Talk:Aisha

Undue weight

Hey the article lacks a prominent viewpoint and is not lending the proper weight to Shia viewpoint. Besides the body of the article, the lead must include Shia viewpoint about Aisha. Mhhossein (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

I would like to add the following sections to the "Age at marriage" section.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per discussion, consensus is not clear

Mdann52 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Aisha's age at marriage

One of the reasonable way to find Aisha's age at marriage is comparing her age with her sister, Asma another daughter of Abu Bakr. According to literature and references, Asma was 10 years older than Aisha ans she was 27 years old in the first year of migration to Madina[1-13]. Therefore, Aisha should be at least 17 years old when she got marry to prophet Mohammad.

References: [1] Almo'jam Alkabir by Altabarani, chapter 24, page 77 [2] The history of Madina and ِDamascus, Ibn Asaker Aldameshghi Alshafei, chapter 69, page 9 [3] Asad Alghabah fi Marefat Alsahabah, Aljazary, chapter 7, page 11 [4] Tahzib o Alasma va Alloghat, Alnavooi, chapter 2, page 598 [5] Majma' alzavayed and Manba'o al favayed, Alheifami, chapter 9, page 260 [6] Taghrib Altahzib, Alasghalani Alshafei, chapter 1, page 743 [7] Alasalato fi Tamiz e Sahabah, chapter 7, page 487 [8] Alestiab fi Marefate l Ashab, chapter 4, page 1783 [9] Alwafi belWafiat, chapter 9, page 36 [10] Sonan albeihaghi alkobra, chapter 4, page 204 [11] Albedayat o va alnahayah, chapter 8, page 345 [12] Merghaho almafatih, chapter 1, page 331 [13] Sobol Islam, Sharh Bologh o Alam men Adellato Islam, chapter 1, page 39

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

Moved from article space for discussion

There is a big discussion regarding age of Aisha when she married Muhammad. One reasonable way to find Aisha's age at marriage is comparing her age with her sister, Asma, another daughter of Abu Bakr. According to literature and references, Asma was 10 years older than Aisha and she was 27 years old in the first year of migration to Madina. Therefore, Aisha should be at least 17 years old when she got marry to Muhammad.

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

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

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

According to Sahih al-Bukhari,

Narrated 'Aisha: .. He married me after three years of her (Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid) death...

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:165

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

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

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

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

... Asma was 10 years older than her sister, Aisha.

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

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

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

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

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

Aisha was a kid and became Muslim after 18 persons .

Motahar ibn Taher Muqaddasi, who is Islamic historian scholar, mentioned in his book,

The people who took precedence over others to become Muslim ..... and ladies were Asma daughter of Omeis ...Asma daughter of Abu Bakr and Aisha who was a kid and they all became Muslim during three beginning years of Islam when Muhammad was inviting people to Islam hidden..

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much @Toddy1: for bringing up that Wikipedia policy. Based on the Aisha article itself, the previous editors did arithmetic function to conclude the date of birth [reference 1 in the article] and date of marriage of Aisha. However, based on the quotes I mentioned above and more references, Aisha got married in 623 CE and she was a kid in 610 CE. Based on the Wikipedia policy, basic arithmetic do not count as original research. By saying that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha and she was 27 years old in the year 622 CE, do you think it would be violation of policy to say that Aisha was 17 years old at that time? I think the article is biased (specially by referring to Child Marriage) and has not informed readers about these major resources. Msayati (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The basic arithmetic rule applies if you have ONE source that says all these things. If your assumptions are correct, you would expect to have no difficulty finding one in English that is readily available. If you cannot do this, then you should question your assumptions. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Al-san'ani stated exactly the same thing in his book titled Sobol al-Islam without talking about her tooth though. So the arithmetic function would be (Age of Aisha in 622 CE =0 AH: 100 - 73 - 10 = 17) in the year 622 CE which is one year before her marriage. All of these also has been discussed in the article publish in The Fountain magazine . Msayati (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us see what other editors say about this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you agree that the following is a good summary of what you wish the article to mention?

In the twentieth century, Pakistani writer Muhammad Ali of the Ahmadiyya minority sect of Islam, challenged the Sahih al-Bukhari. He acknowledged that Aisha was young as the traditional sources claim; but argued that instead a new interpretation of the Hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih, Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, could indicate that Aisha would have been nineteen years old around the time of her marriage. However, the hadith compiled by Mishkat al-Masabih is not a Ṣaḥīḥ (صَحِيْح) hadith, and its authenticity is considered doubtful by many scholars such as al-Tabrizi.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I read that article and it seems Muhammad Ali has different evidences. That's why I am saying the article is biased by highlighting just one approach that she was six and referring to child marriage. I think adding some quotations from other references make the article more neutral. Msayati (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Toddy1's summary is much better. It's more concise, it identifies the source, and it make it clear that the conclusion is a minority position. Edward321 (talk)

@Edward321: This is not voting where you will actively support other editor's views. Take a look at WP:RNPOV and WP:MTPPT. SpyButeo (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The talk page exists to discuss the betterment of the article. Agreeing with another editor does not violate [WP:MTPPT]], if it did, every poster on the talk page, including yourself, would be guilty of meatpuppetry. WP:RNPOV supports the views I have posted on this talk page. Edward321 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article is not neutral. The previous editors made it even more biased by concluding and referring to child marriage. Adding these references and quotations make it clear that her age of marriage still has a lot to discuss. @Mhhossein: and @Sa.vakilian:, since you are active in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam I was wondering if you can comment on this discussion. Thanks Msayati (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to use several sources including Brill and esposito to cover the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly support the position of Msayati in this discussion. He has offered sufficient references to some of the most notable scholars of hadith in Muslim history. All these scholars inform us that Aisha was ten years younger than Asma and that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration to Medina. Per WP:CALC, these scholars leave no space to doubt that Aisha was born 17 years before the Migration and that she married the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 18.

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.

— CONCLUSION of Professor Muzammil H. Siddiqi, [3]

Prof. Muzammil H. Siddiqi is a top reliable scholar of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Theology and Comparative Religion. He is a Sunni Muslim Imam and a leader of the Muslim community in the US.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition: the Arabic article, which is a featured article, has for a long time maintained that Aisha was born in 604 CE (not in 614) and that she married the Prophet at the age of approximately 18-19.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

To help clarify, the Wikipedia policy on synthesis states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This is precisely what you are doing: "Source (a) says they were married (z) years after event (x), source (b) says event (x) happened in year (y), source (c) says girl (a) was (x) years younger than girl (b), source (d) says girl (b) was born (y) years before event (x), so by taking (y) years, subtracting (x) years and adding (z) years we can figure out how old girl (a) is." It is pretty much the textbook example of what you are not supposed to do. Contrast this with the sources you are trying to contradict, which state in very plain language "Girl (a) was age (x)". You need to find reliable third party/secondary sources (A category which The Fountain magazine would not appear to qualify for) that state in plain language the conclusions (Not just the pieces necessary for some to arrive at that conclusion) that you feel should be included, and avoid making your own assessment of primary source materials.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

"User:UnequivocalAmbivalence" needs to read WP:CALC which says: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Thus, there is no original research here at all.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you need to revisit the part that says "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.". By calculating age, they mean if birthdates are given and then a year is given, not that you have carte blanche to make the convoluted calculations that are being made here, which are far from obvious, and not a meaningful reflection of all the sources. AND all the data for the calculations needs to come from the SAME source, not different bits from different sources as outlined above. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy of WP:CALC is very clear for me and for any reasonable person, and it perfectly supports my position here. It is not my guilt that it is not clear for you. No one needs "your personal interpretation". The policy is itself clear. "Your personal interpretation" is not a policy.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when the policy says that editor consensus is required, as this one does, my personal interpretation is just as important as yours, and every editor involved. You can personally disagree, but you cannot dictate how "any reasonable person" would interpret it. You speak for yourself and no for one else.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus needed is "that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". Keep in your mind that consensus is not voting. No matter how many parrots agree with you. The thing that theoretically matters is the quality of arguments. Given that the sources say that #Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma. & that #Asma was born 27 years before the Migration. *Any reasonable person with basic arithmetic skills will come to the obvious, correct, and meaningful result that Aisha was born 17 years before the Migration. If you dispute this obvious result of these routine calculation, then you need to solve your personal problems with mathematics.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

5.107.81.93, please stop engaging in personal attacks against UnequivocalAmbivalence. WP:CALC is very clear, but it does not support your opinion. As noted, it says ""Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." You opinion is neither consensus, nor "a meaningful reflection of the sources". It is an example of violating the Wikipedia policy on synthesis, as UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly explained. Edward321 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait a moment! are you disputing that 27-10=17?! is there anyone here willing to dispute that 27-10=17?! If anyone here is willing to dispute this "obvious result" of a "routine calculation", then let us know. If no one is willing to dispute this obvious result, then the consensus required for WP:CALC is established.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing that 27-10=17. They are pointing out that to get those numbers you have to cobble together multiple sources in a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy on synthesis. Your opinion is still neither consensus, nor "a meaningful reflection of the sources". In fact, your opinion requires ignoring the majority of the sources, which clearly state Aisha's age at the time of the marriage. Edward321 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing at all in the text of the policy of WP:CALC saying that the calculations should be based on one source only. You made that up. If no one is going to dispute that 27-10=17, then the consensus required for the policy of WP:CALC is already established.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, as noted over a year ago at Talk:Asmā' bint Abi Bakr, sources of the 10 year ago difference all quoting a single weak source and ignoring that sources such as Al Dhahabi note there are other traditions saying there was more than 10 years of age difference between the sisters. Edward321 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The comment there on Talk:Asmā' bint Abi Bakr is not reliable or correct.--5.107.81.93 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msayati: are you the same person as 5.107.81.93?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1: No, I am always logged in. I do not know who he/she is but I appreciate the Muzammil H. Siddiqi's article he/she referred to.[4]. Msayati (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Marriage year

It's claimed in this article and Muhammad's article that Aisha married in 619 C.E. and it's is also said that Muhammad hadn't married any other woman during Khadija's lifetime. As it's claimed in Khadija's article that she died in 620, then either the marriage year for Aisha and Muhammad is wrong or Khadija had died in 619 or even earlier. Please solve this problem and enlighten me. Keivan.f^Talk 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)