Talk:Muhammad

The opening paragraph

..is horribly clunky. I know it's been discussed umpteen times before, but neverthless I've had a WP:BOLD go and tried to do something with it with this edit. The problems with the existing text are:

1. The first sentence is really uneccesarily cluttered with the name information. It seems to have grown over the years. I've moved most of it to a footnote. It's massive detail for the opening - and very off putting for the average reader think. Also, it's a notional name composed according to a presumed formula rather than evidenced as his actual name.
2. If you take out the name, dates etc, what you are left with is "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." Is that really the best we can do with the first sentence? Surely, the first sentence has to be about founding Islam (in the non-Muslim view) and being the last prophet of a restored monotheistic faith (in the Muslim view)? sure, the unification of Arabia shaould be in the first paragraph but really isn't where his long-term importance lies.

So I'm ready to be reverted... DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Now the lede is better and more balanced than the previous version. Khestwol (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - actually what I was trying to do was not disturb the balance but make it more readable and informative (and encyclopedic). DeCausa (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What he was actually trying to do is to add more anti-Muslim sentiment to the lead by pushing his anti-Muslim POV in the very begining of the opening. The first statement in this article now about Muhammad is a non-Muslim POV.--31.218.175.248 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not writing from Muslim POV is in accordance with WP:NPOV and is not "anti-Muslim". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

1. 1 Writing from "non-Muslim" POV is not in accordance WP:NPOV. #2 The anti-Muslim sentiment of the systemically biased wiki is evident throughout the article. 3# Changing the opening of the lead by making the first statement about Muhammad to be a non-Muslim POV against him is an "anti-Muslim" behaviour. 4# Do you dare to do the same with the articles of "Christian figures".--31.218.152.222 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't dare.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously..... User 31.218.175.248, he presented a neutral opening article. There is nothing wrong with that mate. Please stop nitpicking. 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.79.46 (talk)

No, he didn't present a neutral opening or a neutral article. The opening and the article are not written in accordance with WP:NPOV.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made that point (repeatedly and tediously) and failed to gain any consensus. Time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the ones actually who failed to provide any counter-argument for my point. Till now, no one of you addressed the issue I raised. I wanted the oppening of this article to be neutral and unbiased toward any group, but you still want to keep it biased toward a non-Muslim POV. Opening the article directly with a non-Muslim POV is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. However, you clearly are not going to face any problem for this violation of WP:NPOV since wikipedia is systemically biased toward your side and most admins here will be at your side. This is what i think has been clear enough in my comments here.--31.218.154.95 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I get that I'm joining this discussion late, but I just have a question on the "newer" version which states "...but by almost all Muslims[n 2] as its last prophet sent by God..." As an absolutely impartial editor to this subject, WHY are Ahmadis/Ismailis being counted among Muslims here? By definition, a Muslim considers Mohammed as the last prophet...full stop. Ismailis are Muslim like Mormons are Christian; they can call themselves whatever they want, but they do not fit the definition. Is there some Ahmaddiya editor here that is insisting this be included or is it some editor who is again unfamiliar with the subject matter and feels they should give any minority viewpoint the same weight? Just curious.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We identify groups on how they self identify. This is regardless of dogmatic practices or self defined requirements, ergo why mormons are considered christians regardless of what the church at large may describe them as. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"We" meaning who? Are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia? If so, do you have a reference setting this precedent?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Respect the belief of the religion

Kindly remove the pictures in prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It is really not appropriate for Muslims. i though there is respect in the belief of the religion, respect in the viewers, respect in the request of contributors. the text is already enough but to put picture of how prophet Muhammad looked is very bad.

the reason that the pictures must be removed is that it is really not appropriate and should not be mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleabd (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of this page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We're no more forcing Muslims to create images of Muhammad than we are forcing non-Muslims to follow Islam. "No compulsion in religion" for everybody. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating or displaying visual depictions of figures. Key: Prohibited MUSLIMS. If you don't follow Islam you are under no obligation to follow the rules. Just because you find something "offensive", that doesn't mean it should be removed. It's like Kim Davis: watching someone be in violation of your religious belief (in Kim Davis' case, gay people getting married) does not mean you can impose your belief on them. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To support the opinion that the images should remain, I would point out that images depicting Muhammad are commonplace in the Shi'a school/world http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555 . They were also painted in the Persian, Turkish and Mongolian Muslim cultures throughout the centuries. There is no need for them to be removed.

Founder of Islam?

The phrase "to have been the founder of Islam" is really horrifying as it is not true, and moreover it is in the first line of the article. This stuff should be removed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase says "Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" which is perfectly correct, and sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Did not know that this thread existed but i started a new thread below, i would appreciate if both (RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি & Jeppiz) can reply. Sheriff (report) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Birth date of Muhammad

Recently, and without any proper discussion, the birth date of Muhammad was changed from c. 570 to c. 29 August 570. In earlier discussions (see 11 June 2015[1] and especially 18 June 2012[2]) it was noted that the exact date (or even the year) of Muhammad's birth, like that of Jesus Christ, cannot be established with any precision. The currently given date is pious fiction and is only one of several other dates which have been proposed in the past. AstroLynx (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, I changed it back as the sources used weren't WP:RS in any case. Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would keep the original "c." (circa) as not even the year is certain. AstroLynx (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed here, there is scholarly debate on the year of his birth. There is debate on when the Year of the Elephant was and even whether he was in fact born in the Year of the Elephant. It's nothing to do with the conversion into the Gregorian or Julian calendars. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

Bismilah Hir Rahman Nir Raheem

Thing is that kuffars, that I wish to add "Salaho Allahe Wasalam" becuase this is attached with his name.

And curse be upon that person who does not pay Salam to Him when his name is recited.

And curse be upon those who hold the salam against him.

Remember dear wikipedia, this non-sense of not adding Salaho Allahe Wasalam in not going to last long, so give up now. Waleedi123 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't make changes to articles based on threats and insults. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC).

I don't see any threat in this edit request. He is just expressing his wish as a Muslim and basically saying that this unnecessary ban is not going to last, Wikipedia can put "Great" next to Alexander's name and add "Sir" to whoever is conferred a title by the Queen of Britain but cannot add "Peace Be Upon Him" to Holy Prophet's name because majority of editors are non-Muslims and they don't let this policy be changed so he was only saying that this bias is not going to last very long and is bound to end. Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A "sir" or "great" is pretty generic, whereas "Peace be upon him" is tied to religious beliefs. With Wikipedia being a secular website, I don't think this "bias" will end anytime soon. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

He used offensive language towards anyone that is none muslim, and he stated a demand, which is nothing more sensical than me requiring everyone to call the greater Prophet of the Latter Day Saints, PotLDS, both things would be silly. 78.95.25.186 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the "kuffars" ever added SAW to the Holy Prophet peace be upon him's name. AS the readers of wikipedia are both muslims and non muslims, we should not force them to add this here. To be frank the Holy Prophet peace be upon him never demanded from anyone that he should salute him, so be like the great prophet and let everyone live free. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Bitsdotlies (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede changes 22/10/15

I have changed the sequence of some text in the lede.8

• I moved the phrase " is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" so that it is now preceded by the muslim view of the subject. My reasoning is that he is considered a Holy Personage by the muslims, therefore, what the muslims think about him should be at the beginning.
• Secondly I moved the sentence " By the time of his death, he had united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and had ensured that his teachings and practice together with the Quran, which Muslims believe was revealed to him by God, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief." to the paragraph which discusses his death. My reasoning is that events look good in chronological order, therefore this should be given at the its proper place.

If you disagree please be kind enough to point out my error.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of those edits, the reasonsing seems sound to me. Jeppiz (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's an archived discussion about what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable. The consensus then, as I recall, was that the lead section should state what he did that makes him notable, and that merely being revered isn't sufficient. There was agreement that being the "founder" of Islam is significant, but recognizing that calling him the founder misrepresents the Muslim view, something else was needed. Unifying Arabia into a single polity under the religion he introduced to the area — that is the single significant thing about him. Burying that important fact way down in the 3rd or 4th paragraph unbalances the lead, in my view. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion(which may be wrong) being considered a prophet by every third person on the planet is "what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the 2/3 of the world who don't think of him that way would carry more weight. Putting the Muslim view in the lead sentence doesn't follow the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead section should serve as an overview of the article. This should be particularly true for the lead sentence. The bulk of the article is about Muhammad's life and accomplishments, not about what Muslims think of him, therefore the lead sentence should also be about his life and accomplishments.

Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Need for consistency: Founding of Islam and the two subsections in that section contain the past discussion about this. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a poor discussion and consensus can change. It's clear that being either the "founder of Islam" or the "the last prophet of Islam" depending on your perspective is obviously way more significant than "unifying Arabia into a single polity". It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think otherwise. However, debating which of the two former perspectives comes first is rather lame. If we have to, and of the two, I think the non-Muslim view is by a rather crude force of numbers more predominant and would err towards that, but I don't have a strong view one way or the other. Just so long as "uniting Arabia into a single polity" comes a clear third. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the changes done by FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff (report) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not, because the lead no longer complies with WP:LEAD in placing undue emphasis on a Muslim POV. Unifying an entire country under one religion that he founded is the single most significant thing about him. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Amatulić. This is a historical biography, and we should be giving higher priority to what he did (united a country, founded a religion) before we discuss the dogmatic interpretation of what he did. Resolute 13:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić that the lead now completely fails NPOV. However, I disagree that uniting Arabia is his primary achievement. To my mind, the founding of Islam has had a major impact on the world over the last 1500 years. It's difficult to see how that can be surpassed. The uniting of Arabia lasted only a generation. When the centre of the Muslim world moved to Damascus, (then Baghdad) Arabia soon became peripheral and slipped back to the traditional patchwork of conflicting tribal territories albeit still nominally remaining within the caliphate. A generation after Muhammad, Arabia could not be described as "united". How can such a passing achievement compare to the founding of Islam?

In September I made this bold edit which lasted a month until is was changed to the current version last week. To my mind, my edit is a reasonable compromise which maintains NPOV, gives due prominence to his most notable achievement whilst at the same time being informative as to the muslim point of view (...if I say so myself!) Before I made that edit, the opening of the lead effectively read "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." which is frankly pitiful (see above thread Talk:Muhammad#Opening paragraph). DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No "reliable citation representative of all non-Muslims" is given to support the claim of Decausa that Prophet Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam. The views of non-Muslims are variable.--Ciphers00 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article has a cited reliable source for that statement. Also, it's not my "claim". That statement and the cited source was reviewed by editors and included in the article several years ago. I don't believe that I was even one of the editors that participated in the discussion at that time (although I could be wrong about that). I've also reverted you: you reverted because you said the "my" version didn't have consensus. Read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The "current" version is deemed to have consensus support and any change needs to show consensus support. It's the version of 22 October that needs to show consensus support not the prior version. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The source of your statement is, first of all, void of any citation or reference. This lowers its reliability per WP:RS. Secondly, it can't be described as representative of all non-Muslim views since its author didn't make any citations or references to prove her claims.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, your newly introduced version of the lead is very bad and inappropriate. There is obviously no consensus support for it.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The variable non-Muslim views (whatever they are) should not be given a weight greater than the Muslim ones.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confused. The source has been reviewed already and consensus accepts it as reliable. It's been cited innthe article for several years. The "newly introduced version" isn't a newly introduced version. The version you prefer is the newly introduced version. As already explained to you, unless there is consensus to change, the previous version remains. There is no consensus to change. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not confused. Your version of the lede is still relatively new, and there is no obvious consensus support for it here on the talk page. Since multiple editors have shown their disapproval of it, it can't be considered as a consensus version. This is point one: your version is not a consensus version.
Point 2: you said that ["The source has been reviewed already and consensus accepts it as reliable"]. Can you add a reference to a thorough discussion or a RFC which resulted in what you are claiming to be a consensus that "the source in question" is reliable.
Point 3: The source of your statement is, as I said above, void of any citation or reference; which means that it doesn't fit the criteria for reliable secondary sources. You need to find a "comparative study" of "the religious views of non-Muslims" which was closed with the conclusion that the general view of non-Muslims revolve around considering the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. This comparative study should have been carried out by "reliable scholar" and should be based on citations and references instead of personal opinions.
Point 4: I want you to explain the reasons or the motivations behind changing the lede the way you did. In particular, I want you to explain why you think that the lede should be started with the sentence: "is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" instead of the sentence: "considered by Muslims to have been the last prophet".--Ciphers00 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: it's not new, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and the 'Opening paragraph' thread on this page. Point 2: It's been discussed muotiple times in mulgiple threads. The source has been innthe article at least three years. Beyond that, you'll have to do your own research. Point 3. It's not a serious proposition that non-Muslims generaly do not regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. I'm nog going to debate whether the sky is blue. Point 4: The muslim view is a religious view and a matter of faith. Per WP:NPOV, it's more appropraite for the preponderant neutral secular view to come first.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For 1st point: The 'Opening paragraph' thread, 'Founder of Islam?' thread, 'Lede changes 22/10/15' thread show quite the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You couldn't achieve consensus in any of these threads and at least five more editors disapproved your changes. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says that reaching consensus occurs either through discussion or through editing. You didn't achieve consensus through discussion as shown in the above threads and you didn't achieve consensus through editing since your edits were changed by both Freeatlastchitchat and me.
For 2nd point: You didn't cite any previous discussion concerning the reliability of the source in question! unless you add a reference to such a discussion, I will consider that there hasn't been such a discussion at all. "[The source has been innthe article at least three years]" is not a good argument since you yourself have already changed a lede which has been in the article for such a long time and said that it wasn't nonsense.
For 3rd point: bring a "reliable secondary source" to attest your statement. As far as I know, many non-Muslims don't consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam.
For 4th point: Your neutrality is fake. If you are promoting secularism, then why don't you say that Jesus was a son of adultery (secular people are not supposed to believe in virgin births). The issue here is that you are promoting your personal religious views, not neutrality. (note: I won't respond again to this person. Discussion with him is a waste of time).--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ciphers00, you need to read WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. And you're perfectly free not to discuss with people here, and that means that you leave the article. You have no right to decide with whom you interact at article talk pagess, and you have no right to edit by ignoring talk pages but you can of course pick which articles you don't edit. For the factual matter, there seems to be no support for your version while both FreeatlastChitchat and I have, broadly speaking, supported DeCausa's version. Jeppiz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't want to discuss with people here! What I said is that I am not going to respond to "User:Decausa" again. Why would I waste my time in a discussion with an WP:IDHT editor who is showing bias towards a non-Muslim view instead of being neutral ! he went further astray when he called his personal un-Muslim view "[the preponderant neutral secular view]".
Concerning your comment Jeppiz, you need to consider that none of the versions is mine. You said that ["there seems to be no support for your version"] in spite of the fact that none of the versions is mine. That version was Freeatalastchitchat's version not my version.--Ciphers00 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

'Such a Huge deal about a simple change of wording'. I would like to withdraw my change and if any admin can hide that portion of history I'd be very happy. I never intended to contend my change, I just wanted the opinion of other editors about changing the lede, simple as that, and I never said that DeCausa's version was wrong, I just moved his text around a little. Seeing that an edit war is not far away, I'd like to withdraw my changes. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite a discussion. As there are so many arguments about consensus, let me just add that I support DeCausa's version, which seem well-sourced and satisfied WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdoadawy92 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abdoadawy92: So? Images of most ancient historical figures weren't painted by the subjects themselves, or even painted while they were alive. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone making this complaint at the Jesus article where all the image would be forgeries by this definition.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede question

I am trying to tighten up the lead paragraphs with wording, syntax and everything. Is there a reason we mention that he was orphaned and raised by his uncle in the lede? I know this happened but I don't think those would necessarily be lede worthy in my view. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually need to expand that. I don't know if we should be mentioning the merchant part either. Our first paragraph gives scope and clarity about him but this one seems to go in the opposite direction. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a rewrite I am working on if people would weigh in "Born approximately 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] Muhammad was orphaned, then raised under the care of his paternal uncle. Periodically he would retreat to a mountain cave for several nights of seclusion and prayer. At age 40, he reported at this spot,[8][11] that he received his first revelation from God through Gabriel. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to him is the only way (dīn)[n 4] acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to the other prophets in Islam."

Ok les chopping than I thought but I think this does better than drowning in details. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking of removing this from the lede "While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable.[14][18] Other appraisals of Muhammad throughout history, such as those found in medieval China, have also been positive." as criticisms are a subsection under legacy, so I think that would effectively make it undue. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good so far,,, ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm... if you are going to take a chunk out of this article, use an edit summary. I nearly reverted this as vandalism. Resolute 04:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My fault. I didn't realize that was quite that large. I will try to remember them in the future. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's looking better. The lead is in the best shape it's ever been at this point. Hope it sticks and doesn't get messed around again. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

More clean up and questions

I think the first paragraph in early childhood needs a bit of a rewrite. I propose "Muhammad was born about the year 570[8] and his birthday is believed to be in the month of Rabi' al-awwal.[44] He belonged to the Banu Hashim clan, part of the Quraysh tribe, and was one of Mecca's prominent families; although it appears the clan was less prosperous during Muhammad's early lifetime.[14][45] Tradition places the year of Muhammad's birth as corresponding with the Year of the Elephant, which is named after the failed destruction of Mecca by the Aksumite king Abraha who supplemented his army with elephants. Alternatively some 20th century scholars have suggested different years, such as 568 or 569.[47]". Thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Bunching" of citations

User:Antrangelos has gone through the article removing the inline citations and bunching them at the end of each paragraph. I think this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and destroys the linkage bettween the citation and the statement it is supporting. I have therefore reverted here. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa If the material isn't contentious, and I'm sure the facts of the life of the individual under consideration are ascertained with some finality, why would it be necessary to have numbers within the body of the text? The numbers are confusing for a person, if they would like to freely read the material without the distraction of numbers. If a person needs to know the source of the material they might still go to >View History, where they would be able to re-locate the original relationship prior to bunching. Otherwise, considering the nature of the subject, it seems more likely the facts of the situation are more trustworthy in any case, so why would some-one need to fear losing the text-source direct connection, I'm sure people are less likely to want to distort the information unwittingly or otherwise, from source to copy within the article, why would someone need to know for certain the information upon Wikipedia matches or corresponds to the source, that they need to find the source immediately? Anyone might just go through each reference to find the source again, is that such a problem? What is the hurry for anyone who needs to find the source to any given sentence of fact? Antrangelos (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem: WP:INTEGRITY. It makes it imposssible to tell which citation is supporting which statement and, even, misleads into appearing all citations support the entirety of the paragraph. You are doing something which is contrary to how the vast majority of articles are set up and how most experienced editors edit, and is just wrong. I suggest you don't do it again. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article isn't improved by introducing ambiguity by bunching the citations together. You don't know what will be contentious to any individual user, and we shouldn't make researchers hunt through the article history to figure out what citation belongs on which sentence. The relationship of citations to content should be clear and unambiguous. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Historicity

Hi, I just came from the Jesus wiki, and I saw that the info is divided in a 'Gospels Accounts' section, and a 'Historical Views' section. There is also a seperate wiki about the Historical Jesus,

This Mohammed wiki, however, seems to only convey the story of Mohammed according to the (mainstream?) Muslim tradition and sources.

Given the fact that there is also an (academic) debate about the veracity of these "Islamic scriptures Accounts", I wondered if a 'Historical Views' section could be an useful addition in the interest of informing readers as fully as possible. At the very least, a clear link to the wiki about the historicity of Mohammed would be a worthy addition to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

May his holy Noodleness keep your pastasauce spicy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.51.227 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's covered in the Sources section where there is clear link tk the Historicity article. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

The Messenger of ALLAAH MUHAMMAD (SAAW) is not generally regarded to be the founder of Islaam. Please remove this sentence from the article because it is false and a "wicked lie". Muslims don't consider The Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD to be the founder of Islam. The sourcebook given doesn't say what this sentence is saying. The sourcebook says something different from what this sentence is saying. Add to this that the sourcebook reflects the personal opinion of the author only and is not true. 190.178.35.137 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede again, alas

Could we open in a slightly different way, partly borrowed from another article? At present, this article leaps straight into controversy in the very first clause and the qualification "generally regarded as" doesn't really weaken the "founder of Islam" statement. "Generally regarded" has connotations of "regarded by all but a fringe minority" or of a matter of taste (Wikipedia examples here), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. Even a small change might help, for example (links, Arabic, translations etc omitted)

Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. Non-believers generally regard him as the founder of Islam, but Muslims almost universally consider him to have been the last prophet of Islam, sent...

or

Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ...

NebY (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"central figure of Islam" seems a little bland and not terribly informative. What about, "Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is seen by most non-believers as its founder, but by almost all Muslims as its last prophet..." DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is better - I was quietly fretting about the blandness of "central figure". NebY (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If Prophet Muhammad was not the "founder of Islam", why is the entire article on Islam about his teachings? The lede of the article Islam puts it rightly, that Muslims consider Islam to be "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." This is not the same thing as being "sent by God to mankind to restore Islam" as it is claimed in the lede.--Peaceworld 21:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think there's a difference between the two. As far as "founder" is concerned, if it is a primordial faith (i.e since the beginning of creation) revealed, inter alia, Moses (possibly 2nd millenium b.c) and Jesus (1st century a.d.) how does someone in the 6th century found it? DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Peaceworld111's reasoning above would seem to be in tune with Ahmadi thinking. Different readers may include the Ahmadis among "most non-believers" or among the remainder of "almost all Muslims". NebY (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: If Islam is "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith" then Islam is not the primordial faith. I hope this explains it succinctly.--Peaceworld 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly not a mainstream Muslim view, in which all the Prophets and messengers in Islam preached Islam and not some other "version" of the "primordial faith". DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

Please change Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] is generally regarded to be the founder of Islam to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the final messenger and prophet of Islam. Muslims believe that Islam is a faith that has always existed and that it was gradually revealed to humanity by a number of prophets, but the final and complete revelation of the faith was made through the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE.

References

86.98.137.229 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the Muslim Wikipedia (nor the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever Wikipedia) so we don't change articles based on religious beliefs. Jeppiz (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Party responsible for fighting/conflict and Muslim converts

There is unsourced POV text in the article which seems to put the responsibility for fighting or conflict with Meccan tribes on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) which is far from truth. Although NebY's edit tones it down and i would prefer it over the previous text but it still puts the responsibility on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and it is unsourced to begin-with. All three battles were fought because of Meccan tribes starting an advance towards State of Medina forcing Muslims to come out of Medina and meet Meccan tribes midway for a battle so they were more on a defending side than a responsible party. Also, i think it's better to call followers of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), "Muslims" instead of "Muslim converts" especially when there is no source to support that. This needs to be corrected or removed completely since there is no source. Sheriff (report) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be sourced in the lead as it is a summary of the body text that exists lower on the page. I think it is a fair summary, and fully endorse the intermittent conflict change since it describes it best in the most neutral wording. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Putting the phrase "war was imposed on him" in the lead is unsourced, untrue and actually sounds fairly ridiculous. Nothing was "imposed on him": there was an ongoing conflict which either side initiated at various times. This is sourced in the body of the article e.g. "Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca.[104][105][106] Muhammad delivered Quranic verses permitting Muslims to fight the Meccans (see sura Al-Hajj, Quran 22:39–40).[107] These attacks allowed the migrants to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards the ultimate goal of conquering Mecca.[108][109]" and "In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the caravan at Badr.[111]" to give just two examples. In fact, the current wording of the lead gives no indication as to who initiated the conflict. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All of these sources (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111) cannot be verified for their content. Sheriff (report) 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

105 I verified through Google books in about 30 seconds. These are well known books and I believe all of them are freely available with a quick search. If there is a specific portion of the text you do not believe is supported please state it so a discussion can start. Simply saying that sources can't be verified when it is exceedingly easy to do so is not going to get people to agree with you. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think they are easily accessible then you need to make them easily accessible from within the article and you need to include the page numbers where the text is which supports the content in the article, ONUS to provide proper and accessible sources is on the party which is trying to include something controversial in the article. Sheriff (report) 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I clicked on the reference, went down to the reference list to retrieve the name and typed it into google. None of those actions are difficult to accomplish. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sherrif, there is no obligation to make them "accessible" they just need to exist. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. They just need to be published and reliable per WP:SOURCE. They can be offline. But, in this case, as Tivanir2 points out, they are easily accessible online - page numbers and all. We can't cater for your particular and inexplicable inability to access them when everyone else can. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to fully agree with Mr. Sheriff here on the point that the conflict between the Prophet Muhammad {peace and blessings of God be upon him} and the Meccan idolaters were imposed on the Prophet. Quran 2:216 says "Fighting has been enjoyed upon you while it is hateful to you..." & Quran 22:39 says "Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought , because they were wronged...". I have also to point out for Miss DeCausa here that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. This is why we can't trust whatever you tell us about a source if it is not accessible and checkable by the others. You have already misquoted the Quran. Why should we not assume that you have misquoted the sources! The Prophet Muhammad didn't attack a Meccan caravan before the Great battle of Badr except in the cause of restoring the wealth that Muslims had lost during the Noble Immigration. Then the Great battle of Badr itself was imposed on him when the Meccans wanted to attack Medina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.44 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well dear IP, whether you like the policies or not is, frankly speaking, irrelevant. A source does not have to be online, and that is that. I would also encourage you to read WP:AGF. Jeppiz (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

All I must say to your wall of text is where are the reliable sources? You are approaching the subject from an impassioned and dogmatic view. As I already demonstrated the sources are easy to verify with very little leg work. I suggest a review of both Wp:NPOV and Wp:TRUTH policies. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Request new style for the view of picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Humanidk again --NeilN talk to me 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I request to made a new style where pictures can either be show or hide. Recently, I am making some progress about this. What do you guys think? P.S, I force alt-f4 earlier when i look at those pictures. Too bad for me, I have now seen the picture and may still in my mind. We usually don't look at the picture of prophet. Not kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserve notbe block (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I am not sure how people got consensus to include them to begin-with. I am asking for a new consensus. Let's start a discussion. You cannot include something which completely offends the other party. We need to strike the balance. Sheriff (report) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) This discussion should be conducted on the Muhammad images Talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) To the original poster, you can setup your browser not to automatically display pictures and it is written up in the FAQ though it is a little difficult to follow. As for a "new consensus" if you can figure out a new argument that doesn't hinge on offense by all means bring it up. I would however suggest you should look at both the archives and previous RFC. If you don't have a rational that is already covered in there it is likely this will just be a rehashing of years past. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC) These drawings don't have any encyclopedic or artistic value and are certainly irrelevant to the historical person of the Prophet Muhammad. Why then were they put in the article? I will tell you. "To offend Muslims" only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.44 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC) They do have encyclopedic and artistic value, therefore they are relevant. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC) By your argument that means every single article before the invention of the photograph should have no images because they have the potential of not showing a the true characteristics of the subject. If we included things like Dantes' Inferno, like it used to, I could understand the comment of being purposefully antagonistic. Every image in this article shows a historic event. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC) @Alexis Ivanov, No, they don't. Please clarify their relevancy. @Tivanir2, I think you go so far. What (talk) means is that is neutrality of the picture that the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. Putting pictures to offend Muslims should not be supported in here. I have support to delete the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserve notbe block (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov and Tivanir2: How does a fake depiction of Gabriel delivering verses to a fake depiction of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) adds encyclopedic value while article details in words that when and where were verses delivered. Human mind is well developed to portray how they might have been delivered and same is true regarding other depictions. They do not add any encyclopedic value beyond the information present in the article. Sheriff (report) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I understand where you coming at, but there is no photograph hence everything artistic depiction is technically fake. They have encyclopedia and artistic value because it is how people viewed it, whether right or wrong, that painting of Gabriel was from the Ilkhanate period. Hundreds of years later. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One more question, do we have sources to confirm that these depictions are as they are described like for example "painting of Gabriel" is from "Ilkhanate period" and it is "from the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani" as i do not see any sources which confirm this. Same for other such depictions. Sheriff (report) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see if the archives or commons has the information but I do know they are pulled from manuscripts that are quite old. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Jami' al-tawarikh with numerous links. AstroLynx (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

These drawings are WP:UNDUE in an article about the Prophet Muhammad. Given that the Prophet is the central figure in Islam; in which these drawings don't have any due weight at all, putting them in an article about him is a sign of bad faith or incompetence. They have due weight only in articles related to the persons who drew them.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Muhammad is a central figure in Islam does not confine this article about a historical figure to Islamic thought. As a rule, we use depictions of historical figures wherever available, and Muhammad is no different in that regard. Resolute 17:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures (images technically) that depict the subject aren't undue. If we were trying to show random everybody draw Muhammad day cartoons, those would be undue. Even the Dantes Inferno picture was removed for being needlessly offensive since it didn't add anything to this article. Is there a policy based argument for removal of these images? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of the Throne Verse

What is the Throne Verse doing under Muhammad#Establishment of a new polity? It seems awkwardly placed at best, perhaps even irrelevant to the article. Delete maybe? - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important for context but I think it is a little wordy. When I get to that section I will see what can be reduced without losing context or readability. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually checking it again I would agree that it is unnecessary in that spot and adds little to nothing. Anyone have a suggestion for a better section? Tivanir2 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You might as well delete it, the verse is about God's power, maybe switch it with the verse in which God orders Muhammad to fight in 22:39-40, this the earliest verses to command Muhammad to fight. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Decided to boldly go ahead and remove it but it looks a bit weird. Would it help if we moved one of the next sections pictures up to compensate? Or maybe get a different picture for that area. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea on removing it. But I'm not sure on getting picture from different area. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: Sometimes a suitable image simply does not exist. Not everything needs an image, especially not if it is for merely decorative purposes. It looks fine to me now on my 1024x768 pixel tablet; maybe it's your screen resolution? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I was on my phone at the time editing so it is likely that it was my screen. As long as it is not starting to look like a massive wall of text without breaks it's fine. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Aisha "reaching age of puberty"

@Eperoton: you recently undid my edits claiming WP:OR. There is no Original Research there. NONE of the citations mention the word "puberty" or that Aisha menstruated. The ahadeeth say the opposite: that she was playing with dolls, which meant she was pre-pubescent. If you or anyone can find a contemporary citation or a passage that mentions Aisha reached puberty as stated in the article, then it should stay. But if you can't, then we need to delete the word.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How does playing with dolls confirm that someone is pre-pubescent? Sheriff (report) 14:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Your edit description suggested that it was based on your interpretation of primary sources, which runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY and falls under WP:OR. There are five non-primary sources cited for this statement. I haven't checked them myself, but, according to my understanding of the policies, removing the phrase would require either verifying that the non-primary sources don't support it or disqualifying them as WP:RS. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Then are we to take it you simply reverted out of principle and not out of knowledge of the facts? Let me clarify; the relevant sources (namely the ahadeeth in source 232 and the Encyclopedia of Islam WILL corroborate that Aisha was 9 or 10. I am familiar with both sources (and they are easily verifiable since the online links are added as well). What they do NOT say ANYWHERE is that she reached puberty. Not once. Once again: they DO support her being 9 or 10, but do NOT support the word puberty ANYWHERE.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente:there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty. Would you like em to link them or will chapter numbers and tradition numbers suffice? Be kind enough to reply as looking up these hadith on the net might be kinda hassle-ish and take me a couple of hours, however if you have the primary sources with you I can just give you the chapter and "hadith" number. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

you don't have to cite a huncred ahadeeth (FYI...hadith is singular, ahadeeth is plural) just one that has the word "puberty" in it will do. I use http://sunnah.com/ Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: According to Tabqat ibn-e-saad volume 8 Page 54, she was born during the fourth year of "prophethood" and according to Zurqani volume one page 374, volume 3 page 230; Allamah aini Sharah bukhari volume one Page 45 and Alkhamis Volume one Page 403 (who quotes Muwahim ludniyyah, Tarikh Yafee and Usud-Al-Ghabah), the marriage was consummated at the end of fourth year of Hijra and according to these sources she was 12 at that time. Now it up to you to show me where in the entire world it is the norm that 12 year old girls DO NOT reach puberty. Perhaps a quick look at the Puberty article will let you cool your jets. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No...her age is not in dispute. I will not play that game with you since I already stated that clearly above. You said there are "like a hundred of "hadith" (sp) that say she reached puberty". I'm waiting for ONE. Not her age (the ahadeeth do not agree on her age...we know that)...one more time: puberty. Since there are "like a hundred" you shouldn't have any problem.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I think you are taking FreeatlastChitchat's words out of context, saying that hundreds of ahadith confirm that Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا) reached puberty before her marriage does not mean that there are hundreds of ahadith which has the word "puberty" in them as it can be confirmed indirectly by just referring to a person's age. To describe that someone reached puberty, you do not need a source with the word "puberty" in it, a source can confirm puberty by other ways such as age. So if there are sources describing Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age as 12 years at the time of marriage then it confirms her puberty and you should not insist on sources with the word "puberty" in them. Sheriff (report) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The age Aisha reached puberty is irrelevant. This is a biography of Muhammad, not Aisha. Furthermore, the primary-source interpretations of Wikipedia editors are also irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So let's completely remove the irrelevant information, let's remove any reference to her not reaching puberty or reaching puberty. Sheriff (report) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: When someone says that a person is 12 they are saying that she has reached puberty. I am pretty sure that is the norm in the world. So putting in puberty is not much of a problem because it is the norm. But feel free to provide any hadith which says she "did not" reach puberty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: OK. See above. Like I said, you will not find any references saying Aisha reached puberty. Can we close this or do you have any further objections?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: These secondary reliable sources agree that she had reached puberty. 1, 2, 3, 4. So your Original Research is kinda not welcome. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I'm not going to discuss primary sources here, because we can't base our edits on them per WP:PRIMARY. If you have reason to believe that the wording doesn't reflect the non-primary sources and you can't verify them yourself, you should see if others here can. I can confirm that Armstrong's book does support the statement (how reliable she is on these matters is a different question). Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand you don't find it welcome because I just exposed a falsehood. You said there are "like a hundred hadith(sp) that say she reached puberty". And now you know there are none. Your "secondary sources" are op-eds by apologists. None are contemporary sources and you know this. @Eperoton:under your logic I can write a book saying anything I want and it will qualify as a "secondary source". I can see we are not going to reach consensus so we'll take this to arbitration. I don't think there will be any difficulty settling it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: If you write a book that meets the criteria of WP:RS, by all means. You're not following the law of the land. If you want to dispute a sourced statement, you should either do one of the things I mentioned above or find a non-primary source that supports it and highlight a scholarly controversy. As for arbitration, I think you'll want to consult WP:DR first. Eperoton (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm absolutely following the rules of Wikipedia if that's what you mean. I do not suffer apologists reinventing history. I can cite any number of anti-muslim cites that state Aisha was in fact pre-pubescent, and they would be just as reliable as your apologist cites mentioned above for "secondary sources". Neither are scholarly or of any benefit to discussion. If you are honest you know the Sahih hadeeth and Tafseer are the only source of reliable narration to Mohammed's life, although in this case they don't support your view/reality. So, I've taken this matter to arbitration.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Where it will be probably rejected as 1) This discussion is barely a day old and 2) You haven't followed the DRN instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:How did I not follow DRN instructions? and where is there a prohibition against putting a dispute resolution request on the DRN that is less than a day old?Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: "Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page?" In barely 24 hours? Not really. And you're supposed to list and notify each participant in the dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Which "Relaible, Secondary Sources" can you provide that say she had not reached puberty?. Do keep in mind biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is a single source reporting puberty it is likely to be undue. We can just remove the portion about puberty entirely, and call it a day so it is labeled neither pre pubescent or having reached puberty. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I see that user:FreeatlastChitchat has already provided 4 secondary sources to prove the notion that Mrs. Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad. In response to user:Trinacrialucente, I would like to add also the following citation from a primary source: specifically stating that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. Here it is:

Original text: قَالَ الدَّاوُدِيُّ وكانت عائشة قد شبت شباباً حسناً رضي الله عنها
English translation: Narrated Imam Dawudi: and Aisha - God bless her - then had physically matured well indeed’.

— Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207: citing Imam Dawudi in the context about the age of Mrs. Ayesha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet.

I hope that was a good lesson for user:Trinacrialucente.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: Our problem here is that we're speculating about some of the secondary sources, which are offline. WP:GOODFAITH enjoins us to default to the assumption that the sourcing was and remains correct unless we have solid evidence to the contrary (at this point, I don't think we do, except about Watt/IE, per Trinacrialucente), including with respect to WP:UNDUE. The right approach would be to do a solid review of secondary literature, and if both positions have reasonable acceptance among authors of WP:RS, take out the puberty phrase out of the sentence, and add a sentence like "Some scholars believe that X, while others Y", possibly indicating their reasoning, if it's clear from the source. Is anyone up to this challenge? Eperoton (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I can provide you scanned pages of Watt and IE(My edition is 2013, not the latest but I am sure they do not remove things like this on whim). Also I can upload scanned pages of the secondary sources I quoted because they are very old and no copyrights problem. I would like to ask, however, what proof does Trinacrialucente have for Watt not having this sentence? Can he upload relevant pages from watt which show that this phrase is missing? Assuming bad faith must have some root, did he read the book and find the phrase missing or is this just his own personal pov? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention Watt; I mentioned the ahadeeth and the Encyclopedia of Islam, since they are theoretically primary sources. You yourself stated very clearly above "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." I was very generous with you and said you only needed to cite one...which you still have not. If we are going to revert to secondary sources, once again...I can provide sources which are arguable just as reliable as Watt. How do you feel about Robert Spencer?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages. Secondly As per wiki policies, biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Which means that Robert Spencer writes hate literature therefore we do not take his words as "facts" rather we take them as "his opinion on Islam". So no Herr Spencer is not allowed here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to get consensus that Robert Spencer writes "hate literature". How about Daniel Pipes? Or Brigitte Gabriel? Could I use either of them as "secondary sources"? And I'm still waiting for your one hadith source, since you said "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." Are you still having trouble finding one?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I think you did not bother to read my first reply, I will copy paste it here for your eyes only , as all other editors already know that removing/changing long standing consensus needs to have some rationale So here goes, I'll bold it up for ya this time, so its easy on the eyes. First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I missed your question since I was waiting for you to answer whether or not you were able to find a single hadith passage that says what you claimed (since you say there are like a hundred, it shouldn't have been difficult). And absolutely I am familiar with the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I did not know "Watt" because he is not one of the principle authors) http://library.ut.ac.ir/documents/381543/3581025/Brill_-_The_Encyclopaedia_of_Islam_Vol_9_San-Sze_.pdf. If the claim is if in the section about Aisha that it mentions her being pubescent or contains the word "puberty" the answer is absolutely no. I have read it and it says nothing of the sort. Just like I have read Sahih Muslim and Bukhari...and none of them say this either. So yes...go ahead and scan the passage on Aisha (it's in the 2nd volume). We'll wait.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To determine if something is of use we would need consensus either as a group or on the RS noticeboard. I honestly don't know if any of the above would qualify at this time as a RS but we can always pose the question if people want to quote them. Strike that. Apparently the publisher is to say the least problematic so that would probably make it a no go right there. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you being so level-headed in this discussion. I for one would accept the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I stated as much among my first posts) as well as any hadith source. I'm familiar with the EI and it is very conservative and "old school" (i.e. even the newer additions do not attempt to insert new "faddish" ideas). I'm not sure what the publisher has to do with it, as it was originally published by a University in the Netherlands if I am not mistaken. And as I mentioned, the editor in question will not find what he is looking for. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice: user:Trinacrialucente requested to provide him/her with a quotation from a primary source specifically asserting that Mrs. Ayeshah was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage, and I have just provided him/her with that quotation he/she was looking for. In addition, user:FreeatlastChitchat gave 4 secondary sources available online in the English language saying the same (i.e that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage). Given that the request of user:Trinacrialucente was to "provide a quotation from a Muslim primary source", and that I have just answered his request, I can broadly say that the dispute of this discussion has been resolved. Any additional efforts to push the false claim that Ayesha wasn't adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet can only be read as a sign of bad faith or incompetence. @Trinacrialucente: Have you read the quotation that I provided above in my previous post here or are you just not willing to read it?!--5.107.112.147 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to just go ahead and remove the puberty, pre pubescent reference entirely. It doesn't add anything to this article and is causing significant issues. This is the easiest way to resolve this issue.

Whatever else one might say, I don't think one can seriously claim that the puberty phrase is irrelevant or doesn't add anything to the article. This has been a lynchpin of anti-Islam polemics, based on the assumptions that modern readers have about nubile age, and it's no coincidence that one sees explicit discussions of it in writers who seek to assess moral character of Muhammad, like Armstrong and Spenser. It's very much relevant to that latter topic. If someone is in a position and willing to look up the other secondary sources, highlighting the controversy would be the best approach (perhaps with a side discussion of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE issues). As a lazy-man's compromise, one could change "Traditional sources dictate" (which is unidiomatic anyway) to "According to the traditional view" (indicating the traditional reading of the sources), but frankly I doubt this would be accepted by all. Eperoton (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: how can you be so obtuse?! didn't you read the quotation in my previous post?! If somebody is going to rely on the books of hadith to determine how old Mrs. Ayesha was at the time of her marriage, then he or she should not ignore that according to the scholars of hadiths themselves, Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. The quotation above from the book of Imam Nawawi is very clear on that point.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again comment on content not on contributer. I read it but simply put whether Aisha was pre pubescent or had reached puberty is irrelevant in this article. Full stop. This is an article on Muhammad and while she is his wife this information would be best presented at the Aisha article. I have no issues with whatever consensus occurs, it is just not relevant and contentious on an article that isn't about the individual it pertains too. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention of age is irrelevant and controversial and Trinacrialucente accepts that "You cannot dispute something that disputes itself." then why include something disputed which disputes itself? Sheriff (report) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I suggest that whole paragraph with the mention of puberty and Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age should be removed. This information is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned in this detail. This article is about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and not about Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). I went ahead and boldly removed it but was reverted by NeilN. What do you guys say about removing that paragraph in its entirety? Sheriff (report) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The age of Aisha at the time of marriage is oft-discussed in biographies of Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason as NeilN and also because the article on Aisha doesn't include a thorough discussion of the point under dispute here. Eperoton (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL...no one is disputing the age of Aisha at marriage since no one can legitimately prove or disprove her age, given the ahadeeth mention 3 different ages. You cannot dispute something that disputes itself. What IS in dispute (for the "nth" time, not sure why it even begs repeating since it's RIGHT here in the subject title) is her reaching puberty upon marriage as the article currently states. There is NO primary source (including the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which I am willing to accept as a primary source) which states anything about her reaching puberty, DESPITE the mischaracterization of the citations.Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why include something disputed which disputes itself? Sheriff (report) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I'm honestly baffled why you don't want to open WP:PRIMARY and see the Wikipedia definition of primary source. The EI is a tertiary source. Eperoton (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand it can be considered a tertiary source (although arguably it could be considered a secondary source since it is directly quoting the Qur'an and ahadeeth). Regardless, I was stating I am willing to accept it in this discussion were it to say Aisha reached puberty. So far the other poster claimed there were "like a hundred hadith(sp)" that say she reached puberty. Then he said the Watt citation in the EI said it (which it does not). I'm just waiting for ANY citation from either source. Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the other poster. You have confirmed that one cited source doesn't support the phrase. We have also confirmed that Armstrong's book does, although its status as WP:RS is debatable, as the archive of RS noticeboard confirms. That still leaves three cited secondary sources to be either verified or disqualified as RS. The policy does not allow us to change statements with cited secondary sources based on our interpretation of primary sources. Trust me, I've been tempted to do it myself elsewhere, including a case where an EI author clearly misread an Arabic text, and this bit of nonsense spread into other books. But it's the law of the land. Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, once again, the EI is not a blanked "tertiary source" simply because it has the word "encyclopaedia" in it and "thus sayeth wikipedia". As the EI quotes directly from the Qur'an, Tafseer, Ahadeeth etc, it can arguably be counted as a secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source . And I have confirmed TWO (not one, but TWO) cited sources do not support the phrase (NONE the cited ahadeeth NOR the "Watt" citation of the EI mention the word "puberty"/pubescent/menstrual etc). The other poster said he was going to scan his copy that he claims DOES mention it (and if it does it will be the only copy in existence) but so far all we see is a bunch of double-talk and then crickets chirping. I don't know how many times we have to restate this; none of the original sources will cite Aisha having reached the age of puberty. We can speculate whether or not she reached puberty based on her age (which we have established cannot be 100% verified either given the contradicting ahadeeth) and other descriptions, which is exactly what MANY secondary sources do. So, if you or anyone else wants to keep the word "puberty" in that description you are opening yourself up to any number of secondary sources which argue she did NOT reach the age of puberty. Then we get to argue over which secondary sources are acceptable (yet another endless topic which will never be resolved/reach consensus). Does this spell it out for you yet? Would you rather have it stated very specifically in the article "some historians/authors speculate Aisha had not reached puberty by the time Mohammed took her into his house."? At this point I am seriously fine either way and can add at least 5 sources (again arguable as reliable/unreliable as your secondary apologist sources there now). Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like I've said repeatedly, I think discussing opposing scholarly views on this point is the right way to go (and, yes, there will probably be some debate about RS). There is already some discussion of this kind in the footnotes, and this article needs much more of it. No competent modern historian would base a biography of Muhammad on a mechanical reading of the hadith literature, so the general Wikipedia policy against trying to interpret primary sources directly is especially well justified here. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "mechanical reading". But if you are implying there are/will be differing views on hadith interpretation then that falls into the "obvious" category, since this has been the case long before wikipedia came along.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "obvious" in the hadith as far as history goes. Many historians reject them altogether as unreliable and work only with the sira and maghazi. Those who use them will carefully analyze whether they would have been interest to fabricate or distort the facts in the course of transmission, whether some things that weren't expressed explicitly would have been understood by contemporaries, and many other issues. That's what historians are paid to do and we shouldn't try it at home. P.S. I didn't use the word "obvious" in the same way as you, but I'll let this stand as a comment on mechanical reading. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose What a strange idea to just delete it. It's a always a prominent topic in any bios of the historical Muhammad. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not a strange idea. It's irrelevant to discuss Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age on the page about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), yes, we can mention Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم)'s age at the time of marriage to Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). That would be relevant. Sheriff (report) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've given a rationale for my position. You've just said "I don't like it". No one cares or has any interest whatsoever in whether you like it. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: And i was giving a rationale about why not to include it, there is nothing about like/dislike here. Sheriff (report) 13:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose not censored we are. Although I must agree that this paragraph is problematic. @Eperoton, DeCausa, User:NeilN Why don't we structure the paragraph like this "Sources disagree about the age of Hazrat Aisha(RA). According to sources she may have been six(REF), seven(REF), or nine(REF) when she was betrothed to Hazrat Muhammad (SAW). Sources also disagree about her age at the consummation of marriage, with reports ranging from ten(REF), eleven(REF), twelve(REF) to nineteen years (REF). The majority of modern scholarly sources agree that she had reached puberty either before her betrothal(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF) or before her marriage.(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF)" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but we do need REF REF REF. Eperoton (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton I'll wait for DeCausa and User:NeilN to give their input then edit my comment to include refs so that we can form a consensus. ok with you I hope. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that you are asking but i would agree with this format as well, if we can just include all disagreements on age but my preferred position would be to completely remove it. Sheriff (report) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

yeah...no. The "majority of modern sources do NOT "agree that she had reached puberty". Once again, you are making things up that are not there. You mention the word puberty, then you open yourself to the opposing view as well. This will not be a one-sided forum for apologists. Of course if you can cite just one of those "like a hundred hadeeth(sp) or scan that EI page from "Watt" that mentions it, then we can all go home. Or are you finally going to simply admit you are wrong?Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente you clearly seem to be unable to get a point therefore I will not interact with you. You have been presented like 10 Reliable sources which agree with puberty even EI and Watt say she was 12 and mature. Therefore my question has been directed towards editors who wish to form a consensus instead of editors who want to disrupt. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with FreeatlastChitchat, sources were presented to Trinacrialucente over and over again by different editors and were ignored by him. It's like a broken tape record now. Sheriff (report) 17:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

nope, everyone else save a few of your likeminded travelers got my point (doesn't mean they agree...but if you read through the comments, they definitely get it). I don't care if you interact with me or not. Doesn't make your voice/opinion any more valid or important.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Broadly, I think Freeatlast's proposal is ok subject to the following. (1) The REFS need to be filled in and they need to be secondary WP:RS that are not WP:UNDUE (2) of course, no "Hazrat", "RA" etc, (3) why is there even any mention of whether she reached puberty? It has no bearing. We're addressing a 21st century global readership not medieval theologians discussing angels dancing on a head of a pin. It's primitive and irrelevant - the only notable point is her age. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the issues of age and puberty go together, because their prominence is in large part due to the exploitation of modern assumptions about nubile age by anti-Islam polemics. Additional discussion is needed to put them in context. Here are some other bits I found: 1) "Little attention was paid[…] to the age difference between bride and groom.[…] Such marriages were common in the seventh century and, for that matter, in biblical times." [[3]] (from a general history that seems like RS); 2) "The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but had waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity." [[4]] (from a book by Jonathan Brown, who seems like a respected historian on the subject); 3) "Aisha did not consummate her marriage to Muhammad until after reaching puberty, which is when every girl in Arabia without exception became eligible for marriage." [[5]] (from an essay by Reza Aslan, who like Armstrong, is only borderline reliable, I think). I'm not sure if there's acceptance of the opposite view outside of polemical literature, but those are the only books I'm seeing it in so far. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what some people may say or write puberty is still irrelevent. The FAQ already talks about Muhammad's age at the time of marriage, as multiple times people would try to insert negative OR into the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. How is it that a little girl's age at consummation of marriage is relevant but her physical readiness for it is not? Unless someone shows that there's mainstream acceptance of the view that she hadn't reached puberty, I would suggest making the phrasing in the main text along the lines of Brown's #2 quote above and putting the debate about the age of consummation and other quotes from sources into a footnote, so we don't have to go through this again. Eperoton (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't even mention puberty status on Aishas' article. What would be the purpose of displaying information, that is not about the article's subject, that isn't even considered important enough to make the main article body? This is seriously a tempest in a teacup. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal This seems to be a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal. The paragraph is well-sourced and directly relevant to the subject. So a definite no to removing it, and a temporary no changing it, but the latter could be discussed and reevaluated after references are presented and discussed. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Including it is not relevant. Why aren't the ages of other wives included? It was a non-issue throughout most of history, however, Western orientalists and Islamophobes are utilizing it to propagate their anti-Islamic doctrines. It is entirely based on Western-normative concepts of morality and it neglects the praise and veneration that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ have had towards him. It is totally biased. Xtremedood (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Rationale and Discussion

Suggest some changes to the Non-Muslim views. In a nutshell, there's no description of contemporary Christian views of Islam, and no section on secular views at all. Both of these are

Currently there are some odd features: 1) Christian views only incorporate Historical christian views. Insofar as historical views are relevant so are contemporary views.

2) Christian views don't have any sort of summation or introductory sentence. Would suggest a general summarisation at the top that "Christians generally do not believe Muhammed was a genuine prophet; their assessments of his moral character differ with theological conservatives generally asserting that Muhammed had poor moral character, while liberals assert that he was genuine." or similar. I'd suggest subsuming the fellows in 3) as the citation for the second half of the sentence and perhaps some high profile case of a theological conservative as a link for the former. Franklin Graham is the most recent high profile one that springs to mind. (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.graham.muslims.who.kill.christians.are.emulating.muhammed/49817.htm)

3) Christian views appear to focus on academics with views that are highly unusual in a) Christianity or b) academia (and are not representative of their own body of works to boot). As the paragraph is the only one describing 20th century Christians it does a poor job of representing 20th century Christian thought.

William Montgomery Watt regarded the Koran as divinely inspired which is highly uncommon in Christianity. while Richard Bell made his name with his thesis that Muhammed took elements from Christianity. (http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=islam.) I can't find much out about Welch except that he is a retired professor and a secondary source listing him as a proponent of Bell and noting that this stance is rare. (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0661 )

As per 2), these do represent some liberal Christian strands of thought but are quite misleading when presented as the only modern Christian thought, as it implies an orthodoxy which doesn't exist.

4) Where are the secular views of Muhammed? They are entirely absent. This state of affairs simply shouldn't continue. A descriptive outline of the various takes on him would be useful. My impression is that the summary in 2) with the word "theological" swapped for "political" would be accurate. New Athesists are highly critical of Muhammed and the Koran. I recall some rather strident atheist critiques, and other liberal defences of him. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/christopher-hitchens-on-the-koran-mohammed-and-islam.66177/ 9 mins onward would, I suggest, be representative of New Atheist opinions on Muhammed.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems too much to get every modern view of Muhammad, maybe couple sentences on how he is viewed negatively or something. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a point in mentioning criticism of him in the article as anybody who believes in his prophet-hood cannot be critical of him and most people who do not believe in his prophet-hood has some kind of criticism of him in their mind. It's the universal truth, most people who are not Muslim has some kind of negative view about him otherwise there is nothing barring them to enter Islam. If you want to mention criticism, you can just simply add this sentence, "Most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and atheists etc. have been critical of him historically." and that should be good enough. Summed it up for you! Sheriff (report) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That's rather trite. It is entirely reasonable that a reader might want to know *why* many people don't like Muhammed when others revere him, even if you ren't interested. Agree that it shouldn't be too long as per Alexis's comment. By the same logic it would be spurious having criticisms of Jesus, or for that matter, most historical figures of any ideological importance.

A good overview article ought to summarise its main points succintly and provide a link to another article for detail. Agree there is no need for a lengthy exposition - maybe a compromise such as: "Most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and atheists do not believe that Muhammed was a genuine prophet. Many of them are critical of hs conduct, particularly vis-a-vis his motivations and conduct with regards to warfare and women." Which would be a fairly accurate and entirely succinct way of summarising it, with no implied judgement for or against said criticisms.

My criticism of this article, to summarise above more succinctly, is fivefold:

1. It's ludicrous to lump in historical figures such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Napoleon in any section entitled "Christian views on anything". Can we just agree on that right now? I mean, its Voltaire!
2. Secular views are missing entirely.
3. Christian views shouldn't be entitled historical Christian views, it should just be Christian views as modern views are as relevant as historical views.
4. The Christian views section as its written with only one nonrepresentative implies that the modern Christian view of Muhammed is basically positive when it shoud describe it as either split or basically negative with dissenting liberal views. This is caused by selective citation of some rather unusual academics who are not very credible as being representative of academia or Christians as a whole.
5. The criticism section is noninformative and fails to succinctly summarise the main criticisms of Muhammed, as per discussion above.

1. Does anyone disagree with the above criticisms, if so which?

SeanusAurelius (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that section is poorly organized. The content is basically: 1) medieval Christian views; 2) positive Western views; 3) views from other religions; 4) criticism of all kinds. The main cause of imbalance comes from the fact that all of these except #2 are treated in separate articles. So, #4 is represented by the lead from that article, which happens to be very brief. Eperoton (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Lengthy verbatim suggestion

very long post

Historical Christian views See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet.[276] Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[277] According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise.[15] Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.[15] In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal,[15] and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again."[15] Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad: Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).[278] However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".[279] After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way.[15][280] Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad.[15] Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker.[15] Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion".[15] Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as "[a] silent great soul; [...] one of those who cannot but be in earnest".[281] Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.[282]Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain. Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man."[283] Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[284] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[285][286] According to William Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers generally dismiss the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad "was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith"[287] and Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship for his cause, with what seemed to be no rational basis for hope, shows his sincerity.[288] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken his subconscious for divine revelation.[289] Watt and Bernard Lewis argue that viewing Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor makes it impossible to understand Islam's development.[290][291] Alford T. Welch holds that Muhammad was able to be so influential and successful because of his firm belief in his vocation.[15] Other religious views See also: Judaism's views on Muhammad Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.[292] Criticism Main article: Criticism of Muhammad Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his morality, warfare, and his marriages. CHANGE TO Christian views Christians generally do not consider Muhammad to have been a prophet. Historically, most Christian writers considered Muhammad as self-serving, violent or a deliberate spreader of a false revelation. In modern times some Christians, particularly theological liberals, have regarded Muhammed as genuine, usually but not universally while asserting that the Quran was not a revelation from God. [15][287][288][290][291] Many theological conservatives and apologists in contrast, consider Muhammed to have been violent and self-serving. [CITE: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.graham.muslims.who.kill.christians.are.emulating.muhammed/49817.htm; http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/index.html ] See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet.[276] Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[277] According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise.[15] Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.[15] In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal,[15] and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again."[15] Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad: Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).[278] However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".[279] After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way.[15][280] Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad.[15] Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker.[15] Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion".[15] Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as "[a] silent great soul; [...] one of those who cannot but be in earnest".[281] Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.[282]Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain. Secular views of Islam: Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man."[283] Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[284] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[285][286] New Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens consider the Quran to be a fabricated work and Muhammad of poor moral character [CITE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CADoG-gu5Zk] Other religious views Judaism's views on Muhammad Very few texts in Judaism refer to or take note of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad (Mukhammad). Some of them deny Muhammad's declaration of receiving divine revelations and call him a "false prophet", while other texts acknowledge him as being a true prophet sent by God. In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to claim that Muhammad was a ha-meshuggah ("the madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets. [CITE: Norman A. Stillman (1979). The Jews of Arab lands: a history and source book. Jewish Publication Society. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-8276-0198-7. Retrieved 26 December 2011.; Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism By Ibn Warraq Page 255; The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History page 21; Links as per "Judaism's views on Muhammad" page. Baha'i views Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.[292] Criticism Main article: Criticism of Muhammad Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his ownership of slaves, his treatment of prisoners, his torture and killing of Kenana ibn al-Rabi, his marriages (particularly of Aisha and Zaynab bint Jahsh), that he was a religious syncretist, his psychological and medical condition, and his warfare and methods therein.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Undo the last edit of Tivanir2. Obviously a bad-faith edit against the consensus of the discussion above.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) 5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to user:SheriffIsInTown for undoing it.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing that should actually be disputed

The thing that should actually be disputed is "the narration that Mrs. Ayesha married the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 9". The authenticity of this narration has been widely questioned by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike. This narration was mainly narrated by one person only (called Hisham ibn Urwah) and is inconsistent with other narrations found in the Muslim books of history and tradition.

Reasons for considering that narration unauthentic and unreliable:
Point 1. All Muslim scholars of history and tradition stated that Ayesha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years Before Hegira. Per WP:CALC, 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years Before Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration of the Prophet.
  

1. Original text: كَانَ لِأَسْمَاءَ يَوْمَ مَاتَتْ مِائَةُ سَنَةٍ وُلِدَتْ قَبْلَ التَّارِيخِ بِسَبْعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً، وَقَبْلَ مَبْعَثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً،
   

English translation: When Asma died she was 100 year old. She was born 27 years Before Hegira, and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation.
Source: Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Volume 24. Page 77. [6]

1. Original text: وكانت لأسماء يوم ماتت مائة سنة ، ولدت قبل التاريخ بسبع وعشرين سنة [وقبل مبعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بسبع عشرة سنة]. وولدت أسماء لأبي بكر وسنه إحدى وعشرون سنة .
   

English translation: And Asma was 100 years old at the time of her death. She was born 27 years Before Hegira [and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation]. Asma was born for Abu Bakr when he was 21 years old.
Source: Majma al-Zawa'id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami. Volume 9. Page 260.[7]

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha

1. Original text: وكانت هي وأختها عائشة وأبوها أبو بكر الصديق، وجدها أبو عتيق، وابنها عبد الله، وزوجها الزبير صحابيين رضي الله عنهم. وقد شهدت اليرموك مع ابنها وزوجها، وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين
   

English translation: She, her sister Aisha, her father Abu Bakr, her grandfather Abu Atiq, her son Abdullah, and her husband al-Zubair were Companions - God bless them -. She participated in the Battle of Yarmouk with her son and her husband, and she is ten years older than her sister Aisha.
Source: Ibn Kathir, the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.

1. Original text: قال ابن أبي الزناد: وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين.
   

English translation: Ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated: and she (Asma) was ten years older than Aisha.
Source: Ibn 'Asakir. History of Damascus. Volume 69. Page 8. [8]

Per WP:CALC, 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years before the Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Point 2. Ibn Ishaq states in his Sirah Rasul Allah that Mrs Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" together with her father Abu Bakr and her sister Asma and lists them among the earliest converts. Stating that Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" instead of saying that "she was born in Islam" means that she was definitely born before 610 and that her age at the time of her marriage can't be less than 18 years old.

You may have a point, but the way to incorporate it into the article is via reliable secondary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. In the article on Aisha there's a discussion of a view that her youth may have been exaggerated by early Muslim historians to exclude doubts about her virginity. Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Synth. Find a group of reliable secondary sources that state what you are trying to put together and then we can go through it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think this would be an appropriate and legitimate discussion (keyword) in the article. You will never reach a consensus, because a) 1200 years of Muslim scholars have not and b) as I mentioned above, there are conflicting versions in SAHIH narrations of the hadith. So, if we are to accept the ahadeeth as a primary source (i.e. a first-hand account of the events from the people in question) then these accounts contradict themselves. There is no reason why we could not write "according to XXX Aisha was XXX when she married, while YYY states she was YYY". That is completely valid. But NOWHERE...repeat NOWHERE...does any reliable source say she had reached puberty. This is all conjecture and apologetics/speculation based on a preconceived notion "working backwards". I really wish certain people had not been so obstinate at the beginning of this discussion, inventing information that was not there. Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: You were given reliable sources (both primary and secondary) which say that she had reached puberty. Read the quotation from the book of Imam Nawawi that I gave you above.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: the policy that applies here is not WP:Synth. Actually, the policy that applies here is WP:CALC which says that "Routine calculations do not count as original research". Given that the sources say precisely that "Asma was 10 years older than Aisha" and that "Asma was born 27 years before Hegira", stating that Aisha was born 17 years Before Hegira and married the Prophet at the age of 18 can't be considered as synthesis or original research. Read WP:CALC which is very clear on that point.

@Eperoton: here are some of the secondary sources by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike:

• This dates refers to the early days of Islam. For it is known that Aisha’s sister Asma, who was born in 595, was 15 when she became a Muslim. This indicates the year 610, when the Prophet started to receive the revelation and this then shows that Aisha was at least 5, 6 or 7 that day and that she was at least 17 or 18 when she married the Prophet in Medina.

  — Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar. Reşit Haylamaz. ISBN 978-1-59784-266-2. Published by Tughra Books in 2012. p. 203.

• CONCLUSION: In light of the above discussion, there can be absolutely no doubt that any narration stating that Ayesha was 6-9 years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, is inaccurate. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Ayesha was 19-21 years old at the time of her marriage.

  — Prophet Muhammad’s Wife Ayesha: Her Age at the Time of Marriage. An article by Prof. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.

• We can say that ‘Aisha was at least 19 when she got married according to the sources we have.

  — Nabulsi Encyclopedia. Orientalists or liars. An article by Dr. Mohammed Rateb al-Nabulsi.

• Furthermore, since her sister Asma, ten years older, was 100 when she died, and since it is a matter of record that Asma died more than seventy-two years after Aisha's wedding, a calculation based on those numbers put her age at the time of her consummation at greater than seventeen.

  — Muslim, Christian, and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share. ISBN 978-0-9813882-0-5. David Liepert. ‏Page 262.

• Aisha might have been twelve or thirteen at the time of marriage (and older at its consummation).

  — Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past. Denise Spellberg. Columbia University Press 1996. ISBN 978-0231079990. 197-198, n. 4.

• On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.

  — "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏

Register an account so I can thank you on a well job done. Sheriff (report) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, though we need to be careful about classifying sources according to WP:RS. Author's religion is immaterial here. What matters is whether the publication has gone through mainstream academic peer review, in whatever country that may be (since this is an article about the historical figure of Muhammad, as opposed to Muhammad in Islam). The book by Asma Barlas meets that requirement, but the rest look like they may come from faith-oriented publishers. Traditional Islamic scholarship can also be cited, but it should be attributed as such. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wp:Calc is for a single source making the claim. You fused half a dozen sources, hence Synth. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes...I for one am very aware of these newer apologist arguments that directly contradict the 10 other narrations of Sahih Bukhari (a first hand source, if we are to believe the Hadeeth collection/methodology) that say she was 9. Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage

To follow up on my comments in the "Removal of paragraph" thread, let me flesh out a proposal, which seems reasonable based on sources presented so far. We can revise if someone presents RSs advocating a different view. Main text: It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Brown [[9]], Reza Aslan [[10]]) Footnote: Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East [[11]]; Reza Aslan [[12]]) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texax Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏}}</ref>) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity.[11] (copied from Aisha) Eperoton (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose That would seem to violate WP:NPOV by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view. (saying that such marriages were common at the time would make sense for a 'normal' historical person. For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant. )Jeppiz (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. If it's UNDUE on age, we can emphasize that the traditional estimate is also the mainstream view among modern scholars. If it's the main text, please provide sources showing a mainstream academic view that she hadn't reached puberty. I initially conceded on removing the first statement in the footnote, but having reread your objection more carefully, I take that back. We're not writing for a person in direct contact with God. We're writing for Wikipedia users, not all of whom are familiar with 7th century nuptial customs, but all of whom have assumptions about nubile age based on their own environment. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous "oppose" vote rationales I have come across. I wish there were emotes allowed so others could see my complete astonishment at this. "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." lol. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that WP:NOTAFORUM violation, and for so blatantly misrepresenting my view. In case it really escaped you, I wrote "That would seem to violate WP:NPOV by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view.". Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that violation of common sense. What does this mean "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." Just explain this to me and we shall discuss other matters after that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I will create an RFC tonight and link to it here once completed. We have wasted many hours that could be used to improve the article over this. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Gladly, but first explain to me why it would be relevant to point out that marrying small kids was the custom at the time. My comment was a direct response to the suggested change, and the irrelevance of that claim. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Because it actually WAS a custom lol. When the average age was 30 people were married off at the first sign of maturity, and children were not brought up in huggly cuddly life style of today, rather they grew up in a tough and rough environment which hardened/matured them mentally at an early age. Today the average age in some places is 50, 60 in others and even more in developed nations. So there is no need to marry early, and marrying early is viewed as a stigma. To create a balanced perspective it is necessary to add this footnote. Btw did you look at the FAQ given above the talkpage? there is a question specifically targeting this kind of POV mindset. Perhaps a perusal is in order? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I have already explained that thrice in the preceding discussion. This point has gained prominence in modern times because modern assumptions on this issue have been systematically exploited by polemical literature. It's the job of historical writing to provide historical context in cases where the readers are likely to misinterpret raw data without it. Eperoton (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: By that logic the passage should go on to clarify that what Prophet Muhammad did was still child sex abuse, seeing as how the "it was okay in the past" excuse has been systematically exploited by Islamic apologetic literature and because readers are likely to misinterpret the passage by thinking that having sex with children is acceptable if the prevailing culture at the time allows it. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: No, that must be some other logic. Historical texts provide historical context. They don't provide legal advice. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Mentioning child sex abuse isn't equal to providing legal advice since no one is saying you have to mention how child sex abuse is illegal in most countries. I think we're both using the same logic by demanding unnecessary contextualization to counter polemical literature. Have you demanded such contextualization in wiki articles of other people who married and/or had sexual intercourse with minors? Why not demand it for every one of them as a preventive measure, so that nobody has the nerve to ever criticize any of them for their relationships with minors in the future. Personally I do not think people who read the current article will "misinterpret raw data" as I doubt most readers would think what Prophet Muhammad did was unusual for his time and since it is not a "misinterpretation" to think what he did was morally wrong. I feel that the text you're proposing specifically aims to morally justify Prophet Muhammad and Aisha's relationship (by acting as a request to practice moral relativism) than anything else.

There's another issue: I do not see how saying that 'child marriages were common in the past' counters modern non-Muslim polemical literature since all such literature I've come across doesn't deny that child marriages were common in the past, rather it criticizes Prophet Muhammad on moral grounds for engaging in something that is immoral by objective moral standards even though he was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals. If some piece of polemical literature has tried to deny the commonness of child marriages and sex with minors in the past, then I think we need to judge whether that piece and its denial is notable enough to warrant the text you're proposing before making any changes.—Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Polemicists highlight Aisha's age on "objective moral" grounds? Please, don't make me laugh. That might pass for someone like Richard Dawkins, who would then go on to accuse biblical figures dear to most of those polemicists of "child sex abuse" in the next breath -- for instance, Isaac, who married Rebecca at an age variously estimated at 3, 10, or 14 years old by traditional commentators ([[13]]). Marrying off girls as soon as they reached puberty was considered the right and proper thing to do in many times and places from biblical times to Renaissance Italy, and yet only in this one case is this detail deemed notable, nay essential information. What a curious application of "objective moral standards". Let's not play games here. It's been systematically highlighted in order to misrepresent the founder of a world religion as a pervert to the casual reader of history (though I suppose pleading ignorance would be a plausible excuse for many of those writers). Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place. That's your own right. But, as I'm sure you're aware, others have a different conception of ethical history, and that's why history texts provide historical context (and not any random contextualization) for potentially misleading details to let readers make an informed choice based on whatever their philosophical persuasion may be. Are you seriously arguing that pointing out the obviously different state of contemporary norms would serve an informative purpose in a history text? Eperoton (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton:You don't think it is an objective moral standard to think having sex with children is immoral? Wow.

And yes, generally criticism of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha (by literature and lay people) relies on the objective moral standard that holds sex with children to be immoral, regardless of time period and other excuses. I have not seen non-Muslim polemic literature denying that child marriages were common in the past and accusing Muhammad for doing something strange for his time by marrying and deflowering Aisha nor are readers likely to misinterpret anything so I still see no reason for the proposed footnote, especially if your reason for providing one was to counter non-Muslim polemic literature and prevent any misinterpretation by readers.

I have already mentioned why people criticise Prophet Muhammad in particular instead of say, a painter from "Renaissance Italy" who married and/or had sex with a minor when I said "[Muhammad] was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals." If I must spell it out: Other people aren't criticised on moral grounds because they did not claim to be a source of timeless morals and a universal standard of moral conduct for others to emulate, unlike Prophet Muhammad. If those people claimed so then they would have been criticised on moral grounds too (actually religious personalities are often criticised on moral grounds).

It's very telling that you said "in order to misrepresent the founder of a world religion as a pervert." It seems you personally believe someone, or rather Prophet Muhammad specifically, having sex with a minor is not 'perverted.' I feel this is why you want to provide that proposed apologetic footnote: to influence others to think the same as you. It's also telling when you said "Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place." It's clear from this that you are practicing moral relativism. I do not see any reason why this article needs to be presented in a way that pleases "others" who have a faulty "conception of ethical history." The last part of your reply makes it abundantly clear that your aim for providing a footnote is to prevent moral judgement of your prophet and to compel the reader to practice moral relativism in his specific case like you yourself are doing. I find it interesting that on this very page on one hand some (if not all) Muslim editors are trying to deny that Prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old and on the other hand the same (and additional) Muslim editors are also trying to justify the marriage by arguing that it was common at the time. I do not like this attempt to manipulate Wikipedia for apologetic purposes at all. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that this group won't reach a consensus on the disputed points, so I will stop here unless there's an escalation of WP:DR. Eperoton (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support I wanted to propose something along these lines myself but some editors may have taken a wrong view, just because I am a muslim. Anyway, strong support due to it being NPOV. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate just how it would be NPOV? Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the mainstream view is that the marriage was consummated after maturity. No matter how many islmophobic sources you provide saying that she was not mature I will trump you with more sources that say she was. The vast, vast majority of sources agree on the fact that she was mature. Furthermore, she had already been engaged before so it is pretty clear she was mature(Yes you can check primary as well as secondary sources, they all agree that she had been engaged before). So NPOV is saying what the majority of Reliable sources agree upon. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I believe the ball is in your court here. Multiple secondary sources have been presented to support one view on puberty. All I've heard for the other view so far are allusions to polemical websites. Eperoton (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out the obvious relevance here: because in the Muslim world Muhammad is seen as the "perfect example of a human being"/without sin and the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her, Shari'a law in MANY Muslim countries allows girls to be married at 9 years old; Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan to name but a few (reaching puberty or not has NO bearing in this decision...it is purely based on the age of Aisha in the ahadeeth). Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: That is the very reason why we should include the opposing views that according to some sources, she was well over eighteen and according to some sources she reached the age of puberty before consummation of marriage so that we can dispel that stereotypical view that a Muslim girl can be married at 9 years of age no matter if she reached puberty or not. Sheriff (report) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I would like to point out that the consensus of Islamic scholars is still that she was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 at the time of intercourse. It's only a handful of contemporary writers and scholars (not necessarily Islamic scholars) who have tried to argue otherwise. Most of the arguments presented to portray Aisha as older than 9 are the arguments originally made by one guy (who I will not name lest people google him and parrot the remainder of his arguments on this page to push their POV) and those arguments, as well as apologetic arguments about Aisha's age made by other people, have already been categorically and comprehensively refuted by the Islamic scholar Shaykh Gibril Haddad (see here and here). —Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0:Why are you bringing me into this conversation? I don't know how many times I have to mention this: I am not/nor was I ever disputing Aisha's age at the time she was engaged nor her marriage consummated. I've stated this at least three times already. I don't care what "most Muslim scholars" agree on this subject, since a) you can find a "muslim scholar" to support any view on this topic and b) the ahadeeth are the closest anyone can come to actually believing one way or another...and as I said, there are differing accounts of her age IN the ahadeeth. So, as far as I or anyone who thinks rationally is concerned, the matter cannot ever be settled with 100% certainty for that reason alone. So, I guess I'll repeat this once more: my objection was the phrase "until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old" since there is NO PRIMARY SOURCE that mentions her reaching puberty. As far as I'm concerned, since there are people (i.e. Admins) who are obsessed with her age and want to keep it in the article even though there are differing accounts on it, then there is no reason EACH "age" attributed directly to her in the hadith should not be cited. I personally would also be fine with "some 'muslim scholars' calculate her age at...based on the hadith narration of..." whatever. I've heard it all. But what this encyclopedia can NOT do with ANY credibility is say ANYTHING about her reaching puberty, since NO primary source ever mentions this. Even if she got married at the age of 50, no one can guarantee she went through puberty (and yes...medically there have been women who lived well into old age without hitting puberty http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2083909/Shes-puberty-needed-bar-Woman-trapped-body-12-year-old-appeals-help-cure-rare-condition.html). The way I see it this conversation has crossed-over into the unscholarly and ridiculous, and unfortunately the one Admin involved is more interested in finger-wagging than actually being constructive or useful, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Sorry but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I wasn't disputing the point you made, I agree with what you said. I just wanted to make a small correction, i.e., you said "the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her" so I wanted to clarify that the consensus of Islamic scholars is still very much that she was 9 at the time of consummation (as explicitly stated in the sahih ahadith of the six authoritative books of ahadith). I am on your side of this debate. Regarding the thing you said about differing accounts of her age in ahadith, I highly doubt any of the ahadith that state she was older than 9 (or at best 10) are sahih/authentic. Was their grading (sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) mentioned when you came across them? I'm asking sincerely, this isn't me trying to be argumentative or anything. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: The following extract from Brill's EI3 gives a more accurate assessment of the traditional sources:

ʿĀʾisha’s marriage to the Prophet was not consummated until approximately three years later, when she was either nine or ten years old, as the majority of sources report (Ibn Saʿd, 8:58–62; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, 8:139). However, according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61).

This indicates that 10 or 12 years at the time of consummation can be supported by some of the early sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Thank you for providing that extract Wiqi55. It is interesting but an important point that is worth noting is that the extract does not make any reference to whether those claims of Ibn Khallikan (in his book) and Hisham bin Urwah (in Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqāt) are reliable or not. It could be possible that their accounts of Aisha's age are considered unreliable by Islamic scholars; given how such accounts are in contradiction with canonical ahadith, I am already doubtful of their authenticity. And given that the Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa‘d (which is referenced in the extract) explicitly states at (8:217) that Aisha was six years of age at the time of marraige (nikāh) and nine at the time of consummation, I have an even stronger feeling that the account attributed to Hisham was unreliable. I would not use those two as sources to back up the claim about Aisha's age being 10 or 12 without confirming their reliability.

I'd actually like to see the alleged report by Hisham bin Urwah that states Aisha was nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation, and I would also like to see how Islamic scholars have graded that report, because all of the ahadith narrated by Hisham bin Urwah about Aisha's age at marriage and consummation in the six canonical books of ahadith (Kutub al-Sittah) explicitly state that she was six at the time of marriage to Muhammad and nine at the time of its consummation. Indeed Islamic apologists have tried to cast doubt on Hisham bin Urwah's reliabilty specifically because most of the Kutub al-Sittah's ahadith that state Aisha was six at marriage and nine at its consummation have been narrated by Hisham bin Urwah (unfortunately for the apologists however, there are sahih ahadith in the Kutub al-Sittah and other books of ahadith that state she was six and nine yet do not have Hisham bin Urwah in their chain of narrators).

I like the fact that your extract acknowledges that the majority of sources report that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and nine or ten at its consummation. Chronological calculations using al-Dhahabi's Siyar a`lam al-nubala have concluded the same. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: We definitely need more details. However, the extract refers to Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", i.e., his arrangement and dating of events, rather than a specific report. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Honest question (I am not being argumentative, seriously asking): How do you know this? Have you read the book? What does it say that makes you believe that Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", means his arrangement and dating of events? —Human10.0 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente yours is the most "off topic" comment in the entire talk page. congrats. Would you care to add something meaningful to the conversation or will these nonsensical tirades about Sharia law have to suffice? To be frank Sharia law has got diddly squat to do with this. The text under discussion(in this universe) is given at the start of the discussion. perhaps you will be kind enough to read it before commenting on it? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out 1) you claimed there are "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she (Aisha) reached puberty." and of course there are none. 2) you claimed the citation was in the EI under "Watt" and that you would personally scan in the page as a reference...and of course you never did this because it's not there. 3) you then whined " I will not interact with you"...and yet here you are again addressing me directly. Why should we take ANYTHING you say seriously at this point? I know I don't. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Aisha was engaged to someone (i.e. Jubayr) before Muhammad" argument you're using to imply that Aisha was mature when she was married off to Muhammad was refuted by Shaykh Gibril Haddad a long time ago. The argument relies on a highly unreliable report with an "extremely weak" chain of narrators. Two of the narrators were declared “discarded” (matrūk), are considered to be liars and one of them even admitted to lying about this incident (among other things). Haddad has further stated: "The reasoning that a betrothal to Jubayr would suggest anything about age is also faulty and shows ignorance of the fact that betrothal could take place from the cradle or even before birth. To read a more detailed refutation of the argument, follow the citation provided.—Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran.". Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. Xtremedood (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References

What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?

The following paragraph from the Muhammad article is in dispute. "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[150][227][228] with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.[150][227][229][230][231][232][233] She was therefore a virgin at marriage.[227] A small number of modern Muslim writers have estimated her age between 12 and 24.[234][235][236]"

The dispute ranges on whether the statement about Aisha reaching puberty is WP:UNDUE, whether the paragraph itself is WP:UNDUE, or if a footnote should be included to say that young marriages during the 600s was normal.(UTC)

The discussion and additional sources can be found on this talk page in sections: 1) Aisha "reaching age of puberty", 2) Removal of paragraph, 3) The thing that should actually be disputed, 4) Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage. The discussion most relevant to the questions below can be found in #2 and #4. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative paragraph proposed by User:Eperoton:
Main text: It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Jonathan Brown [[14]], Reza Aslan [[15]]) Footnote: Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East [[16]]; Reza Aslan [[17]]) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏}}</ref>) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity.(Spellberg, Denise (1994). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231079990)[18]:

• Strong support. More precise paragraph providing a genuine representation of academic and peer-reviewed reliable sources. I should inform here that the book of Asma Barlas has been cited ~300 times by the academic community. The book of Denise Spellberg has been considered the best overview of 'A'isha's life and legacy within Sunni Islam.[19]--5.107.45.226 (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support.. Seems the most NPOV text proposed till now. Side note: @Eperoton I am bolding up the other statements below so that they are clear. I hope you won't mind. Feel free to revert me without ping. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose Saying we should X and just puttings "refs" after it is not serious, and only goes to show that the whole purpose is to first construct an argument, then cherrypicks refs. That's not how wikipedia works, nor how any serious writing works. One starts with the refs, then the arguments, not the other way around. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I would normally refrain from debate here, but since this is a misrepresentation of preceding discussion, I feel compelled to comment. Cherrypicking means selecting some of the relevant sources and dismissing others. After repeated invitations to provide RSs for views not reflected in this proposal, none have been produced. The invitation is still open. Feel free to cite the sources contradicting the statements on puberty and 7th century customs here. Eperoton (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I think restructuring of what we currently have would be a better option. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Not detailing the evidence for the traditional viewpoint, which holds that Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad consummated their marriage, yet devoting such a sizable quantity of text with such depth of detail to the arguments that assert she was older than 9 seems like an attempt at giving WP:UNDUE weight to idea that she was older than 9. What the article currently says is sufficient. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Human10.0. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support The traditional viewpoint that you refer to, @Human10.0:, is essentially nothing more than the repetition of a Hadith in which Aisha estimates her age to be 9. One has to remember that knowing one's age was an exception, and not the rule in 7th century Arabia (actually the world). Academics even disagree the year Prophet Muhammad was born, and yet we are to take Aisha's estimate of her age as precise?--Peaceworld 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111:

• The relevant ahadith do not “estimate” Aisha’s age; in the ahadith Aisha herself explicitly states that she was nine years old (there is not even a hint of estimation).
• There is no evidence to suggest that knowing one’s actual age was an impossibility in 7th century Arabia. On the contrary, the custom of counting years was prevalent among Arabs and their neighbors. Even before the advent of Islam and the eventual adoption of the Islamic calendar, the Arabs possessed a pre-Islamic lunar calendar (composed of 12 months a year) that was not significantly different from the Islamic one and that pre-Islamic calendar played a significant role in their culture (e.g., it was agreed upon that fighting and raiding was forbidden certain months, called the haram months, and the Arabs are said to have generally respected this rule). In addition, the Arabs participated in a pre-Islamic version of the Hajj pilgrimage each year. So when keeping track of time played such an important role in their culture and daily lives, it is highly unlikely that keeping tabs on their age in years or months was difficult for the Arabs of the 7th century.
• Muhammad’s year of birth is widely accepted to be 570 AD. To my knowledge, even the few contemporary academics that currently doubt that date estimate his year of birth to be 568 or 569 AD (i.e. the difference is of only one or at best, two years). This does not at all necessarily imply that Aisha’s age is similarly disputable. And to the best of my knowledge, this dispute is over his year of birth according to the Gregorian calendar. Aisha’s age of nine as recorded in ahadith is not according to the Gregorian calendar so I do not see how a dispute over Muhammad’s age in the Gregorain calendar can possibly be used to argue that Aisha’s age cannot be definitively stated either.
• I am unsure of what you are implying when you say that the traditional view is “nothing more than" the repetition of ahadith. Are Islamic viewpoints not suppose to reflect or be based on one of the most reliable sources on Islam?
• Whatever anyone’s personal opinion on the traditional viewpoint, it has to be given more weight than any minor views as per WP:DUE. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: People estimate all the time without saying "estimate" or hinting towards estimation. You are conflating: I never denied the existence of a form of calender that recognized years and months. The fact that references to age exist (as in the case of Aisha) is because there was a time-keeping system in place. I am well aware that that the recognition of months, such as the forbidden months, the annual observance of festivals such as pre-Islamic version of the Hajj pilgrimage, and the recognition of notable events, such as the Year of the Elephant, were all prevalent in Arab societies. But this is not equivalent to remembering one's date/year of birth. In fact, the year 570 is said to be the date of Prophet Muhammad's birth, not because he said so, not because any one of his companion's said so, but because he was born roughly during the period of the Year of the Elephant. That's how the ages of notable individual 7th century Arabs are calculated and this is the approach of some scholars towards the age of Aisha.--Peaceworld 20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: You are merely making an assumption. How do you know Aisha was 'estimating' her age when she explicitly said she was six years old at marriage and nine years old at the time of its consummation? "People estimate all the time" is not at all evidence that Aisha herself was estimating. I am willing to concede that the presence of a reliable time-keeping system does not forego (though it certainly does decrease) the possibility of somebody not remembering their precise age but there is no evidence in the case of Aisha to suggest that she could not have known her precise age and had to estimate it. If there is any direct evidence to suggest so then you need to show it. In the absence of such evidence your assertion is just an assumption and any further argument over this is pointless.

I do not see any relevance to the discussion of Muhammad's Gregorian year of birth since the dispute (raised by a few contemporary academics) isn't whether Muhammad was born in what the Arabs called the "Year of the Elephant" but whether the Year of the Elephant conforms to 570 AD or 569 AD or 568 AD on the Gregorian calendar. The consensus is that Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant (not "roughly during the period of the Year of the Elephant") and that this corresponds to the year 570 AD on the Gregorian calendar. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the Hadith does not align with what some scholars say, her age being estimated at 12-24, as briefly mentioned in Criticisms of Muhammad, on reasons based on incidents before and after her marriage, clearly shows there is some issue, possibly a transmission error or an estimate. I think it's somewhat naive to assume that her suggested age is necessarily accurate regardless. Even till this day, disconnected villagers in some third world countries have no clue when asked the exact day/year of birth. Perhaps, I can go look around some sources that do discuss the relevance of birth dates, in medieval or historical Arab societies. But I have a different opinion regarding this, and I think Xtremedood's suggestion is the most sensible one, that is to remove the entire paragraph. I see no other reason for adding the age of marriage, particularly when there is debate on her actual age. It's relevance only comes under Islamophobic circles and belongs to Criticism of Muhammad article.--Peaceworld 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111: That was my proposal as well at Removal of paragraph! Sheriff | report | 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is enough false justification for child marriage around that campaign groups such as "girls not brides" have to cope with without adding this. Muslims refer to the "prophet Muhammad" and not to the "historical figure Muhammad" and, as such, the sentence "Such marriages were common in the seventh century" is pure apologetics. However I have a similar problem with the sentence "She was therefore a virgin at marriage." Even in a society in which trust might not exist, I do not think that this is not a valid reason to take a child from a more typical experience of childhood. A key issue here is age and the current text presents a rounded view of relevant views. GregKaye 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement that she had reached puberty is WP:DUE concern for this article.

• Agree. The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly support. As per the rationale I have provided in the four discussions (links in the RFC text above) Marriage and puberty go hand in hand. In an age where puberty was the sign of being "fit" for marriage the world over this a Due concern. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this isn't an article about Aisha. Since it doesn't impact The articles subject this is pointless extra fluff. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. & Strongly support. The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Any statement about puberty is irrelevant to this biography about Muhammad, and relies on personal interpretations and opinions of Wikipedia editors. There is no policy based argument to support its inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Of what relevance is that she reached puberty to a bipgraphy of Muhammad? No one has provided a satisfactory answer? DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic and DeCausa: I would add to that: Of what relevance is her age of marriage?--Peaceworld 10:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless there is direct reference made within the Quran as to whether Aisha had reached puberty, this is pure WP:Crystal. The main article Aisha contains no mention of puberty. All we know is that Aisha was young and that Muhammed followed a teaching with its own moral principles. GregKaye 09:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement that she had reached puberty is WP:UNDUE concern for this article:

• Agree. This article isn't about Aisha, and irrelevant details like this definitely fall into WP:UNDUE territory. The bit about "until she reached puberty" is a recent addition unsupported by anything except editorial opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree the puberty statement in question isn't about the article subject, and doesn't even get mentioned on Aishas' page. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree. The issues of consummation age and puberty go together, because modern assumptions about nubile age have been systematically exploited by anti-Islam polemics. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  That is just an opinion, and dealing with anti-Islam polemics is out of scope for this biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. This seems to be a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The statement is well-sourced and directly relevant to the statement about the marriage.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  Personal interpretations of primary sources are not relevant to this article; take it to Talk:Aisha instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  The statement that Aisha had reached physical maturity is NOT a personal interpretation of primary sources. It is a direct representation of primary sources that is supported by mainstream reliable secondary sources.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. The detail about puberty puts everything in a neutral light, and not mentioning it is basically "mentioning" the Islamophobic propaganda albeit through omission. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree No convincing case has been made for the statement. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree I am also unsure of the statement's veracity, especially in light of this sahih hadith that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam and this sahih hadith that says Aisha's dolls were with her when she was sent to live with Muhammad permanently at the age of nine —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The text of the first hadith you linked to does NOT say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". This statement is NOT in the original text of the hadith. The person (seems to be a wahabi) who translated the hadith from Arabic to English added this unoriginal false statement between two brackets. In other words, this English translation of the hadith is forged.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0 So you are basically bringing your own OR and POV into this discussion. Where exactly in the Arabic text does this phrase appear that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". I am sure you will be able to point out the exact phrase as you seem to be able to read eastern languages as per your user page. Let us see now how you defend this misrepresentation, feel free to make an excuse to save face. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat I just stated a reason for why I have doubts about the veracity of the puberty claim. Your belligerent attitude is not appreciated. I thought it was abundantly clear that the statement "The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty" is an explanation of the hadith taken from Fath al-Bari because the English text explicitly mentions that it is quoting "Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13." I see why you are concerned though; if I had written "this explanation of this sahih hadith that says only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam", it would have been clumsier but more accurate. That being said I strongly disagree with your attempt to pass off that statement as a misinterpretation. It is an explanation of the hadith from Fath al-Bari, which is the most authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari. The belief that only prepubertal children can possess dolls in Islam is shared by the Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki schools of jurisprudence:

We have already explained that it is haraam to make images and statues (question no. 7222) and that it is haraam to buy and sell them (question no. 49676). But if these images and dolls are toys for children, the Sunnah indicates that they are permissible. In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said: “I used to play with dolls in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and I had female friends who would play with me…” al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440. Ibn Hajar said: This hadeeth indicates that it is permissible to have images of girls (i.e., dolls) and toys for girls to play with. This is an exception from the general meaning of the prohibition on having images. This was stated by ‘Iyaad and was narrated from the majority. They permitted the sale of dolls to girls so as to teach them from a young age how to take care of their homes and children. Ibn Hibbaan stated that it is permissible for young girls to play with toys.

Most of the scholars have exempted the making of girls’ toys from the prohibition on making images and statues. This is the view of the Maalikis, Shaafa’is and Hanbalis.

Hanafis also believe that only young children are allowed to play with dolls but they stress that the dolls should not have a detailed human-like or animal-like appearance and should not have a head, otherwise even children aren't allowed to play with them:

In a Hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The most severely punished on the day of Qiyamah will be those who make (animate) pictures.” (Sahih al-Bukhari) Therefore, if the dolls are fully structured, meaning they have the head with the eyes, ears, mouth, etc, then it will be impermissible to acquire them, give them as a gift or for small children to play with them. However, if the dolls do not have a head, meaning they do not have eyes, ears, nose and mouth which make them incomplete, then it will be permissible to make them and give them to small children.

I hope that this matter is settled now and that you do not try to needlessly argue with me any further. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@5.107.45.226The statement is not "false." It is an explanation of the hadith found in Fath al-Bari, please look it up to believe for yourself. The translator is not a Wahhabi/Salafi, that translation was provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California, you can see the same translation on the USC's website (scroll down to hadith no. 151). Even if the translation was provided by a Wahhabi, I do not see how that does not automatically makes it false. Anyways, USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable, not "forged", and are extensively used on Wikipedia. In the hadith translation you are disputing, all they did was is that they added a clarification from Fath al-Bari to the hadith's English translation and made it sufficiently clear that the text in brackets is not part of the hadith's literal translation but is an authentic explanation. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0 None of those narrations point out that Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s marriage to The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was consummated when she used to play with dolls in front of him. It only says she used to play with dolls in front of him and her friends used to come and play with her. The narrations does not specify the location of the playground in any manner. It could have been her father (رضی الله عنہ)'s house as The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) was a dear friend to him. You are just making your own POV conclusions from these narrations. Sheriff (report) 14:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sheriff This sahih hadith from Sunan Nasai states: "'Aishah said: The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." Sunan Nasai is one of the six authentic books of ahadith, the hadith is sahih (authentic) and it is clear. I hope its settled now that "Aisha's marriage to the Holy Prophet was consummated when she used to play with dolls." —Human10.0 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0 so basically you admit that you lied about the sourcing and the text is not a part of hadith. That is what I wanted to hear ty for that. Admitting ones error is the first step to recovery. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You're going to accuse others of "lying" and talk about "admitting ones error is the first step to recovery" when at best you made several BLATANT errors (if we are to take you at your word) and at worst bold face lies? Oh, man this is hypocrisy at its finest.Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat I did not admit to "lying" since I didn't lie, I admitted to making a slight unintentional error in phrasing that seems to be important to you (even though whether a hadith's Arabic said it or Fath al-Bari explained it does not change the fact that only prepubertal children, like Aisha at the time, are allowed to play with dolls in Islam as additionally evidenced by the consensuses of schools of fiqh). I did not purposely make the error in phrasing so please stop pretending like you "caught" me or something. That's childish. "[F]irst step to recovery"? Sheesh, did you hear that in a TV show? This isn't even the right context to use that phrase in. Anyways, do not patronise me and do not downplay how you were wrong and/or lied about the authenticity of the statement (i.e., that only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam) by calling it a "misinterpretation." Since you appear to have a Muslim background and are active on Islam-related parts of Wikipedia, I doubt that you did not figure out that the statement was from Fath al-Bari and doubt that you don't know what that book is and how authoritative statements from it are.—Human10.0 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0 yes you made an "error". why thank you so much for admitting that again. That is all I wanted you to admit to be frank, that you had "made an error". Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're purposely not getting the point, I see. I guess I'll just summarise for anyone else reading this thread that I did not make an "error" when I stated only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam (this is evident from my earlier comments) and that FreeatlastChitchat did make an error, or simply lied, when he denied that fact. Since all the points that could have been made have been made, I won't be wasting my time by coming back to this thread again.—Human10.0 (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0Quite true. I was the one who "lied" when he caught you misrepresenting and misinterpreting a primary source. Very bad of me. I was the one who showed you that not a single word in the entire hadith you quoted says that only children should play with dolls, even though you were vehement in stating this. Again, very bad of me to point out your error. Would you like an apology from me in the written form or only a verbal one? I will ask you again what I asked earlier. Where in the hadith is it written that only children should play dolls. Feel free to quote the exact text. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Thanks for showing us your scandalous dishonesty in citing primary sources. The hadith you cited in the beginning surely doesn't say that "only prepubertal children are allowed to play with dolls in Islam". That statement doesn't exist in the original text of the hadith. Given that you claimed in your original post that the hadith says that statement when in fact it doesn't, I won't be surprised if someone reported you for dishonesty or at least for incompetence.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing Fath al-Bari (which is neither a book of history nor a book of tradition, but a book of commentary written in 1372-1449 CE) for that statement is actually a false citation. I checked "Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13." here and there the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani was actually representing various opinions of various persons on whether dolls are considered prohibited images or not and discussing them. In his course of this discussion, he mentions one opinion of one person suggesting that playing with dolls is allowed only for those who haven't reached puberty, but he the author Ibn Hajr Asqalani himself says that this opinion is unlikely. He Ibn Hajr himself affirms on that same page that Aisha played with dolls when she was adult. He Ibn Hajr cites this hadith which says that after the return of Prophet Muhammad from the battle of Tabouk (took place in 9 AH) or from the Battle of Khaybar (took place in 7 AH), he found Aisha playing with dolls. Ibn Hajr concludes that Aisha was definitely adult at that time. This is because if you consider the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad in 1 AH to be 9 or 10, then her age at the time of the battle of Khaybar was 15 or 16 and at the time of the battle of Tabouk was 17 or 18. This clearly shows that playing with dolls is not prohibited in Islam at all (even adults can play with them). This applies in modern times on watching cartoons and animation movies. They are not considered in Islam to be prohibited images at all and Muslims all over the world watch them (even adult Muslims). The only exception is the extremist group of the "Wahabis" who are neither orthodox nor mainstream.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that "the English translation is provided by USC-MSA, i.e., the Muslim Students Association at University of Southern California" and that "USC-MSA's translations of hadith books are reliable" is actually also indicative of your dishonesty or incompetence. USC-MSA has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation just as sunnah.com also has NO RULE AT ALL in that translation. All what these websites do is that they give an online access to the translation of Sahih Bukhari that was carried out by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.[20] Muhammad Muhsin Khan has no relation at all with USC-MSA and according to this biography, his field of specialty is medicine. This means that he is not qualified in fields of religion or history.--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Finally, I also want to add my notice that islamqa.info is a Wahabi website run by Wahabi Sheikhs (meaning that it is not reliable secondary source and that it doesn't represent mainstream Sunni Muslims).--5.107.78.212 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree per Amatulic. DeCausa (talk)

The entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE concern for this article: The entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE concern for this article:

• Disagree. The paragraph was fine for years before someone came along to add a disruptive statement to make a point about something. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree almost every major source talking about Muhammad's life talks about Aisha and mentions age. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree. This is a prominent topic in biographies of Muhammad. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree.. Please refer to my above comments for rationale. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree as per all users above. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree Like user Tivanir2 said, almost all major sources talking about Muhammad's life discuss his marriage to Aisha and mention her age. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree The article of Jesus doesn't make mention of the age of Mary at the time she became pregnant with him, which is according to traditional sources 12-14 years. Why then should this article about the Prophet Muhammad mention anything about the age of Aisha. The article about Muhammad on the Arabic wikipedia doesn't mention anything at all about the age of Aisha.--5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree again, per Amatulic. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? This is just pandering to Islamophobic tendencies. Xtremedood (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support As per Xtremedood, I see no reason to add at what age the marriage took place.--Peaceworld 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Footnote should exist about the marriage age during the 6th and 7th centuries:

• Does no harm to include words from the FAQ in a footnote, although such a footnote, if included, need not mention puberty either. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree this is already covered in the FAQ (under the isn't he a pedophile question that used to be pushed by POV warriors and socks) and goes into marriage customs. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. It is the job of historical writing to provide historical context for readers when they are likely to misinterpret raw data. Eperoton (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support. Information should be provided in context. This is the correct context. Do I dare point out that even the TP FAQ mentions this prominently? So why would it be undue in the article? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Tivanir2 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2015

• Oppose Why "should" it? The only purpose seems to be whitewashing, no factual reasoning has been provided. Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems like a request for the reader to practice moral relativism. Do all other articles about people who married minors point out that marrying minors was common in the past? Why is it even necessary to point this out? —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly support. It is valuable also to compare the Age of Aisha with the age of Mary because of the similarities between the two figures. If Aisha was that "child bride" at the age of 10, then Mary was that "child pregnant" at the age of 12. If Mary became miraculously pregnant, then Aisha became miraculously mature. This comparison can also be added to the FAQ. --5.107.45.226 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Disagree Heavy handed and unnecessary contextualising for a POV purpose. Covered by the FAQ. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A note so no one is surprised. I left an open invitation on jimbos' talk page with a link to the conversation. Unsure if there is anywhere I can post a general invitation to participate that would reach a wide audience. If anyone has suggestions let me know. As a reminder this isn't canvassing as I have no idea who is going to show up, since a ton of people visit his talk page. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Also a note on wp: pump. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A different suggestion

@Eperoton:You still don't seem to get it: if the Sahih ahadeeth are to be believed/taken as the narrations of the parties involved then they are "primary sources"...you don't need secondary or tertiary speculations which are based on the ahadeeth anyway. Knowing that there are sources which can AND WILL attest to either side of the propaganda machine, in order to avoid any "can of worms" on EITHER side of the apologist spectrum I would propose the following:

Main text: "The hadith give several differing accounts concerning Aisha's age at the time of her betrothal and marriage to Muhammed, which have lead to lengthy discussions on the matter by a number of scholars." Done. Full stop. Cite the ahadeeth AND whoever you want after that. It lets the reader go to any/all sources to see what they have to say and infer whatever they want about her puberty/virginity/consummation whatever without putting polemics into the article. I can't overstate, for your own sake, less is more here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

While we disagree on points of substance and policy, I have no objection to a generic statement that leaves discussion of age and related matters to a footnote. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

VERY wise decision. I invite you to make the edits...and be sure not to sneak anything in or as per the dissent above, I guarantee there will be issues.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just made the textual change per above, but ask that you add back any/all/as many source citations as you wish based on our discussion/clarifications. This way it will show we have done this as a collaborative effort. As an FYI, I am actually impressed that we arrived at a conclusion here, given the amount of editors, strong personalities and subject matter. We'll see how long it lasts.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone else has seen this appendage to the RfC. I agreed to your proposal in principle, but I don't entirely agree with your wording -- ironically, because I think you're right about the literal text of the hadith (it's their interpretation and assessment that's under dispute). I would write more vaguely "the primary sources suggest". However, I suspect that's a moot point, as I'm skeptical this group will arrive at any sort of consensus on this topic. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggested change. I also find it strange to include it in an ongoing RfC that has not finished. I don't get the reasoning for removing a large part (especially as several users explicitly has opposed the removal) that is very well sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeThis proposed change will not give due weight to the majority traditional view. The current article correctly notes that ony a "small number of modern Muslim writers" have estimated Aisha's age to be more than 9. Changing the whole text and eliminating any hint as to what is the traditional view just to accommodate the view of a few writers is not justified in my opinion. If various ahadith are cited to support various viewpoints, then their grading (i.e. whether they're sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) will need to be mentioned to show which hadith is more reliable. Obviously any sources that use daif (weak) or unreliable ahadith to promote their viewpoint will assert that the ahadith they are using are not daif or unreliable. I feel the resultant text will just be a confusing piece of text that will cause more disagreement. —Human10.0 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

A Different Proposition

This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran.". Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. I propose that the whole paragraph to not be included. Otherwise, then all of the positive statements from the wives about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and other ages of the wives of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ should be included. Xtremedood (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To add, the inclusion of the paragraph is indicative of a bias towards Western conceptions of morality. It totally neglects the moral systems of other civilizations, that do not rely on man made standards (i.e. age of marriage is 18), such as puberty being the permissible age of marriage, which according to other forms of morality is governed by nature or what God brings about through naturally occurring processes (i.e. puberty). It is a moral issue brought up by proponents of Western conceptions of morality, and therefore it belongs in the criticism article and not here. Since WP claims to adhere to a policy of neutrality WP:NPOV, the Western conception of morality should not be given precedence here. Xtremedood (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is also a hadith which is attributed to Aisha, which indicates that she had never seen the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ naked. This hadith has been deemed as authentic by Sufi sources. Here is the hadith "It was narrated from a freed slave of Aishah that Aishah said: "I never looked at or I never saw the private part of the Messenger of Allah (saw).'"" So clearly things are more complicated than they appear and by simply including this passage, it neglects the complexities involved in the situation and is overtly biased and limited. Xtremedood (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That hadith from Sunan Ibn Majah is not sahih, it is daif (i.e., weak, inauthentic, or in other words it is totally unreliable). Not only that, it is contradicted by actually sahih ahadith from the same book, and the other authoritative books of ahadith, that explicitly state that Prophet Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old, that he used to have sexual intercourse with all his wives in one night at a time when he had nine wives (keep in mind that Aisha was the third female he married), that he and Aisha used to perform ghusl janabat (the ritual bath after sexual intercourse) together, etc. It is disingenuous of you to ignore the abundance of sahih ahadith that make clear the nature of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha and instead try to pass off a rejected, daif hadith as a reliable one. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Reorganisation of Non Muslim views of Muhammed section, item 19 above.

Hi, I'd like to establish as consensus that the Non Muslim views of Muhammed sections are a mess, please feel free to comment at section 19 above. SeanusAurelius (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Bahai views

A user has added a section on Muhammad in Bahai, it seems well-sourced and in line with, for example, the sections on Jesus in Islam and Jesus in Bahai faith in the article on Jesus. As Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai faith, it's hard to understand how it would be undue. As no valid reason has been given for its removal (apart from harassing the user who added it) I'm restoring the section. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the section's too long currently, and needs to be cut down to say a couple of paragraphs. As it stands it's the longest section of the non-Muslim views, and looks to almost equal the length of the Muslim section. Having less than 5m adherents makes that WP:UNDUE I think. DeCausa (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to take both perspectives into account, that Prophet Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai Faith and that on the other hand, the Faith is small. So a middle ground between the current and the previous version is appropriate. I propose to keep the first paragraph and part of the third paragraph, both of which seem to be introductory. As for the rest, a new page should be created:

Bahá'ís believe in Muhammad as a prophet of Allah, and in the Qur’an as the word of Allah. They venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Baha'i faith. Nevertheless, Muhammad is taken to be one of the most important messengers of Allah not least because the Bab, a central figure in the Baha'i faith, is believed to have been both a descendant of Muhammad through Imam Husayn, and to have been someone whose coming was foretold by Muhammad. Abdu'l-Bahá, the son and successor of Baha'u'llah, wrote that 'His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning His Holiness the Bab and the Bab was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the tidings of His coming.’ In the Baha’i faith Muhammad is regarded as one of the class of 'independent Prophets' – that is, those prophets 'who are followed' and who 'establish a new religion and make new creatures of men'. They also 'change the general morals, promote new customs and rules, [and] renew the cycle and the law.' Along with Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are classed among the ‘independent Prophets’. The Baha'i faith teaches the unity and the oneness of all the prophets of Allah. As such, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are believed to have proclaimed the same message at different times. It is only due to the 'difference in their station and mission' that their 'words and utterances' ever 'appear to diverge and differ.'

Thanks.--Peaceworld 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This ties in with the discussion whose pointer is given in the immediately preceding talk section. The whole non-Muslim views section is a mess. For the Bahai addition, I think the added text should be put into its own article and summarized here. I'm not sure if post-medieval Western views about Muhammad which aren't "criticism" merit their own article at this point, but they should be labeled as such, if only to avoid implying that Voltaire was a Christian. The last paragraph is a yet different topic because it summarizes (relatively) current scholarly views. I'm adding some subsection titles to reflect this. Eperoton (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith mentions the name only twice compared to 88 in Islam– by this measure, any addition will be undue here. That information should first go into Bahá'í Faith or a fork, and only summarised here as pointed above. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peaceworld111, Eperoton and Fauzan that the Baha'i section should go into its own spinoff article, leaving a summary + hatnote on this page. It is well-sourced and is almost as big as the separate Judaism's views on Muhammad article. The Muhammad article is already a whopping 162 kb and if it is possible to spin out some parts, then yes please! - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As we see that no other changes are being allowed in the page without consensus then why this long piece of text was added without consensus? Sheriff (report) 15:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I'm creating a new article with the text added by User:Peaceworld111 Eperoton (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Founder of Islam

I suggest this change to the lead because:

1. The prior text is contentious.
2. It's based on just one trivial source by a random author who is not even notable and does not know much about Islam or The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) to have any say about the topic, she also cannot speak on behalf of all non-Muslims.

At the minimum, i would at least like to see a couple more sources describing that "he is considered "Founder of Islam" by almost all non-Muslims." Sheriff (report) 13:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The current text neutrally describes both the Muslim POV and the non-Muslim POV. The text you are proposing portrays the Muslim POV as fact and is obviously not neutral. Providing more sources to back up the 'founder of Islam' claim wouldn't hurt though a single source is still sufficient. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That single source is trivial and from a non-notable author, a one liner in some random author's book should not define the lead of such a significant article.

He is regarded as The Holy Prophet by more than 1 billion people, if other 6 billion consider him "Founder of Islam", i should be able to (at the minimum) see 10 notable non-Muslim authors if not Muslim authors describing him such as, i mean come on just 10 authors out of 6 billion people. Do you take it as a challenge? Sheriff (report) 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider this statement to be contentious. It strikes me as one of those observations that are too widely accepted to prompt most authors to state it explicitly. For example, all academic history books I've seen start the history of Islam with Muhammad and not with biblical history. It's just how the word Islam is used outside of Islamic doctrine. Since ABC-CLIO is a WP:RS publisher, I don't see the sourcing as problematic unless one can show that the statement is indeed contentious by providing a contradictory WP:RS. We can't use WP:OR to challenge a reliable source. Eperoton (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Armstrong (who I don't think is trivial) is unusual in actually stating that it is a position only of non-Muslims. Reliable secondary sources normally state, without qualification that it is limited to non-muslims, that he is the founder. Therefore, tertiary sources, such as Britannica normally just reflect this and simply state that he is the founder of Islam. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as per Human10.0. We have a good, neutral NPOV text, so the proposal to replace it with a strong POV version is a non-starter. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Support/Wording Change - Not all non-Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the founder. For example, the 14th century Chinese emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, wrote in his [[21]] in regards to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "Since the creation of the universe God had already appointed his great faith-preaching man." Since it is not the view of all non-Muslims, the statement can't refer to all non-Muslims as having this view. Similarly, Annie Besant, states "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." in [22], which sees Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a "one of the great messengers". Xtremedood (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither author brings up any instance of a group, even on the small scale of believing what they said. Those are essentially personal opinions of the author's and would make the wording change to almost universally instead of a definitive statement. Definitive statements aren't the best anyways so I would support that change, but most people talk in books about Christianity and Judaism explicitly rejecting him as a prophet. Most non abrahamic faiths give even less thought as they view all the religious figures from abrahamic faiths as regular people. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. By saying that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ "is seen by non-believers as its founder" you are saying that all non-Muslims believe this, which is not the case. You can't simply make definitive statements on the beliefs on all 5 billion+ non-Muslims in the world. Xtremedood (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my statement as I explicitly stated I wanted to stay away from the absolute statement. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While we discuss the complete removal of "Founder of Islam" reference, i suggest that we should at least immediately change the wording from "almost all non-believers" to "some non-believers" as it is clear that "almost all" is not a fact in this matter. Sheriff | report | 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. To base "some non-believers" on two obscure quotes isn't going to fly. Reliable sources consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. Almost all those who have a belief in Islam, as part of that belief, don't consider him the founder. That's what the opening should reflect - and it does. No change necessary. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The criterion for change should be similar to the counterpart statement that follows. There are sources for the alternative views among Muslims, so the statement is qualified. So far, I have not seen a source about non-Muslims who don't view Muhammad as the founder of Islam. There are obviously non-Muslims who admire him, but that's not the subject of this discussion. In fact, it's not about the figure of Muhammad, but rather about usage of the word Islam. The sources needed to modify the statement would show non-Muslims consistently using the term Islam to refer to some general form of the Abrahamic tradition, e.g. by identifying Abraham as a Muslim. Eperoton (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: in fact, how about following the example of the article on Jesus, and using the wording "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, seen by almost all Muslims..." The observation that non-believers regard him as the founder of Islam doesn't provide encyclopedic value. Then we wouldn't have to split hairs about the meaning of "founder" and "Islam". It would also avoid placing the words "Prophet of Islam" at the outset, which seems like an odd opening for a history text. Eperoton (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he ﷺ is not just the "central figure of Islam", he ﷺ is a lot more than that to Muslims. Sheriff | report | 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "central figure" works better than "founder". Xtremedood (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Khadija's age

I noticed that some reliable sources avoid stating "40 years old" as fact, but include other accounts as well. A common view is 28 years old at the time of marriage. For example,[23][24]. Should we avoid stating 40 as fact and mention the possibility that she was younger? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a non-issue. I am not sure why we are indulging in non-issues here, we should go with what most sources state definitively and that is 40 years old or leave the age question alone. I checked your source and it doesn't even say that she was 28 or I am looking at the wrong page? Sheriff | report | 09:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The linked sources say 40 or 28. Some of the primary sources, such as Ibn Saad, mention two accounts (40 or 28). Furthermore, medieval Muslim historians discussed this issue at length, giving a range of 25 to 45, with 40 and 28 more commonly held. Recently, the possibility of her being younger than 40 is preferred by many notable historians, including Montgomery Watt (Muhammad, p.12) and Muhammad Hamidullah, who considered 28 to be more sound. I guess the issue here is why should we ignore this debate and mention 40 as fact? If you mean by "leaving the age question alone" that we should omit her age, then that would be OK too. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ta'if section

I don't think it technically qualifies as early life. Any suggestions on where this addition should go? Tivanir2 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)