Talk:Aisha/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Aisha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Confusion

I think there is confusion here over words and their meaning: In modern English, marriage mostly means consummation, or is simultaneous with it. However, it was a tradition in Arabia, as it is still in many places in the world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, to have a legal ceremony (e.g. Ketubah in Judaism, "Half a Garland" for Coptic Christians, ...etc.). The actual consummation was done later. It could be a week later, or a few months, or even years. In the case of Aisha, it was after she reached puberty, at nine. So to say that she married at six is inaccurate, since they did not live together as husband and wife nor had sex until she was 9. Here is a reference from Sahih Al Bukhari : 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). It is also clear from Ibn Hajar's commentary (Arabic) [1] that it was Abu Bakr, Aisha's father, who prompted Muhammad to consummate the marriage, saying "what is holding you from consummating your marraige with your wife"? It was a normal thing to do in 7th century Arabia and other places in the world. -- KB 02:58, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad. This common medieval custom has passed from usage in the West. The vague references to the hadith that record Aisha's testimony are not made specific here. Why is this? What are the titles of the Islamic works that record Aisha's testimony? Wetman 07:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding betrothal, I think that I agree with you. Marriage at age 6 was not considered marriage as we consider it today, but rather betrothal or engagement. As for the rest of your comment, there is no vague reference at all. I have included a link to the original Arabic text of the Hadith in Sahih of Bukhari, and the commentary of Ibn Hajar on it. The Sahih is considered the most authentic compilation of tradition of the prophet by Sunni Muslims, who form the vast majority of Muslims. An English translation of the Sahih exists, but not the commentary by Ibn Hajar. I added it to the article on Bukhari himself. -- KB 22:57, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

According to some Arab sources whom I have no reason to distrust, "consummation" in this context does mean sexual intercourse. Link: "Answering Islam" Ashibaka ✎ 04:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is to clarify that marriage is not equal to consummation, as it is common today (they are almost simultaneous, at least in Western countries). This had no 'shock effect' then and there, but does have that effect now and here, and therefore it is brought up often. It was not even raised in the centuries following that event by opponents of Islam. And the site quoted is not the most objective of all on the topic. -- KB 17:01, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Aisha's age is of enormous importance if she was 9 when they had sex then she was raped

If they had sex when she was 19, it still could have been rape. And if they had sex when she was 9, it wasn't necessarily rape. By today's laws, it would be statutory rape, but the laws of today didn't apply in the Seventh Century. Kairos 09:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that, due to the insecurities of a minority of Muslims, the neutrality and integrity of the article is bound to suffer. The age of Muhammad and Ayesha at and later consummation of that marriage is well attested to by the most genuine/strong narrations and we are as close to undisputedness as can be. Part of maintaining Wikipedia is confronting those individuals who let their personal beliefs distort and prevent an unbiased encyclopedia. Usedbook 19:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An important point, valid across a wide range of Christian, Islamic and nationalist subjects. I heartily concur. Wetman 07:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shias view

Hi and peace to everybody. Im a shia, and added some more text to the article. I expect i to be un-appreciated by sunnis, even though i only quote sunni sources. Mostly since i bring up events that sunnis rather would like to forget. It would be intresting to get some feedback from sunnis but also from non-muslims.

Striver, you've turned the article into a brief for the Shia point of view on many issues, many of them not related to Aisha at all. Furthermore, you've completely garbled the structure AND you can't write comprehensible or grammatical English. Aargh. This is NOT a Sunni point of view -- I'm a Buddhist. Furthermore, as I've been working on various Islamic articles, I've made an attempt to include Shia viewpoints rather than just the Sunni ones usually represented in outsiders' attempts to understand Islam.

I won't revert, since you may have contributed some useful information in addition to all the polemics. But I am CERTAINLY going to remove the weird account of Aisha's death. That strikes me as one of the many stories circulated by the Abbasids to justify their revolt against the Umayyids. Zora 21:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx for your time Zora, and i apologise for my horrible spelling and grama. Im glad you can help me whith that.

I took a fast look at the changes,and it maide me feel that some important point where lost. Ill bring them up here in the dissusion page later on. Thanks.

--Striver 23:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apologistic approach to Aisha

The vast majority of Islamic scholars do believe that Aisha was indeed nine at the age of consumation, so that being the case it seems to be misleading if this article gives quotes that suggest an alternative age first, and only later on does it give quotes that the mainstream Muslim scholars believe

No, the vast majority of sunni Muslim scholars believe that Aisha was 9. That's because sunni Muslims accept Bukhari and Muslim collection as the most authentic. The secular scholars, while not necessarily rejecting Bukhari and Muslim, look at earliest sources, such as Ibn Ishaq. This is not a sunni Muslim encyclopedia. Remember the article on Muhammad? On top of the page the skeptic view about sources was posted. After that the biography started. Since most of the biography of Muhammad comes from Ibn Ishaq .. why do you want to place that earliest source at the bottom and post a latter source like Bukhari on top? Are you sunni Muslim? OneGuy 09:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni. If you know as much about Islam as you claim, you would recognize that it is only apologist muslims who try to bump up her age over 9.. and even then they can't all agree on single age

This Encyclopedia is not Sunni. It's a secular Encyclopedia. Secular scholars don't accept Bukhari as more authentic than Ibn Ishaq. Why are you placing earliest source like Ibn Ishaq on bottom and placing 100 years latter source like Bukhari on top? To the main stream secular scholars, Ibn Ishaq is older and more authentic.OneGuy 09:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most muslims would disagree with you on that point. Furthermore, this is not a timeline so the most widely accepted quotes should and will go on top. You can't force your views on wikipedia. If this came to arbitration, you would lose.

Are we posting the views of Muslims here or main stream secular scholars? Why do you want to post the Bukhari on top and put a source that secular scholars consider more authentic, Ibn Ishaq., on bottom? You have not explain the reason. Please explain OneGuy 09:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More on what goes on top

Moreover, my version of the article mentions the sunni Muslim view on top, then it gives alternative evidence that contradict that claim .. latter it gives hadith that support sunni Muslim view .. Your version doesn't even mention the contradictory evidence until the very end. That alone is strong reason to reject your version OneGuy 09:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quotes you are posting is clearly an apologetic attempt to distort and mislead people on the age of Aisha. There are very clear quotes from authentic sources that state her age. She admitted it herself. The quotes you give do not directly say she was a certain age - in fact they are not even talking about Aisha! What you are quoting is after-the-fact damage control looking for any little loophole you can to try to hide the truth.

No, they are not! Ibn Ishaq is more authentic (according to secular scholars) than Bukhari. Your version of the article doesn't even mention that a source such as Ibn Ishaq (the earliest) contradict the hadith in Bukhari till the very end .... My version on the hand, mentions Aisha narrations on top ... then gives alternative evidence in the next paragraph. Then it again gives counter evidence after that. Your version doesn't even mention Ibn Ishaq till the end. Why is that? OneGuy 09:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why change the subject? Face it, the quotes you have do not mention Aisha. It basicly says this and this happened and this date. Then you come to your own conclusions based on that. What you are doing is exactly what a defence attorney would do during a trial when he knows his client is guilty.

Every quote mentions Aisha. Such as, According to Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768), Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab.

You see the word Aisha there?

Yes, but it is indirect. Yours state "if this, then that". My quotes say "I did this when I was that". Which one is more direct??

Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia.

Do you see the word Aisha there?

You can read the read the rest of the quotes yourself. The fact is that my version is more neutral. It starts with mentioning the narrations by Aisha that she was six. It then gives contradictory evince, and ends with quotes from Bukhari. Your version doesn't even mention these strong contradictory evidence, including Ibn Ishaq .. till the very end. Obviously my version presents both sides and is balanced. Your version doesn't. It tries to hide the evidence till very end OneGuy 10:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not neutral, it is someone's opinion on something by using indirect facts that may more may not be accurate

Well, the quotes in Bukhari may or may not be accurate. You didn't answer me. My version gives both opinion on the top .. your version doesn't even mention the contradictory evidence till the very end. Your version is trying to hide the evidence. My version isn't. It presents both sides on top .. yours doesn't. Your version is not neutral like mine OneGuy 10:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with OneGuy's ordering of the facts, it makes more sense to allow the article to counterargument the stated facts on Aisha's age first. As there is more information supporting the initial argument to follow this up. Hiding the counterargument below a large list of sources makes it less relevant than it should be in this article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot :)) I hope anon vandal gives up his attempt to hide contradictory evidence till the very end, but given his history ... I doubt he will OneGuy 11:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:168.209.97.34 feels the current text is too defensive, maybe we can work it out by using the ordering I suggested (and was used before) but rewriting some of the arguments, you can try working on the text on this talk page, but if there's only one party participating in the discussion here there will never be a consensus. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 11:26, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Do a google search - almost all islamic scholars believe she was nine... giving this crackpoint half the article with his apologetic "this happened at this and this time therefore this can't be that....". Putting it first gives the apologetic ppl too much credit. That is like having an article on the Apollo Moon landing starting out with conspiracy theories first and then tucking the facts at the end.

And there are Islamic sites that disagree with them, like http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375

The questions is not just about posting what first. You moved everything that says she was six on top, and didn't even mention the strong contradictory evidence in first 5 paragraphs. That's hiding information deliberately. OneGuy 11:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy's quotes are not verified

According to Ibn Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768) biography of Prophet Muhammad, the Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Aisha accepted Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab. If true, then Aisha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. She could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she got married.

Please provide references from these hadiths. I have done google searches and found nothing

Buy the book .. Ibn Hisham translation is available in English ... The Arabic source is cited here:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=89 OneGuy 12:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tabari reports that when Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Ethiopia (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Aisha was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Aisha as his son's wife. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. If Aisha was only six years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Ethiopia.

This is not proof. It was, and still is, a custom in Arab countries to betroth a girl, even a baby girl to a someone.

Really how can you marry a girl who was not even born yet? OneGuy 12:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. If Aisha was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH.

Even if this narratives is as it was originaly written, there is no reason to discard all those strong, detailed and explicit hadithes I have quoted. People remember important things better than nonimportant things. The date of the birth of the children of Abu Bakr was not an important as Mohammad's weddings and women.

How does that answer the question that Aisha in those strong narration was lying? Bukhari is authoritative only to Sunni Muslims.OneGuy 12:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was 35 years old. Muhammad migrated to Medina when he was 52, making Aisha 14 years old in 1 AH.

If Aisha was five years older than Fatima, and Fatima was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Aisha was only thirty years younger than Mohammad. At the time of the marriage when the Prophet was 54, Aisha must have been 24 yeas old!!! This is certainly not correct!==OneGuy's quotes are not verified==

You need to take a math class .. if Aisha was younger than Fatima than that makes it 40 years .. not 30 OneGuy 12:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You do not understand English very well, do you? It is obvious from your replies. Your articles are full of factual errors, misspellings, grammatical errors and typos. Please edit articles in the language you are familiar with and leave the English version to those who have a decent commandn of the language. Or, at the least, proofread what you type before saving the page.

:)) I know it hurts. If you had taken a math class, you wouldn't have a made the blunder above. OneGuy 12:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References

Vandal wants the references. These are Arabic original sources. The Arabic is clearly posted here:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=89

Post proof that these quotes are not accurate. OneGuy 12:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there is no trustworthly english translation we can not just assume it says what you say it says. 168.209.97.34 12:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need to post proof that shows the references posted on the page are not true. Ibn Hisham is available in English too. Buy the book and post the evidnce that references are not true OneGuy 12:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to buy a book to find the references. I am suprised it is not available online given the fact that some apologetic muslims are trying to quote from it to disprove the proven claim of Aisha getting consumated at the age of nine. Very strange. 168.209.97.34

Because the translation is copyrighted. You cannot delete stuff just because the references are not online. That would mean we cannot cite any authority on wiki if it's not online. That would be silly. Unless you can post proof that a quote is not true, do not remove it OneGuy 12:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, if we can't prove it, it can't be posted. Sorry. Send some hatemail to whoever supposedly has it copywritten. 168.209.97.34 13:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that I added the references, your that complaint is gone. Unless you have prove otherwise OneGuy 13:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did google search for "Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah ayesha" and only matches were from apologetic islamic sites (understanding-islam.com and people who copied from them). Was unable to find Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyya to see for myself.168.209.97.34 13:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah gives me actually 705 sites .. The name of the book is Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah (transliteration may vary) not, Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah aisha OneGuy 13:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand that aisha is not part of the book name. I wanted to find everything related to Aisha on al-Nabawiyyah. If this book is as respected as you think it is, one would think there would be more mention of it and, hence, more matches. 168.209.97.34 13:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I told you transliteration may vary. Search the authors name Ibn Hisham and Sira. You will then see thousands of sites 13:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

168.209.97.34, please sign ALL your comments using ~~~~, it is nigh impossible to track a discussion otherwise. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 12:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Solitude. Was wondering how to do that.168.209.97.34 12:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting Material

Notice vandal 168.209.97.34 is deleting material from the article because he doesn't have the book and can't check it. That really makes sense! Buy the book. Ask some other people to check it for you. Do not delete material because you don't have books or can't read arabic OneGuy 13:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it does make sense. 168.209.97.34 13:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are going to delete material from wiki pages because you don't have the books to verify something. And that makes sense to you. Hmm OneGuy 14:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, I can stay here for the next 24 hours. I have a lot of free time, as you must have noticed. Either you can continue this revert war or we can make a comprise. You want to add the quotes from Bukhari on top. Fine, but you need to mention the information is disputed in the first two/three paragraphs. And do not delete the sources I posted. References are clearly cited. You can check it by asking someone who has access to these sources, such as http://answering-islam.org OneGuy 14:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

168.209.97.34 search for Ibn Hisham and Sira. You are searching the book name. Arabic names can be transliterated in several ways into English. OneGuy 14:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I know how google works. OneGuy, please sign all your posts.168.209.97.34 13:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ready to comprise?

Gone? But since I know you will be back next day, let me repeat it again. We can revert this article forever, or we can comprise. You can post Bukhari quotes on top. Given, (1) mention somewhere in the first three paragraphs that some traditions give contradictory age. (2) do not delete the contradictory evidence that I posted. The references are cited and can be checked. If you can't check them, ask someone, your Christian apologist friends, to check them. If not, well, then we can start all over again tomorrow ... OneGuy 16:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't recommend that (continuing a revert war, I mean). I would recommend one of you taking the high road and voluntarily ceasing to revert while you discuss the matter on the talk page. 168.209.97.34, it wouldn't hurt to wait a few days and see if anyone else can verify the citations. OneGuy, it wouldn't hurt to wait a few days to try to work together to find a wording that both of you can accept. Please keep the long view in mind -- we're writing an encyclopedia that we expect to be around for decades. Allowing the article to be "wrong" for a few days isn't going to hurt in the long run. What is harmful is a revert war. Instead of waging war, how about asking the community at large to take a look. I'm sure you're not the only two interested or knowledgeable in this area. You can ask for outside help at Requests for comment. If neither of you is willing to compromise, you might want to make a request for page protection -- but remember that the page might be frozen on the "wrong" version. What should not happen is an edit war. Please see Revert wars considered harmful and the Three revert rule. An edit war is NOT productive -- communication is. SWAdair | Talk 05:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My take on the edit war is simple: OneGuy is right, anon is trying to suppress information from an earlier period which is rather more reliable than the hadiths in question. However, when this page gets unprotected, one thing does need to be changed: Aisha means "living", not "life". - Mustafaa 09:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here, we have another user agreeing this version. I hope anon ends his desperate attempt to suppress material OneGuy 10:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course he agrees... just look as his name... Mustafaa!!! All Islamic apologists would support those unverifiable and probably forged quotes. If I was a Muslim, I too would try to hide the fact that my prophet had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child. Strange how ever since OneGuy showed up, half of the articles he edits ends up being protected. 168.209.97.34 10:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How are the sources forged? If you don't have the books and can't read Arabic, that doesn't make them "forged." Plus, Muslims have a right to post opinion agreeing and disagreeing with material posted on wiki. And I told you I am not Muslim, but if you think I am Muslim, fine. I still have the right to edit articles, like Mustafaa. You cannot remove material from articles just because you don't like them OneGuy 10:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:No personal attacks; note also that Ibn Ishaq is the oldest surviving biography of Muhammad, and, except among Muslims, is universally considered more reliable than the significantly later hadith collections; and note that you have completely failed to make any effort to verify these quotes, and that, judging by your record, your word is worth far less than OneGuy's. - Mustafaa 10:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. It it shows that you are a Muslim and therefore more likely to want to try to cover up for Muhammad's dirty deeds. If, as you say, it is so reliable, why is there so little mention of it on the Internet (google for it) and why has it not been translated into English and posted online? What you are saying is "We can't prove it, but just trust me on this one". While all the other quotes are from authentic Hadiths and are VERY clear regarding Aisha's age. 168.209.97.34 10:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet another example of a tragically common Wikipedia fallacy; the mistaken notion that everything worth knowing can be found on the Internet. Try going down to your local library and learn something new for a change. - Mustafaa 10:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I didn't delete the hadith, unlike you who deleted all the counter evidence by claiming without proof that they are forged. OneGuy 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now who is making personal attacks? Why are all the other hadiths available online but this one, which information that would prove to the world that Muhammad didn't have sex with a nine year old, is kept offline (in fact, very little mention is made of it) and hidden away? I guess the muslims WANT the rest of the world to see only the "unreliable" hadiths that say she was nine when she had sex and keeps the authentic one offline and untranslated. Very very strange. 168.209.97.34 10:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one deleted the hadith you posted. You deleted material that is contradictory. You are trying to supress material, even the sources like Ibn Ishaq and Tabari OneGuy 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course they didn't.. they can't because they know they are authentic! You can find those exact quotes on a zillion other websites. The entire hadith it is from is available free online 168.209.97.34 10:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you are argument is that if any source is not translated into English and posted on the web, we should delete them? Wow. The references are there. Go check them. If you can't, ask someone. Don't claim they are forged without proof OneGuy 10:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, Bukhari, Muslim and the Qur'an are translated and online because they are religious text. There are many more historical sources on history, such as Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. These sources are not invalid (even if they are not considered "sahih" by Muslims) when we were are talking about a historical topic. Secular scholars use them, including your favorite Christian site like answering-islam.org OneGuy 10:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you personally read Sirat Rasul Allah (I know what your answer is going to be and I'm sure it's a lie!)? Where did you find it? Why is there so little mention made on the Internet regarding it? Why is it that such a trustworthy and early biography of Mohammad is not posted online?? 168.209.97.34 10:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I answered you why it's not translated and is online. It's a historical source (even attacked by some Muslims on some of it's claims) unlike religious text like Bukhari and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj. Plus, if you know I am going to lie, why are you asking me that question? OneGuy 10:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sirat Rasul Allah

Mr. 168 etc., this is NUTS. Of course Ibn Ishaq is a real book. I have it, in English. The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with Introduction and Notes by A. Guillaume. Oxford University Press, 16th printing, 2003. Available for $30.95 from Powell's. Order it and read it. That should take you a few months. I haven't finished it myself; 800 pages of teeny tiny print is a lot of reading.

I'm not a Muslim, I'll never BE a Muslim, I'm a Buddhist, thank you, and my only axe to grind in these discussions is accuracy and NPOV. I don't want the various Islamic articles to slip into pious brochures, as they sometimes tend to do, and I don't want them to be anti-Islamic diatribes either. This is a hard balance to strike, given the current political situation, but I think it can be done. You're not helping. Please please come back when you've read something besides various hate-filled web sites, take a username, and be prepared to compromise, if only in the usual Wikipedia way of "A says X and B says not-X". If you want to be A, let B lay out his argument instead of trying to pervert or delete it. Zora 11:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then since you have a copy can you do us a favor and look up those quotes? What do you say about the fact that the majority of Islamic scholars believe that Aisha was nine years old when the prophet had sex with her? Or do you deny that to? And why can't anyone answer my question which is why is such a supposedly authentic biography of Muhammad not available online? Please just check the book from your own personal library and see if those quotes are true to the word?

It's going to take me some time to look up the quotes. It's a BIIIG book.

It's not online not only because it's big, but because it's still copyrighted; it was first published in 1955. I believe it's the only English translation. There might be French or German translations from the Arabic that are public domain now. Scan them and put them through Distributed Proofreaders and then they'll be online <g>. Zora 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not trying to make this into an anti-islamic diatribe. If you look at the history, you would see that this article was happy and NPOV until OneGuy pitched up with his godly agenda. My edits of Muhammad and Islam was to give both sides of the man and the religion. Up until recently, Muhammad was very pro-Mohammad. Now it's a little more POV. As of getting a username.. why? What is the point? I'm not trying to make a name for myself.

Because it's the custom here. Because it's the custom online. Even if you conceal your real identity, you should have a stable, named persona online. Zora isn't my real name, but it's my username at Distributed Proofreaders and Wikipedia. When something is signed Zora, people know WHO she is. When you have a usename, you can put up a user page, to tell people about yourself, and you'll have a talk page, where people can leave you messages. The more you relate to people online as if they're real people, with quirks and foibles and unexpected strengths, the less you'll treat them like clay ducks on a shooting range. Zora 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With OneGuy, as you will see by his posts, it is either his way or no way. He will even get into an edit war to get his way. One thing though, I'm sure you have just made him very happy with your comment. Maybe you two can become a dynamic duo. BTW.. you should consider converting to Islam, it would suit you well. 168.209.97.34 11:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, if you were to read through the talk page for Muhammad, you'd see that OneGuy and I have been disagreeing, sometimes sharply, for a long time. If you were to ask me who raises my blood pressure, I'd say, OneGuy. I'm fairly sure he feels the same way. If I agree with him on something, that's fairly unusual. It's only extorted from me by my respect for the truth <g>. Zora 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't make the article POV. I posted some evidence that shows that there are contradictory reports. I didn't delete the hadith you posted, unlike you. For sunni Muslims, the most authentic source is Bukhari and Muslim. They will always consider that to be the most authentic source. Plus, they will never admit that Aisha would exaggerate about her age or importance. That doesn't change the fact that there are contradictory tradition about it. The clearest contradiction is in Tabari who in one place claims that all of Abu Bakr children were born in jahylia, and in other place he quotes Aisha that she was nine. Why do you want to delete these contradictory reports and present only one view? The article that I posted clearly said that most Muslims accept she was nine, but don't delete contradictory traditions OneGuy 11:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Now it's a little more NPOV." - for which we can thank Zora and OneGuy, not you. OneGuy's edits have considerably improved the article, supplying the full contect of the debate instead of dealing with it in two somewhat inaccurate sentences. - Mustafaa 11:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do most Islamic sites then claim she was nine when she had sex and then justify it by saying it was common at the time. The fact that there are several hadiths who say she was nine, and she said so herself, seems to go on the backburner with you islamic apologists. Do a google search for "Muhammad Aisha Consumation" - 90 percent of all Islamic sites agree with the quotes I gave. It is also strange how everyone who is trying to make Muhammad look like a saint claims they are not a Muslim! Zora is very pro-Muhammad, yet claims to not be a Muslim. OneGuy, too, tries his best to make Muhammad look like a faultless prophet, and he isn't a Muslim! Wow, where are all real Muslims! Let me gues... Mustafaa, you aren't a Muslim either??? Looks like Muhammad's best friends these days are non-Musims! The irony! 168.209.97.34 11:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I answered you why most Muslim sites wouls say she is nine. They can't deny what Aisha claims, and for them Bukhari is a religious text. Anyway, even if Aisha was nine, that doesn't change the fact that there are some contradictory traditions on this issue that needs to be mentioned OneGuy 11:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Islamic sites that support the 9-year-old at marriage claim do so because they MUST in order to support the Sunni faith in the integrity of the hadith tradition. If they start admitting that Aisha could shade the truth, then all the traditions that depend on her get devalued, and that's more than 2000 of them. The whole edifice of Islamic law would be undermined. They don't like it, but they're stuck. Zora 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about blaming the victim! The only thing Aisha would have achieved by lying about her age of consumation would be to paint Muhammad in a very bad light. Aisha spoke lovingly of Muhammad so it is very hard to believe she would make up such a story. It certainly doesn't do her any favors either... if anything one would expect Aisha to lie and say she was an older age when she was consumated, or, even better, just not mention it at all. 168.209.97.34 12:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

She didn't see it as painting him in bad light. Moreover, can you post any evidence before 18th century that shows anyone ever claimed it paints him in bad light? There was a lot criticism of his marriage to his adopted son's wife at that time by his enemies, and evidence of the this criticism survives in traditions, but yet no one ever criticized him for his marriage to Aisha. I wonder why? OneGuy 12:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Ibn Ishaq is available online, at Al-Warraq, along with several hundred other major classical Arabic works - in both recensions, Ibn Hisham's and at-Tabari's. Too bad you can't read Arabic, huh? Fortunately, you can always pay the 30 bucks. - Mustafaa 11:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is rather suspicious. Seeing how it debunks the orthodox view that Muhammad had sex with a child one would think the Muslims would be very quick to translate it into English and post it online. But it seems only non-Muslims like Zora and OneGuy are interested into helping Muhammad out of the Aisha issue. Perhaps one of them could be talked into learing Arabic and doing to the translation themselves. 168.209.97.34 11:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your "suspicions" merely demonstrate your ignorance. The reasons you don't find more translations of Ibn Ishaq are two: one, it's extraordinarily long, and there aren't any out-of-copyright translations to rip off (like for Bukhari), as far as I know; two, it's the original source for the story of the Satanic Verses. - Mustafaa 11:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Muslims don't deny that she was nine just because she, as quoted in Bukhari, says so. Why would they post contradictory traditions when they don't even deny anything in Bukhari? OneGuy 11:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions and requests

Please can you all get usernames, so it's easier to talk to all of you? It looks like you are all getting cites to back up your positions, which is well and good when controversial topics are being edited. I'm glad that the discussion here is getting somewhere, and it looks like it should soon be safe to unprotect this page.

I'd just like to make one request: when the page is editable again, can we put the discussion of her age at marriage and consummation further down the article, not at the start? I know that the age debate is highly contentious, and it has a place in this article for that reason (the controversy is notable in itself), but a more comprehensive biography of Aisha should precede it. -- Karada 11:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur - the extensive section on the sources deserves its own subheading at this point. As for the other point, there's only one anonymous editor here, which at least reduces confusion... - Mustafaa 11:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References from Ibn Ishaq

On page 116 of the English version, there's a list of the people who accepted Islam after the first eight men (who included Abu Bakr). In the list are:

Asma d. Abu Bakr together with his little daughter Aisha.

So that would be sometime around 613. The narrative proceeds chronologically, and some pages later we have the emigration to Abyssinia and the conversion of Umar, sometime around 615, page 155.

We don't know how little is little, but presumably Aisha was something more than an infant, since she is said to accepted Islam. Perhaps she was old enough to speak? Two or three years old? If she was born in 610-611, and the Hegira was in 622, and she was married sometime in the year after the Hegira, that puts her age at anything from eleven to twelve or even older. Since 12-14 is the average age of menarche, and she is supposed to have reached puberty before she entered Muhammad's household, that would seem a likely chronology. (Re marrying at 12 -- in my biography of Guru Dutt, the famous Indian film director, the author notes that the director's mother was married at the age of 12, just after she reached puberty. This is not unusual, however strange it may seem to Westerners.)

The other point I should make, as an anthropologist, is that Ibn Ishaq doesn't give dates. It's just this happened and that happened, in sequence. All the dating comes later, as later Muslim commentators counted years from the Hegira, before the Hegira, correlated this and that, and finally came up with chronologies. Before universally accepted calendars, people date by significant events. (It says in Ibn Ishaq that Muhammad was born in the year of the elephant.) Or by years before and after significant events. So it's possible that Aisha might not really have known when she was born, or how old she was, and that when she said "9", she wasn't exaggerating so much as guessing.

I'm pushing this argument because based on a lot of reading in anthropology and history, it was extremely common for betrothals or formal marriages to be contracted while the principals were still pre-pubescent, and that consummation of the marriage would be delayed until after puberty. If Muhammad's marriage was arranged with Aisha's family, and delayed until she grew up, it seems to me extremely likely that she would have been post-pubescent and at least 12. Muslims are stuck with the 9-year-old figure because they don't dare question hadith. Other scholars can be more iconoclastic.

I should add that I've spent hours poring over Ibn Ishaq trying to find info re Muhammad's marriages, and it's in short supply. No one is much interested in Muhammad's wives. Instead, every single raid or military engagement is described in detail, together with lists of the dead and wounded. Apparently this is the sort of thing Muslim warriors liked to remember. Zora 13:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how different this is from Arabic version, but as cited by Moiz Amjad, according to Ibn Hisam, Aisha was the 20th or the 21st person to enter Islam, and Umar was preceded by forty individuals. So Aisha accepted Islam before Umar (20 people in between). Anyway, the quote is correct. If you combine that with the other tradition in Tabari, where he claims that all children of Abu Bakr were born before Muhammad started preaching Islam, that clearly contradicts Hadith in Bukhari. Plus, also Ibn Hagar claims that Aisha was 5 years younger than Fatima, etc. These different contradictions should be mentioned, not removed. Especially, given some Muslims use these arguments. OneGuy 14:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Satanic Verses incident is not in Ibn Hisham. Guillaume supposedly inserted that in English translation by taking it from Tabari. Does he mention he is inserting other material in Ibn Hisham, like from Tabari? OneGuy 15:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guillaume put his version together from Ibn Hisham and Tabari (who said he was using Ibn Ishaq), and any bits from Tabari are marked with a T before them. Zora 19:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References In Tabari

Since 168.209.97.34 wanted the reference in English, here it is:

History of al-Tabari Vol. 11

http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=52359

It will only cost you $24.95 for Paperback.

On page 141, it says that all four of Abu Bakr's children were born during the pre-Islamic period. There is text note (by the translators?) that says that Aisha would have been no younger than thirteen years old if she were born pre-Jahiliyyah. The note also points out that this contradicts other part where he quotes Aisha that she was nine. OneGuy 15:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can I put up a new version?

In light of the discussion here, I've worked off-line to revamp the article. I gave an expanded bio of Aisha first and put the debate re her age at the bottom. I gave the pro-9-year-old-versions first and the conflicting versions second. I also included Sunni and Shia views of Aisha (which are quite different). Would everyone be OK with letting me post it and leaving it up for ONE DAY, while we argue on the talk page, before starting to play revert war again? Zora 23:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you read the quotes he gave did it say anothing about Aisha or was it about other matters? From what it sounds like, those quotes were talking about dates of certain other things happening and then someone else plugs in "therefore Aisha could/must/could not have been X years old" afterwards. 168.209.97.34 10:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That was obvious. The facts were to certain events from which Aisha's age could be calculated. Such as Tabari's quote that all four children of Abu Bakr were born in pre-Islamic period, or that Aisha was five years younger than Fatima, etc. OneGuy 10:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This goes back to the problem of the original sources not citing dates. Muslim scholars had to work out a timeline that fit the greatest number of facts, and then plug events into the Muslim "year of the hegira" calendar. Basically, where the Christians put the hinge of history at Jesus' birth, the Muslims put it at the Hegira. But obviously that chronology didn't exist until much after the Hegira. Ibn Ishaq and Tabari didn't use it. So we have to try to calculate where things might fit. Zora 11:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, PERF 558 strongly suggests that that Hijri dates were in use by 22 years after the Hijra... - Mustafaa 23:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But obviously not unversally ... Alas. But thanks for the note re dating. It makes sense that people would date from that, as one could say that it was the beginning of Muhammad's temporal rule, and dynastic periods used to be dated from the accession of kings. Zora 01:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put up proposed Aisha page on my own talk page

I've extensively rewritten the article and it's posted, temporarily on my talk page. Just click on my sig and go check it out. But please argue here, instead of on my talk page! Zora 06:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can go directly to the proposed page by clicking here. I moved the text to its own sub-page so we don't clutter Zora's talk page with non-messages. SWAdair | Talk 08:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This rewrite seems a much improved treatment, and its format looks to me like it will be much more able to tolerate editing regarding the controversial issues. -- Karada 16:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks OK. The separate age section is good, and the expansion is great, though it should have more red links... - Mustafaa 19:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interpretation or Quote?

Shi'a historians take a much dimmer view of Aisha. They believe that 'Ali should have been the first caliph, and that the other three caliphs were usurpers. Aisha not only supported the usurpers, she raised an army against her son-in-law. In doing so, she meddled inappropriately in the affairs of men, rather than being a properly modest and retiring woman.

Who said this? Whose interpretation is it? In general, aside from that one line, this article is remarkably NPOV. --Alberuni 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See the link to the Shi'a website at the bottom. The article is not quoting, but paraphrasing that website. If you'd prefer a quote, it could be done. Zora 07:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)