Talk:Aisha

Editing

According to Wikipedia,If aisha(r.a.) was born in 604 A.D. ,then at her marriage in 620 AD ,She should be 16years old ,but u show 6 years old ,how do u count, although it is wrong birth date ,she was born in 594 AD ,so edit it false information 2409:40D2:3F:4A58:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Try actually reading what the article says, as well as the cited sources. And maybe suggest specific suggestions for improvements rather than making empty complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: It seems that the birth year of this subject (Aisha) in the article has just been changed en masse by @Mohamed Osama AlNagdy by using an unreliable source www.muhammad-pbuh.com as the basis in his edit summaries.

However, some reliable sources that I've checked; Watt says in his book Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman page 102:

One or two domestic events are dated in 623. The most important was the consummation of Muhammad's marriage with 'A'ishah, which took place in April when the bride could only have been about nine.

623–9 = 614 or maybe 615 since the Arabs used lunar calendar back then, which is 11–12 days shorter than our solar calendar.

Rodinson appears to agree with Watt, in his book Muhammad, page 150–1:

A few months after the hegira, Muhammad and Abu Bakr decided to bring their families from Mecca. ... Muhammad's wedding to the little girl followed soon afterwards. This is what 'A'isha apparently had to say about it: The Messenger of God married me when I was six years old and the wedding was celebrated when I was nine.

As well as this Tilman Nagel's book published by De Gruyter, page 301:

‘A’isha bt. abi Bakr’s marriage to Muhammad dates back to the Meccan period; the contract was concluded when she was a six-year-old child; Muhammad consummated the marriage in Medina when she was nine years old.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I see, that's where the 604 year came from. I didn't notice it had been changed in the article, which is why I answered the way I did.

Honestly, this wasn't an issue for centuries, and only seems to have become a point of contention only in the last few decades, with rampant accusations of pedophelia and revisionist apologists coming out of the woodwork. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be changed to the correct age.which is 16-17 Drymite (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the consensus among reliable sources and Aisha's own words. 16/17 is "correct" only to apologists. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus doesn’t always mean truth. The reliable sources on either side can be corrupt. We all know how propaganda works and there was much propaganda even during Aisha’s life time, including blaming her for infidelity by Muslims themselves. I would suggest to try to avoid biases when we deal with history we did not witness in person. Regardless of your feelings or mine, the age is in fact disputed, and that needs to be acknowledged. I have provided you with valid reasons to cause reasonable doubt using Sahih Bukhari 4993. Since you or I don’t get to decide what everyone else thinks, I’d recommend adding the point I made as a valid argument. Xolta05 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Go with what the reliable sources say. Do you have any reliable sources that say 16-17? Also, using additional accounts to support your argument is blockable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A. All instances of Aisha's birth are taken from different hadith that scholars collected. Sahih Bukhari is the main one of these and my reference is from one of the hadith in there. [1]https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4993

If you read from 10th line from the bottom, it says Aisha was of a playing age when a certain verse came out. That verse came out in 614 during the battle of Badr.

It's a verified hadith so should have the same weight as any other hadith that you are using as reference.

B. I do not have any multiple accounts. Not sure where you got that idea from but you're welcome to verify it. This is my only account. Xolta05 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Also looks like my initial message was removed? Xolta05 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Xolta05: Even if we were to derive material from that hadith, which is a primary source, that hadith doesn't mention anywhere that Surah Al Qamar was revealed in the year 614. So what you're doing is original research, which is even more unacceptable. And just FYI, it is mentioned here that the Surah Al Qamar was revealed 5 years before the Hijrah (622), which means in the year 617, not 614. A child at the age of 3–4 can already walk around and play, which fits Aisha's description of herself at that time. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hz. Aisha’s age comes from a comparison with her elder sister, Hz. Asma, who was ten years older than Hz. Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi, the renowned author of Mishkath, mentions in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal) that Hz. Asma passed away in the year 73 AH at the age of 100, shortly after the martyrdom of her son, Abdullah Ibn Zubair. By subtracting the year of Hazrat Asma’s death (73 AH) from her age at that time (100), we can conclude that she (Hz. Asma, elder sister of Hz. Aisha) was 27 years old during the Hijra. This indicates that Hz. Aisha was 17 years old during the same period. Since all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hz. Aisha in the year 2 AH, it can be firmly stated that she was 19 at that time, refuting the claim made in the aforementioned hadiths that she was nine years old. Emroza (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the typical apologia on this issue, synthesizing weak reports to conclude that the strong reports are wrong. The saying that the age difference between the sisters is ten only comes from the weak report of Ibn Abu-Zinad, and in fact he didn't just say "ten" but "ten or so" (بعشر سنين أو نحوها) [2], which means he was uncertain with his statement and it could be as high as 19. In any case, your claim cannot be included because it violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOURCE (which includes WP:IIS), and WP:FRINGE, among others. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok reliable sources by the prophets law at the time. We know confirmed that the prophet did not take anybody below the age of 14 to the battlefield. Which indicated aishia has to be a minimum of 14 years of age. Also we know confirmed that she had already gone thru puberty by the time... also which 9 year old girl.is capable of cooking -cleaning and being able to participate on the battle field. Drymite (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal Life

Correct These Stuff Which I Am Telling You About.

Totally Wrong These All Stuff And Informations If You All Wanna Put Any Information About QURAN Don't Put It By Your Own Read QURAN First Educate Yourselfs Then Educate Other People Put 100% What's Wrote In QURAN Do You Get It Keep In Mind These All Cause Of Your False Informations People Willing Get Wrong Educated And It Willing Effect Our Religion I Hope You Understand

1st One Is Remove Your Drawings It's Prohibited In ISLAM To Show Drawing Pictures About Prophets Its Disrespectful..

2nd One Is In Your Drawing Some Lady Touching The Person Feet Of Man And You Referring That With Our Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (S.A.W) Show Me Narrative Where Does It Says Lady Touching Feet Of Our Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD (S.A.W).

4th Is The About Jealousy Of Hazrat AISHA (R.A) From Hazrat KHADIJA (R.A) Describe It Why She Was Getting Jealous Of Her Explain The Reasons That The People Get To Know Don't Think Negative About Her Jealousy And Why Our Holy Prophet Hazrat MUHAMMAD (S.A.W) Loved Alot His First Wife Hazrat KHADIJA (R.A) Reasons Behind..

Replace entire article with Dutch counterpart

I have written the Dutch version of this article: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aïsja

I have a way more accurate and detailed biography with historical sources. I would appreciate if someone with editing privileges would translate the page and copy paste it here. A main difference is the age of Aisha being 15-19 instead of the younger age, this makes more sense considering other chronological events and mathematics 94.157.195.134 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That Dutch version looks to contain a lot of original research, especially the “Islamitische schattingen” section. I’m not sure of how they operate there, but we've got WP:NOR policy here, which strictly forbids such a practice. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

According to some other more reliable scholars Aisha was 18 years old when they got married. Abi00024 (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Recalculation of Aisha's age: WP:FRINGE & WP:FALSEBALANCE

@JooneBug37: You added to the article text:

Some 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 could have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage.

However, out of the four sources you have provided, these two

• Ali, Muhammad (1997). Muhammad the Prophet. Ahamadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-913321-07-2. Archived from the original on 1 January 2016.
• Ayatollah Qazvini. "Ayesha married the Prophet when she was young? (In Persian and Arabic)". Archived from the original on 26 September 2010.

are clearly not independent or reliable sources. (See WP:SOURCE)
Meanwhile, this one:

• A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. pp. 146–47. ISBN 978-1-78074-420-9.

doesn't talk about any recalculation based on her sister Asma's age at all, but

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 and how young she was during the faith’s formative days. ‘Aqqad thus allows his readers to reconcile their faith in the Prophet’s complete rectitude and even in Islam’s collective historical corpus with what many had come to accept as the ‘natural’ and ideal norms for marriage.

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 on 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 excoriating the famous wordsmith’s book on the Prophet’s most active wife.

The only reliable source that supports your addition is the following one:

• Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126.

On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.

However, the author has released a revised edition of the book in which that statement appears to no longer exist, seemingly having been retracted. And on the other hand, Kecia Ali, in her "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014) published by Harvard University Press, p.173, states:

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 politi cal motivations behind it. A less common strategy recalculates Aisha’s age at marriage based on other indicators in the sources.

Added to the fact that the theory departs significantly from a plethora of reliable sources which state that the marriage occured when Aisha was 6 and the consummation when she was 9. These mean your addition is clearly a WP:FRINGE, and thus, its inclusion is WP:UNDUE and creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: I agree, and I have removed this passage from criticism of Muhammad, which is where it was copied from. In that article, the passage is off-topic as well, because it isn't actually criticism of Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, Concerning WP:FALSEBALANCE's "otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world", which would mean that a perspective if it represents a minority stance, may be considered for inclusion in the article, provided that the content explicitly acknowledges its minority status.

So strictly adhering to the above to the above, right in the second paragraph after Al-Tabari's perspective is mentioned, might I include "Revisionist based on other sources of information, estimate that she must have been 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage, however these are dismissed by majority of Fundamentalists(or Traditionalists)."

The above wording neatly makes it clear that the viewpoint is that of a minority and is rejected by the majority.

The reason for that is that this issue regarding Aisha's age has caused constant nuisance, disruptions and has became a source of animosity among different editors. Incorporating the above inclusion might serve as a potential concurrence.

In addition to the source of Asma Barlas, a few of those might suffice:

Let me know what you think. StarkReport (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: Firstly, those websites are clearly not reliable sources, especially for a historical figure like this. Secondly, regarding Barlas, I have already explained above. Thirdly, those who mention that Aisha's marriage took place when she was 6 and the consummation when she was 9 are not just the people you call "fundamentalists" or "traditionalists" but rather top-tier secular historians; it is their words that are required to be reported on Wikipedia, not religiously-driven writers who clearly have a vested interest in defending their religion (See WP:SOURCE, which also includes WP:IIS). Fourth, please read WP:FALSEBALANCE again, but now more thoroughly:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

"In their proper context" here means in the articles devoted to them, not side by side with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. WP:DUE

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, When I wrote "fundamentalists" I did not necessarily means to use the exact verbatim. We can write "dismissed by historians."

Fringe theories like the some mentioned above are obviously very outlandish and implausible. Scientific explanations exist to firmly refute these fringe assertions. However, we are talking about bunch of religious texts that by nature will always be open to interpretation and analysis. We might need to update to provide more timely views on this dispute which is gaining traction in the Muslim world.

Considering the absence of a dedicated article specifically addressing this controversy concerning age, it becomes very WP:Due to include it here. StarkReport (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What? Which part of WP:DUE says that you can include fringe theory and place it alongside commonly accepted mainstream scholarship if there is no specific article devoted to the theory? Instead, it tells us to omit it altogether. You also seem to not understand our WP:OR policy, as evidenced by this comment of yours.

When I wrote "fundamentalists" I did not necessarily means to use the exact verbatim. We can write "dismissed by historians."

Looks like WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, WP:COI, and timesink issues here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the amount of differing perspectives given above as well as in :

Some contemporary scholars such as Mawlana Muhammad Farooq Khan (Maqsood 1996), Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmad, Habib al-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi (Kandhalvi 1997), Jasser Auda (Auda 2018), Salah al-Din al-Idlibi (Mol 2018), and Muslim authors such as Ridhwan Muhammad Saleem (Muhammad Saleem 2008) and Nilofar Ahmed (Ahmed 2012)

as well as Ayatollah Qazvini and Asma Barlas.

It seems far from fringe views. Dismissing all of these perspective completely is just a violation of WP:NPOV which is non-negotiable

@Anachronist, What do you think of the below:

"Some Muslim scholars engaging in Historical revisionism contend her age to be eighteen or nineteen based on other sources; however, these are dismissed by the majority of historians."

One, we have explicitly made it clear that the perspective is that of a minority(Even though it is of a considerable), Second, we have mentioned the mainstream views in more than 5 paragraphs, Third, we have noted that the differing perpective is held as Historical revisionism.

It strictly upholds WP:FALSEBALANCE. StarkReport (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: Please read our WP:SOURCE policy that we should

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

What is independent source? According to WP:IIS:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

Religiously motivated so-called scholars and writers who have vested interest in defending their religion clearly do not meet that criteria, so no. As far as I know, fringe theories like the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, the earth is flat, alternative medicine, etc. have more proponents than that, but we still regard them as fringe theories because they deviate significantly from the prevailing or mainstream (independent) scholarship. Also note that speculative history or pseudohistory, to which this revisionist theory belongs, is also mentioned in WP:FALSEBALANCE as something that should not be legitimized through comparison with accepted academic scholarship.

Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just WP:DONTGETIT as evidenced by the above reply of your.

Legitimizing it would mean treating these ideas as valid or credible by associating them with established and accepted academic scholarship. Whereas, we have already discredited it as Historical revisionism that is rejected by the majority of scholars.

Again plese read carefully on WP:FALSEBALANCE:

"otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world,"

which is exactly the below wording does:

"Some Muslim scholars contend her age to be eighteen or nineteen based on other sources; however, these are rejected by the majority of historians as engaging in Historical revisionism."

Also read

When considering "due impartiality" ... [we are] careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance"

Are we discussing established scientific facts or a bunch of religious texts with uncertain nature subject to never-ending interpretation? StarkReport (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

We may need third opinions of other editors, @Apaugasma, @Toddy1 @Mhhossein, @TrangaBellam Any penny for your thoughts?

In consideration of the nature of this discourse, which pertains to a religious article rather than a scientific one, it would be pertinent and in accordance with WP:Relevant to include a concise mention of the contemporary perspectives held by religious scholars. Recognizing the fact that the perspective is not accepted by the majority of scholars. Isn't the wording I gave in the previous reply satisfactory? StarkReport (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

answering ping I'm sorry, but I'm a bit out of my depth when it comes to this extremely thorny and controversial subject, and I'm not willing to dive into this for the coming week. I will say that Asma Barlas (whose work I've read) holds tendentious views and is given to make unsubstantiated claims which should only be reported if and in the way that other, more reliable sources report them, with explicit attribution ('according to Asma Barlas ...').

In general, authors like Barlas who explicitly self-identify as Muslim scholars and who write from an explicitly Islamic religious perspective should all be treated as primary sources on this topic, i.e. their views should only be given if and as discussed by secular secondary sources. This will not only guarantee that the article meets minimum quality requirements, but it will also make it easier for editors to come to a consensus on what should or should not be included in the article (if a reliable, secular secondary source discusses another contemporary scholar's view on the subject, whoever it is, it's good to go). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

Lede

@StarkReport: Regarding this recent edit of yours to the article, nowhere in the pages (39–40) provided does Spellberg say anything like "elsewhere it is noted to be twelve or more at marriage". His analysis there, as well as the consensus of leading secular scholars, is that Aisha's age was 6–7 at marriage and 9 at consummation. That's what we should be reporting, not presenting the view of a single dissenting primary source as if it has the same validity as that of the vast majority of primary and reliable secondary sources. This is also in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The Al-Tabari perspecive is well-sourced, " Al-Tabari notes Aisha to have stayed with her parents after the marriage and consummated the relationship at nine years of age since she was young and sexually immature at the time of marriage; however, elsewhere Tabari appears 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 lede briefly mentions about the range given in classical sources and Al-Tabari is one of those classical sources and is more than WP:Due. StarkReport (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References