Talk:Aisha/Archive 10

There is an urgent need for updating the info on Aisha Age.
Many Muslim historians, particularly Shia scholars who do not believe Sahih al-Bukhari to be authentic, have estimated Aisha's age to be between 18 and 19 by comparing her age to Asma bint Abi Bakr's age at the time of Aisha and other historical occurrences. We would be seriously violating WP:NPOV and WP:Cherrypicking if we only included the Sunni side of the argument while excluding the Shia side. Study the sources yourselves: Now, yes, it is disputed and will become even more so in the near future. But right now the best we can do is provide all responses, it is of vital importance, otherwise I would not bother. StarkReport (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If I may chime in for a moment, I think perhaps there may be some misunderstanding here. Aisha's age at the time of her marriage has not been a historical topic of contention between Sunni and Shia Muslims. To the best of my knowledge there are no Shia hadith compilations or other important historical Shia works disputing her traditionally-accepted age. As the article notes, it became a topic of debate fairly recently (the 20th century) due to changing global attitudes towards child marriage. This is true for both Sunni and Shia writers. It is true that many Shia works portray Aisha in certain ways, but those differences (already mentioned on the page) are not about her age. I have not seen anything to suggest that there is any notable sectarian divide for this topic in the modern day, either, nor do any of those sources state as much. The exact wording of the sentence you dislike is a separate issue, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to portray this as "the Shia side". (Incidentally, the citation attributed to Ayatollah Qazvini is from a Q&A section, and that page does not claim to have been written by him; the authors listed at the end are an unnamed "team" for responding to questions from people with doubts about their religion.) Apologies for inserting myself in this matter, but I did put together a bunch of sources for this exact paragraph if you'd like to look at them. They're on the most recent archived talk page. Dragoon17 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Your points were refuted already by this your own source.
 * And it seems to me that the mainstream Shia scholars agree with the Sunni on the age of Aisha. Thus, further confirms that what you're presenting is a fringe theory. Androvie (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And it seems to me that the mainstream Shia scholars agree with the Sunni on the age of Aisha. Thus, further confirms that what you're presenting is a fringe theory. Androvie (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wrong; the source was there to reflect the views and arguments of both sides. For example, Shia scholars such as Al-Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-'Amili or Muhammad Husayni al-Qazwini and even Sunni scholars such as Muhammad Farooq Khan and Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi, as well as authors Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood and Shaykh Dr Ridhwan among many others. It's important to provide a balanced and fair representation of both sides of the argument, which is why our source includes viewpoints from various scholars and authors. This is a topic of debate and controversy in modern times and varies among different interpretations and practices within the Islamic faith.
 * Nevertheless, we are not judging who is right or wrong, just presenting their respective arguments. The content about "re-calculated her age—using deft stratagems of omission and commission—to fix it at early adolescence" fails WP:Neutral policy, it actually just favours the Sunni side. Yet being close-minded and fixated on a particular way of reading, you are trying to suppress the essential part of the information. StarkReport (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You say that, yet don’t you know that your own sources use Sunni narrations, but only the weaker ones, while disregarding the stronger narrations such as those from Sahih Bukhari? Please read them first.
 * Also, what you’re doing in your revision is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. It’s just like writing that:
 * Androvie (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Androvie (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Androvie (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Protecing admin chiming in here. As a Wikipedia policy question, since WP:NPOV was mentioned, the relevant policy here would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is part of WP:NPOV. That said, a minority viewpoint held by notable scholars could possibly be included as long as the article makes it clear that the viewpoint is in the minority. Might it be possible route to a consensus? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I agree with Anachronist. If you read my sentence, I wrote 'Some modern Muslim authors'. I did not present the information as mainstream or widely accepted. I am not objecting to the paragraph that presents sources from the classical era on Aisha's age. I am only including the information about 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, estimating that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. This is because not every scholar is intent on modernizing and they have legitimate doubts about Aisha's age in Sahih al-Bukhari. it's crucial to mention their methods to present a more comprehensive discussion on the topic. As everyone has mentioned, traditionalists indeed dispute this and that info is presented in the next paragraph, which will stay there. The "Some modern Muslim" is enough for readers to know that this is a minority viewpoint StarkReport (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is, as explained in this source that you yourself presented, and in this wiki article; the theory you brought up is based on cherry-picking Sunni sources by rejecting the sound (sahih) reports regarding Aisha's age and how it differs from Asma's age in favor of the weaker ones. The theory also falsely claims that there is only one source for Aisha's age of 6 when she was married to Muhammad (i.e., Hisham, the grandson of Asma) and uses Hisham’s old age when narrating it as an excuse to reject it, despite the fact that there are many other sources or reports unrelated to Hisham, that tell the same thing that Aisha was indeed 6-7 years old when Muhammad married her.
 * Therefore by adding in this wiki article after the paragraphs about reports on Aisha's age, that:
 * Despite the fact that it was already refuted by mainstream scholars, it creates a false balance where the fringe theory has equal, or stronger, standing than the mainstream view. It’s just like writing on wiki article on earth, after a paragraph explaining that it is ellipsoid, that
 * Androvie (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Androvie (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anachronist Actually, the current revision which was the result of the previous consensus already contained the minority view (which falls under historical negationism) raised by @StarkReport. It’s the bolded part:
 * But it seems that @StarkReport wants that view to have the same or higher position than the mainstream view. As in
 * Even though this minority view has been refuted by mainstream scholars. Androvie (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, using false equivalence fallacy to bear out your own view.
 * As the discourse surrounding Aisha's age becomes more contentious, it is important to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the global population, particularly the Shia community, hold beliefs that contradict the commonly accepted age of Aisha at the time of her marriage. This disagreement has the potential to affect the perceptions and beliefs of millions of individuals. Therefore, it is crucial to consider and present all relevant viewpoints in a comprehensive and impartial manner. StarkReport (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find any source that states that Shia widely believe that Aisha was not 6-7 years old when Muhammad married her. The opinion of one or two shia scholars who follow a few ahmadiyya scholars in cherrypicking Sunni sources does not represent the opinion of all shia, or the fundamental doctrine of shia. Moreover, that fringe theory has been refuted by conservative Muslim scholars, which is summarized in the part I quoted above from the article. Androvie (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not a an opinion poll for sunni either. And wrong its not just few but various scholars are disputing this issue many of whom state that the available historical evidence does not support the claim. Check all the sources again. Moreover, Quran itself emphasize the importance of consent and physical and mental maturity in marriage. The refutation by conservative Muslim scholars is not extensively embraced either. StarkReport (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right after "Beginning in the late-to reforms, what if "In response, some Muslims-face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth." was rephrased in a new paragraph as
 * "Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. But conservatives disputed this and said that they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth."
 * That satisfies WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV. And it perfectly summarizes it as a viewpoint held by a minority. StarkReport (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bit better
 * ""Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. Some recalculated it with the intent of modernization. But conservatives disputed this and said that they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth." StarkReport (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. First off, it’s original research, as there is no reliable source that says that Shia scholars widely reject the age of Aisha being 6-7 when Muhammad married her.
 * Secondly, it is giving too much undue weight to the fringe theory. It’s like describing vaguely at length the flat earth theory on Earth, without providing detailed rebuttals from mainstream scientists to that theory, adding only at the end of the paragraph that, “conservative scientists disputed this and said they flew in the face of natural science.” Androvie (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Egregious use of false equivalence fallacy.
 * Additionally, the original and reliable sources I provided contains detailed rebuttals, as do the sources I cited back in November." The above info is more precise and integral to the broader discourse. It's weight is due otherwise we might as well remove the whole non-neutral and unconstructive "Age of Aisha" section. You are actively trying to to stifle the dissemination of the information.
 * Regrettably, a senior editor is okay with a biased representation of the content even when it is being edited by a user who has created his account solely to edit on single topic, pushing his own point of view and doing nothing else. StarkReport (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. Besides the reasons I listed above, your proposal gives the false impression that, if calculated based on contemporary events and the ages of contemporary people, Aisha's age must have been 18 or 19, even though there are rebuttals from mainstream scholars saying that the theory is using the cherry-picking method by rejecting reliable reports and selectively picking weak ones. Androvie (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * if you want to give some examples of what the fringe theory says, proper rebuttal to them, like in this source, should also be addressed. Androvie (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We have already included that "conservatives rejected such revisionist readings since they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth." StarkReport (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, that’s not enough, if the arguments from the flat earthers were to be described quite at length on Earth WP article, but the rebuttal of it is just one sentence without explaining why the claim is false, it’s the same as giving undue weight to the flat earth theory. Androvie (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your use of logical fallacies just demonstrates your lack of grasp on the topic. Additionally, it seems that you have already placed an excessive emphasis on the sources of Ali Kecia, and with its content occupying multiple paragraphs. The point I brought up consists of just two lines and the "conservatives rejected such revisionist readings since they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth." and the surrounding context is more than enough as a rebuttal.
 * Like I said before, your motive to suppress information is transparent. StarkReport (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter if it consists of just 2, 1, or a half line, if it contains disinformation, it should not be accepted. In your proposal, you make it sound like all the reports regarding events and people’s ages at that time only match Aisha's age of 18–19 at the time of her marriage’s consummation, not 9. This is false, because the mainstream scholars quoted in this source that you previously brought up say a lot of reliable reports regarding those match the age of Aisha being 9 when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her, with a few weak narrators who differ with each other's reports otherwise.
 * The fringe theorists also made many distortions, such as
 * Claiming that all reports of Aisha's age of 9 years only come from Hisham (the grandson of Asma, Aisha’s sister), which is false because there are many other reports that are not from Hisham that say the same. Some of them are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * Claiming that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
 * Using an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
 * Androvie (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, this section of the page has now become heavily afflicted by editorializing (alongside being an overly contested menace). Basically everything now bracketed by m-dashes is dubious side commentary. Editors need to stick to reporting the information as neutrally as possible without injecting excessive narration and leading commentary into the text. If there are comments of this nature in the original sources then they may be best included as notes cited directly to the source, rather than as editorializing page clutter. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Funny, weren't you one of the supporters of Tranga's draft? I haven't seen any significant changes since then. I personally was a supporter of @Dragoon17's draft, and had some arguments with Tranga, but I eventually agreed after seeing his draft, even though I had to compromise on some parts. However, I do concur that the page could benefit from copy editing, as could from omission of the heavily contested fringe theory that says Aisha was not 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Because WP:GEVAL states that…
 * Androvie (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because I said one version was an improvement does not mean I think it is the best of all possible versions. I think the priority here should be locking in a text, possibly via RFC, and then adding a very firm note on the talk page directing people to past discussions and discouraging opening fresh ones. The ongoing discussion about this is just a microcosm of broader disputes around this contentious material. Presumably everyone here has a POV, otherwise they wouldn't be so invested in this, but I frankly don't care so long as an outcome is reached that puts an end to the squabbling. But to your point, no, I do not think that one side of the equation in the debates around this should be removed, because that would be an obvious violation of WP:BALANCE. The goal here is to lay out all the views, not conclude anything. And the only fringe theory here is that anyone has the slightest clue about the age of this 7th-century individual, when, in fact, nobody has a clue because primary religious texts are not v. useful sources and the whole debate is basically entirely academic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the sources make it clear that the revisionist theories that changed Aisha's age from 9 to 18 at the time of her marriage's consummation have been disproven by mainstream Islamic scholars.
 * Some of the methods used by revisionists include presenting questionable sources, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for doubting reliable records, assigning conclusions to books and sources that convey the contrary, manipulating statistical series to support their given point of view, and purposefully using mistranslated texts.
 * These are all characteristics of historical negationism. Thus, even more reason it shouldn’t be given undue weight, since otherwise would be an obvious violation of WP:GEVAL. Androvie (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the methods used by revisionists include presenting questionable sources, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for doubting reliable records, assigning conclusions to books and sources that convey the contrary, manipulating statistical series to support their given point of view, and purposefully using mistranslated texts.
 * These are all characteristics of historical negationism. Thus, even more reason it shouldn’t be given undue weight, since otherwise would be an obvious violation of WP:GEVAL. Androvie (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no one has proof of anything here; it's all just theory, namely because all of the sources used here are primary religious texts and of the utmost questionability. Historical negationism is distortion of the historical record, but here there is no historical record to distort. There are just various opinions on the matter. If anything, the more reliable part of the material is the historiographical element reflecting on shifts in source interpretation, since this at least reflects on something documented and therefore has some sort of basis in a modern, academic, methodological process, unlike hadith interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For your information, Sahih al-Bukhari is recognized by mainstream Muslim scholars as the most authentic and most highly regarded collection of records of Islamic history. This makes Muslims who reject it a very tiny minority of that community, and their views should not be given undue weight in articles on Islamic topics. Besides, it is obvious that the revisionists use historical negationism techniques in their theories such as:
 * Claiming that all hadiths about Aisha's age of 9 when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her are from Hisham (grandson of Asma, Aisha’s sister), and attacking Hisham's credibility if he was senile when he transmitted them. This is a gross misrepresentation since there are numerous other sahih hadiths in which Hisham is not one of the transmitters that state Aisha was 9 years old at the time. Some of those include. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * Claiming that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
 * Using an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
 * Androvie (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The 'most authentic and highly regarded' primary religious text is still just a primary religious text. That a whole suite of primary religious texts align on a data point does not necessarily mean that the data point on which they align is any more reliable or verifiable - it is a well-known paradox of historical accounts that those which contain errors or inconsistencies are often more reliable than those that are too consistent or coherent, since these instead tend more to imply imposed narrative or subsequent embellishment. And in fact, here, we already have Islamic studies specialists stating the exact reason why accounts of these events may have been susceptible to embellishment, noting the likely desire to emphasis the subject's chastity and purity. Separately, I'd like to see your source for Tabari's self-contradiction being an 'incorrect translation', because we currently have no sources supporting this, but subject-matter experts saying otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't change the fact that, to support their point of view, the revisionists:
 * falsely claim that all the hadiths about Aisha being 9 years old at the time of consummation are from Hisham, when in fact there are many other hadiths that tell the same story in which Hisham was not one of the transmitters: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * falsely claim that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
 * use an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
 * etc.
 * No matter what, this is a gross misrepresentation, a disinformation that should not be included, let alone given undue weight in articles on Islamic topics. Androvie (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, well if you have nothing else to say except to repeat what you've already said and quote from sunnah.com then I guess we are done here, pending input from other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Like I said before, Androvie is engaging in a egregious use of the false equivalence fallacy, comparing a bunch of religious texts to outright scientific facts facts like the Earth being round or Apollo Moon landings.
 * One important issue Androvie is omitting is that if Sahih al-Bukhari is recognised as most authentic and most highly regarded collection of records, than there would be no 400 million Shias. For them, its legitimacy is just as same as those so called "weaker narrations" we were talking about earlier. And, again its not just Shia scholars but Sunni scholars and authors as well.
 * This is my final presentation: ( After the first paragraph, in a new one)
 * "Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over fifteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. Some recalculated it with the intent of modernization. But conservatives(or traditionalists) rejected this, citing the weakness of those narrations and said that they contradicted(or flew in the face of) Sahih al-Bukhari."
 * The above info is more precise instead of the non-neutral "using deft stratagems" or hazy "omission and commission" and also expands more on rebuttals "citing the weakness of those narrations and said that they contradicted(or flew in the face of) Sahih al-Bukhari."
 * Otherwise, its impossible to improve the stagnant article. @Anachronist might as well lock the article forever or make Androvie an administrator. It wouldn't make a difference. StarkReport (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you answer @Dragoon17’s explanation above? Androvie (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I already did. My point remains valid. StarkReport (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reply from you to his response. Androvie (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 As I said before your argument doesn't change anything.
 * You said:
 * The problem is not that; rather, the revisionists have been exposed for making fraudulent statements about their fundamental sources, the hadiths. For instance, they claim that all hadiths stating that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated originate from Hisham. The mainstream scholars have demonstrated this to be false because there are several hadiths in which Hisham is not one of the transmitters that report the same thing (such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
 * Sunnah.com is a hadith database; the links to it that I brought were just to confirm that the revisionists really are doing disinformation by using false claims to support their viewpoint.
 * Regarding the mistranslation of Tabari’s record being used by the revisionists, it’s also included in the sources above, as are the reports that the verses of chapter 54 of the Quran were not revealed only in Mecca but also in Medina. Androvie (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the mistranslation of Tabari’s record being used by the revisionists, it’s also included in the sources above, as are the reports that the verses of chapter 54 of the Quran were not revealed only in Mecca but also in Medina. Androvie (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your revisionist in this context? Modernist or simply not traditionalist? You are bandying this term around a lot, but it would be more useful if you could simply state the sources that you are referring to. Perhaps you could quote the lines from Brown and the exact page numbers you are basing the point about Tabari on, since the archive.org copy is a limited preview. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Why don't you address the fallacious claim made by the fringe theory that all hadiths mentioning Aisha's age of 9 at the time of her marriage consummation all originated from Hisham when there are multiple hadiths that lack Hisham in their chain of transmission that also mention Aisha having this age at the time? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * That's a clear evidence, I think.
 * Revisionists are those who attempt to change Aisha's age at the time of consummation from 9 to 18 or any older age by misrepresenting their own primary sources, the hadiths. If you reviewed and supported Tranga’s draft, you should be familiar with the term because it is used there.
 * For the exact text of mainstream scholars' correction of the mistranslations used by the revisionists, see below, the revisionists are referred to as the critics here.
 * Androvie (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Although some of it has been discussed above. But, again carefully read the following different sources: And Syrian hadith scholar Dr. Salah al-Din al-Idlibi:
 * Its non-controversial demonstration that scholars have legitimate reasons to maintain this conclusion.
 * All of the sources I provided up to now include the views of Sunni scholars, Shia scholars, authors, and some Ahmadis, which collectively support the conclusion and validate that it is not a fringe narrative. And my edit in no way asserts that this is generally recognized scholarship. It precisely reflects the reality. StarkReport (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not addressing your repetitive badgering about Ibn Hisham, because I find it irrelevant. Who said he is the only source? Not me, certainly. If someone else said that, ask them. So yes it looks like you have inserted 'revisionist' into this discussion as your own WP:OR terminology and somewhat polemical/pejorative term for anything not 'traditionalist'. Duly noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It appears that a user who just came to Wikipedia just to POV push on on single topic and bury anything that does not conform to his own mindset will have have his way.
 * If this is the future of Wikipedia then it is indeed worrisome.
 * I will refrain from further discussing this matter. It is futile. StarkReport (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 No wonder I’ve felt our discussion is disjointed from the start. It turns out that you don’t quite grasp the matter.
 * 1. Hisham and Ibn Hisham are not the same person and are not closely related. The Hisham I'm referring to, whose name I almost always make sure to link to his own wiki article, was the grandson of Asma, Aisha's sister, whereas Ibn Hisham was not. Strange that you bring him up, even though I never mention him even once.
 * 2. The one that says Hisham is the only source is the fringe theory that you support that tries to change Aisha's age from 9 to 18 or so at the time of intercourse.
 * 3. I’ve explained above that I used the term revisionist because it was used in this article, which seems to be derived from Kecia Ali’s, yet you accuse me of original research. Seems so desperate.
 * I don't know whether or not you share the same objective as the fringe theorists, but at least if you have a POV to push, please study it first. Thank you. Androvie (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ibn Hisham is the only Hisham mentioned in the article. If people are getting it confused, it is because you are introducing other random Hishams into the discussion that no one else has previously been discussing. To date, you have no provided any source outlining any 'fringe theory' as such, so any editor can only assume here that this is simply a straw man of your own original research. Either provide a source stating all of this or don't. I'm not going to engage with hypotheticals. Separately, I can only see one use of the word 'revisionist' on the page and it is in the context of 'revisionist readings', not calling anyone, specifically, a 'revisionist' and that is currently sourced to Brown not Ali. So if you are going to start writing dismissive posts here, please at least stay accurate. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeatedly linked the Hisham I was referring to to the Hisham ibn Urwah wiki article. Your mistaking it for Ibn Hisham shows you’re not quite following the discussion at hand and the POV you are pushing. Because the key tactic of the revisionists is to cast doubt on the sahih hadiths that report Aisha's age as 9 at the time of intercourse by making the false claim that all of them came from Hisham and then alleging him to have gone senile while narrating them, the existence of numerous other sahih hadiths in which Hisham is not in the chain of transmission disproves the revisionists' argument at its very core. And for you to take issue with something as unrelated as my use of the word "revisionist" on the talk page and attribute it as original research shows how desperate you are. Firstly, WP:OR apply only to writing in articles, not to terms used on talk pages;
 * secondly, the "revisionist" that is being talked about in the article is about the people trying to make changes to Aisha's age at copulation; and thirdly, Kecia did use the word "revisionist" as well. Androvie (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't care what any of the primary religious texts say, regardless of the senility of the authors or otherwise. And I don't care for your tone either. Since all you seem to be good for now is personal attacks, I think we're done here. Bye. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't care what any of the primary religious texts say, regardless of the senility of the authors or otherwise. And I don't care for your tone either. Since all you seem to be good for now is personal attacks, I think we're done here. Bye. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2023
Change "Aisha's age has become a tool of Islamophobic polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia" to "Aisha's age has become a tool of polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia". See the section above. The use of the word is not present in the source and also contradicts Wikipedia policy. 117.194.196.192 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done . ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Islamophobic polemicist?
While Kecia Ali has tries her best to dampen the "hysteria" around child sexual abuse and humanise sex with children a bit, even she doesn't go as far as to call the polemicists against the marriage "Islamophobic", which is quite a loaded term.

From the source: "Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha has become, for contemporary polemicists, evidence of pedophilia not as a medical diagnosis but as an archaic and evil force." No mention of any phobias in the given ranges and surrounding pages either. That insertion would be the bias of Wikipedia editors. It is both against Wikipedia policy and distortion of the source. Please edit it away. 117.194.197.190 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done per edit request below. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 March 2023
Thus moving the URL into the template. This also move the java-script parts of the url into the actual url. Not that it helps much since google no longer allows you to view inside this book. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That is giving me a URL–wikilink conflict. Please advise? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , the title-link parameter is telling the template to link the title to its Wikipedia article, and the url parameter is telling it to link the title to the Google Books page. We have to chose. At least for me, the book is not available via Google Books preview, so I'd prefer to keep the wikilink. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooops. I missed that.  Then, can the URL be updated to a more stable form https://books.google.com/books?id=nGKMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA125 (page number in the search instead of a javascript afterthought, books title removed from search, and google copy that has page 125 scanned).  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: Read online pages 125, 126, 127, and 128. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Izno (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2023
Sir/Madam I Do Not Who You Are But Hazrat Ayesha(PBUH) Was Not 5-6 when he married to Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) when her (PBUH) age was 17-18

Aisha was born 5-6 years before the beginning of revelation. Thus, it appears that the age of Aisha was 17-18 when she got married to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

If You Do Not Believe Me Sir/Madam. Please Look Up The Source I Have Given.

https://questionsonislam.com/article/how-old-was-aisha-ra-when-she-got-married-prophet-muhammad-pbuh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.246.193 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is a fringe theory, and all of their arguments have been refuted by the mainstream scholars as being shown here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Androvie (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No but Hazrat Ayesha was not 5-6 yrs old when she marries the prophet. She was 12-13 100.15.61.59 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, Fringe theory. Considering that the years mentioned are lunar years, in our terms Aisha would have possibly been five years old.
 * but if you can prove your theory i’m listening Maalik Serebryakov (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Historiography
Nearly every writer that has questioned Aisha's age has been writing in the last couple decades. It doesn't take a deep analysis to realize that there is strong pressure to interpret Aisha as older. The article should explain this dynamic, rather than trying to say, "Some scholars have said X, others Y". DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please propose specific text that you believe the article should say, citing appropriate reliable sources. Aisha's age wasn't in dispute until non-Muslim cultures started encouraging revisionism starting in the 19th century. And that dynamic is discussed in the article already. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, then it's already there. My point is that the longer this goes on, the harder it will be to write "Aisha was X age". Already wording like "some modern scholars say" makes it less clear that this change in opinion is due solely to pressure. Where possible, we should avoid the suggestion that there was genuine dispute without pressure. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The earliest source we have on this issue is
 * “al Jami’ - Ibn Wahb”
 * ibn Wahb was a companion of Maalik Ibn Anas who lived about 65 years after the death of A’isha. It includes many details about Aisha playing with other little girls, and those girls being shy in fromt of the prophet which corroborate the age given.
 * i’m aware the direct usage of primary sources is discouraged, but I ought to mention it in light of the so called academic dispute that had appeared around Aisha’s age ever since Minor marriage became condemnable in the western world Maalik Serebryakov (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Aisha's age has become a tool of polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia—not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil"

This just seems a really weird sentance? It seems to be at least veering on bias and is also just a weirdly phrased aside.

Is there any particular reason to have this rather then something like "due to Aisha's age, some observers have accused Muhammad of pedophilia"? 146.198.211.109 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems rather relevant that its a tool of polemicists - that is, after all, why this topic just goes round and round in circles ad infinitum. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023
I suggest changing "In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, Aisha's age has become a tool of polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia—not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil—and reason for the apparently higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies, among other ills." (at the end of the "age at time of marriage" section) to "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 high prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies."

This is less biased towards either side, simply explaining what the accusations are, while the current one seems to be clearly pro-islam? It also sounds more clinical I think. Urbenmyth (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ XeCyranium (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ayesha was around 18 years old when she got married to prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him)
I don’t trust Wikipedia!!! They don’t even check the credible source!!! You should update your information!!! 95.147.21.41 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yep at this point, many Muslim scholars have agreed to the view that Aisha was at least 18, alas dont expect wikipedia to show this. Some just want to show prejudiced and skewed view of history. Wikipedia is no different than conservapedia. 39.41.202.254 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Several reliable narrations, collected by Islamic scholars such as Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Dawud, disagree.
 * According to Sahih Bukhari (5:58:236; 7:62:64), Sahih Muslim (8:3310; 8:3311), and Sunan Abu Dawud (2116), Aisha herself narrated that she was married to Prophet Muhammad when she was six or seven years old and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. Moreover, these texts state that Aisha remained with Muhammad for nine years until his death.
 * Historian Al-Tabari also corroborates this timeline in his writings (Vol. 9, pp. 128, 131; Vol. 7, pp. 6-7; Vol. 39, pp. 171-173). He provides detailed accounts of Aisha's age at marriage and consummation, firmly placing her at six or seven years at marriage and nine years at consummation. He also states that Aisha was eighteen years old when Muhammad died.
 * Furthermore, Sahih Bukhari (6:60:399; 5:58:245; 3:37:494) records Aisha's remembrance of being a young girl at the time of the early revelations given to Muhammad in Mecca. Aisha's remembrances of her early childhood experiences and the assertion that she always saw her parents following Islam offer additional evidence against the proposition that she was 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage.
 * Then there are other hadiths talking about her playing with toys/menstruation/etc. Note that if you base her age off of very old people's ages, you get a wide variety of different ages for Aisha. Not a reliable method. "100" is just a nice round number; usually we do not know the exact ages of old people. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add insert of Aisha was 19 from alternate viewpoint/Hadiths. People have a right to know!
Wikipedia is proving again as usual to be biased and non credible when they purposely only state one viewpoint but not the alternatives. Everyone knows how contentious this topic is for Muslims. This is why the article is deliberately locked out and the young age is being enforced deliberately misguiding the public.

The age of 6-9yrs is only coming from certain Bukhari and his student ‘Muslim’ Hadith’s.

Alternative sources give a very solid example of Aishas age being 16-19 all linked to another wife Asma’s age of 27 at the time.

Why has the article purposely been locked and written as if 6-9yrs was absolute fact?

Most with knowledge about Islam are aware that Hadith are generally inaccurate anyway due to the dubious way they were compiled 200 years after Mohammeds death. Also had Mohammed married Aisha at such a young age he would be defying his own Quran (4:6) which supports marriage at the age of maturity and mutual consent of both partners!

Please change this article and be more truthful. People who are newly researching Islam are being misguided by the article written in a mischievous way to suggest the infant age of marriage was an absolute fact - it isn’t!

Wikipedia is being used as a trusted source and it’s time it was brought under scrutiny. I’m seeing this deliberate mischief for years and moderators need to be fair. EddyJawed (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023
Aisha, the third wife of prophet Muhammad (SAW) was 18 years when her marriage was consummated not 9. The information on this article is deliberately misleading and wrong. Please help make corrections. Thanks. Anike.sm (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * After thorough analysis, one comes to a conclusion that issue of Aisha's age at the time of her marriage is far from settled as the sources used in the article section are primarily religious texts with questionable credibility, making the information purely theoretical. It would be prudent to present a balanced view that encompasses the various opinions and interpretations. Something like the inclusion of a sentence "According to certain contemporary Muslim authors who consider additional sources, such as a hadith comparing Aisha's age to her sister Asma's, it is estimated that Aisha was likely older than thirteen and possibly between eighteen to nineteen years old when she got married." 39.41.235.94 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly you are absolutely right. Unfortunately we are all aware of Wikipedia politically/religious biased moderators real motivations behind why they won’t even allow the very credible Hadith stating Aisha’s age of 19 based on Asma’s age of 27.
 * If Wiki moderators insist on one viewpoint no matter how inaccurate or uncomfortable, at least allow the other viewpoint of later ages. Why are they not even getting a mention? EddyJawed (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If Wiki moderators insist on one viewpoint no matter how inaccurate or uncomfortable, at least allow the other viewpoint of later ages. Why are they not even getting a mention? EddyJawed (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 16:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Its already mentioned above about the inclusion of ""According to certain contemporary Muslim authors who consider additional sources, such as a info comparing Aisha's age to her sister Asma's, it is estimated that Aisha was likely older than thirteen and possibly between eighteen to nineteen years old when she got married." line.
 * Or this could be suitable "According to select contemporary Muslim authors who explore supplementary sources, including a hadith comparing Aisha's age to her sister Asma's, a nuanced perspective emerges, suggesting that Aisha's age at the time of her marriage might have been higher than traditionally assumed, potentially ranging between eighteen to nineteen years old."
 * The current info is one-sided and needs further examination and revision. 39.41.160.186 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, ❌. Exactly where do you propose to put this?
 * The article already devotes a couple of paragraphs to the different estimates of her age, and what you wrote above creates a huge contradiction with a source already cited (citation #105 at the time I am writing this) that says Aisha was eighteen when Muhammad died.
 * You have not explained what is "deliberately misleading and wrong". You need a better justification to introduce contradictions than what you have provided so far. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well a note preceding the source(citation #105) says "This is the generally accepted date, although the actual date of death is not known for certain." It certainly, in my opinion, inform readers about the contradictions.
 * It becomes relevant to present alternative viewpoints supported by select contemporary Muslim authors who reference supplementary sources
 * The issue seems to me is that the couple of paragraphs to the different estimates of her age which you were talking about above, hmm well, they suffer from vagueness and lack clarity for the average reader. Despite the expansion into five paragraphs, I believe the information could be conveyed more precisely and effectively, potentially even within just three or four paragraphs. Also Iam not advocating to present view of her being 18 or 19 an indisputable fact. 39.41.160.186 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I was the only one wanting this. Thank you for replying and explaining it better to this Wiki moderator. I guess it seems we all understand what you are asking him to do in the article but he doesn’t EddyJawed (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The Age of Ayesha was 16-18 and not 6 or 9
It has been researched by some Islamic scholars and they've come to the conclusion that, the real age might have been mistakenly changed through the long chain of amendments and updates to the previous books. Considering she was offered in marriage because Prophet Muhammad already had 6 to 7 year old children at home, giving in marriage another 6 year old wouldn't be something even slightly wise to do. Also considering the age of Aeysha's sister was 100 at her death and 77 at hijrat so comparing doesnt bring Ayesha's age to 6 or 9. 72.255.3.181 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The argument from her sister's age has been debunked. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Ibn Hajar) mentions in (Al-Isabah) that (Fatima) was born in the year the Kaaba was built, and the Prophet was 35 years old, and that she was older than Aisha by (5) years, and according to this narration that (Ibn Hajar) mentioned, although it is not a strong narration, but assuming its strength, we find that (Ibn Hajar), who is the commentator of (Bukhari), implicitly denies the narration of (Bukhari), because if ( Fatimah was born and the Prophet was at the age of (35) years, this means that (Aisha) was born when the Prophet was (40) years old, which is the beginning of the revelation to him, which means that the age of (Aisha) at the time of migration was equal to the number of years of the Islamic call in Mecca, which is (13) years, not (9) years, and this narration was mentioned only to demonstrate the severe confusion in the narration of Al-Bukhari. 145.255.120.188 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. The argument that of 6-9 years is also debunked. Who debunked what depends on which sources you take your information from. What gives you the right to accept only one theory over another? EddyJawed (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Role during the third caliphate / Nabia Abbott
''Copying over a comment from my user talk page, by an editor who I had asked to better explain their deletion of the entire "Role during the third caliphate" section beyond the edit summary Removed false, harmful and biased information. the source is also biased, insensitive, has its own agendas and incorrect. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)''


 * Hello! the reason I removed that part is because it is not mentioned in any authentic reports. The source that was used was written by a famously biased person who does not provide a source to what she is saying in some parts of her book, if you think this should be kept then it should at least be noted that this is not the common view of what happened and that an emphasis needs to be put that most of what is being said there is from an author's view not any authentic sources SpeedyCord (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
She’s not the only lady whom he received revelations with. Umm salamah also witnessed him receiving revelations like 33:33 of The Quran or Zainab bint Jahsh with the ayah of the hijab which was revealed in her home on her wedding day. But rather the only person whom he received revelations in bed. As that’s what the hadith states.

She also have said that she had a co wife whom The prophet loved equally and that was Zainab bint Jahsh.

Ibn Abbas reported that the prophet did die in her room but it was in the arms of Ali. Please make your corrections and give credit when it’s due. 2A04:4A43:588F:BC88:9494:3180:6807:BF1F (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023
change "Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage" to "Aisha being 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage" Abed Mneimneh (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Cannolis (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't regular wikipedia often, but know a bit how it works. In addition, I really have no ties to Islam to care about this, but have you considered providing a source to support your counterpoint the already existing source that backs the claims that she was roughly 6 at the time time of her marriage? That's usually how wikipedia would make changes to its protected articles. Vindictive Samsara (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No editing option.
Hello why can't we edit this article? There is no button for that? 182.183.0.254 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request
Before I start, this request has already been asked before, but the questioner didn't lay any sources. My Request has 4 Chapters, "what to change", "my points", "sources", "a good explanation on why this is and left sources".

change: "change birthdate of aisha to 605/604" ; "Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage" to "Aisha being 18 or 19 years old at the time of her marriage

Points: 1. If you look at the birth date on asma bint abi bakr she was born 595/594, and aisha was 10 years younger than her so it would make her birth year 605/4.

2. On the "wives of muhammad" it says aishah was married to him from 623-631.

3. 623 - 605/4 = 18/19.

4. would make sense aswell because of some historic events

Sources : Asma being 10 years older than aisha: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_bint_Abi_Bakr#:~:text=The%20historians%20Ibn%20Kathir%20and,was%20thirteen%20to%20fifteen%20years.

Marriage was around ~623: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Muhammad

And again a firm explanation for this with sources:  https://unity1.store/2021/09/26/the-age-of-aisha-at-marriage/#:~:text=3.1%20Comparing%20Aisha's%20age%20to%20that%20of%20her%20older%20sister%20Asma&text=Thus%3A,the%20time%20of%20the%20Hijrah Owaysmc33 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . This is original research, which isn't permitted, Furthermore, we cannot cite Wikipedia for any claims. And the unity.store site is a blog, and therefore would be considered unreliable. The article already discusses the age controversy, and we present the consensus scholarly view, which the above argument isn't. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023
Change year of birth from c. 613/614 to 'disputed'.

Add to 'and 9 at the consummation', -->', while some place it at around 18;'

Reference taken from Sahih al-Bukhari hadith 4993 where Aisha recounts being 'a young girl of playing age' when a verse from Surah Al Qamar was revealed in the year 614. Hence that cannot be the year of her birth as put in Wikipedia. Xolta05 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Lewcm Talk to me! 13:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential edit needed (dates don’t add up), I don’t have the knowledge to confirm
In the “political career” section it notes that after 14 years of marriage Aisha lived a further 50 years before her death. With her age at death given as 63/64 years that would put her age at marriage at either 1 or 0. With my current knowledge I know that that can’t be right but I don’t have the required knowledge to accurately correct it. Given how potentially sensitive this page could be I thought I should raise the question and hope someone with deeper knowledge can address this issue properly.

Thanks Flashburn98 (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. The sentence you are referring to was sourced from Jannah.org which does not meet WP:RS criteria at all, and has been removed. —  Kaalakaa  (talk)  17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

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)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * As well as this Tilman Nagel's book published by De Gruyter, page 301:
 * — 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 &#8226; 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. 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)
 * 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), 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)

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 template. PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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 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.
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 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 covers this topic in the third paragraph of her article in EI3 (doi; green added by me for emphasis):
 * 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:
 * — 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: 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 '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)
 * Also see this report in Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:48: (my translation, my bolding for easy reference)
 * 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)
 * 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, '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)
 * 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 '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)
 * Also see this report in Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:48: (my translation, my bolding for easy reference)
 * 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)
 * 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, '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)
 * 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, '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)

Recalculation of Aisha's age: WP:FRINGE & WP:FALSEBALANCE
You added to the article text:

However, out of the four sources you have provided, these two are clearly not independent or reliable sources. (See WP:SOURCE) Meanwhile, this one: doesn't talk about any recalculation based on her sister Asma's age at all, but

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

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:

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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * "In their proper context" here means in the articles devoted to them, not side by side with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. WP:DUE
 * — 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.
 * 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 :
 * 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)
 * Please read our WP:SOURCE policy that we should
 * What is independent source? According to WP:IIS:
 * 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.
 * — 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: 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
 * 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.
 * 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)

Honorific/title moved to efn
Like in Muhammad, I've moved discussion of titles/names into an efn. It isn't notable enough from a historical point of view to be half the first paragraph of a lede. It's like stating that the prefix "His Majesty" is used in the article for King Henry VIII.

This is more a discussion of what she is called rather than who she was. It isn't even an alternate name. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * I'm not sure translation is needed, as an English speaker I can read it... "Aïsja is een controversiële figuur..."
 * Joking aside, agreed about "Islamitische schattingen", we can't have that here. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)