This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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:Banner/ Biographybiography articles
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:Banner/ Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. 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:Banner/ IslamIslam-related articles
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 Wikipedia. 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:Banner/ Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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:Banner/ ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:Banner/ Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
One of the paragraphs in this passage is duplicated, I don't have the privileges to fix it. 222.154.106.239 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any duplicate paragraphs in the article. Can you quote the paragraphs in question here? Androvie (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert-warring in the article is unacceptable. To preserve stability, I have full-protected this article for one month while the current content dispute is worked out. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an urgent need for updating the info on Aisha Age.
Many Muslim historians, particularly Shia scholars who do not believe Sahih al-Bukhari to be authentic, have estimated Aisha's age to be between 18 and 19 by comparing her age to Asma bint Abi Bakr's age at the time of Aisha and other historical occurrences. We would be seriously violating WP:NPOV and WP:Cherrypicking if we only included the Sunni side of the argument while excluding the Shia side.
Study the sources yourselves: [1][2][3][4][5]
Now, yes, it is disputed and will become even more so in the near future. But right now the best we can do is provide all responses, it is of vital importance, otherwise I would not bother. StarkReport (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^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.
If I may chime in for a moment, I think perhaps there may be some misunderstanding here. Aisha's age at the time of her marriage has not been a historical topic of contention between Sunni and Shia Muslims. To the best of my knowledge there are no Shia hadith compilations or other important historical Shia works disputing her traditionally-accepted age. As the article notes, it became a topic of debate fairly recently (the 20th century) due to changing global attitudes towards child marriage. This is true for both Sunni and Shia writers. It is true that many Shia works portray Aisha in certain ways, but those differences (already mentioned on the page) are not about her age. I have not seen anything to suggest that there is any notable sectarian divide for this topic in the modern day, either, nor do any of those sources state as much. The exact wording of the sentence you dislike is a separate issue, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to portray this as "the Shia side". (Incidentally, the citation attributed to Ayatollah Qazvini is from a Q&A section, and that page does not claim to have been written by him; the authors listed at the end are an unnamed "team" for responding to questions from people with doubts about their religion.) Apologies for inserting myself in this matter, but I did put together a bunch of sources for this exact paragraph if you'd like to look at them. They're on the most recent archived talk page. Dragoon17 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your points were refuted already by this your own source.
The critics of this hadith propose that Aisha was a teenager, or older than a child when she married the Prophet (Kandhalvi 1997; al-Idlibi in Mol 2018; Juyandeh 2010; Ahmed 2012). They make their argument by comparing the ages of individuals who are contemporary and close to Aisha, such as her sister, Asma' and the Prophet's daughter, Fatima. It was recorded that Asma’ died at the age of 100 in 73 AH (al-’Asqalani 1986; Ibn ‘Abd al-Bar 1992; Ibnu Kathir 1990). Her age at the time of Hijrah was around 27 years (Ibn al-Athir 1989; Abu Nu’aym 1998). Moreover, Aisha is said to be 10 years younger than Asma’ as reported by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abi Zinad (al-Zahabi 1963), which makes her age about 17 during the marriage (Islamweb 2003); thus, she is estimated to be around 18 years old when living with the Prophet, which is about a year after she migrated to Medina (al-Ghufayli 2011), or 18 months after the Prophet’s migration to Medina (Ibn Abd al-Bar 1992). Traditionalists dismiss this calculation by arguing that the age difference of Asma' and Aisha of 10 years is not a consensus among Islamic historians. It was noted that al-Zahabi (1963) stated that the age difference between the two was between 13 and 19 years, and not 10 years as the critics assume. Thus, Aisha's age in the year of Hijrah was eight or nine years old and not 18 years old (IslamQA n.d.). Asma's age at the time of the migration was 27 years minus the 19 years age gap between the two, which means Aisha's age was seven years old when she married the Prophet, a year before the Hijrah. This aligns with al-'Asqalani’s (1994) report, which asserted Aisha was born four or five years after the advent of Islam. In echoing the hadith giants such as Yahya Ibn Mu’in, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, al-Nasaie, Abu Ahmad al-Hakim dan Abu Hatim, the traditionalists also attacked the credibility of Ibn Abi Zinad as a weak narrator to dismiss his narration (Malik 2018; al-Ghufayli 2011).
And it seems to me that the mainstream Shia scholars agree with the Sunni on the age of Aisha.[1] Thus, further confirms that what you're presenting is a fringe theory. Androvie (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; the source was there to reflect the views and arguments of both sides. For example, Shia scholars such as Al-Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-'Amili or Muhammad Husayni al-Qazwini and even Sunni scholars such as Muhammad Farooq Khan and Habibur Rahman Kandhalvi, as well as authors Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood and Shaykh Dr Ridhwan among many others. It's important to provide a balanced and fair representation of both sides of the argument, which is why our source includes viewpoints from various scholars and authors. This is a topic of debate and controversy in modern times and varies among different interpretations and practices within the Islamic faith.
Nevertheless, we are not judging who is right or wrong, just presenting their respective arguments. The content about『re-calculated her age—using deft stratagems of omission and commission—to fix it at early adolescence』fails WP:Neutral policy, it actually just favours the Sunni side. Yet being close-minded and fixated on a particular way of reading, you are trying to suppress the essential part of the information. StarkReport (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It actually just favours the Sunni side.
You say that, yet don’t you know that your own sources use Sunni narrations, but only the weaker ones, while disregarding the stronger narrations such as those from Sahih Bukhari? Please read them first.
Also, what you’re doing in your revision is giving undue weight to a fringe theory. It’s just like writing that:
The earth is ellipsoid in shape, but some scientists, based on some evidence, state that it is actually flat-shaped.
Protecing admin chiming in here. As a Wikipedia policy question, since WP:NPOV was mentioned, the relevant policy here would be WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is part of WP:NPOV. That said, a minority viewpoint held by notable scholars could possibly be included as long as the article makes it clear that the viewpoint is in the minority. Might it be possible route to a consensus? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I agree with Anachronist. If you read my sentence, I wrote 'Some modern Muslim authors'. I did not present the information as mainstream or widely accepted. I am not objecting to the paragraph that presents sources from the classical era on Aisha's age. I am only including the information about modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimating that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. This is because not every scholar is intent on modernizing and they have legitimate doubts about Aisha's age in Sahih al-Bukhari. it's crucial to mention their methods to present a more comprehensive discussion on the topic. As everyone has mentioned, traditionalists indeed dispute this and that info is presented in the next paragraph, which will stay there. The "Some modern Muslim" is enough for readers to know that this is a minority viewpoint StarkReport (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, as explained in this source that you yourself presented, and in this wiki article; the theory you brought up is based on cherry-picking Sunni sources by rejecting the sound (sahih) reports regarding Aisha's age and how it differs from Asma's age in favor of the weaker ones. The theory also falsely claims that there is only one source for Aisha's age of 6 when she was married to Muhammad (i.e., Hisham, the grandson of Asma) and uses Hisham’s old age when narrating it as an excuse to reject it, despite the fact that there are many other sources or reports unrelated to Hisham, that tell the same thing that Aisha was indeed 6-7 years old when Muhammad married her.
Therefore by adding in this wiki article after the paragraphs about reports on Aisha's age, that:
Some modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage.
Despite the fact that it was already refuted by mainstream scholars, it creates a false balance where the fringe theory has equal, or stronger, standing than the mainstream view. It’s just like writing on wiki article on earth, after a paragraph explaining that it is ellipsoid, that
Some scientists, based on some evidence, found out that the earth is actually flat-shaped.
@Anachronist Actually, the current revision which was the result of the previous consensus already contained the minority view (which falls under historical negationism) raised by @StarkReport. It’s the bolded part:
In response, some Muslims chose to align themselves with the projects of modernization and re-calculated her age—using deft stratagems of omission and commission—to fix it at early adolescence, but conservatives rejected such revisionist readings since they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth.
But it seems that @StarkReport wants that view to have the same or higher position than the mainstream view. As in
The earth is ellipsoid in shape, but some scientists, based on some evidence, state that it is actually flat-shaped.
Even though this minority view has been refuted by mainstream scholars. Androvie (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, using false equivalence fallacy to bear out your own view.
As the discourse surrounding Aisha's age becomes more contentious, it is important to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the global population, particularly the Shia community, hold beliefs that contradict the commonly accepted age of Aisha at the time of her marriage. This disagreement has the potential to affect the perceptions and beliefs of millions of individuals. Therefore, it is crucial to consider and present all relevant viewpoints in a comprehensive and impartial manner. StarkReport (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any source that states that Shia widely believe that Aisha was not 6-7 years old when Muhammad married her. The opinion of one or two shia scholars who follow a few ahmadiyya scholars in cherrypicking Sunni sources does not represent the opinion of all shia, or the fundamental doctrine of shia. Moreover, that fringe theory has been refuted by conservative Muslim scholars, which is summarized in the part I quoted above from the article. Androvie (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a an opinion poll for sunni either. And wrong its not just few but various scholars are disputing this issue many of whom state that the available historical evidence does not support the claim. Check all the sources again. Moreover, Quran itself emphasize the importance of consent and physical and mental maturity in marriage. The refutation by conservative Muslim scholars is not extensively embraced either. StarkReport (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right after "Beginning in the late-----to reforms, what if『In response, some Muslims-----face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth.』 was rephrased in a new paragraph as
"Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. But conservatives disputed this and said that they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth."
That satisfies WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV. And it perfectly summarizes it as a viewpoint held by a minority. StarkReport (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit better
""Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over thirteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. Some recalculated it with the intent of modernization. But conservatives disputed this and said that they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth." StarkReport (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. First off, it’s original research, as there is no reliable source that says that Shia scholars widely reject the age of Aisha being 6-7 when Muhammad married her.
Secondly, it is giving too much undue weight to the fringe theory. It’s like describing vaguely at length the flat earth theory on Earth, without providing detailed rebuttals from mainstream scientists to that theory, adding only at the end of the paragraph that, “conservative scientists disputed this and said they flew in the face of natural science.” Androvie (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious use of false equivalence fallacy.
Additionally, the original and reliable sources I provided contains detailed rebuttals, as do the sources I cited back in November." The above info is more precise and integral to the broader discourse. It's weight is due otherwise we might as well remove the whole non-neutral and unconstructive "Age of Aisha" section. You are actively trying to to stifle the dissemination of the information.
Regrettably, a senior editor is okay with a biased representation of the content even when it is being edited by a user who has created his account solely to edit on single topic, pushing his own point of view and doing nothing else. StarkReport (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry. Besides the reasons I listed above, your proposal gives the false impression that, if calculated based on contemporary events and the ages of contemporary people, Aisha's age must have been 18 or 19, even though there are rebuttals from mainstream scholars saying that the theory is using the cherry-picking method by rejecting reliable reports and selectively picking weak ones. Androvie (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to give some examples of what the fringe theory says, proper rebuttal to them, like in this source, should also be addressed. Androvie (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have already included that『conservatives rejected such revisionist readings since they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth.』StarkReport (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that’s not enough, if the arguments from the flat earthers were to be described quite at length on Earth WP article, but the rebuttal of it is just one sentence without explaining why the claim is false, it’s the same as giving undue weight to the flat earth theory. Androvie (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of logical fallacies just demonstrates your lack of grasp on the topic. Additionally, it seems that you have already placed an excessive emphasis on the sources of Ali Kecia, and with its content occupying multiple paragraphs. The point I brought up consists of just two lines and the『conservatives rejected such revisionist readings since they flew in the face of ʻilm al-ḥadīth.』and the surrounding context is more than enough as a rebuttal.
Like I said before, your motive to suppress information is transparent. StarkReport (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No matter if it consists of just 2, 1, or a half line, if it contains disinformation, it should not be accepted. In your proposal, you make it sound like all the reports regarding events and people’s ages at that time only match Aisha's age of 18–19 at the time of her marriage’s consummation, not 9. This is false, because the mainstream scholars quoted in this source that you previously brought up say a lot of reliable reports regarding those match the age of Aisha being 9 when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her, with a few weak narrators who differ with each other's reports otherwise.
The fringe theorists also made many distortions, such as
Claiming that all reports of Aisha's age of 9 years only come from Hisham (the grandson of Asma, Aisha’s sister), which is false because there are many other reports that are not from Hisham that say the same. Some of them are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Claiming that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
Using an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
As an aside, this section of the page has now become heavily afflicted by editorializing (alongside being an overly contested menace). Basically everything now bracketed by m-dashes is dubious side commentary. Editors need to stick to reporting the information as neutrally as possible without injecting excessive narration and leading commentary into the text. If there are comments of this nature in the original sources then they may be best included as notes cited directly to the source, rather than as editorializing page clutter. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, weren't you one of the supporters of Tranga's draft? I haven't seen any significant changes since then. I personally was a supporter of @Dragoon17's draft, and had some arguments with Tranga, but I eventually agreed after seeing his draft, even though I had to compromise on some parts. However, I do concur that the page could benefit from copy editing, as could from omission of the heavily contested fringe theory that says Aisha was not 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Because WP:GEVAL states that…
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
Just because I said one version was an improvement does not mean I think it is the best of all possible versions. I think the priority here should be locking in a text, possibly via RFC, and then adding a very firm note on the talk page directing people to past discussions and discouraging opening fresh ones. The ongoing discussion about this is just a microcosm of broader disputes around this contentious material. Presumably everyone here has a POV, otherwise they wouldn't be so invested in this, but I frankly don't care so long as an outcome is reached that puts an end to the squabbling. But to your point, no, I do not think that one side of the equation in the debates around this should be removed, because that would be an obvious violation of WP:BALANCE. The goal here is to lay out all the views, not conclude anything. And the only fringe theory here is that anyone has the slightest clue about the age of this 7th-century individual, when, in fact, nobody has a clue because primary religious texts are not v. useful sources and the whole debate is basically entirely academic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources make it clear that the revisionist theories that changed Aisha's age from 9 to 18 at the time of her marriage's consummation have been disproven by mainstream Islamic scholars.[1][2][3]
Some of the methods used by revisionists include presenting questionable sources, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for doubting reliable records, assigning conclusions to books and sources that convey the contrary, manipulating statistical series to support their given point of view, and purposefully using mistranslated texts.
These are all characteristics of historical negationism. Thus, even more reason it shouldn’t be given undue weight, since otherwise would be an obvious violation of WP:GEVAL. Androvie (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no one has proof of anything here; it's all just theory, namely because all of the sources used here are primary religious texts and of the utmost questionability. Historical negationism is distortion of the historical record, but here there is no historical record to distort. There are just various opinions on the matter. If anything, the more reliable part of the material is the historiographical element reflecting on shifts in source interpretation, since this at least reflects on something documented and therefore has some sort of basis in a modern, academic, methodological process, unlike hadith interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, Sahih al-Bukhari is recognized by mainstream Muslim scholars as the most authentic and most highly regarded collection of records of Islamic history. This makes Muslims who reject it a very tiny minority of that community, and their views should not be given undue weight in articles on Islamic topics. Besides, it is obvious that the revisionists use historical negationism techniques in their theories such as:
Claiming that all hadiths about Aisha's age of 9 when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her are from Hisham (grandson of Asma, Aisha’s sister), and attacking Hisham's credibility if he was senile when he transmitted them. This is a gross misrepresentation since there are numerous other sahih hadiths in which Hisham is not one of the transmitters that state Aisha was 9 years old at the time. Some of those include. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Claiming that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
Using an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
The 'most authentic and highly regarded' primary religious text is still just a primary religious text. That a whole suite of primary religious texts align on a data point does not necessarily mean that the data point on which they align is any more reliable or verifiable - it is a well-known paradox of historical accounts that those which contain errors or inconsistencies are often more reliable than those that are too consistent or coherent, since these instead tend more to imply imposed narrative or subsequent embellishment. And in fact, here, we already have Islamic studies specialists stating the exact reason why accounts of these events may have been susceptible to embellishment, noting the likely desire to emphasis the subject's chastity and purity. Separately, I'd like to see your source for Tabari's self-contradiction being an 'incorrect translation', because we currently have no sources supporting this, but subject-matter experts saying otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't change the fact that, to support their point of view, the revisionists:
falsely claim that all the hadiths about Aisha being 9 years old at the time of consummation are from Hisham, when in fact there are many other hadiths that tell the same story in which Hisham was not one of the transmitters: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
falsely claim that the entire content of chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed in Mecca, when in fact according to reports some of its verses were revealed in Medina.
use an incorrect translation of Tabari's record to claim that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period, when the accurate translation according to mainstream scholars is that it was her mother whom her father married in the pre-Islamic period, "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period.” Elsewhere Tabari mentions that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, so clearly the mainstream scholars' translation is the correct one.
No matter what, this is a gross misrepresentation, a disinformation that should not be included, let alone given undue weight in articles on Islamic topics. Androvie (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well if you have nothing else to say except to repeat what you've already said and quote from sunnah.com then I guess we are done here, pending input from other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Like I said before, Androvie is engaging in a egregious use of the false equivalence fallacy, comparing a bunch of religious texts to outright scientific facts facts like the Earth being round or Apollo Moon landings.
One important issue Androvie is omitting is that if Sahih al-Bukhari is recognised as most authentic and most highly regarded collection of records, than there would be no 400 million Shias. For them, its legitimacy is just as same as those so called "weaker narrations" we were talking about earlier. And, again its not just Shia scholars but Sunni scholars and authors as well.
This is my final presentation: ( After the first paragraph, in a new one)
"Different perspectives emerged among Muslims in response. Some scholars generally Shia scholars pointed out that the historical evidence does not support the claim of aisha being 9. They calculated Aisha's age based on other sources of information, like the dates of contemporary events and ages of contemporary people, and estimated that she was over fifteen and must have been 18 or 19 at the time of her marriage. Some recalculated it with the intent of modernization. But conservatives(or traditionalists) rejected this, citing the weakness of those narrations and said that they contradicted(or flew in the face of) Sahih al-Bukhari."
The above info is more precise instead of the non-neutral "using deft stratagems" or hazy "omission and commission" and also expands more on rebuttals "citing the weakness of those narrations and said that they contradicted(or flew in the face of) Sahih al-Bukhari."
Otherwise, its impossible to improve the stagnant article. @Anachronist might as well lock the article forever or make Androvie an administrator. It wouldn't make a difference. StarkReport (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. My point remains valid. StarkReport (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reply from you to his response. Androvie (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 As I said before your argument doesn't change anything.
You said:
it is a well-known paradox of historical accounts that those which contain errors or inconsistencies are often more reliable than those that are too consistent or coherent, since these instead tend more to imply imposed narrative or subsequent embellishment
The problem is not that; rather, the revisionists have been exposed for making fraudulent statements about their fundamental sources, the hadiths. For instance, they claim that all hadiths stating that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated originate from Hisham. The mainstream scholars have demonstrated this to be false because there are several hadiths in which Hisham is not one of the transmitters that report the same thing (such as: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).[1][2][3]
Sunnah.com is a hadith database; the links to it that I brought were just to confirm that the revisionists really are doing disinformation by using false claims to support their viewpoint.
Regarding the mistranslation of Tabari’s record being used by the revisionists, it’s also included in the sources above, as are the reports that the verses of chapter 54 of the Quran were not revealed only in Mecca but also in Medina. Androvie (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your revisionist in this context? Modernist or simply not traditionalist? You are bandying this term around a lot, but it would be more useful if you could simply state the sources that you are referring to. Perhaps you could quote the lines from Brown and the exact page numbers you are basing the point about Tabari on, since the archive.org copy is a limited preview. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you address the fallacious claim made by the fringe theory that all hadiths mentioning Aisha's age of 9 at the time of her marriage consummation all originated from Hisham when there are multiple hadiths that lack Hisham in their chain of transmission that also mention Aisha having this age at the time? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
That's a clear evidence, I think.
Revisionists are those who attempt to change Aisha's age at the time of consummation from 9 to 18 or any older age by misrepresenting their own primary sources, the hadiths. If you reviewed and supported Tranga’s draft, you should be familiar with the term because it is used there.
For the exact text of mainstream scholars' correction of the mistranslations used by the revisionists, see below, the revisionists are referred to as the critics here.[1]
The critics' arguments were answered by traditionalists by correcting the critics' readings of al-Tabari texts, which should be read as "The four are his children born to his two wives whom we stated in the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) period". The interpretation is that just because he married his two wives whom during pre-Islamic times, it does not mean that his four children were also born during the pre-Islamic period. This is because al- Tabari (1968) himself narrated that when the Prophet married Aisha, he was six years old (al- Ghufayli 2011).
Although some of it has been discussed above. But, again carefully read the following different sources:[2][3] And Syrian hadith scholar Dr. Salah al-Din al-Idlibi:[4]
Its non-controversial demonstration that scholars have legitimate reasons to maintain this conclusion.
All of the sources I provided up to now include the views of Sunni scholars, Shia scholars, authors, and some Ahmadis, which collectively support the conclusion and validate that it is not a fringe narrative. And my edit in no way asserts that this is generally recognized scholarship. It precisely reflects the reality. StarkReport (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing your repetitive badgering about Ibn Hisham, because I find it irrelevant. Who said he is the only source? Not me, certainly. If someone else said that, ask them. So yes it looks like you have inserted 'revisionist' into this discussion as your own WP:OR terminology and somewhat polemical/pejorative term for anything not 'traditionalist'. Duly noted. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a user who just came to Wikipedia just to POV push on on single topic and bury anything that does not conform to his own mindset will have have his way.
If this is the future of Wikipedia then it is indeed worrisome.
I will refrain from further discussing this matter. It is futile. StarkReport (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 No wonder I’ve felt our discussion is disjointed from the start. It turns out that you don’t quite grasp the matter.
1. Hisham and Ibn Hisham are not the same person and are not closely related. The Hisham I'm referring to, whose name I almost always make sure to link to his own wiki article, was the grandson of Asma, Aisha's sister, whereas Ibn Hisham was not. Strange that you bring him up, even though I never mention him even once.
2. The one that says Hisham is the only source is the fringe theory that you support that tries to change Aisha's age from 9 to 18 or so at the time of intercourse.
3. I’ve explained above that I used the term revisionist because it was used in this article, which seems to be derived from Kecia Ali’s, yet you accuse me of original research. Seems so desperate.
I don't know whether or not you share the same objective as the fringe theorists, but at least if you have a POV to push, please study it first. Thank you. Androvie (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Hisham is the only Hisham mentioned in the article. If people are getting it confused, it is because you are introducing other random Hishams into the discussion that no one else has previously been discussing. To date, you have no provided any source outlining any 'fringe theory' as such, so any editor can only assume here that this is simply a straw man of your own original research. Either provide a source stating all of this or don't. I'm not going to engage with hypotheticals. Separately, I can only see one use of the word 'revisionist' on the page and it is in the context of 'revisionist readings', not calling anyone, specifically, a 'revisionist' and that is currently sourced to Brown not Ali. So if you are going to start writing dismissive posts here, please at least stay accurate. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly linked the Hisham I was referring to to the Hisham ibn Urwah wiki article. Your mistaking it for Ibn Hisham shows you’re not quite following the discussion at hand and the POV you are pushing. Because the key tactic of the revisionists is to cast doubt on the sahih hadiths that report Aisha's age as 9 at the time of intercourse by making the false claim that all of them came from Hisham and then alleging him to have gone senile while narrating them, the existence of numerous other sahih hadiths in which Hisham is not in the chain of transmission disproves the revisionists' argument at its very core. And for you to take issue with something as unrelated as my use of the word "revisionist" on the talk page and attribute it as original research shows how desperate you are. Firstly, WP:OR apply only to writing in articles, not to terms used on talk pages;
This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
secondly, the "revisionist" that is being talked about in the article is about the people trying to make changes to Aisha's age at copulation; and thirdly, Kecia did use the word "revisionist" as well. Androvie (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't care what any of the primary religious texts say, regardless of the senility of the authors or otherwise. And I don't care for your tone either. Since all you seem to be good for now is personal attacks, I think we're done here. Bye. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using “rebuked” word.
Is there any accurate reference for this statement “The prophet Muhammed was rebuked publicly by his wives”? According to several Hadithes, his wives asked as a meaning of a question like that why we are doing it in this way rather than doing any tradition, but they asked for learning like if there is a new statement came from the God. So I suggest for correction the words of “rebuked” and “fought” by replacing the word of “asked”. 5.173.8.214 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word "rebuked" is being used in a quotation of a cited source. Quoting a source requires using the words in the source, not substituting other words. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
Ffs, if one editor is trying to mainstream a fringe narrative using poor non-academic sources and tampering with the longstanding version w/o any consensus, the way out is to impose a P-block. Not sysop-protect the page! TrangaBellam (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to add new arguments from Joshua Little's thesis but .... TrangaBellam (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you’d be so kind, can you post your draft here? Androvie (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Any edit requests proposed during the protection period will be considered. If non-controversial, I can add it in. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobic polemicist?
While Kecia Ali has tries her best to dampen the "hysteria" around child sexual abuse and humanise sex with children a bit, even she doesn't go as far as to call the polemicists against the marriage "Islamophobic", which is quite a loaded term.
From the source:『Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha has become, for contemporary polemicists, evidence of pedophilia not as a medical diagnosis but as an archaic and evil force.』No mention of any phobias in the given ranges and surrounding pages either. That insertion would be the bias of Wikipedia editors. It is both against Wikipedia policy and distortion of the source. Please edit it away. 117.194.197.190 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done per edit request below. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Protected edit request on 25 February 2023
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Aisha's age has become a tool of Islamophobic polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia" to "Aisha's age has become a tool of polemicists to accuse Muhammad of pedophilia". See the section above #Islamophic polemicist?. The use of the word is not present in the source and also contradicts Wikipedia policy. 117.194.196.192 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
