Talk:Aisha/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Aisha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Citations Needed
Is there anything in this article that doesn't need a verified source? I mean, come on! I didn't visit the page to read information that is maybe true. Sun NY (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong with My introduction edit
I tried to be very balanced by not changing much of the pre edit content, I simply enhanced it. Be balanced and Compare and judge:
my last (introduction edit) with the (introduction reverted edit) certainly there is no case for reverting my edit.
Current introduction by HelloAnnyong:
Aisha bint Abu Bakr (612 - 678) (Arabic عائشة Transliteration: ʿāʾisha, [ʕaːʔɪʃæh] also transcribed as A'ishah, Ayesha, 'A'isha, Aishah, or 'Aisha) was one of Muhammad's wives. In Islamic writings, her name is thus often prefixed by the title "Mother of the Believers" (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), per the description of Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an.[1][third-party source needed]
According to Sunni beliefs, Aisha had an important role in early Islamic history, both during Muhammad's life and after his death. Regarded by many as his favorite wife, she was an active figure in numerous events and an important witness to many more.
My edit:
Aisha bint Abu Bakr (612 - 678) (Arabic عائشة Transliteration: ʿāʾisha, [ʕaːʔɪʃæh] also transcribed as A'ishah, Ayesha, 'A'isha, Aishah, or 'Aisha) According to oral traditions, She was the daughter of the second leader of the Muslim community, Abi Bakr, and the only wife of Prophet Muhammad that was neither a widow nor a divorcee, respected as the Mother of the Believers (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), a description of Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an.[2][third-party source needed]
Considered by sunni traditions as one of the major scholars of Islam, known for her knowledge in Hadith, Islamic law, medicine, poetry.[3][4] esteemed for her important role in Islamic history, both during the life time of the Prophet and beyond, regarded by many as his favorite wife, she was an active figure in numerous events and an important witness to many more.
comment please:
Note : I personally disagree with
"Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an.[1][Third-party source needed]"
But I ignored it so you want take an issue with my edit.
However , Since it leads the reader to assume that her name is in the Quran .I think it should be removed or we should make it clear that her name is not in the Quran
Progressive one (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
is HelloAnnyong justified if yes please explain i appreciate that.
hello Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidert Wikipedia was founded as an informative site, editors should not deny the readers or editors that present accurate informative information except if it's wrong thy should not deny editors and readers but help them insert the RS info and receive it , their primary objective should be inserting RS in the article and make it fit, and presenting deferent point of views if its RS and not deny the readers the facts it's a free encyclopedia not a monopoly encyclopedia. "please do not remove past discussions from talk page" most has nothing to do with my edit focus now because there is a policy in wiki on original research And since Tehzibu'l-tehzib, vol 11, pg 48 - 51 . Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, vol 4, pg 301 - 302 are still not published in English or reviewed by western scholars, like many Islamic materials that does not mean it's wrong, there is a policy in wiki this is way I am willing to compromise on this specific edit focus. the Criticism was the it takes to mush space and confusing well i am making the talk page essayer this issues well not be discussed as I mentioned above i.e. Tehzibu'l-tehzib and. Mizanu'l-ai`tidal. there is no need to but a link in "comment please:" Progressive one (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
first of all they were not discussed before putting them on the article Discuss them please it has been decide by consensus that lede of this article will remain short good idea remove (( a description of Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an.[5][third-party source needed])), it not that key value info bec it can be simply viewed by viewingMother of the Believers hers an idea of shorting it with value add info:
Considered by sunni traditions as one of the major scholars of Islam, known for her knowledge in Hadith, Islamic law, medicine, poetry.[6][7] esteemed for her important role in Islamic history, both during the life time of the Prophet and beyond, regarded by many as his favorite wife, she was an active figure in numerous events and an important witness to many more. or: Aisha bint Abu Bakr (612 - 678) (Arabic عائشة Transliteration: ʿāʾisha, [ʕaːʔɪʃæh] also transcribed as A'ishah, Ayesha, 'A'isha, Aishah, or 'Aisha) According to oral traditions, She was the daughter of the second leader of the Muslim community, Abi Bakr, and the only wife of Prophet Muhammad that was neither a widow nor a divorcee, respected as one of the Mother of the Believers, and regarded by many as his favorite wife. Considered by sunni traditions as one of the major scholars of Islam, known for her knowledge in Hadith, Islamic law, medicine, poetry.[8][9] esteemed for her important role in Islamic history, both during the life time of the Prophet and beyond. the above is a more important info to the article then (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), a description of Muhammad's wives in the Qur'an.[10][third-party source needed] and shorter and will not have any content which is not present in the main body very easy we well insert it into the mine body.
one of the major scholars of Islam, known for her knowledge in Hadith, Islamic law, medicine, poetry by detail etc ..... |
- Alright, everyone. It's time to drop the stick and walk away from this conversation. It's not happening. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Progressive one (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
edit recommendation to: Marriage to Muhammad article
I tried to be very balanced by not changing much of the pre edit content, I simply enhanced it. Be balanced and Compare and judge it:
edit recommendation to: Marriage to Muhammad
Khawlah bint Hakim suggested that Muhammad marry Aisha after the death of Muhammad's first and only wife (Khadijah bint Khuwaylid), after this, previous agreement regarding the marriage of Aisha with Jubayr ibn Mut'im was put aside by common consent.[11] British historian William Montgomery Watt suggests that Muhammad hoped to strengthen his ties with Abu Bakr;[11][verification needed] the strengthening of ties commonly served as a basis for marriage in Arabian culture.[12]
Several oral traditions state that Aisha was six or seven years old when she was engaged to Muhammad and stayed in her parents home for several years until the age of nine when the marriage took place [11][13][14] [15][16][third-party source needed][17]. other oral traditions accepted by the Muslim historian al-Tabari (b.839- d.923) state that Aisha was ten years old when the marriage took place[13]and continued to play with her toys after the wedding, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games[18], However, most major Muslim scholars such as Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim have accepted the oral tradition that puts Aisha age at nine years old when the marriage took place[19], On the other hand, there is evidence from other oral traditions including authentic ones of an older age.
According to an article in Arab news the largest English-language news paper in Saudi Arabia, Aisha was a fully-grown woman at the time of the proposal and would have been 19 or 20 at the time of her marriage to the Prophet based on authentic Hadiths[20], The article about her in Arab news states that:
| “ | she would have been 19 or 20 at the time of her marriage to the Prophet. There are strong indications and various reports confirming this conclusion...…, we will not go into further details now. All we need to say is that the Hadith that puts Aishah’s age at nine years when she married the Prophet is questionable on more than one count. Hence, compared to the various points of evidence, some of which are based on authentic Hadiths, it cannot stand.[21] | ” |
American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[13] This issue of her virginity was of great importance to supporters of the Abbasid Caliphate. Abbasid supporters considered that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate over the succession to Muhammad.[13]
Progressive one (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
or :
Several Hadiths state that Aisha was six or seven years old when she was engaged to Muhammad and stayed in her parents home for several years until the age of nine when the marriage took place [11][13][14] [22][23][third-party source needed][24]. other oral traditions accepted by the Muslim historian al-Tabari (b.839- d.923) state that Aisha was ten years old when the marriage took place[13]and continued to play with her toys after the wedding, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games[25], However, most major Muslim scholars such as Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim have accepted the Hadiths that puts Aisha age at nine years old when the marriage took place[26], On the other hand, there is evidence from other Hadiths including authentic ones of an older age.
Progressive one (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
comment please:
I don't agree with the tabloid section it isn't scholarly doesn't carry weight and isn't referenced so you dont know what they are talking about. The Denise spellberg quote i think it's not appropriate in this page since it is a critique not a historical narrative and this isn't a criticism of page, it is also very speculative since one can easily argue what is or isn't of importance to the abbasid's has no bearing on the life of Aisha. Personally i don't believe it on the following grounds, the prophets favorite wife was khadijah according to Aisha, she was an elderly women much older than the prophet, All the prophets wife's where divorced elderly women except for Aisha [goes towards precedent and establishing personnel preference, if eight of your wives are elderly and one is young you cant make the argument he preferred young women], Aisha was betrothed to someone else prior to muhammad by her father they where promised from birth so no emphasis on virginity at all. I also think that comment is talking about the abbasids [the third of the Islamic caliphate] not Aisha or muhammad. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
hello Ibn kathir Wikipedia was founded as an informative site, editors should not deny the readers accurate(i.e RS) informative information we should not deny the readers info wither we agree or not. Progressive one (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No its an encyclopedia so relevance is given preference, we are not just listing bits of random information. Find a stronger source for Aisha's age preferably one that includes the narrations as well as their grading.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Since this is a biography page only her age beyond mentioning what it was and material relevant to that discussion, it should not be commented on.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, al religious traditions were influenced Islam is not an exception it took some traditions from Judaism specially.
the Hadith was influenced by many factors and it's not infallible, thus it’s relevant to mention Denise Spellberg view and the views of other wither on her age or any issue , there was a strong Jewish community in Iraq with a strong traditions and influenced the Muslims Most academic agree. for example the israliate , stoning , even the Talmud stated that a Jew can marry a 3 year old and consume the marriage later remember that narration about Aisha marriage in the hadiths are from Iraq. even God in the bible approved of "female children" to be wedded an exact quote from the bible and even order it.. In fact the hadiths has the same place in “Islam” as the "Talmud" has in Judaism what a coincidence. Its wording is in close proximity to the hadith compiled in Bukhari where Mohamed married her at 6 but the marriage took place at nine none of the early scholars ever noted this story. while most later scholars like Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim support 9 there are other tradition that contradict it Including the earliest and authentic ones thus other views are justified, and since the oral tradition are influenced by many factors Denise Spellberg views are justified Progressive one (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am leaving for a while, and hopefully coming soon. Progressive one (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "age" section remains the best sourced part of the article, so changing that is not really an option, unless we (a) find new scholarly sources of the same or greater caliber than the ones currently listed or (b) think of a better way to get across what the current sources are trying to say. In fact, no change should be made at all until we find top-quality sources. As has been said repeatedly, Progressive one, we cannot insert personal interpretations into the article, or synthesize sources together to draw a new conclusion.--Cúchullain t/c 13:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
While I am preparing to travel, but I could not resist responding to your argument
Dear Cúchullain it seems strange , that you aren't opposing personal interpretations or synthesize of Denise spellberg into the article. On the other hand, At least there is early tradition in addition to authentic oral tradition that points to an older age and contradict the early age synthesize, in the end its not eye witness material if 6,7,9,18.19, secondly there are respected books that question the narrators of the story of her age how are from Iraq in other words there is a lot of grounds for other perspectives.
Finally
The article is from Arab news it is a respected Middle Eastern and Saudi news paper for 35 years they publish info about her age with facts or thy would be in trouble with the religious authority how supervise religion news in SA this is Saudi Arabia, writing information on religion issues must be supported by fact, it is writing by an Arab news editor on Islam, and an expert in Islam-in-2009 based on early tradition in addition to authentic oral tradition no objection have been cited.
by the way wiki editors use Arab news as source on Islamic topics. for example :
see wiki Age of Khadija
The age of Khadijah is not well-documented. ........ Therefore, her age has been narrated as anywhere from 25 to 40 years.[27] Correlation of her age with that of her daughter Fatimah does not support the view that she was as much as fifteen years older than Muhammad.[28]
Nobody her is arguing to change Aisha's age simply look at my edit, but there are other perspectives on the age subject it should not be ignored because you want to persevere one perspectives.
- Nonsense. What Wikipedia does is draw together the conclusions of the experts on the topic. We do not rely on editors' interpretations of the primary sources. Spellberg is a reputed scholar and her book on Aisha is well received in the scholarly communit; she is exactly the kind of source we should be using.--Cúchullain t/c 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Other or Modern perspectives on her age at marriage
comment please: Progressive one (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
i think Denise Spellberg quote should be removed it is a criticism and does not belong here, in fact if you go to the Criticism of Muhammad page you will find it is quoted there so it already has a place and is acknowledged as a criticism. Progressive one find more reliable sources on the issue and i wont mind if it is included.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again, nonsense. The Spellberg quote is not "criticism", it's her expert opinion about Aisha and the ways various later parties felt about her. It is properly attributed, neutrally worded, and important to the subject of the article. As such, it stays.--Cúchullain t/c 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Cuchullain on this. Spellberg is exactly the kind of reference we should be using. The quote explains relevant historical context in a neutral manner, and there is no hint of criticism in it. It should certainly stay unless it can be replaced by a more reliable source that presents similarly accurate and useful information on the subject. Even if it were though, a well-written and comprehensive article would quite properly contain relevant criticisms as well as positive material. Doc Tropics 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If the Aisha article objective is to present her biography based on the classic traditional Muslim scholar view then yes there is no place for other perspective.
Then I strongly agree with Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ argument about the removal of Denise Spellberg is exactly the kind of reference we should be using in the Criticism of Muhammad page not her biography.
It certainly should be removed unless Cuchullain and Tropics are selective for reasons know to them.
Furthermore Denise Spellberg has leas knowledge on Islam then Adil Salahi , Adil Salahi article on the age of Aisha should have a place in the article more than Denise Spellberg (a critic of Islam according to reviews) technically. Because it's not a criticism article. But a biography. I am not accents any sources if there is no selectiveness and balance.
Let's not forget that Adil Salahi expert opinion about Aisha age/ marriage based on various early tradition . including authentic hadith, are important to the subject of the article. As such, rejecting of it is nonsense . since its a reliable source that presents accurate and useful information on the subject
All respected encyclopedia I vested has standers and balanced article it does not contain selectiveness like we see her( M-Comp..x) , in fact some make available other views on Aisha's age in the context of the marriage, and no selective criticism excepte in Wikipedia.
Tropics useful information on the subject are from Adil Salahi he is the editor of the Religion/Islam page in arable news and is the author of Muhammad: Man and Prophet (1995 Executive Director of the Al-Furqan Heritage Foundation).
Arab News is popular among many sections of Saudi society, including nationals and foreign residents, and from various socio-economic levels — guest workers to company CEOs. With such a large distribution and diverse group of readers, Arab News is the first choice among executives in local and foreign financial institutions. Because of its wide readership profile, the paper serves as a much sought-after medium for advertising and regional brand building. With the advent and growing popularity of the Internet as a source of information Progressive one (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The quote reads;
- According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was engaged to Muhammad and nine when the marriage took place.[2][4][5] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[4] This issue of her virginity was of great importance to supporters of the Abbasid Caliphate. Abbasid supporters considered that as Muhammad's only virgin wife, Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate over the succession to Muhammad.[4]
Issues with the Quote:
"these specific references" are [2]Watt, [4]himself and [5]armstrong not abbasid historians, it self references itself or other secondary sources. who ever the "supporters of the Abbasid Caliphate" are her age has other more well established sources such as sahih bukhari etc which is not a work of history and he was not a supporter of the abbasid caliphate, he went around collecting these accounts first hand and verified them rather than rely on books like watt and spellberg, he says the age was 5, 6 or 9. So unless we can specify who these "supporters" are exactly his statement is incorrectly quoted and misused. Maybe Watt and Armstrong are the Abbasid supporters?
"This issue of her virginity was of great importance to supporters of the Abbasid Caliphate", how does this relate to the life of Aisha he is talking about a distant caliphate and polemics between sunni's and shia [Aisha was divinely intended for him, and therefore the most credible regarding the debate over the succession to Muhammad.] not actual historical events. he doesn't even state her pre-menarcheal status was important to the prophet or the people around him in his time so what is the point of relevance?
i can see the relevance of the quote in the Age at marriage section but only because it is placed after the sunni and shia section, it would be more relevant in the sunni and shia section.
I take it as a criticism because the way the quote is currently worded it alludes or implies that her pre-menarcheal status was a key issue to the prophet himself which is wrong and that should be self evident from the fact she was his only wife among 8 or so who was virgin, many of whom he married after Aisha.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, guys, Spellberg's not going anywhere. She has a Ph.D. from Columbia University, an Ivy League school, and she currently teaches medieval Islamic history at the university level. She is a respected academic in the relevant field, and this book is specifically about Aisha and her legacy. If you don't like that, I suggest you take your complaint to the reliable sources noticeboard, but I have to tell you, they are obviously going to find it to be reliable.
- Ibn kathir, you are misreading what the paragraph says. Spellberg isn't criticising anyone, least of all Muhammad. She's simply noting that a number of writers specifically emphasize Aisha's young age to stress that she was a virgin. For these writers her virginity gave her a special place among Muhammad's other wives, as none of the others were virgins. Spellberg specifically mentions which writers these were; we don't need to include them all here. All of this goes towards Aisha's legacy, which is clearly important to an encyclopedia article on her.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I support Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ argument Watt suggests that Muhammad married for political reason i.e. to strengthen his ties with Abu Bak father of Aisha this clime is also supported by Muslim scholars, while Denise Spellberg a critic of Islam hypothesize that her virginity was of great importance to supporters political agenda of the Abbasid Caliphate " Denise Spellberg hypothesizes that since she is divinely intended for him and therefore the most credible regarding the debate over the succession to Muhammad " in other words her age suggest her virginity therefore politely important and her age could be influenced by politic wish has been criticized by Muslim scholars and some western scholars. indeed it contradict with Watt ridding that her marriage was fore political grounders not suggesting a divinely intended virginity but a political reason i.e. to strengthen his ties with Abu Bak and serve his mission.
On the other hand –Cúchullain and Tropics are willing to ignore Adil Salahi(RS)expert perspective about Aisha age/ marriage based on various early tradition. Including authentic hadith. While allowing a Hypothesis ( by Denise Spellberg ) in fact –Cúchullain is trying to find an argument( but unconvincing ) agents Child_marriage and focuses on repeating Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha and ignoring Child_marriage wish exposes his bias, I realize what he is trying to cover up .by ignoring Child_marriage. Progressive one (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do not make personal comments about other editors. The burden of evidence is on you to establish that material you want to add is reliable. From what I can tell, Salahi is a columnist for a Saudi Arabian newspaper. That's hardly the caliber of a Columbia Ph.D. who is an established expert in the field, as Spellberg is.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Progressive one, we don't automatically exclude Salahi because he is a journalist, but a scholar like Spellberg is clearly preferable as a reliable source. The real issue is that giving extensive coverage to Salahi's opinions is giving undue weight to a minority view. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to including a link to Child marriage in the article; the "See Also" section is probably the most appropriate place for it though, because that particular article is not specifically about Aisha or Muhammad, it's just useful background info. Doc Tropics 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This issue isn't about her qualifications so including an irrelevant comment based on that is nonsense. You haven't shown how a comment about unknown supporters of a Caliphate a few hundred years later is relevant to her life. Unless she includes bukhari among these people then no it isn't relevant. The way the passage is currently worded it suggests that she means All scholars who wrote about this ["these specific references"]. Can you provide a online link to the passage i would like to read it, or can you provide the list of people since you said you know who they are.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Quote again she is either making a huge mistake by assuming Bukhari was a historian and his work is a work of history or the person quoting it is misreading her comments, i.e she was talking about a specific group in a specific time period that of the Abbasid only. Her virginity is not an issue among muslim scholars as a whole and has never been stressed so i think wiki fringe would apply if she is suggesting this but more than likely i am leaning towards a misquote or poorly worded sentence.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's relevant to Aisha's legacy, which is obviously relevant to her biography. The writers Spellberg discusses specifically are Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Hisham and therefore Ibn Ishaq. Here notes include the rest of the historians who discuss the issue, including Tabari. I think the bit about "scholars who supported the Abbasid caliphate" is a bit confused; Spellberg doesn't say that on that page. I didn't write that; if i recall correctly I added it due to this discussion. What she does say is that "All of these specific references to the bride's age reinforce 'A'isha's pre-menarcheal status, and implicitly her virginity." The line needs to be changed, or the citation corrected.--Cúchullain t/c 20:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, the stuff about Abbasid supporters is trying to summarize the focus of the chapter. Those named historians were trying to emphasize Aisha as the most credible in the question of Muhammad's succession. More is discussed on p. 34-39. It does need to be reworded though.--Cúchullain t/c 20:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- this is the Quote *"Aisha's youth was deliberately emphasized by scholars who supported the Abbasid caliphate and rejected Shi'a claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib (This would have been the period when Islamic history, and the hadith, were first written down.) [is this part of the quote or added in] Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad, divinely destined for him, and thus divinely inspired in her opposition to Ali. Claims for her youth at marriage are claims for her virginity and special status."
the line "these specific references" is all inclusive, it also suggested manipulation in its current wording on the part of historians but "emphasis" is an entirely different issue, can you suggest a more accurate wording and then we can go from there.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Aisha name in the Quran and other edits
I notes that a large number of people believe that Aisha name is mentioned in the Quran, thus it's important to clarify this subject, and since Wikipedia was founded as an informative site, editors should not deny the readers accurate informative information except if their objective is to distorted or deny the readers the facts . I hope that my contribution was productive.Progressive one (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find your additions to be full of synthesis, poorly sourced and strangely worded. That's why I reverted it the first time. But I won't revert again; at least not without some input from other editors. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Too much synthesis and original research to be useful. What happened to the collaboration we were working towards?--Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Progressive one (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC) " poorly sourced and strangely worded" Please in light me, give me same examples, I am an open minded editor , it should be noted that the previous article is poorly written distortive and dishonest, in Islam unlike the Quran, there is no black and white in Islamic tradition Unfortunately, it's a disputed sources from its Emergence and beginnings , this is way they established the Science of hadith did they establish the Science of Quran no , study the history of hadith, tafsir or sira etc.., it's not a clear black and white data its strangely and in conflict and a lot of Contradiction , it's a disputed sources .for example major scholars such as Muslim Criticized al-Bukhari and they are the top scholars in Sunni hadith. My edit is in-lighten, I offer the Reader both sides of the coin I do not decides on the information he should know or try to deny him any information or guide him for my personal prejudges or interest I provide all the candid facts and he decides. Any helpful informative edit to my article edit I welcomeProgressive one (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
HelloAnnyong, I am not your adversary, my objective is to inform the down-to-earth casual reader, you can't refute that my article is more informative then the current article, I am not claiming authority I am simply saying its more informative and better I am frankly troubled by this article for several years it has been poorly edited.
Criticism "it must be noted that most of this information has come from a single person, Hisham bin Urwah, who is the last narrator of this Hadith (story) based on Iraqi narrators (storytellers), Thus, this Hadith is primarily a single Hadith." - this is your own interpretation of various sources and therefore violates our policy on original research. reply in the most authentic traditional sources such as the Six major Hadith collections wish includes Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim. their oral traditional(the Hadiths/stories) are basedon a single person called Hisham bin Urwah how is the last chine of narrator on the issue of Aisha age at marriage , thus it's known as ahad Hadith, (ahad i.e. single in Arabic) view Hadith terminology (((this is Not My own interpretation of various sources))), in addition view Tehzibu'l-tehzib, vol 11, pg 48 - 51 Tehzibu'l-tehzib, vol 11, pg 48 - 51 Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, vol 4, pg 301 - 302 Wail there are some storytellers other than, Hisham bin Urwah from Iraq, but thy are deemed as unauthentic ,only Hisham bin Urwah narrative is considered authentic by the major scholars includes Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim. Criticism : "It should be noted that Al-Tabari in addition to Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim are not eye witnesses, thy recorded the above information over a century after Aisha's death from hundreds of thousands of oral traditions (stories). in other words this is their judgment based on their acceptance and trust of the narrators (storytellers) How are Not eyewitness" - same thing as above. This isn't a personal essay that you wrote about Aisha; it's meant to be an encyclopedic entry. reply: Most reders are interested in this information way deny them, if it's not written in an encyclopedic style/way please feel free to edit it in an encyclopedic manner , it does not need a rocket Science to realize and confirm that : Al-Tabari in addition to Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim are not eye witnesses, look at the day of their birth and the death of Aisha, the problem is some editors are poorly informed on Islam. Criticism: in other words this is their judgment based on their acceptance and trust of the narrators (storytellers) How are Not eyewitness"" reply: Al-Bukhari (b.810 d.870) was not aided by assistants since the nature of the undertaking was such that Al-Bukhari single-handedly could have judged the reliability of the attributers a good number of oral tradition are often contradictory and evidently partisan in support or against every conceivable thing, many oral traditions were put to the mouth of the Islamic Prophet by thousands of sometimes dubious Non eyewitness narrators. every narrator claimed that he had been told by (A), that (B) had told him, that (C) had told him, etc, alleging that the Islamic Prophet had said this or made that, And the leading scholars mission including the above scholars was to diligently attempted to verify the authenticity of every oral tradition and there narrators, the possibility that each tradition in the authentic Sahih Al-Bukhari is absolutely authentic needs a great act of faith to accept as accurate and truthful. I am occupied with some issue this coming day but I can surely support every claim with a supporting link.
I disagree with your accusation that I am pushing a point of view based on my Comments like : 1- "the problem is some editors are poorly informed on Islam" - it's true - and 2- "there are some storytellers other than, Hisham bin Urwah from Iraq, but thy are deemed as unauthentic ,only Hisham bin Urwah narrative is considered authentic by the major scholars includes Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim" have led me to this conclusion Hello Annyong but if you had an idea about Islam you wouldn't have made the fallowing clime because the above info is copied from: Tehzibu'l-tehzib, vol 11, pg 48 - 51 . Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, vol 4, pg 301 - 302 . this books are used in the educating system in Islamic university mainly in the department of the Hadith spicily in Saudi Arabia. "My Objective is to inform not to take sides or deny the public accurate information." Note: I have a link to a few book in Google books that support some of the points I made and reply to your criticism I am just seeking to her all the objection and try to solve the dispute. I hope we can resolve the tension I am open to compromise I am not closed minded, but you and Cuchullain have rejected all or most of my edit you did not work with me to improve the article. Hope to resolve the tension. I am going away now. Progressive one (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
To Ibn kathir: Criticism: "You adhere to the Quran only sect a group who do not believe narrations about Muhammad where preserved throughout history" reply: Like I side I do not adhere to any sect or school of thought, I am just quoting Pr.Hite a scholar of Islam and other scholars like "Adnan how was interviewed on TV", (dose Pr.Hite Adhere to a particular sect), scholars take deferent positions that does not mean they are totally right, it simply offers as and the reader two perspectives or even more wish is a healthy state. Criticism: "I don't agree with these edits, they are primary research" reply: Yes my article continues primary research since many sources in Islamic materials are still not published in English or reviewed by western scholars, that does not mean it's wrong, there is a policy in wiki this is way I am willing to compromise on my edit. Criticism: "Just as a general note Saudi Arabia is currently being ruled by a sect in Islam known as Wahabbi's if you want to quote their point of view it should be stated as such but it does not represent Sunni orthodoxy" reply: Tehzibu'l-tehzib, vol 11, pg 48 - 51 . Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, vol 4, pg 301 - 302 . These books predates Saudi Arabia and Wahabbi's and thy can be founded in Al-Azhar University in Cairo . Criticism: "I should also add the entire argument is apologetic which is something Sunni scholars have never been regarding the age of Aisha" reply: If my objective is apologetic why would I fix the apologetic material in the article? For example According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was engaged to Muhammad and nine when the marriage took place. The accurate edit is in my article : According to oral traditions accepted by major scholars such as Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim, Aisha was six years old when she was engaged to Muhammad and married him in contract but stayed in her parents home for several years until the age of nine when the marriage took place, My objective is to provide accurate and enriching facts and perspectives. according to oral traditions accepted by major scholars such as Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim: 1- Aisha was six years old when she was engaged to Muhammad 2- and she also married him in contract but stayed in her parents home for several years 3- until the age of nine when the marriage took place.
(Note: the alternate version that was here was moved to User:Progressive one/Aisha. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Progressive one (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to address very comments of User:Progressive one,
You state that, "editors should not deny the readers accurate informative information except if their objective is to distorted or deny the readers the facts."
I think removal of such content is fine until thing is placed in GF. Also, you can have a counter comment when original itself is not proved. So, plz prove original one first and then give its counter.
One more thing, as soon as this thing ends we need to archive this thread, it has created a whole lot of a mess on talk page. Or at least may be we can put it in extended content box.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC) |
Progressive one (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC) On Cúchullain's comment , "What happened to the collaboration we were working towards?"
- I think collabration is still there but due to last year-end break intrest of most of us in Aisha has some what dampened and everybody on come-back has got busy in some different part of WP. It seems Aliwiki had done some edits on temp article and after above incident most of us have atleast one eye (may be its only half open) still set on the Aisha's activity.
- --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I turned back after a long absence. As it can be seen, I have listed almost all of the Quranic verses related to Aisha in archieve 5. If one is interested, S/he can help in the temp version to expand these sections.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good to see you back, as you can see we have some new contributors and we are seeing re-invention of wheel. I'm still busy with real-life, hope to get back to normal schedule once Muharram-mourning end and we are done with Eid-e-Zehra. For now just keeping watch on 3-As (i.e. Aisha:Article,Talk & Temp). Meanwhile you (and for that case any contributor) may go-ahead with prdecided action plan. Happy editing. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 02:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate place
In the Marriage to Muhammad section it should be
See also: childe bride (i.e.Marriage to a childe bride)
Since Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha can be founded below in Age at marriage In addition the Criticism_of_Muhammad #Aisha is about the age This is its appropriate place:
Further information: Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha Progressive one (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
can you stop creating headings for every response. You haven't addressed any of the issues i have raised specifically you just stated where you want it which doesn't help at all. Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Iβи KᾱτhiɍThe issue in this heading has nothing to do with what you have raised; you have raised the issue of Denise Spellberg and I support your argument on this issue see above .
You miss understood me The issue here it is about the Appropriate place for Child_marriage and Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha wish have been repeated.While ignoring Child_marriage. Wish raises eye browse why ignore it.Progressive one (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "age at marriage" section is not all exclusively criticism, though it does mention criticism. It is relevant for this article.--Cúchullain t/c 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Cúchullain Saied that The " age at marriage" section is not all exclusively criticism, though it does mention criticism. It is relevant for this article
We are not discussing wither the section is exclusively criticism or not all exclusively criticism , the discussing is Repeting Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha while ignoring Child_marriage since Child_marriage is Appropriate in Marriage to Muhammad section
The current article looks this way :
"Marriage to Muhammad"
"Age at marriage"
?????????????????????????????????? Progressive one (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what? This isn't a sub-article of "criticism of Muhammad", it's an article on Aisha. It needs to include all the relevant material on Aisha. Her marriage to Muhammad is the most significant thing about her.--Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No offence Cúchullain you made a full of your self.
You say: 1-It needs to include all the relevant material on Aisha
- And
2- Her marriage to Muhammad is the most significant thing about her.
Response;
You continue to argue against relevant material on Aisha, by rejecting my suggestion to use Child_marriage since it contain information on Aisha marriage in addition to the Islamic view on her marriage wish you are against.
While insisting on repeating Criticism_of_Muhammd to Aisha Wish Just contains Criticism_of_ Aisha age no more in addition it was repeated twice on this article while this article is missing Child_marriage .
Your statement says it needs to include all the relevant material on Aisha , Can you explain why you are agents my suggestion to use Child_marriage wish has relevant material on Aisha .
It takes a brave editor to accept his mistakes and overcome his brigades
logically:
"Marriage to Muhammad"
"Age at marriage"
The current article looks this way :
"Marriage to Muhammad"
"Age at marriage"
Progressive one (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is just wrong, she has to first go through her menstruation and she cant be younger than seven years as per Islamic law and the prophets own example of waiting to consummate the marriage until after this occurred with Aisha.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ I respect your comment but it has nothing to do with my argument. It explains the position of Islam on Child_marriage however people can find this info in the article thy well also see Child_marriage in Judaism However the article needs improvement, there should be a section on childe marriage in Christianity . Note: the biblical God justified and order the force marriage of female children.And byzantine etc..
I know that Islamic scholars state that no age limits have been fixed by Islam for marriage. Children of the youngest age may be married or promised for marriage, "although a girl is not handed over to her husband until she is fit for marital congress".[9]
and she has to first go through her menstruation and she cant be younger than seven years as per Islamic law and the prophets own example of waiting to consummate the marriage until after this occurred with Aisha
In addition The Qur’an does not assign a clear age at which a man or a woman becomes ‘adult’ However, there is a definition of the marriageable age as per 4:6:
[An-Nisa' 4:6] Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them
Progressive one (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Their is a specific age set by scholars and that is 7 years, the menstruation prior to this age is not accepted as true menstruation, this is in books of fiqh. I dont think your english is strong enough to appreciate what that line is saying, he is saying she can be married at any age and only qualifies it with the term marital congress which is different from menstruation specifically. The author Levy, Reuben is making it sound very similar to Jewish law which doesn't set an age or specify menstruation and this isn't Islamic law at all.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ' This debate has nothing to do with My argument in this headings section , but I understand and respect your view, I also admit that I failed to accurately explain the comment above [An-Nisa' 4:6]
The verse (( [An-Nisa' 4:6] Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, ..... ))is taking about two concepts A woman becomes ‘adult’ or ready to marry when she achieves a good degree of mental maturity And the Property of the orphans is to be handed over when the orphan has achieved a good degree of mental maturity in addition the reason that the Quran did not seat the age is because the Quran is for all times, 7 or 12 or 14 years its all interpretation of scholars how defer in there interpretations and this is not a bad think as I know an Islamic term states: different in interpretation is a mercy from God the Quran dose not seat an age but Requires mental maturity
in addition What I have Reade is that The Qur'an grants civil rights to women, many of this rights are unprecedented in the Holy Bible or Western societies of that time:
In marriage: The Qur'an grants women the right in choosing their marriage partners.
And not to be sold to their husbands.
financial security and to not give their belongings to their husbands wish was typical in the west Pre -19ce
Progressive one (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Islamic law is derived from the Quran, sunnah, sahabah and tabiin. The conditions are set in the sunnah with clear evidence it doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned in the Quran and their is no difference of opinion between any schools of law in islam on this Issue she must have had her first menstruation to be eligible for marriage. The point is that page is wrong and not suitable to use in this issue.Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ibn kathir the author Levy, Reuben is slightly wrong when he makes it sound very similar to Jewish law which doesn't set an age or specify menstruation but not the issue.
A sensible highly regarded quote from: Tropics:
- I have no objection at all to including a link to Child marriage in the article; the "See Also" section is probably the most appropriate place for it though, because that particular article is not specifically about Aisha or Muhammad, it's just useful background info. Doc Tropics 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Progressive one (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and remain common in some modern societies worldwide What societies??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.79.72 (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to source that statement. If you don't think that child marriages exist in many parts of the developing world, it might surprise you to learn that there are many places on this Earth where people generally can't read. I don't need to source that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.160.54.160 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
New edits and references
Recently a user has edited the article and removed various citation related tags. At places few referneces have been listed which include:
- Goodwin, Jan. Price of Honour: Muslim Women Lift the Veil of Silence on the Islamic World. UK: Little, Brown Book Group, 1994
- http://sistersbookroom.bbactif.com/t522-biography-of-aisha-bint-abu-bakr
- http://looklex.com/e.o/muhammad.htm
- http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/right.htm
- http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=41784
- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aisha
Of above sources Goddwin's was already marked for verification while remaining links need to also to be verified for their credibility. For now I'm restoring/replacing removed tags. I'm also restoring content as few words have been removed while others added (although they are one or two at places but they tend to change weight of the sentence and at few places don't agree with reference e.g. removal of Sunni & inclusion of or Twelve. I'm putting verification needed tags to newly added references. Also retoring change in headings. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just tried to verify few of the recently added referneces, here are my findings:
- Goodwin - I can't verify as I don't posses copy of it, may be the user who introduced the refernce can provide it or third party reference state Goodwin's.
- sistersbookroom - It deals with parents of Aisha but not their tribe.
- looklex - The reference states "Muhammad was buried in his own house, which had already served as a mosque for some years." while in Article it used to support sentence "Burial place of Muhammad, in the house of Aisha located in Medina.", so the reference used does'nt supports the claim made in article.
- princeton - This reference is reliable and supports the sentence "Abu Bakr, became the first Sunni caliph".
- xtimeline - The refernce deals with "First Fitna "" while it is used to support "Abu Bakr, became the first Sunni caliph" sentence
- newworldencyclopedia - This reference is a mirror of WP
- --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Modifying/adding tags to new references as per my findings. Also moying few references to apprppriate part of sentence which they actually support.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 07:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just removed following references as they are WP mirrors:
- Also going to remove http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aisha due to same reason.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also removed http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/aisha.htm from reference and restored third-party tag to subsection Death of ..., link was copy of WP + primary sources.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Removing following recently added references:
- as they are not supporting the not they have been quoted for. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Your instincts are right about most of the sources.
- Goodwin is an investigative journalist. She's probably fine to use for the modern era (including modern perceptions of historical figures) and for uncontroversial material, but should be replaced once better sources become available.
- http://sistersbookroom.bbactif.com/t522-biography-of-aisha-bint-abu-bakr appears to be a personal website; the authorship and editorial oversight isn't clear. It shouldn't be used.
- http://looklex.com/e.o/muhammad.htm is the "Encylopedia of the Orient". That article is written by this guy. Not the worst source, but considering that there are certainly better ones available for Aisha's life, I think we should use those instead.
- http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/right.htm This is probably acceptable as a self-published source written by experts. We will need a better citation though.
- http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=41784 is from an online service that allows you to make your own timeline. Not a reliable source.
- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Aisha is a Wikipedia fork roundly no considered a reliable source. The other forks or mirrors should be removed as well.
That's good for a start.--Cúchullain t/c 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As there is no response from the editor who initially added the references, I'm going to remove the refrences and retore article into it's previous state.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Added third party (sahi al bukhari) reference to Accusation section of the article, and removed the request.--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Mr123, FYI as I mentioned in my preceding section, Bukhari is considered as primary source of reference & will require additional third party reference. Regarding other reference i.e. Restoring Women to World Studies, A Document-Based Question Curriculum Unit for Grades 9–12, Preliminary Edition, Publication Date: August 2009, The Arab World: Islam and Feminism in the Age of the Arab Renaissance #14, 15 & 17, it seems to be good one but I'm not sure about it's academic standing so I'll wait for a word from other editors. Thanks again for your contributions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have used afore mentioned reference at couple of places in the article. In any case if it is deemed to be a non RS or in any other way we have revert option.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- could Mr. F or any one provide me the policy of WP for primary source?? and kindly clarify, is it should and must to provide the third party source even if primary source/reference is provided??? as there are multiple tags of primary references on the article Fatimah which i want to question. so your answer will be very helpful for me to work on both. Please advice?? --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion of primary sources is at WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The idea that we need third party sources can be found at WP:SOURCES. Both are policy. The gist of it is that it is easy to misinterpret primary sources, so we need to go with how reliable, third-party sources interpret them.--Cúchullain t/c 15:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Cuchullain ,thanks for your instant reply, is it permissible to place 5-10 tags of third party sources in one edit? and where can i find the WP policies index? i mean link it will be of great help for new users like me, to meet and maintain the standards of WP. sorry to bother you once again..Thanks and regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is always permissible to try and sort out problems. If the tags are relevant, there's no problem placing them, though effort should be made to resolve the problem.--Cúchullain t/c 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- thanks once again for motivation and solving the query, and . --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Back to my original query, are there any suggestion regarding reference: Restoring Women to World Studies? Is it OK to use it on this article?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 19:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mr.F what is the issue if we use that source???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mr.F what is the issue if we use that source? kindly specify??? --Omer123hussain (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about it's academic standing so have asked feedback from other editors, few of us are really good at this and can be deemed as SMEs in th field. For me it seems fine probably it is a self-published source written by experts similar to princeton one (Cuchullain pointed out that the source as such when I omitted it as suspected one). I don't have much issue with the source (or at least I would have not used it myself if not removed it from the article) but just want to be sure, playing cautious you know.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- what is SME's ?? after appling that reference Cuchullain had gone thru the artice and made some other edits but he did not commented any remark on that reference and even if U dont have issue with it, as U said, I advice to remove it. Today i had applied some more references, i advice you to check those and confirm the authenticity. Yap U r right we need to be very cautious for every article and play with the same spirit every were. --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the jargon, SME means Subject Matter Expert. And if somebody didn't took notice of anything we can't say that they agree with it, things get noticed at WP after months and then get removed but longer the period they resided longer the process. Regarding Aleem, Shamim (2007). "11&12. Some Observations About Prophet's Marriages and Mothers of Believers". Prophet Muhammad(s) and His Family. AuthorHouse. p. 76-86., I'm not sure about it as it is not verifiable (even Google search doesn't yield anything). So I'm going to mark it for verifiability against existing content & going to remove new content.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Authenticity of source books
Dear Sir, Please kindly confirm, is it OK with below reference to be used in the articles.
1) isbn=9781434323576,
publisher=AuthorHouse Author name: Aleem Shamim Book name: Prophet Muhammad(s) and His Family chapter:Some Observations About Prophet's Marriages AND Chapter: Mothers of Believers Page 76-86
2) if we can use this report as a reference http://www.outreachworld.org/Files/u_texas/IslamandFeminism.pdf
A user User:Faizhaider had doubt about its authenticity and vacated the section, just because he could not find it thru simple google search. Kindly advice, is it should and must that provided references should be reachable thru simple google search? otherwise the source information will be removed?
I would also like to report about the misuse of the WP authority given to the user User:Faizhaider as he is creating inconvenience and disturbance on the article Aisha, as informed by him, to me on the talk page of Fatimah he is Shia. therefore he does not make any disturbance on the article Fatimah thou there are number of un-sourced, primary sourced and frictional works without reference and he does not allow any user to work on it, he will simply revert it with un-necessary reasons. --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The book by Shamim is definitely not reliable. It is published by the self-publishing company AuthorHouse, and is therefore an unusable [[WP:SPS|self-published source. The other doesn't look to be the kind of source we could use either. It's not a publication about Aisha or women in Islam, it's a curriculum unit for teaching high school students about it. It will probably references sources we could use, however. If you want additional input you could post at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard.--Cúchullain t/c 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to remove all the subsequent edits involving the two references.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank's both of you for prompt action.I hope this applies to the article of Fatimah and Shia Islam and it should be treated likewise, unreferenced and not reliable data could be removed from both of those articles.--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- List them and we will deal. I'm ready to open similar review of Hz. Fatimah's article as we did for aisha. You may refer to aisha's talk's archive for reference.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- And yes I'm Shia Muslim & I don't hide it. But that doesn't stops me to tag and remove sections on Aisha which are negative to her e.g. event of adultery, her role in fitna, etc. I have tagged sources in those sections also. Even I have tried to include the edits & ref but you over-zealousness back fired. And I don't have any special authority in WP I'm just another common editor the thing is I play by rules and not sentiments. I try to be impartial while reviewing any work as I did here on this Article. Since the day you have joined on WP you have reported me to at least half dozen editors on sectarian basis if next time you do that I'll report your actions, I have been tolerating your words just for the reason that you are new to WP & I don't want to be reason of shooing you away from WP. Haven't you learnt anything by suggestions given to you by various editors on your & their & articles talk pages.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 17:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- its your misunderstanding, hardly i know you since last week, do not blame me. Its you who is highlighting, yourself that you belongs to so and so,not me.check your discussion whit me on talk page Fatimah where you did that again and again,and try to de-motivated me rather than providing suggestions. its ok to me if you are shia or any person, there are many shia in the world, i don't have any problem. let them have issue with Ht Aisha(RA) or Ht Mohammed(PBUH) its there fate, not mine. I never mention my religion like what you did un-necessary.
- Can you find any of your discussion which give a single word of suggestion,or advice or motivation. on my every edit you tried to directly de-motivate me. and you try to break my trust from WP.
- Check what Cúchullain and mathew had done, they had clarified the doubt and also he gave the suggestion from where i can get my sources verified. rather you was initially just reverting the edits though you knew me as a new at WP and misguided me many times giving wrong info about WP policy.
- and not only me but every person learns and experience new things every day with every suggestion and action he see's around him.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- its your misunderstanding, hardly i know you since last week, do not blame me. Its you who is highlighting, yourself that you belongs to so and so,not me.check your discussion whit me on talk page Fatimah where you did that again and again,and try to de-motivated me rather than providing suggestions. its ok to me if you are shia or any person, there are many shia in the world, i don't have any problem. let them have issue with Ht Aisha(RA) or Ht Mohammed(PBUH) its there fate, not mine. I never mention my religion like what you did un-necessary.
- Can you give reference of where I said that I'm Shia on the discussion involving you? And now also your don't refrain putting allegation on me & Shias by your comment, "let them have issue with Ht Aisha(RA) or Ht Mohammed(PBUH) its there fate, not mine". i have been trying to persuade you to put up case and have shown you how to do it by pointing you towards article aisha's talk's archives but you seem not to notice my suggestion. I have been most polite to you and have not violated any WP guidelines for User engagement. But you have been putting case against me at various editor's talk pages, and here are those edits:
- Apart from this you have raised allegations against me at Talk:Fatimah & Talk:Aisha & User talk:Faizhaider.
- --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
New refs & imgs
Following new references have been inserted lately into the article:
- History of the Islamic Peoples: With a Review of Events, by Carl Brockelmann, Moshe Perlmann, Joel Carmichael; G. P. Putnams Sons, 1947
- Nabia Abbott, Aishah: the Beloved of Muhammad (University of Chicago Press, 1942) ISBN-13: 978-0405053184
- http://www.answering-christianity.com/abubaker.htm
- http://www.ofletters.com/a/Abu_Bakr_Biography.html
- Amira Sonbol, Rise of Islam: 6th to 9th century, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures
- Encyclopaedia of Islam (pub E.J.Brill)
are they RS? Also, Spellberg have been extensively used to refer new sentences can we have a cross-verification? </ br> Apart form above an image File:Tombstone of Umar (r.a) by mohammad adil rais.JPG has been used with description "Burial place of Muhammad, in the House of Aisha now part of The Prophet Mosque Al-Masjid al-Nabawi", description at image page says "Tombstone of Umar, the third caliph", are these not contradictory & hence fit for removal? --19:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict between Mujahid Ahmad and Faiz Haider, Wooden Metal, Valenciano, and Hello Annyong
Faiz Haider's viewpoint is clearly prejudiced towards the Shiite view. I will make the appropriate removals and add the Quranic verses concerning slanderers which you deleted for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid Ahmad (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do not blank the page as you just did. This isn't the place for you to blank sections that you consider slandering - we're here to build a neutral article, and that doesn't include skewing the page towards your POV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "skewing towards my POV. I am being impartial and analysing the historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid Ahmad (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mr Mujahid! before doing your valuable contributions towards the article I'll suggest that you go thru the Archives of the discusions which happened during last six month and which are responsible for the current state of the article. Going thru the archived discussions will help you (& other new editors) to understand that present state of article is result of lengthy debate happened between number of editors (including editors with clear Sunni inclination). Present state of artcle is not only due to me (although I was actively and majorly contributed to it), so please stop alleging me on basis of sectarian inclinations and till now since you edited the article I have not touched it so technically I'm not conflicting it's a single side war you have waged against me.
- Thanks HA, WM & Val for maintaining article.
- --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
revert Section blanking
Thanks User:HelloAnnyong for reverting the blank section done by User:Goblinwars. if any person have issue please discuss on talk page.--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have few questions. Can you explain following:
- Why did you removed IPA pronunciation guide from the article?
- Why did you removed tag {{See also|Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha|Child marriage}} from section Marriage to ...?
- What is your logic behind section name Legend?
- What is logic behind repetitive use of phrase "Aisha married to ..., ... favorite wife"?
- Do you not think that before making such structural changes to the article and flooding it with new sentences, paras and phrases & rewording and reordering existing content required a bit input from few other users.
- Why article should not be reverted back to it's previous stage and discussion regarding proposed changes is posted here on talk page and then actual agreed draft is moved to article?
- --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- hi, and good day,
- IPA was not in proper coding and place, my plan is to restore as once we complete the references for that section,Please go ahead and place IPA.
- was repeating twice in the article therfore it looks more suitable in the section Age at marriage which is quite logical because its controversial all the time.
- Legend can be replace with some another suitable section name upon discussion, as it contains all, the accusation,role model, favorite wife etc. we may suggest any perfect name if it does not suit.
- "Aisha married to ..., ... favorite wife"?, just trying to give the exact scenario mention in the books, as most of the time users are posting doubts, and queries on the edited words, if required i can correct it with words suitable to statement.
- hi, and good day,
- I want to come up with one suggestion ,for the section, View either we can keep the template referance require in genral for the full section View or with the statement in the section, please advice.
as we may see tonight one editor had removed all the references and external links sections, that the reason we can discuss all the issue here and come to conclusion.thanks for the cooperation. --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
removed template third party inline: since december 2010
Removed template Third party inline and added refrence from History of Islamic People and Aisha: The beloved of Muhammad
Added Aisha as Mohammed favouret wives, reference taken from Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr page-3. --Omer123hussain (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unintelligible and tendentious
It is easy to be critical I realize, but the History of Islam is an important topic nowadays, so it is doubly important to make efforts to provide a reliable and objective source of information.
It appears that articles about Aisha, the Battle of Basra, and the Fitnas, have become a historical/ideological battleground between Shiites and Sunnites. It looks as if there has been heavy editing and elementary standards of English have been violated to such an extent that the articles are no longer intelligible--along with being biased.
Both these conditions do a disservice to the reputation and mission of Wikipedia. I suggest that the page be locked and that subsequent edits be scrutinized and vetted.
P. Marder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.18.101.166 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong Age
She was 18 or 19 when she married with Muhammed. Her speachs about Quran and her siblings ages also prove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.81.8 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Aisha was nine years old when she moved in with Mohammed and he consumated the marriage then. See this link for verification http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htmPeter Jensen (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's not an academic publication. The academic publications we use say it's 8-9 WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrong Age
She was 18 or 19 when she married with Muhammed. Her speachs about Quran and her siblings ages also prove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.81.8 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Aisha was nine years old when she moved in with Mohammed and he consumated the marriage then. See this link for verification http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htmPeter Jensen (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's not an academic publication. The academic publications we use say it's 8-9 WhisperToMe (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Aisha and Weight of this article
Who is Aisha, what is notable about her? In the world when you google the name. In the books about Islam? So how is the bulk of the article talking not about historical Aisha but something to do with her age of marriage. It is undue weight. It is mentioned once and that is that. I dont know how modern Western opinion of ancient societies is so relevant to this article. Makes no difference what they think, and there is an article for that also.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Age at marriage
The phrasing in the "Age at marriage" section has been extensively discussed over the years. The second line is sourced perfectly well, and clarifies why critics of Muhammad take up this issue. The recent edit also added material about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I doubt is actually in the source cited, so it had to be removed.Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Human Tradition's Project comments
You have done a great job expanding the existing article into in in-depth look at the life of Aisha after Muhammad. The organization of the article is good and helpful for the reader. The section on Aisha's major contributions was well-developed and had a lot of interesting information. Although I would not change much to the article, combining the sections about the Caliphs might be beneficial, otherwise the article is coming along nicely, great work!--Bissonar (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Your article is coming along good. The one thing I did notice is that quite of few of your links don't go to existing pages. That would be a good thing to fix. Also the section Battle of Bassorah needs some more information, but I'm sure that y'all are still working on it. Nice job otherwise.--LittleDuck17 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
This article shows that you've done some good research. However, the information in this section has not yet been organized as clearly as it should be. There seems to be some overlap in information covered in different sections. For example, "Important Contributions to Islam and Her Paradigm to Women" (which is an unclear and confusing title) discusses Aisha's influence on politics and people, both of which are topics covered by other sections. There are other examples of overlap as well. My main suggestion at this stage is to clarify the kinds of information that should be included in each section. --Jdenbow (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
After reading your article I feel that it is well written and is interesting, but some of your information overlaps and you guys should try to figure out a way to clear this up and make it flow better. I also think how you have your title on the bottom of the human traditions page is confusing but maybe that is just me.--Swalrus007 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks awesome! You all have obviously done a great deal of research for this article and it definitely shows. The only criticism I have is to explain the act of veiling in the introduction of your section, just so others who are not familiar with Islamic traditions understand the impact of the act. Great job! --Eamodeo (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Aisha, but it seems like you guys have broken down her life into relevant categories and they all looked developed! Great job Kbeisaw (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Good job! There is quite a lot of information. The information doesn't flow in some areas, as some people mentioned the overlapping. Other than that though you guys did great! --Kayla hope (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This is looking great. It's very detailed and easy to read. My only suggestion is to break up the large sections into smaller subsections. I think it might help find where the info is overlapping.Lbeaulieu1 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
You have done a good job with adding thorough information onto an already existing article--Bpio075 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Lots of interesting information. I think it's good that you provide lots of links to other pages. --Kerri grant (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the comments regarding our article. Your input and thoughts are being taken into account and they are extremely helpful. Links in blue are linked to existing articles, but the few red links are links that do not have existing articles regarding them but we kept them linked to reveal their importance. We are beginning to fix the overlapping information, so let us know how it is coming! Thanks! --Kireland1 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Guys, I think you did really well on editing and organizing the article. It looks really good, is easy to read and fallow, but yet is still scholarly and knowledgeable. Over all great job!--Kcollins11 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice reorganization. Be sure to add a conclusion to the article and edit your entry for clarity. --Jdenbow (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) At first I though the subtopics were a little misguided and confusing but now they look great! Nice job guys, the article came together nicely and had a lot of great information in it. --Khackett1 (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Group 3 Discussion
Hey guys, I moved around the sections of our article to what we talked about after class today. What I feel we need to work most on is overlapping issues. Aisha's contributions to Islam and her influence on the Islamic people need to collaborate and try to avoid overlapping which is something I am currently trying to work on. Also, throughout out article, the Battle of Bassorah is mentioned more than once and acting like a overlapping issue. We need to maybe try to combine these sections or exclude duplicate information!! --Kireland1 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, so I combined mine and Nick's sections and intertwined them so overlapping didn't occur so much. I actually figured out how to correctly insert references so now the same reference used more than once has the same number rather than multiple numbers. Also, since I have completed my section and just working on minor edits now I can begin to help you guys with your references. Also, it is probably ideal to create a little conclusion within each of your sections, even if it's just a sentence or two wrapping everything up! --Kireland1 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I did my best trying to shape the section about political influence to decrease the "overlap." Though, I still don't consider it to be overlap, since it is an analysis of events, not technically the history. --Klabbe21 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, so I think I am going to combine the caliphate history and then create sub sections for each caliph. As for the Battle of Bessorha, Katie I wouldn't take to much out because your section consisted of her role. I will go back and thin out the section a little for the battle.--Lnickerson1 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Also group, I would add in a little sentence or 2 in the major introduction of Aisha at the very top just to introduce the topic of what is in the article. --Lnickerson1 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, so I have added a few sentences to the introduction of the article at the very beginning. We all just should review the introduction and make necessary changes. Also, we should start to put together a conclusion at the very end of our article to wrap everything up regarding Aisha. Keep up the good work, almost done!! --Kireland1 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am going to add in a basic conclusion. I went through and tried to correct some mistakes of spelling and grammar.
Shelby-I bolded some things that didn't make complete sense. 1)Since Abu Bakr being involved in the conversion to Islam, he and the prophet developed a close relationship. (work on sentence structure) Also I was not sure about what you had before like what you meant by it. I believed you were talking about the relationship between Bakr and Muhammad. Just double check on grammar, and sentence structure, but I believe it should be okay for the most part. Good job!
Nick and Kailee- Just make sure you guys add a few more links to your sections of the important words. Kailee I talked to you today about this, but just wanted to mention it again. Next, when you discuss in the intro. about how Aisha and Hafsa were associated with Abu bakr and Umar maybe just mention something really basic about there relationships like how Abu Bakr was Aisha's father and how Umar was related. In the 2nd paragraph I became sort of confused about the wording , it could just be the Islamic words that are confusing to me too. 3)the sentence on "It was for that reason that Muslim feminists are advocating to return Islam to the envisioned society Muhammad had for his followers" - is this past or dealing with the present? 4) What was the book that became the official history of Islam (4th paragraph)? Looking really good, and it flows a lot better and the information does not overlap either. Good Job!
Katie- Good job, I didn't find many issues content wise. I am going to tak out the"This battle was named for the camel Aisha rode during the conflict. On the camel Aisha directed her fighting men. Maybe instead you can put in something like "In the battle of the Camel Aisha exuberated her role as a commander by directing her men into battle and inspiring them to fight for the death of Uthman." Then continue on discussing how Ali realized Aisha's power/influence on others (What you already wrote). Other than that good job!--Lnickerson1 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Katie-
Sounds good, I am currently working on editing my section. I linked a few more important words this afternoon and will link some more important words. Also, I have began editing the few minor edits you have mentioned. Trying to create more clarity throughout the section. I think our introduction at the very beginning of the article is easily understandable and seems in good shape. Need to make a few minor edits throughout and we will be all set. Lauren, I will read through your section to see what needs to be edited. Everything is coming alone very nicely! --Kireland1 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! sounds good, I bolded where either I edited (aka the part about the battle of the camel part. The other bolded sentences is some stuff I am having trouble with clarity. I made a few minor edits in like adding "s" to ends of words or just minor word placement edits. --Lnickerson1 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed the few things you mentioned. I reviewed the paragraph with the multiple Islamic words, which is confusing to you merely because of the words. I tried to make it easier to understand. Also, within the fourth paragraph, Aisha just added to the history of Islam, it wasn't an actual book, unless you are referring to the Hadith or Quaran. Other than that, that paragraph is fine, I reviewed it closely. I will fix those bolded words and then I believe the contributions section is completed. I will leave a comment regarding your section and then I believe we are done. I will once again review the entire article tomorrow afternoon and make any last minute edits. --Kireland1 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Under the 3rd Caliph section I bolded the sentences I thought needed most attention. Carefully read through your section, as I see a few minor grammatical errors or unnecessary words that can be omitted. Also, your very first sentence is confusing. You make it seem Umar is trying to attain 3rd caliph, where he indeed was the 2nd caliph and Uthmath was the 3rd. Also, there is another sentence I bolded a few paragraphs down that seemed confusing and needed some attention. After these minor edits your section looks good and easily understanding. I believe our article is coming along well! PS- When you fix those bolded edits, don't forget to unbold them! --Kireland1 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. I will also do the same. Haha. Triple/quadruple check. :) --Lnickerson1 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Read the section regarding the Battle, and found only some grammatical issues and errors which I easily fixed as I read through. That section sounds good, and all edits have been made. Our article is continuing to improve. All we need to work on now is the conclusion and you just have to edit your section that is bolded. Don't forget to unbold those! I will check our article once more tomorrow for anything we might have missed! Great Job!! --Kireland1 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty will do. :) Katie- where words are bolded I added in that sentence and took out more of the historical information about her camel and such which was mentioned under the battle of bassorah. Other than that there were a few grammatical errors (very few), but I took care of what I saw. Good job! Shelby- just make sure you unbold the sections I bolded for edits. Good Job! Kailee and Nick- your section definetly does not overlap in thought anymore, and the minor edits should make it read easier hopefully. Good Job! I will also read it again too before 5 pm, and hopefully we should be all set. :)--Lnickerson1 (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So I fixed the bolded areas in Shelby's section and Katie's section. I read through our article one more time and made a few minor edits. Everyone's sections seem to be in order and grammatically correct! Everything looks good and just about ready for grading. I will log onto Wiki one last time to review before 5 p.m. tonight, but other than that I think our article looks nice and completed! Good job everyone!!! --Kireland1 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks nice! I believe it is all set, everyone should probably just take a quick read through and see what you think. :) Good luck next week everyone!--Lnickerson1 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I went through my section, and did some edits. I cleaned up some of the writing that was added. Also, I think I made it a little bit longer. --Klabbe21 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Lauren for fixing up my section (sorry I didn't get to it soon enough). I am just making the final touches up to my section and making sure everything makes sense, maybe do some last minute digging for info on Umar but besides that it all looks really good. Good job on the conclusion Lauren! -- Speterson6 --Speterson6 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Shelby
Story of the Honey needs to be added
The article has a section called "Story of the honey." However, the story itself is completely omitted! After searching online for this story, it seems to be taken from Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 7.192. Could someone who's knowledgeable about the topic please fix this issue? Bluemonkee (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this omission too. Either the heading and section should be removed, or the story added, if it's relevant. Zamphuor (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Colin Turner Reference
I believe someone meddled around with the text a while ago and it went completely unnoticed. Here is the original text;
"Such marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West."
And this was the reference - Colin Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp. 34-35
^Someone vandalised the above. And if anyone wants the original text from the book then;
Unsurprisingly, one of the charges levelled against the Prophet by his detractors is that his relationship with Aisha was tantamount to child abuse. A marriage between an older man and a young girl was customary among the Bedouins, as it still is in many societies across the world today. It was not unheard of in Muhammad's time for boys and girls to be promised to each other in marriage almost as soon as they were born, particularly if the union was of direct political significance to the families concerned. However, such marriages were almost certainly not consummated until both parties had entered adulthood, which Arabs in the seventh century tended to reach at an earlier age than Westerners today. It is highly unlikely that Muhammad would not have taken Aisha into his bed until she was at least in her early teens, which was wholly in keeping with the customs of the day, and in context not in the least improper. - Colin Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp. 34-35
I would personally put the edit in myself, but I'm pretty bad at edits, so I hope someone else can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.123.68 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
missing info?
I've read in various places, such as here, that a) Mohammed first noticed Aisha as a baby, b) her father complained that he was M's brother and the marriage was not permitted, and c) he masturbated between her thighs when she was 6 years old. If these things are true, shouldn't they be mentioned in the article? Malick78 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Islam-watch, are you having a laugh? No, it's not true, if you have a specific authentic report backed up by scholarly commentary, then feel free to let us know, otherwise be careful on where you get your info from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.73.213 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Age, yet again
Tahiramunawar, the issue of Aisha's age has been discussed repeatedly. For any view to be included on Wikipedia, it needs to be verified by reliable sources. The current wording is supported by such sources.Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the following addition by 78.180.82.12. The quantity of the citations is imppressive, but I think their quality needs discussion before this remains in the article. It seems that the first 11 citations are used as primary sources for a conclusion that would be original research if that interpretation wasn't supported by reliable sources, and it is unclear why the remaining citations would satisfy that criterion. E.g. does quranicteachings.co.uk have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS)?. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- According to historical sources regarding to the age of Asia's sister Asma[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] , and also regarding to the age of Fatima[39] , the age of Aisha at the moment of her marriage is calculated to be 19-20[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] when she married to the prophet Muhammad.
- ^ 33:6
- ^ 33:6
- ^ http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=119165&d=13&m=2&y=2009
- ^ Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips , Hadith Narrators Among the Prophet's Companions[1]
- ^ 33:6
- ^ http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=119165&d=13&m=2&y=2009
- ^ Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips , Hadith Narrators Among the Prophet's Companions[2]
- ^ http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=119165&d=13&m=2&y=2009
- ^ Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips , Hadith Narrators Among the Prophet's Companions[3]
- ^ 33:6
- ^ a b c d Watt, "Aisha", Encyclopedia of Islam Online
- ^ Amira Sonbol, Rise of Islam: 6th to 9th century, Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures
- ^ a b c d e f D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40
- ^ a b Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, p. 157.
- ^ Barlas (2002), p. 125-126
- ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim, 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, 41:4915, Sunan Abu Dawood, 41:4917
- ^ Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7
- ^ Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press 1961, page 102.
- ^ 7:62:64, 8:3310
- ^ http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=118438&d=23&m=1&y=2009
- ^ http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=5§ion=0&article=118438&d=23&m=1&y=2009
- ^ Barlas (2002), p. 125-126
- ^ Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim, 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, 41:4915, Sunan Abu Dawood, 41:4917
- ^ Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7
- ^ Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press 1961, page 102.
- ^ 7:62:64, 8:3310
- ^ The first marriage
- ^ The Student's Quran: An Introduction (1961), p.xv, by Hashim Amir Ali
- ^ Mishkat al-Masabih, Edition with Urdu translation published in Lahore, vol. 3. 1986. p. 300.
{{cite book}}: More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help) - ^ "Original Urdu translation".
- ^ Book of History, vol.4. p. 50.
{{cite book}}:|first=missing|last=(help) - ^ Al-Badayah.
{{cite book}}:|first=missing|last=(help) - ^ Siyar A`la'ma'l-nubala'. Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2. p. 289.
- ^ Mu'assasatu'l-risalah (1992). Arabic. Beirut.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah. Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8. p. 371.
- ^ Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah (1933).
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah. Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8. p. 372.
- ^ Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani. Taqribu'l-tehzib. Lucknow. p. 654.
- ^ Al-isabah fi tamyizi'l-sahabah, Vol. 4,. Maktabatu'l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh. 1978. p. 377.
{{cite book}}:|first=missing|last=(help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Shanavas, T.O. "MD Vice President Islamic Research Foundation International". Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.7102 W. Shefford Lane Louisville, KY 40242-6462. Retrieved 1 March 2013.
- ^ Fauq, Abdul H. "Neuroscience Associate Professor of Neuroscience Assistant Professor of Pharmacology". Retrieved 1 March 2013.
- ^ Maulana Muhammad Ali. Fadl-ul-Bari.
- ^ "Islamic Review, December 1980, U.S.A."
- ^ Ahmal fi Asma’ al-Rijjal.
{{cite book}}:|first=missing|last=(help)
- Good call. Some of those sources, such as "Maulana Muhammad", have been introduced repeatedly here but are not considered reliable.--Cúchullain t/c 14:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Lede
In lede there are following sentences:
"During the time of the third caliph's reign Aisha rebelled. She did not fully approve of his practices on many occasions, and she wanted to avenge Uthman's death, which she attempted to do in the Battle of the Camel."
If we read through the sentences the first sentence says that Aisha rebelled during the reign of third caliph i.e. Uthman but then second sentence says she wanted to avenge Uthman's death and that she attempted to do in Battle of Camel which was against first Shia Imam Ali the fourth Sunni caliph. Although it is known that Aisha didn't fully approved practices of Uthman and at various occasions criticised him. Hence, I feel the senteces should be rephrased to avoid confusion and give full picture. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is anybody looking into above issue? Or should I move ahead and fix it?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say go ahead, see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the lede. Now it says,
"During the time of the third caliph's reign Aisha rebelled. She did not fully approve of Uthman's practices on many occasions. During fourth caliph's reign she wanted to avenge Uthman's death, which she attempted to do in the Battle of the Camel."
Hopefully this settles the issue.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Infobox
I have removed the sidebar template after closing the associated WP:TFD. However, it may be useful to create an infobox for this article. The main contents of the deleted sidebar are as follows.
| Aisha Mother of the believers - (اُم الْمؤمینین) |
|---|
 |
Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikiislam
I found a site called Wikiislam which portrays Aisha and Muhammed in a very negative way. The only mention of the site on Wikipedia is a reference in the article on Islamophobia. I wonder about responses to the way they are portrayed at Wikiislam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I recently found stuff over the internet about 'thighing', the Islamic practice of Mufa'khathat - Muhammed having intercrural sex with a prepubescent Aisha, and Muslims today engaging in this practice with children. I cannot, however, find actual evidence for any of this - the only sites I come up with are anti-Islamic sites, and the references provided are questionable, or circular. I also just realized that Mufa' khathat is 'Mu Fuck a That'. I emailed Snopes about it all. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wikiislam has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It just uses the same software, as do many other sites on the worldwide web. Wikipedia is in no way obliged to address anything found on Wikiislam or similar sites.Grace has Victory (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Age of consummation in the lead because?
Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. Why would this be so notable (above all other things to occupy the lead). Is it there to SHOCK US. It has no value when looking at ancient societies where adolescent marriage was the norm. But when you bring it into our 21st (where even at 21 years old people behave like 12 year olds) then it looks awkward. Why is it so high in the lead, when it is of no real value to historical understanding of Aisha?--Inayity (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is generally mentioned in allmost all books and even in university lectures. It is a fact. It figures in the hadiths, [4], an important tool for understanding the Quran. Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries. Most people used to get married around the age of 12-13, around sexual maturity, sometimes before. No need to be shocked.
Hafspajen (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that a plurality of the readers, who intentionally seek this article, is looking for precisely this fact. Tomeasy T C 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Zaynab bint Jahsh
I have removed from the main text the assertion that Zaynab bint Jahsh was the author of the slander that accused Aisha of adultery.
Aisha specifically states (p. 495 of Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Raoul Allah, OUP, 1955) that Zaynab was not guilty. "She spoke nothing but good. But Hamna spread the report far and wide." Since Aisha and Zaynab did not like one another, we should accept Aisha's word that Zaynab did nothing wrong on this occasion.
On p. 497 she also mentions Mistah ibn Uthatha and Hassan ibn Thabit as perpetrators of the slander.Petra MacDonald (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Misinterpretation/errors
Story of the honey contains errors in it. It wasn't honey that was offered it was a honey based drink called Maghafeer. The following statement "It should be noted that "taste the honey" was a commonplace Arab metaphor for "have sexual intercourse".[35] That is incorrect because it was a drink like juice or soda and not sexual intercourse. The article flip-flops saying that it was honey and it was eaten. On the contrary, Maghafeer was consumed by drinking not being eaten. And Maghafeer did not give a bad breath. It was concocted out of jealousy (Not to demean Aisha and Hafsa or attack anyone who honors her). And it is also mentioned that "every time Zaynab offered some of this honey to him he would spend a longer time in her apartment." That is incorrect because the prophet spent his time with all his wives equally. But, "Muhammad became saddened and upset." is accurate. The only thing that is not is the Maghafeer part. Hopefully in the future I'll take some time to correct it (without bias towards any sect).
- There may well have been a "drink like soda" made of mimosa honey, and it may be that Muhammmad literally drank it. But it is also a fact that "taste the honey" meant "have sexual intercourse", as referenced here. Alternative versions of this story include accounts where Muhammad was having sex with Mariya bint Shamooon in Hafsa's (or Zaynab's) room, and this is why Aisha and Hafsa were angry. All the variant versions of what exactly Muhammad was doing converge to the agreed account that he vowed "not to do it again" but was then released from his vow by Allah. So it is only fair that all variants be represented.
- As for Muhammad "spending longer in her apartment," this is what the hadiths say. Other hadiths say that Muhammad divided his time equally among all his wives, but others again say that they gave him permission to abandon the roster and spend longer with some wives than with others (e.g., see Bewley's translation of the Tabaqat, p. 123.) By all means point out these contradictions - it is not clear whether Muhammad divided his time equally or not. But it is unscholarly to say that one hadith "is not correct" simply because there is a contradiction. Either cite a scholar who has assessed the evidence and determined which version is more correct; or quote all versions, acknowledge the contradiction, and leave the reader to decide.Petra MacDonald (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Aisha (RA) married or betrothed
Note: The discussion was posted on my talk-page by 108.89.20.139 (talk). It has been moved here for convenience.
I looked at reference #20, it shows ten hadiths in english translation, all of the hadiths except one say that Aisha was married at the age of 6. So only one hadith says that she was engaged at 6. As for that one hadith that says she was engaged, the translation is incorrect. The hadith which I speak of is this.
(Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: )
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.234
Now, if you can read Arabic, you can go to this site and read that same hadith in Arabic and it says married, not engaged.
http://sunnah.com/urn/36400
If you cant read Arabic, just copy and paste it into google translate and it will give you the same thing.
http://translate.google.com/
Also, you will find that the scholars on Islam QA translated that hadith into married. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/1493
Conclusion:
Clearly the Prophet had a wife, not a fiancee. Out of 10 of those hadiths in reference #20, only 1 said engaged instead of married, and that translation wasn't correct. So the Aisha page should say married instead of "betrothed".
I'd like to finish with a saying from the Prophet himself:
“Whoever lies about me deliberately, let him take his place in Hell.”
108.89.20.139 (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If all sources say Aisha (RA) was married to Prophet Muhammad (SW), and not betrothed, we can change the information. I've also looked to biography books. They use the word "marry".--AsceticRosé 10:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- She was married at the age of 6 and the marriage was consumated later. And this is verifiable from most of the RS.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- It seems the word "married" would be the choice. Can we change it now? @ 108.89.20.139, discussion should be preferred before sensitive changes.--AsceticRosé 11:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection. Lets be bold and change it, if anybody raises any concern we can address it later.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Done--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- As it has been done as per WP:RS, there is no scope to raise concern. Thanks for doing this.--AsceticRosé 11:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
User AsceticRose Vandalising Article
Just a heads up: User AsceticRose has been vandalising a section of this page. The user has reverted an cleanup without discussion, then made the claim that the cleanup was "derogatory" (a blatantly false accusation that the user then refused to back up) only to then edit war and vandalise again by then claiming that same cleanup was "unnecessary" (spacing out sentences so one single sentence doesn't have the entire paragrahs dozen sources after one word is "unnecessary" apparently) and then attempted to attack the sourced grammar structure. User clearly pushing POV, as his own sources contradict the original sentence, and vandalising article.
Suggest that any user seeing his vandalism simply clean back up and report. 203.59.33.61 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane
- I'm afraid that your additions are the problem here. First and foremost, they're not sourced, which is a no-go. Your edits make it appear that your material is attributed to the current sources when in reality they say no such thing. Finally, please do not edit war or falsely accuse other editors of WP:VANDALISM.--Cúchullain t/c 15:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello 203.59.33.61, I hope you've understood your problem. And I didn't change my story: my two edit summaries still apply to your unusual changes. Your edit was not a clean-up, rather a slight distortion of texts. Please read Wikipedia policies and don't use the words so frequently that you've used in edit summaries and in this talk-page discussion. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 15:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- By no stretch of the imagination can Asetic Rose's edits be called vandalism. The problem is 203.59.33.61 adding new material in a way that falsely makes it appear existing sources support 203.59.33.61's edit. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Asetic Rose is a vandal for not allowing 203.59.33.61's POV edits, that too without any source & being inserted into existing text to give false impression that existing sources support them. And I think we need such vandals or WP will turn into pile of unsourced POV garbage. I support Asetic Rose for keeping in check 203.59.33.61's edits.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Quality of Sources
I question the usefulness of Kaviyani Derafsh's "Aisha and Safwan" as a source for the accusation of adultery section.
- The link goes to an Arabic page. The reader has to hunt around to find the correct article in English.
- Who is this person? He just seems to be a blogger, not a historian. Any sources he quotes stand or fall on their own merits; his personal opinion does not seem to carry any authority.
- Most of the story he tells is not referenced to any source. It's just his retelling.
- Several of his minor details seem to be incorrect. That is, they contradict the way the story is told in a dozen or so traditions that all agree with one another.
For now, I have removed information that is referenced only to Kaviyani Derafsh and replaced it with the way the story is told in the majority of the hadiths. The unusual variations can be reinstated if someone can source them to a real authority and not just a blogger.Petra MacDonald 06:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs) I have also moved the reference note hither so that other editors can check it out.
- "Mohammad Ibn Tabari, Ali Dashti, Sahih Bukhari"Derafsh, Kaviyani. "Aisha and Safwan" (PDF). http://derafsh-kaviyani.com. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=
- "Mohammad Ibn Tabari, Ali Dashti, Sahih Bukhari"Derafsh, Kaviyani. "Aisha and Safwan" (PDF). http://derafsh-kaviyani.com. Retrieved November 14, 2012.
Children?
On a cursory glance the article fails to mention anything about her possible children or pregnancy. IMO it ought to be in the first few paragraphs. --85.76.96.244 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ibn Kathir mentions a tradition that Aisha had a miscarriage and named her dead child Abdullah. However, he expresses doubt about the reliability of this tradition. It is universally agreed that she had no other children.Petra MacDonald 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Argument about Aisha's age when marriage was consummated
There is much argument on this topic. This arises from an attempt by many readers of judging historical facts in seventh century Arabia through the prism of twenty-first century America. It turns out that even today, consummation of marriage with very young girls is allowed in Arab culture. In September 2013, Reuters reported that an eight year old girl in Yemen died of internal bleeding after having intercourse on her wedding night with her forty year old husband. See
"Child bride in Yemen dies of internal bleeding on wedding night ... SANAA (Reuters) - An eight-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age, a social activist and two ... news.yahoo.com/child-bride-yemen-dies-internal-bleeding-wedding... - Cached"
The husband had not violated any Yemeni laws, the report does not say that any legal action was taken against him.
Honestabewiki (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see what events in twenty-first century Yemen have to do with an article on Aisha. Even if (as some people hold) child-marriage in Yemen is based on the premise that what was all right for Aisha and Muhammad must be all right for everyone, that would belong in an article on "Marriage Customs in Yemen," not an article about Aisha.
- An encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should not be judging whether it was "right" for Muhammad to marry the child Aisha. It should simply record her age at marriage, as indeed this article does, and perhaps give the names of notable people who have supported or condemned Muhammad's action. Aisha's age at their marriage is one of the best-attested facts of Muhammad's life.Petra MacDonald 10:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Child abuse?
Is Category:Child sexual abuse appropriate for this page? For if a girl had to marry as a six (!) year old and the marriage was consummated when she was nine (!!!), this surely must be a case of child sexual abuse.Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aisha belongs not so much to "information about child abuse" as to "an example of an abused child". I don't know whether Wikipedia includes "notable child abuse victims" in the "child sexual abuse" category. If not, and if people agree it's a good idea to start an "abuse victims" category, I would nevertheless advise against using Aisha as the poster-child for starting out. We should probably start with notable modern cases and work backwards.
- If there is already a practice of categorizing "child sexual abuse victims", I would canvass a broad spectrum of opinions before deciding which historical characters to include, even if the abuse is as well documented as it obviously is in this case. The reality is that, throughout history in very many cultures, huge numbers of children were abused. We want to be wary of categories that effectively include "almost everyone". Petra MacDonald 10:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)