Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

Removed Zainab stanza

I had added a stanza about Muhammad in which I exhibited his marriage with his daughter in law Zainab , that stanza has been removed , may i know the reason!, was that wrong ??, Historical evidence were provided too to support the contribution. --Race911 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At least a speedy deletion notification should get provided to me (the contributer) before deleting the contribution !! , This is a mock, When somebody is trying to assemble the pieces from history to enlighten the reader's mind and on other part to disrespect that crucial contribution people here are deleting artifacts without any prior notice or information. --Race911 (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for not providing the reason for the deletion. The passage in that section has some false information that completely contradict with the muslim's beliefs and the historical facts (I'm talking based on being a practicing muslim who has been involved with islamic readings and studies since more than 18 years). In particular, the statement: "Muhammad was so bewitched by her beauty that he asked Zaid to divorce her so that he can marry he" is completely wrong and based on a false narration that the muslims do not accept. None of our Islamic narrations ever say that the Prophet asked Zaid to divorce Lady Zainab "so that he can marry her"!!! there is no authentic narration that mentions that (note that even if a certain historical book mentions such a story (which I doubt), it is not enough to take it as a fact. I expect you to know that all the historical books are under continuous study and criticism by muslim scholars to identify the "authentic" stories and the lies). Beside, I can never imagine any culture on this earth that may accept that a man asks someone to divorce his wife so that he can marry her!!! this is not only a non-islamic moral, it is completely unaccepted in the environment where the Prophet lived as it is extremely rude!!!. On the other hand, the word "bewitched" is a complete "corrupted" translation of the Arabic word mentioned in the narration (aside from being an authentic narration or not). Yes, the passage was right when it said that muslims consider the story as mythical, but the way the section is written implies that the story happenned but the muslims deny it!!! That's why the section is completely misleading as it accuses the muslim's Prophet of something that the muslims refuse and never practice, yet you consider that as a "criticism against their prophet". A criticism should be against something that did happen, while this story is refused by muslims. Finally, the section ends with the statement "Muhammad felt responsible for the failed marriage and offered to marry her after her divorce". Again, this is completely not a true justification of the Prophet's marriage and it contradicts with what muslims believe. The true story is that after the marriage was ended (due to that Lady Zainab was unhappy in it, not because the Prophet enforced that), the Quran clearly stated that Allah ordered the Prophet to marry Lady Zainab in order for the Arab to know that it is permissible to marry the divorcee of their adopted sons (the Arabs before Islam used to refrain from such marriages because they treated their adopted sons as true sons and thus they never allowed any male to marry the widow or divorcee of their adopted sons). Here is what the Holy Quran says in the verse 37 of Surah 33 (named Al-Ahzab): "Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.". In brief, the muslims believe that the latter was the reason behind the marriage of the Prophet and Lady Zainab, and the claim that he was "bewitched" and "in love" with her and thus enforced the divorce from Zaid is completely refused by muslims who admire their Prophet and treat him as "infallible" and refuse any kind of "insults" against him through such stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.204 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not responsibly for any changes to this page, but need to comment since the Zaineb line has been placed back. Please understand one thing very well to all who bring random narrations without respecting the science of Hadith which these narrations are held to. You are posting something from Tabari without it's chain of narrations as mentioned in Tabari. You are then ignoring what the chain of narrators tells us about the authenticity of the narration. This is unacceptable, and the narration is in itself unacceptable. Some narrations have people who were unreliable, unknnown, or never even met the person they claim to narrate from etc. As for this narration:

1. It is narrated by at-Tabari from the narration of Usamah ibn Zaid ibn Aslam al-Qurashi, who is Munkar (rejected) in hadeeth by Saleh ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and his father, the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal considered him weak as well. This is in regards to the narration found in v.22, p.13
2. A number of other narrations of this story, altogether as weak as a a cobweb, are all discussed in detail here (Arabic source):http://www.burhanukum.com/article768.html
3. Zaineb is called the Prophet's daughter-in-law by Race911. She was married to Zaid, who was not related to him.
4. It is totally not mentioned that Zaineb and her family originally wanted her to marry Prophet Muhammad.
5. It is totally not mentioned why and how she was married to Zaid by the Prophet, peace be upon him
6. It is totally not mentioned that Zaid sought numerous divorces, and that Zaineb did not originally want the marriage.
7. It totally does not mention the lessons normally derived by the story which were well-known at the time and are well-documented: the legitimacy of a person of lower status marrying someone of higher status (Zaineb bring a noblewoman of Quraish, Zaid an ex-slave), the legitimacy of marrying a divorcee, and the illegality of adopting someone (you can take care of someone but not claim fatherhood).
8. An excellent English source is here: http://www.a2youth.com/ebooks/the_wives_of_the_prophet/zainab_bint_jahash/

Bottom line: This needs to be unprotected and edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsg70007 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.135.30 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 

Regarding the work I did, the video cited is not a big problem. That can be fixed, and I have no objection to that. There was clearly a lot of work besides what the video was cited for, and I had meant to return to do more work - though I consider the video citation a mistake. However, I need to know what is the reason for removing ALL the work I did on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsg70007 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Improper tagging

User:Humaliwalay has again added header tags to the article which seem either unnecessary, or blatantly wrong. For example, I cannot find a peacock term anywhere in the article and Humaliwalay has provided no examples. Further, the tags for Neutrality and OR are inappropriate unless they are accompanied by specific examples from the text of the article. There has long been a fairly solid general concensus amongst editors on the neutrality and POV of the article, yet Humaliwalay claims there is no consensus because he disagrees with the theme and topic of the article; that is not how consensus works.

User:Humaliwalay, unless you can provide specific examples of text that we can discuss and act upon, the tags do not belong. Doc Tropics 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lutheran writers recorded both polemical and historical ideas about Muhammad. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.[8]"

The above section is entirely from Catholic Encyclopedia which is hostile towards Muhammad, the Section of Ali Sina is from [1] which is a hate site and again hostile towards Mohammad, again the section Murder of Asma bint Marwan[38] cannot be verified, there are plenty of sentences which promote the concerned subject without any neutrality like the above highlighted ones. Another Example - "Lutheran writers recorded both polemical and historical ideas about Muhammad. Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca. After his father's death, he lived with his mother and grandfather. When he reached maturity, he saw that the people could not decide whether to follow Christianity, Judaism, or Arianism. So, remembering an astrological prophecy that he would begin a new religion, he pieced together parts of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures. These he had learned from an Egyptian monk and the heretic Sergius. His goal was to make a law that he could get both Christians and Jews to submit to.[8]" This is a complete POV pushed by the initial composers and then by the editor, where can we verify the claims of Martin Luther and Knaust that "Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".[7] Heinrich Knaust in 1542 wrote that Muhammad's parents gave birth to him on the outskirts of Mecca". Please prove the neutrality and then remove tags after reaching consensus.

I have kept the reference numbers above, to ease referring in the article - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it curious that someone would complain of referencing sources perceived as hostile to Muhammad, when this article is about "criticism of Muhammad". Therefore, it is appropriate to reference such sources, because they are sources of criticism. As long as the criticism is properly attributed to the source, and isn't presented as if Wikipedia is taking a position, then there is no problem.

I also note that Humaliwalay tagged the article with weasel words, although none can be found. I'm removing that tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case that its curious to say someone would complain of referencing sources perceived as hostile to Muhammad, when this article is about "criticism of Muhammad". Then why was references removed from article Criticism of Sunni Islam by complaining about hostile and hate reference?? when the article itself was about Criticism??? If that can happen there why can't here, if not then please remove the tags from Criticism of Sunni Islam first then shall we remove from here. Because I have tagged this article based upon my conclusion from the opinions of various editors on talk page of Criticism of Sunni Islam.

Please guide, as I welcome that because I can see contradictory judgments there, till the time i reinstate the tag. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never looked at Criticism of Sunni Islam. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument -- although that document is written in the context of deletion debates, it applies here as well. This article is this article. It is not another article. Problems in other articles doesn't justify introducing the same problems in this article.

You have restored the peacock terms tag without justification. I have removed it because you have not demonstrated any example of peacock terms. I have left in the OR and NPOV tags for now, but you also have not justified the OR. You are arguing NPOV, basically. Once and for all, please explain these tags, or accept that they will be removed. I have no problem with the NPOV tag staying in the article until the differences of opinions regarding sources is resolved. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And my response echoes that of Amatulić. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a perfectly valid reference for criticism of religous topics and related issues. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the NPOV policy: it requires us to report information without taking a stance on the issue, it does not require us to ignore information which is non-neutral or hostile in nature....we just report it accurately using neutral language. Similarly, the writings of Martin Luther on this subject are notable and his theological opinions are not subject to our NPOV policy, the way that we write about them is. As long as we report his opinions accurately, in neutral language, we have acted in accordance with the policy. Second, WP:OTHERSTUFF is exactly on point in this case: the proper action is to correct the issues with Criticism of Sunni Islam, a process which has already begun. Doc Tropics 03:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK..I referred the OTHER-STUFF section and finally agree that example from Criticism of Sunni Islam cannot be taken here as argument. I will not place any tags from the conclusion of that article, but still neutrality tags will exist because there is no consensus as of now about neutrality. Please do help me in reaching conclusion on reference used in Criticism of Sunni Islam there has been a lot of issues going on. Do interfere and help getting article improved. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted recent explanation of criticisms

I have reverted a good-faith edit by Rsg70007 that attempted to explain some criticisms regarding sexual deviance. The problems I saw were as follows:

• This is the English Wikipedia. The primary references are not verifiable to English readers, because they are in a middle eastern language.
• One of the references was a video, on what looks like an Arabic YouTube site.
• Interpretations favorable to Muhammad were being presented as factual. I see this also in Christian arguments that attempt to explain away contradictions evident in the Bible, with the reasoning that anything that can be interpreted as favorable to the religion should be interpreted that way. That is the impression I got here.

If the interpretations were presented as how followers of Islam explain away these criticisms, that would be better. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same way, and for the same reasons. At least half has been re-reverted by Rsg. -Digiphi (Talk) 01:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here.

1. The article Wikipedia:verifiability clearly states that "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." This clause is definitely the case when you are accessing the books of Tafsir, or Qur'anic exegesis, or the likes of Fath al-Bari. Only Ibn Kathir, as far as I know has been translated, and it is an abridgment, so even there the translation is not complete. This has been consistently the case in Wikipedia material dealing specifically with issues which are native to non-English parts of the world, such as Islam, and this article should be no exception.
2. In fact, largely relying on translations will lead to problems. An example is in the hadith quoted from al-Bukhari referencing an online translation. In an effort to use online translations, this person used one (usc.edu) which removes chapter headings, mis-numbers the hadiths, and does not even add quotations properly. This led to the person providing as a criticism of Muhammad text which was not attributed to him to begin with, being the speech of al-Bukhari in his quoting Abu Hanifah: "Some people said, 'If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid.'"
3. In most of these cases, you could have requested further translation. I can in fact translate the entire passage being quoted in the footnote itself. This would be as per the passage in Wikipedia:Verifiability "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. "
4. I did not present "interpretations favorable to Muhammad as factual" as claimed. Rather, I used the words "interpreted" and "exegesis" wherever referring to these interpretations, or "linguistic" referring to the semantic properties of the text. Where the criticisms being discussed lack any reference I used the words "imply" since the author didn't mention any point of criticism to begin with after quoting texts from the Qur'an and Sunnah. As far as being similar to Christian arguments that attempt to explain away contradictions evident in the Bible, I don't see what contradictions are being discussed, nor my bringing myself into any of these discussions as an attempt to "argue" something away. My stance was not Apologetic, rather an attempt to discuss these criticisms strictly in the light of what the texts themselves reveal, including the original scholarly treatments of the Qur'an and Sunnah which predate any of these criticisms. In contrasting the two, an Apologetic tone may have occurred, but that is far from presenting something as fact. In short, I may have erred in application or otherwise, but I don't believe my overall stance was in error, to the point where the points made became unacceptable.
5. I find the statement "If the interpretations were presented as how followers of Islam explain away these criticisms, that would be better," very problematic. First of all, no source I mentioned, or for that matter any scholarly treatment of an Islamic text that I am aware of claims to present how "followers of Islam" understand them, rather how specific people understood them, or how specific generations or madhabs understood them etc, or the author himself. The sources I mentioned, whether primary or secondary, all go back to classic interpretations which predated all of the fantastic criticisms being discussed. They are not apologetics, or responses to accusations of Muhammad of sexual assault etc, but the original de facto understandings of the texts, which any reasonable critic would actually have referred to himself. To present something as you have requested is to do original research, not to present scholarship. Additionally, your requesting "how followers of Islam explain away..." the texts seems to indicate that you are open to the Wiki including apologetic responses as long as they are attributed as such. I don't think it is acceptable in Wikipedia to do as you have suggested, but rather to bring to light the scholarship already in existence regarding the topic at hand and no more.

The following are the additions that were reverted. I have attempted to explain a few points, and then maybe we can take it from there.

Sahih al-Bukhari and Quran both known as the most authentic books in Islam contain verses that have been interpreted as describing sexual assault and child abuse by modern standards.

1. Narrated 'Abdur-rahman bin al-Aswad: …(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the prophet could."Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:6:299

My previous comments: The narration in itself is used by critics to portray Muhammad as sexually deviant, while it is often ignored that it is in fact a narration from his own wife speaking of his ability to restrain himself. This ability to restrain oneself from intercourse was a requirement in certain situations, for such relations with one's spouse are not allowed for a person when fasting, or otherwise prohibited from doing so (due to Ihram or a Kaffarah etc.) unless he was sure of his ability to restrain himself.

The video quoted was a fatwa given regarding the question "Is it permissible for a man to kiss or touch his spouse while fasting" which discusses this context. Though the speaker is an authority in jurisprudence, I have no qualms about providing textual references, in fact I always do so, but this time saw this as being a superb discussion of the context of this narration. I personally agree with the video not being best, and have no issue with bringing references which explicitly discuss the context of the text mentioned.

That is the main point: the narration has context. An encyclopedic treatment of any topic should provide the original interpretation of such a text which builds upon such context, being that we are discussing it's modern criticism.

Also I am basing my additions on the fact that the "criticism" presented is acceptable as it is. I myself don't see the criticism, only an allegation of existing criticisms, and the presentation of the source material of the criticism, which is nonsense. Really, the criticism should itself be presented, the words of the critic themselves containing such texts.

Note that I didn't refute the criticism. I didn't speak about the lack of sexual assault in this example, or the legal definition of it, etc. Rather, I only provided the original context of the text, and how that is seemingly considered by the alleged critics. The reference being in video form is a non-issue, though just for it to be clear, it is the kind of video that is often transcribed and published, being a fatwa program with a prominent scholar.

2) The second point here is, I believe, is even more important for it to be made clear where the problem lies in articles such as this. The following verse from the Qur'an is presented without any comment whatsoever.

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

Is the verse in itself a criticism of Muhammad, or is the verse being interpreted to mean something which is being held as a criticism of Muhammad? It is a surprise to me that this person was not required to be clear what exactly he/she is speaking about.

I had said, "This verse as [is] discussed in various works of Qur'anic exegesis and though it's negative connotation is linguistically non-existent, it has been used by critics to imply sexual deviance. In fact, it is interpreted to give allowance to a man to have conjugal relations with his spouse entering her vaginally, and not anally, for the tilth refers to the womb's bearing fruit.[34] The preceding verse prohibited one from having relations with his spouse while she was menstruating."

I should have been said openly in the quotation what interpretation I was referring to, for this makes it sound as if no specific text is in mind. And there is some lack of clarity which can be fixed also. However, if the fact that the Qur'an is itself quoted by some guy in 2010 as a criticsm of Muhammad (without his saying any more than quoting the Qur'an) and that the Qur'anic exegesis from 800 years ago has no application is absurd.

3) The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari has been interpreted by critics to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage. The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.' [This is where the hadith ends.] Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:86:98

First of all al-Bukhari (which the author placed BEFORE the Qur'an as being the most authentic books of Islam) does not have verses. Secondly, what critics used this "verse" and where? Thirdly, the translation used is not accurate. Fourthly, as I already mentioned, the part the author wants to use is the speech of Bukhari not part of the Hadith.

If the additions were removed due to the tone becoming somewhat apologetic, that is fine. I can see that, though the criticism itself has some role in that. "This viewpoint is founded on understanding that the words "some people said..." to the end of the text are part of the narration, as has been printed incorrectly certain translations of Sahih al-Bukhari. The speech is in fact that of the author of Sahih al-Bukhari himself in his quoting Abu Hanifah and his opinion in regards to a marriage in which a man married a virgin with her consent but with false witnesses.[36] It is thus neither a statement of Prophet Muhammad, nor an affirmation of the allowance of forced marriage. In fact, forced marriage is concerned impermissible by Ijmaa', or consensus, of the scholars of jurisprudence.[37][38]

The references are an academic article which discusses the quote itself, as being the opinion of Abu Hanifah which al-Bukhari was referring to here. The other references are Fath al-Bari, the encyclopedic complition of Ibn Hajr of the various commentaries on Sahih al-Bukhari.

I am open to suggestions on how to correct this part of the article. Leaving it as it is is lying, while the author may just have been ignorant. I am actually against removing it, since if this is indeed a criticism, it shouldn't be removed from discussion. Please feel free to suggest.

Then as for the Zaineb heading, the narrations are all weak. I discussed it a little more than the Aisha hadiths, and may have lost the appropriate tone for encyclopedic content in some areas. However, returning it to the status quo, we have weak narrations being mentioned without any discussion of their authenticity. This is unacceptable.

In short, I will be happy to work on these points again, but I request that the aggressive editing be checked in consideration of the points I mentioned above.

Thank you Rsg70007 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Rsg. Please understand that this article is about criticism of the historical figure Muhammad. You can determine this from the title at the top of the article page. If you have concerns about the content being presented as the official, non-controverted history of this man, do it on the Muhammad article. Any criticism of Muhammad that has been made widely and/or by notable critics is to be reported in this article. That is this article's purpose. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Question: is there an article which discusses/presents the methodology being followed in the Wikipedia Criticism of... type of articles? 2) Comment: at least the majority of the criticisms I am referring to are problematic by your definition. They are either not referenced to anybody specifically, or referenced to the wrong person, which I have already made clear. If what is presented is within the bounds of Wikipedia's methodology (which I insist it isn't and you are insisting it is), you should say, "any criticism of Muhammad that has been claimed to have been made or can somehow be ascribed to him is to be reported in this article." And if that is this article's purpose, then so be it. As for "widely and/or by notable critics" than you cannot attach those words to what I have been speaking about. Quoting the Qur'an itself as criticism also does not match your description. Rsg70007 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Whom

This interpretation isn't sourced by anyone credible.

The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage.

The Prophet said, 'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.' 'O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.' Some people said, "If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one, and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:86:98[33]

The statement begins with "'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent." the remainder of the quote is thus qualified by this rule or statement.

"How will the virgin express her consent.' He said, 'By remaining silent.'" meaning if she is asked for her hand in marriage and she is to shy to answer yes [as many young women are inherently shy] this is seen as consent or if she does not want to marry she can say no.

"If a virgin is not asked for her consent and she is not married, and then a man, by playing a trick presents two false witnesses that he has married her with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage as a true one" this is referring to a person who has tricked and lied about the marriage, after which the case is disputed in a court of law hence the prophets mentioning of a judge.

"and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones" the husband knows he is lying and has tricked the judge but the issue cannot be settled or proven in her favor in a court, meaning an injustice has been done against her.

"then there is no harm for him to consummate his marriage with her and the marriage is regarded as valid." as it is self evident this wording clearly contradicts the opening remark "'A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.'" so how do you reconcile the two points...by accepting the more sensational remark and ignoring what the source itself quotes as the prophets own words in the same work on the same page directly following what is quoted on wikki???

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 99: Narrated Al-Qasim: A woman from the offspring of Ja'far was afraid lest her guardian marry her (to somebody) against her will. So she sent for two elderly men from the Ansar, 'AbdurRahman and Mujammi', the two sons of Jariya, and they said to her, "Don't be afraid, for Khansa' bint Khidam was given by her father in marriage against her will, then the Prophet cancelled that marriage." (See Hadith No. 78)

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 100: Narrated Abu Haraira: Allah's Apostle said, "A lady slave should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted." The people said, "How will she express her permission?" The Prophet said, "By keeping silent (when asked her consent)." Some people said, "If a man, by playing a trick, presents two false witnesses before the judge to testify that he has married a matron with her consent and the judge confirms his marriage, and the husband is sure that he has never married her (before), then such a marriage will be considered as a legal one and he may live with her as husband."

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101: Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage."

Sahih al bukhari is a source of the prophets words out of context they are short statements by individuals about various issues, often many sound confusing due to how brief or scarce of detail they are. if the idiotic assertion above [can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced] is accepted as proof of Islamic law then it may surprise some that their is a system of law in Islam called shariah law, they should quote shariah law as permitting a women to be forced into marriage and not misquote a clearly primary source which itself is against wikki policy. Shariah law is based on the study and research of legal experts of Islams primary sources and their is no such law permitting women to be forced into marriage.

This is what shariah law says,

Islamically, an adult woman has the right to choose or agree to the person she will marry, for the obvious reason that this is the person who will be her companion and ameer for the rest of her life.

The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace be upon him) said , “A virgin cannot be married until her permission is sought.” [Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, and Ibn Maja, from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him)]

If the person is not suitable for religious reasons, or because she does not like his character, personality, or something else that will not make her happy or secure with him, then she has the full right to refuse to marry him, and her parents cannot force her to do so against her will. Then, if she continues to refuse, the marriage will not be valid. If they force her to accept against her will, they will have wronged her.

In `Allama Qudri Basha’s definitive codification of Hanafi person law, it states that:

(Item 53)

• An adult free woman cannot be forced to marry, whether she is a virgin or a non-virgin.

• Rather, it is necessary to get her permission and approval.

• If she is a virgin and her immediate guardian (wali), or his agent (wakeel) or messenger (rasul) sought her approval before marrying her off or if he married her off... and she knew the husband and the mahr and maintained her silence from refusing, without being forced, or smiled or laughed without doing so scoffingly, or cried without a voice, then [in all these cases] this is considered an approval [f: legally, though it is religiously recommended to seek explicit spoken approval]... (Qudri Basha, al-Ahkam al-Shar`iyya fi’l Ahwal al-Shakhsiyya)

This is confirmed by Imam Haskafi and Ibn Abidin in Radd al-Muhtar `ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (2.298-299, Bulaq ed.) and other major texts of the Hanafi school [of law].

Shaykh Faraz Rabbani [quoting Islams major legal experts]

on this basis i request this quote be removed as it is erroneous in its representation and interpretation.

Ibn kathir (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

i have removed the passage since no one has attempted any sort of dialogue.

Ibn kathir (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ibn. I posted these comments once above but I feel it needs just as well to appear here. Excuse me, Rsg. Please understand that this article is about criticism of the historical figure Muhammad. You can determine this from the title at the top of the article page. If you have concerns about the content being presented as the official, non-controverted history of this man, do it on the Muhammad article. Any criticism of Muhammad that has been made widely and/or by notable critics is to be reported in this article. That is this article's purpose.

If you wait three hours and no one has answered something on the board, that doesn't mean you're being ignored. Editors have RLs and aren't on WP 24/7. We can discuss it here if you like. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

well its been a week i have raised my points and no one has discussed anything, i am again going to remove the incorrect quote.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have again removed the primary sources quotes regarding women being forced to marry since i have clearly proven my case that no this is not a part of the Islamic religion.

Saying a thing can be interpreted to mean something is so wide a statement that anything can be placed after it and isn't a justification for its inclusion. for example, The following can be interpreted to mean space monkeys are flying in orbit, E=mc^2...i see the correlation why don't you?

their are thousands upon thousands of prophetic sayings in Islam should every single one of them along with their warped interpretations be included in this page. the basic rule should be if Muslims themselves don't interpret understand or believe the hadith to be saying something you think it is then their is no grounds for its inclusion here since essentially you are critisisng your own perspective and beliefs not that of Muslims. Its one thing to critisise a muslim for something he believes in and completely outrageous to criticize him of something he doesn't belive in and ask him to defend himself against it.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

is any one going to attempt to source those primary sources comments or will we have to seek arbitration on this matter?

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn kathir, please feel free to do something here besides complain. If you think that text needs a source....go find one. For most of us this is an extremely busy time of year and WP takes a back seat to "real life". And just so you know, Arbitration is generally the last step in conflict resolution, not the first. Doc Tropics 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on you to find a source since you want to maintain the quote i want it removed because it has no source.

Ibn kathir (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If this were a WP:BLP article, you might have a point about removal. But this isn't a BLP article. If a reasonable but contentious claim has no source, then slap a {{fact}} tag on it, but you don't have consensus to remove it because sources do exist - they just aren't in the article. This isn't an urgent issue, and those of us participating here are, as Doc Tropics points out, extremely busy this time of year. If you aren't busy (and I guess you aren't if you think you have time to bother ArbCom at this stage in the dispute), go find a source. Otherwise tag the statement and wait. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

so what your saying is that as long as this isn't a biography of a living person we can write what ever we like. Well at this point in time i have only your word that a source exists but you have not produced anything, i also question your sense of sensibility if you think it is reasonable to maintain something that is little more than a myth. The title of this page should be changed to common myths and misconceptions about Islam and Muhammad since being factual is not an issue, Such claims should be under common myths not criticisms as they are not formal or by qualified individuals.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided two possible sources resulting from a brief 5-minute search. Doc Tropics suggested others. Further investigation is required.

No, being factual is not an issue. Are you surprised? See WP:NOTTRUTH. I'm sure most Christians disagree with criticism of Jesus but their objections don't invalidate the fact that criticism exists.

And I have no objection to an article called "common misconceptions about Islam" but we already have an article called list of common misconceptions, with a section on religion (including Islam) so I invite you to submit entries there if you like.

As for this article, criticisms need not be valid to be criticism. Many criticisms are borne out of misconceptions. I have no objection to removal of the disputed text if no good sources can be found (and I promise to take some time next month) but the current consensus is that the criticism is not new, and it is reasonable to conclude that sources exist. If you can't be bothered to respect the consensus and find sources, then you simply have to wait until others find the time to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the most reasonable response i have had from anyone so far, thank you. ill wait and see.

Ibn kathir (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Aisha and the age of marriage in pre industrial world

Her age only became an issue at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century when parts of the world became industrialized and the modern schooling system delayed the age of maturity by some 10 years [see John Taylor Gatto], it is enough to point out that muhammads worst enemies in his own life time did not object to the marriage or saw anything controversial in it, and you can not judge a individual by the standards of society he wasn't a part of didn't grow up in and a time and place he wasn't aware of. it is like accusing a person of a crime that he didn't even know was a crime and neither did the rest of the world during that time.

for example

The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls; however, the kiddushin can take place before that, and often did in medieval times. source.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg…In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three. [Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.] A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen. [Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1] source.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years [i.e. if puberty occurs before the age of twelve])… The canonical age holds in England, Spain, Portugal, Greece (Ionian Isles excepted, where it is sixteen and fourteen), and as regards Catholics even in Austria. While in some parts of the United States the canonical marriage age of fourteen and twelve still prevails, in others it has been enlarged by statutes.source.

the point is this was the normal age of marriage during Biblical times and the ancient world, "Women were marriageable right after puberty, marriage arrangements were made while they were in infancy; they were wed at the age of twelve or fourteen to men in their twenties or thirties." source. or "One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young girl is that of St.Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl.", "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine." source.

Pedophilia is an entirely modern development and label rightly made against individuals who have sexual relations with children that are pre pubesent. the wikki article itself asserts [as well as it being a historical fact] that muhammad consummated the marriage after Aisha reached the age of puberty so the label of pedophelia is erroneous and wrong to begin with by the modern defanition of pedophelia, see wikkis own page on the defanition here and the American Psychiatric Association's definition, Islamic law reflects this same reality that a women can not be married prior to reaching the age of puberty which differs from one individual to the next. The page should be corrected and the charge removed, simply because a person makes an accusation due to lack of knowledge it does not mean the erroneous claim should be maintained for the sake of reporting grievances.

Ibn kathir (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether you personally agree or not, this is a well-documented criticism that has been raised many times by notable and well known figures; it certainly merits inclusion. The text fully explains the different historical and cultural standards regarding child marriage, and both points of view are properly referenced with reliable sources. Doc Tropics 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

personnel opinion has nothing to do with this, by the scientific definition of what pedophelia is according to the sourced article on wikki and the American Psychiatric Association their claims are wrong. This is clear fact not an opinion. A well documented erroneous criticism is still an erroneous criticism based on error, its well documentation does not add to its credibility only to the list of people who are wrong. if this was simply a matter of opinion i could see your point but the definition is clear, these statements do nothing but increase hate amongst people and benefit no one. Ibn kathir (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say Muhammad was a pedophile, it doesn't even use that word except in the context of a specific quote from a prominent Christian pastor, so arguing whether or not the term is technically correct is pointless; it's part of a quote that is properly attributed. Please try to understand that whether the criticism is right or wrong, it is still a notable criticism and can be referenced to reliable sources so there is no justification to remove it. Doc Tropics 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And Ibn, again, this article is about criticism of Muhammad. Content presented as sound and non-controverted facts is on the Muhammad article. Gripes and opinions about the appropriateness of facts should be taken there. This page is an encyclopedic report about criticisms. Do you see —Digiphi (Talk) 03:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote you talk about isn't separate from the article and is presented in a manner that implicitly implies he is a pedophile as it is presented directly after the quote about Aisha being pre- menarchal hence giving the implication that yes this pastures idiotic and hypocritical claims of him being a pedophile are in fact correct. you don't have to explicitly say something for it to be understood in such a manner. The basis of a criticism should be factual and if proven wrong either removed as it has no basis or refuted with the clear evidence directly after the quote otherwise you would be guilty of mis-information and spreading hate unjustifiably and wiki is an encyclopedia not a collection of erroneous facts and quotations, of which their would be no end if we where to list all the wrong criticism leveled at the prophet over the years.

your reliable sources link is pointless all it means is that the quote is proven to be from the pasture which no one is disputing, i am disputing its factual basis in reality. the quote makes a definite assertion not a criticism subject to opinion, it is also followed by a quote from a primary source [which is against wiki policy] as to suggest this pastures accusation is in fact factual and correct. the entire section is presented in such a deliberate manner as to leave no room for any other conclusion. The quotes refuting his erroneous claims are inadequate and do nothing to address the specific charge leveled against him.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibn, this is in fact the place for assertions. This isn't the page for conclusions and facts. That's not what we do here. Again, these might be valid complaints about content in the Muhammad article. However this article is about notable criticisms. We don't draw conclusions for readers. As a reader you can draw your own conclusions. You can even conclude from the content reported in the article and your own background knowledge that you disagree with some of the criticism reported, but you can't remove content because you've decided the criticizer is incorrect in his/her assertions. A good place to do that would be in one of myriad internet forums for theological and historical discussions. This is not a forum. Also, if you read WP:Verify and WP:IRS, you can find the guidelines regarding primary sources, which do not prescribe a blanket prohibition. —Digiphi (Talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

no matter how hard you try you cant twist your way from the fact that this section is written to prove Muhammad was a pedophile, you would have half a case if it was quotes alone and i would at least think you where sincere but someone arranged those quotes deliberately and then attempted to support them with primary sources which where not part of the original quotes but the concoction of the person writing the section, so no this section inst merely a collection of notable criticisms. you can also stop using the this is not a forum bs because the point i raised, their is no discussion it is the scientific definition of the term pedophile no amount discussion will ever change that fact.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

i have removed the misquotes and false accusations and left what is at least based on reality.

Ibn kathir (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And I have restored the content because you failed to make your case; consensus supports its inclusion. Doc Tropics 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

power is addictive isn't it in spite of scientific facts. so this is a page on notable criticisms which other people have decided to support with primary sources which i have proven are wrong...well done clap clap.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant fact here is that Muhammad has been criticized as being a pedophile. This is a common criticism, and therefore is appropriate to include. Whether that criticism is valid or not isn't an issue to be addressed within the scope of this article. Ibn kathir, edit-warring will not accomplish the revisions you want on this article. If anything, the sourcing should be improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

than this is little more than name calling and that should be beyond the scope of an encyclopedia wording it in a civil manner wont change that. you cant reconcile your logic with the fact that someone has attempted to support and prop up these criticisms with primary sources hence making an argument that is separate from the quote and for them, which itself beyond the scope of the article as you mention it. Are you really attempting to list every single criticism made of Muhammad no matter how petty or wrong?

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Very valid point Ibn kathir. The point that is continually being missed is that this kind of a "mass list" is NOT encyclopedic in any way. It is misinformation, plain and simple. There needs to be a clear statement about the methodology of the "Criticism of" articles. Stereotypes are not criticism. Myths are not criticism. Misunderstandings are not criticism. Criticism is more noble than all of that, it has a scholastic requirement in itself. At least it does in any encyclopedia or scholarly work I have come across until now. To sum up what is being asked for as I see it: present the actual criticism sourced to whoever says it. Quoting Islamic texts under new titles does not qualify as criticism in itself. Thank you. Rsg70007 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't a valid point. What primary sources? The part on Aisha is very well sourced. If you want more sources for notable people leveling the criticism of pedophilia at Muhammad, such sources are easily found. Some are already mentioned, such as Geert Wilders.

If you have a problem with the title of the article, we can change it to something more appropriate, although "criticism" is a broad word that covers all its various forms. Criticism is not as narrow as you would like it to be. The fact is, criticism comes in many forms. Some criticism arises from stereotypes, misunderstanding, and myths. The critics can be ignorant of facts; that doesn't make them not-critics. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is a valid point. Under the Aisha heading it says "Sahih al-Bukhari and Quran both known as the most authentic books in Islam contain verses that have been interpreted as describing sexual assault and child abuse by modern standards." After this PRIMARY sources are listed. No actual criticisms are listed. The alleged criticism ("have been interpreted") is NOT referenced to anybody. The point which you are missing is that this is not called criticism. This is called presenting an allegation, and then citing evidence for it. And you have disallowed discussion of these points of evidence to show their original historical understanding. I said before that myths and stereotypes are not called criticism. Criticism, what is defined as such in application in all scholarly work, presents what is being discussed and then presents criticism based on it. Stereotypes do not do that and neither do myths (they are based on non-existent or fictitious material). Do you see it as permissible to create an article called "Criticism of African-Americans" and list that Blacks in American have been criticized as being "niggers"? I am not saying that Geerd Wilders' calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile is not criticism. It is. Present it and cite it to him. Don't present a hadeeth from Sahih al-Bukhari and an ALLEGED criticism. I don't think I can make this any clearer.

We are not arguing what people say and do, and what they can say and do. We are arguing the methodology of this article as per its presentation of criticism, upon our understanding that this is a scholarly article in an open encyclopedia.

Thank you Rsg70007 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. This talk page section has a heading referring to Aisha, the comments I responded to were in the context of Aisha, and you are referring to a different part of the article that does indeed have sourcing problems, and I agree that if nothing can be found the passage can be removed. However, rather than argue for removing the section, why not try to find sources? A few minutes of searching came up with the following:

• http://schnellmann.org/http___www.homa.org_mohammad-the-pedophile.pdf - probably not reliable
• http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/jihadpages/women.htm - better, with many criticisms and backing arguments

I am sure more can be found. I find it interesting that there is a lengthy discussion above involving nothing but complaints, with no attempt to make constructive improvements. This is an article about criticism. Therefore, criticism belongs in the article. If the criticism is badly sourced, then improve the sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And you dont see anything ethically wrong with creating your own allegation then searching for a source that agrees with you to maintain it, rather than simply listing a well known criticism which happens to mention this material.

"The following verse from Sahih al-Bukhari can be interpreted to mean that virgins were forced into child marriage."...this is not attributed to anyone so instead of deleting it as per some scholarly methodology you would rather advocate searching for a random source to maintain it...are we listing well known and recognized criticisms or random interpretations of primary sources, further this is a separate allegation than that of the pedophile quote and has nothing to do with Aisha as it is allegedly referring to women being forced to marry and it is established from the primary source itself in the very next hadith that the prophet annulled a forced marriage and did not accept them, so why should a random persons idiocy and lack of education be given due weight.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the allegation. The allegation existed before Wikipedia existed. If it's a known criticism, it belongs in the article, and should be sourced. As I stated before, critics are often not educated in the subjects they critique. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two seperate issues here. First is the "accusations of pedophilia". These are well established with a strong historical basis and not reasonably subject to removal.

However, the second issue regards the use of primary sources and the unattributed theory "...can be interpreted as..." or "...has been interpreted...". While there is nothing wrong with quoting primary sources for illustrative purposes, this part of the section does need a reference to avoid the appearance of original research. But as Amatulic pointed out, it's not something we just made up; references can certainly be found. The first two sources I would check would be Spellberg and then Turner, since we already include both of them as reliable for historical information. Doc Tropics 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

the second issue is made up maybe not by you but someone, at present their is no source and yet it is included, you are now seeking to find a random source in order to maintain the allegation you didn't have this source before hand it was simply made up, this is the sequence of events.

you are also giving the impression that any one can come up with any allegation about anything and you will list it here, you need to list your criteria for accepting allegations and criticisms. i would also suggest changing the title of the article because most this page has nothing to do with criticism but random allegations and peoples idiocy and lack of education.

What options are their for rebuttal, can i start a separate page dealing with these issues and link back here or can i just insert it in the main page.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the second issue isn't made up. Please observe the WP:AGF policy. This is a case of someone carelessly inserting a known criticism without providing a source. As I said, that criticism has existed before Wikipedia. Personally, I had heard of it long before I ever encountered Wikipedia, so it's likely something well-known. I agree it should be removed if no sources can be found, but my cursory search indicated that such sources exist. We can refer to Doc Tropics suggestions for sourcing, or we can backtrack the history of the article to see who inserted that passage and ask that person for their source.

You want criteria: The criticism must be something known to others, not made up, and have sources. This isn't a WP:BLP article, so unsourced claims should be tagged with a {{fact}} tag to indicate further sourcing is needed. Just because a source wasn't provided initially doesn't mean that sources don't exist. It is our job to find sources for any criticism that seems to have a reasonable basis, as this does.

As for rebuttals: This is an article about criticism. It isn't a debate. Look at similar articles, such as criticism of Jesus, which simply describes the criticism, carefully attributing each one so that the article does not take a position about any criticism.

The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present a topic, not to teach readers the "correct" way to think of a topic. There is no "correct" interpretation. That would violate our WP:NPOV policy. A separate article on rebuttals may be acceptable as long as such an article does not take a position that the rebuttals are "correct", just as this article should not be taking the position that the criticisms are correct. However, a rebuttals article risks creating a slippery slope where further articles are required to explain critics views of those rebuttals, with no end. Wikipedia isn't a debate forum, and we shouldn't be using a collection of articles to disguise a debate. It would be best to simply write an article about the debate, if sources exist that have done something similar. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A debate occurs when their is a possibility of another opinion being true, the issues i have raised thier is no other opinion regarding the matter, the definition of pedophilia is the scientific one, Muslims do not allow women to be forced into marriage as per Islamic law and any such marriage is not valid as explicitly stated by Islamic law so no an article refuting these so called allegations would not be classed as a debate since there is nothing to debate, the article would simply state what Muslims believe and not what others wish they believed.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor versus child

Regarding the edit war going on now...

The term "minor" is an ambiguous legal term that has different meanings in different localities. The term "minor" is also related to the age of consent, which is different (as low as 9 years old) in some countries. The term "child" is more precise, meaning any human between infancy and puberty.

A previous sentence already stated Aisha's age as 9 years old. Therefore, using the term "child" in this context is precise. A 9 year old is a child by definition of "child". A 9 year old may or may not be a minor, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) is pushing hard to keep his POV in the article despite presenting a definition of "child" (which he initially didn't bother to read, much like the way he reacted to the "prepubescent" issue) that doesn't fit with with the sources we have. You have used the biological definition, "any human between infancy and puberty", (which I pointed out earlier and the reason why I'm against using child here) to support your case , yet no source states that she was prepubescent, therefore it is a POV. Besides, the claim that "a 9 year old may or may not be a minor" is NOT true, as all children are minors by definition.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to full-protect the article for 48 hrs as the only active editing at this instant is the edit warring.

Both sides are currently into blockable edit warring; the comments here just recently aren't sufficient. You should have come here to discuss it two days ago.

Please assume each other are operating in good faith and discuss it here to find a consensus.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

POV has nothing to do with this. The word "minor" can generally be applied to any person under the age of 18 and no one has ever criticized Muhammad for having sex with a 17 year old. He has been criticized for having sex with a 9 year old child. Doc Tropics 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, the statement is not attributed to a critic and instead presented as a fact:

"The age of Aisha is cited by some critics who denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a child."

So far, I've only seen contradictions in all attempts to restore this word, beginning with claims that child has "no other definition", and when presented with the biological definition that could imply prepubescence (which as discussed earlier, is not supported by any traditional source), another user claimed that minor is ambiguous as it used in a legal context with each country defining its own age of consent, but even then, Aisha would still be considered a minor.

After claiming that child is unambiguous (no reasonable explanation given so far), Amatulic then refers to the biological definition as a proof. In other words, I was correct in predicting that the usage of "child" might falsely imply prepubescence.

If a traditional source has NOT been provided for the claim that Aisha at the time of marriage was (in Amatulic's words) "between infancy and puberty" and if no reasonable objection as to why Aisha cannot be called a "minor" is provided, this statement will remain a POV and will be challenged. Please spare us the "17-year is a minor" objection and provide better reasoning (if any) against the usage of "minor".

Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In almost all cultures the age of accountability begins at puberty. see coming of age and Bar Mitzvah as one obvious example.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The most neutral solution would be to state what it is: a 9 year old girl. That would remove any argument about "minor" versus "child". Frankly, neither term is satisfactory, for valid reasons given by each side above, although "child" more narrowly matches the state of a 9 year old than "minor", which could represent a near-adult. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good suggestion; it is simple, direct, and entirely supported by the sources. The change that Amatulić has suggested would be an improvement, and should resolve the issue at hand. Thanks! Doc Tropics 17:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

just an FYI by the age of 17 some Arabs where chosen to lead Armies and men twice their age by the prophet and this is a historical fact. this had nothing to do with Physique but mental maturity and state of mind as well as possessing a wisdom and sensibility that most people in modern society could not achieve. These kind of situations are life and death and not a time to be testing individuals they where chosen for their known Qualities.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with Amatulic's suggestion? Doc Tropics 14:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

how about saying she was 9 years old period with out any allusion, assumption or prediction to the state of her maturity which is all that these label's are alluding to and nothing more. since it is the season to remember Jesus and his birth, according to the Oxford dictionary of the bible Mary was twelve years old when she gave birth to Jesus, in most Oral cultures seven years was usually considered the entry into adult hood.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what Amatulic suggested, thanks for your agreement. Doc Tropics 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

9 year old girl is different from saying she was 9 years old, one has an implicit allusion to immaturity [especially in this page] while the other doesn't. If you cant tell the difference then say she was a 9 year old women.

Ibn kathir (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Most intelligent rational people WILL assume that a 9 year old is immature. You are the only one arguing that a 9 year old should be assumed to be sexually mature. Please provide some sort of evidence to support your assertion. Otherwise it is totally appropriate to use the word "girl" to describe a 9 year old female, as this is normal practice in the English language. Doc Tropics 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is your myopic view which is limited to your culture, upbringing, education and perspective. the entire discussion as well as the previous ones i have been quoting sources supporting my view click on the highlighted texts to see the sources. i also provided you with one major source supporting "my view" that the entire world sees it different from you and as a matter of Fact God himself according to Christians and Muslims as Mary was essentially 11 years old when she became pregnant, are you not celebrating Christmas at this very moment, because in effect you are celebrating the fact that a 12 year old "girl" was impregnated by God and gave birth to your savior.

it is a matter of fact and history that women married as young as seven years old and this was a norm.

"Women were marriageable right after puberty, marriage arrangements were made while they were in infancy; they were wed at the age of twelve or fourteen to men in their twenties or thirties." source. or "One such example of betrothal between a mature male and young girl is that of St.Augustine (354-439 A.D.). At the age of thirty-one, Augustine betrothed himself to a ten-year-old girl.", "Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine." source. their are plenty of other sources but i don't want to flood this section with quotes about something that is a historical fact and a part of Jewish, Christian and Muslim doctrine which pretty much covers the overwhelming majority of people on this planet, people used to actually practice their faith at one point in time.

Ibn kathir (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

...And it's all irrelevant. This article isn't about who else had a child bride, or what cultural norms prevailed during Muhammad's time. This article is about criticism of Muhammad. And rightly or wrongly, Muhammad has received criticism for having sex with a 9-year-old. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge the validity of the criticism, but rather simply to present it.

The issue of Muhammad's alleged pedophilia has come up often enough on Talk:Muhammad that, a long time ago, I authored an answer in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ explaining why we don't mention it in the Muhammad article, and my answer there echoes points that you have made above. Nevertheless, it is a common criticism, therefore it has a place in this article. I do agree that loaded or ambiguous terminology should be removed. The most precise and neutral description is to simply state that Aisha was 9 years old. We need not elaborate that 9 years old equates to a child or minor or girl. Fair enough? I think we've wasted more words on this section than the section is worth. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to his request not for its inclusion in the article and it was to support a point.

Ibn kathir (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Discrimination against women"

Removed content recently added by Fancy.kira (talk · contribs) for the following reasons:

• The section Criticism_of_Islam#Women already covers (in a more neutral tone) the parts on inheritance, woman’s testimony, beating, stoning and the "intelligence" hadith. As the aforementioned relates to Islamic law rather than the morality and character of Muhammad, it would make much more sense to have it in Criticism_of_Islam.

• In what way is the quote by "Phyllis Chesler" describing present-day offenses against women relates to Muhammad ?

• Quotes by Dr. Younus Shaikh claiming that pagan Arab women had more rights before Islam. Dr. Shaikh is a medical doctor with no expertise in any Islamic field whose views have not been cited by a reliable third-party and directly contradicts with what established experts and recognized scholars of Islam have stated concerning women's rights in the pre-Islamic era (See Women_in_Islam#Sources_of_influence):

Annemarie Schimmel states that "compared to the pre-Islamic position of women, Islamic legislation meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work

William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad, in the historical context of his time, can be seen as a figure who promoted women’s rights and improved things considerably. Watt explains: "At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons." Muhammad, however, by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, gave women certain basic safeguards.

As for his claim that "it was highly unusual for a man of pre-Islamic Arab society to have more than one wife", this is completely false as polygamy was unrestricted at the time and I can cite many examples of notable people with multiple wives some of whom had to divorce some wives when the limitation of 4 women was made.

• Last paragraph doesn't fit in this article, sources and claims have to be verified as well.

Finally, the section's title is POV.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources for criticism

I deleted some material that was referenced to primary sources only, and one paragraph that used two tafsirs as a source (which actually contained no criticism). Why is that this was hastily restored? Anyone can look at a primary source, link to it, and say this is bad for so and reason which is precisely what is being done with those paragraphs. 173.3.4.174 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Wikiislam is not a good source, you're still blocked for edit warring on a number of other well-sourced passages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would really like it if you picked something out as an example so that I can demonstrate that your comment is false. Anything that I removed was either a self-published source, had no secondary source with criticism, or had an unreliable source. As an administrator you have seem to have an appalling lack of understanding of WP:RS. By the way, my IP is dynamic, but I agree not to edit the article for the period you blocked my previous IP (~30 hours). Also, you have the exact same amount of reverts that I had (3), excluding the revert of a bot, so it may be prudent for you to block yourself. 69.115.151.161 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix, the references you added are a complete joke, and in violation of WP:SPS. Unless you can find reliable sources, I still intend on removing this questionable material. Planuu (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, if you don't like some of the sources, you are more than welcome to take it to RSN. As far as I am concerned, these sources are perfectly reliable. Moreover, the controversial piece you are trying to remove is filled with copy+paste verses from the Quran and copy+paste hadiths from Sahih al-Bukhari. Not really sure what in Islam is more credible than these sources!!! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the Quran and Hadith have nothing to do with this discussion. What guidelines and policies do you use to arrive at the conclusion that the secondary sources you've referenced "are perfectly reliable"? Planuu (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does the reliability of the Quran and Hadith have nothing to do with this discussion??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY. I am only questioning the secondary sources you've added. Planuu (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd think it would be a fundamental rule that in order to critisise a muslim about something that he should at least believe what he is being criticized about and not subject 1/3 of the world's population to the imaginations of others. If your going to quote the Quran or primary sources Quote their Islamic interpretations as well not their convoluted misinterpretations. To put it plainly if its not part of our belief system then what on earth are you really criticizing your own imagination? Ibn kathir (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, had you actually read the sources I added, you would have discovered that many of them are Islamic interpretations of the Quran verses and hadiths that encourage slavery, rape of female slaves, coitus interruptus with female captives of war, etc etc. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and "1/3 of the world's population" ? Is that what they call wishful thinking? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 19:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You've yet to show that the sources are in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Planuu (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

23% of the world population if you want to be pedantic about it, regarding slavery it was never "encouraged" it was regulated and rights where given to the slave, anyone who actually has studied Islams stance on slavery would see it was discouraged as you wont find any source that "encourages" it. Rape is forbidden in Islam so essentially you are lying, coitus interrupts or relations with what your right hand posses as the Quran says is only permitted when consent is given and this is the Islamic belief there is no other view regarding this so you are twisting what the sources say or don't say i would imagine. The Quran is not a chronological book, it was revealed over a period of 23 years and then re-arranged into the order you see it in today so pulling one passage from the Quran is essentially taking it out of its context.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see no problem with the evidence provided by λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ.

Does Islam encourage rape? This is not just the opinion of those who criticise Islam, it's also the opinion of some Muslims. See this as one example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327970/Islam-Channel-rapped-advocating-marital-rape-calling-women-prostitutes.html (A Muslim religious channel allowed presenters to condone marital rape. The host told viewers that it was 'not strange' and 'not such a big problem' for a man to force his wife to have sex.) This link also: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/regulators-british-islam-channel-promotes-rape-encourages-violence-against-women/. True that the channel later apologized and declared "In a submission to the report, the Islam Channel said it 'does not condone or encourage violence towards women under any circumstances' and 'does not condone or encourage marital rape'", but it was already too late. It was already censured by the TV watchdog.

Does Islam encourage rape? Fatwa number 33597 on the Islamic website of Shaikh Muhammad Al-Muajjid’s ‘Islam Questions and Answers’ (http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597) reads:

Does Islam encourage pedophilia (sex with children)? No doubt. See this:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old

(Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:).

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

(Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64).

Does Islam encourage raping of female slaves? No doubt. See the verse of the Koran that says:

Koran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

(Koran (33:50))

Also

Abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hands possess

(Koran (23:5-6))

Also

And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hands possess

(Koran (4:24))

Also see Tahfeem ul Qur'an by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Vol. 2 pp. 112-113 footnote 44; Also see commentary on verses ^{[Quran 23:1]}: Vol. 3, notes 7-1, p. 241; 2000, Islamic Publications. Tafsir ibn Kathir 4:24.

This also encourages slavery in Islam, which answers your other question.

--JPosten (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is classed primary research and irrelevant. Rape is not permitted under Islamic law which is the end result of Muslims researching their own books [and not others interpreting them for them] and this is their beliefs, you going into primary sources and then saying no you do promote rape is baseless since this isn't how Muslims themselves view these sources. Unless you can find a specific legal ruling promoting rape you don't have a case. The base assumptions you have made such as assuming you can re-interpret Muslim texts and then force your unqualified interpretations on an entire Muslim population is ignorant.

Are you even aware that their are entire fields of study and sciences that exist to inter prate these texts, i can easily go through each one of your quotes and show you the ignorance of your claims and im only vaguely aware of these scientific fields.

an obvious example ":Does Islam encourage pedophilia (sex with children)? No doubt." first pedophilia is not sex with children, so here you already dont know the scientific definition of the word, second the need to affirm your statement even before you have made your case is a testament to you manipulating arguments to promote a false logical construction in the minds of people who cant see the fallacy of your claims.

Here is another idiotic assertion,

":Does Islam encourage raping of female slaves? No doubt. See the verse of the Koran that says:" again you feel the need to reaffirm your claim even before proving it, if your words had any truth to them this would be self evident in the argument itself.

"

Koran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those slaves whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

"

if you had any analytical understanding you would see the passage speaks nothing of rape but the permissibility of concubines among slaves, you have imposed a nature of that relationship on the passage as a result of your imagination even though it doesn't speak of one. The reality is after firmly fixing in your mind that Islam promotes rape even prior to any honest investigation you have begun to make assumptions based on vague passages that clearly you don't know what they mean or are referring to.

What you are quoting is not Islamic law but accounts in history whose relevance and place in Islam you have not understood. its the equivalent of saying every historical narrative is a precedent for law [or a law in and of itself], if you have no understanding or qualifications in Law then you wont ever understand.

I will again state the obvious if a Muslim doesn't believe what you are saying then you are only criticizing your own imagination, we have been studying these texts for 1400 years and no law permitting rape exists in any book. here is a common response to the site where you are getting most of this dribble from.Ibn kathir (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

JPosten, the requirements for this article are rather clear. Muhammad must be shown to have been criticized by a reliable source for these things. Whether or not one finds them personally deplorable, or whether or not Muhammad encouraged something that you might find immoral is irrelevant. It's simple: find secondary sources criticizing him for these things, and if you want to include the primary source material you've quoted, you'll need a secondary source to interpret it for you. You cannot provide interpretations of the primary source material on your own. Whether or not something is the opinion of some Muslims is also irrelevant. These Muslims are not criticizing Muhammad for their interpretation; rather you are using the interpretation to support your notion that Muhammad encouraged various activities. The missing link is criticism from reliable sources. Planuu (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing the Title

Much of what is present on this page doesnt come from reliable sources or is noteworthy, it also isnt accurate or based on reality but common myths or indavidual interpretations of primary sources by unqualafied indaviduals. To use the words "Islam Promotes" or "Islam says" and by extention "muhammad promotes" or "Muhammad said" you have to go into Islamic books of law as these are the only sources of legislation in Islam for the indavidual. The Quran and prophetic sayings are a source of legislation for the Qualafied lawyer or judge not for the indavidual this is why we have four legal schools of thought in Islam or madhhabs, no muslim is allowed to go into the primary sources and come up with thier own legislation which is the underlying assumption made by most people Quoting primary sources.

Sahih Bukhari which is one work being heavily misquoted in this page has a famous commentary called Fath al Bari no indavidual/muslim wishing to make any sort of legislation or speak for Islam so to speak can Quote from Bukhari with out using this work. This work is in the proccess of being translted here, if you want to get an idea of how much these short sayings/narratives/stories/accounts are missing in terms of context i would suggest visiting the site.

For these reasons as well others i would like the title changed, I would suggest "critisisms and myths about Muhammad" you can suggest others.

Just to pre-empt some of you i am well aware of wikki policy and the relavence of my comments to its policy, wikki policy is not a substitute for analytical reasoning or is even concerned with the truth/factual basis of its claims/pages and that is where it falls short in reality and always will people read these pages and take them as facts not a page merely listing so called critisism irespective of thier factual basis. Ibn kathir (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the entertaining suggestion, it's good to know that we can always count on you for a laugh. Doc Tropics 16:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)