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 not only do I not have the time to read this whole discussion, I'm also not willing to dive into this for the coming week. Again, sorry for that. I will say though 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. The same is true for atheists who write from an explicitly anti-religious perspective: treat them as primary sources, and only report their views if and as reported by other more wp:independent 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 and independent secondary source discusses another contemporary scholar's view on the subject, whoever it is, if explicitly attributed it's good to go; of course the views of secular and independent scholars can always be given without attribution. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Apaugasma Thank you for the reply; I definitely see your point. I wanted to ask regarding "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"

The issue regarding differing perspectives on her age is indeed discussed by the secular secondary sources of Jonathan A. C. Brown. So other than the source of Barlas, considering the multitude of sources provided earlier that underscore the sizeable number of Muslim scholars on this matter, could we not, at the very least make a succinct allusion of their standpoint as

"Some Muslim scholars claim her age to be eighteen or nineteen based on less credible sources; however, these are rejected by the majority of historians as instances of historical revisionism." ? StarkReport (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

According to his WP page, Brown "is Sunni and follows the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence". He seems to have more clout as an independent scholar than Barlas, but he too seems to have written at least sometimes from an Islamic religious perspective. I would definitely advise to look for other sources that absolutely have no stake in the game (i.e. who are neither religious nor anti-religious).

If you use Brown though (which might be acceptable), be sure to write what he writes and nothing else. No, we cannot make a statement about revisionist views if we cannot directly find that statement in an independent reliable source. I agree with you that the article would benefit from such a statement, but it needs to be firmly based in an independent secondary source about such revisionist views. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged (30 Jan 24), and asked for my view. The relevant policy is at WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which says: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. ... Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; ... Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.... Those things apply here.

The claim that Aisha was 12-18 when she got married is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing/mainstream view (a fringe theory). It is not obvious that the theory is worth mentioning in the article on Aisha. But if the theory were to be mentioned, it would need to covered by a paragraph that explains the theory and why it is not mainstream, which should all be supported by multiple reliable mainstream sources that explicitly discuss the theory.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, Thanks for the input. Though, I concur with your perspective. Regarding: "But if the theory were to be mentioned, it would need to covered by a paragraph that explains the theory and why it is not mainstream, which should all be supported by multiple reliable mainstream sources that explicitly discuss the theory"

I thought the entire two paragraphs that discusses "chose to align themselves with the projects of modernization" and "Muslim scholars to contextualize the traditionally accepted age of Aisha with renewed vigor, emphasizing cultural relativism, anachronism, the political dimensions of", would serve enough as a rebuttal by multiple reliable mainstream sources.

But oh well... StarkReport (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

StarkReport, you seem to have difficulty understanding how this is supposed to work. It is not the case that we can include fringe views as long as we also have mainstream views rebutting them. It is the case that we can include fringe views if and to the extent that mainstream sources themselves explicitly discuss them. We write about fringe views what mainstream sources write about them, and nothing else. Try to understand this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, if you reread my above response, I wrote "I thought" expressing a past-tense perspective. StarkReport (talk) 10:11, 2 February 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)

That text is from this WP article, not from the book. The page numbers of Spellberg's book cited for that statement are 197–8, which are not part of the book's main content but rather the endnotes in the back of the book.

4. ‘A'isha was born four or five years after Muhammad’s prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that ‘A'isha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad. If the latter is true, then ‘A'isha’s age at the time of her marriage might have been twelve or thirteen, rather than the usually stated nine given in most early sources. Such a suggestion would also throw off her age at the date of her death. For the contradiction, see al-Tabari, Ta’rikh al-rusul wa al-muluk, 4:2135.

The phrase "a slightly later chronicle" and the fact that it contradicts earlier chronicles as well as a preponderance of classical and reliable secondary sources are quite a red flag here. Spellberg seems to recognize that the account is questionable and thus did not include it at all in the main content of his book (p. 39), which simply states:

‘Aisha’s married life with the Prophet spanned only twelve years. As recorded, she narrates key aspects of this brief marital chronology: “I was six years old when the Prophet married me and I was nine when he consummated the marriage.

The other source cited for that text you took from our article is Kecia Ali, "The Lives of Muhammad" pages 189-190. But on these pages, she actually says nothing about that divergent account from al-Tabari, but rather:

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.

So, in fact, Tabari consistently states that Aisha was consummated at the age of nine, and that divergent account from Tabari himself contradicts this. Another red flag. It seems that there have been some errors in this divergent account, probably in its transmission or in the English translation. In any case, if the account was translated to English correctly, it is just one divergent account in one source that contradicts other accounts in the same source, as well as contradicting the preponderance of primary and reliable secondary sources. To present it alongside the view of the latter is clearly a big no-no, according to our WP:FALSEBALANCE. Moreover, you're doing a WP:OR there with your addition that clearly doesn't align with any of the provided sources because nowhere does any of them state anything like, "elsewhere it is noted to be twelve or more at marriage." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note that it is perfectly normal for al-Tabari to cite reports that flatly contradict reports he has cited elsewhere. See, e.g., Bosworth on the subject in EI2:

Al-Ṭabarī gave parallel accounts from all these last authorities of earlier Islamic times, rather than attempting to furnish a conflated, connected story of historical events, even when the parallel accounts could not easily be harmonised or were even contradictory. His aim was, rather, to present the evidence for the course of the early Islamic history of the lands between Egypt and the far eastern fringes of the Iranian world so that others could evaluate it in a more critical fashion should they so wish.

This was part of his methodology, in which the degree to which he himself gave credit to the reports he cited was indicated by the way he introduced them: (again Bosworth in EI2):

Al-Tabarī’s methodology.
[...] The great virtues of his History and Commentary are that they form the most extensive of extant early works of Islamic scholarship and that they preserve for us the greatest array of citations from lost sources. They thus furnish modern scholarship with the richest and most detailed sources for the political history of the early caliphate [...] In the building-up of these two great syntheses of knowledge, al-Ṭabarī relied, as by this time had become possible, on a wide spectrum of written sources which were available to him. When he introduced sources by such formulae as ḥaddathanā , akhbaranā or kataba, this meant that he had the idjāza [q.v.] for the book from which the passage in question was quoted, whilst when he relied on older books for which he had no firm transmission tradition on which he could rely, he used words like ḳāla, dhakara, rawā, ḥuddithtu, etc. Hence al-Ṭabarī’s works are above all compilations of material written down during the two centuries from ca. 50/670 to ca. 250/864, and he did not in general use the works of his contemporaries.

The later reports by al-Tabari and others suggesting a different age certainly deserve to be mentioned in the lead of the article, given that they are accorded the appropriate weight, as is abundantly clear from the way in which Afsaruddin 2014 covers this topic in the third paragraph of her article in EI3 (doi; green added by me for emphasis):

ʿĀʾisha entered the prophet Muḥammad’s home as his wife about three years before the hijra (migration) to Medina, when she was around six or seven years of age, according to most sources. When the prophet Muḥammad, through the good offices of his aunt Khawla bt. Ḥakīm, expressed interest in ʿĀʾisha after the death of his wife Khadīja, in 619, Abū Bakr consulted with the boy’s family. By that time, Jubayr’s parents were against the idea of their son marrying into a Muslim family and the engagement fell through. ʿĀʾisha’s marriage to the Prophet was not consummated until approximately three years later, when she was either nine or ten years old, as the majority of sources report (Ibn Saʿd, 8:58–62; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, 8:139). However, according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61). There are stories of a young ʿĀʾisha still playing with dolls and her young girlfriends after she had come to live with the prophet Muḥammad. Child marriage was not an uncommon practice in the Arabian peninsula (and elsewhere) at the time, often being contracted for political purposes between leading families. Since ʿĀʾisha was the daughter of Abū Bakr, one of Muḥammad’s closest Companions and his trusted ally since the beginning of his prophetic calling, this liaison carried significant political overtones.

Ibn Khallikan indeed is much later (so is Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani though), but the fact that not only al-Tabari (as mentioned in Spellberg's note), but also Ibn Sa'd (probably the earliest source we have on this?) cites a report which contradicts his own account of the earlier age of marriage is certainly notable. Such contradictions and uncertainties are to be expected from 9th-century sources trying to cover early 7th-century events. It's a common feature of all early Islamic history. In that sense, the phrase A preponderance of classical sources converge on in the current revision of the lead seems a bit too strong. It's rather about a majority account versus various minority accounts, in sources which are ever doubtful. I think it would be better to switch to a phrasing that takes account of this, something more like "the majority of sources ... However, ...", as Afsaruddin 2014 does.

Also please note how Afsaruddin 2014 discusses extant written sources like Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabari, Ibn Khallikan and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and not hadith reports which allegedly go back to this or that early Muslim but were recorded for the first time c. 150 years after the fact. Scholars do not regard such hadith reports as reliable sources that can be taken at face value. The way our article section currently leads with hadith reports rather than with the earliest written sources like Ibn Sa'd and al-Tabari is very misleading, and not at all in line with scholarship on the subject.

Finally, let me quickly note that through WP:LIBRARY any Wikipedia editor who meets some minimum activity requirements can consult the sources I've quoted above for themselves. Once you're registered, you can directly access Brill's excellent encyclopedic sources through this link: https://referenceworks-brillonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/subjects. It's a good link to have in your bookmarks if you edit this type of subject regularly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Apaugasma, don't we here on Wikipedia merely report what reliable secondary sources say? The preponderance of them, including Spellberg in the main content of his book (p. 39), simply state that she was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation. Shouldn't we adhere to that without giving WP:UNDUE weight to very tiny, dissenting primary sources, especially on the lede? Regarding Asma Afsaruddin, I know she wrote the Aisha section of the Encyclopaedia of Islam and all, but are you sure she was truly independent, without any vested interest in defending her religion when writing that? Do other reliable sources cite that statement of hers or merely ignore it? Do they review that work of hers favorably? Honestly, I don't know how Afsaruddin came up with the idea that Ibn Sa'd reported from Hisham ibn Urwa that Aisha was 12 at consummation, because I couldn't find that at all in Ibn Sa'd's book, Al-Tabaqat, on the volume 8 page 61 she cited. On the contrary, what I found on p. 49 of the same volume is:

أَخْبَرَنَا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ. أَخْبَرَنَا وُهَيْبٌ. أَخْبَرَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عُرْوَةَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوسلم - تزوجها وهي ابنة سِتِّ سِنِينَ وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهِيَ ابْنَةُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ
Affan ibn Muslim informed us, Wuhayb informed us, Hisham ibn 'Urwah informed us from his father, from Aisha, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old."

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, To be frank, I don't think the age of the subject matter should even be on the lede. It fails and WP:Due. There are far more WP:Notability things about Aisha. However, acknowledging its inclusion, it is imperative to provide a comprehensive spectrum derived from classical sources Note: The lede already makes it clear that the age specification of "6 or 7 years old" is held by preponderance of classical sources.

If you see it fit to omit the info about her age from the lead, I'm fine with that. But, if you want to keep incomplete information, then this is going WP:IDONTLIKEIT way.

Kindly also know Wikipedia:InformationSuppression: "one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability." StarkReport (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not throw around links to pages that do not mean what you claim they mean, as you did e.g. here: There are far more WP:Notability things about Aisha (the linked page says already in the nutshell The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article).

And no, it is not imperative to provide a comprehensive spectrum in the lead section - to the contrary, per WP:LEDE, it should just summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, with a comprehensive treatment left to the article body.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully @HaeB, when addressing the concept of notability, my intention was to emphasize content that is more "worthy of notice" and more Due than the age of the subject matter.

As you wrote:

per WP:LEDE, it should just summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, with a comprehensive treatment left to the article body

This aligns with the objective with the proposed content inclusion given in the above topic. Regrettably, it is also being completely removed.

As previously noted, this represents a clear failure to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:Balance. Nonetheless, thank you for your perspective. StarkReport (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also @HaeB, Since we have already inserted the link to Criticism of Muhammad article right above the Age at marriage and consummation section, where the article deals with the critique regarding the issue, The gratuitous and heavy handed criticism info from a general article about Aisha should be removed: "In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies"

I think it would align well with WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV StarkReport (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: regarding the A preponderance of classical sources converge on phrase, please see WP:RS/AC: statements regarding academic consensus must themselves be directly based in a similar statement in an RS. I guess I was just curious what source is using such strong language? It's a bit unusual for scholars to be so confident for the reasons I explained above.

However, despite the fact that it may be dangerous for WP editors to start second-guessing excellent sources like Encyclopaedia of Islam, I also went checking Afsaruddin 2014's sources, and what I found was appalling. With the report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd supposedly supporting an alternative chronology, Afsaruddin is probably referring to another report on the same page (8:49) of Ibn Saʿd's al-Ṭabaqāt: (my translation, my bolding for easy reference)

أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ حُمَيْدٍ الْعَبْدِيُّ. حَدَّثَنَا مَعْمَرٌ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ وَهِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ قَالا: نَكَحَ النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وسلم - عائشة وهي ابنة تِسْعِ سَنَوَاتٍ أَوْ سَبْعٍ.
Muhammad ibn Humayd al-Abdi told us, Ma'mar told us on the authority of al-Zuhri and Hisham ibn Urwa, who both said: the prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, married A'isha when she was nine or seven years old.

Also see this report in Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:48: (my translation, my bolding for easy reference)

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ الضَّرِيرُ. حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشِ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: تَزَوَّجَهَا رَسُول اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَهِيَ بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ وَمَاتَ عَنْهَا وَهِيَ ابْنَةُ ثَمَانِيَ عَشْرَةَ.
Abu Mu'awiya al-Darir tolds us, al-A'mash told us on the authority of Ibrahim on the authority of al-Aswad on the authority of A'isha, who said: [that] the messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, married her when she was a girl of nine years old, and he died when she was eighteen years of age.

There indeed is some doubt here, and this report does contradict the many other reports Ibn Sa'd is giving, which all mention six or seven years at marriage and nine at consummation. But in no way does it support Ibn Khallikan's chronology, because what Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16 actually writes is this: (my translation, my bolding for easy reference)

تزوجها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بمكة، شرفها الله تعالى، قبل الهجرة بثلاث سنين، وقيل انه تزوجها قبل سودة، زوجه إياها أبوها فأصدقها مثلما أصدق سودة. وكان لها يوم تزوجها ست سنين، وما تزوج بكراً سواها، وقبض صلى الله عليه وسلم وهي بنت ثماني عشرة سنة، وماتت في خلافة معاوية سنة ثمان وخمسين ولها سبع وستون سنة
The messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, married her, may God exalted honor her, in Mecca, three years before the hijra. And it is said that he married her before Sawda. Her father gave her to him in marriage, and he gave her the same dowry that he had given to Sawda. On the day that he married her she was six years old, and he did not marry any virgin apart from her. He died, may God bless him and grant him peace, when she was a girl of eighteen years old. She died during the caliphate of Mu'awiya, in the year fifty eight, when she was sixty seven years old.

According to this report, A'isha died in 58 AH at 67 years old, so she was born in 9 BH (613 CE). According to the report, she was given into marriage to Muhammad in 3 BH (619 CE), so she was 6 years old then, which is what Ibn Khallikan writes. However, if A'isha was 18 years old when Muhammad died in 11 AH (632 CE), she must actually have been born in 7 BH (615 CE), which would mean that she was 4 years old when she was given out in marriage in 3 BH (619 CE). Therefore, Ibn Khallikan likely is either wrong about the marriage date in 3 BH, or about A'isha being 18 years old at the death of the prophet in 11 AH (632 CE). This is what you get when you do try to harmonize conflicting reports, as Ibn Khallikan probably did here, which earlier historians like Ibn Sa'd and al-Tabari wisely refused.

However this may be, Afsaruddin 2014's according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16) seems to be pulled out of thin air. This renders her completely unreliable as a source. I already knew that the third edition of Encyclopaedia of Islam is often of lower quality than the hallowed second edition, but this is really disappointing for a work which is still held to be the standard reference work in the field.

Anyway, given all this, unless other, truly reliable sources feature them as prominently as Afsaruddin 2014, I tend to agree that alternative chronologies do not belong in the lead. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Removing Excessive critique already present in a dedicated article.

Since this is a general article about Aisha and her life, the excessive criticisms in the Age section are disproportionately more verbose than the "Aisha" section in the dedicated Criticism of Muhammad article that deals with the critiques.

The first two paragraphs are to the purpose however, the three below paragraphs are digressive and should be either removed or condensed. I propose retaining the section's factual content about Aisha's age at marriage and consummation.

As per WP:CRITS and WP:NPOV, I'm removing the removing the part that deals with severe censure; accusations of pedophilia which is already articulated verbatim in the proper Criticism article and is already linked in the section.

As for the rest of the content in the three paragraphs, If given green light, I'm willing to streamlining them for brevity. StarkReport (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies. (statement sourced to Ali 2014 p. 187, 190-191) I don't see how this one sentence all of a sudden makes things verbose, and it does seem a notable fact to mention. What this needs is more context, not removal (see also WP:NOTCENSORED). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, @Apaugasma, as I wrote above, its not just one sentence. The entire info about Christian polemicists and Orientalist writers as well as modern 20th century critiques belongs in the respective Criticism of Muhammad, where it may also "needs is more context". (Note: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion).

Kindly bear in mind, this is a general article and the general section that determines her age, has already served its purpose in the first two paragraphs. The rest three needs trimming or relocation to more WP:Relevant articles like Criticism of Muhammad.

Even if we let most of the content be, the "accuse Muhammad of pedophilia" is a significant and pronounced censure and is going the WP:COATRACK way and violates WP:NPOV.

I'd appreciate it if you could understand this. StarkReport (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but disagree. I personally don't see this as coatrack. Let's see what other editors think. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as a coatrack either. It's a concise yet encyclopedic discussion of how Aisha's age was viewed throughout history. The paragraphs don't really fit into the criticism of Muhammad article because, well, they aren't about criticism of Muhammad, except perhaps the last paragraph. StarkReport has already removed the sentence about criticizing Muhammad for pedophilia, and while that removal wasn't necessary, it also does no harm. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Stark says ... is a significant and pronounced censure, but it's not a censure at all, it reports on the censure. It was well cited; when multiple high-level sources like Kecia Ali discuss, report and comment on the accusations of pedophilia, it certainly is harmful for/to Wikipedia to omit any mention of that. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@TryKid, No kidding!. That is the very is the nature of Wikipedia. Be it critique, praise, flattery, or any other analysis, are all, by secondary sources, essentially "reported."

And no Wikipedia did not "omit" that at all, as it is precisely covered in the WP:Relevant article whose scope deals with the criticisms. StarkReport (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, @Anachronist, Respectfully, if it weren't a coatrack, it wouldn't be explicitly mentioned verbatim in the criticism of Muhammad article, now would it?

As per undue importance to a single aspect of a subject and WP:PROPORTION:

a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic

the material required immediate corrective action.

With regards to the rest of the content, I think that dividing the section into five paras is unneeded. It might be more suitable to merge the last two paragraphs. StarkReport (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Upon the insistence of @Toddy1, I have removed a stray citation that I left previously. StarkReport (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

StarkReport, you're already aware of WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. Kecia Ali's chapter on Aisha in her biography of Muhammad, exactly the sort of source needed for a section on Aisha's marriage with him, spends multiple pages, a good chunk of the chapter, dealing with the accusations of pedophilia etc. You cannot seriously be saying it's undue or disproportionate knowing the coverage allotted to the issue, or that it shouldn't be covered here "as it is precisely covered in the relevant article"—that's not how Wikipedia coverage works, one thing can be relevant to multiple pages and subjects, and you already know about summary style, etc. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the section's intended scope is "Age at marriage and consummation", and not "Historical criticism of Aisha's marriage" or "Reception of Muhammad's marriages."

"one thing can be relevant to multiple pages"

Indeed, which is why the issue of Child marriages and the critque over it are both covered in Child marriage and Criticism of Muhammad articles respectively. Note: The source of Kecia Ali are still utilized for critisisms such as the para that contains "pointers to Aisha's age at marriage....." and the concluding paragraph: "Pointed criticisms of Aisha's young age....." But even now if we insist on going deeper, then we would be in stark contrast to WP:PROPORTION and unintentionally render the section a result of a POV-push edit.

@TryKid, In actuality, the section and the article still needs concision per WP:TLDR, as the current content is still overshadowing the broader context of Aisha's life and contributions. StarkReport (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view, the fact that Aisha's age at marriage has served as a basis for accusations of pedophilia and has been linked to the high prevalence of child marriage in some areas is very notable (it's the very reason we are having this long discussion), and is therefore absolutely relevant in a section on Aisha's age at marriage: it's directly related.

If you believe on the contrary that it is irrelevant here, we have an editorial disagreement over this issue, which is a perfectly normal occasion. What won't help is keep on pointing to all kinds of policies and guidelines as if they somehow validate your editorial opinion and invalidate the editorial opinions of others. Both arguments for and against inclusion are in line with policy here, that's not the issue. We have to see on which side of the disagreement wp:consensus lies.

You rightly mention that "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", but on the other hand of course exclusion should based on the fact that "consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." Now what is the consensus here? Two editors here (TryKid and me) think it should be included, one (Anachronist) is neutral on the issue, and you are the only one arguing it should be excluded. Maybe we need some more opinions of other editors? Toddy1 and Kaalakaa, what's your opinion: should the information removed here be excluded from the article, or should it be included? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I was thinking, since there is already a wide consensus among top scholars that “Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was 6–7 years old, and she was 9 years old at the consummation," why don’t we just state it as such in the lead and the “Early life” section? As for the controversy over her age, Islamic sources reporting it, criticism, apologists’ responses, etc., perhaps it can be moved to its own section below, after "Death". — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

'As for the controversy over her age Islamic sources reporting it criticism, apologists responses, etc , perhaps it can be moved to its own section." How would that be useful, as every Muslim scholar with a differing viewpoint would be dismissed as 'apologists,' and every apologist would be deemed "Nah... not reliable"? The section would essentially have obvious WP:UNDUE and NPOV issues. Not to mention, its overly unnecessary.

Furthermore, shouldn't we adhere to best practices per WP:CRIT

In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.

We already have Separate article devoted to controversies; in this case, it's "Criticism of Muhammad." StarkReport (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this may go the WP:WRONGCONSENSUS way:

Refusing to allow edits unless approved by one or a few editors acting as owners, several editors agreeing on the refusal, regardless of the quality of the offered edits

StarkReport (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport:

We already have Separate article devoted to controversies; in this case, it's "Criticism of Muhammad."

Then move the "Age at marriage and consummation" section to that article altogether and simply state here what the consensus of reliable sources is, which is "Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was 6-7 years old, and she was 9 years old at the consummation." If you insist on the inclusion of the WP:FRINGE theory of the Muslim apologists that says she was in early adolescence or older during the marriage (which is rejected not only by top historians but also by Muslim scholars), then the only way is to also include all the aspects surrounding it, such as the reason why it arose (i.e., controversy, criticism), all the Islamic sources that actually contradict what they say, and so on. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa

"move the "Age at marriage and consummation" section to that article altogether and simply state here what the consensus of reliable sources is, which is "Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was 6-7 years old, and she was 9 years old at the consummation."

There already is; a 12 lines of material in "Criticism of Muhammad," that's states that "Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad" Take a look.

include all the aspects surrounding it, such as the reason why it arose (i.e., controversy, criticism), all the Islamic sources that actually contradict what they say

Haven't we done that already in this article. I mean with five paragraphs.

What I'm requesting is that the section Age at marriage and consummation could use better summarization of the Historical response to the marriage. Nonetheless, even if we do not go there, the major critique of pedophilia accusations, which even most critics of Islam avoid, belong in the dedicated Criticism of Muhammad article. Simple. StarkReport (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport:

There already is; a 12 lines of material in "Criticism of Muhammad,"

Then remove the "Age at marriage and consummation" section from this article altogether because, as you have pointed out, it's already covered in the other article. It's disproportionate anyway, isn't it? It's in the larger section about Aisha's early life, and there's already a consensus among reliable sources saying, "Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was 6-7 years old, and she was 9 years old at the consummation." Here on Wikipedia, we are merely reporting what reliable secondary sources say, so we should simply write it as such. Why, just for the sake of presenting a WP:FRINGE theory of the apologists that Muhammad married Aisha in her "early adolescence" or older, do we have to spend five paragraphs describing the reason why the theory was created (i.e., controversy and criticism), listing a number of primary sources, and even giving a WP:FALSEBALANCE to a WP:FRINGE primary source at the end of the second paragraph, etc.? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

StarkReport, this is becoming a one against many situation. Aside from the concerns here, you've also moved text around to merge sentences, but without moving the sources, inadvertently leading to the article that certain sources say something on certain page numbers when they do not do so. If you're to reword something, implying causation, please make sure the sources support the claims of causation ("she was a considered a reliable hadith narrators *because* she had a good memory...") and then cite those new page ranges. I think it's best if the restore the article to before your edits, since there's clearly consensus against your changes. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References