Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:21, 18 September 2022

Aisha received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aisha article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / Middle East / Medieval / Early Muslim This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam: Salaf / Shi'a Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Salaf task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 13, 2017.

Rejection of LivingIslam as a source

Dear @Doug Weller

Can you explain why LivingIslam is not reliable?

It's an article by Gibril Haddad, a reputable Islamic scholar, refuting the arguments made by the ones claiming that Aisha was not 9 year-old when consummated.

He stated that nowhere did Tabari report that "Abu Bakr's four children (including Aisha in that context) were all born in Jahiliyya (before the dawning of Islam)".

If you can point out where Tabari reported that, what book of his, what volume, what page; then please do.

If you can't then please don't revert my edit, because that would be vandalism.

Also, even if LivingIslam is not acceptable as a source, why did you reject all my edits which included the addition of sources from Sunnah.com, the actual Tabari's book, Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad (in arabic), etc.?

Are those also considered unreliable as sources to you?

Androvie (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie First how do you justify changing "Some hadiths" to "Traditional hadiths" ?

Then you change "differ" to "fairly consistent'.without changing the source (which doesn't use the word "traditional" by the way.

I'm not sure that sunnah.com actually backs the bit about her recollection, but The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9 does.

LivingIslam itself isn't an rs, eg would be useless. Who is the author of ? Doug Weller talk 11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you want to cite The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 9, please make sure you give the publisher, and edition, and the page number. These details are needed because pagination is sometimes completely different in different editions of the same book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you.

I've provided the URL and ISBN as well. :) Androvie (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

The author of that LivingIslam article is Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad. It's written multiple times there:

https://www.livingislam.org/ir/d/aam2_e.pdf

Please read first before claiming something is not reputable. He was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world,"

Sunnah.com is a very well-known website for finding hadiths including from Sahih al-Bukhari. And the sentence of this wiki that talks about Aisha's recollection mentioned "as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari", it was already there before I edited it. Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there?

About "differ" one that I changed to "fairly consistent", I've read the book, there is not a single sentence there saying that, "Islamic sources of the classical era differ among themselves about her precise age at the time of marriage and consummation"

Best regards, Androvie (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then why does it have to be Tabari's report that must be used as a source there? Because something published by the State University of New York (SUNY) Press has a lot more credibility than the website.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't you know that Sahih al-Bukhari wasn't written by Tabari?

This is the sentence before I edited it looked like.

Aisha herself recollected to have been married at seven years of age — as transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari Androvie (talk) 15:00p, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth adding that just because someone is influential does not mean that they are well informed (for example David Cameron made laughably ill-informed statements about World War II).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Then please provide us with where Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam?

In what book, what publication, what volume and what page. Androvie (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I said the website is not an RS in itself, it depends on what you want to use. I never used the word "reputable." Sorry I asked again about the author. If you want to use him you should attribute it to him. I see we now have "both the date and her age are subject to controversy and discussion among scholars;" in the lead and in the Age at time of marriage section you put "Islamic sources of the classical era are fairly consistent among themselves about Aisha's precise age at the time of her marriage and consummation" I don't care what Tabari didn't say. But Spellberg does seem to back that so ok, he seems to suggest that among the early writers it was just Ibn Sa'd who questioned the dates, but that really needs more research. And yes, influential does not mean they are a reliable source. I hope you see that. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the author, Gibril Haddad himself used the website to host his arguments.

The problem here is that this wiki article about Aisha stated (before I edited it) that Tabari reported that Aisha was born before the Dawning of Islam.

Where Gibril Haddad holds that nowhere did Tabari report that.

So if you can point out where Tabari reported that then please provide us with in what book, what volume and what page Tabari reported that. Androvie (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a policy of verifiability. (See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.) This means that statements in the article are meant to be backed by citations to reliable sources. So what statements in the article are you challenging? Do you dispute that those statements backed up by reliable sources? Have you read the sources cited?

As regards Gibril Haddad - not our problem.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in but I saw the changes and looked into this. It is a complicated web of citations so it’s difficult to find.

This ("born before the dawning of Islam") is cited to Ali, who in turn cites:

Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past, 197–198, n. 4. which says:

Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad.

This directs readers to: "see al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, 4:2135 and its contradiction within the same chronicle, Ta'rikh, 4:1262"

This is actually volume 11 in the English translation, about page 141.

"All of these four of his children were born in al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named" (The other reference Spellberg mentioned is from vol 7 of the English version, page 7, quoting Aisha: "the Messenger of God married me when I was seven")

In the Haddad link above it states that Abu Bakr only married his wives at that time and nowhere did Tabari say that his children were born then. Looking at the Arabic original, I can see why this is his impression, as it can also be translated as "All of these four of his children were born from his two above-named wives, who we named/listed during al-Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period)", meaning these wives who were listed above as marrying him during that period (versus his later wives, who are mentioned directly after that). The modifier is unclear due to the insertion of the phrase "whom we have named" in the middle of the sentence. However, as far as I know there is only one translation of Tabari’s work into English so the first one is the one that all English scholars have been working off of. Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaker and so he probably read it in Arabic rather than the English translation.

I have included the Arabic original here in case people are curious. https://ia802207.us.archive.org/9/items/WAQ17280/trm03.pdf

Here I will write out what it says if it may be of use: فكل هؤلاء الأربعة من أولاده ، ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلية

It’s on pg 426 of the pdf.

I hope that is helpful.

Dragoon17 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.

Then it's true what Gibril Haddad said, which means there are no contradicting reports among early Islamic sources that Aisha was married when she was 6-7 and consummated when she was 9-10. Androvie (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you continue with challenging the reliability of Spellberg et al, based on your interpretation of primary sources, I will ask that your ability to edit this page be revoked. If you think Spellberg mis-cited his sources etc., go publish a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed venue and we will see. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, who are you? you're not an administrator in the first place, man. Instead of fear-mongering and edit-warring, why don't you first provide a counter-argument to dragoon17's explanation above? Androvie (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not see what the fuss is all about and Dragoon17, your variant translation is ridiculous. Blankinship is a scholar of repute and his own footnote goes,

This statement appears to contradict the alleged age of Aishah of nine years at the time of the consummation of her marriage to the Prophet in Shawwal I (April-May 623), for which see al-Baladhuri, Ansab, I, 409-11; Ibn Hajar, Isabah, IV, 359-60. Even if she was born at the end of the Jahiliyyah period, in 609 C.E., she would have been at least thirteen solar years old by the year I/622-23.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, I put the original arabic text into Bing Translator and this is what came out. "All of these four of his children, born of his two wives, whom we named in ignorance."

Seems to match what Gibril Haddad and Dragoon17 said.

Thus, the reports of Aisha's age at marriage in the books of Tabari are not contradictory at all. :) - Androvie (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but Misplaced Pages accepts peer reviewed scholarship. Not Bing Translate or blogs by Islamic muhaddiths. Esp. when they go against scholars like Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Kecia Ali, and Denise Spellberg. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

So, western scholars can be quoted regarding the history of Islamic figures, but Islamic scholars (ulama) can't? lol. How funny. Androvie (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is how we operate. For example, such a stance appears to have prodded the launch of WikiIslam etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, red herring fallacy, what does this have to do with wikiislam?. It's Islamic Scholars (ulama) saying about an Islamic figure, and you reject that because some western scholars draw conclusions from a mistranslation of Islamic book. Lol. And who are you to claim that's how Misplaced Pages operate, you're just playing admin all along after all. lol. I'll skip this man for now and wait if there's any admins or reasonable person who can moderate the issue. Androvie (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie I’m an Admin but we normally have no authority over content unless there are policy violations. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Btw, may I ask? In case there is a mistranslation of part of the content of a non-English book that causes contradictions within it and disapproval from some scholars, shouldn't we attribute the problematic part to the translator or/and the authors of the secondary sources who cite the translation, and provide the other view as well, so that readers can evaluate? Androvie (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

...Arabic is my native language. It is an unclear modifier. I was answering a question about sources and Mr. Haddad's paper, I am not trying to cast doubt on Mr. Blankenship or say that he is wrong. Simply that the two individuals interpreted a vague sentence differently.

As an aside, I take issue with your characterization of Mr. Haddad. He is published in several peer-reviewed journals and has non-self-published books, in Arabic and English (usually as GF Haddad). He is referenced and cited by other authors. You may look at this on Google Scholar/Books. As for whether or not this LivingIslam site is useful for wiki purposes I do not know as I have never looked at it, but I do not think it is fair or reasonable to characterize him as an "ultraconservative" (he is not) with no relevant expertise.

Anyway, I can see the direction this is headed in so I will refrain from commenting any further. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It is an unclear modifier. >>> Responding soon.

He is published in several peer-reviewed journals >>> Like being the resident-author for "Islamic Sciences"?

cited by other authors >>> Example of some prominent scholars citing him approvingly? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, as I said, I am uninterested in continuing a discussion with you as I do not think it would be productive. You may search his name on the sites I indicated if you would like to learn more about him. Feel free also to consult with other Arabic speakers if you doubt my words. Peace. Dragoon17 (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie: OK, this was driving me crazy because I know that I'd seen it somewhere before. In fact I'm almost positive it was on the Arabic wiki page for Aisha at some point. So I've finally tracked it down. The pdf you linked on LivingIslam is just an archive of an old page that was from another site. The original page was on a site called SunniPath. (I found the original on wikiquote, of all places: here on archive.org)

So, SunniPath is like a 15 year old site that no longer exists which is why that other site probably archived it. It morphed into Qibla then SeekersHub and then SeekersGuidance (current name). Faraz Rabbani is the founder of those projects. Basically people submit questions to Islamic experts on history, fiqh etc and have them answered which is why the PDF looks like a Q&A... since it is. They also have online free courses on various Islamic matters.

Now that does not solve the reliability problem and again I am not the person to ask about this. I searched for opinions on Google Books and Scholar. Here are links to various iterations of the site SeekersHub SunniPath SeekersGuidance To me it seems fairly reliable but again, I am not an expert. Probably it depends upon the specific person answering the questions? Hopefully that puts things on the right path to resolution at least.

(Last edit, sorry! I may have found a compromise?: in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit not in English, summarizes Haddad's statements. Perhaps this will suffice? Dragoon17 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to compile all this. Also, for the journal you brought up in your last edit, I happen to be a native Indonesian speaker so I guess reading it will be a breeze.

I'll be reading the journal first, but if you want, feel free to edit this wiki article. :) Androvie (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done making a rough edit. If there's anything you want to improve, please feel free to do so. :) Androvie (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the page looks OK to me. This is a topic that makes people very emotional and can quickly devolve into thousands of points and counterpoints, but I think it summarizes the situation well enough. Sources are all noted scholars or peer-reviewed journals and books. I personally am done editing this, but good luck to everyone else still working on it! Dragoon17 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

There was some needless divergence from Wikivoice that I've now addressed with further copy editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie: this edit, aside from being incredibly unilateral, just made the section dysfunctionally long. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is it that instead of answering my questions in the section below, you reverted my edit under the pretext of unilateralism and consensus? The edit was not made by me alone, but also by Dragoon17, and some of the sources are also given by him to provide the views from both sides. The view of some muslims who deny the the reports of Aisha's age being 6-7 at the time of marriage on one side, and the rebuttals of their view by the muslim conservatives on the other. But your edits make it seem as if the arguments that rejects the report of Aisha's age of 6-7 years are the correct and irrefutable one.  Even though Misplaced Pages upholds neutrality. Androvie (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Influx of sources

• Some booklet published by "Islamic Presentation Center International" and authored by the head of religious education at a Hull secondary school.
• An opinion-article by "A. Faizur Rahman", described as a Chennai-based peace activist.
• An internet forum that offers answers to questions about Islam premising upon a Salafist ideology.
• Gibril Haddad, an archconservative muhaddith with no relevant academic training.

Needless to say that none of the above sources are reliable enough to be used in any form. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, What is your basis for claiming that?

Gibril Haddad is a native Arabic speaking Islamic scholar who holds ijazas from over 150 scholars across the Muslim world.. He was featured in the inaugural list of The 500 Most Influential Muslims and has been called "one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world", a "prominent orthodox Sunni" and a "staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law."

And you claim that he has no relevant academic training? Lol. Androvie (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting from our lead but how does being a prominent orthodox Sunni or a staunch defender of the traditional Islamic schools of law or one of the clearest voices of traditional Islam in the Western world render him a scholar at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al? In the realms of Misplaced Pages, "academic training" has a very narrow meaning. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Who are you to claim Gibril Haddad is not at par with Ali, Spellberg, Blankinship et al, lol. Androvie (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOURCETYPES:

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

TrangaBellam (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? then do the books of Tabari meet the above criteria or not? Androvie (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

They do not which is why I had not cited Tabari directly. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this article cites his work directly though, not attributing it to the author of the secondary source who cites his reports. Androvie (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Commment: Ah. I should apologize. I didn't actually have a problem with Banlhge453's initial addition, and had only meant to undo the second, based purely on it being sourced solely to Islam Q&A (as in the edit summary). Rolling back both was totally accidental, and I didn't realize I'd done it. Again, apologies to all. I'm perfectly happy with Barlas as a source. The Brown one is fine too. I am not fine with several aspects of Androvie's version, not least accusing any parties of cherrypicking: as we all know, all sources have bias, but this is a bit off. And then again, Islam Q&A is not a reliable source. Muhammad al-Munajid is a polemicist, but not a particularly qualified scholar. So, he only really ever reflects a highly conservative viewpoint, and not with much authority. Gibril Haddad is a much more qualified scholar, but whatever that rather strange Q&A pdf is, it falls quite a way short of our typical expectations in terms of reliable sourcing. Overall there's little to be recommended from Androvie's version, while Banlhge453's version is fine supported by Barlas and Brown. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's good to finally have reliable sources standing up the modern estimates - they've been flying around for a while unsourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah ha, hadn't realised it had come from Muhammad, squirrelled away under Household - that explains why it checks out. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to only promote one view, when there is an opposing view. Besides, an administrator has already said that it is okay to quote from Gibril Haddad as long as his words are attributed to him. Androvie (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

An administrator's view is not implicitly more valuable than that of another editor's, so you can dispense with that argument from authority right there, but more importantly, yes, we could quote Gibril Haddad as published in a reliable source. A pdf from livingislam.org is not that source. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, at the end of the day, it's still his writing, and the admin ok'ed the using of that source, also why did you write only the claim that estimates she was not 6-7 yo when was married from your source, but left out this part:

More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet's life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind 'Aqqad's defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari's august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus of marriage age. No member of Egypt's religious establishment showed more displeasure with 'Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excrocriating the famous wordsmith's book on the Prophet's most active wife.

At the heart of Shakir's criticism was the question of the prophet locus of truth in Muslim life. He states and restates that Aisha's recollection of her own marriage is the lynchpin of historical and scriptural truth on this issue. Her report was categorically authenticated by the great Hadith critics of the classical era and sealed by the consensus of the medieval jurist. 'Aqqad's insinuation that she exaggerated her youth was thus tantamount to calling the Prophet's wife a liar. Against Aisha's own authenticated testimony, moreover, 'Aqqad brought nothing more than a flimsily cobbled-together argument, which Shakir contends rested on flawed premises. For example, there was no 'normal' engagement age for Arabs of the era.

Androvie (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No, if it's not presented in the form of reliable publishing, we actually know very little about the veracity of a text, how it was produced, if it is accurately transcribed, if Gibril Haddad gave permission for it to be disseminated, or if it coherently reflects his scholarly viewpoint. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you avoiding answering the issue of why you left out an important part of your source that I quoted above?

btw I copied this sentence from verifiability

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Androvie (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And as I have mentioned above, we have no real evidence that the pdf in question was self-published. We in fact know nothing about that document's origins, or by whom it was produced. Even the self-published nature of the source is an assumption with this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Dragoon17 has given a detailed explanation in the section above. Androvie (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I added no sources, but if you would like to make further suggestions from Barlas or Brown, feel free to. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

References

1. "Shaykh Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad - Biography". SeekersHub.org. Archived from the original on 2 December 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
2. "Shaykh Dr Gibril Haddad". SimpyIslam.com. Archived from the original on 15 November 2015. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
3. "Integrated Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān". iequran.com. Archived from the original on 20 December 2015. Retrieved 25 December 2015.
4. "The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World" (PDF). Jordan: The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. 2009. p. 96. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2017. Retrieved 9 December 2015.
5. Press, Oxford University (2010-05-01). Salafism: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 14. ISBN 9780199804191. Archived from the original on 2017-04-23. Retrieved 2017-04-22.
6. Brown, Jonathan (2007-06-05). The Canonization of Al-Bukh?r? and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunn? ?ad?th Canon. BRILL. p. 327. ISBN 978-9004158399. Archived from the original on 2017-07-31. Retrieved 2017-07-14.
7. "The truth about Muhammad and Aisha | Myriam François-Cerrah". the Guardian. 17 September 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2022.
8. "Hazrat Aisha was 19, not 9". Hindustan Times. 9 May 2009. Retrieved 1 August 2022.
9. Smirna Si. Aishah - A study of her age at the time of her marriage with Prophet Muhammad.
10. "How Old Was 'Aishah When She Married the Prophet ? - Islam Question & Answer". islamqa.info. Archived from the original on July 19, 2022. Retrieved 2022-08-28.
11. Haddad, Gibril Fouad (2004). ‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 9, 2022.
12. Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126. On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
13. "The Concept of Polygamy and the Prophet's Marriages (Chapter: Other Wives)". Al-Islam.org. Archived from the original on 15 March 2022. Retrieved 2022-08-29.
14. Ali, Maulana Muhammad (2015-04-16). Muhammad the Prophet. Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore USA. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-934271-15-5.
15. Qazvini, Ayatollah. "Aisha married the Prophet when she was young? (In Persian and Arabic)". Archived from the original on 8 August 2022. Retrieved 2022-08-29.
16. Brown, Jonathan (Jonathan A. C. ) (2014). Misquoting Muhammad : the challenge and choices of interpreting the Prophet's legacy. Internet Archive. London : Oneworld. pp. 146–47. ISBN 978-1-78074-420-9.
17. Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126. On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
18. Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126. On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
19. Brown, Jonathan (Jonathan A. C. ) (2014). Misquoting Muhammad : the challenge and choices of interpreting the Prophet's legacy. Internet Archive. London : Oneworld. pp. 146–47. ISBN 978-1-78074-420-9.
20. Brown, Jonathan (Jonathan A. C. ) (2014). Misquoting Muhammad : the challenge and choices of interpreting the Prophet's legacy. Internet Archive. London : Oneworld. pp. 146–47. ISBN 978-1-78074-420-9.

To Doug Weller

Dear @Doug Weller, please explain why did you revert my latest edit on the grounds that you aren't convinced the sources are reliable, while you allow one part of Banlhge453's edit regarding Kecia Ali which is not clear on what page the information is located. The citation indicates that the pages are 133 and 155-199. On the page 133, I don't find anything like that. But the pages 155-199? that's so broad, I need him to pinpoint on what page specifically Kecia said that. Androvie (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Pinging for user. ― Blaze Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Because I was only looking at Androvie’s sources. I’m off to bed now. I’ll try to look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

To Iskandar323

Hi @Iskandar323 :), I have some problems with this part of your edit:

Islamic sources of the classical era differ on the subject of Aisha's age at the time of her marriage and its consummation,

1. Spellberg does not state this anywhere on the page of his book mentioned in the citation.

2. This sounds as if the sources contradict each other, even though the variations are only between 6 to 7 at the time of her marriage, and 9 to 10 at the time of consummation. And the reports are fairly consistent within those ranges.

3. Even assuming it is true that Spellberg said so, the remark must be attributed to him because not all scholars agree with it. Androvie (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2022

- oh yeah, I just remembered, can you point out on what specific page Kecia Ali said this?

Attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation have been described as an exercise in futility

I have looked it up and can't find it. It should also be attributed to her because the large majority of Islamic scholars (ulama) accept that Aisha's age at the time of marriage has already been proven by the hadiths. Androvie (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That the classical sources differ hardly seems a point of contention or opinion - perhaps it is misattributed to Spellberg, and that reference should be moved, but it would still stand up as a perfectly adequate opening summary without any attribution. As to the Kecia Ali-linked part, I am not sure who added it, but it has been present in the text for quite some time, attributed originally not just to Ali, but to both Ali and Spellberg I believe. You'd have to ask its originator which statements it paraphrases. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If the information can't be found in the source, then it doesn't meet the verifiability requirement.

All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced..

Androvie (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have full access to both the sources such that you are able to clearly verify or factcheck both statements? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Androvie (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And? What do Ali and Spellberg say in overall summary of the evidence related to Aisha's age, and its veracity? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is red herring fallacy. You're the one pushing the information with those sources, why are you asking me instead? Bring here the inline citations to where Ali and Spellberg say those, also the specific pages, because if you can't then they should be deleted. Androvie (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to email me the pages and I'll happily look at them myself. 39-40 from Spellberg, 133 from Ali. If you're not willing to tell us what the quotes on the page actually say, how does anyone know you actually have the sources? We can always tag it as 'failed verification' (according to you) and wait for someone who is more forthcoming to reveal what, precisely, the sources have to say on the matter, rather than obfuscate. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Or, as I mentioned, you can track down/use a tool to find out who added the lines and ask them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The original 'futility' line read: Spellberg finds attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage (or consummation) as an exercise in futility; Kecia Ali agrees. - so the material paraphrased may also be linked to pages 39-40 from Spellberg. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Here, Kecia p. 133

https://i.ibb.co/27zcGxn/Kecia-Ali-133.jpg

Spellberg p. 39-40

https://i.ibb.co/VQ0Pvc8/Spellberg-39.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/VxKWzjG/Spellberg-40.jpg

Nothing like that can be found there. Androvie (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Spellberg and Ali have described this issue in a great detail and summary of this detail is that proving real age of Aisha is an exercise in futility. However if we delete this statement then we have to present the all the arguments and fact which were brought by Ali and Spellberg which will have same message (just in a broader way) And i think, you would be upset from this. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Read again my comments above, I'm tired of repeating the same thing again and again. Androvie (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

To Banlhge453

Hi @Banlhge453, as I've told you many times already, please join the discussion here rather than just giving a short note on your repeated reverts of the edits you disagree with.

Your version of edits creates the impression that the Islamic scholars who adhere to the hadiths are just idiots with blind faith who follow something that is clearly wrong.

Even though a number of them have given their rebuttals to the arguments made against the hadiths regarding Aisha's age at marriage. Some of which I have included in my edit.

Regarding the reliability of Sunnipath and Gibril Haddad, it has already been explained by Dragoon17 in the section above.

Misplaced Pages emphasizes neutrality, not bias towards a particular side by rejecting reports or remarks that do not fit its agenda. Androvie (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Androvie no, NPOV is not neutrality. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hm... okay maybe it's my error since I'm not a native english speaker, but it still doesn't invalidate my point.

All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Androvie (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We frankly have little need to reference any primary religious texts or religious opinions because we have secondary sources such as Ali and Spellberg that summarize the entire saga of this storm in a teacup from the classic era through to present. Ali is a gender specialist who covers it all in meticulous detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly stated on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Whereas some of the arguments in this article, such as that "Aisha's age cannot be proven", are disagreed with by Islamic scholars who believe the hadiths have proven that thing. Androvie (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic. It cannot be proven, objectively, because there were no birth certificates around at the time. This was noted in a much early version of this section, but if such a glaringly obvious piece of information genuinely need stating out loud, we can restore it. Basically your claim here is that some Islamic scholars say it can be proven so we should believe them? Interesting arbiters of truth that you're choosing there. Probably not the most NPOV ones, methinks. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are actually hadiths that trace back to the person herself saying that she was 6-7 years old when she was married, that's more than enough I think. Asking for a birth certificate even though the person herself has given the information about her age is tantamount to a red herring fallacy. Androvie (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

In case it needs spelling out, hadiths cannot prove a thing. They are fairly rubbish primary sources. Not contestable. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but the Islamic scholars (subject-matter expert) say otherwise. Meanwhile, Misplaced Pages is not the place to accommodate only your opinion. Androvie (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six years old at the time of marriage. They have clearly no historical evidences because historical reliability of hadith and sirah, is itself, a topic of debate in academic circles. Nothing is proven. You're waging an ongoing discussion. Like (hadith reliability, opinion of individual scholar, list of arguments and counter arguments of both side). Unfortunately wikipedia page is not a place for all of this stuff. Banlhge453 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No, hadiths in Islam already have their own qualifications after they were evaluated by the imams of hadith (such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc).

Those qualifications are saheeh, hasan, daif, etc.

The majority of Muslims accept and recognize the hadiths of hasan grade and above as fundamental sources.

Plus we are talking about a character (Aisha) whose life story is found nowhere else but in the hadiths.

The funny thing is that you cast doubt on the authenticity of hadiths but accept some of them (of a lower grade) as true and others of a higher grade such as those from Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim as false. Androvie (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do not care about Islam's internal grading system for hadith. All hadith are primary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hence we defer to secondary sources written by subject-matter experts whose precise job it is to scrutinize all of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

And those subject-matter experts include the Islamic scholars who refute the arguments made against the authenticity of the hadiths regarding Aisha's age being 6 to 7 at the time of marriage. But why are you deleting them? Androvie (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what the material from either of the Islamic scholars you recently added adds to the page. It basically amounts to: 'they don't like the modern assessments because they don't adhere to their traditional frameworks' - do we really need to state that traditional Islamic scholars do not like it when their traditions are challenged? Something of a guaranteed result. Also more linked to them not liking hadiths being disputed than the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So that's why you deleted it? because of that assumption of yours that they just don't like those assessments, not because you've already looked into it? Actually those Ulamas, such as Gibril Haddad, provide reasonable rebuttals, for example, the modern assessments say that all the narratives (regarding Aisha's age being 6-7 at marriage) are reported only by Hisham. Gibril Haddad refuted this by saying that there are more than eleven authorities among the Tabi'in that reported it directly from Aisha, and he's correct, as I've searched for it, there are more than one hadith regarding this that doesn't have Hisham in the chain of narration.

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3379

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422d

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3255

https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422c

Regarding Asma's age too, there are multiple sources regarding this, not one of them is in the collections of saheeh hadiths, though, which means they do not meet the criteria of the highest reliable reports. They are from the tarikhs. The one that says Asma was ten years older than Aisha is from the less reliable one, which is from Abi al-Zinad; but the more reliable one from al-Dhahabi says there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, which matches the hadiths that say Aisha was 6-7 at the time of her marriage. Androvie (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation by Imam Bukhari and Muslim doesn't gurantee the authenticity of hadith. There is a huge debate on hadith reliability and just because some imam who was guided by God, collected those hadith doesn't mean that they will become automatically historical accurate. Historians like Patricia Crone and Hoyland have cast serious doubt on these issue. Just because only source to know about Aisha is hadith also doesn't mean that it becomes a historical fact. However it has been already mentioned that according to Bukhari, Aisha was seven at the time of marriage. What do you want know? Yes, I cast doubt on hadith because many well established scholars have and as far as Aisha's age is concerned, I've already made it clear that majority of Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and while some disagree. There is no need to go in depth of both side's arguments because they are endless Banlhge453 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Saheeh means authentic, fyi. And wikipedia stressed neutral point of view which means

representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

It's fine for you to doubt the accuracy of the hadith and give some rebuttals, that's why I included them as well in my edits, but that doesn't mean you can reject if there are also rebuttals by the Islamic Scholars to the rebuttals from your side. Androvie (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

'Authentic' by Islamic standards does not mean 'of merit' here. An authentic primary source is still just a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In Islamic terms, hadith with a saheeh grade, means that hadith is one of the most reliable. All the records regarding Aisha come from the hadiths. It's funny that you talk about the history of Aisha but you dismiss the only sources about her as rubbish, etc. Androvie (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, quite, literally endless. Hence Kecia Ali dedicated a 45-page chapter of her book to the subject of issues such as this pertaining to Aisha, and her book makes no less than 30 mentions of Aisha in relation to her age. We do not need to repeat that exhaustive exercise here in this encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

For an analogy, in the Misplaced Pages article about the earth, if we write:

- Scholars A based on the evidences that have been obtained concluded that the earth is sphere shaped

- But scholars B's assessment of the evidences concluded that the earth is actually flat shaped.

If we stop just there it's the same as we're creating the impression that the opinion of scholars B is the right one here, even though actually scholars A have given rebuttals to scholars B's rebuttal.

It's the same case with your edit now.

- Islamic scholars based on the Saheeh hadiths concluded that Aisha was 6-7 year at the time of marriage

- Some Muslim writers (actually Ahmadiyya), made an assessment based on one tradition regarding Asma's age concluded that Aisha might have been in her late teens when married.

If we stop there, it's the same as making the impression that the opinion of that some Ahmadiyya Muslim writers as the right one, even though Islamic Scholars, such as Gibril Haddad have given rebuttals that the tradition used by those Ahmadiyya Muslims was from the less reliable one, and the more reliable one about Asma's age actually matches the age Aisha of being 6-7 when being married. Androvie (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been already discussed. Bukhari mentions, she was seven at the time of marriage and majority of Muslim scholars take Bukhari as an authority while some disagree on this issue. Repeating the same thing and going in depth of both side's arguments is a waste of time. Because there is not only argument of Asma and Hisham, there are many arguments like death year of Aisha, conflicting hadith of Bukhari etc. Therefore if you present that some scholars say Aisha would have been older at the time of marriage and other scholars have countered it then this not end. There are also counter arguments from first side and then and then, it will go on. Therefore, please keep it brief as far as possible. Banlhge453 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've explained regarding this above. Androvie (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20060303064329/http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Citations

Hello everyone, I see the controversial part of this page is getting out of hand again. If it may be helpful I have gone through every sentence and looked into the citations. I've pasted the text below, except in cases where there is no controversy attached to any of it. I hope this is formatted correctly...

Having looked at all of these, I think most of the sentences are accurate. There are only a couple of things I’d change, and I think these are non-controversial: “The claim of being the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to attract support in the disputes that arose over the succession to Muhammad.” I think is sort of accidental synthesis of two different ideas cited above, perhaps “Her status as the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees” or something would be better. I think one of Androvie’s additions should remain, namely changing the first sentence to “Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation”, which is in fact what the cited sources say and the current version is needlessly vague. Also the word “status” should be added after pre-menarcheal.

I also have a proposed addition: a note about Abbas Aqqad was added, I believe by Androvie. To me it is directly relevant to mention the first Arab to pen a revisionist take as well as the backlash to it (and why these works existed in the first place), as this was a matter not just of opinion or faith but of law. This is from Brown's book:

It would be much harder to extricate Islamic reformist ideals from the tangle of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. ... The person who rose to challenge ‘what the orientalists say about Aisha marrying when she was a child’ ... Abbas ‘Aqqad was an accomplished and prolific Arabic prose stylist ... His modest hesitance evinces respect for the classical Islamic tradition of Hadith criticism while constructing an argument against its consensus on the issue. Historical reports differ on Aisha’s age, he explains, going on to argue that she was actually between thirteen and fifteen years old when her marriage was consummated ... Aqqad cleverly skirts the authenticated Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari in which Aisha herself reports that she was nine at the time, addressing it only obliquely by suggesting that Aisha was fond of emphasizing her childhood spent in the nascent days of Islam ... More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet’s life... Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari’s august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus on marriage age. No member of Egypt’s religious establishment showed more displeasure with ‘Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir.

The text mentions that "exposure to Western norms and moralization efforts" prompted the review of the commonly-accepted young age of marriage allowed for girls at the time, which was itself based on Aisha's young age. Brown seems to be an accepted source here so I would argue for a sentence or two about this to be included. Of Androvie's other additions, the ones pulled from the Indonesian paper, I do personally think Muhammad Ali (the Ahmadi figure not the boxer) is relevant, both because he put forward the first known recalculated-age publication and because several figures within his sect built off his work and propagated those ideas; certainly to me this seems as worthy of a note as the current penultimate sentence in the section. But I would not specifically fight for its inclusion.

To me, with those changes, this section would be as good as it can be.

Does anyone have any issues with any of this? I will make a draft if there are no objections.

Dragoon17 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages Policy WP:RS requires:

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

I think this line:

Al-Tabari ... remarks her to have been born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

should be attributed to the translator (Blankinship) who translated volume 11 of the Tabari's tarikh (each volume has a different translator it seems), or the secondary sources' authors, because another view from the Islamic scholars (subject-matter experts) such as Gibril Haddad, says that:

Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.

indicating the line could've been mistranslated from the Arabic source, which it makes things a lot more sense, since that line also contradicts another Tabari's own report. I also think that remark of Gibril should be included because it's stated on Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:

All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Androvie (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Experts sometimes make mistakes and sometimes "simplify" things by omitting what they consider unimportant truths. If a translation of Tabari says X, this should either (a) be attributed to Tabari, or (b) to Blankinship's translation of Tabari. Stuff in the translator's introduction should be attributed to Blankinship.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information. Androvie (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you have any reliable source published by a peer reviewed journal which presents another interpretation of Tabri then feel free to edit. But if your sources are Islam scholars such as Gibril Haddad then still spellberg's way of interpretation would be preferred. However if you find Haddad's way of interpretation which can be considered as equally reliable and strong as spellberg's then you're welcome to edit. Haddad is an expert in Islamic field but Spellberg is an academic expert which makes her more reliable authority to rely in wikipedia. Banlhge453 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough with your red herring fallacy. Both are experts on the matter and both of their words can be included in the article. Misplaced Pages has stated in its rules that if sources disagree then the quoted information must be attributed to the author. Furthermore, the subject of the article is an Islamic figure, so of course the expert on Islam is preferred. Androvie (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You really want to continue making personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 16:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you consider it as a personal attack then feel free to report it, just as you reported me for breaking the 3 reverts rule, which was failed. I'm just tired of his attempts to distract the discussion. Androvie (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's understand the scenario. We have two sources:

(1) Spellberg's way of interpretation of Tabri account which is published in a peer reviewed journal.

(2) An Islamic scholar's way of interpretation of Tabri's account which is not published in any peer reviewed journal and should be treated as more like a personal interpretation.

Here is the conclusion: Spellberg's way of interpretation would be preferred because it is more reliable and on the other hand, Haddad's way of interpretation doesn't matter for us because it is not verified in that way and is more like a personal interpretation of a text. If you have any credible source which presents another interpretation of Tabri's text then feel free to edit but just because an Islamic scholar who is typing in his home and giving personal interpretation doesn't mean that we compare his way of interpretation to an academic expert like Kecia ali and Spellberg whose each statement has been verified. Try another way or bring a credible source which has the capacity to stand in front of of spellberg and Kecia ali's standards. Banlhge453 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

wp:v

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Androvie (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright folks here is my draft. Tell me if anyone has a problem with it before I put it up. Per the very long argument in the section above this, I've avoided mentioning any specific "evidence" or "counter-evidence" at all, just stating the broad idea of one "side" and the same on the other "side". Sources are all the ones above plus one line from the Indonesian paper about Muhammad Ali, and I got rid of two redundant sources. Think it's as short as I can make it while trying to find a happy medium here. Dragoon17 (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation. In a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at seven years of age. Ibn Sa'd's biography holds her age at the time of marriage as between six and seven, and gives her age at consummation to be nine, while Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad suggests she may have been ten years old at consummation. Al-Tabari notes that Aisha stayed with her parents after the marriage, which was consummated only at nine years of age, but elsewhere seems to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

The subject was of considerable interest for early Sunni Muslim biographers, as her pre-menarcheal status held implications about her virginity and virtue. The claim of being the only virgin wife of Muhammad may also have been used to position her over Muhammad’s other wives, who were widows and divorcees.

Aisha's marriage to Muhammad is presented as ordinary in Islamic literature, fitting the norms of Arabian tribes in that era, and the topic "generated no significant reflection" among later Muslims. It generally went unremarked-upon by early Orientalist writers, who viewed Muslim Arabs as engaging in exotic and unusual sexual practices that tended to "diverge from Western Christian norms". From the mid-20th century, pointed criticisms of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha began to appear, as did works contextualizing the marriage as appropriate for its place and time.

The growing criticism directed against the marriage of Muhammad and Aisha, combined with exposure to Western norms, prompted some writers to recalculate Aisha’s age at marriage altogether. Abbas Mahmoud al-Aqqad, an Egyptian novelist, put forward an argument that Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation, while the prominent Lahore Ahmadi figure Muhammad Ali published similar works. These works proved influential among both Arab and South Asian Muslims, though more conservative Muslim scholars objected to their arguments, which broke with the sharia consensus on marriageable age and bypassed the well-regarded sahih hadith collections to focus on information gleaned from other sources. Kecia Ali describes attempts to prove the "real age" of Aisha at the time of her marriage as an exercise in futility.

Dragoon17 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

this part

upon her reaching sexual maturity

Is it written in Spellberg's book? Androvie (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will look to see if that exact wording is there. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Could not find it in Spellberg. Found this in Ali: "Tabari includes several reports that that the marriage took place when she was six or seven. He once notes that “when he married her she was young, unfit for intercourse." However, he says nothing about puberty and consistently states that consummation occurred when she was nine." I did find this in Ali, where she is quoting the novelist Sherry Jones: "they consummated the marriage later, when she had begun her menstrual cycle. Although the tender age may seem shocking to us now, scholars generally agree that the marriage was motivated by politics", however I do not think she is considered a scholar per se. (She wrote a fiction book about Aisha). Perhaps we should just leave that word off and just end the sentence with "nine". Dragoon17 (talk)

Okay. Also, I see that you only took the latter part of this text from Spellberg's.

Aisha was born four or fives years after Muhammad's prophetic mission began, according to Ibn Sa'd Tabaqat 8:79. However, a slightly later chronicle suggests that Aisha was born in the jahiliyya, the period before the revelation of Islam to Muhammad

I think you should include the former part as well, since otherwise, it would appear as if the only record regarding Aisha's date of birth is only the latter part, even though there's another report that matches the sahih hadiths regarding Aisha's age at the time of marriage. Androvie (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That part is actually already on the page in the "early life" intro, so I don't think it needs to be repeated. However I do see that it's currently cited to Ibn Saad himself and some people might object to that, so I will change it to Spellberg citing Ibn Saad. Dragoon17 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I still think quoting those Spellberg's lines as their entirety is important so people don't get mistaken though. I mean, some people like to jump into one section without reading the earlier parts, but if that's your decision... I won't fight for its inclusion.

Btw your draft got separated from your comment above, I suggest you put them together and move your signature to the bottom of it so people don't get confused. Androvie (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have two problem

(1) End statement of your draft "Kecia Ali finds or describes attempts in proving real age of Aisha as an exercise in futility" should not be not placed and rather previous statement that "attempts in proving the real age of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation has been described as an exercise in futility" should be used. Because old version of this page has stated that both Ali and Spellberg find attempts in proving the real age of Aisha as an exercise in futility. However it's also a common sense that age of Aisha is not something which can be objectively verified because at that there was no birth certificates (this statement was also there in an old version). So it's better to not add your last statement regarding "exercise in futility"

(2) You should have to include the paragraph derived from Barlas -- "Some modern evaluations of Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, have produced estimates that she may have been over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage."

Last: Please try to keep this discussion only in this way because by naming two Islamic scholars, you're opening the gate for further opportunity for editors to present their view in this section by going in depth of their arguments which would create a havoc. Banlhge453 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:RS

Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.

Androvie (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm? The last sentence is the one currently on the page ("Attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha at the time of marriage or consummation have been described as an exercise in futility", cited to Ali). She did not mention the absence of birth certificates. I do not see that in Spellberg either. Maybe a different page?

I am not going to include "point"/"counterpoint" examples, as I said. Saying a hadith in al-Dhahabi says X invites someone to edit with "but there's a variant hadith that says Y". Stating the overall conclusion of this particular strand of scholars ("Aisha was in her teens at the time of the marriage’s consummation") should be enough imo.

The only reason I included these two particular names is because they are the first to pen recalculated age publications, and later writers built upon their works. I do not want to include every single Ahmadi etc writer to do so, so I figure the first guy to write it is enough. However, if people would prefer just the first Arab writer, the one mentioned in Brown, that is OK by me. Tell me your thoughts. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

is because they are the first to pen recalculated age publications - What? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Spellberg 1994, pp. 34–40 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpellberg1994 (help)
2. Spellberg 1994, pp. 197–198 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSpellberg1994 (help)
3. ^ Ali, Kecia (2014). "Mother of the Faithful". The lives of Muhammad. Harvard: Harvard University Press. pp. 133, 155–199. ISBN 9780674050600.
4. Ahmed 1992, pp. 51–54 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAhmed1992 (help)
5. ^ A.C. Brown, Jonathan (2014). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy. Oneworld Publications. pp. 142–155. ISBN 978-1780744209.
6. Hanafi, Yusuf (2020). "Kontroversi Usia Kawin Aisyah Ra Dan Kaitannya Dengan Legalitas Perkawinan Anak Di Bawah Umur Dalam Islam". Istinbáth: Journal of Islamic Law/Jurnal Hukum Islam. 15 (2): 300-310.

Revert

Androvie, pease explain the basis of your revert thatn waving at a non-existent consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Low-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class biography (military) articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• Start-Class early Muslim military history articles
• Early Muslim military history task force articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• C-Class Salaf articles
• Top-importance Salaf articles
• Salaf task force articles
• C-Class Shi'a Islam articles
• Top-importance Shi'a Islam articles
• Shi'a Islam task force articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• High-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Selected anniversaries (July 2017)