another view from the Islamic scholars (subject-matter experts) such as Gibril Haddad, says that:

Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.

indicating the line could've been mistranslated from the Arabic source, which it makes things a lot more sense, since that line also contradicts another Tabari's own report. I also think that remark of Gibril should be included because it's stated on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Androvie (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Experts sometimes make mistakes and sometimes "simplify" things by omitting what they consider unimportant truths. If a translation of Tabari says X, this should either (a) be attributed to Tabari, or (b) to Blankinship's translation of Tabari. Stuff in the translator's introduction should be attributed to Blankinship.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information. Androvie (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have any reliable source published by a peer reviewed journal which presents another interpretation of Tabri then feel free to edit. But if your sources are Islam scholars such as Gibril Haddad then still spellberg's way of interpretation would be preferred. However if you find Haddad's way of interpretation which can be considered as equally reliable and strong as spellberg's then you're welcome to edit. Haddad is an expert in Islamic field but Spellberg is an academic expert which makes her more reliable authority to rely in wikipedia. Banlhge453 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough with your red herring fallacy. Both are experts on the matter and both of their words can be included in the article. Wikipedia has stated in its rules that if sources disagree then the quoted information must be attributed to the author. Furthermore, the subject of the article is an Islamic figure, so of course the expert on Islam is preferred. Androvie (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You really want to continue making personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you consider it as a personal attack then feel free to report it, just as you reported me for breaking the 3 reverts rule, which was failed. I'm just tired of his attempts to distract the discussion. Androvie (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's understand the scenario. We have two sources:

(1) Spellberg's way of interpretation of Tabri account which is published in a peer reviewed journal.

(2) An Islamic scholar's way of interpretation of Tabri's account which is not published in any peer reviewed journal and should be treated as more like a personal interpretation.

Here is the conclusion: Spellberg's way of interpretation would be preferred because it is more reliable and on the other hand, Haddad's way of interpretation doesn't matter for us because it is not verified in that way and is more like a personal interpretation of a text. If you have any credible source which presents another interpretation of Tabri's text then feel free to edit but just because an Islamic scholar who is typing in his home and giving personal interpretation doesn't mean that we compare his way of interpretation to an academic expert like Kecia ali and Spellberg whose each statement has been verified. Try another way or bring a credible source which has the capacity to stand in front of of spellberg and Kecia ali's standards. Banlhge453 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

wp:v

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Androvie (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright folks here is my draft. Tell me if anyone has a problem with it before I put it up. Per the very long argument in the section above this, I've avoided mentioning any specific "evidence" or "counter-evidence" at all, just stating the broad idea of one "side" and the same on the other "side". Sources are all the ones above plus one line from the Indonesian paper about Muhammad Ali, and I got rid of two redundant sources. Think it's as short as I can make it while trying to find a happy medium here. Dragoon17 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation. In a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at seven years of age. Ibn Sa'd's biography holds her age at the time of marriage as between six and seven, and gives her age at consummation to be nine, while Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad suggests she may have been ten years old at consummation. Al-Tabari notes that Aisha stayed with her parents after the marriage, which was consummated only at nine years of age, but elsewhere seems to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

The subject was of considerable interest for early Sunni Muslim biographers, as her pre-menarcheal status held implications about her virginity and virtue. The claim of being the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees.

Aisha's marriage to Muhammad is presented as ordinary in Islamic literature, fitting the norms of Arabian tribes in that era, and the topic "generated no significant reflection" among later Muslims. It generally went unremarked-upon by early Orientalist writers, who viewed Muslim Arabs as engaging in exotic and unusual sexual practices that tended to "diverge from Western Christian norms". From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time.

The growing criticism directed against the marriage of Muhammad and Aisha, combined with exposure to Western norms, prompted some writers to recalculate Aisha’s age at marriage altogether. Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad, an Egyptian novelist, put forward an argument that Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation, while the prominent Lahore Ahmadi figure Muhammad Ali published similar works. These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources. Kecia Ali describes attempts to prove the "real age" of Aisha at the time of her marriage as an exercise in futility.

Dragoon17 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

this part

upon her reaching sexual maturity

Is it written in Spellberg's book? Androvie (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will look to see if that exact wording is there. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Could not find it in Spellberg. Found this in Ali: "Tabari includes several reports that that the marriage took place when she was six or seven. He once notes that “when he married her she was young, unfit for intercourse." However, he says nothing about puberty and consistently states that consummation occurred when she was nine." I did find this in Ali, where she is quoting the novelist Sherry Jones: "they consummated the marriage later, when she had begun her menstrual cycle. Although the tender age may seem shocking to us now, scholars generally agree that the marriage was motivated by politics", however I do not think she is considered a scholar per se. (She wrote a fiction book about Aisha). Perhaps we should just leave that word off and just end the sentence with "nine". Dragoon17 (talk)

Okay. Also, I see that you only took the latter part of this text from Spellberg's.

Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad

I think you should include the former part as well, since otherwise, it would appear as if the only record regarding Aisha's date of birth is only the latter part, even though there's another report that matches the sahih hadiths regarding Aisha's age at the time of marriage. Androvie (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That part is actually already on the page in the "early life" intro, so I don't think it needs to be repeated. However I do see that it's currently cited to Ibn Saad himself and some people might object to that, so I will change it to Spellberg citing Ibn Saad. Dragoon17 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I still think quoting those Spellberg's lines as their entirety is important so people don't get mistaken though. I mean, some people like to jump into one section without reading the earlier parts, but if that's your decision... I won't fight for its inclusion.

Btw your draft got separated from your comment above, I suggest you put them together and move your signature to the bottom of it so people don't get confused. Androvie (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have two problem

(1) End statement of your draft "Kecia Ali finds or describes attempts in proving real age of Aisha as an exercise in futility" should not be not placed and rather previous statement that "attempts in proving the real age of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation has been described as an exercise in futility" should be used. Because old version of this page has stated that both Ali and Spellberg find attempts in proving the real age of Aisha as an exercise in futility. However it's also a common sense that age of Aisha is not something which can be objectively verified because at that there was no birth certificates (this statement was also there in an old version). So it's better to not add your last statement regarding "exercise in futility"

(2) You should have to include the paragraph derived from Barlas -- "Some modern evaluations of Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, have produced estimates that she may have been over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage."

Last: Please try to keep this discussion only in this way because by naming two Islamic scholars, you're opening the gate for further opportunity for editors to present their view in this section by going in depth of their arguments which would create a havoc. Banlhge453 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:RS

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Androvie (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm? The last sentence is the one currently on the page ("Attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation have been described as an exercise in futility", cited to Ali). She did not mention the absence of birth certificates. I do not see that in Spellberg either. Maybe a different page?

I am not going to include "point"/"counterpoint" examples, as I said. Saying a hadith in al-Dhahabi says X invites someone to edit with "but there's a variant hadith that says Y". Stating the overall conclusion of this particular strand of scholars ("Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation") should be enough imo.

The only reason I included these two particular names is because they are the first to pen recalculated age publications, and later writers built upon their works. I do not want to include every single Ahmadi etc writer to do so, so I figure the first guy to write it is enough. However, if people would prefer just the first Arab writer, the one mentioned in Brown, that is OK by me. Tell me your thoughts. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

is because they are the first to pen recalculated age publications - What? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this until just now. Please clarify what you mean? By first I mean initial, the first to write on this topic... perhaps the language is unclear. This is stated by the Indonesian paper directly: "Muhammad Ali (1874-1951), leader of the Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam between 1914 to 1951 AD, was the first Muslim writer to openly challenge the classical understanding of Aisha (RA)'s age when she married the Prophet (SAW)." Again I do not really care if this particular line is in there and I'm not interested in fighting over it, just wanted to clarify if the wording was unclear. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Revert

Androvie, please explain the basis of your revert than waving at a non-existent consensus. This is an article on Aisha; not Aisha's age at time of marriage.

Why do we care about what an Ahmadi figure had to say about the issue, sourced from some sub-par journal? What is the significance of the Egyptian journalist? The very recalculation of her age (as Ali notes) is a product of postmodern anxieties and they failed to convince anybody. That's all needs to be here. Not specifics of who said what.

Why did you revert the rest of the garden-variety edits? Do you want to debate them as well? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

There's no article named "Aisha's age at time of marriage", it's all included in this article of Aisha.

You were part of this discussion before, but you left on August 28, 2022, when you claimed you were going to respond regarding the unclear Arabic modifier.

The discussion ended on September 5th with a consensus. No one has objected to it since then.

You have also been continuously making edits on other Wikipedia articles since you left this discussion on August 28, but now after 20 days have passed, you suddenly came back to this article again and started making edits without talking it out first.

Regarding your question,

Why do we care about what an Ahmadi figure had to say about the issue, sourced from some sub-par journal? What is the significance of the Egyptian journalist?

Firstly, It's already been explained by Dragoon17 above. Secondly, as per wikipedia policy WP:RS:

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Then, about your argument:

The very recalculation of her age (as Ali notes) is a product of postmodern anxieties and they failed to convince anybody. That's all needs to be here. Not specifics of who said what.

That's a subjective statement. Some people are actually convinced by that, as what's being written in the article: "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments,"

That's what is said in the source according to Dragoon17, if you want to challenge that, please bring over here the text that supports your claim from the source, or a screenshot of the page containing the sentences, like I did above.

Regarding

Why did you revert the rest of the garden-variety edits? Do you want to debate them as well?

What garden variety edit are you talking about?

Oh yeah, I also noticed that you changed this line on this article

From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time.

to

From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, but they contextualized the marriage as appropriate for its place and time

As far as I know, "as did works" and "but they" have totally different meanings. Can you explain your basis of doing that? Androvie (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Silence does not imply consensus - I left off the page being fed up of your antics. Let us deal with issues, one by one:

These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims.

Please cite the page-number and the particular passage from Brown, which supports this observation. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, suddenly making edits without talking it out after being gone for 20 days after claiming that you were going to respond regarding the unclear Arabic modifier (and you still haven't responded regarding it). I believe that's what people call being sneaky.

All that aside, you should ask @Dragoon17 regarding that. He was the one making that edit. If that part doesn't exist in the cited source, and if he can't provide other sources regarding it, then I believe it should be removed. But that doesn't mean it justifies you being able to change the other parts as well without discussing them first here. Androvie (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie: I do not believe citations where the page reference is "142–155". Wikipedia has far too much of editors basing their edits on what other Wikipedia articles say, without ever checking the references they cite. One editor told me that it was unreasonable for me to expect him/her to get hold of and read books he/she was citing. He got an indefinite block a few days later.

For the sentence: "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources." please could you tell us what page of the cited source supports the sentence. If some parts of the sentence are supported by one page, whilst other parts are supported by a different page, then please tell us which page supports which part of the sentence.

If you cannot do this, because you do not have access to the source, then the best thing to do would be to revert to TrangaBellam's preferred version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read again carefully what I've written above. Androvie (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume that means that you do not have access to the source you cited, and therefore the citation cannot be relied on.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't make all of those changes just because one part is being problematic, you should add the template first to the part "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims"

And give some time for @Dragoon17 to respond.

If he doesn't respond in some days, then I agree that part alone should be removed.

Regarding the changing of the other parts, they also need to be discussed first. Androvie (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Trying to discuss 10 different things under one heading does not work. So I picked one of them. What I hoped for was a quick answer giving the page number(s) requested. Then we could have moved on to the next thing.

I think the best thing would be for Androvie to self-revert and discuss the various things one at a time.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The [verification needed] template is the wrong template. What we need are precise page numbers for the citation. This is only possible if somebody reads the source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the consensus version, you should've complained to him before it being published 13 days ago, just like I previously complained regarding a few parts of his draft that don't exist in the cited sources (Since some of them also came from the previous edits by other editors as well), which then he confirmed and removed.

The only problematic part now is "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims"

The sentences after that sentence can be found on the source, page 147-148

More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet's life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind 'Aqqad's defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari's august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus of marriage age. No member of Egypt's religious establishment showed more displeasure with 'Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excrocriating the famous wordsmith's book on the Prophet's most active wife.

At the heart of Shakir's criticism was the question of the prophet locus of truth in Muslim life. He states and restates that Aisha's recollection of her own marriage is the lynchpin of historical and scriptural truth on this issue. Her report was categorically authenticated by the great Hadith critics of the classical era and sealed by the consensus of the medieval jurist. 'Aqqad's insinuation that she exaggerated her youth was thus tantamount to calling the Prophet's wife a liar. Against Aisha's own authenticated testimony, moreover, 'Aqqad brought nothing more than a flimsily cobbled-together argument, which Shakir contends rested on flawed premises. For example, there was no 'normal' engagement age for Arabs of the era.

Androvie (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentences after that sentence can be found on the source, page 147-148 - Engaging for the sake of engaging won't save you from being sanctioned. I and Toddy had requested citations for that sentence; not sentences (or paragraphs) before and after that sentence. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were done with this page. Hello again everyone.

As I said while putting together the draft: if someone has a problem with the Indonesian paper (which does indeed say that, I used a translator but a native of the language can confirm; the author is a professor and the publisher is a university, it's peer-reviewed, so I don't know quite what the problem is but I won't argue) then it can be left off. I do wish this had been brought up several weeks ago though?

In the prior version before the new round of edits and reverts, we can simply remove it altogether:

Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad, an Egyptian novelist, was one of the more prominent figures to put forward an argument that Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation. More conservative Muslim scholars objected to these arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources.

The rest of that paragraph is cited to Brown, with the text quoted in the Citations section of the talk page above this.

If that small section is the only objection then I suppose that's all that needs to be done?

I do not object to the current version (although I notice this line has been added back-"Aisha herself would leverage her virginity to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees, in the successional disputes that ensued upon his death"-and I think should be removed, please look above in the citations section for that; also I agree that "From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, but they contextualized the marriage as appropriate for its place and time" is an odd change), although much of it seems off in terms of grammar to me. Perhaps someone could proofread it.

I don't think the proposed draft in the section underneath this is an improvement over the current version and most of its additions would fit better on the Criticism of Muhammad page.

Dragoon17 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

My framing was poor but your writeup — From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time — was quite inaccurate. The latter kind of contextualization had been appearing long before the polemics gained momentum. As was, It generally went unremarked-upon by early Orientalist writers, who viewed Muslim Arabs as engaging in exotic and unusual sexual practices that tended to "diverge from Western Christian norms".

Please point out specific issues with my draft - now incorporated into the article with sfn referencing - and I will be happy to incorporate improvements. Fwiw, Iskandar has already supported the draft version. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dragoon17, TrangaBellam my understanding of the sourcing position of one of the contested sentences is as follows:

• These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources.

Are there no sources for These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims?

Note that it is much more useful to cite pages 147-148 than pages 142–155.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Yes, it is in the Indonesian paper cited in the draft above. I do not mind getting rid of that sentence, though.

Tranga, I am not sure how "From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time" is "inaccurate" or even objectionable. You can see a quote from the relevant pages in the section directly above this: "In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the political motivations behind it." Regardless, I am uninterested in fighting over the matter, as I see that the current version is unlikely to be changed. My only suggestion on the page at the moment is that it is grammatically strange, has an overuse of dashes and "etc"s and could benefit from copy-editing. That is all. Dragoon17 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging for user @TrangaBellam --- Androvie (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

BTW, @Dragoon17 Can you please fix the grammar on the part that Tranga just put into the article? I see some mistakes, but I'm still far from native level myself. Androvie (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of view that aisha's age was 18 or 19.

Androvie, you reverted a line "Aisha's age, according to a range of calculations with respect to Asma bint Abi Bakr appears to be 18 or 19 during her marriage to Muhammad." Many muslims especially shia that do not recognize sunni sources like Sahih al-Bukhari as fully authentic, and believe that aisha age was 18 or 19. The sources I've given on scolars such as Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni al-Qazwini and Shaykh Dr Ridhwan ibn Saleem, just demonstrate that. Also the line was completely neutral. On Wikipedia we have to provide views of all sides. I'am not objecting to the content that her age seems to be 6 or 9. I'am just putting the view of other side. The readers can themselves use the sources and think for themselves. That's it. Let me put that line back. It's more helpful and informational for the readers. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

Assalamu Alaikum, I hope you and your family are doing well. Please remove images from this page which show Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) or Hazrat Aisha. I know there faces are not showing in images, it is hidden with white paint but please remove images because it is forbidden to make an image of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), his family members and friends. It's my humble request to you. ALLAH will give you highest rewards, INSHAALLAH. Best Regards, Muhammad Suleman Muhammad Suleman Hamza (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia does not censor historical images, least of all based on contemporary religious sensitivities. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Auto-archiving period: 1 month"

The "Auto-archiving period: 1 month" is way too fast. Can someone who has knowledge of how to change this, change it? 3 months may be too fast. It might be nice if it could be set to "if it's hugely long and also really old", but that might require more A.I. than is programmed. Ha. But I don't know. :) Misty MH (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify: "The traditions regarding Aisha habitually opposed ideas unfavorable to women in efforts to elicit social change."

Can someone put this into English that is clear? "The traditions regarding Aisha habitually opposed ideas unfavorable to women in efforts to elicit social change." After 3 reads, I am still uncertain of what is intended. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Double paragraph under "Age at time of marriage"

One of the paragraphs in this passage is duplicated, I don't have the privileges to fix it. 222.154.106.239 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Kornatice (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Islam

What is the full name of aysha raliallahoo anha 2402:4000:B18C:A73C:14FD:779F:D586:996E (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Full protection

Revert-warring in the article is unacceptable. To preserve stability, I have full-protected this article for one month while the current content dispute is worked out. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding using “rebuked” word.

Is there any accurate reference for this statement “The prophet Muhammed was rebuked publicly by his wives”? According to several Hadithes, his wives asked as a meaning of a question like that why we are doing it in this way rather than doing any tradition, but they asked for learning like if there is a new statement came from the God. So I suggest for correction the words of “rebuked” and “fought” by replacing the word of “asked”. 5.173.8.214 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "rebuked" is being used in a quotation of a cited source. Quoting a source requires using the words in the source, not substituting other words. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection

Ffs, if one editor is trying to mainstream a fringe narrative using poor non-academic sources and tampering with the longstanding version w/o any consensus, the way out is to impose a P-block. Not sysop-protect the page! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I came here to add new arguments from Joshua Little's thesis but .... TrangaBellam (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If you’d be so kind, can you post your draft here? Androvie (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Any edit requests proposed during the protection period will be considered. If non-controversial, I can add it in. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)