Talk:Aisha/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Removing Excessive critique already present in a dedicated article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the material required immediate corrective action.

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

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

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

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

"one thing can be relevant to multiple pages"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@StarkReport:

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

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

@Kaalakaa

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

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

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

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

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

@StarkReport:

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

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

@Kaalakaa, Again, even if we let the most of the content be, what do you think of the rationale that "major critique of pedophilia accusations, which even most critics of Islam avoid, belong in the dedicated Criticism of Muhammad article."?

I'm stating that in the very least, the last paragraph's last sentence that TryKid just brought back does not belong in a general article about Aisha. StarkReport (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: Sorry, but honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 12:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Kaalakaa, All I am saying is that the line in the last paragraph: "opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies" should be removed as it going the coatrack way and does not uphold WP:PROPORTION. StarkReport (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

​Regarding the edit that removed "In the late-twentieth century and early twenty-first century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of paedophilia, as well as explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies."

The deleted sentence had a citation to a very reliable source - but it would have been better if the sentence had had several citations to very reliable sources by different authors for both the "paedophilia" statement and the "higher prevalence" statement.

The issue of having sex with a nine-year old is a difficult issue, and should not be brushed under the carpet (WP:NOTCENSORED applies). On a personal level, I would prefer that the word "paedophilia" was not used. Paedophilia is a sexual disorder in which a person experiences sexual feelings towards pre-pubescent children. But it is frequently misused in mainstream English-language media (for example regarding Miss Maxwell and her friends).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I really meant when I said above "this needs is more context, not removal": the paragraph is actually long enough, but it would benefit from having a few more sources than just Ali 2014, which might also add some nuance we currently might be missing. With regard to "pedophilia", it's of course the term that the accusers we are writing about are using, so it might be difficult to avoid, even if it's incorrect. Again, more sources might help. In any case, removing or pruning the paragraph is not warranted per my take on wp:due here.

On another note, I must say I'm also glad with TrangaBellam's removal of the bad introduction citing a vague notion of "Islamic tradition" and "many of the books of Hadith" rather than specific extant written sources (Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabari, al-Bukhari), which introduction as I pointed out in one of the threads above was not in line with how secular scholarship approaches the relevant primary sources here (hadith is not believed to have any special authority, and if anything is often held to be less reliable than historiographical sources). Whether changing the sentence on the pedophilia accusations to "Islamophobes have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia — not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil" is a good idea (see the thread below) I do not know. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

removing or pruning the paragraph is not warranted per my take, Apaugasma, I totally undertand your viewpoint. But, just imagine for a second, there are two distinct articles. One is a general article about a historical person that delves into intricacies of her life her life details in her time. The second, however, contains historical major and weighty critique of another historical figure linked to the aforementioned individual.

Setting aside specific Wikipedia guidelines, don't you think that we could really use separation of concerns. Its just requires a thoughtful and wise decision to distinctly apportion the content. StarkReport (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, Regarding your concerns, I think we rework the section "Age at marriage and consummation" to contain only the info of high WP:relevance such as this

"According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recalls being married at six, while Ibn Sa'd suggests a range of six to seven for her age at marriage and nine at consummation. Ibn Hisham's biography hints at her being ten at consummation. Al-Tabari notes her staying with her parents after marriage and consummating at nine, but there are conflicting suggestions about her birthdate, with some sources indicating an age of about twelve or more at the time of marriage"

And the rest of the content that deals with the historical critique be relocated in the Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha area. I think it could solve concerns raised here and in the discussion below. StarkReport (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

plz remove drawing.its disrespectful. 2400:ADC5:48A:3400:64BE:3BD:A644:69DB (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that manuscripts created for the caliph that are now in the Topkapi Museum are disrespectful.

WP:NOTCENSORED says: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopaedia. So, your request is inconsistent with policy, and it would be wrong to do as you ask.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Your position is akin to people in the 1970s who went to see pornographic films so that they could be offended by them, and then complained that the films were offensive. Nobody forced them to watch. Nobody forces you to spend your time looking at pictures on Wikipedia. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

remove the picture it is disrespect 2400:ADC5:48A:3400:58CB:DECF:3379:9C2A (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: You asked and received a response to this request directly above. Tollens (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

Hello, Just a note of concern regarding many early Islamic historical figures, Shia views may be biased/prejudiced towards certain people, so it is important to state the STRENGTH of a Hadith (by overall scholar consensus) - defined as historical reliability of source narrator/continuation, which is crucial for any spoken historical evidence - when quoted. I have seen this issue across many pages. It may be time consuming to acertain, but it adds an essential factual layer to history that is 1400 years ago. 37.60.109.186 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia:No original research. It is very important that people who write books based on hadith should do as you advise. Wikipedia editors who want to do that, should write books, not Wikipedia articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:OR

I am having some difficulty finding where in the provided source that this statement is based on.

some Muslims chose to align themselves with the projects of modernization and re-calculated her age—using deft stratagems of omission and commission—to fix it at early adolescence

Can someone quote part of the source that states something like it? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Replying. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of the word "to"

@TrangaBellam: I am confused by your deleting the word "to" in this edit. I have applied strikethrough to the word:

Since the late-twentieth century, critics have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia and to explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.

With the word "to", the sentence says the critics used (a) to explain (b). Without the word, the sentence says the critics did both (a) and (b), but (a) and (b) are otherwise not connected. If the critics are not using Aisha's age to explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage over a thousand years after her death, then why mention the higher prevalence at all in an article about Aisha? Please either restore "to" or fix the problem in a different way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please fix it? My browser is not allowing me to switch from mobile-VE (which doesn't work) for some reason. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Islamophobe again

TrangaBellam, your restoration of the article has reintroduced the "Islamophobe" label. While Ali does call Spencer Islamophobe, and talks about "mainly online anti-Muslim critics'" highlighting the issue during her discussion, I don't that is enough to declare in Wikivoice that Islamophobes accuse Muhammad of pedophilia. The previous version of the last sentence seems better. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, then by the same logic, we might rephrase it as "Since the late-twentieth century, critics of Islam have utilized Aisha's age to level accusations against Muhammad — not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil — and explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies." StarkReport (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Islamaphobes" is simply terrible. "People" is just vague, and demands "who?". "Critics" is good; "diagnostic category" is really bad. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with jpgordon on all counts. What about Since the late-twentieth century, critics of Islam have used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia, and to explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In modern times, scholars have noted the link between Aisha's age and a higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.

There are academic citations, so we should stick to those. "used Aisha's age to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia" is convoluted and doesn't sound WikiVoice. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"In modern times, scholars have noted the link between Muhammad's child marriage and the prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies."

There may be a way to work in "pedophilia" in a way that doesn't use terms like "accuse". There is no dispute that he married a child, so it should be stated not as an accusation but a fact. DenverCoder19 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No. "Pedophilia" is a very charged word as well as a psychological diagnosis. It shouldn't be present at all, any more than it belongs in Joe Biden -- accusations made as slurs with no actual factual support. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, This is the reason for which the last paragraph should be removed from this general article, as it delves deeper into heated critique.

But if we are going to keep it, we to render the content NPOV without employing value-loaded language terms like: Pedophilia.

A better revision which I wrote above: "Since the late-twentieth century, critics of Islam have utilized Aisha's age to level accusations against Muhammad — not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil — and explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies." StarkReport (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't need the "diagnostic category" thing if the word "pedophilia" is omitted. I don't have access to the quoted source [1]; what language does it use to support the current, or the proposed, sentence? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't currently have access to it. For now, I came across a review discussing Kecia Ali's book, The Lives of Muhammad:

It briefly addresses the source perspective regarding the content:

Many argue that Aisha was betrothed at the age of seven, and then the marriage was consummated when she turned nine. Since this was the custom at the time, the accusations of children abuse and pedophilia are frivolous and anachronistic.

Even if the current phrasing may align with Kecia Ali source to some extent, I don't think we need to provide verbatim reproduction. We need to prioritize the core WP:relevance to the article. StarkReport (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend the use of this phrasing:

Since the late twentieth century, critics have used Aisha's age to level criticisms against Muhammad and to explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies

.

I think it upholds WP:Wikivoice and NPOV. StarkReport (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Where does the source discuss the reported higher prevalence? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Most of the "Age at marriage and consummation" section seems to have been introduced as a compromise for the inclusion of some fringe theories that say Aisha was not 6–7 at marriage and 9 at consummation. There appears to be a consensus among reliable, independent (secular) scholars that the marriage and consummation occurred when she was 6–7 and 9, respectively. Since we're here on Wikipedia to simply report what they (reliable, independent secondary sources) say, I've been thinking, why don't we just replace the whole "Age at marriage and consummation" section with something along the lines of

Aisha was married to Muhammad when she was 6–7 years old. The marriage was consummated later, when she was 9 years old and he was 53 years old.

and continue it with how her life went on according to reliable sources? As for the "Age at marriage and consummation" section, if it still needs to be included, then we can probably move it to the bottom of the article below the "Death" section and rename it to "Controversies regarding her age in modern times". — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as for the part of the source that discusses "pedophilia" and "diagnostic category", it appears to be this (please note that it was not me who added it to the article):

Page 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.

and as for the "higher prevalence", it seems to be this:

Citing deplorable statistics about child marriage, Spencer writes: “This is the price that women have paid throughout Islamic history, and continue to pay, for Muhammad’s status as ‘an excellent example of conduct’ (Qur’an 33:21).”

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Reporting what Ali 2014 is writing is also reporting what RS are writing. Given all the fuss about it I think it's quite impossible to argue that it is not notable or due. Just look at the archives of this talk page. Just look at what you get when you type in Aisha Muhammad on Google. People are looking for this info, worry about this info, fight over this info. It's therefore imperative that we give due attention to what RS say on the topic of Aisha's age at marriage. Again, this topic needs more attention, not less. Granted, it primarily needs higher quality text and sourcing, not a larger quantity of text, but there is also no need at all to reduce the quantity of text. People deserve to have access to detailed and high-quality information on this topic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, The way you put it was agreeable: "Since the late twentieth century, opponents of Islam have used Aisha's age at marriage to criticize Muhammad and to explain a reported higher prevalence of child marriage in Muslim societies.

However, @Anachronist seems to have put that wording back in place despite disagreements over it. The gratuitous mention of pedophilia — not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil stands out as a point of substantial critique, and is the opposite of "higher quality text", and it belongs in a criticism article. Both me and jpgordon have expressed against it.

"People deserve to have access to detailed and high-quality information on this topic", I wholeheartedly agree; however, they can easily accomplish this just by clicking the link located at the top of the section. StarkReport (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting people to another article that contains many things besides the issue of Aisha's age at marriage (and so should also give only a summary of that) is not helping them access high-quality information about that topic. Aisha's age at marriage is clearly primarily about Aisha, and the most detailed section on it should therefore be in Aisha. I was primarily arguing here against Kaalakaa's suggestion to reduce the section to one short paragraph and be done with it, but it applies to any attempt to remove directly relevant information about the topic (which of course includes the notable criticisms) from this article. I don't see any rationale to remove such information apart from a general concern to minimize coverage of the issue on WP as much as possible, which in my view clearly goes against wp:notcensored. I also believe that we have a wp:consensus on this among editors here (even though you disagree), so it would be helpful to stop arguing for that position.

As for Anachronist's edits, they now removed the "not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil" bit, which I think most everyone will agree with. The resulting wording is the best one in my view, as well as the one that I think will most likely get consensus, though I would also support the alternative wording I proposed earlier as a second option. It might be a good idea to put up a wp:request for comments about the wording of that sentence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Apaugasma, regarding your comment:

Given all the fuss about it I think it's quite impossible to argue that it is not notable or due. Just look at the archives of this talk page. Just look at what you get when you type in Aisha Muhammad on Google. People are looking for this info, worry about this info, fight over this info.

I believe there's also been a lot of fuss about whether the 9/11 attacks were really terrorist acts or the work of the U.S. government, whether the Apollo moon landing was real or a hoax, etc. However, we don't necessarily include these conspiracy theories (even if there were reliable sources discussing them) in these articles just because we follow statements about the fringe theories with something like "US officials have rejected these theories." Nor do we suggest, based on some primary sources, that there might be some truth to the theories. We simply omit them altogether because including them would give them undue weight and create a false balance. And a few parts of this "Age at Marriage and Consummation" section, I think, are somewhat similar cases:

"however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage."

"some Muslims chose to align themselves with the projects of modernization and re-calculated her age—using deft stratagems of omission and commission—to fix it at early adolescence"

These passages clearly present views that deviate significantly from scholarly consensus about the matter (i.e., Aisha was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation). Meaning they're also WP:FRINGE, and giving WP:UNDUE weight to them, especially in this article, would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa, As demonstrated in the above discussion, more than 11 Muslim scholars and writers have expressed a differing view and hence are far from "fringe" at least in the Muslim world. More importantly, bear in mind that the authors of so-called "reliable sources" are all basically conveying what the primary religious sources state. And, the content "however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage" precisely constitutes a part of that. StarkReport (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

@StarkReport: Could you please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the process and refusing to WP:LISTEN? You've been told repeatedly and by multiple editors that those Muslim scholars of yours are not WP:INDEPENDENT sources and therefore fail WP:SOURCE. Or is it really a matter of lack of WP:COMPETENCE? — Kaalakaa (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC) It very is a matter of lack of WP:COMPETENCE on your part, as you completely failed to grasp my point that it is not centered on advocating for the inclusion of their perspectives rather that the considerable number of differing views that it is due to the point to including instances where mainstream sources openly cover them. Also the core of my reply started from "More importantly-----" and your above reply has done nothing to address that. Indeed WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I can see. StarkReport (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) What in the world are you talking about? We consider a view to be WP:FRINGE if it deviates significantly from the mainstream views of sources that satisfy our WP:SOURCE policy, with one of the criteria being WP:INDEPENDENT, not just any sources. You've already been told by Toddy1 here that the view that Aisha was not 6–7 at marriage and 9 at marriage is a fringe theory, haven't you? Anachronist agreed with my point here about the theory being fringe. And Apaugasma told you here that we should base our articles on independent sources, and those Muslim scholars of yours clearly do not satisfy the criteria. Have you grasped any of those? — Kaalakaa (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Oh dear... Again you misunderstood my point. And, since you have cited Toddy1 viewpoint, carefully read his "It is not obvious that the theory is worth mentioning in the article on Aisha. But if the theory were to be mentioned, it would need to covered by a paragraph that explains the theory and why it is not mainstream, which should all be supported by multiple reliable mainstream sources that explicitly discuss the theory." Which is exactly what the current content does. Apaugasma has expressed the same thing to you. Kaalakaa, my argument has nothing to do with including the views of Muslims scholars, rather the content like "however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage" should not be removed no circumstances. Please try to grasp this, you're a senior user, you better than that. StarkReport (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa: We do report on notable fringe theories in due measure, like that one sentence about the revisionist 'recalculations' and their rejection by conservative Muslims. Also, that al-Tabari contains a report which suggests a different age is not a fringe theory, but simply a relevant detail: to suggest removal of such details because it doesn't fit in the one-sentence version of the scholarly view is actually anti-scholarship. In general, suggesting removal of stuff whose notability is crystal-clear because editors have a hard time agreeing on it is always a bad idea.

The difficulty of getting this right is directly related to the fact that it is an important topic. Getting it right by not writing about it all (apart from one sentence) is a tempting, but ultimately wrong solution. Anyways, I also think that there is a wp:consensus among editors here on the need to have a reasonably detailed section about this topic, so prolonging this particular argument is unhelpful too. Let's please focus on the wording of the one sentence about the pedophilia accusations on which there is no consensus yet. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apaugasma:

We do report on notable fringe theories in due measure, like that one sentence about the revisionist 'recalculations' and their rejection by conservative Muslims.

I can't seem to find in our Apollo Program article the theory that the moon landing was a hoax, and that the theory was rejected by the US official. Also, is it not only rejected by conservative Muslims, but also deviates from the consensus of reliable, independent scholars? Anyway, can you quote the part of the source on which the statement is based? I am having some difficulty looking for it.

Also, that al-Tabari contains a report which suggests a different age is not a fringe theory,

But it's an extraordinary claim that goes against the scholarly consensus and even against itself, isn't it? Like Kecia Ali's statement I quoted above, al-Tabari consistently states that consummation occurred when Aisha was nine. But this one account contradicts all those reports and suggests that she was 12 at marriage. Are you sure that this is not the same case as Afsaruddin's above or that it was translated correctly?

Also, part of the source being cited is in the endnotes of the book, while in the main content (p. 39), Spellberg agreed with the consensus that Aisha was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation. If we follow the source, shouldn't we put the statement in efn instead of the main body of the article?

Getting it right by not writing about it all (apart from one sentence) is a tempting, but ultimately wrong solution.

Actually, I also suggested above that if the "Age at marriage and consummation" subsection still needs to be included, then probably we can move it to the bottom of the article below the "Death" section and rename it to something like "Controversies regarding her age in modern times". While in the "Early Life" section, since there's already a scholarly consensus that Aisha was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation, we simply report it as such. And continue it with her life after that, according to reliable sources. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Kaalakaa, Apaugasma clearly stated above that "though I would also support the alternative wording I proposed earlier as a second option". Now considering Jpgordon also stated that "No. "Pedophilia" is a very charged word as well as a psychological diagnosis. It shouldn't be present at all, any more than it belongs in Joe Biden" and I concur with it, the revision is the better option.

Now, take a moment to read before acting on an impulse and issuing threats on talk pages. StarkReport (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: Could you please not take people's statements out of context? That can also be considered misrepresentation; see WP:TPNO. What Apaugasma said was [2]:

"The resulting wording is the best one in my view, as well as the one that I think will most likely get consensus, though I would also support the alternative wording I proposed earlier as a second option."

The resulting wording, which Apaugasma considered the best [3], is the same version I reinstated [4]. They also disagreed with the removal of "pedophilia", citing WP:NOTCENSORED [5]. This version is also relatively closer to the source, which says:

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.

Furthermore, there seem to be at least five editors in favor of including the word pedophilia. These are @Anachronist [6], @Apaugasma [7], @TryKid [8], @DenverCoder19 [9], and me (if the section really needs to be included in this article). — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Apaugasma Well, I'm on board with your alternative wording. Let's see the perspectives of Jpgordon, Toddy1 and others. StarkReport (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Redirecting people to another article that contains many things besides the issue of Aisha's age at marriage (and so should also give only a summary of that) is not helping them access high-quality information about that topic. Aisha's age at marriage is clearly primarily about Aisha, and the most detailed section on it should therefore be in Aisha"

Well you do have a point and editors like Anachronist also stated "The paragraphs don't really fit into the criticism of Muhammad article because, well, they aren't about criticism of Muhammad" even though I disagreed but nonetheless considering that the age issue is more fleshed out here than in the criticism article where it is summarized, its only logical to remove the poorly located link. So that's done. StarkReport (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The OED defines "pedophilia" as "Sexual desire directed towards children; sexual activity by an adult with a child."

Whether we call it "sex with children" or "pedophilia" is much less important than making sure we don't use euphemisms or push a narrative that sex with children needs to be "contextualized".

It is common for pedophilia apologists to make arguments like, the age of adulthood has varied throughout history, and we can't compare our own "standards" to the past. While the age of a "child" has varied, it is almost always within a range, and opposition to sex with children is cited in many eras and across continents. We shouldn't make arguments to suggest that it is not harmful to children in the right "context". DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The OED says nothing about the arguments critics make. That's a non-sequitur. The version StarkReport linked is fine, summarizing what reliable sources say about the "pedophilia" argument that critics repeatedly make. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I don't see the word "pedophilia" in that version, while the source clearly says "pedophilia". Also, the source says "polemicists", which I think "critics" is closer. I (and Apaugasma, it seems [10]) think that this version you made is relatively better. Also, two other editors [11] [12] seem to be in favor of including "pedophilia". And in this edit summary for this edit of yours, didn't you say "replaced "Islamophobes" with "critics" and restored "pedophelia" because it is an established non-controversial fact that critics have accused Muhammad of pedophelia." Or did you change your mind? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: I think you mean to say: "It is common for historians to contextualise historical practices." For instance, women routinely "came of age" at 12 in Roman society, but no one goes around labelling the Romans as serial pedophiles. This discussion increasingly lacks any common sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Romans are a good example.

The belief that sex with children is harmful is not a purely modern phenomenon

Where cultures draw the line between child and adult is variable, but the distinction is a human universal and it is always after adolescence. ("Adult" is Latin for "someone having undergone adolescence"). Everyone knows that some people grow faster than others, but the law likes simple rules, so many legal systems—all modern versions of which are derived from Roman law—use bright-line numbers. Other cultures have different ways to mark the passage from child to adult, but nearly all make the distinction—and all the use a bright line age do so around the time of adolescence.

A good example is murder. It is not a "Western" or "modern" value that murder is bad. The exact definition of murder can vary, and there are gray areas. (self defense? unintentional killing? is drunk driving murder? Law school is filled with gray areas). But nearly all cultures have a notion of murder, and most prohibit it in most circumstances.

More importantly, Wikipedia is rightly very sensitive to narratives that promote the idea that not all sexual relationships between adults and children are harmful. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Missing citations

Where did all the citations from the first paragraph vanish? I am going through the history. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Restored. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 of Age at marriage and consummation

@Toddy1, you propose that we need to "discuss" the relative merits between citing Spellberg (1994) and a bevy of primary sources sourced from random internet websites? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Today (23 February 2024) we have had:

• 10:25-29‎ (Reintegrated the information. Detailed discussion on the age of marriage and consummation is provided below, rendering repetition unnecessary in the preceding section.) (Since the source uses the word "polemicists.")
• 18:23-41‎ (revert to earlier focused on history - see talk page) (not reliable as a historical source - this is a religious story) (revert to pre-Stark edits)
• 18:48-51‎ (This seems to imply that it no longer is whereas it is increasingly so.) (Disruptive. And what do you mean by "pre-Stark" edits. These were made by consensus.)
• 20:02‎ (revert StarkReport's reverts of DenverCoder19. These need to be discussed one-by-one on the talk page.)
• 20:26-48‎ (Sigh) (ce) (ce)

The difference between the start and the end is remarkably small. I am asking an editor to use the talk page to explain the changes they make (or want to make) to the article, and hoping that if they do so, that editor(s) who disagree will then explain why they disagree or what modification they want to the edits. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, Thanks for putting it all here. So lets start from the first.

1. Kaalakaa made unilateral some changes in the Marriage to Muhammad section. I found the info "Aisha was 6 years old when she was married to Muhammad, and the consummation took place later, after the Hijra, when she was 9 years old; Muhammad was 53 years old at the time" to be repeated and redundant as the sebsequent section touches upoun this info extensively. So I tried to reintegrate other Kaalakaa changes while removing this repeated age bit.

2. After that DenverCoder made a significant unilateral change to the Age at marriage and consummation which was @TrangaBellam version so I reverted it. After you reverted it and then @TrangaBellam again restored his revison.

3. The lede's "Little is known about the early life of Aisha. A preponderance of classical sources converge on Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage, and 9 at the consummation; her age has become a source of ideological friction in modern times" was changed to "her age has been a source of ideological friction" by DenverCoder without consensus. So I reinstated it the orignal version that was there way before both of us. But then you reverted it to DenverCoder version.

Hopefully, that sums it up. StarkReport (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport: The most useful piece of information was TrangaBellam's remark the relative merits between citing Spellberg (1994) and a bevy of primary sources sourced from random internet websites - it explained why it was best to revert the other editor's version - and it was easy to verify the reason for objecting, and therefore to agree with it. If you had put that reason in either (a) your edit summary, or (b) on the talk page, I would not have reverted you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case anyone got the wrong idea. I wasn't the one who added or restored the material with "a bevy of primary sources". That was the old "pre-Stark" version that @DenverCoder19 restored [13]. My revision was this, every bit of material was backed up by reliable, independent secondary sources. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Age of consent, wikipedia policies, and pedophilia apologism

The idea of an "age of consent", condemnation of pedophilia, and the harm an adult-child sexual relationship does to the child, is not a purely modern construct made up in the twentieth century.

While there are many different cultures, the idea that pedophilia is harmful is well attested throughout history and cultures. The age of consent is almost always after has actually gone through puberty (usually 12-17), that is, is no longer considered a child.

I worry that in some sections of this article, it is suggested that pedophilia is merely a circumstantial belief, that happens to be true in modern times, specifically in the West. Especially troubling is the link between "colonial powers" and "age of consent" laws, that seem to imply anti-pedophilia laws were forced on countries as colonialism.

Wikipedia is not censored, but there is zero tolerance for apologies of pedophilia, that is, any content that suggests adult-child relationships are not harmful. We need to be very careful in sections of this article that seem to suggest condemnation of pedophilia is a circumstantial, modern-specific phenomenon and pedophilia can be acceptable as "cultural relativism". DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The word "pedophilia" has been removed in this edit. I don't agree with that removal and tend to regard it as wp:censorship (that opponents of Islam have accused Muhammad of pedophilia is an uncontroversial fact that should not be problematic to mention in this limited context), but before you reinstate it could you please

1. ensure that there's a consensus to include the word?

2. agree with other editors on the wording? Lazy re-wordings like this or this are pretty horrible (hence this), but there also appears to be a consensus above that the "not as a diagnostic category but as the highest category of evil" wording is bad.

Finally, if you would like to argue for anything else then mentioning accusations of pedophilia, i.e. some statement to the effect that Muhammad in fact did engage in pedophilia, it is absolutely crucial that you provide a reliable source which supports such a statement. It's not helpful to argue here for what you personally believe: we need everything to be directly backed up by sources of the highest possible quality. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the word has already been put back in.[14][15] I just wanted to note that I fully support the resultant wording. Any further tweaking is probably best done though explicit proposals for a specific wording here on talk, and perhaps an wp:rfc to decide which is the best one. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, got distracted by work. I'll spend some effort writing up a clear description of the problem I'm seeing.

It's less about the specific word "pedophilia" and more about apologetic language throughout the article. The important thing is that sexual activity by an adult with a child should not be couched in language about "cultural relativism" that seems to suggest sex with children is not harmful.

1. Sex with children—people who have not undergone adolescence, and do not have adult sexual responses—has had prohibitions in many cultures throughout history. It is not a "Western" idea forced on non-Western cultures.

Apologists for pedophilia try to push the myth that opposition to sex with children is a "Western", "modern", or circumstantial phenomenon. They point to historical examples of sex with children as a way to normalize it. They omit important context, like: in most cultures where sex with children was 'legal', it was often expected that it was the responsibility of parents to protect their children. They point to examples to suggest that there were adult sexual relationships with children that were not harmful to the child. This is a very common pattern for pro-pedophilia apologists in online circles.

2. Importantly, it's not just my opinion: this kind of defense of pedophilia is against policy, for good reason.

Wherever we land on the word "pedophilia", the article needs a lot of work to stop trying to make a "cultural relativism" to argument to "recontextualize" sex with children.

Potentially problematic sentences include:

1. "Beginning in the late nineteenth century, with the East and its alleged immoralities subject to increasing opprobrium, the colonizing powers sought to regulate the age of consent."

2. "Scholars note the formation of an unprecedented political consciousness in Europe around the time, that created a moral imperative for the Western elites to rescue the victims of Eastern barbarity. Additionally, these reforms were especially palatable to the colonial governments since they fostered the penetration of bureaucracy into hitherto-private affairs and aided in the construction of a governable nation-state."

3. "as growing concerns of Islamic extremism led to Muslim societies and Islam itself to come under scrutiny, pointed criticisms of Aisha's young age at marriage began to appear."

4. "Muslim scholars to contextualize the traditionally accepted age of Aisha with renewed vigor, emphasizing cultural relativism, anachronism, the political dimensions of the marriage, Aisha's non-ordinary physique" - the implicit point behind this sentence is that sex with children is not always harmful

5. Ali finds an exception in "traditional S. Asian biographers" who maintain outright frankness in noting the "practicalities" of marrying a virgin girl.

6. "pointers to Aisha's age at marriage (and the associated Prophetic precedent) proliferated across the archives in explaining the backwardness of Muslim societies and their reticence to reforms"

The article creates an unnecessary narrative, where opposition to sex with children is reframed as "colonialism". It pushes a narrative that opposition to sex with children was a "Western" concept, forced on a populace that was happy with it, leaving out any non-Western opposition. Importantly, it attempts to "recontextualize" the idea that sex with children is always harmful. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed what I see as all parts that attempted to:

1. "recontextualize" sex with children

2. Cast prohibitions against sex with children as "colonialism" or "Western"

3. Suggest that there is a "cultural relativism" argument in favor of sex with children or that criticism of sex with children is "anachronistic".

If you're editing this article, please vigilant in removing material like this. DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not give a flying fuck about your moral high-horse. Please do not remove well-sourced content under the label of "potentially problematic sentences" or else, I will ask for sanctions. If you wish to challenge Kecia Ali's reliability, RSN is thatway but before you pull such an act, it might be wise to consult the John Tolan's review of Ali's monograph:

In recent decades, it is his [Muhammad's] marriage to Aisha that has provoked polemic. Traditional sources say that Aisha was six years old when Muhammad married her and nine when the marriage was consummated. As Ali notes, Aisha’s young age allowed early Muslim writers to insist not only on her sexual purity (she was the only one of Muhammad’s brides who had not previously been married) but also and more importantly on her religious purity (since she would have been born into a Muslim family). European writers before the mid-twentieth century found nothing shocking in her age, as arranged marriages and child brides were common in pre-modern societies, European and non-European. But with late-twentieth- and twenty-first-century concerns about child abuse, pedophilia, and arranged marriages, a number of polemicists assailed Muhammad for marrying a child, provoking fresh rounds of explanation and contextualization on the part of Muslim and many non-Muslim authors.

This thoughtful and stimulating book takes us well beyond the tired dichotomies between Orientalists and Subalterns, colonialists and colonized, Islam and the West.

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

> "I do not give a flying fuck about your moral high-horse."

This is the key disagreement. I am saying that "sex with children isn't necessarily harmful" is one of the few "moral" beliefs that Wikipedia is in fact "censored" for. It doesn't require ignoring pro-pedophilia statements, but it requires putting them in context.

Taken together, the paragraphs paint anti-pedophilia as a modern, Western concept forced on Muslims countries. It neglects any opposition to pedophilia within those countries or before the modern period. That narrative is not just wrong, but it is specifically against policy and warrants speedy removal. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

> "It is also important that people in the past did not consider it appalling"

Again, this is the key disagreement. I am saying that prohibitions against sex with children were dealt with differently, often enforced by the parents, but that it has been widely opposed across history and in many cultures. It's a problem that a naive reader of this article might take away the impression that opposition of sex with children came from the West. It is not a "Western" or "modern" phenomenon. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the job of editors to add the context that they think might be missing, or to think too hard on how the material should be framed. The task is to reflect the sources, present reliable views, and avoid imbalance. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you are not a reliable source, your "sayings" are absolutely irrelevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That said, I will think of a more-nuanced way to re-draft the line "Beginning late nineteenth century, ..." TrangaBellam (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit by DenverCoder19 has got nothing to do with the above, and I have reverted it. The edit was prudish and censored cited statements about their relationship, and replaced them with a near-meaningless statement. She was a small child when she married, and the deleted statements brought out the horror of such a situation by talking about the way she and her friends played with their dolls. The article is about Aisha, who was the youngest of the Prophet's wives. It ought to inform readers about their relationship, not sweep it under the rug because in a modern context it would be considered appalling.

It is also important that people in the past did not consider it appalling (though I have not reverted edits about that).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly wrong. It is not true that people in the past did not consider it appalling. Some people did, others didn't. This is the core of our disagreement. The narrative currently reads that no pre-modern person in the region was opposed to sex with children. This narrative is suspiciously close to a narrative subtly pushed on many corners of the internet. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Relationship with Muhammad section

TrangaBellam, Toddy1, In the "Relationship with Muhammad" section, a detail that caught my eye: "Aisha also spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!" Considering that the Leila Ahmed source that is appended ahead is giving some sort of a impression of equality: "Complementarily, Aisha must have felt reasonably equal to and unawed by this prophet of God, for his announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed other men---------" whereas, the content "spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad" gives a complete different impression. To maintain consistency and avoid misinterpretations or controversies stemming from a singular anecdote, I think the line is better omitted from the content. StarkReport (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport and TrangaBellam: The citation that allegedly supports the line you object to is the 1992 edition of Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate by Leila Ahmed, pages 51-52. Do you have access to either the 1992 edition cited, or the later 2021 edition? I do not have access to the 1992 edition. Google Books has the 2021 edition, and I have extremely limited access to its pages though searching. Page 51 of the 2021 edition says Complementarily, Aisha must have felt reasonably equal to and unawed by this prophet of God, for his announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed other men drew from her the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'.^[16] I do not know what the rest of pages 51 and 52 say.

I do not know whether the 2021 edition has changes from the 1992 edition. I object to you deleting the sentence in question. But I do not mind if you replace the sentence with the quotation in green above provided that you either cite the 2021 edition, or you verify that the 1992 edition says those exact words on page 51. If you do that, please delete "Complementarily,". My reasoning is that it is entirely possible that the wording StarkReport considers deleting was based on the quotation in green from page 51. Though it is also possible that page 52 also talks about the issue. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The source I read, is from 2021 I think. I downloaded it from Documen.pub: . The content in question is on page 51 and 52. Though, I'am having problem linking the pdf I downloaded.

At the core of the matter is the question of whether referencing a minor anecdote is necessary. Does it contribute significantly to the overall content. It seems to be ambiguous and extraneous. StarkReport (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it contributes a lot to our understanding of their relationship.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So I was thinking if this wording is suitable: "Aisha likely perceived a sense of equality toward Muhammad as his announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages forbidden to other men prompted her response, indicating that it appeared as if his Lord hurried to fulfill his desires.", If the copyright thingy applies.

Or maybe the one you gave above "Aisha must have felt reasonably equal to and unawed by this prophet of God, for his announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed other men drew from her the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!'"

Are they both alright or is one more preferable? StarkReport (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The quotation is better - because it is harder for people to argue against.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I attempted to rephrase it while keeping the exact quote intact. StarkReport (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Plan for marriage

I've returned to a history-focused narrative of the marriage that centered on the historical figures and their reasoning, rather than divine revelation.

If you want to advocate for the new version, please do so here.

Do NOT re-add the new version without obtaining consensus. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Kindly note, the edit of yours "revert to pre-Stark edits" was TrangaBellam version that was agreed upon by other editors much previously. StarkReport (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing the "Aisha's marriage to Muhammad was heavenly ordained... " paragraph was an improvement. But I think that paragraph you replaced it with could do with rephrasing in more natural English.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Arabic and Romanization

Per Jesus and Taiwan, I've moved the Arabic, romanization, and pronunciation to the explanatory note. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of "Hayat Al-Qulub" to support a Shia claim that Aisha poisoned her husband (Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024)

The source to Hazrat Ayesha and Hazrat Hafsa poisoning the holy prophet is not credible as the book is an anonymous compilation and the claim is not supported anywhere else , there are great doubts surrounding this claim and is rejected by 99.9% of scholars, please remove this weak allegation source 39.48.18.64 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not said what edit you want.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

the passage should be entirely removed as its completely baseless,it is vandalism 39.48.18.64 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the statement the IP editor is talking about to this talk page for discussion. It is as follows:

Ayyashi has narrated through authentic chains of narrators from Imam Ja’far Sadiq that, "Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death."

References

Hayat Al-Qulub is a late 17th Century book by a Shia cleric from Persia. The version by Ansariyan Publications was published in three volumes, and the citation did not say which volume chapter 65 was in. Its English-language title is variously called "Stories of the Prophets" or "Life of Hearts". The reliability of this book has been questioned by al-islam.org, which describes parts of the book as "very hagiographical"; al-islam.org also says that parts of the book contradict fundamental Islamic beliefs, and says that it would be foolish to take some parts of the book literally because they appear to be legends or myths.^[17] -- Toddy1 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First and foremost if one picks up Hayat al Qulob the first notable thing is the entire book is a collection of materials Majlisi found, none of which have any chain of narration as such we have no means of analysing the chain to look at the accuracy of such a narration.Secondly the book has distinct biases and charged with sectarianism in favor of Shia views,thirdly as you mentioned yourself the book has unreliable legends and myths that automatically render the whole thing unreliable,and fourthly the claim of Ayyishi has no corroboration and thus a single source cannot be used to put forward such a claim,thank you for your edit Camaro911 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The statement appears to have been inserted by @Kawrno Baba. Al-Islam.org is not a reliable source and should not be used to judge the reliability of the sources we use. For Hayat Al-Qulub itself, it is at best a primary source. Reliable independent secondary sources are needed (see WP:SOURCE) and so far, I've found two (, ) that seem to talk about the issue.

Some Shii polemicists went as far as countering the Sunni designations of her as the 'vindicated' with a particularly incendiary remark, something that was taken up in the early twenty-first century by a controversial Kuwaiti Shii author based in the UK, Yasir al-Habib, who rehashed a polemical debate in which some Shii authors had claimed that Aisha and Hafsa had poisoned the Prophet.

Hafsa is particularly reviled by the Shi'a, because along with the Prophet's wife 'Aisha she is believed to have caused him various sorts of tribulations. She is sometimes even accused of conspiring to poison him.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a basic problem - people want to cite sources that most of us have never heard of. So it makes sense to do a search on Google and Amazon to find out what they are. The comments that can be found by that method are not classed as reliable sources, so (in general) they should not be used in articles. Nevertheless they are useful in finding out about sources, and provide a starting point for further research.

Or would you prefer that we accept any old rubbish inserted by POV editors with throwaway accounts, on the grounds that it would be wrong to find out what the sources are if we do not already know?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So it makes sense to do a search on Google and Amazon to find out what they are.

Yes, Toddy1. But I think we also need to be selective. As an analogy, surely we cannot use user-generated content to determine whether an academic source is unreliable? Anyway, can we get back to discussing the content? We both agree that the text added by Kawrno Baba, based only on the primary source Hayat al-Qulub, doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standards, right? But this issue of some Shia writers accusing Aisha of poisoning Muhammad seems so noteworthy that it has found its way into academic writings like the two books I quoted above. So in my opinion, if the issue is to be included in our article, then I think these two books should be used instead and the statement should follow closely what they say. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Since reliable secondary sources talk about how a few Shia authors wrote fantasies about Aisha, there would be a good case for mentioning this in articles about those authors. It is not obvious that their fantasies are relevant to the article on Aisha.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually rather impartial on this issue, and just came by to provide some potential sources. But let's see if any other editors want to chime in. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am yet to understand wikipedia policy it seems. In one article I differentiated between two sub-sects of religion, then it got cancelled and I received the following message - For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses are nontrinitarian Christians, although various other Christians consider them non-Christian because they do not worship Jesus (only his father, Jehovah/Yahweh). For Wikipedia they are still Christians. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Now I thought the discussed reference is a useful one, it is also getting hated, but for the exact opposite reason. This time people are saying to differentiate between sub-sects, which someone told me to stay away from.

Besides, from a neutral point of view, why do Sunnis get preferential treatment compared to Shias? As PaleoNeonate said before, this is wikipedia. This is a neutral ground for information. Let the readers decide. If there is another peer reviewed source which states that Shias lie and it's a proven fact, please put that alongside with my edit. Again, present all facts, let readers know every aspect of it. Kawrno Baba (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

}Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request an edit to the Wikipedia page regarding Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Currently, the page mentions that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Aisha when she was nine years old. However, this information requires clarification and contextualization to provide a more accurate representation of historical accounts and Islamic teachings.

In Islam, the age of consent for marriage is a subject of interpretation and historical context. While it is true that some sources indicate Aisha's age at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad as nine years old, it is important to consider additional factors and perspectives.

Firstly, scholars and historians have debated the accuracy of Aisha's reported age, with some suggesting that she may have been older at the time of her marriage. The reliability of historical records from over a thousand years ago can be complex, and interpretations vary.

Secondly, Islamic teachings emphasize the importance of understanding historical events within their cultural and societal contexts. In seventh-century Arabia, customs regarding marriage and age differed significantly from modern norms. Marriage at a young age was not uncommon during that period, and it is crucial to recognize this when discussing historical marriages, including that of Prophet Muhammad and Aisha.

Thirdly, Islam places great emphasis on justice, compassion, and the well-being of individuals. While certain practices of the past may not align with contemporary values, it is essential to approach historical accounts with a nuanced understanding rather than imposing present-day judgments.

Therefore, I propose the following edit to the Wikipedia page:

Provide a balanced discussion on the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, acknowledging varying interpretations and historical debates. Offer contextual information about marriage customs and societal norms in seventh-century Arabia. Emphasize the importance of understanding historical events within their cultural contexts and avoiding anachronistic judgments. Provide references to scholarly sources and reputable Islamic sources to support the information presented. By making these edits, Wikipedia can offer a more comprehensive and nuanced portrayal of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, reflecting the complexities of history and Islamic teachings.

Thank you for considering this request. Should you require further clarification or assistance, please feel free to reach out to me.} 103.166.244.135 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You failed to read/obey the instruction: State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. What you have provided is a discussion about what might be desirable. It is not an edit request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what the other editor said – you need to be clear about exactly what changes you want made. This includes providing your own sources (see WP:CITE if you need guidance for this). I'd also like to make sure you have seen the section Aisha § Age at marriage and consummation, which does have some discussion of this already & is likely where any additions you want to make could go. Irltoad (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

Aisha was approximately 13-17 years old, not 7, when she married the Prophet. No valid accounts say she was younger than 13. She was also pre-engaged to someone else before she and her parents cancelled it and switched it to the Prophet, and still after marriage she did not live with him until 2 years later. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths. 96.255.139.57 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not what reliable sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

you have no idea what reliable sources say, Hakikatco (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of Shia sources as reference in the article

The following is from Hayat Al-Qulub, a Shia source:

Ayyashi has narrated through authentic chains of narrators from Imam Ja’far Sadiq that, "Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death."

As mentioned earlier in this talk page, some people want this content not to be in the article as 'it is a Shia source and hence not reliable'.

I don't understand, why should Sunni Muslims get preferential treatment compared to Shia Muslims? That's a sub-sect issue, not an issue for neutral knowledge. My point is let both Sunni and Shia versions stay side by side and let the readers decide based on the references.

Is there any WIkiPedia policy that dictates why the said content should not be in this article? Additionally, is there any globally accepted academic research which states that all Shia sources are wrong? Does WikiPedia prefers Sunni sources over Shia sources? Kawrno Baba (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Hayat Al-Qulub is a book of hadith, written in the 17th Century. It is a religious text. It is acceptable (subject to certain limitations) as a source for information about what Hayat Al-Qulub says (see WP:SELFSOURCE). But that is all. And that applies to religious texts of all denominations. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, any interpretation of religious texts needs to be done by reliable published secondary sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, What if I do not interpret in the article at all? Will it be acceptable if I copy text from that book and place it in the article with quotation marks or in block-quote format? Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Some people write religious articles for the internet that are full of block quotations from hadiths. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be written that way. If you want to add a quotation, please put it in the citation template in the field marked quotation, like this (only please give a page number instead page=XX):

• Majlesi, Mohammad-Baqer. Hayat Al-Qulub. Vol. 2. Translated by Rizvi, Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. p. XX. Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death.
• {{Cite book |last=Majlesi |first=Mohammad-Baqer |author-link=Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi |title=Hayat Al-Qulub |publisher=Ansariyan Publications |location=Qum |volume=2 |translator-last=Rizvi |translator-first=Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. |page=XX |quotation=Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death.}}

That might support a statement that 17th Century Persian author Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi believed that Aisha may have murdered her husband. But even that would depend on context. (For example, what if the quotation was from a paragraph about what fools believe, which would mean that Majlesi was saying that only an idiot would think that. You might want to consider a longer quotation to make the context clearer. You can also miss out irrelevant bits of the quotation and put in a "..."; this is known as an ellipsis. See Wikipedia:Quotations.)

That is a statement that you could put in the article on Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi. If you think that is belongs in the article on Aisha, then you need secondary sources to support its inclusion. Was it a real event? Or was it an allegorical event? Or was it like one of those films that incorporate people who never existed into real situations and have them play decisive roles in what happened? Does it matter what Majlesi wrote?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making things clear. Kawrno Baba (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Marriage age of Aisha

@Kaalakaa You stated that the sources I referenced are not independent  : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha&diff=prev&oldid=1217509852.

Can you state the reasons you believe that these are not independent sources ? Hakikatco (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

After looking over their website, my impression is that Tughra Books has a conflict of interest about the subject matter, since its sole purpose appears to be publishing non-critical books about Islam, to the point of publishing revisionist material that presents Islam in a less controversial light by modern standards. In that sense, it wouldn't be considered independent. I don't know if this is what Kaalakaa meant. This "age of Aisha" canard wasn't an issue for centuries until only recently, when suddenly we have Muslim "scholarship" contradicting previously accepted history, all in response to criticism from Islamophobes. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I more or less agree with what Anachronist explained above. And independent sources are the kind of sources we need to use, among other criteria outlined in our WP:SOURCE policy. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist Well the theory stating that the Aisha's marriage age was 18 not 9 is a critical theory to the common Islamic knowledge. There were scholars who disagreed with age of 9, e.g. Tabarani said 1300 years ago that she was 12 years old, some said she was 13 or 14, but no one said she was 18 ( at least in the commonly known books).

So this theory alone makes this book a critical book unlike your statement. In another words Tugra Books does publish critical books about Islam and is an independent publisher. I assume you are using the "independent" word here as having fixed mind set.

Regarding why did Muslims wait 1400 years to work on this, I guess multiple reasons:

It was the norm in Europe, Asia to get marry at 9-10-12 years until 100 years ago, Juliet was 13 in Shakespeare's book , but in the 21st century its not the norm , so naturally Muslims felt the need to double check the facts and once they did they found the proofs that she was 18 Hakikatco (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But the claim that Aisha got married when she was 18, if accepted, would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, and therefore needs multiple high quality sources commenting on this novel idea. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not imagine that 18 is the upper limit. Reşit Haylamaz, who wrote Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar (2012), also wrote a magazine article for IslamiCity that was published in November 2008: At what age Aisha marry Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? Comments by readers include one who says 19-22 and another who says 25. I hope that you can see why we need policies like WP:EXCEPTIONAL.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Well Resit Haylamaz already listed 4 different sources in his article to support his theory and used the most reliable references in his article according to the Sunni world like Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Nawawi . And as I said even 1300 years ago many scholars stated she was 12-13 not 9. So the alternate theories were always there.

I dont know about the other theories that she was 22 or 25 and without valid sources I don't think they should be listed here. Hakikatco (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: Please read our WP:SOURCE policy. It requires us to:

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

What is meant by "independent" here according to WP:IIS is:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

Therefore, for example, apologetic writings by Aum Shinrikyo followers about their founder or the history of their religion clearly do not meet these criteria. And the same should apply to other religions as well. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@KaalakaaWell being apologetic does not make a source non independent, what you are saying is irrelevant to the "Independent" policy. There is no advertiser ,there is no conflict of interest here . You have to show the conflict of interest if you are claiming that it does exist

Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. An interest in this sense may be either positive or negative. An example of a positive interest is writing about yourself, your family, or a product that is made or sold by your company or employer; an example of a negative interest is owning or working for a company that represents a competing product's article. These conflicts of interest make Wikipedia editors suspect that sources from these people will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic. Sources by involved family members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent.

Hakikatco (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, looks like a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issue again here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

you clearly have bias towards Islam , and dont want to see alternate ideas so I agree, @Kaalakaa Hakikatco (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, actually you have failed to grasp the meaning of "independent" in this context. It has nothing to do with financial interest, but vested interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats not true , the definition clearly says "personal, financial, or political gain" , if you believe any of these interest exists, its on you to prove it. Since you are not and started to attack my personality , there is no need to consider your statements so I am ignoring you Hakikatco (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Independent sources, it is clear that "personal, financial, or political gain" are examples of non-independence. They are not an exclusive definition of non-independence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So whats the conflict of interest here, I debunked your theory of non critical and later not having multiple sources, its on you prove it your claims, you keep saying there is a conflict interest or non-independence but not able to show why and how Hakikatco (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)