Talk:Aisha/Archive 9

Revert (Hadith sources on Aisha's age)
has removed this but please add it back or explain why it should not be in this article.-Mossad3 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC) : and seem to want something like that in this article (from what they've typed above).-Mossad3 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling upon editors that you believe will support your position is known as WP:CANVASSING @Mossad3, and is considered a disruptive editing behaviour. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding material backed by primary religious texts is rarely of benefit when reliable, secondary sources are available and adding such matter in the lead is worse. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I can't use the Sunnah or hadeeth/hadees as sources at Wikipedia is it?-Mossad3 (talk)
 * Secondary sources, when available, are indeed preferable to primary sources, as you can read here WP:RSPRIMARY. I argued for restoring that sentence in the lead because it is balanced, informative, well-sourced and roughly reflects the importance of the topic based on reliable sources (which are not necessarily scholarly sources: a significant coverage can also be coverage by public debates, political controversies, etc.). The discussion is ongoing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My position is that Aisha's own words as quoted by SECONDARY sources should be included, not necessarily in the lead. This issue has now become too controversial for hand-waving. People pretending that there is scholarly consensus about it are not being accurate. It is just as controversial in the scholarly domain as it is in the real world. For example Benson and Stangroom write:
 * WP:NPOV requires that all viewpoints should be represented. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You desire to quote "Aisha's own words" but our article already has:
 * People pretending that there is scholarly consensus about it are not being accurate. - Huh? We write,
 * Ophelia (2009) is not a remotely reliable source for our purposes, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both [Benson and Stangroom] write works of philosophical pop culture, so not particularly fantastic sources for our purposes here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ophelia (2009) is not a remotely reliable source for our purposes, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Both [Benson and Stangroom] write works of philosophical pop culture, so not particularly fantastic sources for our purposes here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant the Spellberg quote provided by Gitz6666 should be included. (No idea why a new section has been opened for the same issue.) There are no arguments about Spellberg's reliability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, what matters for this issue is not only what the historians say about the matter, but also what the "textual evidence" says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , the references cited here may interest you.-Mossad3 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more references cited here.-Mossad3 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not very acquainted with sources of Early Islam, I suppose.
 * There exists a total absence of contemporary sources about Muhammad which have even led some reputed academics (consult Hoyland et al) to doubt whether Muhammad had any significant role to play in the foundation of Islam! The hadith corpus was transmitted orally for generations before being put to text and unlike the Vedas (which you might be inclined to compare with), their transmission trees are often internally inconsistent. This had led classical scholars to classify the reliability of hadith etc based on a variety of non-scholarly techniques including Biographical evaluation etc.
 * There is a reason why there exists a Revisionist school of Islamic studies. There exists a reason why Spellberg asserts that it is impossible (and nonsensical) to find out the age when Aisha's marriage was consummated. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting (no irony) but I'm afraid we might be missing the point of the thread. The text removed from the lead was not about Aisha's real age (which I understand may well be unknowable) but rather about "traditional hadith sources" and contemporary scholarly controversies. The text we're discussing about is the following:
 * Now, I think we should discuss, first, if the text is accurate and verifiable enough, and secondly if it is worth of being included in the lead. I've made a bit of research on the sources and my answer to the first question is "yes", but I'm not at all an expert and I'm more then ready to change my views on the subject. With regard to the second question, however, I strongly feel that we should include a few lines of high-quality, neutral and fully verifiable text on Aisha's age. The question is highly notable and the very amount of discussions on this in this talk page proves the point. Or do you think otherwise? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the following text is simpler and yet equally accurate?
 * I don't understand if there's a consensus on removing any mention of Aisha's age and related controversies from the lead section. Before restoring a reference to Aisha's age, I ping interested editors so as to solicit further discussion, if needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I would not say that no one responding is achieving consensus - I would say that if we have to resort to repeating what hadith say directly without any secondary sources actually saying that secondary analysis supports this, then that tells you exactly how accurate (or not) this information is. The random things that would start entering leads just because some hadith said it, and a secondary source repeated that a hadith said it, would be legion. For a lead summary, one really has to go with the secondary analysis itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a mention that defers to secondary analysis and mentions the modern friction on the issue, as suggested on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With regard to consensus, note that a text mentioning traditional hadith sources on Aisha's age has been in the lead section since the very creation of the first stub in 2001 and then through all subsequent revisions (e.g. 25 August 2013, 2 June 2014, 1 February 2019). I don't see any talk discussion on this prior to TrangaBellam removing the text on 5 July 2022. I immediately restored the lead on 6 July 2022 and was reverted on 7 July 2022; now you reverted my edit saying that no firm consensus has been reached on talk, which is true - but that means that WP:NOCON applies. Pending this discussion on whether to remove any mention of hadith sources from the lead section, contents shouldn't be removed and the article should remain as it was prior to the 5 July bold edit.
 * With regard to the subject of discussion, I think that your mentioning The random things that would start entering leads just because some hadith said it is somewhat disingenuous. You are neglecting the huge impact (not only in terms of scholarly debates, but also political controversy and even legislation) that those hadith sources have had in many countries and for an extended period of time. Sweeping them under the carpet is not a way of promoting religious understanding and tolerance, which rather require objective and neutral knowledge of all relevant facts. What those sources report is way more important than Aisha real age, that no one will ever know: what people know, or believe they know, about Aisha's age depends on them. I think that the best we could do is to report their content, say that they are subject to controversy and discussion amongst scholars, and also say that Aisha's real age is indeterminable from a scholarly perspective. The text could be the following:
 * I'm now publishing this text. Please don't remove it unless you want to restore the text prior to TrangaBellam's bald edit of 5 July. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gitz6666: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and given how patchy the editing is in Islam-related articles in general, I would not set any stock by material simply being around since 2001 - the accolade of inertia is one that can be applied to many forms of relative junk on Wikipedia, and I never understand the argument from this angle. I see the WP:ONUS in this instance being on justifying why we should make an unusual exception in this instance to paraphrase primary religious texts when we have secondary analysis clearly stating that this material is useless bunk. And no, I don't think we should have the above - as I said, my version already WAS the only thing that can be said from a neutral, encyclopedic perspective - otherwise, all of this crap about her age has no place in the lead summary. I am equally happy with nothing. By all accounts, Aisha had a long and quite extraordinary life, became a scholar, led troops into battle - in such a biography, this very modern and tedious controversy really has no place being unduly weighted. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. "Traditional hadith sources say X" is what multiple reliable secondary sources tell us.
 * 2. "It has always been here" is not an argument about accuracy or notability, it's an argument about consensus (for inclusion) based on silence, which I think is the rationale of ONUS: many people read this in the past, didn't object to it, edited and improved the text on hadith sources, so if you want to change that text you need a consensus.
 * 3. "Very modern and tedious controversy" is like saying "I don't like it!". That controversy and the associated hadith sources have had an impact on the life of lots of people; many people are aware of the controversy and want to have information about it. Like most religious controversies it is inherently a-rational and based on ancient fragmentary sources reinterpreted to serve today's needs; yet it's out there and Wikipedia ignoring it wouldn't be in anybody's interest. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, 'very modern' means this is a historic biography that should be reflecting scholarship, not following the whims of the news. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Precisely - this does belong at the article but not at the lead. Brill's EOI or EI, standard encyclopedias on Islam, do not mention anything either! TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If by "very modern" you mean something that's been around since the Victorian age, then you're right: the controversy about her age is very modern, but that's not a reason for sweeping it under the carpet, as we all leave in modern times. WP:NOTNEWS obviously doesn't apply here, as we're not indulging in routine news coverage and there's an abundance of scholarly sources on Aisha's age.
 * With regard to being too modern, dully following the news of the day and avoiding serious scholarly sources, I'm now sharing a citation from vol. I of the 2nd edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam in 12 volumes (first published in 1960, reprinted in 1979):
 * This is what a "serious" "scholarly" "academic" and not so modern secondary source writes on the subject, and I suspect you don't want us to have this kind of frank and open report on what the prevailing primary sources say on the matter - or am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And what am I do with this text-wall?
 * The lead obviously needs a line about Aisha's marriage which ought to mention her age at consummation as about nine years, going by by the preponderance of Islamic sources. The waxing on "controversy", "indeterminacy", "ideological friction" are all unnecessary and creates undue focus on the particulars of her age. This is not as difficult as it seems to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand what you say, you are proposing to remove from the lead any mention of traditional hadith sources, controversies, indeterminacy, etc., and straightforwardly say that she married when she was six years old and went to live in Muhammad's house when she was nine or ten - pretty much as the Encyclopedia of Islam does. If that's what you're proposing to do, I agree with you. I thought that your edit was meant to remove any mention of Aisha's age from the lead (and I though so because that's what it unintentionally accomplished: ), but if that's not the case and you're OK with including these contents, then I'm happy to set aside any mention of scholarly controversies and political squabbles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the existing way of incorporating it, with a standalone paragraph, is distinctly undue. Blending it into the existing lead summary material is also tricky, however - I agree that most parts could be dispensed with, but if we are to mention an age then I think it should also be noted that the dates/age involved are, if not indeterminate, at least not agreed upon in/born out by scholarship. This material is no more than a tenth of the article, and if we were to strictly enforce MOS:LEAD should make up no more than a tenth of the lead, which would be about 30 words, e.g.: "Islamic tradition suggests that she may have consummated her marriage with Muhammad at as early as nine years of age, though her date of birth and age remain matters of dispute." Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can also agree with that. My point in this conversation has always and only been that we need a brief, well-sourced sentence on Aisha's age, I strongly feel that we should include a few lines of high-quality, neutral and fully verifiable text on Aisha's age, because Aisha's age has become highly notable in contemporary debates. Having a self-standing paragraph on this wouldn't be unjustified, IMHO, based on MOS:LEAD, but it's not necessary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're on the THIRD edition of Encyclopedia of Islam now, so why you would go out of your to seek 1960 info? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the third edition, which doesn't seem to be included in the Wikipedia Library Services. If you have access to it, could you please publish an excerpt on what it says about Aisha's age at the time of marriage and consummation? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can also agree with that. My point in this conversation has always and only been that we need a brief, well-sourced sentence on Aisha's age, I strongly feel that we should include a few lines of high-quality, neutral and fully verifiable text on Aisha's age, because Aisha's age has become highly notable in contemporary debates. Having a self-standing paragraph on this wouldn't be unjustified, IMHO, based on MOS:LEAD, but it's not necessary. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We're on the THIRD edition of Encyclopedia of Islam now, so why you would go out of your to seek 1960 info? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the third edition, which doesn't seem to be included in the Wikipedia Library Services. If you have access to it, could you please publish an excerpt on what it says about Aisha's age at the time of marriage and consummation? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Aisha's age
If we assume that the story of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha at the age of 9 is correct, there must be at least one text from which it can be understood that she was a child, such as: "My hand does not reach ..." Or "she's young" or "I want my mom" but there's nothing like that. 212.237.118.150 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Facts
She was not part and parcel of Ahlul Bait 197.237.238.164 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ahl al-Bayt is our article about this. If there's sectarian disagreement about this, I think un-labeled use in the infobox is suboptimal. I'd prefer to clarify that her inclusion is a common Sunni belief or cut it entirely (as the infobox is mostly for uncontested, basic facts). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Influx of sources

 * Some booklet published by "Islamic Presentation Center International" and authored by the head of religious education at a Hull secondary school.
 * An opinion-article by "A. Faizur Rahman", described as a Chennai-based peace activist.
 * An internet forum that offers answers to questions about Islam premising upon a Salafist ideology.
 * Gibril Haddad, an archconservative muhaddith with no relevant academic training.

Needless to say that none of the above sources are reliable enough to be used in any form. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Lol, What is your basis for claiming that?
 * Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaking Islamic scholar who holds ijazas from over 150 scholars across the Muslim world.  . He was featured in the inaugural list of The 500 Most Influential Muslims and has been called "one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world", a "prominent orthodox Sunni" and a "staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law."
 * And you claim that he has no relevant academic training? Lol. Androvie (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting from our lead but how does being a prominent orthodox Sunni or a staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law or one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world render him a scholar at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al? In the realms of Wikipedia, "academic training" has a very narrow meaning. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are you to claim Gibril Haddad is not at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al, lol. Androvie (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCETYPES: TrangaBellam (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh really? then do the books of Tabari meet the above criteria or not? Androvie (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not which is why I had not cited Tabari directly. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this article cites his work directly though, not attributing it to the author of the secondary source who cites his reports. Androvie (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Commment: Ah. I should apologize. I didn't actually have a problem with Banlhge453's initial addition, and had only meant to undo the second, based purely on it being sourced solely to Islam Q&A (as in the edit summary). Rolling back both was totally accidental, and I didn't realize I'd done it. Again, apologies to all. I'm perfectly happy with Barlas as a source. The Brown one is fine too. I am not fine with several aspects of Androvie's version, not least accusing any parties of cherrypicking: as we all know, all sources have bias, but this is a bit off. And then again, Islam Q&A is not a reliable source. Muhammad al-Munajid is a polemicist, but not a particularly qualified scholar. So, he only really ever reflects a highly conservative viewpoint, and not with much authority. Gibril Haddad is a much more qualified scholar, but whatever that rather strange Q&A pdf is, it falls quite a way short of our typical expectations in terms of reliable sourcing. Overall there's little to be recommended from Androvie's version, while Banlhge453's version is fine supported by Barlas and Brown. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's good to finally have reliable sources standing up the modern estimates - they've been flying around for a while unsourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, hadn't realised it had come from Muhammad, squirrelled away under Household - that explains why it checks out. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's right to only promote one view, when there is an opposing view. Besides, an administrator has already said that it is okay to quote from Gibril Haddad as long as his words are attributed to him. Androvie (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An administrator's view is not implicitly more valuable than that of another editor's, so you can dispense with that argument from authority right there, but more importantly, yes, we could quote Gibril Haddad as published in a reliable source. A pdf from livingislam.org is not that source. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, at the end of the day, it's still his writing, and the admin ok'ed the using of that source, also why did you write only the claim that estimates she was not 6-7 yo when was married from your source, but left out this part:
 * Androvie (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, if it's not presented in the form of reliable publishing, we actually know very little about the veracity of a text, how it was produced, if it is accurately transcribed, if Gibril Haddad gave permission for it to be disseminated, or if it coherently reflects his scholarly viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you avoiding answering the issue of why you left out an important part of your source that I quoted above?
 * btw I copied this sentence from verifiability
 * Androvie (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I have mentioned above, we have no real evidence that the pdf in question was self-published. We in fact know nothing about that document's origins, or by whom it was produced. Even the self-published nature of the source is an assumption with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dragoon17 has given a detailed explanation in the section above. Androvie (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added no sources, but if you would like to make further suggestions from Barlas or Brown, feel free to. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I added no sources, but if you would like to make further suggestions from Barlas or Brown, feel free to. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To Doug Weller
Dear @Doug Weller, please explain why did you revert my latest edit on the grounds that you aren't convinced the sources are reliable, while you allow one part of Banlhge453's edit regarding Kecia Ali which is not clear on what page the information is located. The citation indicates that the pages are 133 and 155-199. On the page 133, I don't find anything like that. But the pages 155-199? that's so broad, I need him to pinpoint on what page specifically Kecia said that. Androvie (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging for user. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I was only looking at Androvie’s sources. I’m off to bed now. I’ll try to look tomorrow. Doug Weller  talk 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rejection of LivingIslam as a source
Dear @Doug Weller

Can you explain why LivingIslam is not reliable?

It's an article by Gibril Haddad, a reputable Islamic scholar, refuting the arguments made by the ones claiming that Aisha was not 9 year-old when consummated.

He stated that nowhere did Tabari report that "Abu Bakr's four children (including Aisha in that context) were all born in Jahiliyya (before the dawning of Islam)".

If you can point out where Tabari reported that, what book of his, what volume, what page; then please do.

If you can't then please don't revert my edit, because that would be vandalism.

Also, even if LivingIslam is not acceptable as a source, why did you reject all my edits which included the addition of sources from Sunnah.com, the actual Tabari's book, Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad (in arabic), etc.?

Are those also considered unreliable as sources to you?

Androvie (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Androvie First how do you justify changing "Some hadiths" to "Traditional hadiths" ?
 * Then you change "differ" to "fairly consistent'.without changing the source (which doesn't use the word "traditional" by the way.
 * I'm not sure that sunnah.com actually backs the bit about her recollection, but The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9 does.
 * LivingIslam itself isn't an rs, eg would be useless. Who is the author of [ https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf ]?  Doug Weller  talk 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to cite The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9, please make sure you give the publisher, and edition, and the page number. These details are needed because pagination is sometimes completely different in different editions of the same book. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you.
 * I've provided the URL and ISBN as well. :) Androvie (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * The author of that LivingIslam article is Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad. It's written multiple times there:
 * https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf
 * Please read first before claiming something is not reputable. He was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world,"
 * Sunnah.com is a very well-known website for finding hadiths including from Sahih al-Bukhari. And the sentence of this wiki that talks about Aisha's recollection mentioned "as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari", it was already there before I edited it. Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there?
 * About "differ" one that I changed to "fairly consistent", I've read the book, there is not a single sentence there saying that, "Islamic sources of the classical era differ among themselves about her precise age at the time of marriage and consummation"
 * Best regards, Androvie (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there? Because something published by the State University of New York (SUNY) Press has a lot more credibility than the website. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you know that Sahih al-Bukhari wasn't written by Tabari?
 * This is the sentence before I edited it looked like.
 * Aisha herself recollected to have been married at seven years of age — as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari Androvie (talk) 15:00p, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It is worth adding that just because someone is influential does not mean that they are well informed (for example David Cameron made laughably ill-informed statements about World War II). -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then please provide us with where Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam?
 * In what book, what publication, what volume and what page. Androvie (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I said the website is not an RS in itself, it depends on what you want to use. I never used the word "reputable." Sorry I asked again about the author. If you want to use  him you should attribute it to him. I see we now have "both the date and her age are subject to controversy and discussion among scholars;" in the lead and in the Age at time of marriage section you put "Islamic sources of the classical era are fairly consistent among themselves about Aisha's precise age at the time of her marriage and consummation" I don't care what Tabari didn't say. But Spellberg does seem to back that so ok, he seems to suggest that among the early writers it was just Ibn Sa'd  who questioned the dates, but that really needs more research. And yes, influential does not mean they are a reliable source. I hope you see that.  Doug Weller  talk 13:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the author, Gibril Haddad himself used the website to host his arguments.
 * The problem here is that this wiki article about Aisha stated (before I edited it) that Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam.
 * Where Gibril Haddad holds that nowhere did Tabari report that.
 * So if you can point out where Tabari reported that then please provide us with in what book, what volume and what page Tabari reported that. Androvie (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability.)  This means that statements in the article are meant to be backed by citations to reliable sources.  So what statements in the article are you challenging?  Do you dispute that those statements backed up by reliable sources?  Have you read the sources cited?


 * As regards Gibril Haddad - not our problem. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in but I saw the changes and looked into this. It is a complicated web of citations so it’s difficult to find.
 * This ("born before the dawning of Islam") is cited to Ali, who in turn cites:
 * Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past, 197–198, n. 4. which says:
 * Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad.
 * This directs readers to: "see al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, 4:2135 and its contradiction within the same chronicle, Ta'rikh, 4:1262"
 * This is actually volume 11 in the English translation, about page 141.
 * "All of these four of his children were born in al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named" (The other reference Spellberg mentioned is from vol 7 of the English version, page 7, quoting Aisha: "the Messenger of God married me when I was seven")
 * In the Haddad link above it states that Abu Bakr only married his wives at that time and nowhere did Tabari say that his children were born then. Looking at the Arabic original, I can see why this is his impression, as it can also be translated as "All of these four of his children were born from his two above-named wives, who we named/listed during al-Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period)", meaning these wives who were listed above as marrying him during that period (versus his later wives, who are mentioned directly after that). The modifier is unclear due to the insertion of the phrase "whom we have named" in the middle of the sentence. However, as far as I know there is only one translation of Tabari’s work into English so the first one is the one that all English scholars have been working off of. Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaker and so he probably read it in Arabic rather than the English translation.
 * I have included the Arabic original here in case people are curious. https://ia802207.us.archive.org/9/items/WAQ17280/trm03.pdf
 * Here I will write out what it says if it may be of use: فكل هؤلاء الأربعة من أولاده ، ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلية
 * It’s on pg 426 of the pdf.
 * I hope that is helpful.
 * Dragoon17 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much.
 * Then it's true what Gibril Haddad said, which means there are no contradicting reports among early Islamic sources that Aisha was married when she was 6-7 and consummated when she was 9-10. Androvie (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you continue with challenging the reliability of Spellberg et al, based on your interpretation of primary sources, I will ask that your ability to edit this page be revoked. If you think Spellberg mis-cited his sources etc., go publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed venue and we will see. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, who are you? you're not an administrator in the first place, man. Instead of fear-mongering and edit-warring, why don't you first provide a counter-argument to dragoon17's explanation above? Androvie (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the fuss is all about and Dragoon17, your variant translation is ridiculous. Blankinship is a scholar of repute and his own footnote goes, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, I put the original arabic text into Bing Translator and this is what came out. "All of these four of his children, born of his two wives, whom we named in ignorance."
 * Seems to match what Gibril Haddad and Dragoon17 said.
 * Thus, the reports of Aisha's age at marriage in the books of Tabari are not contradictory at all. :) - Androvie (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks but Wikipedia accepts peer reviewed scholarship. Not Bing Translate or blogs by Islamic muhaddiths. Esp. when they go against scholars like Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Kecia Ali, and Denise Spellberg. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, western scholars can be quoted regarding the history of Islamic figures, but Islamic scholars (ulama) can't? lol. How funny. Androvie (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how we operate. For example, such a stance appears to have prodded the launch of WikiIslam etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, red herring fallacy, what does this have to do with wikiislam?. It's Islamic Scholars (ulama) saying about an Islamic figure, and you reject that because some western scholars draw conclusions from a mistranslation of Islamic book. Lol. And who are you to claim that's how Wikipedia operate, you're just playing admin all along after all. lol. I'll skip this man for now and wait if there's any admins or reasonable person who can moderate the issue. Androvie (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Androvie I’m an Admin but we normally have no authority over content unless there are policy violations.  Doug Weller  talk 09:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Btw, may I ask? In case there is a mistranslation of part of the content of a non-English book that causes contradictions within it and disapproval from some scholars, shouldn't we attribute the problematic part to the translator or/and the authors of the secondary sources who cite the translation, and provide the other view as well, so that readers can evaluate? Androvie (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ...Arabic is my native language. It is an unclear modifier. I was answering a question about sources and Mr. Haddad's paper, I am not trying to cast doubt on Mr. Blankenship or say that he is wrong. Simply that the two individuals interpreted a vague sentence differently.
 * As an aside, I take issue with your characterization of Mr. Haddad. He is published in several peer-reviewed journals and has non-self-published books, in Arabic and English (usually as GF Haddad). He is referenced and cited by other authors. You may look at this on Google Scholar/Books. As for whether or not this LivingIslam site is useful for wiki purposes I do not know as I have never looked at it, but I do not think it is fair or reasonable to characterize him as an "ultraconservative" (he is not) with no relevant expertise.
 * Anyway, I can see the direction this is headed in so I will refrain from commenting any further. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an unclear modifier. >>> Responding soon.
 * He is published in several peer-reviewed journals >>> Like being the resident-author for "Islamic Sciences"?
 * cited by other authors >>> Example of some prominent scholars citing him approvingly? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I said, I am uninterested in continuing a discussion with you as I do not think it would be productive. You may search his name on the sites I indicated if you would like to learn more about him. Feel free also to consult with other Arabic speakers if you doubt my words. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, this was driving me crazy because I know that I'd seen it somewhere before. In fact I'm almost positive it was on the Arabic wiki page for Aisha at some point. So I've finally tracked it down. The pdf you linked on LivingIslam is just an archive of an old page that was from another site. The original page was on a site called SunniPath. (I found the original on wikiquote, of all places: here on archive.org)
 * So, SunniPath is like a 15 year old site that no longer exists which is why that other site probably archived it. It morphed into Qibla then SeekersHub and then SeekersGuidance (current name). Faraz Rabbani is the founder of those projects. Basically people submit questions to Islamic experts on history, fiqh etc and have them answered which is why the PDF looks like a Q&A... since it is. They also have online free courses on various Islamic matters.
 * Now that does not solve the reliability problem and again I am not the person to ask about this. I searched for opinions on Google Books and Scholar. Here are links to various iterations of the site SeekersHub SunniPath SeekersGuidance To me it seems fairly reliable but again, I am not an expert. Probably it depends upon the specific person answering the questions? Hopefully that puts things on the right path to resolution at least.
 * (Last edit, sorry! I may have found a compromise?: [this article] in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit not in English, summarizes Haddad's statements. Perhaps this will suffice? Dragoon17 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the trouble to compile all this. Also, for the journal you brought up in your last edit, I happen to be a native Indonesian speaker so I guess reading it will be a breeze.
 * I'll be reading the journal first, but if you want, feel free to edit this wiki article. :) Androvie (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done making a rough edit. If there's anything you want to improve, please feel free to do so. :) Androvie (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version of the page looks OK to me. This is a topic that makes people very emotional and can quickly devolve into thousands of points and counterpoints, but I think it summarizes the situation well enough. Sources are all noted scholars or peer-reviewed journals and books. I personally am done editing this, but good luck to everyone else still working on it! Dragoon17 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was some needless divergence from Wikivoice that I've now addressed with further copy editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Androvie: this edit, aside from being incredibly unilateral, just made the section dysfunctionally long. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it that instead of answering my questions in the section below, you reverted my edit under the pretext of unilateralism and consensus? The edit was not made by me alone, but also by Dragoon17, and some of the sources are also given by him to provide the views from both sides. The view of some muslims who deny the the reports of Aisha's age being 6-7 at the time of marriage on one side, and the rebuttals of their view by the muslim conservatives on the other. But your edits make it seem as if the arguments that rejects the report of Aisha's age of 6-7 years are the correct and irrefutable one.  Even though Wikipedia upholds neutrality. Androvie (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

To Iskandar323
Hi @Iskandar323 :), I have some problems with this part of your edit:

1. Spellberg does not state this anywhere on the page of his book mentioned in the citation.

2. This sounds as if the sources contradict each other, even though the variations are only between 6 to 7 at the time of her marriage, and 9 to 10 at the time of consummation. And the reports are fairly consistent within those ranges.

3. Even assuming it is true that Spellberg said so, the remark must be attributed to him because not all scholars agree with it. Androvie (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2022 - - oh yeah, I just remembered, can you point out on what specific page Kecia Ali said this?

I have looked it up and can't find it. It should also be attributed to her because the large majority of Islamic scholars (ulama) accept that Aisha's age at the time of marriage has already been proven by the hadiths. Androvie (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That the classical sources differ hardly seems a point of contention or opinion - perhaps it is misattributed to Spellberg, and that reference should be moved, but it would still stand up as a perfectly adequate opening summary without any attribution. As to the Kecia Ali-linked part, I am not sure who added it, but it has been present in the text for quite some time, attributed originally not just to Ali, but to both Ali and Spellberg I believe. You'd have to ask its originator which statements it paraphrases. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the information can't be found in the source, then it doesn't meet the verifiability requirement.
 * Androvie (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have full access to both the sources such that you are able to clearly verify or factcheck both statements? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Androvie (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And? What do Ali and Spellberg say in overall summary of the evidence related to Aisha's age, and its veracity? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is red herring fallacy. You're the one pushing the information with those sources, why are you asking me instead? Bring here the inline citations to where Ali and Spellberg say those, also the specific pages, because if you can't then they should be deleted. Androvie (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to email me the pages and I'll happily look at them myself. 39-40 from Spellberg, 133 from Ali. If you're not willing to tell us what the quotes on the page actually say, how does anyone know you actually have the sources? We can always tag it as 'failed verification' (according to you) and wait for someone who is more forthcoming to reveal what, precisely, the sources have to say on the matter, rather than obfuscate. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Or, as I mentioned, you can track down/use a tool to find out who added the lines and ask them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The original 'futility' line read: Spellberg finds attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage (or consummation) as an exercise in futility; Kecia Ali agrees. - so the material paraphrased may also be linked to pages 39-40 from Spellberg. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, Kecia p. 133
 * https://i.ibb.co/27zcGxn/Kecia-Ali-133.jpg
 * Spellberg p. 39-40
 * https://i.ibb.co/VQ0Pvc8/Spellberg-39.jpg
 * https://i.ibb.co/VxKWzjG/Spellberg-40.jpg
 * Nothing like that can be found there. Androvie (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Spellberg and Ali have described this issue in a great detail and summary of this detail is that proving real age of Aisha is an exercise in futility. However if we delete this statement then we have to present the all the arguments and fact which were brought by Ali and Spellberg which will have same message (just in a broader way) And i think, you would be upset from this. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Read again my comments above, I'm tired of repeating the same thing again and again. Androvie (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

To Banlhge453
Hi @Banlhge453, as I've told you many times already, please join the discussion here rather than just giving a short note on your repeated reverts of the edits you disagree with.

Your version of edits creates the impression that the Islamic scholars who adhere to the hadiths are just idiots with blind faith who follow something that is clearly wrong.

Even though a number of them have given their rebuttals to the arguments made against the hadiths regarding Aisha's age at marriage. Some of which I have included in my edit.

Regarding the reliability of Sunnipath and Gibril Haddad, it has already been explained by Dragoon17 in the section above.

Wikipedia emphasizes neutrality, not bias towards a particular side by rejecting reports or remarks that do not fit its agenda. Androvie (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Androvie no, NPOV is not neutrality.  Doug Weller  talk 11:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm... okay maybe it's my error since I'm not a native english speaker, but it still doesn't invalidate my point.
 * Androvie (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We frankly have little need to reference any primary religious texts or religious opinions because we have secondary sources such as Ali and Spellberg that summarize the entire saga of this storm in a teacup from the classic era through to present. Ali is a gender specialist who covers it all in meticulous detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clearly stated on Reliable sources that
 * Whereas some of the arguments in this article, such as that "Aisha's age cannot be proven", are disagreed with by Islamic scholars who believe the hadiths have proven that thing. Androvie (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is bizarre logic. It cannot be proven, objectively, because there were no birth certificates around at the time. This was noted in a much early version of this section, but if such a glaringly obvious piece of information genuinely need stating out loud, we can restore it. Basically your claim here is that some Islamic scholars say it can be proven so we should believe them? Interesting arbiters of truth that you're choosing there. Probably not the most NPOV ones, methinks. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are actually hadiths that trace back to the person herself saying that she was 6-7 years old when she was married, that's more than enough I think. Asking for a birth certificate even though the person herself has given the information about her age is tantamount to a red herring fallacy. Androvie (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In case it needs spelling out, hadiths cannot prove a thing. They are fairly rubbish primary sources. Not contestable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but the Islamic scholars (subject-matter expert) say otherwise. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not the place to accommodate only your opinion. Androvie (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, but the Islamic scholars (subject-matter expert) say otherwise. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not the place to accommodate only your opinion. Androvie (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six years old at the time of marriage. They have clearly no historical evidences because historical reliability of hadith and sirah, is itself, a topic of debate in academic circles. Nothing is proven. You're waging an ongoing discussion. Like (hadith reliability, opinion of individual scholar, list of arguments and counter arguments of both side). Unfortunately wikipedia page is not a place for all of this stuff. Banlhge453 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, hadiths in Islam already have their own qualifications after they were evaluated by the imams of hadith (such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc).
 * Those qualifications are saheeh, hasan, daif, etc.
 * The majority of Muslims accept and recognize the hadiths of hasan grade and above as fundamental sources.
 * Plus we are talking about a character (Aisha) whose life story is found nowhere else but in the hadiths.
 * The funny thing is that you cast doubt on the authenticity of hadiths but accept some of them (of a lower grade) as true and others of a higher grade such as those from Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim as false. Androvie (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. We do not care about Islam's internal grading system for hadith. All hadith are primary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence we defer to secondary sources written by subject-matter experts whose precise job it is to scrutinize all of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And those subject-matter experts include the Islamic scholars who refute the arguments made against the authenticity of the hadiths regarding Aisha's age being 6 to 7 at the time of marriage. But why are you deleting them? Androvie (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the material from either of the Islamic scholars you recently added adds to the page. It basically amounts to: 'they don't like the modern assessments because they don't adhere to their traditional frameworks' - do we really need to state that traditional Islamic scholars do not like it when their traditions are challenged? Something of a guaranteed result. Also more linked to them not liking hadiths being disputed than the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So that's why you deleted it? because of that assumption of yours that they just don't like those assessments, not because you've already looked into it? Actually those Ulamas, such as Gibril Haddad, provide reasonable rebuttals, for example, the modern assessments say that all the narratives (regarding Aisha's age being 6-7 at marriage) are reported only by Hisham. Gibril Haddad refuted this by saying that there are more than eleven authorities among the Tabi'in that reported it directly from Aisha, and he's correct, as I've searched for it, there are more than one hadith regarding this that doesn't have Hisham in the chain of narration.
 * https://sunnah.com/nasai:3379
 * https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422d
 * https://sunnah.com/nasai:3255
 * https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877
 * https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422c
 * Regarding Asma's age too, there are multiple sources regarding this, not one of them is in the collections of saheeh hadiths, though, which means they do not meet the criteria of the highest reliable reports. They are from the tarikhs. The one that says Asma was ten years older than Aisha is from the less reliable one, which is from Abi al-Zinad; but the more reliable one from al-Dhahabi says there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, which matches the hadiths that say Aisha was 6-7 at the time of her marriage. Androvie (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation by Imam Bukhari and Muslim doesn't gurantee the authenticity of hadith. There is a huge debate on hadith reliability and just because some imam who was guided by God, collected those hadith doesn't mean that they will become automatically historical accurate. Historians like Patricia Crone and Hoyland have cast serious doubt on these issue. Just because only source to know about Aisha is hadith also doesn't mean that it becomes a historical fact. However it has been already mentioned that according to Bukhari, Aisha was seven at the time of marriage. What do you want know? Yes, I cast doubt on hadith because many well established scholars have and as far as Aisha's age is concerned, I've already made it clear that majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and while some disagree. There is no need to go in depth of both side's arguments because they are endless Banlhge453 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Saheeh means authentic, fyi. And wikipedia stressed neutral point of view which means
 * It's fine for you to doubt the accuracy of the hadith and give some rebuttals, that's why I included them as well in my edits, but that doesn't mean you can reject if there are also rebuttals by the Islamic Scholars to the rebuttals from your side. Androvie (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Authentic' by Islamic standards does not mean 'of merit' here. An authentic primary source is still just a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In Islamic terms, hadith with a saheeh grade, means that hadith is one of the most reliable. All the records regarding Aisha come from the hadiths. It's funny that you talk about the history of Aisha but you dismiss the only sources about her as rubbish, etc. Androvie (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite, literally endless. Hence Kecia Ali dedicated a 45-page chapter of her book to the subject of issues such as this pertaining to Aisha, and her book makes no less than 30 mentions of Aisha in relation to her age. We do not need to repeat that exhaustive exercise here in this encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For an analogy, in the Wikipedia article about the earth, if we write:
 * - Scholars A based on the evidences that have been obtained concluded that the earth is sphere shaped
 * - But scholars B's assessment of the evidences concluded that the earth is actually flat shaped.
 * If we stop just there it's the same as we're creating the impression that the opinion of scholars B is the right one here, even though actually scholars A have given rebuttals to scholars B's rebuttal.
 * It's the same case with your edit now.
 * - Islamic scholars based on the Saheeh hadiths concluded that Aisha was 6-7 year at the time of marriage
 * - Some Muslim writers (actually Ahmadiyya), made an assessment based on one tradition regarding Asma's age concluded that Aisha might have been in her late teens when married.
 * If we stop there, it's the same as making the impression that the opinion of that some Ahmadiyya Muslim writers as the right one, even though Islamic Scholars, such as Gibril Haddad have given rebuttals that the tradition used by those Ahmadiyya Muslims was from the less reliable one, and the more reliable one about Asma's age actually matches the age Aisha of being 6-7 when being married. Androvie (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we stop there, it's the same as making the impression that the opinion of that some Ahmadiyya Muslim writers as the right one, even though Islamic Scholars, such as Gibril Haddad have given rebuttals that the tradition used by those Ahmadiyya Muslims was from the less reliable one, and the more reliable one about Asma's age actually matches the age Aisha of being 6-7 when being married. Androvie (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been already discussed. Bukhari mentions, she was seven at the time of marriage and majority of Muslim scholars take Bukhari as an authority while some disagree on this issue. Repeating the same thing and going in depth of both side's arguments is a waste of time. Because there is not only argument of Asma and Hisham, there are many arguments like death year of Aisha, conflicting hadith of Bukhari etc. Therefore if you present that some scholars say Aisha would have been older at the time of marriage and other scholars have countered it then this not end. There are also counter arguments from first side and then and then, it will go on. Therefore, please keep it brief as far as possible. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've explained regarding this above. Androvie (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

New draft
User:TrangaBellam/Aisha Age - Currently under construction but feel free to suggest constructive improvements. Sfn-referencing is a MUST. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert
Androvie, please explain the basis of your revert than waving at a non-existent consensus. This is an article on Aisha; not Aisha's age at time of marriage.

Why do we care about what an Ahmadi figure had to say about the issue, sourced from some sub-par journal? What is the significance of the Egyptian journalist? The very recalculation of her age (as Ali notes) is a product of postmodern anxieties and they failed to convince anybody. That's all needs to be here. Not specifics of who said what.

Why did you revert the rest of the garden-variety edits? Do you want to debate them as well? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There's no article named "Aisha's age at time of marriage", it's all included in this article of Aisha.
 * You were part of this discussion before, but you left on August 28, 2022, when you claimed you were going to respond regarding the unclear Arabic modifier.
 * The discussion ended on September 5th with a consensus. No one has objected to it since then.
 * You have also been continuously making edits on other Wikipedia articles since you left this discussion on August 28, but now after 20 days have passed, you suddenly came back to this article again and started making edits without talking it out first.
 * Regarding your question,
 * Firstly, It's already been explained by Dragoon17 above. Secondly, as per wikipedia policy WP:RS:
 * Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
 * Then, about your argument:
 * That's a subjective statement. Some people are actually convinced by that, as what's being written in the article: "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments,"
 * That's what is said in the source according to Dragoon17, if you want to challenge that, please bring over here the text that supports your claim from the source, or a screenshot of the page containing the sentences, like I did above.
 * Regarding
 * What garden variety edit are you talking about?
 * Oh yeah, I also noticed that you changed this line on this article
 * to
 * As far as I know, "as did works" and "but they" have totally different meanings. Can you explain your basis of doing that? Androvie (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Silence does not imply consensus - I left off the page being fed up of your antics. Let us deal with issues, one by one:
 * Please cite the page-number and the particular passage from Brown, which supports this observation. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, suddenly making edits without talking it out after being gone for 20 days after claiming that you were going to respond regarding the unclear Arabic modifier (and you still haven't responded regarding it). I believe that's what people call being sneaky.
 * All that aside, you should ask @Dragoon17 regarding that. He was the one making that edit. If that part doesn't exist in the cited source, and if he can't provide other sources regarding it, then I believe it should be removed. But that doesn't mean it justifies you being able to change the other parts as well without discussing them first here. Androvie (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe citations where the page reference is "142–155". Wikipedia has far too much of editors basing their edits on what other Wikipedia articles say, without ever checking the references they cite.  One editor told me that it was unreasonable for me to expect him/her to get hold of and read books he/she was citing.  Smiley.svg He got an indefinite block a few days later.
 * Silence does not imply consensus - I left off the page being fed up of your antics. Let us deal with issues, one by one:
 * Please cite the page-number and the particular passage from Brown, which supports this observation. TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, suddenly making edits without talking it out after being gone for 20 days after claiming that you were going to respond regarding the unclear Arabic modifier (and you still haven't responded regarding it). I believe that's what people call being sneaky.
 * All that aside, you should ask @Dragoon17 regarding that. He was the one making that edit. If that part doesn't exist in the cited source, and if he can't provide other sources regarding it, then I believe it should be removed. But that doesn't mean it justifies you being able to change the other parts as well without discussing them first here. Androvie (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe citations where the page reference is "142–155". Wikipedia has far too much of editors basing their edits on what other Wikipedia articles say, without ever checking the references they cite.  One editor told me that it was unreasonable for me to expect him/her to get hold of and read books he/she was citing.  Smiley.svg He got an indefinite block a few days later.
 * I do not believe citations where the page reference is "142–155". Wikipedia has far too much of editors basing their edits on what other Wikipedia articles say, without ever checking the references they cite.  One editor told me that it was unreasonable for me to expect him/her to get hold of and read books he/she was citing.  Smiley.svg He got an indefinite block a few days later.


 * For the sentence: "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources." please could you tell us what page of the cited source supports the sentence. If some parts of the sentence are supported by one page, whilst other parts are supported by a different page, then please tell us which page supports which part of the sentence.


 * If you cannot do this, because you do not have access to the source, then the best thing to do would be to revert to TrangaBellam's preferred version. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read again carefully what I've written above. Androvie (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that means that you do not have access to the source you cited, and therefore the citation cannot be relied on. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't make all of those changes just because one part is being problematic, you should add the template first to the part "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims"
 * And give some time for @Dragoon17 to respond.
 * If he doesn't respond in some days, then I agree that part alone should be removed.
 * Regarding the changing of the other parts, they also need to be discussed first. Androvie (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to discuss 10 different things under one heading does not work. So I picked one of them.  What I hoped for was a quick answer giving the page number(s) requested.  Then we could have moved on to the next thing.


 * I think the best thing would be for Androvie to self-revert and discuss the various things one at a time. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S. The [verification needed] template is the wrong template. What we need are precise page numbers for the citation. This is only possible if somebody reads the source. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the consensus version, you should've complained to him before it being published 13 days ago, just like I previously complained regarding a few parts of his draft that don't exist in the cited sources (Since some of them also came from the previous edits by other editors as well), which then he confirmed and removed.
 * The only problematic part now is "These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims"
 * The sentences after that sentence can be found on the source, page 147-148
 * Androvie (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentences after that sentence can be found on the source, page 147-148 - Engaging for the sake of engaging won't save you from being sanctioned. I and Toddy had requested citations for that sentence; not sentences (or paragraphs) before and after that sentence. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought we were done with this page. Hello again everyone.
 * As I said while putting together the draft: if someone has a problem with the Indonesian paper (which does indeed say that, I used a translator but a native of the language can confirm; the author is a professor and the publisher is a university, it's peer-reviewed, so I don't know quite what the problem is but I won't argue) then it can be left off. I do wish this had been brought up several weeks ago though?
 * In the prior version before the new round of edits and reverts, we can simply remove it altogether:
 * Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad, an Egyptian novelist, was one of the more prominent figures to put forward an argument that Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation. More conservative Muslim scholars objected to these arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources.
 * The rest of that paragraph is cited to Brown, with the text quoted in the Citations section of the talk page above this.
 * If that small section is the only objection then I suppose that's all that needs to be done?
 * I do not object to the current version (although I notice this line has been added back-"Aisha herself would leverage her virginity to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees, in the successional disputes that ensued upon his death"-and I think should be removed, please look above in the citations section for that; also I agree that "From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, but they contextualized the marriage as appropriate for its place and time" is an odd change), although much of it seems off in terms of grammar to me. Perhaps someone could proofread it.
 * I don't think the proposed draft in the section underneath this is an improvement over the current version and most of its additions would fit better on the Criticism of Muhammad page.
 * Dragoon17 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My framing was poor but your writeup — From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time — was quite inaccurate. The latter kind of contextualization had been appearing long before the polemics gained momentum. As was, It generally went unremarked-upon by early Orientalist writers, who viewed Muslim Arabs as engaging in exotic and unusual sexual practices that tended to "diverge from Western Christian norms".
 * Please point out specific issues with my draft - now incorporated into the article with sfn referencing - and I will be happy to incorporate improvements. Fwiw, Iskandar has already supported the draft version. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please point out specific issues with my draft - now incorporated into the article with sfn referencing - and I will be happy to incorporate improvements. Fwiw, Iskandar has already supported the draft version. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Dragoon17, TrangaBellam my understanding of the sourcing position of one of the contested sentences is as follows:
 * These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources.
 * Are there no sources for These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims?


 * Note that it is much more useful to cite pages 147-148 than pages 142–155. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is in the Indonesian paper cited in the draft above. I do not mind getting rid of that sentence, though.


 * Tranga, I am not sure how "From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time" is "inaccurate" or even objectionable. You can see a quote from the relevant pages in the section directly above this: "In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the political motivations behind it." Regardless, I am uninterested in fighting over the matter, as I see that the current version is unlikely to be changed. My only suggestion on the page at the moment is that it is grammatically strange, has an overuse of dashes and "etc"s and could benefit from copy-editing. That is all. Dragoon17 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging for user @TrangaBellam --- Androvie (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, @Dragoon17 Can you please fix the grammar on the part that Tranga just put into the article? I see some mistakes, but I'm still far from native level myself. Androvie (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of view that aisha's age was 18 or 19.
Androvie, you reverted a line "Aisha's age, according to a range of calculations with respect to Asma bint Abi Bakr appears to be 18 or 19 during her marriage to Muhammad." Many muslims especially shia that do not recognize sunni sources like Sahih al-Bukhari as fully authentic, and believe that aisha age was 18 or 19. The sources I've given on scolars such as Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni al-Qazwini and Shaykh Dr Ridhwan ibn Saleem, just demonstrate that. Also the line was completely neutral. On Wikipedia we have to provide views of all sides. I'am not objecting to the content that her age seems to be 6 or 9. I'am just putting the view of other side. The readers can themselves use the sources and think for themselves. That's it. Let me put that line back. It's more helpful and informational for the readers. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
Assalamu Alaikum, I hope you and your family are doing well. Please remove images from this page which show Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) or Hazrat Aisha. I know there faces are not showing in images, it is hidden with white paint but please remove images because it is forbidden to make an image of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), his family members and friends. It's my humble request to you. ALLAH will give you highest rewards, INSHAALLAH. Best Regards, Muhammad Suleman Muhammad Suleman Hamza (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. Wikipedia does not censor historical images, least of all based on contemporary religious sensitivities. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Auto-archiving period: 1 month"
The "Auto-archiving period: 1 month" is way too fast. Can someone who has knowledge of how to change this, change it? 3 months may be too fast. It might be nice if it could be set to "if it's hugely long and also really old", but that might require more A.I. than is programmed. Ha. But I don't know. :) Misty MH (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify: "The traditions regarding Aisha habitually opposed ideas unfavorable to women in efforts to elicit social change."
Can someone put this into English that is clear? "The traditions regarding Aisha habitually opposed ideas unfavorable to women in efforts to elicit social change." After 3 reads, I am still uncertain of what is intended. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Double paragraph under "Age at time of marriage"
One of the paragraphs in this passage is duplicated, I don't have the privileges to fix it. 222.154.106.239 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Kornatice (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Islam
What is the full name of aysha raliallahoo anha 2402:4000:B18C:A73C:14FD:779F:D586:996E (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Full protection
Revert-warring in the article is unacceptable. To preserve stability, I have full-protected this article for one month while the current content dispute is worked out. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding using “rebuked” word.
Is there any accurate reference for this statement “The prophet Muhammed was rebuked publicly by his wives”? According to several Hadithes, his wives asked as a meaning of a question like that why we are doing it in this way rather than doing any tradition, but they asked for learning like if there is a new statement came from the God. So I suggest for correction the words of “rebuked” and “fought” by replacing the word of “asked”. 5.173.8.214 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "rebuked" is being used in a quotation of a cited source. Quoting a source requires using the words in the source, not substituting other words. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection
Ffs, if one editor is trying to mainstream a fringe narrative using poor non-academic sources and tampering with the longstanding version w/o any consensus, the way out is to impose a P-block. Not sysop-protect the page! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I came here to add new arguments from Joshua Little's thesis but .... TrangaBellam (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you’d be so kind, can you post your draft here? Androvie (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Any edit requests proposed during the protection period will be considered. If non-controversial, I can add it in. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)