Talk:Aisha/Archive 8

Aisha's age at marriage
One of the reasonable way to find Aisha's age at marriage is comparing her age with her sister, Asma another daughter of Abu Bakr. According to literature and references, Asma was 10 years older than Aisha ans she was 27 years old in the first year of migration to Madina[1-13]. Therefore, Aisha should be at least 17 years old when she got marry to prophet Mohammad. Have some paedophiles been editing this article? References: [1] Almo'jam Alkabir by Altabarani, chapter 24, page 77 [2] The history of Madina and ِDamascus, Ibn Asaker Aldameshghi Alshafei, chapter 69, page 9 [3] Asad Alghabah fi Marefat Alsahabah, Aljazary, chapter 7, page 11 [4] Tahzib o Alasma va Alloghat, Alnavooi, chapter 2, page 598 [5] Majma' alzavayed and Manba'o al favayed, Alheifami, chapter 9, page 260 [6] Taghrib Altahzib, Alasghalani Alshafei, chapter 1, page 743 [7] Alasalato fi Tamiz e Sahabah, chapter 7, page 487 [8] Alestiab fi Marefate l Ashab, chapter 4, page 1783 [9] Alwafi belWafiat, chapter 9, page 36 [10] Sonan albeihaghi alkobra, chapter 4, page 204 [11] Albedayat o va alnahayah, chapter 8, page 345 [12] Merghaho almafatih, chapter 1, page 331 [13] Sobol Islam, Sharh Bologh o Alam men Adellato Islam, chapter 1, page 39

Msayati (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved from article space for discussion The above paragraph was added to the article on 17 November 2015, by Msayati. It needs to be discussed.

Msayati - please could you tell us on this talk page what exactly each of the sources you are citing says that is relevant to the question of her age. Please give quotations for each source translated into English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Aisha's age at marriage by comparing her age with her sister Asmā%27_bint_Abi_Bakr

According to Sahih al-Bukhari, "Narrated 'Aisha: .. He married me after three years of her (Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid) death..."

So Muhammad married her after the first year of migration to Medina (622 CE).

Asmā%27_bint_Abi_Bakr is Aisha's older sister. Lots of scholars such as Al-Tabarani who was one of the most important Hadith scholars of his age, Ibn_%27Asakir and Ali_ibn_al-Athir and  Al-Haithami states

"... Asma was born 27 years before migration to Medina"

Therefore, at the year of migration to Medina, Asma was 27 years old. Then, She should be 28 years old when her sister Aisha married Muhammad. It is well-known that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha. I just cite a couple of references here. Ibn Kathir, Asqalani mentioned it in two of his book titled  al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba, which is the most comprehensive dictionary of the Companions and also Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. Al-Dhahabi also stated in Siyar a`lam al-nubala' "... Asma was 10 years older than her sister, Aisha."

Ali_al-Qari mentioned in Mirqat al Mafatih Sharh Mishkat al-masabih which is explanation of Mishkat_al-Masabih.

"Asma was 17th person who became Muslim and she was 10 years older than her sister, Aisha..."

Saying all of references, it is an easy conclusion that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she got married.

Aisha's age at marriage based on the time she became Muslim

Most of Sunni scholars believe that Aisha was one of the first person who became Muslim. Al-Nawawi mentioned in his book Tahdhib al-Asma wal-Lughat "Aisha was a kid and became Muslim after 18 persons."

Motahar ibn Taher Muqaddasi, who is Islamic historian scholar, mentioned in his book, "The people who took precedence over others to become Muslim ..... and ladies were Asma daughter of Omeis ...Asma daughter of Abu Bakr and Aisha who was a kid and they all became Muslim during three beginning years of Islam when Muhammad was inviting people to Islam hidden.."

Ibn_Hisham also listed Aisha among the first people who became Muslim in the first year after revelation while he was a kid. .

Therefor, Aisha was a kid in the first year of revelation (610 CE) and her marriage was at 623 CE. We do not know how old was Aisha at that time but it is not possible that she was less than 13 years old when she got married. If we assume Aisha was 5 years old (according to ten years different with her sister, Asma) when she became Muslim, she should be about 18 years old at the marriage.

Msayati (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you . That is most illuminating.  It will be interesting to know what other editors think of this.


 * Have you read the Wikipedia policy: WP:SYNTH? Please could you explain how what you are doing compares with the examples in that policy?--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing up that Wikipedia policy. Based on the Aisha article itself, the previous editors did arithmetic function to conclude the date of birth [reference 1 in the article] and date of marriage of Aisha. However, based on the quotes I mentioned above and more references, Aisha got married in 623 CE and she was a kid in 610 CE. Based on the Wikipedia policy, basic arithmetic do not count as original research. By saying that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha and she was 27 years old in the year 622 CE, do you think it would be violation of policy to say that Aisha was 17 years old at that time? I think the article is biased (specially by referring to Child Marriage) and has not informed readers about these major resources. Msayati (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic arithmetic rule applies if you have ONE source that says all these things. If your assumptions are correct, you would expect to have no difficulty finding one in English that is readily available.  If you cannot do this, then you should question your assumptions. --  Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this although it has not been mentioned in WP:CALC. In the meanwhile, there are some resources that says these things together. Ali_al-Qari mentioned in Mirqat al Mafatih Sharh Mishkat al-masabih which is explanation of Mishkat_al-Masabih.

"Asma was 17th person who became Muslim and she was 10 years older than her sister, Aisha. She passed away ten days after death of her son while she was 100 years old and all of her tooth were healthy. It was in the year 73 AH"

Al-san'ani stated exactly the same thing in his book titled Sobol al-Islam without talking about her tooth though. So the arithmetic function would be (Age of Aisha in 622 CE =0 AH: 100 - 73 - 10 = 17) in the year 622 CE which is one year before her marriage. All of these also has been discussed in the article publish in The Fountain magazine. Msayati (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us see what other editors say about this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that the following is a good summary of what you wish the article to mention?
 * In the twentieth century, Pakistani writer Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya minority sect of Islam, challenged the Sahih al-Bukhari. He acknowledged that Aisha was young as the traditional sources claim; but argued that instead a new interpretation of the Hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih, Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, could indicate that Aisha would have been nineteen years old around the time of her marriage. However, the hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih is not a Ṣaḥīḥ (صَحِيْح) hadith, and its authenticity is considered doubtful by many scholars such as al-Tabrizi.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I read that article and it seems Muhammad Ali has different evidences. That's why I am saying the article is biased by highlighting just one approach that she was six and referring to child marriage. I think adding some quotations from other references make the article more neutral. Msayati (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1's summary is much better. It's more concise, it identifies the source, and it make it clear that the conclusion is a minority position. Edward321 (talk)
 * This is not voting where you will actively support other editor's views. Take a look at WP:RNPOV and WP:MTPPT. SpyButeo (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The talk page exists to discuss the betterment of the article. Agreeing with another editor does not violate [WP:MTPPT]], if it did, every poster on the talk page, including yourself, would be guilty of meatpuppetry. WP:RNPOV supports the views I have posted on this talk page. Edward321 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is not neutral. The previous editors made it even more biased by concluding and referring to child marriage. Adding these references and quotations make it clear that her age of marriage still has a lot to discuss. and, since you are active in WikiProject_Islam I was wondering if you can comment on this discussion. Thanks Msayati (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest to use several sources including Brill and esposito to cover the issue.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"In light of the above discussion, there can be absolutely no doubt that any narration stating that Ayesha was 6-9 years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, is inaccurate. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Ayesha was 19-21 years old at the time of her marriage."
 * I strongly support the position of Msayati in this discussion. He has offered sufficient references to some of the most notable scholars of hadith in Muslim history. All these scholars inform us that Aisha was ten years younger than Asma and that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration to Medina. Per WP:CALC, these scholars leave no space to doubt that Aisha was born 17 years before the Migration and that she married the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 18.

- CONCLUSION of Professor Muzammil H. Siddiqi


 * Prof. Muzammil H. Siddiqi is a top reliable scholar of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Theology and Comparative Religion. He is a Sunni Muslim Imam and a leader of the Muslim community in the US.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition: the Arabic article, which is a featured article, has for a long time maintained that Aisha was born in 604 CE (not in 614) and that she married the Prophet at the age of approximately 18-19.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To help clarify, the Wikipedia policy on synthesis states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This is precisely what you are doing: "Source (a) says they were married (z) years after event (x), source (b) says event (x) happened in year (y), source (c) says girl (a) was (x) years younger than girl (b), source (d) says girl (b) was born (y) years before event (x), so by taking (y) years, subtracting (x) years and adding (z) years we can figure out how old girl (a) is." It is pretty much the textbook example of what you are not supposed to do. Contrast this with the sources you are trying to contradict, which state in very plain language "Girl (a) was age (x)". You need to find reliable third party/secondary sources (A category which The Fountain magazine would not appear to qualify for) that state in plain language the conclusions (Not just the pieces necessary for some to arrive at that conclusion) that you feel should be included, and avoid making your own assessment of primary source materials.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "User:UnequivocalAmbivalence" needs to read WP:CALC which says: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Thus, there is no original research here at all.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to revisit the part that says "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.". By calculating age, they mean if birthdates are given and then a year is given, not that you have carte blanche to make the convoluted calculations that are being made here, which are far from obvious, and not a meaningful reflection of all the sources. AND all the data for the calculations needs to come from the SAME source, not different bits from different sources as outlined above. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy of WP:CALC is very clear for me and for any reasonable person, and it perfectly supports my position here. It is not my guilt that it is not clear for you. No one needs "your personal interpretation". The policy is itself clear. "Your personal interpretation" is not a policy.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when the policy says that editor consensus is required, as this one does, my personal interpretation is just as important as yours, and every editor involved. You can personally disagree, but you cannot dictate how "any reasonable person" would interpret it. You speak for yourself and no for one else.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus needed is "that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". Keep in your mind that consensus is not voting. No matter how many parrots agree with you. The thing that theoretically matters is the quality of arguments. Given that the sources say that #Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma. & that #Asma was born 27 years before the Migration. *Any reasonable person with basic arithmetic skills will come to the obvious, correct, and meaningful result that Aisha was born 17 years before the Migration. If you dispute this obvious result of these routine calculation, then you need to solve your personal problems with mathematics.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

5.107.81.93, please stop engaging in personal attacks against UnequivocalAmbivalence. WP:CALC is very clear, but it does not support your opinion. As noted, it says ""Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." You opinion is neither consensus, nor "a meaningful reflection of the sources". It is an example of violating the Wikipedia policy on synthesis, as UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly explained. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment! are you disputing that 27-10=17?! is there anyone here willing to dispute that 27-10=17?! If anyone here is willing to dispute this "obvious result" of a "routine calculation", then let us know. If no one is willing to dispute this obvious result, then the consensus required for WP:CALC is established.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that 27-10=17. They are pointing out that to get those numbers you have to cobble together multiple sources in a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy on synthesis. Your opinion is still neither consensus, nor "a meaningful reflection of the sources". In fact, your opinion requires ignoring the majority of the sources, which clearly state Aisha's age at the time of the marriage. Edward321 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all in the text of the policy of WP:CALC saying that the calculations should be based on one source only. You made that up. If no one is going to dispute that 27-10=17, then the consensus required for the policy of WP:CALC is already established.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, as noted over a year ago at Talk:Asmā' bint Abi Bakr, sources of the 10 year ago difference all quoting a single weak source and ignoring that sources such as Al Dhahabi note there are other traditions saying there was more than 10 years of age difference between the sisters. Edward321 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The comment there on Talk:Asmā' bint Abi Bakr is not reliable or correct.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * are you the same person as 5.107.81.93?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am always logged in. I do not know who he/she is but I appreciate the Muzammil H. Siddiqi's article he/she referred to.. Msayati (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I dispute that 27-10=17 is an appropriate representation of the problem. This is what the sources say.
 * In 622 Asma was 27.
 * In 622 Aisha was 8.
 * Asma was 10 years older than Aisha.
 * The correct way to represent this information numerically is 27 - 10 =/= 8.
 * Conclusion: at least one of these numbers is wrong.
 * It does not follow that we can make an arbitrary decision about which number is the wrong one. We need the authority of a professional historian to assess the relative weight of each tradition. So far the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of scholars is that the age of Aisha is the information least likely to be wrong.
 * If you have a genuine scholar who thinks differently, by all means bring your scholar forward. However, the blogger who contributed to Discovering Islam doesn't seem to be anything more than a teacher at a local madrassa. His arguments have been addressed by Gibril Haddad, who is a real scholar and must be given more weight here.Petra MacDonald (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As there was no registry of births and deaths in Mecca, none of the dates used as a basis for calculation can be proved right. I think we should fall back on the observation that the usual age for marriage of girls was soon after their first period, which was probably about 13 in the nutritional conditions of a desert town with minimal agriculture. I would expect Aisha to have been married at about 14, hence born in 609. Pjstewart (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There might not have been a formal registry, but it is certain that there was a calendar, and most seventh-century Meccans seemed to know their ages. Aisha made a clear and specific statement about her age at marriage. Even if her statement is somewhat surprising (i.e., it contradicts your common-sense assumption about general trends), there is no real reason to disbelieve her. She was a recognised expert in both genealogy and arithmetic, and her father was also an expert in genealogy, so we would expect Aisha to know her age.Petra MacDonald (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

HGilbert suggested I post this new source (a newspaper column on this subject) here on Aisha's TP. Here's a link to that thread. I think it is a valuable source that lends additional support to some of the points mentioned here (e.g. Barlas) and can be cited within Aisha's article. Also some additional points which aren't yet detailed can be cited from this article. These details are not relevant in Muhammad's TP, but here in Aisha's they might be useful. c Ө de1+6 TP  21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More precisely, I suggested that the extensive conversation about Aisha's age that is taking place at Talk:Muhammad be moved here, where the issue should be sorted out and the conclusions be implemented in both articles. HGilbert (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

On an edit by @Edward321 (7 February 2016‎)
On the 7th of February 2016‎, user reverted my edit without any explication, other than the edit summary "rv to better version". I ask him, how is it a better version? My edit reflected the same wording that was found in Muhammad, and I even added a ref that was quiet explicit on that point, namely the "" ref, from which I quote: "This was also based on the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but had waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity." 16:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Aisha's age. (Yes again!)
I found a little problem with the article.

In this part and the quote immediately following it. "In modern times, Pakistani writer Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya minority sect of Islam, challenged the Sahih al-Bukhari. He acknowledged that Aisha was young as the traditional sources claim; but argued that instead a new interpretation of the Hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih, Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, could indicate that Aisha would have been nineteen years old around the time of her marriage.[25] However, the hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih is not a Ṣaḥīḥ (صَحِيْح) hadith, and its authenticity is considered doubtful by many scholars such as al-Tabrizi.[26][27] Sadakat Kadri points out that the recording of Aisha's age by Ibn Sa'd and Bukhari (though the hadith was Sahih) came a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death.[28] "

Ahmadiya is not a minority sect of Islam anymore than Jehovahs Witnesses are a minority sect of Christianity, or British Israelites are a minority sect of Judaism. Yes, they like to call themselves Muslims, but neither Sunni or Shia Moslems recognize them as Moslems. Among other things, since their beliefs go against one of the most important tenants of Islam: That Mohammad was the seal of the prophets, i.e. The last of the prophets.

Could this section perhaps be moved to a brief new section called "Aisha in other religious traditions" or a similar name (Yes, you may find it a minor, inconsequential detail, but as it stands, this article is not just misleading, it's also frankly speaking insulting to both Sunni and Shia Moslems. The same way an article about Judaism would be offensive to Jews, if it included Black Hebrew Israelites as a "minority sect of Judaism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.68.232 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether someone is offended by someone else's religious beliefs is irrelevant here. On WP they should be identified the way they are identified in WP:RSs. However, this passage and section have several other problems. From more specific to more general ones they are:


 * 1) Ahmadiyya Movement is confused with Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement, to which Muhammad Ali belonged
 * 2) Classification of the movement should be left to the relevant article
 * 3) The whole passage fails source verification
 * 4) There is a highly relevant quote from a RS (Asma Barlas) given on this TP above which should be used here but isn't
 * 5) The section is not very well organized
 * I will try to address these issues shortly. Eperoton (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadakat Kadri isn't a reliable source, he isn't a scholar of islam, he is instead "a lawyer, author, travel writer and journalist." 08:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I think that's a borderline case. The book is with a major publisher and so it shouldn't be problematic for statements that aren't dubious or disputed. However, if Kadri makes WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims or contradicts specialists, citing his opinion would be undue. Eperoton (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if it's with a major publisher, the author needs to be a specialist in the field, or at least having a broad range of publications in such a field, which isn't the case with Kadri. 21:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I don't see a restriction of this form in the policies. I believe it's relevant only when there's disagreement between sources and consequently a question of due weight. Eperoton (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2016
Aisha is not 9 years old, the hadiths that were represented were weak and non-authentic, if you read the Prophetic biography you would see that she was fighting at the battle of Badr, no one under 15 fought in that battle. More details are in this webstie:

https://www.quora.com/How-do-Muslims-feel-about-their-Prophet-Mohammad-having-married-Aisha-as-a-seemingly-underage-girl

Bodareda (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Quora.com does not appear to meet the definition of a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy concerning Aisha's Age
I know this topic has probably been done to death, but I just wanted to draw people's attention about the sources in the Arabic version of this article, mainly that they essentially disagree with the age presented (instead of 613/614 it's 604), and the sources provided are, indeed, available in English:

Source one Source two

I don't tend to edit all that often and I've been seriously wondering why this particular issue was present, and I'm not sure if there's any protocols that would prevent this particular fact from being corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.200.173 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The page is biased about her age at marriage
Currently, the page is heavily biased about Aisha's age at marriage. I believe wikipedia should be a non-biased source of knowledge which should list out all the popular opinions without taking a pick. For example, here is an example of a non-biased opinions on Muhammad Bin Qasim's Death. Now as you can see that at the first look and even reading we get that there are two popular opinions and have to read both of them, whereas in this page, the situation is not good, I am referring to her age at marriage. As you can see for the folk who come and try to get quick info out of wikipedia will think that she was 7/9 years old instead of reading both of the sides because the second part is mentioned as a reference at the END OF THE PAGE.

I believe that Wikipedia, should act as a non-biased source of knowledge and we, wikipedians should support it. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbrain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a question of weighing the differing content. The problem is that even though modern scholarship (neutral, non-traditional and some deemed as 'heretics') have questioned the issue of Aisha being as young as she is portrayed at the time of marriage and/or consummation, there are many more traditional sunni/shia sources. Even though traditional sources are questioned and light is thrown on the underutilized records that are often ignored by traditionalists, they nonetheless are supported en-masse by the mainstream sects and their own scholars. Both POVs are currently represented in the article, within the relevant section. Unless, however; a case is made that the non-mainstream view should be given primacy over the mainstream view the weight issue would end up favoring the mainstream. Perhaps one day more scholarship will challenge the mainstream view, overturning it and at that point the weight of the article may also be flipped in favor of what today is the non-mainstream. There are many issues on many Islam related articles that have these types of issues actually, this is just one example. c Ө de1+6 TP  17:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The hadiths say she was married to him at 7 and first lived with him at the age of 8 (her account) 9 (His brothers account) when she was first raped. This age has been defended by many muslim apologists/priests/followers.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelawlollol (talk • contribs) 13:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can someone please tell me how what people believe is true relevant here? If most people believe that two plus two equals five and more detailed mathematical sources say it's four, we would not be weighing the prior more heavily, the idea that many people (wrongly) believe the prior should be the afterthought, not the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viredae (talk • contribs) 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Watch Arabic version
There's difference between Arabic and English versions of Wikipedia page about the year of birth which is 604 EC not 614 as mentioned in English version and this approve from age of her sister Asmaa who was born 692 EC Islametman (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Asmaa was born 592 EC Islametman (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

why has this been exlcuded: Mufa Khathat underage thiging by muhammed of Aisha from her age of 6
The Mufa khathat practice of thighing or non-penetrative ejaculative hetrosexual sex between legs is permissible with minors as young as 9 years or younger. Fifty four years old Muhammad had this type of sex with 6 years old Aisha until she turned 9 and after which he had penetrative sex with her.

Why has this important fact omitted from the page? Page merely taloks about age at consumation and omits the thighing (non-penetrative sex by muhammed between Aisha's legs) from her age of 6 onwards. Please include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:643:21F9:95DC:DCFE:F1C6 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You need a legitimate scholarly source from PhD Islamic historians. There is no basis for this non-sense and you're clearly just some retarded Islamophobe trying to inject myths into this biography. 24.46.60.165 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017
I request change in an article CONTENT NUMBER 1.1, WHICH IS , 'Marriage to Muhammad',where it is written that " British historian William Montgomery Watt suggests that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr;[10]", into "According to all schools of Islamic faiths including the sunnis and shias, Abu Bakar hoped to strengthen his ties With Muhammad." I request this change because this is the truth and the faith of all Islamic schools.And the info presently given is not only false and the personal belief of a person,but also an insult To THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (Peace Be upon Him And His Family)And True History. Syed Faheem Tarwath (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, we are quite unlikely to remove the existing sourced text only on the basis of it being offensive or insulting to a religion, as Wikipedia is not censored. For the existing text to be removed, a reasoned argument would need to be made in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and that means avoiding most arguments based on religious belief, being insulting or offensive). Please do raise any valid editorial concerns and discussion on this talk page. Murph 9000 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kakurokuna's change
There isn't much to discuss here. You mistakenly copyedited text in a ref quote and deviated in the main text from what the citation says: the statement is about "Muslims", not "Modern scholars", and Barlas isn't attributing the comment about Aisha's knowledge to them. Please be more careful to avoid source misrepresentation. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The quotation is RIGHT ABOVE IT. I didn't see the point of partitioning the scholars since they're all in agreement. But whatever, it's a minor addition. There's no point in being unnecessarily rude though, BTW. Kakurokuna (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to sound rude,, and I apologize if I came off that way. However, there's only so many ways one can respond to a revert that apparently refuses to acknowledge even a patently obvious problem like changes of quoted text. Eperoton (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Spelling
1st paragraph after heading "Age at marriage" has 'narratated', an incorrect spelling of 'narrated'. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KAL/48/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224114121/http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d6fea04944e29e558dc1e90ff7cfb62 to http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=6d6fea04944e29e558dc1e90ff7cfb62
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123211533/http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=62 to http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/sahihalbukhari.cfm?scn=dspbookfull&BookID=62

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Pedofile label
First, the generalization was unsourced. The cited sources are talking about Jerry Vines and Jerry Falwell. Second, how are these comments due in that spot? What RSs about Aisha's biography annotate the historical narrative with that sort of commentary? Modern religio-political polemics belong in a "Criticism of" section, as for instance the comments by Dawkins et al in Moses. As it happens, this is criticism of Muhammad rather than Aisha. Eperoton (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

age of ayesha
The Real Age of Ayesha, Wife of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & Mother of Believers

There have been many biographies of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Many give a similar opinion or narrative about the age of his third wife, Mother of the believers, Ayesha. She was the daughter of Abu Bakr, a close companion of the Prophet. Historians say that she was either 9 years or 10 years old when she was married to the Prophet.

Islamophobes and Muslim-haters, like David Spencer and others, have used foul and blasphemous language against the Prophet of Islam. The matter of her age has been one of the main attacks on the character and life of the Prophet of Islam, the greatest of all human beings, the perfect man and a messenger of God.

For Muslims, this is, and always is, a painful experience, starting from Rushdie to Spencer, and from others, to countenance assaults on the character of the Prophet of Islam. For Muslims, Muhammad is in their hearts, their love, their devotion; he is Islam made alive, its spirit and principles enshrined in his life; an example for all to follow.

The main attack on the Prophet is that he married a young, minor girl, not a woman. They say Ayesha was a child and married to him when she was pre-menarche.

Ibne Ishaq wrote the first biography of the Prophet Muhammad but that is now not available as it is lost to history. Later on, Ibne Hisham, used the Ibne Ishaq manuscript and deriving from the former, wrote another detailed history of the Prophet. Ibne Hisham, apparently, wrote a concise version, taking out the detailed lineage of all the people and personalities mentioned in the biography by Ibne Ishaq, making it easier for the reader to continue reading the narrative than to delve into the lineage of these personalities.

According to Ibne Hisham, Ibne Ishaq is the first author who uses the number 9 for Ayesha’s age. He does not use any supportive narrative or provide any evidence of the age of Ayesha. Ibne Hisham uses the same number with the same description derived from his predecessor, Ibne Ishaq.

All other historian use the same narrative in regards to her age. Some say she was only 6 when she was betrothed and 9 when actually married and some say she was ten. Occasionally, some other historians have used the number 13, 15 or 19 or thereabouts. Some say that she was older but the generally people accept the age of 9 at marriage.

In this current atmosphere of Muslim and Islam bashing in the West; Muslims being persecuted and Minarets being banned from Switzerland, after France banned the Hijab, this is ammunition for those who would use liberal fascism on Muslims. While these extremist right wing fascists forget their own history and religious traditions: child brides and concubines for their Prophets, kings and noblemen, until recently, they still decry Islam and Prophet Muhammad.

But, this article is not to talk about others. It is neither about denying historians their history but it is about facts and hard numbers, understood through confirmed events.

Muhammad (pbuh) was born in 570 AD. He was 40, in 610 AD, when he received the first revelation from God. His closet friend was Abu Bakr, Ayesha’s father, who immediately accepted his invitation to renounce idol worship and accepted oneness of God, and became a Muslim. Slowly, in the first few months in the same year, a number of other people converted to Islam. Ayesha was one of them. In Ibne Hisham’s biography of Prophet Muhammad, she was the 19th convert to Islam, with her older sister, Asma being 18th.

She was also part of the group of migrants to Abyssinia, in 615. She was also engaged to be married to a young man of Mecca, before her father converted to Islam. According to Ibne Tabari, Ayesha’s father, Abu Bakr decided that she should marry her fiancé, Jubayr ibn Mut’im, son of Mut‘im ibn ‘Adi. Abu Bakr wanted to protect her daughter and felt that if she were married, she would be better protected and better looked after while she was in exile in Abyssinia. Mut’im was not a Muslim and did not wish his son to marry a Muslim girl, refused to agree the long-standing engagement. He did not want to be linked to Muslims and become an outcast amongst his own people. The marriage never took place and she migrated to Abyssinia in 615 AD. Abu Bakr’s family, along with Ayesha, returned to Mecca after a few years.

Prophet Muhammad stayed in Mecca for 10 years. At the age of 50, he migrated to Medina, to escape persecution from the people of Mecca, along with his family and companions. He lived for another 13 years, all of these in Medina, never to return to Mecca, except for a visit when it was conquered by Muslims.

It was in the third year of his life in Medina, about two and a half years after the migration, that he was married to Ayesha. The betrothal was agreed at the time of their return from Abyssinia, just before the migration to Medina.

Now, let us look at history, the years passed and the sequence of events. Let us then, calculate the age of Ayesha.

She was betrothed to be married to Jubayr ibn Mut’im before 610 AD. She was to be married to him in 615 AD, a marriage that never happened due to Jubayr’s father’s opposition. Ayesha would have been married at that time had her father and she not converted to Islam. How old was she when she was to be married to Jubayr? Was it 6 or 9 years of age? If she was ready for marriage in 615 AD, or even 610 AD, was she not ready for marriage with the Prophet at 623 AD? Could she be 9 year old at 623 AD?

She was a girl who converted to Islam, with her older sister, in the first few months of Muhammad (pbuh) receiving the revelation and declaring his Prophet Hood. How old was she when she did this?

There are 2 frequently mentioned numbers that are repeated in some histories. Let us use both these numbers in different scenarios. Let us presume that she was 6 at the time of her conversion to Islam, in 610 AD. Five years later, in 615 AD, she migrated to Abyssinia and five years after that, she migrated to Medina. If she were 6 at conversion, she was 11 at migration to Abyssinia (and was to be married to Jubayr). She was 16 at the time of migration to Medina. She has to be about 19 at the time of her marriage because her marriage took place in the third year of Muhammad’s migration to Medina.

Let us now presume that she was 9 when she converted to Islam, in 610 AD. In 615 AD, five years later, she migrated to Abyssinia, when she was 14. Five years later, at 19, she migrated to Medina. Two and a half years later, when she was almost 22, she married Prophet Muhammad.

She cannot be 6 or 9 when she married Muhammad (pbuh). She lived for 10 years in Mecca, and she was already a convert to Islam at that time. She was already betrothed to another man when she converted to Islam, after her father did and older sister accepted the call of Islam. She then moved to Medina, and married Prophet Muhammad in the third year of his move to Medina, making her age in early 20s, at least.

It is not possible for her to be not even conceived, and to be in her mother’s womb, and yet betrothed to another man, before 610 AD. She could not have converted to Islam one (or three years) before her actual birth! She could not be less than 18 or maybe 23 when she was married to Muhammad (pbuh).

This age issue is thus, settled, once and for all, in accordance with the events and years that are narrated in all historical books. Although many say that she was this or that age; some also say that she was 16 or older; no one has dealt with this matter in this sequential and incontrovertible manner, in line with established historical events, where her presence was confirmed and repeatedly narrated.

Those ‘scholars’ who wish to opine on the age of ‘Mother of Believers’ Ayesha, from now onwards, must say that she was woman, a grown up, young woman, who was a devoted wife to the Prophet and who taught billions of Muslims, about the human nature and private life of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, may peace be upon him.

All those accusations and attacks, whether by Rushdie in his satanic dreams and [fictional] fantasies or Robert Spencer’s pseudo-histories, Ayesha was a grown up woman, at least in her twenties, when she married Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Recently, Javed Ghamidi has propounded a most interesting and appropriate rationale of the second marriage for the Prophet. He Prophet (pbuh) had numerous small children living in his house: his children from his first, most revered wife, Khadija; and Ali, his young cousin, and Zaid, his adopted son. Having seven young children to raise, did he need another child in his home? In reality he needed a mature mother for his seven children who needed looking after. That was why he chose lady Umme Salma (mother of believers), as his second wife. Ayesha was his third wife, a bond suggested to him by his friend Abu Bakr, wanting to strengthen the bond of friendship between their families. And, as we can see from time line, she was a mature woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmal1111 (talk • contribs)


 * If Ghamidi has published a prominent theory on Aisha's age, we can summarize it here, but the rest of your text falls under the Wikipedia category of original research. We can only reflect assertions explicitly made in reliable sources, and adding original research is not allowed (see WP:NOR). Eperoton (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017
The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[11] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.[12][13][14] This timeline has been challenged by a number of scholars in modern times.

Should read:

The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[11] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.[12][13][14] This timeline has been challenged by a number of scholars in modern times. But is referenced in the Sahih-Bukhari (also known as the Sunnah) Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236, as Narrated by Hisham's father; "Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old." 72.187.63.67 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌. This is unsourced, grammatically incorrect, and extremely contentious. You have to do much better regarding reliably sourcing your edits and even still, your addition has a pretty strong undercurrent of anti-Muslim sentiment.  City O f  Silver  04:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Made some changes, explanation for them
I feel like I'm really stepping in it, but while going through WP: Jagged 85 cleanup I came across this page and began reviewing the sources. I've noted some issues with them and removed one and have clarified others. The source that I removed (just this line from it, rather, not from the entire article), is the one from this sentence: "Aisha was recorded as nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation, by both Ibn Khallikan (1211-1282), and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (784-845), the latter citing as his source Hisham ibn Urwah (a grandson of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam)." It is a reputable source, from Brill. However, I have checked the sources referenced in the Brill article (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61) and they simply do not say what is claimed. Ibn Khallikan on the cited entry ( http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-1000 ) states she was 6, in Mecca three years before the hijra. Volume 8 of Ibn Sa’d al-Tabaqat ( http://www.al-eman.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%89%20**/%D8%B0%D9%83%D8%B1%20%D9%85%D8%A7%20%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B9%20%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87%20%D8%B1%D8%B3%D9%88%D9%84%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A1%20/i54&d58459&c&p1 ) says she was 6 in the tenth year of the prophethood, then 9 when they actually lived together in Medina. It is entirely possible and even likely that this was a simple error, and maybe it's already been corrected (don't have access to Brill so I can't see the current article there). But I don't feel like I can leave it in the article when it's just... not factual. I expanded upon the section offering possible explanations for why this event might have occurred and found some good notable scholars with their own wiki pages to quote from. I removed the section about her having her period because those ahadith don't say when they're occurring, and I don't think it really matters if she had her period before the traditionally-assumed age she was when Muhammed died (18). The part I clarified was the sentence: "more detailed information available about her sister Asma", which does not actually say what this more detailed information is. So I looked it up and found the ahadith it is talking about, referencing her age difference. I wasn't sure how much to add here, as I feel like it could become a digression--if people think it would be best for me to link to the ahadith themselves (they're in Arabic) and also an explanation for the phrase "ten and a few years older" (meaning 13-19, which is on the Arabic wiki page for Aisha) I can do that. But I figured that's probably too much for an article like this. Other clarifications include one in the section on Spellberg. I reviewed the cited pages and she says that there is variance (between 9 and 10) on the age she was but does not really claim this is false or "exaggerated", she simply says that her virginity, specifically, was a political weapon of sorts. I added a dubious tag after one sentence because I'm not really sure what this means? "This issue of her virginity was of great importance to those who supported Aisha's position in the debate of the succession to Muhammad". If this is meant to refer to Abu Bakr vs Ali I do not think this is... really true? But I left it there, and just added another opinion from another scholar. I left in the link to the Iranian author, although I have found the original source of it on some forum (here http://www.iranclubs.net/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D5856%26styleid%3D17&prev=search ) and it does not seem particularly scholarly to me. It seems to base its main argument upon the belief that a 6-year-old girl could not remember that detail well enough and also has comments about Aisha's "jealous" personality, etc. But my Farsi is very shaky and perhaps I'm wrong, so I left it in the hopes that someone else can evaluate it. Okay that was extremely long but I hope I explained myself well, if anyone wants to edit what I wrote I don't mind at all because I know my English is not always 100% perfect and maybe I worded things wrong or missed stuff. But thanks for reading. Dragoon17 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

?
"previously-accepted timeline of her life" ????? remove the protection for this article its just just lol and the source is a feminist book written by a non muslim seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16A2:5215:3D00:1CEE:D63B:B82:385D (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

the real age of ayesha
https://akmalmakhdum.wordpress.com/2017/02/03/the-real-age-of-ayesha-wife-of-the-prophet-muhammad-pbuh-mother-of-believers/

Majority of hadiths?
This statement is not supported The majority of traditional hadith sources state 

I have only found one,traditional source

Therefore the stament needs to be amended to

One hadith source states — Preceding unsigned comment added by LR123 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am doing a bit of work on the topic of her age at the moment and will be amending this further so that the lead section matches the Age section, when I have completed my work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Misquoting of sources and other issues about her age at marriage
I have just started to re-examine what has been written about Aisha's age at marriage and when the marriage was consummated, and have started finding errors already. Karen Armstrong's book, p.157, is cited but completely misquoted; other sources are not available for various reasons (dead url or paywalls) and I am now dubious of the reliability of the rest. I will be doing a bit more investigation and intend to update this section and the lead to match. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you need help looking up some sources. I may have a couple citations that aren't available online. I was planning myself to review the rewrite made a few months ago. Much of it seems to have been good, but I do have some concerns. Eperoton (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let me venture one general comment based on recollection of the sources. Our article currently presents the topic to a large extent as a historical debate, but the RSs we cite that discuss this topic at length (Jonathan Brown, Kecia Ali, Asma Barlas) treat it as a matter of differing religious interpretations. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much . By the look of your profile, you are very well qualified to assist and make good calls in the quest for better presentation and information. I have a couple of printed resources (Armstrong and Ishaq), and may consult works in the library further down the line if necessary, but I'm sure that your resources will be very useful. I would first like to investigate more closely what is already cited in the article, and ponder further on what and how this matter can be best presented on Wikipedia in a reasonably succinct form.


 * I'll be coming back to this later, but what do you think about moving the mention of her age of marriage out of the lead section (which is already on the long side) altogether? I don't think that this issue really fits WP:LEAD. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S. Articles on Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad will also need looking at, with parts of what is recorded here either copied or transcluded into those articles, or we run the risk of presenting conflicting information in different articles. Incidentally, looking at the infobox on the Muhammad page, under Spouses, it looks to me as if the dates for Aisha are incorrect there? Anyway, I'll be treading carefully and making notes before I do anything too drastic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. Just a word of caution: on this topic it's especially important to observe WP:PRIMARY for sources like Ibn Ishaq and hadith collections. There are widely varying views on their authenticity, with differences between traditional Muslim views and modern historians on one hand, and between classical hadith scholars and some modern Muslim authors on the other. As discussed by the secondary sources we cite, they make the reader arrive at different conclusions depending on which narratives they choose to rely on, highlight or ignore. This is not an exercise we should be engaging in ourselves. At the moment, the end of the first paragraph is a PRIMARY violation.


 * Why do you think we should keep the topic out of the lead? I don't really see a rationale for it. It's been an enduring centerpiece of polemics and apologetics, and we devote a good chunk of the article to it. Let's work out a well-sourced, NPOV detailed discussion, and then I agree that we should look into other articles where this topic is discussed. Eperoton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for the caution. I do understand the complexity of these issues, although not not hugely knowledgeable and don't claim to have your level of expertise, let alone that of an expert historian on the topic. It's always going to be a challenge to convey enough without getting bogged down in that exercise, but I concur completely. I take it that you mean the end of the first paragraph of the Age at marriage section?


 * Re the lead: Well, I thought that it's not a topic that's stressed or argued about in any of the biographies or original sources (that I know of - and you are obviously better versed in these than I am) so it's not the place of Wikipedia to put this up in the summary - but I take your point, that is a valid reason. Great - good approach, agreed. (This could still take me a bit of time as my time here is somewhat fractured over the next few days, and it will take time to investigate all of the sources cited, and others... but I will be back! And please feel free to change the Under construction box if you wish to take the lead in this.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I'm removing the misuse of primary sources at the end of the first paragraph. I haven't seen any secondary source interpreting them as being relevant to this topic.


 * A couple of other changes I'm making after having read the chapter from Kecia Ali's book we're citing:
 * 1) removing the last sentence in the section, which is WP:SYNTH. Ali isn't arguing against Spellberg or her view.
 * 2) removing the phrase though Kecia Ali labels these attempts as "revisionist". Use of this term in WP in problematic in general, since it's generally used in different ways in scholarly literature and the public sphere (what our Revisionism article identifies as historical revisionism and historical negationism, respectively). In this case, the latter interpretation is further reinforced by the word "labels". This is a misuse of the source, where the term is used with no suggestion of polemical connotation. Ali clearly states: "I make no attempt in this chapter to assess the historical record, nor do I take a position as to Aishah's actual age at the time of consummation of her marriage."
 * I'm going to read Ali's later discussion of this topic in The Lives of Muhammad. It looks like this topic has enough coverage in scholarly sources to expand our discussion and spin it out into a separate article. Eperoton (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your editing. I was thinking that I'd start by removing the quotes from primary sources, so glad you did that. I have been busy on other things and so still not across all of this. My concern started when I discovered that at least one source had actually been misquoted, which led me to wonder how many other misrepresentations there are. At this point I'm not clear if any of the primary sources state an age, or if all of the opinions have been inferred from other information presented in those sources, so that is something I want to dig into a bit further for my own understanding. Armstrong says she was 9 when she got married but it was a low-key affair, she stayed on with her parents and (according to Tabari) her marriage was consummated there later, when she had reached puberty. My abridged version of Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad (ed. Michael Edwardes) says she was married at the age of 10 - but this is in an italicised paragraph which was inserted by editor.
 * Your idea about a separate article may not be a bad idea. Then all of the other articles mentioning it can point to this. (Just the other day I saw someone commenting on Facebook that Muhammad was a paedophile, and Wikipedia supports her statement!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just removed a citation that doesn't appear to lead to the full texts of the hadiths, but will record it here for later reference:, , , , , , , , , I've had a look at their new website but can only see summaries. ?? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Another word of caution: Armstrong is popular writer, but not a academic specialist in this field. The website that the Hadith-usc template pointed to in now defunct, and is not coming back up, based on what I've read elsewhere on WP. When compliant with WP:PRIMARY, we can replace it by citations like "Sahih al-Bukhari, book 7, volume 62, number 64". These are canonical hadith collections, easy to find on the web. The age is in fact mentioned is several primary sources, with some variations. Please take your time. I will continue looking into this topic as time permits, but I'm not in a rush. Eperoton (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I just remembered: most of the pages from the defunct hadith site are available via archive.org. For existing Hadith-usc templates, it's probably better to convert them into archived URLs. The relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam. Eperoton (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had realised this about Armstrong (having read other of her works) and also that the range and degree of authority and respect amongst historians and scholars always varies. In this field there are added layers of complexity, from differing primary sources to Islamic scholars through the centuries to recent or current ones from both the western and Islamic worlds. Not forgetting the different interpretations which have given rise to different denominations of Islam. You are no doubt more familiar than I am with all of this. Good about the hadith collections being available elsewhere - I thought that might be the case, but haven't looked yet. I thought that I'd checked Wayback Machine/archive.org for that site, but I'll come back to it later. (I usually do add archived URLs when I am editing myself, or look for them when I come across an expired page.)
 * I am starting (very slowly, and in between other things) just making some notes for myself summarising anything regarding the date of marriage, in whatever I can find access to from each of the refs in this article, and noting those I can't access (e.g. Spellberg - do you have that one?). If you want to have access to my notes at some poiont you can email me here and I can send or post in OneDrive or Dropbox. Glad you're not in a hurry because I think it's more important to do a good job here! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I do have a copy of Spellberg's book. Eperoton (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent - Spellberg will be useful. I have found that it's quite easy to source those hadith refs online, but will come back to that later. In the meantime though I did a bit of an edit to try to improve the flow and also removed another quote from a primary source. The refs in the middle of the 1st para. still need reviewing to assess if and how they support the preceding sentence, amongst other things, but I need to work through the last 2 paras first... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I've made quite a bit of progress with my notes and thinking, but then got diverted to another major editing project which still needs some tidying (and another one waiting in the wings that I need to chip away at - but not pressing). I do still need to look at other pages which mention her (e.g. Muhammad, etc.) and just check if there's anything useful to be incorporated from them. Just wondering though, in the course of re-shaping the section, rather than a very extensive discussion here, should we work on it on one of my or your user pages (create an extra dedicated sandbox for it) perhaps? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any harm in documenting our discussion on this talk page, but please feel free to work in your sandbox if you prefer. At this point, I see myself in a supporting role, and I'd like to give you space to do the work you'd like to do on this section. When I have time, I'll try to "load" in my head all the sources I have and come up with a NPOV summary for a separate article, later putting a compressed version here. It may turn out different from what we have now -- it's hard to tell at this point. I'll be working on a draft in my sandbox and I'll be sure to let you know when I start. I'm currently working on a major update for another article, and there are several others jostling for top priority in my head. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries, that's fine with me. I'll start by jotting down a few notes in a dedicated sandbox and start sketching out a structure that seems logical to me, and we can discuss further once one of us makes some progress. We'd better just check that the article has at least a minor update every few days or that Under Construction template might disappear. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * After multiple diversions, I thought I'd better get back to this. I've made a few minor changes to the lead and also the first para. of the Age section, but am now going to play in a sandbox for a while and re-familiarise myself with the sources, etc. before I make any further major changes to the actual article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

baldness
I've come across something which implied she had some kind of illness that caused her hair to fall out: https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-5/Book-58/Hadith-234
 * The Prophet (ﷺ) engaged me when I was a girl of six (years).
 * We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj.
 * Then I got ill and my hair fell down.
 * Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends.
 * She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.
 * She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house.
 * I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it.
 * Then she took me into the house.
 * There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck."
 * Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
 * Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

I don't see any mention of the illness or loss of hair in this article. Is this a reliable Hadith? It seems like a noteworthy mention.

This translation also uses the term "engage" rather than "marry" at 6 years. It is possible they were not actually married until she was 9 and 6 was the year of engaging to be married? -curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.193.44 (talk) 14:08, August 27, 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is noteworthy for inclusion, though the hadith was related by Hisham ibn Urwah ibn Asma bint Abu Bakr, who is said to have suffered with weak memory in his old age when he compiled"the biography of the prophet" According to scholars Hafiz Aqeeli and Abul-Hasan bin Al-Qattan. (my source for this is not digital, a have a booklet which I cant find a digital copy of -- Shamshad M. Khan's Hazrat Aishah saddiqah (R.A.A), A study of her age at the time of marriage, published by IPCI.)
 * from what I understand, the Hadith claims that the nikah was at age 6 and her joining the household was at age 9, though the same source I mention above contends this to be 16 and 19, and that the source was either unintentionally modified through bad copying by scribes who didn't care for the content of the source, or that the '10' (or "Ashara" in Arabic) from '16' and '19' ("Sitta-Ashara" and "Tissata-Ashara")is understood from context in Classical Arabic. Ihaasa (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Story about Honey
How does this story have much significance regarding Aisha at all? If anything, it is more relevant to be on the Wikipedia page about Zaynab bint Ali or Muhammad's wives. The only reason that this is relevant to Aisha at all is that she requested for Zaynab to stop. That does not seem relevant to me. Also, why does this story have enough notability to even be mentioned on Wikipedia anyways? i get that it may prove that Allah can overrule Muhammad's wives or Muhammad's promises, but that should make this on the page about Muhammad's wives and not here.

Also, I have seen in | some places that surah 66 may not have applied to this story anyways. I get that this is not a very good source and that I am not a Muslim, but this may need to be noted if this surah were to be used. FoxTech20 (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019
I want to remove the photos in this page. They are drawings or paintings and they do not represent the actual religious and historical figures correctly. Darkus shadow (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please remove the pictures and their respective captions from this page and leave them blank. The pictures on this page are just drawings or paintings and they are not appropriate for depicting the actual religious and historical figures. So please remove them immediately. Darkus shadow (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌, our articles on major historical figures include artwork. They are not irrelevant. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"She who lives" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect She who lives. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SharabSalam (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Aisha's" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aisha&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2019
Please remove all the pictures shown in this article which are meant to depict the Holy prophet (A.S) or his wife Aisha (R.A) and their respective captions. Making drawings and sculptures of living things is forbidden in Islam, and these type of pictures fall under "blasphemy". Please remove them. This will cause an outrage among many muslim users. Darkus shadow (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done, see WP:NOTCENSORED. You can disable images on Wikipedia with Help:Options to hide an image. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Age of young marriage of Aisha: It has been refuted
Dear Wikipedia,

The section is to update the age of marriage of Aisha as Dr. Adnan Ibrahim had made extensive research that Aisha's marriage was consummated at minimum age of 18 or even beyond. Dr. Adnan used other confirmed stories and found the confusion in the Hijra (migration) and Betha (prohethood) timelines as some narrators used these two interchangeably. This CLAIM HAS now been refuted by validated and corroborated research. In so, AND out of transparency, you may kindly update and add the footnote that a new research (by Dr Adnan Ibrahim) has shown that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was above 18 years of age.

See page 19 and 20 in the link of the university of Leiden research below.

Thanks for your updating the page.

https://zenodo.org/record/259600/files/12866608_A_Modern_Matn_Criticism_on_the_Tradition.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 04:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Assalamu alaikum, . The age controversy is already noted in the article; per WP:DUE, we cannot claim that it has been resolved by one paper written by a scholar with a particular opinion on the issue. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I follow science and factual evidence. One black swan can refute the statement that, "all swans are white". Or as one wise sage once quipped (Rumi I think), "you can beat 40 scholars with one fact, but you can't beat an idiot with 40 facts"! As such, Wikipedia MUST be evidence-based and if you take time to read the paper, you will see beyond doubt that the controversy will cease to exist. This is the only way to change mis-conceptions and spread true stories. Of course, no matter how much we spread good physics knowledge, there will always be some minority who think the earth is flat or that no one landed on the moon. The same will apply to all life phenomenon but I urge Wikipedia to READ carefully and Weigh-in the NEW evidence. Otherwise, Wikepedia will remain a "common knowledge" platform feeding controversy and conspiracy theorists. Please reconsider. WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?
Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentence on hadith strength
The article states:"Sunni, various branches of Shia (such as Ismaili and Twelver), Ibadi and Ahmadiyya Muslims all regard different sets of ahadith as 'strong' or 'weak' in the power of their evidence, depending on their perceived provenance."I'm confused by how long-winded this sentence is. Why list all of those groups when we can just remove everything before "Muslims"?If this is a method to make Qur'anists appear more important than they actually are, it's a rather poor one, in my opinion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020
In the paragraph of her death, it was written that she was murdered by Muawiyah and the tag reference is of Muawiyah bin Sufiyan while in actual it was Muawiyah bin Hudaij. Syed Ahmed Talha (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * while online sources are scant, all of the ones that I can find (mostly Shi'i ones, for what it's worth) do say it was Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. I was unable to find a single source that says it was Ibn Hudaij. If you are able to find a reliable source stating this, please make your edit request again. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request
Requesting peer review at Peer review/Women in Islam/archive1,

Bookku (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

other battles
Aisha served (but did NOT fight) at the Battle of Uhud. https://www.webcitation.org/67gTj2QC2?url=http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.139.67 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The battle of Uhud should be added to her military records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.139.67 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Age
Aisha was 6 Anoop Balakumar (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologia of Aisha's age when Muhammad "consummated" his marriage
The section is a huge misrepresentation of traditonal Sunnah (traditonal Islamic sources). It's extremely obvious that it is written in an apologetic tone. The very first sentence starts off with "nobody knows anything about her age because there were no official records." Never seen this in Muhammad's article. Literally thousands of historical figures never had any official records but this disclaimer never shows up. One has to be naive to fail to see what's happening on this page. It also states Several "scholars interpret this to indicate that she reached puberty at this age" while the opinions are divided on the definition of puberty as well as on whether it had started.

I understand this is a troubling aspect for many Muslims of their religion but completely hiding away traditonal sources (Hadiths) in a passing sentence is a huge disservice to readers of Wikipedia and the believers of Sunnah.

Aisha's age is disputed, but the concensus is to base it on Hadith 5133 Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/69 which places her age at 6 when betrothed/married and at 9 when the marriage was consummated.

Yasir Qadhi said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMwR1gmZ6M&t=288) "don't apologize for the truth and don't distort the truth there are Muslims that try to deny this or he didn't marry Ayesha as a young girl yeah actually look that's not the way forward we don't lie for the sake of our religion and stuff for Allah we have the truth we're not going to cover up the truth that people find it embarrassing this is the reality deal with it our prophet has married a young girl and it was fine for the time I am NOT saying we need to resurrect this age in our time because times have changed"

Adnan Rashid Age of Aishah: Historical Analysis - Adnan Rashid (Cape Town - 19/05/2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQE35KTO518&t=866   states "she herself made the statement that I was nine when the Prophet consummated the marriage the marriage the marriage, the betrothal was done when she was six and it was consummated when I was nine this cannot be doubted if you are consistent about Islam in Islamic literature this Hadith cannot be doubted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoasties (talk • contribs)


 * Anyone have an answer to the person above? 2605:A601:A95A:3100:4B9:E3B:5A3A:5670 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What Yoasties sais is correct. In fact, Aisha was even only six years old when Muhammad first attempted sexual intercourse with her. According to the Hadiths considered authentic by Sunni Muslims, "all of her (Aishas) hair fell out, after which Muhammad returned her to her parents" only to re-arrive three years later, standing on the doorsteps of her parent's home to fetch her again after the "hair had regrown". No wonder that apologetics are intensely at work here.. Source: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/120 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdnanDE (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Age 6 Anoop Balakumar (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021
The first fitna mentioned is a shia view it needs to be neutral. Aseemkhan85 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2021 (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. DannyS712 (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth
Aisha can't be born in 603/604, basic math shows it doesn't add up. If Aisha died in 678 at the age of 64, shes was born in 614, not 604

678 - 64 = 614

Please edit her date of birth. 2A00:20:3025:D7C8:0:65:DD7B:4B01 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Differently by reverting disruption from single purpose accounts who disrupted the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021
Aisha married prophet Muhammad at the age of six 2409:4071:D91:B9B9:A072:ACD7:6BC6:B3C5 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2021 (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. Living Concrete (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021
the photo that shows of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his wife Aïcha is not allowed as a Muslim i feel offended by this photo it must be deletet asap and thanks 41.109.153.99 (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This page should be locked to avoid further vandalism Ishan87 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see WP:NOTCENSORED ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Aisha murdered?
The source for Aisha being murdered is written in plaintext. It appears to be some kind of religious text which does not fall under WP:RS. Therefore I removed it. It needs to be formatted as per WP:CITE, not as plain text.(JayPlaysStuff &#124; talk to me &#124; What I've been up to) 15:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this story is not mentioned in:
 * Mu'awiya - Restorer of the Muslim Faith by Aisha Bewley
 * Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan: From Arabia to Empire by Stephen Humphreys
 * The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate by Wilferd Madelung (I have not checked every mention of Aisha in this book).
 * The Abbasids did everything they could to blacken Hazrat Muawiya's memory, and the Kharjites and Shiites regarded Hazrat Muawiya as a figure of unmitigated evil (Humphreys, page 3). As a consequence there are fictitious stories about Hazrat Muawiya doing bad things. So it is important to use secondary sources by scholars (not religious fanatics). -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Contested addition that an editor has described as "pure conjecture and original research"
Please can you explain here why you think the above belongs in the article. Anachronist's edit summary says: "That addition was pure conjecture and original research". -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, there are reliable sources, which do not seem to present unpublished work. Perhaps the wording that suggests it this way. What is said about the hadith concerning Asma to the corruption of Bukhari deserves attention, it contradicts what ancient or modern historians say (for example, Jacqueline Chabbi). Gibril Haddad did something about it, which is among the sources of the article. François-Etienne (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the following citations, which are cited for "this particular Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, the actually most authentic hadith collection (according to most Muslims) must be seen as a source of misuse, misconception and corruption", and I do not see how any of them support the statement they are cited for.
 * Qobil, Rustam (September 7, 2010). "The sexually abused dancing boys of Afghanistan". BBC News. - it says absolutely nothing about the statement that it is cited for.
 * Gannon, Kathy (22 November 2017). "Islamic schools in Pakistan plagued by sex abuse of children". AP News. - same story.
 * Ernest, J (26 October 2019). "Why are we silent about the sexual abuse at madrassas?". Pakistan Express Tribune.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If that has nothing to do with it, then let's remove them.François-Etienne (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly, "Hence it is probable that in the course of time due to mistakes in decoding old exemplaries of Sahih Bukhari" has the citation: Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64. How can Sahih Bukhari be a source for that statement? It cannot. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that the real source for some of the disputed passage is At What Age Did Aisha Marry the Prophet?, by Dr. Resit Haylamaz, North East Islamic Community Center. The following citations appear to have been cut and pasted from there. This suggests that the person whose edits added the disputed text never bothered to read the documents they cited:
 * 1."Nawawi, Tahzib al-Asma, 2/597; Hakim, Mustadrak, 3/635."
 * 2."Ibn Hisham, Sira, 1/271; Ibn Ishaq, Sira, Konya, 1981, 124."
 * 3.&15."Bayhaqi, Sunan, 6/204; Ibn Manda, Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Köprülü Kütüphanesi, No: 242, p. 195; Ibn Asakir, Tarih al-Damascus, Tarajim al-Nisa, Damascus, pp. 9, 10, 28, 1982; Mas’udi, Muruj al-Zahab, 2, 39; Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat al-Kubra, Beirut, 8/59, 1968."
 * 4."Ibn Hisham, Sira, 1/271; Ibn Hisham, Sira, 124."
 * 5.&17."Ibn Manda, Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Köprülü Kütüphanesi, No: 242, p. 195"
 * 13.&16."Ibn Hisham, Sira, 1/271; Ibn Hisham, Sira, 124."
 * 14."Nawawi, Tahzib al-Asma, 2/597; Hakim, Mustadrak, 3/635."
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Let me first of all express my gratitude for your hints. The reason why I have inserted the news artcles like from BBC, is the generation of more plasticity in regards to the contemporary problem of child abuses within Muslim societies. these child abuses were existing before and hence I wanted to focus the attention on this group, that was mainly responsible for the mainly unbased controverse that Aisha was a child when she married Muhammad.

Furthermore the Hadiths from Sahih Bukhari are the most commonly used references for the young age of Aisha in her marriage as a child. Henec it is important to show this Hadith that literally mentioned this controverse statement of Aisha being 6 years of age marrying the Prophet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyid Mir Israfil (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
Aisha was 18 years old at the time of marriage and the marriage was consummated when she was 21 119.160.2.115 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know this? You were there at the time?  Wikipedia is based on what reliable published sources say. It is not based on your eyewitness testimony. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

My edits:
Aisha Married 19 not 9 according to Omar Suliman at one of his debates that her sister Asma was 10 years older than her when she was betrothed and Asma was 26/27 when she was betrothed meaning that Aisha was 16 or 17 in which concludes she than got married at 19 (https://yaqeeninstitute.ca/omar-suleiman/ending-the-debate-on-aisha-ras-age-sh-omar-suleiman-lecture)

Please put also at the wiki page that at the time, girls used to get married at a young age due to them maturing faster.

Even in the Byzantine empire there were child marriages and in 1396 even Isabella of Valois, who was aged just six when she married Richard II in 1396 in England. Marriage at a young age was not unusual at the time even in England it was not unusual for child marriages as I mentioned before, women used to mature faster especially in the deserts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to cite reliable sources that represent the consensus view (not blogs, self-published sites, or opinions of individuals) for everything you want to include. Also child marriages in England are not relevant. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are being reverted because: You have attempted to change the meaning of existing, long-standing sentences, making them misrepresent the already-cited sources, as well as introducing speculation and your own comparisons in Wikipedia's narrative voice.
 * I checked a couple of the sources you added. This source for example fails verification; as far as I can tell it doesn't say that there were political reasons for Aisha's marriage, but then again I could not see one of the pages. The way you wrote it comes across as speculation, and we cannot speculate in Wikipedia's voice, you must attribute any such speculation to a scholar in the prose.
 * We also don't engage in original research on Wikipedia. You are drawing parallels with other cultures, and unless you find a source that does this also, what you added cannot be used here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Unrememberedperson! We do not consider a website like yaqeeninstitute.ca to be a reliable source. Please read Reliable sources very carefully. For a topic like this, 'reliable' basically means books and papers written by modern academic (non-religious) scholars. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

How is Yaqeen Intitute not a reliable source? It is a reliable source as a scholar Omar Suliman founded it. By the way I did not write the political reasons why the prophet married her that was someone else and I copy pasted it and put it somewhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Why can I also not mention that child marriages even in the 1300's was common as well in Europe to point out that child marriage was not uncommon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , you just don't seem to understand yet how Wikipedia works. A 'reliable source' in Wikipedia-terms is not what you or I consider to be reliable, it's what the policy of this website defines as 'reliable'. Again, read Reliable sources very carefully. Again, the gist of it is that 'reliable' in this context means 'written by secular academic scholars' (the ones you'd find at a secular university and who publish through university presses or other academic publishers). Yaqeen Institute does not qualify, because it has no academic credentials and because it is not secular.
 * In case you are wondering why we need secular sources: it's because one of the criteria for reliability is independence: the source must not be too closely involved with the subject, and so Islamic scholars writing about Islam from an Islamic perspective (this does not apply to Muslims who are also secular scholars and write from that secular, scholarly perspective) have too great a stake in what they are writing about to be considered 'independent' (again, in Wikipedia's terms).
 * The reason why pointing out facts (like the one you pointed out about child marriages in medieval Europe) is not helpful is that everything we write on Wikipedia is directly based on what secondary sources are telling us. We don't ever write anything based upon our own personal knowledge, or on inferences made from that personal knowledge. This is called original research, which is strictly forbidden. What we do is basically: we read a reliable academic source, and then we rewrite what we have read in our own words in the Wikipedia article. We don't add anything to that, we don't write down how we believe or even know it to be, we just follow the reliable sources. It's a simple rule really: never add anything to Wikipedia unless you have got a book or encyclopedia open before you to read and convey what they are saying. Oh, and cite the page number.
 * I strongly advise you to get familiar with the policies I have linked to as soon as possible. If you don't adhere to these policies, your edits will keep being reverted, and you may even be blocked from editing. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Unclear sourcing
you added the following:

According to Khwaja Mehboob Qasim Chishti Muhsarafee Qadiri and Syed Muhammad Subh-e-Kashaf AlTirmidhi and Ibn Khaldun that she was murdered by Muawiyah.

I'm still having trouble identifying this source. Searching Google Scholar for "Kokab wa Rifi Fazal-e-Ali" or for "Syed Mohammed Subh-e-Kashaf" yields nothing. I suspect that this is a source written in Persian, so it would help to have the author's name and the title of the book in Persian script. But more generally, where does this source come from? Can you tell us something more about its author? Can you show us that he is being cited by other relevant scholars in the field? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the answer is that he/she does not know, and has no way of finding out. A search on Google for Kokab wa Rifi Fazal-e-Ali Karam Allah Wajhu reveals various unreliable web-pages which people copy from into Wikipedia. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that's bad. It's so bad it borders on funny, like, for example, this book by "compiled form Wikipedia entries and published by Dr Googelberg". The 'reference' was apparently first entered into Wikipedia by a user called in 2011 (see here and here; it actually is still there), but it's not likely indeed that this is where James Bond7350 got it. Poor Reddi, if they would only know what copypasta they have brought into being here...   in the future, please don't go around copying random 'sources' from the internet! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021
I would like to edit about her age in marriage that child marriage is not prohibited in Islam and women even in Medival times in Europe would marry as soon as they reached puberty and in the deserts and in the old times, women used to marry at a very young age. The1Professor (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood. What you need to do is to write down exactly what edit you propose.  For example:
 * ''Please add a new paragraph to the section Aisha. This should be between the existing 1st and second paragraphs.  The wording of the new paragraph should be:


 * ''Child marriage is not prohibited in Islam and women even in Medieval times in Europe would marry as soon as they reached puberty and in the deserts and in the old times, women used to marry at a very young age.


 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that the citations have example data. The books mentioned do not exist. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Aisha was 16-17 when she married Muhammad and consummated the marriage when she was 18-19
The ages written in this Wikipedia article are false. Many historians have proven Aisha’s approximate age at the time of marriage and at the time the marriage was consummated using several documented writings from Aisha herself.

It is narrated in the collection of Bukhari that Aisha said; ‘The following was revealed to Muhammad in Mecca while I was a child playing “Indeed, the Hour is their appointed time and the Hour is more disastrous and bitter.” It is unanimously agreed that Sura Al-Qamar, where we read these words, was revealed 4 years after the start of the revelation, which was the year 614. If we accept the false claim that Aisha was born in the year 614, it would mean that Aisha said the above words either before she was born or when she was a newly born!

But according to the words of Aisha above, she was a child playing when this Sura was revealed in the year 614. In contrast, the correct account of Aisha’s date of birth of 606, would make her 8 years old when she said the above words, which fits in with the words “I was a child playing.” 50.96.242.120 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And this has to be true because people in Arabia in the early 7th century had the same values as Western societies in the early 21st century? They did not. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you read the other sections on this talk page, you will see what you need to do to make your case. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and weasel word. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Data
Ayesha was an teen when she was married to PBUH Muhammad and not an immature child.. 2409:4072:631B:9481:882:ED69:8A7E:EB6A (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Aisha. Your claim doesn't cut much ice. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022
Please change " Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;[15] other sources say she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony;[16] but both the date and her age at marriage and later consummation with Muhammad in Medina are sources of controversy and discussion amongst scholars." to "After having become a prophet, ten years later, at the age of 50, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) needed wives to help him do the housework, take care of his children, and help him in inviting people into Islam. He wanted to marry both Sawda, who was old and widow, and the daughter of Abu Bakr, Aisha.

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made this request ten years after the beginning of the Revelation. 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).

This point is included in full detail in the book “Asr-ı Saadet (The Era of Bliss)” by Mawlana Shibli. (Ist. 1928. 2/ 997)

We can definitely conclude from the biography on Asma, Aisha’s elder sister, that Aisha was at a marriageable age when she got married to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The old biography books write about Asma as follows: “When Asma was 100 years of age, she died in the seventy third year of the Emigration (Hijrah). During the Emigration, she was exactly 27 years old. Since Aisha was 10 years younger than her sister was, she needs to be at her 17. Besides, she had been engaged to Jubair before she married the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). So she was a girl at a marriageable age.” (Hatemu’l Enbiya (The Seal of Prophets) The Prophet Muhammad and His life, Ali Himmet Berki, Osman Keskioğlu, p. 210)

We advise you to read the following explanations for detailed information regarding the issue." Afif Apurbo (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of a self-published book
Aleem, Shamim (2007). Prophet Muhammad(s) and His Family: A Sociological Perspective. AuthorHouse. p. 130. She has at least one other book by the same self-publisher.. She was a professor (I believe before she wrote these, the latter says now a free-lance writer) but that's all the more reason why I'd expect her to find a proper publisher. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Age of Aisha
The article clearly mentions the year of her birth as 608 and the year of her marriage as 613/614, and then says we cannot estimate Aisha's age at the time of her marriage because we don't have her "official" birth records. What? That's an absurd attempt at apologia. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That’s a major misrepresentation of the text you deleted and I’ve restored. Doug Weller  talk 19:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the article says we cannot estimate Aisha's "exact" age. I will take back my earlier comment. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comments on this rewrite (more were to follow; the last paragraph in the section is out-of-tune with the rest) are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Adequate use of edit summaries will be helpful
I see large-scale edits being made to the article with the edit summary "ed". Such summaries are unhelpful. Edit summaries help other editors by (a) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, (b) providing a reason for the edit, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

She was not a part of ahel e bat sorry she doesn't belong in alhil e bait remove that part alhil e bat
Ahil e bat are people related to hazart fatima and imam and their childern so change it 103.155.19.229 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"Aisha's age has become a favorite tool of Islamophobes"
Is this a joke? Please replace Islamophobes with critics of islam. Also "favorite tool" is definitely against NPOV. --MianMianBaoBao (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right. The sentence is question is not obviously supported by the source:
 * Across the late-twentieth century and early twentieth century, Aisha's age has become a favorite tool of Islamophobes — accusations of Pedophilia, not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil, have been floated as the justifications for apparently higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies etc.
 * The citation does not cite any specific page of the source. The preview available on Google Books is incomplete, but gives an indication of the content, which is a nuanced appraisal of what different modern writers had said.  See page 163 for a summary of what John Glubb wrote.  A search on the Google Books version did not show "Islamophobe", so perhaps that word was not in the source. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It uses the word to describe Robert Spencer, that's all that I can see. On p. 190 I can see "In his The Truth about Muhammad: Founder ofthe World's Most Intolerant Religion (2006), Robert Spencer—front man for Jihad Watch and grand pooh-bah ofthe legion of American Islamophobes—qualifies the accusation of pedophilia as “a bit..." and on 191 "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. Sodomy had served, both in the early modern period". Looks like a useful book. Doug Weller  talk 12:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See also page 190, which talks about Robert B. Spencer's views: he wrote that the accusation of paedophilia against Muhammad are anachronistic. He also said that although child marriage did not bother anyone at the time, its existence in Muslin communities today can be blamed on the insistence that Muhammad's model is to be literally followed. So the problem, in Spencer's opinion, is not Muhammad's behaviour, but is one of modern people. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, don't ask how, I can now see that the bit about Spencer continues "“a bit anachronistic” but makes an argument similar to that made by Barham a century earlier about the Laws of Manu. Under the provocative subtitle “Pedophile Prophet?” Spencer points out that although child marriage did not bother anyone at the time, its existence in Muslim communities today can be blamed on the insistence that Muhammad’s model is to be literally followed...With this view of child marriage, which circulated in online polemics about Muhammad a de cade before Spencer’s book, we move from hierarchical rankings of societies, where some persist in primitive practices, to pedophilia. However, rather than viewing pedophilia as an individual perversion, all of Islam and every Muslim is tainted because Muhammad is the perpetrator..." I like a bit later on 191 " Because the point being made in invoking this term is not, in fact, one about its diagnostic accuracy, a rebuttal like the one off ered by Yahiya Emerick (“If Muhammad were a pedophile, he would not have waited for A’ishah to reach puberty before completing the marriage, nor would he have stopped at only one marriage to a young girl”) is utterly in effective.132 Deepak Chopra’s attempt," Anyway, suffice it to say I now have the book. Doug Weller  talk 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if we replace Islamophobes with polemicists that would work. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreeable. I will change the cites to sfn, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Page number request
I'm not sure that's necessary or appropriate, WP:PAGENUM says "Specify the page number or range of page numbers." and I don't think that's too big a range. But that's just my opinion. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Large chunks of that page range are not relevant to the statement that it is being cited for. This makes it difficult for editors to determine whether the statement in the text is supported by the citation. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Toddy1 Ok, what you use in those cases is Template:Page range too broad. Give me a couple of days and I’ll see what I can do. In return would you remind me of how to recisr the citation so we can cite the same book but with different page numbers? Doug Weller  talk 14:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One solution is a new citation - the following assumes that you are citing pages 190-191:
 * The advantage of this is that it is nice and intuitive to readers. There is a field in the template for quotations, which I have added that to the template above with no contents. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. There is a way to reuse a cite with different page numbers, I may look it up. Doug Weller  talk 18:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SFN. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that Kecia Ali writes a lot, having the title in the citation increases intuitiveness. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have shifted the entire paragraph to the article on Criticism of Muhammad. The edit-summary is instructive enough but I am all ears, if you disagree. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact quotation from Ali 2014 you are looking for is at p. 187: By the last decade of the twentieth century and especially the first decade of the twenty-first, Aisha's age had become a favorite argument of anti-Islam polemicists, especially but not exclusively online. With regard to this revert, the sources that were quoted when I restored the lead are Spellberg 1994 and Armstrong 1992. I don't have access to Armstrong, but I can see that the reference to Spellberg is accurate. At p. 39, one reads: As recorded, she narrates key aspects of this brief marital chronology: “I was six years old when the Prophet married me and I was nine when he consummated the marriage. When he died, I was eighteen years old.” The source Spellberg is quoting from is Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, 8: 60, 62, which is a 9th century primary source (see Ibn Sa'd), so traditional hadith source is appropriate. The removed sentence looks to me like a concise overview of a topic which is extensively treated in the article, and Spellberg shows that the topic has been covered by various sources, has been the subject of harsh controversies (not only scholarly controversies, but also in the public sphere at large) and the topic is also relevant for contemporary political debates - so I think that MOS:LEAD justifies having a brief, well-sourced sentence on this aspect. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The scholarly discussion around Aisha's age is more complicated than this. That secondary sources quote primary sources does not mean we should be automatically parroting them. What matters is the subsequent secondary analysis, and the conclusion of this appears to be that little can be determined for sure. However, as Ali makes, clear, this entire discussion is born out of criticism of Muhammad, and so makes a lot more sense to be hosted there. Can anyone think of another historical biography where there is an entire paragraph in the lead dedicated to the age of marriage of the individual in question? A much more lead-worthy piece of information to be added to the existing notes on Aisha's marriage to Muhammad in the lead would be the very important point made by Watt and others that the marriage helped cement tribal ties with Abu Bakr. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The primary source is the key to the whole question, and should remain. I also object to moving content to criticism of Muhammad. This page has already been referenced from other places, and the dispute about "Aisha's age at marriage" squarely belongs here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Squarely belongs where? In the lead? This would be indulging in WP:RECENTISM. The material all remains in the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Squarely belongs where? In the lead? This would be indulging in WP:RECENTISM. The material all remains in the article. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Iran
The magic number nine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * What a good thing that most of the rest of the world doesn't take Iran too seriously. Are you really seriously raising this example of SYNTH par excellence on a talk page? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't just Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and many other Islamic countries have this problem. From the 7th century onwards, any Muslim man was permitted to marry girls as young as 9 as the Prophet (pbuh) had done the same.-Mossad3 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mossad3 but that isn't pedophilia, which is the point. Doug Weller  talk 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The slightly bigger point is that this page is about Aisha, and the only information relevant to this article is information from sources about Aisha, not independent research. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mossad3: Age of consent in Asia is the repository of the established information on this subject, as opposed to anecdotal individual opinions, such as that listed above. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have an interest in this subject, you may wish to take your energies there rather than persists in WP:SYNTH here, which I assure you is a waste of time for all. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay.-Mossad3 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I never used that term (at least, till now). More importantly, it is legal in most Islamic countries and most Muslims in other countries (including those in the West) also do not consider it to be pedophilia.-Mossad3 (talk)
 * Good to know. Doug Weller  talk 13:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar, this is not WP:SYNTHESIS. This is actively debated in the current literature. See page 38 and 50-51 of Benson and Strangroom, for example. I don't accept your contention that this source is "pop culture". Vast numbers of Muslims believe that this is the truth and that it is the sharia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The synthesis was taking random news stories about individuals opinions on Islamic prescriptions (not tied directly to Aisha) and pointlessly bringing them to this talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But yes, Benson and Strangroom are also pop culture philosophers, i.e.: individuals who went into populist commercial writing instead of academic careers in philosophy. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is an article about Aisha and not about Women in Islam or Islamic marital jurisprudence or like. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mossad3 CU blocked as a sock of Y2edit?
Which means that all article edits can be reverted, unanswered talk page posts also. Others can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)