Talk:Aisha's age at marriage

Hadiths

I have found the following hadiths for Sahih Muslim:

• A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereas Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent them to her.

• This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Hisham with the same chain of transmitters with a slight variation of wording.

Sahih Muslim, 31:5981 31:5982

and in Sunan Abu Dawud

• A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud vol.3:4913 p.1373

this does NOT say that Mohammed had intercourse with A’isha while her playmates were watching. Instead this says that Aisha's playmates played with her, then they left Aisha's house when Mohammed entered it and could come back after he left.

The last hadith is skipped in the USC-MSA texts http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/041.sat.html#041.4910

Opinions? self 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. this totally detracts from the focus of the article which is: what was aa'ishah's exact age at marriage and/or consumation? none of these give any exact figure and the alluding to playing with dolls to indicate young age is not specifically relevant to the section of "evidence that she was nine".
2. can you please give me the name of the publisher/edition for where you got the quote from sunan abi dawood (#4913) so i may verify it?
3. not related to the article but as for deriving conclusions from narrations in tabari, abu dawood et al. then caution is recommended because extraneous authentication is required (esp. with tabari) as a number of narrations are not considered authentic, although polemical websites do not hesitate to use them if they can be manipulated.
4. just so you know, new comments on the talk page go at the bottom, not at the top. thank you. ITAQALLAH 03:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "this totally detracts from the focus of the article which is: what was aa'ishah's exact age at marriage and/or consumation? none of these give any exact figure and the alluding to playing with dolls to indicate young age is not specifically relevant to the section of "evidence that she was nine"." I could say the same thing about the section "Evidence that Aisha was older than nine" since none of that evidence tells us "what was aa'ishah's exact age at marriage and/or consumation" and see the post below for why these Hadiths should be included in this article.
2. "can you please give me the name of the publisher/edition for where you got the quote from sunan abi dawood (#4913) so i may verify it?" I will try, but unfortunetly the USC-MSA doesn't have the Hadith (they skipped it). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/041.sat.html#041.4910 But the verse number is given so it is possible to discover that information even without knowing the exact publisher or edition.
3. See below for your third point
4. Okay, thanks for telling me. self 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Union of Book 008, Number 3310 and Book 008, Number 3311

I object to merging Book 008, Number 3310 and Book 008, Number 3311 of Sahih Muslim. The verses are:

Book 008, Number 3310:

• 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

and

Book 008, Number 3311:

• 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Verse 3311 contains the additional information: "and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.". So it contains extra information about Aisha's age at the death of Mohammed and talks about Aisha's dolls. The dolls are important since in 8:73:151 (a verse that is being displayed on the front page) it says:

• "(The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)"

Furthermore, 3310 says Aisha was SIX years old while 3311 says she was SEVEN years old. This means that there is substantial difference of one years reported by the two Hadiths and these three facts warrent their separation. self 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the main article self 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

another sidenote, the quote from ibn hajar is not relevant to the focus of the article of what her exact age was. to my knowledge, there exists no published english translation of fath al-baari... who exactly translated it like that? i have good reason to think the last part of that passage is a distortion (i.e. ibn hajar didn't say it but it is present in the translation due to what the author believes is implied by the arabic phrase used for "young girl" by ibn hajar, due to the inference taken from the muhsin khan translation of saheeh bukhaari in his parenthesis. however, the exact definition of what is meant by this arabic phrase is differed upon, there is no indication that ibn hajar's interpretation of the word matches that of muhsin khan's), however i could be completely wrong so i will check the actual arabic to make sure. ITAQALLAH 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Union of Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 and Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

I object to merging Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 and Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 since Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 has a different different narrator from the other two. Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 is narrated by Ursa while Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 are narrated by Aiahs. So it is not correct to put Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 under the hadith

• Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64 Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:65 Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:88

since Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 wasn't narrated by Aisha self 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the main article self 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hadiths that were merged

Truthspreader merged the hadiths

• Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.”

• (The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died.

into

• "(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died"..."My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me."

But I object to this since this does not make any sense. In the first part, the narrator is not Aisha since he refers to Aisha as "she", but in the second part it is Aisha narrating since the narrator refers to "My mother", "I", "on behalf of me"

You merged the two quotes with ... Please show what was replaced by these dots.self 09:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hadith that was removed

Truthspreader removed the following hadith saying that it was unrelated:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 805: "Narrated Urwa bin Al-Musayyab, Alqama bin Waqqas and Ubaidullah bin Abdullah: About the story of 'Aisha and their narrations were similar attesting each other, when the liars said what they invented about 'Aisha, and the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Apostle sent for 'Ali and Usama to consult them in divorcing his wife (i.e. 'Aisha). Usama said, "Keep your wife, as we know nothing about her except good." Buraira said, "I cannot accuse her of any defect except that she is still a young girl who sleeps, neglecting her family's dough which the domestic goats come to eat (i.e. she was too simpleminded to deceive her husband)." Allah's Apostle said, "Who can help me to take revenge over the man who has harmed me by defaming the reputation of my family? By Allah, I have not known about my family-anything except good, and they mentioned (i.e. accused) a man about whom I did not know anything except good.""

I feel that this is a related Hadith since it talks about Aisha being a "young girl who sleeps, neglecting her family's dough which the domestic goats come to eat". Why do you feel that this is unrelated?

By the way, you forgot to sign your comment. This hadith is unrelated because young girl can be interpreted by many people in different way. As in english, she can be a child or teenager or even sometime, a woman in early twenties. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nine Islamic Years Are 8 3/4 to 9 3/4 Solar Years

The Islamic lunar calendar averages 354.367 days per year. That makes 9 Islamic years equal to 8 solar years and 267 days and 10 Islamic years equal to 9 solar years and 256 days. Therefore the generic Islamic "9 years old" averages about 9 1/4 solar years rather than 9 1/2 and could be slightly younger than 9 common years. Muhammad's (born 570) age of 52 in 622 is always reckoned in solar years. - Anonymous

Evidence that Aisha was older than nine

What scholars conclude on the basis of this evidence that Aisha was older than nine? Pecher ^Talk 10:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question, which we should work to resolve. I did not add the material, but am only tidying it and trying to reference it correctly. The Zahid Aziz stuff seems to provide a summary of the arguments, but it probably needs to be carefully checked to determine which if any of its sources are worthy of being cited. — JEREMY 10:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a personal thought @pecher: It should be remembered that scholars used to regard hadith with great caution and often even did not share their collections with others whom they did not consider to have enough insight to appropriately understand them. Consequently, I think it is likely that these scholars did not get confused lightly about a couple of hadiths since they had a much more comprehensive picture in their mind. It sems to be a typical pitfall of orientalists who invariably start as outsiders, open a hadith collection and read such a hadith claiming an age of say 6 or 9 which they take at face value at first. So I suspect that the marriage age was not an issue at all among early scholars. Indeed, from my subjective, personal reading experience, a discussion seems to have stirred up only in the 19th century so.

There usually is a lot of criticism on talk pages. Here, I can safely do the opposite and congratulate the editors to this nice article! I have seen several sources on the age controversy but each of them had gathered only a limited amount of sources and the strength of Wikipedia really came into play here where many people were aware of one argument and a lot of them could be gathered in this place. - Anonymous

This is ridiculous, it's like the idea that the testimony of four women is equivalent to the testimony of one man. There is testimony from Aisha saying that she was nine in three hadiths and this was accepted until people recently started talking about child abuse. Just what do the counter-arguments amount to? Most are based on some dodgy arithmetic about when Aisha was born based on the failing memories of an old man. The next line is arithmentic based on the assumption that Aisha's elder sister really died when she was exactly 100, 73 years after 622 CE, rather than 100 perhaps being a bit of hyperbole. Or the assumption that if a boy under 15 was not allowed to fight in battles, Muhammed's young wife can't have been allowed to be there at all. It doesn't amount to anything except special pleading to get round an inconvenient conclusion. --Simon d 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with these arguments is that they are pure original research, i.e. there are no serious sources making such claims. I suppose it's high time this original research was gone from the article. Pecher ^Talk 13:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i agree with Pecher in that although the individual points made may or may not be original research, the conclusion reached certainly is OR. it is also possible that a number of these arguments may be misrepresentations of the sources that have been cited [1]. i don't believe that this section of the article deserves as much space at it has received and perhaps a very brief summary of this view (which is subscribed to by a minority) could be useful. ITAQALLAH 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, there is even no evidence that there is a minority of respected scholars arguing that she was older than nine. All we have are several unreliable websites. Pecher ^Talk 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a very good book written by Hakim Niaz Ahmad, who is an Islamic scholar from very renowned Islamic school of thought of Indian subcontinent, Deobandi. His book discusses age of Ayesha at marriage. Interestingly, at one point he accepted all the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim to be valid and compared those Ahadith with Ahadith for Laylat al-Qadr, and he says that Prophet Muhammad used 5 for 25, 7 for 27, 9 for 29 because base 20 was already agreed and it is a way of talking in classical arabic language. So he argues that Ayesha told her age right, she married at 6, which is 16 and her marriage consumed at 9, which is 19. Which he believes that is also proved by all other ways. And I think, there is some credibility in this argument and many people now consider such works to be quite respectable especially I listened to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi in one of his public lectures in which he mentioned it. SaadSaleem 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I can say that today most tribal people in rural areas do not keep birth records and do not know their real age. I don't think it was any different from 1400 years ago. And marriages to very young girls were accepted and common throughout history. Why isn't there any controversy over Edgar Allen Poe's marriage to his 13 year old cousin, which took place in the 19th century!! --Inahet 04:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a dumb question, it's because Edgar Allen Poe was not a religous prophet nor someone who claimed to be or is seen as a moral guide. Hvatum 17:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One Shi'a scholar, Ayatollah Ja'afar Murtadha, in his book الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأع concludes that Ayesha was about 20. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also one booklet published in Karachi by "Anjuman Uswa e hasanah انجمن اسوہ حسنہ" (Association of good doers), written by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi (urdu) with name "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat تحقیق صدیقہ کا؛نات" (Research on age of the true lady). SaadSaleem 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Moiz Amjad, Associate Fellow at Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences, also supports the view of Aisha was older than 19 years when married.[2] SaadSaleem 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Understanding-islam.org is not a source fit for Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it has to be a more reliable source like Fox News.

I have explained this in the following paragraph. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Lead

could the lead give a range of possible ages ? I don't want to read all the article to know the aswer to the question: How old was Aisha ? Zeq 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Solution to Aisha's age

It is very difficult to tell that who researched in the first place to prove that Aisha was much older than what many hadith says, but it seems like Hakim Niaz Ahmad's book in Urdu, Research on the age of Aisha and the booklet by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi in (urdu) might be the precursors and then Moiz Amjad, who is also Associate Fellow at Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research, refined the results and published on the website [3] and [4]. These conclusions have also been published and are available from [5]. These publications can be used in Wikipedia as reliable sources as can be seen on [6]. The other publication written by our Shia brother, I am not sure that what claims it makes and if are different to the one's which are currently available on the article. I think most websites are simply copying the work done by Moiz Amjad unless specified. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this booklet by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi. It seems to be in Malay language, if someone can read it, it'll be great.[7]. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly Moiz Amjad's writings on www.understanding-islam.com are published and are available from [8], [9], [10], and [11]. The website is also acknowleged as a reliable source, as it can seen here [12]. Moiz Amjad's association with Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research and publication of content on his website, makes www.understanding-islam.com a realiable source. If somebody doesn't have a problem, I can start editing the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Publications, which are written and published with association to Al-Mawrid are also accepted as reliable secondary source. Kindly see here [13]. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody disputes quoting from "understanding-islam.com" for articles signed by notable scholars (such as the founder of the website)? The quote can be attributed to the scholar himself. "Scholar X states Y"? It seems fine to me. --Aminz 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is going to take a long time to come to fruition but ... I've been in correspondence with an Islamist at the University of Chicago. He believes that Aisha's marriage wasn't consummated when she was nine, and would be happy to write an article on it, if he weren't too busy. He'll try to interest some of his graduate students in the topic, and help them get published. So eventually we may have some Western academicians to cite, other than Spellberg. Zora 05:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great! I'll be waiting for it. --Aminz 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Hadiths

The following hadiths were removed by Itaqallah

• Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect. Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:163
• Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:151

for the reason: "these narrations do not cite an age. to claim that the age of nine is implied due to her being young or playing with dolls amounts to"

I disagree with the removal of the Hadiths because although the Hadiths do not say that she was 6 or 7 at marriage or 9 when the marriage was consummated, it does limit the age range of Aisha during which those events could have taken place. And do not forget that the main purpose of this article is "Aisha's age at marriage" and not "Evidence that Aisha was either 6 or 7 at marriage and 9 when the marriage was consummated OR evidence that she wasn't 6 or 7 .. or 9 ..". So these Hadiths are important for anyone who would be interested in this topic.

Hence, I recommend that we first create another section which will be used to house those extra Hadiths, possibly call it "Other Evidence that Aisha was a Child". Second, we need to change the title of "Evidence that Aisha was nine" to "Evidence that Aisha was 5 or 6 at Marriage and 9 at Consummation" so that there will not be any confusion between the two sections. Although maybe a smaller name for my second point.

Or, we can just change the name of "Evidence that Aisha was nine" to "Evidence that Aisha was a Child"

Also please do not abruptly remove Hadiths form the main article without first discussing it since this is a major change to the article. I will do the same when adding Hadiths. self 04:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the Hadiths...- this article is about the dispute regarding her actual age of marriage. the dispute is not whether or not she was a child. "child" is a relative term which people understand differently (some people may consider fourteen the age of a child), we are looking for reported ages. there are like a dozen narrations saying that she was nine, i fail to see how these evidences which are repetetive can be considered "important" to anyone except those who wish to subtly imply that aa'ishah was pre-pubescent by linking dolls with apparent age. that is OR. nothing from the second narration (8.73.151) indicates anything about even the time of her marriage, it just says Muhammad used to enter her house (i.e. abu bakr's house) and occasionally play with her and her playmates. there is no indication that she was married, or going to get married at this time. the narration before that is irrelevant and pretty much useless (no indication of age, she could have been thirteen when saying that, even to deduce that she was married when narrating this although to some it is obvious is still OR).

Second, we need to change the title of "Evidence that Aisha was nine" to "Evidence that Aisha was 5 or 6 at Marriage and 9 at Consummation" - there would be no confusion for anyone who bothers to read the lead section. if they do not read the lead section (see WP:LEAD) , which is primarily to add context to and summarise the issue, then they cannot blame anyone if they become confused.

Or, we can just change the name of "Evidence that Aisha was nine" to "Evidence that Aisha was a Child" - i disagree. one major view says that aa'ishah was nine, another extremely less notable view says she was significantly older than nine but they arrive at different conclusions regarding age. this is the dispute: was she nine? or significantly older than nine (and in these cases proposed ages are given)? "evidence that aisha was nine" is far more neutral than "evidence aisha was a child". using the term "child" to point out that she must have been nine or less is OR. if in the "older" section an argument points to her being twelve, or fourteen, that could still be regarded as a "child". so her being a "child" or not a "child", which again is a relative term and understood differently by different people and so less suitable than giving exact age, is not the focus of the article, and is not what is disputed by the two parties.

Also please do not abruptly remove Hadiths form the main article without first discussing it since this is a major change to the article. I will do the same when adding Hadiths - sure, no problem. however, you need to wait a while for people to reply to achieve consensus before adding further material. no consensus was achieved (not even any comments) and so it is not protected from immediate removal if irrelevant, which is what it was. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"can you please give me the name of the publisher/edition for where you got the quote from sunan abi dawood (#4913) so i may verify it?" I will try, but unfortunetly the USC-MSA doesn't have the Hadith (they skipped it). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/041.sat.html#041.4910 But the verse number is given so it is possible to discover that information even without knowing the exact publisher or edition. - the reason for asking is for verification purposes. sunan abi dawood has only partially been translated, so who translated an "untranslated" narration? is it a reliable translation (an indication of this is whether or not it is present in reliable published material)? etc. ITAQALLAH 14:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is the source: Hasan, Prof. Ahmad. Sunan Abu Dawud : English Translation with Explanatory Notes. by Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters 1984 http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=620 self 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you. just to double check: can you confirm for me that the translation present in the book mirrors what is being proposed? ITAQALLAH 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Principal arguments

The final paragraph of principal arguments was a defence of historical 'child marriages' when the article is about the issues regarding Aisha's age, not the actual marriage.Crwpulsar 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's age

How old was Muhammad when they were married? Someone just changed it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

hadith

Here is some anit-Islamic guy that bother to colect some hadith. Do we have all of them? --Striver 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The begining of this one is interesting. --Striver 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This hadith proves nothing because, as the article says that even Aisha was born before advent of Islam, she might be only two years old when Prophet Muhammad were prophecised, which would make her age much more than 9 at marriage. And secondly, to put these hadith, we need secondary sources, otherwise it is useless without any conclusion. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Considering that this is a hadith article, can we rename it to Hadith of Aisha's age at marriage, so we can list it on List of hadith? --Striver 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No objections? --Striver 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But the counter arguments are not based totally on hadith, rather sometimes rationalized on logic. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this isn't a hadith article. Relevant information comes from sources other than hadith. Zora 03:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, scholarly quotes. Otherwise it would'nt be an encyclopedic article about hadith related to a special subject, it just be a hadith dump and that would go to wikisource.--Striver 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I even think that these new templates for hadith are taking too much space and the article seems to be funky. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the sources, i hope it will slim it down a bit. --Striver 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Striver has a long history of starting huge impossible projects without consulting anyone. He didn't ask anyone before annexing this article for his project either. Zora 07:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

annexing? That implies ownership. Whos stuff i am supposed to be annexing? Yours? I am trying to improve Wikipedia, as i am sure you also are. --Striver 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Arguments given in defence of Aisha's late marriage are definitely taken from Moiz Amjad's work, but I dont' think so that this is all his work. I had a quick look into Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi's work and he also mentioned these points plus many others. I didn't have a time to go through and see which one I can put on wikipedia. Well! I think it is already written very clearly on the article that what most and traditionally Muslims think and this opinion is hold by minority, so in that case, it definitely is a POV. But does this section deserve a POV tag? TruthSpreader^Talk 02:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

i think i have mentioned this before, but here are the guidelines of what undue weight consists of. if a view is a minority then it should be given space in relative proportion, the current section dedicates a lot of text to eludicating all of the arguments precisely when they could just be summarized. giving one viewpoint a substantial elaboration gives the impression that the view is more adopted than even claimed by the article. you don't say "A is a minority view" and then dedicate a few sections to give present all or most of the arguments, when it can easily be summarized. similarly, in any article you don't give dozens of paragraphs to outrageous theories just because it will take that much for every argument within the theory to be sufficiently covered. ideally if it was a minority view then you would give it a paragraph or two (but it depends on article size), and this is what the undue weight clause is about: maintaining article balance by propotionalizing the views on that subject, irrespective of what is considered "true" or "false". furthermore, for the "was 9" section, there are almost no arguments provided and it seems to be more of a compilation of primary source narrations. ITAQALLAH 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Aisha being older than nine may be a minority view among the Muslim community in general but among many Islamic historians, this view is quite popular. The guidelines mainly refer to tiny-minority views and this view is not a tiny-minority view by any means. It may not deserve equal weight as the former argument but it does deserve the weight it has been given. I think a better idea would be to expand the former section on Aisha's age being nine (perhaps with some more quotes), rather than reducing the latter section on her age being older than nine. This would be equivalent to giving the former argument more weight than the latter. Jagged 18:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

could you substantiate your earlier statement "...but among many Islamic historians, this view is quite popular". from what i know, such a view had not been prevelant or even known until recent apologetic responses to orientalist scrutiny. the only actual sources for this argument that i know of are indeed those that have already been mentioned in the article. consideration should also be given to the fact that the "was nine" section is currently a collection of primary sources while "was older than nine" is an 'analysis' and evaluation of these and other sources which i think gives the impression of stronger weightage of this view as no actual arguments or analysis are provided for the opposing view. ITAQALLAH 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to recent Islamic historians, such as those mentioned in the article. Reducing the length of the older than nine argument won't help the article in any way, since this article is primarily based on the debate surrounding Aisha's age. What I was suggesting is that we add more weight to the was nine argument, rather than cutting down the size of the other section, which will only make the article less informative. On the other hand, adding more quotes, arguments or an analysis to the was nine argument would make the article more informative. Jagged 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with the hadith related to Aisha's (ra) marriage age is that Muslims have been accepting it, but as a Ummah, we never acted upon it. Ummah is void of such practices at large in which children are married with much older persons. And the reason behind is that Sunnah and Quran teaches us strong morality in sexual relations and human nature just cannot assimilate such events in general. I can also see the argument in Spellburgs writing that Sunnis might reduced the age of Aisha and Sabaites reduced the age of Fatima by ten years (her birth:instread of 5 years before prophecy, they count 5 years after prophecy) for their own benefits, this clearly shows a pattern of political benefits in later Islamic eras. Interestingly, all other women related to the prophet were married at very reasonable ages. Muslims have been ignoring these hadith for a long time, but when you have cynical commentators on Islam, this is a definite loop hole for them. My point is that consensus of the practice of Ummah does not see such practices at large scale, because of some problems with it. And this practice at large deserves this much space on wikipedia, or even more. TruthSpreader^Talk 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. In my opinion, neither side of the argument is more factual than the other, and Muslim historians are clearly divided on this issue, with strong arguments coming from both sides of the debate. Just because the Sunni community in general regards her to have been nine at marriage, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should give this argument more weight. I believe Wikipedia should be as neutral and unbiased as possible, and give both sides of the debate equal weight. However, I don't mind giving the was nine section slightly more weight, as long as we don't cut down on the older than nine section. Jagged 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia

The definition for Pedophilia "is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children." It's original research and POV and simply untrue to include category pedophilia in this article. For one, the prophet Muhammed was not attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent, as proved by his other marriages, including to one who was 20 yrs older. Second, Aisha wasn't prepubescent when she was married. All scholars agree that she had attained puberty by the time she was married, correct? So this category doesn't belong in this article! --Inahet 06:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A 50+ year old man, that has sexual relations with a 9 year old girl is a pedophile and a child abuser. Another thing is where is your source that says that "Aisha wasn't prepubescent when she was married..."

You read the definition for pedophilia, and yet you still returned the category! You can't prove the prophet Muhammad was a pedofile, thus it is OR to include that category. Also, read the Wikipedia article, it says that Aisha "had already undergone puberty before the marriage was consumated, arguing that early marriages were not abnormal until relatively recent times,[1] but the standard practice was to wait until the bride had become adolescent before consummating the marriage.[14]" So you can understand that the category was removed for obvious reasons. --Inahet 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I accidently wrote the edit summary "rv" when I meant to write "re" --Inahet 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a pedophilia is "sexual desire in an adult for a child" [15]. "Prophet" Mo liked to have sex with this little 9 year old girl Aisha, and there is also other hadith that makes his sexual interest in children very obvious. Maybe you want to claim that adults was sexually abusing children all the time back then, but until now I haven't really see evidence that support that claim.. Fact is that normal adults doesn't have sexual feelings for 9 year olds.. Anyway, it doesn't really matter much. The fact that there has been other pedophiles and other child abusers, doesn't make Muhammad anything less of a pedophile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.81.20.149 (talk)

Maybe you should start looking at Christian Encyclopedia, you will find more paedophiles ACCORDING to your definition. Joseph married Mary(peace be upon him) when she was around 12 years old and Joseph was around 90 years old. Thats a 90 year old marrying a 12 year old girl. Source:[16] In America, just 100 years ago marrying the age of 14-15 was LEGAL, so would you say america was a paedophile state 100 years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.24.246 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Obviously, you're not here to debate about the content in the article, so leave your Muslim bashing to anti-Islamic forums, because it is not welcomed here. --Inahet 23:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am here to debate the article, and I can see that you are unable to make a valid reply to my most recent comment. What is not welcome here is you personal attacks against me.

I think Judging this issue is very difficult, this happened a long time ago in a different culture and we dont have all the facts, I think also the arguement is very heated and recent, morals come and go in another 1500 years this could be perfectly acceptable I think the article should keep this in mind, The term pedophilia is also very vague, Legaly if a person who was 1 day over the age of concent had sex with a person 1 day under legaly they would be a pedophile. Im not saying Pedophilia is right or wrong and I dont think the Article should really judge this either. Catintheoven 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly Muslim bashing. Most sources, especially Tabari, record that Aisha was six years old at the age of marriage. This is pedophilia, pure and simple. Pedophilia has to be mentioned. What? We cannot even mention Mohammad's pedophilia in a Wikipedia page that bears the title "Criticism of Islam?" Absolute nonsense. Tauphon 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadith markup

I think it was Striver who introduced special "hadith quote" markup that surrounded hadith quotes with a box and colored them green. I removed it all. He did this without consulting anyone and it's POV as all heck. Why should quotes from a certain body of Islamic texts get special treatment, and who gets to decide whether or not a particular collection gets the special treatment? Different scholars, and sects, accept different collections.

If hadith get special treatment, why not quotes from other books? Or people? Do all Torah quotes get to be red? New Testament quotes purple? What about the Apocrypha? What about Buddhist scriptures? Mormon scriptures? Quotes from USA presidents given an American flag background? This was a very very very bad idea. Zora 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree. though it was undoubtedly well intended, in my view it's a little bit needless, and i do think there should have been a gauging of opinion regarding this beforehand. ITAQALLAH 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is vote for on here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 21 --Striver 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

History of age at marriage

One editor removed the note re early marriages in Europe with the comment that it didn't apply to Arabia. Having spent many years reading widely in history and anthropology, I know darn well that in many societies, girls were routinely married off as soon as they were pubescent. However, the problem is coming up with a citation.

WP has lists of contemporary average marriage ages in various countries, ditto lists of minimum marriage ages. But nothing about history. Googling on historical demography, age at marriage, child bride, etc. brings up many books and papers about early marriage at specific places and times, but no global surveys.

I have tenuous memories of reading demographic theories about medieval and Renaissance Europe being anomalous in that they favored late marriage rather than early. But I can't for the life of me remember the authors or titles -- and in any case, that's from twenty years ago.

Is there anyone here at a university with a good demographics department or concentration? Anyone else can find references?

We could, I suppose, start adding references to the various regional/historical studies, but they would soon swamp the article. Zora 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

recent removal by User:Xtremeownage

regarding these changes: [17] [18]

The website design at Sunnipath.com has changed and I believe the referenced material that was removed still exists at this new URL: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1&redirect=yes

I didn't see the original material, so someone who did should probably make the call on reverting the changes & fixing the references. --Versageek 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the link (in the now restored material) that returns a 404 error:

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00004861.aspx --Versageek 10:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reference link is working, it is the external link that is not working. Someone need to change that! TruthSpreader^reply 12:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, do most Muslims know about this issue? Do they tend to assume that Muhammad couldn't have done such a thing (have sex with a nine-year-old girl)? Or would they be more likely to concede that he did, but insist that there was nothing wrong with it? (Either because a prophet should not be held to ordinary standards, or because Ayesha was "mature for her age," or because that sort of thing was normal for their society, etc.) If it turned out to be true--say, if they discovered a letter by Ayesha saying this--would very many Muslims quit their religion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.166.61 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I would say that most Muslims don't know about this. As Islam doesn't practice clergy legally but still because of the effect of Muftis and Ulemas, Muslims tend to follow the traditional arguments i.e. she was mature for her age. But I believe that some people have done excellent work on the age of Aisha i.e. she was older when she married, hence, this problem is no longer a problem. Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Comparison of hadith of Aisha's age with hadith of Laylat al-Qadr, in which 1 was used for 21, 3 for 23, 5 for 25 and so on, suggest that maybe Aisha's reports were transmitted literally and 16 became 6 and 19 became 9, as it is a way of talking in Arabic language when base is already known.[3]". Clicking on [3] in the text leads nowhere. The references in the reference secton are in a mess and need to be sorted out.

WP:RS

Please do not use Spencer and other non-scholar critics outside the criticism related articles --Aminz 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the apologetics are also sourced to partisan websites. This article needs a major rewrite. Arrow740 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

This is a textbook example of one kind of article which would not be found in a serious encyclopedia. "Aisha's age at marriage" is a pithy title for a thread in a discussion forum, but isn't really an independent subject to describe. Nor is the article really about any debate: rather, it aims to be the debate. Nearly all the sources were either partisan and unreliable or are primary sources arrayed in a quote farm. Then we have the by-now-classic and entirely useless criticism vs. apologism section, an approach which virtually ensures that W. Montgomery Watt will have the very final word in any Islam-related article.Proabivouac 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the need for a separate article on this topic, i am sure the reporting of any dispute concerning her age can be mentioned in a succinct paragraph in the Aisha article (which is pretty much already the case). ITAQALLAH 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah's sources

• Moiz Amjad, What was Ayesha's (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage to the Prophet (pbuh)?, understanding-islam.com, Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic research.[19]

• Hakim Niaz Ahmad, تحقیق عمرعا،شہ صدیقہ (Research on the age of Ayesha), Mashkoor Academy, Karachi.

• Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, Age of Aisha, Al-Rahman Publishing Trust, Karachi.[20]

The first and third are easily seen to be partisan religious sources. Who is the second? The fact that it is to be found on the internet does not render it reliable, itaqallah. Arrow740 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see why they are partisan. it is really quite appropriate to use Muslim commentator's sources when it pertains to their own traditions. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide qualifications, your only argument seems to be that they have Arabic names. Who is Maulana Muhammad Ali? Also political scientist Muqtedar Khan's screed is full of lies and vague references to "Islamic literature." His argument that Aisha was not 6 is "I have no doubt." This is a new low for sources. Arrow740 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you're alleging the sources are "partisan" without any real justification. it doesn't really matter what you think about Muqtedar Khan's work. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have no argument that he is an RS, it won't get that far, so you're right. Arrow740 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, and before this was Assistant Professor of Political Science at Adrian College in Michigan.Proabivouac 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

His piece is a bunch of whining about "bigoted" Christians and boasting that his club is getting more converts. Very disappointing. Arrow740 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

His conclusion bears no relationship to the rest of the piece. There doesn't appear to be any actual argument.Proabivouac 23:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you to argue for your sources. An Arabic name doesn't mean much. Arrow740 22:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When the article says those Muslims believe in that, then those people believe it. I can't see how Muqtader Khan, Moiz Amjad, etc etc are not reliable. --Aminz 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you convinced me. Arrow740 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Having this specific article on the age of Aisha is only meaningful if there are different views about it. --Aminz 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that is a completely circular argument. If the article fails to be meaningful after unreliable sources are removed, that is a reason for the article to be deleted, not to restore the poorly-sourced material.Proabivouac 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that was a long due quote farm cleanup. Thanks Proav. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, Aminz's recent improvements will have to be cleaned up for issues of style (it says things like "details we have") and to make it clear that whatever sources believe she was older than nine do not represent the majority opinion. I doubt that even most Muslims believe that. I've withheld reverting it wholesale because it seems like Aminz has spent a good deal of work on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good start. Arrow740 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead proposal

I tried to summerize the arguments of both sides in the intro per WP:Lead. Here is my suggestion for the lead in which I have tried to address User:Cuchullain's concern:

A'isha bint Abu Bakr, one of Muhammad's wives, is traditionally believed to have been married young. The age of Aisha at marriage is a controversial issue, and is the subject of increasing attention in recent years. Muslim conservatives and Western orientalists put the marriage at six or seven years old, and nine years old when the marriage was consummated. In support of this view, there are traditions saying Aisha was playing with her dolls when she got married. A minority of Muslims who calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19 base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina and Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy.

Looks good? --Aminz 06:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning what they claim to base their calculations on gives these calculations undue weight. By talking about them at confusing length in the intro we're giving them much more weight than they deserve. Arrow740 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article, I think, is supposed to mention the controversy. I added those to have a good coverage per WP:Lead (e.g. I added "In support of this view, there are traditions saying Aisha was playing with her dolls when she got married." to mention the other side's argument). --Aminz 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what your basis is for stating that this is the "other side's" argument. (Do I have it correctly that you've randomly decided for your own part that Aisha must have been older that six?) Actually, it is because the testimony of several narrators in several collections are uniform in their total agreement. There is no credible dispute here. As stated before, if after removal of unreliable sources, there is nothing left worth discussing, then this article should be deleted.Proabivouac 09:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I was summerizing the views of both sides following Barlas. Watt too point out the mention of playing with dolls as a support for authenticity of the account. Neither of them mention uniformity of narrators etc etc.

I think I have established that Barlas is a reliable source. --Aminz 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't; she's outside her field of expertise. At least Spencer's MA is in religious studies.Proabivouac 09:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas has written a chapter in Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an - a chapter in Contemporary Islam: Dynamic, not Static (Routledge Press)- a chapter in Contemporary Muslim Intellectuals and the Quran: Modernist and Post Modernist Approaches (Oxford University Press). The book we are using is published by Texas University Press and I mentioned two reviews of the book. --Aminz 09:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

She also teaches "Understanding Islam: Religion and Politics" at university. --Aminz 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is hand-wringing cruft to begin with; why prolong its agony?Proabivouac 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is like many other articles. Do I need to provide other evidences for reliability of Asma? I just found another favorable review of her book by some Prof from a Department of Philosophy and Religion who explicitly call her a "scholar" if that would be helpful. --Aminz 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is like many other articles which should be deleted.Proabivouac 10:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Amjad, Barlas

Please present your case for using Moiz Amjad and relate just what you are quoting from Barlas in the section "Arguments based on our information of Asma, Aisha's sister." Arrow740 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not any kind of credible source, while Asma Barlas "is former chair of the Department of Politics and founding director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Race, and Ethnicity at Ithaca College. She has a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy, an M.A in Journalism from Pakistan, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in International Studies." This issue has nothing to do with journalism, international relations, or race/ethnicity.Proabivouac 06:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Arrow: The arguments of those who support the 14(years)+ view are summerized in the Barlas(2002) (see [21])

Moiz Amjad is giving those arguments in details. --Aminz 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So what? Moiz Amjad has an Masters in…business administrationProabivouac 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please let us know where you get this information about Ajmad?

That's what he claims.[22] Perhaps it's not true?Proabivouac 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that you have reported Ajmad's background properly?[23]. I remember I was reading about his teacher "Amin Ahsen Islahi" in the Oxford Dictionary of Islam. --Aminz 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas tells us that such argument exists. This is just an expansion of that. Also, please note Moiz Ajmad's publication. --Aminz 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To Proab: Asma Barlas is a well-known scholar of Islam.

Regarding her book that we are using:

1. Her book was published by University of Texas press; John Esposito reviewed the book saying: "This is an original and, at times, groundbreaking piece of scholarship."

1. Kirsten V. Walles, Department of History, University of Texas at Austin reviewed the book saying: "The book Believing is a fascinating analysis of the woman’s position in Muslim society.However the basic premise of Asma Barlas’s theories could be applied and used by scholars of many disciplines including religion, gender, and history..."

--Aminz 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas comes across as somewhat unscholarly and partisan. I'll leave that for now and remove the blog. Arrow740 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barlas is not an unscholarly and pastisan source. David Robinson in Muslim Societies in African History (Cambridge University Press) says: "For the role of women, start with Asma Barlas' Believing Women in Islam:..." How can it be unscholarly and pastisan? --Aminz 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Given that the Prophet's life was meant to exemplify the Qur'an's teachings, it is safe to assume that his marriages were not, in fact, based in lust notwithstanding attempts to portray them as such." No, it is not safe. We don't have her same faith in Muhammad. She then uses her "safe assumptions" about Muhammad's marriage to a child to scold Muslims doing the same thing. Hardly objective. However I won't try to cut this out for now. Arrow740 07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Watt, and many other historians say the same thing. Such view do not make the source unreliable. Every source has its own views. --Aminz 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even Watt's writings assume this level of faith in the mard i kamil. But I agree that most scholars do betray some POV. Arrow740 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think in general Proabivouac is being too demanding with the sources, and Aminz is being too lenient. We need to make this less about determining if she actually was 6 or was older, and more about who says what. The minority opinion that she was older needs to be discussed; even if the sources are not reliable as history, they are reliable in transmitting a notable opinion. If there are holes in this opinion that have been pointed out by reliable sources, we can of course discuss that as well. I would also like to see more on the controversy itself, as this has been fairly popular among modern Islam critics, and discussed and dismissed by supporters like Watt.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no meaningful controversy; that's the problem. Beit Or 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That there is some controversy is clear. --Aminz 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to me, at least. Beit Or 13:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between 1) debate over whether Aisha really was six years old at the time of marriage, which is extremely marginal, and was originally the topic of this misguided article, and 2) moral criticism and controversy surrounding this apparent fact. I have no interest in the latter, but if it's to be included it should probably be on Criticism of Muhammad.Proabivouac 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence that" sections

Re: [24] Spellberg isn't quoted here as saying Aisha was older than nine. The trouble here is the section titles "Evidence that Aisha was nine"/"Evidence that Aisha was older than nine" is OR an, which I eliminated, but Aminz restored. Organizing the article in this way is highly POV, and probably originally aimed to give the very false appearance of equally-matched arguments on a very controversial question, when in reality, the arguments are nowhere near equal in strength, and there is no significant dispute. Placing the Spellberg material there is OR if Spellberg isn't claiming her observation to constitute such evidence.Proabivouac 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Beit Or 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states the nature of dispute and specifies the minority view. So, I disagree that the division gives "very false appearance of equally-matched arguments"--Aminz 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that such headers are unencyclopedic - mainspace isn't a forum for organizing and moderating debates - I see no "evidence" at all to contradict the traditional view.Proabivouac 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section called "Sources", which is cited only to Spellberg:

"…Spellberg notes that even the earliest biographies of Aisha are interpretive reflecting male intellectual history rather than a woman's history. It is not discernible the extent to which the records of Aisha's age at mariage embodies "displaced male desires."

This is clearly designed to cast random doubt on the veracity of the very next section, and prejudice the article.Proabivouac 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the source at books.google.com and you'll find your response. The article closely reflects the source. --Aminz 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Spellberg hasn't made any edits to this article.Proabivouac 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Barlas quotes Spellberg. --Aminz 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is one which by now should be familiar to you: being faithful to the source is good, but that doesn't address why we cite what we cite and where we place it in the article. Vague and insubstantial insinuations should be presented (if at all) after the facts to which they refer, not before them.

We can also be pretty certain that this feminist/postmodern characterization of the scriptural record is not likely to be accepted by mainstream scholars, whether academic or Islamic.Proabivouac 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about where we are placing this material in the article. It doesn't necessarily support either of the two views. It just says that the account of Aisha has been susceptible to tampering for obvious reasons but nothing can be said about the existent or extent of such tampering in this case. --Aminz 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Male intelelctual history" is feminist polemics, which casts doubt on all (not just early Muslim) history as male propaganda aimed at diminishing the role of women. Surely, this doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia. Beit Or 13:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Since there is not much to talk about, to wit, some (unspecified) Muslims saying that Aisha was 13 or 14, or older, let's just redirect this article to Aisha. If something meaningful comes up, the article can be easily resored. Beit Or 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.Proabivouac 22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. These material would overload the original article. The Muslims are not unspecified. Many of them were removed from the article for whatever reason. --Aminz 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You've cited that claim to the political scientist Asma Barlas. According to Barlas, which Muslims believe this?Proabivouac 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as long as you would like to deny the scholarliness of the work of Asma Barlas despite all the facts presented(the reviews and the press of the book; the books Barlas has written and the reputation she has in the community), I would rather not continue the discussion. --Aminz 02:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You are surely well aware that I didn't say the book wasn't scholarly. No one disputes that political scientists are scholars of political science.Proabivouac 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

She is more known as an scholar of Islam. You can not undercut the reliability of the source by refering to her as a political scientists instead. --Aminz 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Her writing is hard to take seriously, and her credentials aren't particularly compelling. Arrow740 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Common. Please take a look at her article and the above reviews of the book. I can't imagine someone would edit a chapter in "Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an", teaches Islam in a university and yet fails the requirements of WP:RS. --Aminz 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the quoted sentence, Barlas does not say that Aisha was older than nine; she only says some Muslims think so. The question was who these Muslims are. You didn't answer it. Beit Or 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They include Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muqtedar Khan, Moiz Amjad, Hafiz Niaz Ahmad, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi .... --Aminz 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But Barlas doesn't name them, does she? That's your original research.

Another statement which might be cited to this same discussion is,

"Many Muslim men use Muhammad's marriage to Aisha to justify their own marriages to little girls."

That's what the source says, isn't it? If this feminist political scientist is a reliable source for the one assertion, I cannot see why should would not be for the other.Proabivouac 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Barlas is refering to those specific people. I said the class of Muslims who believe in that include those people. And regarding the other sentence, we can mention that point as well. --Aminz 07:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I couldn't match the quote you mentioned with the source. --Aminz 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I didn't say that I was quoting Barlas, only that one might add that statment to the article cited to Barlas.

From page 125,

"Yet it is not usually these egalitarian aspects of the Prophet's Sunnah that many Muslim men want to emulate today; rather, they place a great dealt more emphasis on the fact of his multiple marriages, and also on the age of one of his wives, Ayesha, which they use to legitimize marriages to little girls."

I'm surprised that you weren't able to find this. No, it shouldn't be included. Barlas isn't a sociologist, and "many" is vague: how many? And how does she know? Same problems with the stuff about Muslims recalculating her age.Proabivouac 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there is nothing wrong with mentioning this. And there is an assumption that when she writes something, it is correct. If many is ambigious, we can quote her directly. --Aminz 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me she is more known as a scholar of feminism.Proabivouac 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. With the current size, a merge to the main Aisha article would indeed make sense. -- Karl Meier 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)