Talk:Aisha/Archive 4

How old at marriage?
I am trying to figure this out, because I heard somewhere she was young. How young? Why is this not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. I am so mad I see that Wikipedia is just protecting Islam all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.56.20 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That issue is dealt with here. It helps if you read the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Isn't it about time to resolve the dispute? How long can an article be editprotected... Debresser (talk)

This question of mine seems to have prompted Gnosisquest to ask for my opinion on the reliability of the source he mentioned. Here is my opinion (copied from my talk page).

I would say that this is an assertion of the book's reliability as a source about its subject, yes. I am familiar with the custom of religious institutions of repute issuing endorsements to books in order to make their reading acceptable to the adherents of their faith, so yes.

As to the matter of the discussion about the age of Aisha (nice name) at the time of her marriage, now that is a delicate matter.

Wikipedia guidelines say that "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." In view of this it is my opinion that more sources are needed before inclusion of the disputed opinion becomes advisable. These sources might be academic, or non-academic sources that testify to a relatively wide acceptance of this opinion amongst scholars or laymen. Sincerely, Debresser (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from User talk:Debresser"


 * We might could try unprotection at this point, and reprotect if the edit warring continues. I agree with you entirely about the minority sources, I've always said we should have a section on different takes on the issue of Aisha's age and the controversy it has stirred up.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got some sources: Asma Barlas: "A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19. These Muslims base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina; Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry, genealogy, and the the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics at her marriage. by Khalid Zaheer] as per Islamic voice a magazine
 * by Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi
 * as per Adil Salahi
 * by Abdul H Fauq
 * by T.O Shanavas also mentioned in The Minaret magazine

Moreover the Ahmadiyyas agree with this and claim that Maulana Ali was one of the fist to challenge the traditional age of Aisha

Basically all these sources agree that Aisha was not less than 10 at the time of her marriage and atleast 15 at the time of the consummation of her marriage. Since the book Muhammad the Prophet has been approved by Al Azhar it becomes a reliable source and can be used in the section Marriage to Muhammad itself.--Gnosisquest (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of them is reliable enough to use here - they are all websites and magazines, not works of scholarship. And you can quit saying that Al Azhar "approved" Muhammad Ali's book. (1) They only said it was "authentic Islamic literature", not a work of academic scholarship. (2). The only source you provided claiming that Al Azhar actually said that is the homepage of the Amadiyya movement, in itself not a reliable source.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My response was meant for Debresser,We can use the source as per wikipedia guidelines since it has been approved by Al Azhar as an authentic source .Please edit the article or allow me to do so.--Gnosisquest (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That material may not be added. Al Azhar calling something "authentic Islamic literature" on a religious movement's web site does not make it a reliable source. I would be willing to unprotect the page but you're giving every inclination that you'd go right back to edit warring this challenged material back in.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Al Azhar calling something "authentic Islamic literature" on the publishers site does make it authentic enough to be used here . "With due respect dont be silly" . --Gnosisquest (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Abdal-Rahman ibn abi zannad:

“Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A‘lam Al-Nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992). : قال عبد الرحمن بن أبي الزناد كانت أسماء أكبر من عائشة بعشر

According to Ibn Kathir:

“She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933) : وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين.

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933) : وأدركت قتل ولدها في هذه السنة كما ذكرنا، ثم ماتت بعده بخمسة أيام. وقيل: بعشرة. وقيل: بعشرين. وقيل: بضع وعشرين يوما. وقيل: عاشت بعده مائة يوم، وهو الأشهر، وبلغت من العمر مائة سنة ولم يسقط لها سن، ولم ينكر لها عقل رحمها الله. وقد روت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عدة أحاديث طيبة مباركة رضي الله عنها ورحمها According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

“She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqribul-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif, Lucknow). : 8525- أسماء بنت أبي بكر الصديق ‏[‏ذات النطاقين‏]‏ زوج الزبير ابن العوام من كبار الصحابة عاشت مائة سنة وماتت سنة ثلاث أو أربع وسبعين ع

Bibi Asma died in 692 CE, she was 100 years old.. 692 - 100 = 592, she was 10 years elder than Bibi Aisha. so 592+10 = Bibi Aisha was born on 602 CE

Al-Tabari writes in History of the Prophets and Kings:

“All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period” (Tarikhul-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979) (also known as Tarikh-ul-Tabari OR History of the Prophets and Kings).

The reference above means that Abu Bakr's all four kids including Bibi Aisha were born before 610 CE that's when the first revelation occurred.

“Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old… she was five years older that Ayesha” (Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978).

It means when Bibi Aisha was born Prophet was 40 years old, we already know that their marriage took place after Hijrah, and that at the time of Hijrah Prophet was 52 years old (or above), which means that Bibi Aisha was at least 12 years of age at the time of marriage. Marriage took place after Hijrah to Madina in 622 CE that means Ibn Hajar has indirectly contradicted himself.

This confirms two / three things from at least three different sources "Abdal Rahman Ibn Azi Zannad in 'The Loves of Noble Figures'", Ibn Kathir in 'The Beginning and the End'" and "Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib"
 * 1) Bibi Asma was 10 years older than Bibi Aisha
 * 2) Bibi Asma died in 73 AH (692 - 693 CE) at the age of 100
 * 3) References to Bibi Aisha's age are not similar, they are providing us with a different age AND even contradicting itself.

This means that references to Bibi Aisha's age are flawed, contradictory and/or conflicting with each other. Can this be accepted as reliable sources? at least it verifies that age is not recorded correctly. Asma_bint_Abi_Bakr, and wiki-pages of these people I have cited above state that they are scholars, historians, renowned commentator etc.

Al-Haafidh Shihabuddin Abu'l-Fadl Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad, better known as Ibn Hajar due to a fame of his forefathers, al-Asqalani due to his origin (Arabic: ابن حجر العسقلاني‎) (February 18, 1372 – d. February 2, 1448 852 A.H. [1]), was a medieval Shafiite Sunni scholar of Islam who represents the entire realm of the Sunni world in the field of Hadith.

Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qaymaz ibn `Abd Allah, Shams al-Din Abu `Abd Allah al-Turkmani al-Diyarbakri al-Fariqi al-Dimashqi al-Dhahabi al-Shafi`i (Arabic: محمد بن احمد بن عثمان بن قيوم ، أبو عبد الله شمس الدين الذهبي‎), known as Al-Dhahabi (1274-1348[1]), a Shafi'i Muhaddith and historian of Islam, was born in Damascus in 1274 CE/673 AH.

Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: ابن كثير‎) (1301–1373) was an Islamic scholar and renowned commentator on the Qur'an.

and "Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923 أبو جعفر محمد ابن جرير الطبري) was one of the earliest, most prominent and famous Persian[1] [2][3][4][5] historian and exegete of the Qur'an,who wrote exclusively in Arabic ,[6][7] most famous for his Tarikh al-Tabari (History of the Prophets and Kings) and Tafsir al-Tabari."

Since these references are taken from books (Tarikh al-Tabari [aka: History of the Prophets and Kings], Siyar A‘lam Al-Nubala’, Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib) which are written by prominent, famous and known historians and scholars, I think this should be enough to verify and accept our orequest. Thanks SKDev-Salman (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As to Cúchullain's remark that "Al Azhar calling something 'authentic Islamic literature' on a religious movement's web site does not make it a reliable source." I would tend to disagree. Knowing the system, I'd say this is a sufficient cause to assume reliability. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that the additional sources are enough to allow for a small section or subsection dealing with the subject of "Controversy about Aisha's age at her marriage" (or something like that). Debresser (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Amadiyya website is not such a source. And even if it were, calling something "authentic Islamic literature" is not the same as calling it a reliable third-party published source with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have always argued that there ought to be a subsection on the controversy about Aisha's age. However, none of those primary sources are adequate for such a section, unless there are reliable secondary sources indicating that those claims are important enough to include.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources that I mentioned above are the original sources of the claim about Bibi Aisha's age on the time of wedding, In fact two of them are already listed on wikipedia page in the Notes section for the information on this particular part of this very article. for example:
 * ^ Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7
 * ^ Al Nahaya, Volume 5 page 80 ; History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 pages 289-239.
 * I am using the same two books, Tareekh-ul-Tabari (History Of Tabari) and Al-Nahaya as the sources. If they are accepted earlier as reliable then why are they not reliable now?
 * Sorry I forgot to login before commenting :)

SKDev-Salman (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you are trying to synthesize a group of primary sources in order to draw your own conclusion, which is original research and is prohibited by Wikipedia. Primary sources can be used sometimes, but any interpretation must be left to secondary sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be hell bent on making this article one sided.I have already replied to your arguments. Anyway if you do not like what the book mentions we can use your historian Spellbergs statement "Aisha's youth was deliberately emphasized by scholars who supported the Abbasid caliphate and rejected Shi'a claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib (This would have been the period when Islamic history, and the hadith, were first written down.) Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad, divinely destined for him, and thus divinely inspired in her opposition to Ali. Claims for her youth at marriage are claims for her virginity and special status." This might do just as well--Gnosisquest (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you haven't responded to the arguments from me and others, though you have ignored them deftly. Spellberg is a reliable source, so her statement can be used here. Please give the context of the statement and the full citation and I'll add it to the article. I'm not going to unprotect it, though, as you've made it clear that you would continue edit warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha bint Abi Bakr D.A. Spellberg pg 40 Columbia University Press, 1994.The second neutral mod agrees that the book written by maulana ali is a reliable source--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't pretend to speak for Debrusser. On another note, I don't see how the Spellberg line supports your case, but I'll add it in.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added the statement in. It may be better handled in a section on Aisha's age when/if that is created.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.You forgot to add the bracket part.Can you add the exact statement I provided ? We can create a new section including scholarly opinon of Adil Salahi (newspaper represents an opinion and acording to wikiproject islam Scholarly opinions shoulb be presented) and that of Muhammad the Prophet a book approved by Al Azhar(Makes it reliable) the latest edition of Muhammad the Prophet contains a foreword written by Sheikh Tantawi.Since these are the best possible secondary sources I think that they should be used.--Gnosisquest (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The page has been moved to semi-protection, meaning established editors can edit it. This is by no means a call for a free-for-all, mind you. Further edit warring and disruption will result in blocking and potential further protection.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am adding a new section on the opinion of scholars regarding the age of Aisha.Your view please.--Gnosisquest (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnosisquest, you have been told time and time again why your citations are not valid. Stop bringing it up over and over.  It's over.67.43.140.98 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been used.--Gnosisquest (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hazrat Aisha (R) was 18-23 when she got married
You guys are only showing the wahabi/salafi view of the age of Aisha (R) when she got married to the Prophet (S)! This is incorrect in the view of other Muslims. Here is an article that should be addressed! It states that hazrat Aisha (R) was 18-23 years old when she got married and asserts that the hadiths that say she was younger are not accurate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see this video. --94.193.42.11 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reffix
Could you please add a slash to the second instance of, making it  , thereby fixing the "incorrect references" error. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I notice Cuchullain took care of this. I'm just marking this as done. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maria al-Qibtiyya
The section referring to Maria al-Qibtiyya used to explain who she was for those unfamiliar with her: "Martin Lings writes that this verse refers to Maria al-Qibtiyya, a Coptic Christian slave-girl Muhammad kept as his concubine." This was removed twice by User:Gnosisquest, first without comment and second with a comment that was very unclear, saying it "Should be used in Criticism of Muhammad". I replaced it twice, indicating that this information is necessary for establishing Maria's identity and her role in the so-called "story of the honey". It was later removed again by Debrusser. The problem is, there is nothing contentious about the description. Maria was certainly an Egyptian Coptic Christian who was sent as a slave to Muhammad, who kept her as his concubine. Some later scholars indicate that he may have later freed her and married her. There might be a better way to phrase it than what was originally in the article, but surely that information is needed to clarify to readers just who Maria was. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/ c 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unaware of your post here on the talk page I made this edit. As I indicated in the edit-summary, I sincerely think this is the best solution. It has the additional merit of avoiding controversy, of which this article has seen more than enough lately. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this?--Cúchullain t/ c 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Maria al Qibtah There is a difference in opinion whether she married the Prophet or not.The correct reference if at all needed would be Mother of the believers.Concubine should be moved to criticism page.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would that be? It's not a statement of judgement. Maria was Muhammad's concubine. Some scholars say he later married her as well, but that has no bearing on whether or not she was originally his slave. Concubinage has a particular legal status in Islamic law, see Ma malakat aymanukum and sex.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The explanation is fine. But why again specify "Muhammad's concubine (and possibly later his wife)"? Try "concubine/wife"", without specifying. It is not as if her precise status is a major point in this paragraph. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon looking at it, I don't see why Lings' interpretation should get special attention to begin with. It's only sourced to his own book. I have removed it.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a tactical solution. :) Debresser (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again :-).--Gnosisquest (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of scholar
According to Wikipedia newspaper articles can not be used to edit history, but they can be used to source opinions. Newspapers can be used to source scholarly opinions if it represents a significant view.As long as the material provided is verifiable,reliable and scholarly there will always be a way to add it one way or the other.Adil Salahis views as a scholar can be used in the setion age at marriage even if this issue is considered by some to be controversial.--Gnosisquest (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspaper sources should not be used in an article on a subject as controversial as this. You've been told that time and time again.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this rule from wikipedia ? What is the exact reason for not allowing these views ? Newspaper sources can be used in this article even it is considered to be controversial by some.Being used to source an opinion of a reputable scholar.  --Gnosisquest (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:RS time and time again. Look, if you want Salahi's opinion represented here, find a real scholarly article in a peer-reviewed journal or another academic publication. A newpaper column in some Saudi paper will not do, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion. WP:RS


 * Wikipedia allows using newspapers to source some ones opinion. This being a scholarly opinion should be given consideration. I would look for a peer reviewed journal or another academic publication if I wanted to insert Salahi's opinion as a factin the section of history.


 * If you feel a viewpoint merits mention, you can find some material which may constitute a reliable source by checking books, journals, articles, newspapers and other sources. WikiProject Islam Newspapers can be used to source a viewpoint.--Gnosisquest (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Look. If you want the material included, do the extra work of finding the reliable peer-reviewed article he originally published that opinion in. An op-ed column may be fine for sourcing a writer's opinion, but here he's making a statement of fact: he's making the claim that the primary sources are wrong, and so is the bulk of scholarship. This isn't his opinion on the Mets or movies. As such a newspaper column is not usable here. Do not revert again or you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One who makes a factual statement also holds an opinion that the fact is true.
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source (like newspapers) may be used in Wikipedia.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources   Check Verifiability--Gnosisquest (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't comprehend what on earth would make you think a column in some newspaper is a source of the caliber of books and scholarly articles on the subject. You continue to refuse to find actual scholarly sources for your claim, indicating that either your urge to include this material stops just short of making a trip to the library, or that there are no real sources to be found. You are trying to railroad an opinion that is not verified by scholarly research into this article for political reasons.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspaper is a reliable source to quote an opinion of a scholar reliable source Using books would mean adding the statement as a fact.Hope you agree.Adil Salahi is a scholar. Comment on the content,not the contributor [] --Gnosisquest (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Using books would mean adding the statement as a fact" ??? See below.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seen below,nothing of substance mentioned.You have misunderstood me.. I have found a source acceptable by wikipedia standards,It is high time you tell me what is exactly wrong with this source or include it in the article.Comments on content please.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look I have provided certain rules from wikipedia which make the opinion acceptable.If you find any rules from wikipedia against such an edit please mention them,Creating ones own rule will not help --Gnosisquest (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: An opinion from a 'neutral administrator' was requested, but we don't really do that on WP:3O. Anyway, I'm with Cúchullain on this one, actually. I'm looking at this last set of edits. Why would you remove the line about child marriage? Seems to me that all that does is skew the POV of the page. And if you want that line about Salahi in, prove that his opinion is actually valid by finding a truly reliable source. As a side note, it seems that this issue has gone on for weeks and weeks. It might be time to open an RfC, or to get some input from the people at the Islam WikiProject. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you HelloAnnyong. I believe Gnosisquest already requested the opinions of people from WP:ISLAM, and a number of other users. No one has weighed in here in favor of his opinion. An RfC might be a good idea if Gnosis wants to continue the dispute.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source provided for child marriage was Colin Turner (author) He is neither a historian nor a scholar.I want Salahis line in as an opinion,I would look for other sources if I want it to be used as a fact. Wikipedia does allow using opinions of scholars.--Gnosisquest (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy break (Colin Turner)

 * Wrong again. It's by a different Colin Turner (this one). This and your statement about what using book sources means demonstrate your continued lack of comprehension of Wikipedia policies and encyclopedia writing. It's time to let this go.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You ought to have mentioned this here itself What you source is not what is mentioned in the book,'remain common within some modern Muslim communities' is not mentioned in Colin Turners book. What it says is that child marriage is still found in many societies today (They may or may not be muslim communities) According to the source child marriages were common in Bedouins of that time (not necessarily in Bedouins at present)
 * I am going to include this statement along with it 'However such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had reached adulthood.' Source being same as yours.Hopefully the "mod" wont ban me for this.Please comment on the content this time.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Gnosisquest, this is becoming a little tendentious, don't you think? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Child marriages may not necessarily mean marriages after adulthood,However Colin Turner mentions that was the case in those times.To not mention it would mean only presenting half truths and it would be a misrepresentation of history.
 * Adding the view of Adil Salahi also does not go against NPOV.The view of Watt has already been mentioned.Adding the opposing view conforms with the NPOV.--Gnosisquest (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is tendentious editing at is most obvious. Your recent edit paraphrases/plagiarizes Turner as saying that "such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had reached adulthood." You specifically left out the second part of his sentence. The actual quote: "However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age than Westerners today." (emphasis mine). He's not saying anything about actual age, only that folks reached maturity younger back then. This quote isn't even about Aisha; you ignored Turner's actual quote about her, from the same page: "It is highly unlikely that Muhammad would not have taken her into his bed until she was at least in her early teens..." (presumably he means "unlikely that Muhammad would have," rather than "would not have"). Again, he is not saying she would have been an adult in the modern sense. You are cherry-picking quotes to support your personal opinions.


 * Additionally, Turner's book is problematic as a source here. Primarily, some material contradicts what appears in Watt's and Spellberg's more authoritative works - for instance, he says that "the sources do not mention [Aisha's] age directly...", but Spellberg's book includes the various instances where her age does appear in the sources. Additionally I can't find any peer reviews of it, while there are plenty for Watt and Spellberg. This is nothing against Turner; as its title implies his book is a general overview of all Islamic history and written for a non-academic audience; it does not focus on this one figure in the way that Spellberg does. Some of his other works may contain material that can be used here. At any rate, I think that Turner's book can be used here for some statements in lieu of better sources, but it certainly can't be used for anything that directly contradicts what appears in more authoritative works, such as the age issue.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to add this sentence (However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood,which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age than Westerners today ) along with the sentence about child marriage,quoting only one of them in an article this controversial would be wrong.I hope that you dont object to this statement.It is quoting what Turner actually states.Waiting for your response.Hope you dont object to the addition of Adil Salahis opinion too.--Gnosisquest (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this? Please do not use different yardsticks to judge our edits.You too have ignored the statement about her in your statement about child marriage.I am not using Turners statement for anything which contradicts with other sources--Gnosisquest (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I introduced the line about child marriage being common to give historical context; the marriage would not have been seen as inappropriate in context. You are taking the line out of context, and you are failing to cite it properly, meaning it constitutes plagiarism). I'm not going to reiterate again why the material is inappropriate, and I'm certainly not going to give you lessons on how to cite sources properly. If you can't do that, you have no business editing an encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The line is absolutely within context indicating what sort of child marriage was common in those times,It has been cited properly also is within context as you very well know.What you said earlier was that the exact quote is not being used.I have quoted Turners exact statement as you can see.--Gnosisquest (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably he may be mentioning an important custom in those times,Child marriages may be prepubertal too.The criticism is about her being immature,if a secondary source mentions that the custom was marriage after maturity then it should be used unless a reliable source suggests otherwise.--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny that when you thought this author didn't agree with you, you wanted it removed entirely, but once you realized he does agree with you, you want to jam even more material from the book in. Turner doesn't need any more space here, especially since, as I already pointed out, his work is just a broad overview of all Islamic history for a popular readership, and not a peer-reviewed academic study of this particular historical figure or this era of history. As such, his book is getting undue weight, especially if you keep adding in more material from it. I have already added material about the historical context (something you seem to have no concept of) as well as his rather dubious statement about people reaching "adulthood" earlier in medieval Arabia in an attempt to compromise between my fairly fastidious position and your credulous, partisan one. Turner's book is proving to be a real problem here: he contradicts himself in some places, specifically on the age issue, and some of his claims contradict what appears in the more authoritative sources. Again, this isn't a go at Turner - by all indications he's a reliable scholar and he may have some other works that can be used here. In summation: Turner's book shouldn't recieve any more space; the statement that medieval Arabs reached adulthood earlier is included, without being affected by your plagiarism and sloppy editing; and the more crucial information that this type of marriage wasn't inappropriate in its historical context is included. Time to move on.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Break 2
(outdent) I tend to agree with Cúchullain on this. This edit seems to have just enough information; adding "consummated usually after maturity" is sort of redundant. But I'm curious - does he literally say that in the book? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What Colin Turner states is a sort of betrothal not marriage in todays sense.He also states that the actual marriage or consummation took place after adulthood.This statement has a direct bearence on further statements made on this topic by Turner also an important part of the tradition of that time is being left out to give more weight to these further statements thereby not at all conforming with edits which can be made on wikipedia. I wanted Turners comments to be removed since the Colin Turner mentioned in wikipedia was an author and not a scholar moreover the statement which you added was not mentioned in the book as I have reminded you.As for the age issues that can be discussed later after reaching a solution here,--Gnosisquest (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you thought the source said something you didn't like, you wanted it removed entirely. You didn't even bother verifying the source beyond looking up other people named "Colin Turner" on Wikipedia. But now that you've looked at it and saw stuff you do like, you want even more material from it in the article. Don't you think this is one-sided?
 * To answer your question, HelloAnnyong, here is Turner's direct quote: "It was not unheard of in Muhammad's time for boys and girls to be promised to each other in marriage almost as soon as they were born, particularly if the union was of direct political significance to the families concerned. However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age than Westerners today. It is highly unlikey that Muhammad would not have [sic] taken Aisha into his bed until she was at least in her early teens, which was wholly in keeping with the customs of the day, and in context not in the least improper." I have outlined some of the problems with this source above (it's not an academic text, and in some places it directly contradicts material in other more authoritative sources). There are other problems arising from its limitations as a popular history book for a general audience; most specifically, it doesn't cite its sources, meaning it's impossible to tell how Turner drew his conclusions. Still, I think it's worth keeping, for the time being at least, because it directly speaks about the modern controversy about Aisha's age, and indicates that such a marriage was (relatively) conventional in its historical context. However, it should not be used to contradict, "balance out" or otherwise undermine what appears in the more authoritative sources such as Watt and Spellberg. This is what Gnosisquest is trying to do with his persistant edits .--Cúchullain t/ c 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so.. you're saying that adding "not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood" shouldn't be added because it's not clear where Turner got his information from, and may therefore be unreliable? Does Watt or Spellberg state that the marriage would have been consummated before they enter adulthood? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what Spellberg says: "'A'isha's age is a major preoccupation in Ibn Sa'd where her marriage age varies between six and seven; nine seems constant as her age at the marriage's consummation. Only Ibn Hisham's biography of the Prophet mentions that 'A'isha may have been ten years old when the Prophet consummated the marriage. All of these specific references to the bride's age reinforce 'A'isha's pre-menarcheal status, and implicitly her virginity. They also suggest the variability of 'A'isha's age in the historical record." Her notes cite all the passages in the histories and discusses the discrepancy in Tabari.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. I guess I'm just not understanding why adding "not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood" is such a big deal then; the next clause after that states that maturity started younger. In terms of WP:NPOV, isn't there space for that one clause? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so; I added in the line ending "...individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West" as an attempt to compromise between (a) using Turner's claims regarding marriage age as statements of fact and (b) not mentioning it at all. I'd rather not have it at all, since it is being used to undermine what appears in Spellberg (ie, that the sources highlight Aisha's age as being specifically pre-adult). But in the spirit of compromise I think the clause indicating that Turner has suggested that medieval Arabs matured earlier is acceptable. However, Gnosisquest's recent changes are reduntant, overreaching, and lean far to heavily on a single pop history book that isn't dedicated to the subject and doesn't explain its deviations from the peer-reviewed scholarly works (there's also the issue of writing quality and plagiarism.) In short, I think the current version should please both parties and put an end to the dispute.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that that last edit was redundant. Based on what the sources say, I think the current version is just fine. But if Gnosisquest wants to keep the edit war going, then I don't know what to do... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When two secondary sources contradict,it does not mean that we can choose what we like.One should look at the secondary sources in the light of primary sources(If available) and decide what to do. "the sources do not mention [Aisha's] age directly" seems to be a wrong statement since there are sources which indicate her age directly (Though there might be a chance Turner might be speaking of those sources in particular not all the sources)

As far as the statement "marriage was consummated at maturity" is concerned there are some sources which may suggest that was the case like Aisha was initially betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im, Lack of or less number of reports of child abuse among Arabs during that time and no hadith from Aisha that she had been abused.There can be a third option, Add the statement "marriage was consummated at maturity"


 * You are right The statement at present does seem to be much better than the original edit--Gnosisquest (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then the matter is resolved. Good day.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it now ?
I would like to know how would you like the statement to be framed so that it is acceptable by wikipedia ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to accept that the various other editors involved in this discussion, including the one who responded to your request for a third opinion, do not agree that your material should be included. Our reasons for this are discussed in excruciating detail above. We already struck out a compromise above that everyone involved found suitable. It's well past time for you to let this go.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I'm getting sick of this. Gnosis has been doing this for around two months now, and it's way past the point of being tendentious. Do we just sit here and keep reverting? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't participated in those discussions, I've been aware of them for some time as I often do clean-up editing on Aisha, Ali, Muhammad and related articles. This seems very straightforward to me: the material that Gnosisquest wishes to include is an extreme minority fringe view amongst scholars, and to give it any coverage is undue weight. Repeatedly seeking to insert it against the established consensus of a strong majority of active editors is reasonable grounds for an RfC. I'm not directly involved enough to initiate one, but will certainly comment if someone else opens an RfC. Doc  Tropics  16:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it has been discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aisha&diff=286905869&oldid=286713073, This represents a significant view point. --Gnosisquest (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you discussed it before does not mean it is significant. There is a strong consensus against including the material and your repeated insertions not only merit an RfC, there is indeed an element of tenditous editing which comes very close to being a reportable offense that could lead to blocking. If this indeed a significant viewpoint you could easily provide 3 - 4 reliable sources in English which make that statement. Please see the policy on reliable sources and remember that not everyone who talks or writes about a subject is a Reliable Source by our standards. There are tens of thousands of English-speaking Islamic scholars who are recognized as scholarly authorites; if the information you are presenting is indeed a "significant view", then many reliable sources will have written about it and you will be able to provide several. Until you do, please stop putting it in the article, consensus is against it. Doc  Tropics  16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Call me jaded, but I'm not entirely convinced that an RfC is going to help here, as consensus has more or less already been reached. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Doc's talking about an RfC on user conduct. That may be an appropriate step.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Cuchullain, I should have provided the proper link myself. Doc  Tropics  17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah.. heh. Following the thread on my talk page, I started a section on WP:ANEW. Should I take it down? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed your report, and I think you chose the right place to file it; I'd say leave it there. Doc  Tropics  17:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The source itself is peer reviewed many scholars have reviewed and accepted this book as true.--Gnosisquest (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry my mistake the source is not peer reviewed.--Gnosisquest (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I could find no peer reviews for this text on JSTOR or anywhere in the Combined Catalog of the State University Libraries of Florida. Yet more evidence that you will stop at no lengths with your little religious battle. As has been said, there has been literally months of discussion in which various editors have explained in detail why your edits are not acceptable. Hopefully the current measures will stop you from continuing to waste everyone's time.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Muhammad Man and Prophet: A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam by Adil Salahi Here is one more source mentioning that Aisha was 19 at the time of marriage.I hope that it can be used to source the edit as a fact or scholarly material.Also to maintain NPOV the view of other scholars disagreeing with this POV can be used.Please do not take this as a religious battle,your co operation is essential.--Gnosisquest (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should include Gnosisquest's source for what it is: Modern Islamic apologetics. according to the blurb, Muhammad Imdad Hussain Pirzada is "examining key issues pervading the modern world relating to Islam and the Muslims." Apparently to the fact that "Aisha was 19". This doesn't qualify as a scholarly hypothesis, but at least it shows that Muslims in Britain begin to feel uncomfortable with early medieval Arabian marriage customs, which is probably a good sign. Apparently the book was hailed as "addressing the most urgent issues facing Muslims in modern Britain" (Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad Shaykh Zayed Lecturer of Islamic Studies Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge University). This source can be used, if only to document that Muslims in Britain are actively debating the Aisha question. Accepting editors' submissions for what they are really worth is, whenever at all possible, preferable to just scrapping them. Very nearly any printed book can be duly mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. Often not in the context and gist envisaged by the original submitter, but Wikipedia grows by absorbing misconceptions and setting them right. --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supportthe inclusion of User:Gnosisquest's view in the article as it complies with Wp:Npov and of course it is well referenced --Notedgrant (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. The problem is exactly that his edits do not comply with NPOV and are of course not well referenced. Only dab had a sensible suggestion for keeping the information: by making it clear that the statements are notable as apologetic in nature rather; they are clearly not scholarly.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As Cuchullain indicates, material that fails to comply with basic policy is not subject to consensus; even if a hundred editors "vote" to include it. However, I've been mulling Dab's suggestion for some time now, and I concur that the info might possibly be included in an NPOV fashion if it were clearly labeled as "modern apologetics" or similar. But it's important to remember that for a very large percentage of Muslims, Aisha's young age and implicit virginity border on being an article of faith. To them (I believe the Shi'a), suggesting that she was 19 is very nearly sacrilige, and most assuredly not a mainstream view, or even a strong minority view. In the long run, I'm still not convinced that the "19 years old Theory" is anything but a Fringe view. As I said earlier, if it really were a significant view among the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, there would certainly be numerous Reliable Sources addressing it at (for example) the University level, not just an occassional lone writer with questionable credentials. Until someone produces some really strong new evidence, I think we need to put this to bed. Doc  Tropics  16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Muhammad Man and Prophet: A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam by Adil Salahi Here is one more source mentioning that Aisha was 19 at the time of marriage.I hope that it can be used to source the edit as a fact or scholarly material.Also to maintain NPOV the view of other scholars disagreeing with this POV can be used.
 * (Other reliable sources in foreign languages includes the book by Khalid Masud, titled Hayat-e-Rasool-e-Ummi published in 2003 by Dar-ut-Tazkeer.)
 * Al Mawrid an Islamic institute has also published this POV on its site I hope that these sources are enough to prove that it is not a fringe theory.--Gnosisquest (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are not authoritative sources, as you've been told over and over and over again.67.43.137.16 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Aisha was born in 603 A.D.
According to Wikipedia's own article on Asma bint Abi Bakr, Asma (Aisha's older sister) was 10 years older than Aisha and died at the age of 100 in 693 A.D. (or 73 A.H.) This is agreed upon by the majority of Islamic scholars. So just do the math, if you can: Aisha couldn't have been any younger than 17 when she was married to Muhammad -- if Khadija (as is also agreed upon) died three years before Muhammad departed for Medina. 4.157.11.153 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Dhimmicrat


 * Unfortunately that's original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. It is also directly contradicted by the several hadith cited in this article, in which Aisha is clearly described as 9 when the marriage was consumated; this includes hadith attributed to Aisha herself.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Bill Delaney alias Cúchullain: if you think the Wikipedia article on Asma bint Abi Bakr is "original research," then have it removed. As well, you are clearly ignorant of the subject of which you profess authority: Hadiths (and even parts of hadiths) can be subject to human error, even on the part of their narrators.  Any real Islamic scholar would know this -- yet you act as if hadiths are infallible and that anything that contradicts one of them is in error.  Not only that, but you also have sought to suppress any views to the contrary of your rather narrow view of Islam -- including removing views that have been proposed by internationally recognized scholars.  Asma Barlas, for instance, teaches at the University of Amsterdam and at Ithaca College (a fairly well-known, highly selective, liberal arts college in New York State.)  She has a doctorate in the subject and has been recognized for "her prominent contributions to discussions about women and Islam."  In other words, she's an expert in her field.  I would suppose that her views -- especially concerning the life of Aisha bint Abi Bakr -- would be far more credible than readings of hadiths made by a student at the University of North Florida specializing in Arthurian legend and Celtic mythology.  So please do us all a favor and either improve your knowledge of Islamic scholarship or stick to a subject you are clearly more qualified to discuss (and desist from vandalizing this article.) 4.157.11.47 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Dhimmicrat
 * My friend, you need to calm down, and comment on the content, not the contributor. I don't believe I've ever said I was an authority on the hadith, nor did I ever say that hadiths were infallible. I fail to see why you are singling me out. If you read my comments above, you will see that I wished to introduce a section about Aisha's age, and include the views of the minority of scholars. My main caveat was that we must not portray this as if there was substantial disagreement, when most scholars, notably Watt, take it as fact that Aisha was nine, lest we give to much undue weight to a minority opinion. You mention Barlas as one of those who disagrees, she has been much discussed at this talk page, but several contributors (not including me) did not feel she ought to be used as a source here. At any rate she appears to be one of the only scholars who disagrees, at least that anyone here has been able to find, though many have looked.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just would like to add, on the issue of whether a majority of muslims agree or disagree; I find it interesting to note that all the sources on Aisha's age are done by secondary sources (mostly quoted by orientalists - even the 'hadiths; quoted are translated by USC) whereas the sources in Asma's article, are actually arabic sources, and all are reputable, old, and respected commentators on islamic history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Hajar_Asqalani, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Dhahabi) I leave it for other to infer which is more credible on the topic of  islamic history. But I would make the point that the alternative (alternative in the western world at least) be given sufficient consideration, and at the very least be included in the article for balance sake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.89.56 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * in reply to cuchullain's first comment, aisha often substituted numbers, which was commen then. some argue this means when she said the marrige consumated at 9 meant 19. she's done it before. Aisha was known to use numerical substitution in other hadith, such as in the hadith of Laylat Al-Qadr where she substituted 1 for 21 and 3 for 23. 75.72.25.219 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Aisha had contempt for the Ahl'Ul'Bayt???
In the section on The Battle of the Camel, it is claimed that Aisha(RA) had contempt for the Ahl'Ul'Bayt. This is a sectarian(Shia) bias, clearly shown by the fact that according to Sunnis, she was part of the Ahl'Ul"Bayt. The guidelines for wikipedia articles state that they should not be sectarian in nature, so while its fine to state the Shia point of veiw, it should be acknowledged as such, not stated as a majority muslim belief. The same applies to the part about Aisha(RA) conspiring to murder Uthman. If Nahj'Ul'Balagha is used as a citation, it should be made clear that to Sunnis, this is not a valid or accepted text. Also Al-Tabari- He is well known to have included many Shia narrations in his writing. There are no sahih reports in their citation, at least from the majority Sunni view.To Mainstream Sunni Muslims, the claim that Aisha(RA) helped to murder Uthman(RA) is offensive. It is well known that she innitiated the Battle of the Camel because she felt that Ali(RA) had not moved quikly or decisively enough against the Egyptians who killed Uthman(RA) This needs to be addresed. 24.22.94.118 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? at-Tabari, has not been shown to include Shi'a narrations. Ulama just said that because they are not comfortable with the History in his books.--IsaKazimi (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Marriageable age
Hello, does Islam have any rules about marriageable age?

The marriageable age in Judaism is 3 for a girl, if the father gives consent; I was wondering if there were any corresponding rules set down by Islam about this subject, or whether it has no opinion, and just takes the local cultural norm of the marriageable age.

I'm posting this question here because lots of people make a big fuss about Aisha's age at marriage, so it seemed like the place people might know.

If there is a fixed marriageable age, in Islam, would someone be able to mention it at marriageable age. If Islamic rules about this are more nuanced, or complex, would someone be able to give a brief explanation at Talk:Child marriage in Judaism?

(we are trying to ascertain whether Judaism is the only religion that sets rules about the age for marriage, rather than just going with whatever the local cultural norms/laws are)

Thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no specific rules for when to get married in Islam as layed down by the Qur'an or the Hadith and the scholars are not united on the age either. Most scholars would say it is when a person has reached 'maturity', which generally means one a person has reached puberty. However, some scholars allow marraige at any age, for example, a family may decide to marry their three-year-old son to his three-year old cousin. This is identified by most as purely culteral though. All scholars agree that a marraige cannot be consumated until puberty has been reached on both sides. Hope that helps.--IsaKazimi (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm... not quite 100% correct, I'm afraid. Judaism does not actually set a lower limit on marriageable age, and the three-year-old rule is an entirely different concept.  It would seem that several different concepts are being confused here, but this is not the place to go in depth about it, so I'll just refer any interested parties to an appropriate source of Jewish law (and bear in mind that the articles on Wikipedia, as of this date, carry the same errors listed here). RavShimon (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, Aisha was under contract to be married to another prior to her marriage to the last prophet. This is often overlooked and really makes the whole conversation a moot one to begin with. Lilac 3/14/10```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of citation
On the Veiws section there is not one citation. If it is a universaly known fact that Aisha had contempt for Ahl'ul'Bayt, some solid, NON SECTARIAN citations should be given. Can't find any....Hmm. Maybe thets because 90% of muslims dont believe that and it's not reflected in the works of their scholars either.24.22.94.118 (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Gibbon mentioned in his "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" that Aisha had a contempt for Hazrat Ali.--hassan 07:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan572 (talk • contribs)

This article has been written from a Shite point of view & their hatred of Aisha is well known. She never hated Uthman - in fact she helped raise the army to catch his murderers. This article needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.62.38 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with that. The whole point of Sunni Islam aims at covering up details rather than relating verifiable information. When you say "most" muslims obviously you are referring to "most" Sunnis whom you regard to have the upper hand in this. The point of Wiki is to provide accurate information and if that information violates a Sunni, that constitutes for you and those 90% you suggest, a corruption of Islam. All it is really is an expose of the lies and coverups supported by mostly Sunni regimes who inflicted oppression on people who didn't uphold their political offices. Lilac 3/14/10```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Cotton (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)