Talk:Aisha/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Aishah's age was 19 at marriage time.

A very important contribution is made by Khurram Zaid about the age of Madam Aishah, a reference of research is also provided with the contribution, the research suggests that the correct age of Madam Aishah at her time of marriage was 19 years not 9. No one should undo or delete my contribution except with the trackable PROOFS that the references are false.

The original article is flawed and is actually a distortion. The traditional view in the Islamic circles is not that Aisha was six or 9 but aged between between 14-21. The original article does not mention the numerous other sources widely available on the internet which contradict the few sources referred to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny-ruk (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some thought-provoking suggestions:

According to a research made on "Aishah's marriage with Prophet Muhammad and her true age" [1], by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, Some have suggested that Aishah was born in 610 CE, some 11 or 12 years before the Migration to Madinah in 622, which would mean that at the time of her full marriage she would have been around 14 years old, and not 9.

Some have suggested that she was born in 605 CE and thus when Muhammad attained the Prophethood she would have already been 5 years old, 17 in the year of Hijrah, and 19 years old when she took full marriage.

Another suggestion is that at the time of her nikah Aishah was 16 years old (sittah ashra). It is quite possible that the later authors, while quoting the figures, mistakenly omitted ‘ashar (ten in Arabic), thus changing 16 to 6 years old.

(Khurram Zaid 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

You're not getting this. That site is not a reliable source. No section on any Wikipedia article should ever be titled "Some thought-provoking suggestions." This is not the place to push your point of view. Stop adding this text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot misinformation from some muslims here, on this page. I read: "Pretending Aisha was 9 years old when she got married is little gossip" Is Sahï Bukhari a gossiper or a reliable islamic source? Please exercice your neutrality by admitting she was married at 6 and had sexual relationship with the Prophet at 9. No better reliable source than Bukhari exist in islamic science, what is said in his hadiths can't be denied, it is part of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.193.53.36 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no disinformation. Bukhari is just hearsay and as well know it is very easy to attribute saying who are not around to answer back. Many of the hadiths in Bukhari are contradictory and there are many moslems who do not follow hadith as the hadiths are distorted to suit circumstances. As an example of contradiction, Bukharis says that Aisha was at the Battle of Badr and Battle of Uhud, no one under the age of 15 was allowed to participate this conflicts with the narrative on the age of marriage. Now which is wrong? I hope that puts the danger of elevating a collection third hand stories to historical fact. In summary most traditional sources put Aisha's age around 8 years old in 610CE which would have made her around 19-20 years old at the time of marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny-ruk (talk • contribs) 11:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Death of Hazrat Aisha

Tarikh-e-Ibne Khuldun states that Hazrat Aisha was killed by Marwan and his family.Simon Ockley in his "The History of Saracens" holds Muwayia responsible for the death of Hazrat Ayesha--hassan 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassan572 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New edits

Pretending Aisha was 9 years old when she got married is little gossip. It seems quite certain that when she joined the Prophet() at home, in the month of shawal after the first ramadan in Médina (Mokhtasar Sirat Ar-rasul, p. 80, Mohammed Ibn Abdulwahâb) Aisha was 19 years old.

The gossip ignores the relative numbering, frequently used in arab. This method numbers in relation with another event, defined by the context. "6 or 9 years old" can very well mean 6 or9 years "after ten", or "after the start of revelation", or "after twenty", depending on the subject of the conversation in which you find the sentence. This is arab costum,even today. The hadith from Boukhari, exact sentence extracted from a conversation, tells us an age at these events. This is not enough to tell her age "after birth". Other hadiths teach us that some asked Aisha the question, "whether she rememberd her parents' conversion to Islam", 13 years before she got married. Did one ask her questions about souvenirs 4 years before she was born ? This is ridiculous. More, Aisha answered these questions, that "as long as she can remember, her parents always practiced Islam." If you can assume such souvenirs can only occur at the age of 6, and you add 13 years between her parents' conversion and her marriage, you will reach 19 years, on the spot.

Another event is sure, about her older sister Asmaâ, who died after her son Abdellah, first muslim born in Medina. The latter died at age of 72, in the year 73 of the hidjra calender. His mother Asmaâ was well 100 years old and was blind. She died a few months after her son. Illuster collector of hadiths Mishkat al-Masabih, Iman Wali ud-Din Muhammad Ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, has written about Asmaâ, older daughter of Abu Bakr: « She was sister of AiHja Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet's(sws), and was ten years older. In the year 73 (hidhjra) she died at age of 100. » (Mishkat al-Masabih, p. 300-301 Urdu edition). Ibn Kathir, illuster classic commentator of the Holy Qu'ran said the same: « Asmaâ died in 73 (hidjra) at age of 100. She was 10 years older than her sister Aisha. » (Al-Bidayya wa-l-Nihaya, Vol. 8, p. 346.)

Asmaâ is born in 28 before migration, 100 years before her son died. Consequently, she was 29 years old when her younger sister got married to the Prophet(), 1 years after migration to Medina. And younger sister Aisha was 10 years younger, or 19 years old, or "9 years after 10".

Other useful references : Sounan al Baihaqi (vol. 6 – p. 204), Siaru ‘Alaam Annubalaâ (vol. 2, p. 289 – vol. 3, p. 380), Tariq Madinat Dimashq (=History of the City of Damas) (vol. 69, p. 8 et p. 10), Istiâab (vol. 2, p. 616), Tahdhibo alAsmaâ (vol. 2, p. 597), Subulu Assalam (vol. 1, p. 39) and more...

april 23, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.92.158 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Several reliable sources (currently cited in the article) disagree with your interpretation. Please read Wikipedia:No original research.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Do your have any evidence of the veracity of these sources. Just how are they more (or for that matter) less reliable than 41.249.92.158's sources?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny-ruk (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Account of her death

I've undone the edits about Aisha's death due to their largely inappropriate tone. Text like "The account of how she died is available in the books and could be searched through internet." doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Further, the text is copied from sources all over the place, but I don't think it's directly attributable to one source. And if nothing else, it seems pretty POV to include this given the overall tone of the passage. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Age at marriage

When you look at the age of marriage writings here, you get the impression that most islamic scholars think she was a teenager even though all Sunni hadiths claim otherwise. The Islamic scholar quoted Maulana Muhammad Ali is of the Ahmadiyya which is an heterodox fringe group.

I attempted to put some neutrality in this paragraph and actually add what the hadiths say but for some reason User:Cuchullain removed it. Any feedback? Someone65 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He was right to do so. It's redundant, as her age is covered multiple times. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm fails as a Wikipedia reference and should be removed. V7-sport (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

@ HelloAnnyong from Adder word

Dear HelloAnnyong (( why Reverted my edit Please in light )) Adder word (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because it adds a great deal of original research and point of view text. It sort of puts a spin on the article, as if she was someone that either did not actually exist or something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hello. It's a bunch of uncited material that makes quite opposite claims to the rest of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aisha as "last wife" of Muhammad

i'm certainly no expert on Islam or the life of the Prophet, but my understanding is that the Prophet married Aisha as the third of his wives ten wives.

and that he was still married to several wives when he died.

so i don't understand, assuming that i'm right in remembering what i've read, how Aisha was his "last wife."

could it be that someone meant to say that she was his youngest wife? my understanding is that she was just 18 when the Prophet died.

could it have been meant that she was the last of his wives to die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.29.203 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks for pointing that out, I have no idea how it slipped in, but it's clearly incorrect. Doc Tropics 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Still more OR and such

Anyone else find these edits particularly troubling? Seems to reek of original research. Also, I have a feeling Helloharry.sim (talk · contribs) is 81.159.239.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who signed up after I issued a final warning. I'm also thinking we need to get this page indef semiprot'd, as it seems all we get here is vandalistic edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly support semi-protection as this page sees more IP vandalism than constructive edits. In fact, it's relatively stable except for vandalism. The edit by Helloharry is very typical of that activity and the account bears watching. Doc Tropics 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Cross Reference (Merge?) and Additional Comments on the Article in General

Please note that there is also a Wikipedia article titled "Shi'a view of Aisha" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_view_of_Aisha. Neither that article nor this one have cross-references to each other. I would suggest that these articles be cross referred (or even merged into one article). Since there are two differing points of view on Aisha and her life, if two articles are to be kept, the main article should have a Sunni bias (since the "Shi'a view" article already has a Shi'a bias in regards to Aisha and her life). For the sake of completeness, if a Shi'a apologist website such as www.answering-ansar.org is apparently suitable for use on Wikipedia (such as in the "Shi'a view of Aisha" article previously mentioned), then a Sunni apologist website such as www.ahielbayt.com would be equally suitable for citation on Wikipedia. (I wonder if this website has been referred to in any Wikipedia article or not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.204.233 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by cross-referenced but this article links to Shi'a view of Aisha and it links back here. Looking at Special:LinkSearch I would say that there is no links to ahielbayt.com. Its probably better that there are two articles rather than having one over large article. At the same time there is noting to stop you from expanding the Sunni view or creating a "Sunni view of Aisha". Also it is usually easier to find criticism of people rather than finding large amounts of information as to why others favour them. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Abu bakr and Aisha didn't migrate to abyssinia ( Habasha )

Abu Bakr Al-siddique returned to Makkah aborting his migration to Habasha when Ibn ad-Dughunnah, a non-Muslim Bedouin chief offered him his protection to stay in Makkah and became his Wali. But when Abu Bakr’s crying while reading Quran outside his home became a dawa attraction, he told Abu Bakr that I did not give you protection to let you change the heart of my people. On that Abu Bakr let him revoke his protection, without compromising his right of dawa. he never attempted to migrate to abyssinia again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Islam abolished adoption

Zayd ibn Harithah was at one time the adopted son with the name zaya ibn muhammed. but verses from the quran were revealed to the prophet Annulling adoption so he retained the name zayd ibn harithah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 11:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Significance of the last sentence in the first paragraph (as listed below)?

"She narrated 2210 hadiths out of which 316 hadiths are mentioned in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim." This statement, which is found at the end of the first paragraph, seems to leave the reader hanging (especially since this apparent fact is not referred to again in the body of the article). I assume there is some significance to the 316 hadiths being in both of these books, but an explanation of that significance (hopefully as apolitical as possible) might be helpful for the reader. Since both of these "Sahih" sources are accepted as Sunni hadiths, this would seem to have little significance for Shiites, however. For example, I just read about the Shia "hadiths" (in the article on "The Four Books"). Are any of Aisha's hadiths (or any references to her-- either positive or negative) in these "Shia approved" writings? If so, THAT might be of significance....

I don't know the answer to this question, so I pose it to those Wikipediaists who know more about her than I do.... 69.86.204.233 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on age of Aisha at marriage

The age of Hadrat Ayisha(r), wife of the prophet, is disputed on the basis of a calligraphic error in history books. There are several Hadith reports that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) married his third wife Ayesha when she was 6 year old and consummated her marriage when she was 9. If this is true, then it must be consistent with the Qur’an that tells us that Muhammad himself followed the Qur’an before he asked others to follow it.

[an-Nisa' 4:6] Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; Thus, the Qur’an gives a clear definition of adulthood or marriageable age as the one when one has attained a good measure of mental maturity. This should raise the question: Does a 6- or 9-year old have that level of quality of sound judgment?

Several books of Hadith (Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim, Abu Dawood, among others) and Islamic history (Tabari, among others) report that Ayesha was married to the Prophet at 6 but her marriage was not consummated until she was 9. it must be noted that most of this information has come from a single person, Hisham bin Urwah, who is the last narrator of this Hadith Isnaad (chain of narration) on the authority of his father.

There is contradiction of it with other reports, consider them:

1-Ayesha is reported to have been born about eight years before Hijrah (around 614 A.D.), one can find another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) whereby Ayesha is reported to have said that she was a ‘young girl’ at the time of revelation of the 54th chapter of the Qur'an which came 9 years before Hijrah, the time of her marriage with Muhammad is (623-624 A.D.). So she was approximately 16 years old.

2-According to many narratives, Ayesha participated in the battles of Badr and Uhud. No one older than 15 was allowed to accompany the Prophet’s army in the battle of Uhud. This applied across the board to all participants, men and women alike. The battle of Uhud took place around the 2nd Hijrah, a time line close to her marriage with the Prophet. Obviously, she was at least older than 15 at that time.

3- Tabari informs in his treatise on Islamic history that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the pre Islamic period. The pre-Islamic period ended in 610 A.D, a fact that makes Ayesha to be at least 14 years of age at the time of her marriage around 613-624 A.D.

4-. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has reported that Fatimah, Muhammad’s daughter, was five years older than Ayesha and that Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old. Thus, Ayesha, according to Ibn Hajar, was born when Muhammad was 40 and consummated her marriage when he was 54 or 55. That makes Aysha at least 15-16 years of age.

5- Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before `Umar ibn al-Khattab which only means that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam close to the time of first revelation (around 610 A.D). Assuming she was barely 6 or 7 at that time this information puts the age of Ayesha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad (623-624 A.D.)

References

(Tarikhu'l-umam wa'l-mamlu'k, Al-Tabari, Vol 4, Pg 50, Arabic, Dara'l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, vol 1, Pg 227 – 234 and 295, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh Al-isabah fi tamyizi'l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol 4, Pg 377, Arabic, Maktabatu'l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh,1978

Introduction poorly worded and misrepresents the sources

"Aisha and Hasfa were two insubordinate figures among Muhammad's wives.[1][2][3] " source three is Muhammad haykal's "The life of Muhammad" the exact passage on page 476 reads "All the forgoing conflicts between the prophet and his wives did not in the least affect the conduct of public affairs" end of quote. Their is no mention of Aisha or hafsa by name on the entire page. the wording say's they where insubordinate wives, this sentence in a biography means they where like this for the entirety of their life's, which is a false assertion and no source supports this. even the article itself elsewhere indicates the prophet had a generally good relationship with all his wives. you can not word the sentence this way since any marriage will have periods of turmoil and it is a far stretch to conclude from this that they had no respect for him. The incident in which the biography itself mentions the prophet having been separated from ALL his wives for a period of one month ended with the prophet giving them all an ultimatum and that was that they should either chose him and lead a monastic pious life or divorce him and he would provide them with riches and wealth, none of his wives chose the latter.

"Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate due to neglecting the Islamic traditions during his caliphate, and she encouraged people to kill him.[4]" the source being "Umar Farookh, The History of the Arabic Thought Till the Days of Ibn Khaldoon, p. 190" this source is dubious and not credible, the majority of Muslims do not believe this and this would be considered a fringe source or opinion at best.

"During the siege of Uthman, she was asked to stay in Medina, but she left the city without paying attention. In her absence, Uthman was assassinated and people chose Ali as Caliphate. Having an implacable hatred against Ali and his family[5]" what is the relevance of this quote from a historical perspective, a woman was asked to stay inside her house but she decided to leave, so what... was she meant to defend uthman herself?

there is no clear assertion of hers that she hated Ali or his family this is simply an opinion held against her and not anything she ever said herself and their are no sources at all with these explicit words from her everything is just interpretation of events and attempts at second guessing her intentions.

The entire introduction presents petty quotes such as these.

"she formed a rebellion army including Talha and Zubair and went to the city of Basra to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood," is anyone actually reading this idiotic introduction, in one sentence "She was a strict opponent of the third Caliphate, Uthman ibn Affan. Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate due to neglecting the Islamic traditions during his caliphate, and she encouraged people to kill him.[4]" and a few sentences later she forms a rebel army to avenge his death "she formed a rebellion army including Talha and Zubair and went to the city of Basra to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood".

Who is writing this garbage.Its as if every quote that portrays her in a bad light was blindly and stupidly selected for maximum impact without consideration for accuracy and reliability.

"Upon entering the city, she ordered 600 Muslims beheaded, including 40 in the grand mosque, who were considered to be in Ali's side." this is a dubious source and fringe opinion at best.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the new intro, it is factually correct. Ibn kathir (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Until the idiocy of the introduction is sorted out in a meaningful dialogue i am going to delete those paragraphs. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is of balanced view i.e. W:NPOV & not painting a pink picture of anybody. These are the facts and are properly sourced and verifiable. Article (including lede) has to be balanced and NPOV. You can't brush away her involvement in Fitna and Jang e Jamal that is waht she did apart from reciting Hadith & Sira of Prophet (sawa). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the issues i have raised which have nothing to do with neutral point of view.

here they are in point form,

- reliability of the quotes -i.e whether or not the sources are being quoted correctly [i have shown above they are not]

- contradiction of the sources - i.e the quotes contradict each other as well as the main article.

and i will add these

- relevance of the quotes in the introduction itself [not the main body of the article just the intro]...the introduction is meant to sum up the main points of the article you should not be introducing new material into it which is not present in the main body. this is the basics of any introduction by definition.

- Bad phrasing and english in the Introduction as a hole.

Ibn kathir (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how an obvious 'shia' source can be used to write this article. Shi'a sources are a minority when looking at volume, and there is a conflict of interests considering the shi'a have a blatant hatred for Aisha. The changes should be reverted to what they were before, or re-written to better represent the 'normal' view (as opposed to a minority view). Even Orientalist scholars disregards the shi'a sources when it comes to the history of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.158.183 (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Shia as a whole make up roughly 7 to 10% of the muslim population so sources which are entirely shia come under WP:FRINGE source and should be treated as such, i am also still waiting for a reply to the points i raised above. Ibn kathir (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we're not going to write off all Shia as fringe sources. A fringe source is something truly out there, and one-tenth of the world's Muslim population does not get to be ignored under that. We're not going to turn this page into a battleground or anything like that, and to that end, sources should stay as neutral as possible. There are a lot of sources given in the current lead, and most of them do not strike me as particularly offensive (though I'm not well versed on this subject).

Now having said that, I do have some issues with the current lead, and I've just made some changes. For one, "Having an implacable hatred against Ali and his family" seems like baiting, whether or not it's intentional - so I've removed it. I'm also having a hard time finding anything about her beheading 600 people; it's not in this article, and it's not in the (now blanked as copyvio'd) Battle of Basra article. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead of the article is meant to be an accurate summary of the contents of the article. I think it accomplishes that for the most part, but something like beheading 600 people should probably be listed in the article if it can be well sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HA! for balancing out the lede. I hope things get settled now (but, I know it will not because may be current party will give up but there will be new ones, for some people only their view is of importance and all other views are fringe).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

what if they where 10th of a 10th of the Muslim population can we right them of as fringe then, can you give me an exact figure when something is considered fringe....1% 2% or maybe 5% You reasoning is not sound and you have not understood my statement, i said entirely shia and not simply a shia source agreed upon by neutral parties. The logic you have employed is not one ground in the realities of shia and sunni history so it can not called informed and you seem to be judging based upon general perceived notions of fairness that is missing an understanding of any particulars, a good intention but not one capable of being accurate.

Break

"A fringe source is something truly out there" so a fringe source can be popular a majority opinion and out their all at the same time....im a bit confused my understanding based on past comments of other admins is that it is not a majority opinion, a minority view and isn't simply something that just belongs to the x files.

"and to that end, sources should stay as neutral as possible." i have no issue with that but what about the misquotes i have pointed out "Aisha and Hasfa were two insubordinate figures among Muhammad's wives.[1][2][3]" the first two interprated events according to thier 19th century education and the reality of that century, while the third a work i own does not hold this view at all and their is no primary sources that says they where "insabordinate" their entire lives [which contradicts the main article itself] with the prophet which is different from saying their where acts of insubordination, an entirely different description. Insubordination is a word that carries with it the implicit understanding that a women should be submissive no doubt due to the first two sources being orientalists of the 19th century when subordination or submissiveness of a women to her husband was part of their society.

if i could quote the third source muhammad haykel to prove my point of these sources not being in touch with the realities of islam and the 21st century "Muhammad had granted to his wives a position hitherto unknown in Arabia. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab [the second caliph] said, "By God, in pre-Islamic days, we never gave consideration to our women. It was only after God had revealed in their regard what He did that we started to do so. My wife came once seeking to dissuade me from doing what I had planned to do. When I answered her that this was none of her business, she said: 'How strange of you, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab.' You refuse to be told anything whereas your daughter may criticize her husband, the Prophet of God—may God's peace and blessing be upon him—and do so so strongly that he remains worried the whole day long.' Upon hearing this, I took my mantle and went straight to my daughter, Hafsah [the women mentioned in the quote above], and said to her: 'O my daughter, is it true that you criticize the Prophet of God and do so so strongly that he remains worried the whole day long?' Hafsah answered: 'Indeed, I and his other wives do criticize him.'...' I left my daughter and went to visit Umm Salamah, another wife of the Prophet and a close relative of mine. Upon asking her the same question, Umm Salamah replied: 'How strange of you, O Ibn al-Khattab! Are you going to interfere in everything, even in the Prophet's own domestic affairs?'" 'Umar continued: "With this I was utterly rebuffed and I abandoned every thought I had entertained." [Muhammad haykel, the life of the prophet muhammad pages 466-67]

it is generally agreed by a majority of modern historians that islam gave women rights far more advanced and liberal than any society up to that point in time. As you can see Insubordination is not an Islamic issue and as you may well know something that doesn't belong in the 21st century, if it was an Islamic issue the prophet himself would have legislated against it, it is also evident that all his wives where guilty of insubordination at some point in their life.

There are also the contradictory quotes one in which Aisha is claimed to have accused Uthman ibn Affan of being a non muslim or someone she considered destined to hell for all eternity [my emphasis so you can apretiate the severity of the claim] and in the next sentence she not only forms but leads an army to avenge his death, a person she is supposed to have considedered destined to hell.

and their is the relevance of this quote "During the siege of Uthman, she was asked to stay in Medina, but she left the city without paying attention" well insubordination has been disproved as an issue should we now have to contend with discussing the relevance of a women being commanded to stay at home.

Both these sources are entirely shia by the way.

Ibn kathir (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add the following regarding Aisha's relationship with muhammad.

"She is often remembered as Muhammad’s closest and most beloved wife, as the person having the most intimate understanding of the Prophet’s practices. As a result, Aisha is credited by Sunnis as the transmitter of more than 2,000 hadith accounts. After Muhammad’s death, she was consulted as an authority on his habits and recommendations." [Encyclopedia of Islam, Juan E. Campo pg 26]

Essentially this is the view of some 85 to 90% of Muslims or 1.2 billion of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. [1,2]

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You point that two statement in the lede contradict "accused Uthman...." & "leads an army..."; that is true beacuse it is what she did. Like most of the modern politicians she tried to topple the govt of time (Usman's) but once it got toppled and desired party (Talha or Zubair) was not able to fill in the gap and the caliphate went to his oppenents (i.e. Ali as & Ahl-e-bait as of the Prophet sawa) she did a round about and led a revolt against new govt breaching instructions of Qur'an(i.e. Allah swt) & Prophet sawa, ethics of Islam & rule of law she tried to held Caliphate & whole Ummah at ransom. She planned a coup against so called third rightly guided caliph and tried to depose the next. So, the sentence in the lede rightfully contradicts, to show contradictory nature of her personality in those days when she instigated the first fitna of Islam. No one can wipe out her involvement in first fitna and opening battle against Imam Ali as (fourth guided caliph of sunnis), she was there in Basra about thousand of km from here home in battle field riding a camel and centre of the rebellion. She was demanding Qisas for the murder of which her hand had also some blood and above all she was not the heir of Uthman to demand Qisas, he was survived by sons who were adult. The great lady of Islam who used to tell hadiths of Prophet sawa incited a rebel against Imam Ali as His caliph & vicigerent and held the State to ransom, insisted that her demands to be met through methods such as propaganda, incitement, and seizing control of administrative provinces.

• Consider this conversation between Ubayd bin Abi Salma and Aisha from Tarikh Kamil, Volume 3, Page 100, "Ubayd bin Abi Salma who was a maternal relative of Aisha met her as she was making her way to Madinah. Ubayd said "Uthman has been killed and the people were without an Imam for eight days" to which Aisha asked "What did they do next?". Ubayd said "The people approached '‘Ali and gave him bayya". Aisha then said 'Take me back! Take me back to Makkah". She then turned her face towards Makkah and said, 'Verily Uthman was murdered innocently, and By Allah, I shall avenge his blood'. Ubayd then said 'You are now calling Uthman innocent, even though it was you who said 'Kill Nathal, this Jew' ".
• It is known that Aisha was jealous of Muhammad's other wives (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3453), especially his first wife- Khadijah(Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 164, 165, 166, 168, ).
• Her personal hatred towards him and his family is displayed by argument, "Aisha was informed about the opinion of the women, but there was some thing inside her boiling like a cooking pot against Ali" (Kanz al-Ummal, Volume 16 ,Page 186, Tradition 44216).
• The verse , "O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; ..." (Surah al-Ahzab, Ayat 32-33), is not a Shi'a source its Qur'an. The verse clearly instructs the Prophet's wives to stay in their homes.
• "When the Prophet confided unto one of his wives a matter, but when she divulged it (unto others) and God apprised him therefore, ... If you both (women) repent to Allah, (it is better for you), for your hearts have swerved from the right path and if you supported each other against the Prophet, you should know that Allah is his Protector, ..." (Surah at-Tahrim, Ayat 3-5). The foregoing verses of the Qur'an are unanimously agreed by scholars to be referring to Aisha and Hafsa (Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 435, 436, 437).

If Shi'is are fringe and their sources should not be considered then atleast you'll consider Qur'an, Bukhari, Muslim, Kanz al-Ummal, Tarikh Kamil, or they also are fringe Shi'a sources? The problem with your view is that it does not goes very well with your Sahees may be you guys are believing something while ignoring a fringe narration of your own books. And it is there already in lede even though not exactly as you want. The real problem is that although you want to push your view (& most of the points you have mentioned are there) you also want counter view to be removed. You want article to be written as per your so called sunni view (and not as per sunni sources) and push out all Shi'a views (because as per you they are fringe, if these guys are so fringe why you guys make so fuss about them and go on persecuting them everywhere can't you leave this fringed community at peace).

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You have two quotes, one says she accused him of kufr [disbeliefe] and the other says she formed an army and led it to avenge him which is the explicit and exact wording of the quote not the contrived attempt at reconciling them, what is between these two quotes is commentary and speculation. While no one disputes her involvement in seeking vengeance for uthmans death and being a part of the army, it is clearly disputed that she was the one who formed it, by both sunni and shia sources namely ahadith of the prophet which state that the people would go to her and ask her to join and then lead the army so this quote is incorrect or wrongly worded, most likely by people who dont have a clear grasp of the english language. The question of whether she accused uthman of disbelief is a minority fringe opinion held among the shia and not even all of them so it is even more obscure among shia sources. The quote also goes against wiki policy about what the introduction should be about as it is not a central issue of the article.

regarding your disdain for women on the battlefield sunnis' [i dont know about shia] have narrations from the prophet giving permission to women to participate in Battle, the verse you quote has a context and clear limits which i wont go into now.

We don't ignore our own books we ignore your interpretation of them, we have developed sciences for analytical deduction, textual analysis, language, histerocity and a host of other fields of study which we employ to ensure accuracy, which differs from the shia perspective so when you look at these sources you see one thing while we see another but this is a different issue, please don't immaturely quote our sources unless you have a sunni Mujtahid imams commentary to go along with it as not even our shaikhs are allowed to do such a thing. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• two quotes? refer Tarikh Kamil, Volume 3, Page 100 from the quote it is clear how she did a U turn (actually, politically and metamorphically),
• disdain for women on the battlefield, where did you got that conclusion? who is talking abot women in general that verse is for wives of the Prophet sawa .
• interpetations? you don't need to be interpreter or mujtahid to read fact from the quotes, just read originals from Bukhari, Muslim, Kanz etc., where the hell is interpretation required? they are crystal clear that she was a jealous women (she is even jealous of dead lady forget about living ones), who plotted against other wives (and got a verse revealed as per warning) and violated clear instruction of Allah swt & his Nabi sawa(by leaving her house and going to Basra and creating a fitna).
• This event is of great importance in early Islamic history, this event was part of first fitna and a great event of Aisha's part, so it has got right to be mentioned in the lede.

And don't you know about Prophet sawa caution/warning to Aisha about event of dogs of Hwab this incident happened befor Jang-e-Jamal and clever Aisha was fooled by his own companions by Islam's first ever recorded false testomony by over 50 people (and coincidantly people invloved in this act were all great ones) becuase you accept you want to believe (does'nt Quran says samething). Or afterall she was not that clever (coincidantly Allah swt says, "do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore"(Surah al-Ahzab, Ayat 32-33) but sunnis want to believe what they want and not what facts prove and above all Allah swt says in his book.

And please stop using that f***** word, now I'm really starting to feel insulted.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the difference between shia and sunni scholarship or more than likely you are not even aware of the analytical tools your own scholars employ in formulating their legal rulings as i know many shia scholars are above your own personnel methods of reasoning, its just the sciences we employ and the ones your scholars employ differ at the principal level. No br we dont just quote from bukhari or muslim or any source of narrations as you ignorantly assume a shaykhs opinion would be rejected by his peers for not investigating and researching the issue clearly.

To put it bluntly unless you have a mujtahid imams understanding of the issue no sunni will accept your words, we don't even accept this childish approach from Sunni laymen let alone shia. Ibn kathir (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

After all you are not going to accept anything which you don't want. Did infidels not asked Prophet sawa to show some prrofs and when He sawa did (event of spliting of moon) they turned away accusing him of being a magician.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

well my methodology at least agrees with wikki policy, no original research, understand that and you may understand why we don't just take quotes out of context from bukhari and muslim. Ibn kathir (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is doing orignal research, the references in lede are all secondary sources e.g. Sir William Muir, D. S. Margoliouth, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Umar Farookh, Sir John Glubb, Goodwin, etc. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

Alright, this has gone on long enough. We're not going to spend days and days discussing ideology and beliefs that have been debated for centuries. Ibn kathir, can you explain here, very briefly, what you want to change in the current lead. Just state it as "I want to change 'this phrase' to 'that phrase'" and so on. Once we have something concrete to work with, then we can figure out what should and should not change. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks,

i want the following removed as it is dubious

"Aisha and Hasfa were two insubordinate figures among Muhammad's wives.[1][2][3]"...poorly worded, the 3rd source is misquoted entirely i don't know about the first two.

"She was a strict opponent of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate due to neglecting the Islamic traditions during his caliphate, and she encouraged people to kill him.[4]"....fringe obscure source and completely contradicts the last quote of her seeking vengeance, the word vengeance in the quote is her intention not evidence of duplicity.

"During the siege of Uthman, she was asked to stay in Medina, but she left the city without paying attention."...not relevant to the intro and not sourced so cant even judge accuracy.

"Ali overcame the rebels, and the defeated army was treated with generosity and Aisha was sent back to Medina."...not relevant to the introduction.

I want this to be better worded, ive highlighted the words i have issues with,

"In response, she formed a rebellion army along with Talha and Zubair and went to the city of Basra to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood, which was the beginning of the second civil war in Islam. In the war, Aisha accompanied the rebel army in her camel-litter.[5] "

The entire intro should be re-written according to wiki policy of what an intro should be and none of these points bar the last are of major importance or relevance in the article. Ibn kathir (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here are my thoughts.

• As to the insubordination thing: the first source does say insubordination, but I'm having a bit of an issue with the latter two. This is page 221 in Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, and I can't really find where this refers to insubordination; similarly, this is page 476 in The Life of Muhammad and I don't see it there either. So unless this is clarified, those two references should be removed. But perhaps the sentence should be changed to say "Sir William Muir referred to her as one of Muhammad's insubordinate wives" or something like that. Attribution is more accurate in this case.
• To the strict opponent/apostate thing: It's true that there is an inherent contradiction in saying, "Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate... and she encouraged people to kill him" and "she formed a rebellion army... to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood". The rest of the article seems to support the latter part, so perhaps the first part about him being an apostate should be removed.
• As to "left the city without paying attention" and "Ali overcame the rebels" - well, I think that should stay in. It's not a question of relevance to the introduction, but whether or not it's reflected in the article itself. The article does make mention of her leaving the city and being treated with generosity, so it should stay.
• I don't really get your issues in the text you bolded. Do you want those removed outright, or what?

I'm curious what other editors have to say on this topic, and we should definitely wait for others to chime in before making any sort of changes to the actual text. You're more than welcome to recommend an entirely new version of the lead if you want. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think one point here being mis-understood entirely is Aisha being critical of Uthman and being supporter of rebels against Uthman and then rebeling against Ali as to seek vegenanace for Uthman's blood, this seems obscure but its true and it was how event proceeded she (& others like Talha, Zubair, etc) changed her attitude for political mielage (quite alike like common politicians of our age). In contrast Ali as & his sons helped Uthman during his seige but event afterwards suggest that they were not too keen to take action against rebels (against Uthman who eventually murdered him). If this important point is missing from the article than it should be included in the article rather than removing it from the lede. It could be reworded to:

"In time of last days of Uthman's reign Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate... and she encouraged people to kill him" ... after murder of Uthman and selection of Ali to Caliphate she changed her line and "she formed a rebellion army... to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood".

Here are few more refs, stating Aisha's stand against Utham:

• R.V.C. Bodley, The Messenger – the Life of Mohammed, pgs. 348–9.
• Madelung, Wilferd (1997). The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Page 90, 92-107
• Umar Farookh, The History of the Arabic Thought Till the Days of Ibn Khaldoon, p. 190
• Sheikh al-Mudhira, by Mahmoud Abu Raya, p170 (foot note)
• Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 6 pages 192–193
• History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 pages 238-239, 289–239
• History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
• Lisan al Arab, v14, p141
• al Iqd al Farid, v4, p290
• Sharh Ibn Abi al Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
• Ansab al Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, part 1, v4, p75
• Many of the books of Ahle Sunnah record that Aisha had declared Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Amongst those texts are the following:
  • Al Nahaya, Volume 5 page 80
  • Qamus, page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
  • Lisan al Arab, Volume 11 Chapter "Lughuth Nathal" page 670
  • Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122
  • Sheikh al-Mudhira, by Mahmoud Abu Raya, p170 (foot note)
  • Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, Volume 1 page 52
  • Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, by Ibn Al-Ebrei, v1 p55
  • Al-Mahsol, by al-Razi, v4 p343
  • Ibn Qutayba in his book Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa
  • Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80
  • Al-Razi records in Al-Mahsol, Volume 4 page 343
  • Abul Faraj Ibn al-Ebri
  • Tarikh Mukhtasar al-Duwal, Volume 1 page 55
• Sahaba and Tabayeen had highlighted Aisha’s shift in policy on Uthman, few sources are:
  • In Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 100 Ibn Atheer
  • Seerat al Halabiyah (Urdu), Volume 2 part 2 page 437, translation by Deobandi scholar Maulana Muhammad Aslam Qasmi
  • al-Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 91
  • Tabaqat al Kubra, Volume 3 page 82
  • Iqd al Fareed, Volume 2 page 210
  • History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, pages 99-100
  • History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 16 page 39
• For easy veifiability I'm providing few links to images of "History of al-Tabari, English version" & "Seerath al Halabiyya, Urdu version":
  • "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever.", History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, pp 238-239
  • Ayesha’s shift in policy after the death of Uthman, Seerath al Halabiyya Volume 3 page 356
  • Ayesha’s shift in policy after the death of Uthman, History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 15, page 247
  • Ayesha’s shift in policy after the death of Uthman, History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 100.
  • Aisha Declaring Egyptians to be Mazloom in order to Oppose Uthman, History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 39.
  • complete Tradition from History of Tabari, History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 52 and page 53

Summary of accounts can also be find at http://www.islamforamal.com/Home/additonal-information/caliphate

I propose following version of lede (article may be expanded data and source I provided in my discourse during the conversation):

"Aisha had an important role in the early Islamic history, especially after Muhammad's death, in the time of third and fourth caliphate. According to Sir William Muir, Aisha and Hasfa were two insubordinate figures among Muhammad's wives, they were jealous with other wives and conspired aginst them(event of honey). She also had personal hatred towards Ali and his family. She was a strict opponent of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. In time of last days of Uthman's reign Aisha believed Uthman had become an apostate due to neglecting the Islamic traditions during his caliphate, and she encouraged people to kill him. During the siege of Uthman, she was asked to stay in Medina, but she left the city without paying attention. In her absence, Uthman was assassinated and people chose Ali as Caliph. After this event she changed her policy and she formed a rebellion army along with Talha and Zubair and went to the city of Basra to seek vengeance for Uthman's blood, which was the beginning of the second civil war in Islam. In the war, Aisha accompanied the rebel army in her camel-litter. Ali overcame the rebels, and the defeated army was treated with generosity and Aisha was sent back to Medina."

It seems someone is running a drive against Wikipedia in general &this article in particular. (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?65221-I-need-help-in-editing-Aisha-s-page-in-wikipedia-urgently.)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on usernames, I would say that is Determom (talk · contribs), who also edited a bit here. Your proposed lead there is a bit wordy, and really should reflect what is in the article - so to that end, perhaps there should be more about the Uthman thing in the article. I guess I don't really understand what the "seige of Uthman" is or why it's being mentioned, but I guess that could be clarified in the article? And maybe the article should actually discuss this supposed insubordination a bit more? I don't know. In looking at how you wrote it out here, I'd say it's putting too much WP:WEIGHT on the issue and I'd actually consider removing it altogether from the lead.

As a side point, http://www.answering-ansar.org/ really isn't a reliable source (see this RSN thread) and the repeated use of the History of Tabari is a bit much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

first thing i will say to that is refer back to my primary sources comment and the difference between sunni's and shia which you have clearly ignored, thanks for proving my point. I will ask you to stop quoting sunni primary sources because a shia educated individual will never understand them. case in point...your holy grail of imam Tabari which is clearly the most popular sunni history available, had you known that their is a difference between a work of history and the collections of ahadith you would know how to judge this work. Sunnis as a whole without exception do not take their religion, moral instructions or any lessons from any work of history such as the history of Tabari, becouse the imams intention behind the work was to simply collect every historical statement or account he could come across and preserve them in a work, he did not go to strict lengths to verify his sources, that wasn't his intention behind the work. So you will find historical statements that are fabricated, inaccurate to varying degrees and accounts which contradict each other, his intention was to simply report, he did this deliberately without mentioning which account he himself preferred and his entire work is like this.

"historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence." source.

The obvious point is none of this establishes that this is the majority view among Muslim scholars as a whole who represent some 1.2 billion Muslims and the reality is this isn't their view no matter how hard you try to ground your claims. you have simply come up with a random list of primary sources that supposedly support your view none of which have been verified and you ask us to take it on good faith. i have already shown how poor english and misquotes have marred this article.

HelloAnnyong i will work on an introduction that follows wikki policy and reply to your comments at a later stage, thanks for your input. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ibn kathir, read WP:PSTS and you'll see that primary sources really shouldn't be used; secondary sources are much more preferable. In this case, I think the Quran and its associated writings would be considered primary, and things written by other people are secondary. Since there's clearly an issue here in the viewpoints of the Sunni and Shia, I would prefer that we used sources by neutral people, whatever that means in this capacity. This is an article about the historical Aisha and we should be using historical sources, not partisan ones - no matter which way they go. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody here. User Ibn Kathir, the idiot you were searching is now here to explain about the garbages he wrote. I discussed you before; Here is an encyclopedia, not belief websites. Aisha, like many others, is an historical figure, and no group, including Shia, Sunni, Muslims or anyone else should not confine her for himself. You shouldn't include your beliefs here, and as I have repeated many times for you, if the incident X has occurred in history, we must report it here, without caring whether it's in agreement or against belief of group A or B. I won't allow you or any one else from any group to include your beliefs in the article body, and if you want so, you just have the right to add a section with the title Sunni view on Aisha. I am well studied about Aisha, that I can give you a proposal, for this article, we will completely neglect Shia view, and we'll just use Sunni and orientalists references and if one cite a Shia reference, I will be the first one who will remove it. Finally, I will remove any claim without source in the present article. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, did you just threaten to edit war? 'Cause... that's really not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and this article will not be used to have these sorts of ideological fights. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} is exactly correct; an encyclopedic article will accurately outline both sets of beliefs, Shia and Sunni, with proper references. For WP's purposes, the best references will be neutral secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to partisan or primary sources. Doc Tropics 17:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User HelloAnnyong can you please be kind enough to tell me how you interpreted my saying as threatening? and why you didn't have same interpretation about what user ibn Kathir said? using words like garbage, stupid or idiot is considered as civilized manner, while the one who tries to improve article is accused?

There is no war and threatening. Our responsibility here is to inform about historical facts without caring who like or hate it. Historical figures shouldn't be confined to a special group. If user Ibn Kathir or any one else has reference about his saying, he can just write it in article by using that reference. What makes history is not sayings of me, Ibn kathir or any one else. I will resist against any ownership of this article, and I hope this manner won't be interpreted as something else.

User Doc Tropics, you refused to explain about your edit on your talk page, can you please clarify it here for us? As an example read Armenian Genocide, while this historical fact has occurred, 100 million Turks and much more million Sunni Muslims worldwide try to deny it (compare to 10 million Armenian population). Can the denial of million Turks and their supporting Sunni Muslims affect this reality? Or about the case of Holocaust? For sure the answer is no. Do you have any reference about good relationship between Ali and Aisha? If yes why you are not citing it in the article? and if no, why you are removing the sourced sentence, then accuse other to have removed sourced sentences [2]?

Finally, I am repeating, if the incident X has occurred in history, we'll report it here, without caring whether it's in agreement or against belief of group A or B. Is there any disagreement with this peaceful and polite statement? --Aliwiki (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll strike my comment, though I do still think that "I won't allow you or any one else from any group to include your beliefs in the article body" is slightly hostile. But whatever, it's not a big deal. I don't understand what you're getting at here, though; are you saying that Ibkn kathir's proposed version of the intro is too partisan or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Biography of a historical figure must include whole of his/her life. Sunni users tend to keep silent about Aisha's life during Uthman and Ali governing era (as she was an strong opponent of them), and talk generally without mentioning details, about her life during Muhammad's lifetime, which I strongly disagree. Further more, while no one in the Islamic history had argument with Muhammad as much as Aisha (which gradually I will add to this articles), Sunni users claim Aisha was beloved wife of Muhammad. The question here is that which was the action(s) she did and what made her to be the greatest woman has ever been created? Most reports about the virtues of Aisha in history is summarized as Once Muhammad said Aisha is...., Once Muhammad dreamed that Aisha ..... and similar reports (pay attention that Aisha herself was an abundant source of these narrations). The job of Wikipedia is to inform people about realities not dreams.

That I said I won't allow...., I meant we must avoid that history be affected by beliefs of some groups, as I explained to user User Doc Tropics, and maybe my wording was bad and I am apologizing. I didn't include Shia beliefs on her (for example some reliable reports which also exists in Sunni's books prove Aisha, with the help of her father and step-uncle, Umar, poisoned Muhammad and he died due to that.) and on the other hand I expect Sunni users respect this manner and don't try to affect her biography by their beliefs. And I expect that user Ibn kathir provide explanation about what's wrong with the current intro (except that some facts are against his beliefs).--Aliwiki (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User Ibn Kathir, I want to add more details about Aisha in the article body, mainly in two sections, during Muhammad's lifetime, and after Muhammad. For now, I want to start with the first one, and I decided to inform you about this to collaborate together. Let me know your opinions. Also others are welcomed to join. Thanks in advance. --Aliwiki (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Discussion

Here is my suggestion for a new introduction, the links and sources need to be fixed, all that is mentioned in it is from the article except for one or two points which i have sourced [but other sources are present in the article with a slightly different wording]. As far as i can tell it is according to wiki policy of what the lead should be and that is the summation of the entire article. I have also tried to make it flow as much as possible with out making it sound like a point form introduction or one in which ad-hoc facts have been randomly added to it which doesn't give a sense of time or progression in a persons life.

Aisha

Aisha bint Abu Bakr (died 678) (Arabic عائشة Transliteration: ʿāʾisha, [ʕaːʔɪʃæh] "she who lives", also transcribed as A'ishah, Ayesha, 'A'isha, Aishah, or 'Aisha) was one of Muhammad's wives. In Islamic writings, she is often referred to by the title "Mother of the Believers" (Arabic: أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), per the description of Muhammad's wives as "Mothers of the Believers" in the Qur'an (33.6).

She married the prophet at a young age consequently the entirety of her marriage was during her teenage years, she was intensely in love with the prophet and because of her youth often became jealous over him among his other wives, as is seen from the story of the honey. In her later years she was involved in the battle of the camel in which an army was formed to avenge the death of the third Muslim caliph and often regretted her involvement. The prophet died while she was 18 years old and she remained unmarried until her death at the age of 65.

She is often remembered as Muhammad’s closest and most beloved wife, [14] as the person having the most intimate understanding of the Prophet’s practices. As a result, Aisha is credited by Sunnis as the transmitter of more than 2,000 hadith accounts. After Muhammad’s death, she was consulted as an authority on his habits and recommendations. [Encyclopedia of Islam, Juan E. Campo pg 26] and is considered as the first female scholar in Islam. Source [Chapter 6, pp. 142-153, in Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development, Special Features & Criticism by Dr. Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi ] or [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn kathir (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph is fine. Second paragraph needs a great deal of referencing about her being "intensely in love", "regrett[ing] her involvement", and so on. The third paragraph is stolen from "Encyclopedia of Islam" (see this) and cannot be used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

jealousy is born out of intense love and no one is disputing her [along with his other wife's] jealousy or love for him so i don't see your issue. i don't understand why it needs rephrasing her regret is mentioned in the article itself and isn't something i have came up with. how do you steal something you have clearly sourced, or do you mean it needs to be rephrased to say the exact same thing and then sourced. Ibn kathir (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With someone this controversial - and yes, she is controversial, particularly in terms of how old she was when she married - it's better to have everything sourced. And even if you sourced it, you cannot copy something verbatim, as it is copyright infringement. Even close paraphrasing isn't acceptable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok ill work on a new introduction keeping these things in mind as long as the remainder of the article is given the same treatment. but you should understand that this point of controversy is not something among shia or sunni's or any Muslims but a modern issue that wasn't even relevant until the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, it is enough to point out that muhammads worst enemies in his own life time did not object to the marriage or saw anything controversial in it, and you can not judge a indavidual by the standards of society he wasn't a part of didn't grow up in and a time and place he wasn't aware of. Consequently i don't think it is as much of an issue as you perceive but an issue among those who have not perceived history along a time frame and in a sense of progression to understand peoples different psyche and attitude in different cultures and time periods....see The Islamaphobe's Glass House for example.

Ibn kathir (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lot of discussion/activity has happened with few new editors involved since I was here last time. It seems editing guild is working upon new lede. There is no problem with first paragarph (I think it never was). Second paragraph deals with Aisha's part of life when Prophet sawa was alive and afterwards, here I'm quite in line with HelloAnnyong, it seems to be work of an apologetic who is trying to cover acts of somebody & IMO Wikipedia should not be apologetc/supportive/dismissive of anyone. The third paragraph if it is, copyvio from some source may have to be reworded in its entirity to avoid copyright infringement or entirely done away with (which IMO is not possible as it is her acievement, anyways I do'nt want any banner atleast not after so much of brainstorming).
I also propse to add the matter which we are opting out off the lede (& most of the matter is properly sourced & I have provided magnitude of other sources also) in the article at proper locations(may be as lede of the subsection about her part of life after Prophet sawa).
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

More issues with the lead

I have to say that I prefer Doc Tropics' bold action on the lead, and find it to be better to the one that was there before. It's increasingly apparent that we won't come to a consensus on the lead, so I think it better to put the issue to rest and leave it small. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc suggests"an encyclopedic article will accurately outline both sets of beliefs, Shia and Sunni, with proper references. For WP's purposes, the best references will be neutral secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to partisan or primary sources." I'll be willing to go with this stance but the problem is few people on this page think that to interpret Sunni books of hadith and history you must be qualified sunni mujtahid and no-one else can interpret them correctly even scholrs of other sects of Islam forget about non-muslims & western scholars. With editors of such stand it'll be hard to get any consensus. If Doc wants to right new lede let him post it here and we will have comments and we may get to something at end (even if it turns to be nothing) but I want to say that lede of the article of lady of so much action & intrest should to justice to her elaborate actions.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia only cares what scholars think, not what individual editors think, or whether someone is a "qualified sunni mujtahid". Doc's simpler, better written version is superior; the long version was too messy and rambling to be useful.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. My goal was to keep it short and simple and leave the details to be covered in the body. Doc Tropics 16:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, History is based ob beliefs or what has happened? Please provide enough explanation for your mass deletion. Why we must write history based on beliefs, not what has occurred, and what's your reason for mass deletion of sourced sentences without discussion? Waiting for your answers. Here we just care what history scholars say, not what religious scholar believe. (Pay attention the article is much less than 30 KB). I kindly ask you to discuss in detail, about each single sentence and word you want to delete. --Aliwiki (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you view any of the sentence or word, which was mass deleted by you, is trash? If yes, with no hesitation,you are welcomed to ask it/them here.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to discuss every single word in detail; every other editor involved has agreed that a simpler intro is better for now. The fact is, your challenges have been answered repeatedly, by several different editors but you seem to have a bad case of "I didn't hear that!". Since you insist on respecting policy, let's start with that one. Doc Tropics 01:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, as of now we should move deleted sentences from lede to main body at apprppriate place. First we should focus on main body and get it detailed. Once its done we can lookup to the lede and expand it on basis of main body. Meanwhile lede should be trimmed to what the article main body contains at present (as discussed above lede should be summary/overview of the article).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! Doc Tropics 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, some of that material may be useable in the article, but it will have to be totally rewritten; in this state it's too mangled to be at all useful. On the lead, the consensus is clearly in favor of Doc's version, for the various good reasons explained above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User Doc Tropics, You repeatedly did same action (mass deleting sourced info), and each time you brought an unacceptable reason, and non of them were related to previous one, once restoring sourced infor deletion, once POV, once summerizing. I am asking yourself, what should I interpret about this behavior? And can you show me your answer as you claim I didnt hear? But, If you read carefully what I wrote here, you will see I asked all involved user about the structure of the article body, which I was going to improve. There many things about Aisha life that need to be added. The introduction size is good, and gives a whole summarized biography of her, and we need to report deatils of her life in the article body. Also, for deleting sourced info you must discuss in detail. You are free to add any sourced info you want and no one has the right to delete it without discussing.--Aliwiki (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on the one who wants the material included to defend it. Sorry, but various editors have explained to you the reasons why your edits don't cut it and were removed. You're just repeating yourself now, and it's getting disruptive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cúchullain is exactly right. If you wish to add material, please bring a specific suggestion to the talkpage for discussion. Once there is consensus to add the information it can be inserted directly into the article and you won't have to worry about reversions; that's how consensus works : ) Doc Tropics 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I brought my logical reasons, biography of a person must include a summary of his/her whole life. Aisha was not only a Hadith narrator. Now I want to bring more things here to reveal some facts:

• 20 Nov. User Doc falsely accused me for removal of sourced material, and POV, and he mass deleted the sourced info [4], and later when he was asked both here and on his talk page, he refused to answer.
• Again he repeated his edit without saying which POV he is talking [5], and later he removed the whole paragraph, falsely claiming it was objection and contradictory,[6], while he didn't say which is the objection and contradiction.
• He claim the article must be based on both Shia Sunni beliefs,[7], and I don't need to explain more about this logically wrong statement as an elementary school student can understand history is not based on people's beliefs.
• Then, the same action was done by user Doc, by user Cuchullain by claiming the intro doesn't match and must be kept short. First of all they didn't define what they mean by long and short intro. The intro was just 14 lines, and for a person with weak English like me, it takes 30 seconds to read it. Pay attention the current one is 7 lines. Also by a simple comparison with another article like Mary (mother of Jesus), one will easily can understand the intro was long or short. Excluding this, one may ask why these two users didn't summarize sourced sentences and why they used the non-sourced one? Further more, if we assume the intro was long, these two users edits shows even they were not truthful in what they did, because both users removed the sentence It's notable that the reports which stress Aisha as Muhammad's favorite wife has emanated from Aisha herself as she was an abundant source of Hadith. from the article body.
• These two users mentioned WP:Burden of evidence and WP:Consensus. About Burden of evidence, it is about materials which lack reliable sources. A fast look to the history of this article proved my material had lack of reliable source or the material which these two users. About Consensus, as it says, it's to ensure neutrality and verifiability. Consensus can not change realities. Again one can see whose material is neutral and verifiable. (It's notable that User Doc kept silent when I asked and explained him about this matter [8])

Exactly same edits, and each time by a new title. I guess now these evidences are enough to reveal there is a hidden desire behind such these edits. If I am wrong (which can be possible and I am apologizing in advance if it's so), I kindly ask both respected users to explain about their edits.

Like several previous times, I welcome anyone who has comment specilly two respected friends users Doc and Cúchullain. And I ask other involved users, HelloAnnyong, Faizhaidar, not to leave us alone here. For the pleasure of Doc and Cúchullain, I am going to shorten the intro.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The current intro is fine the way it is - short and to the point. Why would we further remove stuff from it? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize you, as I noticed your comment after reverting the intro. Sorry. You are right that it's short. but it does only informing about one aspect of Aisha life, which was being a hadith narrator, while her important role in history can not be neglected. Do you disadgree? I shortened the intro in 11 lines, is it still long? If yes, we can shorten it more.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I self-reverted my previous edit, but have a look to it. Do you see any problem in it? By the way, non of the info of the current intro is deleted (have a look to be sure).--Aliwiki (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's only about one aspect of her life. However, it's pretty clear that a bunch of editors here can't agree on a good way to describe the rest of her life, so outright omitting that stuff is, in my opinion, preferable to keeping it in but having an edit war over it. The intro is fine the way it is right now, I think. I see no reason to shorten it further. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The lede should be a brief summary of the article's contents, and as such, broad general statements don't necessarily need references if the material is properly referenced in the body. My best suggestion would be to make sure that the content you are concerned about appears in the body of the article (with consensus for new additions), then we can reasonably discuss which material should be summarized in the introduction. The fact that Aisha narrated many hadith is not the only important thing about her, it is merely used to establish her notability in the first paragraph. The lede can contain up to 4 paragraphs, so it is possible to add more content, but it must be done by mutual agreement, drawing from information in the body. With that understanding, I would gladly look forward to working with you towards improving the overall quality of the article. Thanks, Doc Tropics 17:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I am apologizing for some days absence which was due to a sudden occasion in my real life. User HelloAnnyong, I am ensuring you to prevent any war on behalf of myself. I just want to change this article to a featured article by high density of sources and I will discuss any disagreement point in detail. User Doc Tropic, first thanks for your comment. I hope that you won't expect me to have good idea about new title you mentioned, as you deleted sourced info from article body before; But, as I want to go forward and neglect past, and for your pleasure, I will add some materials gradually everyday about the points which are in the intro but do not exist in the article body and I hope you help me to improve them, especially as my English is not good. I will also add a section about reports of Aisha on Quran, and as this is an important case, it may need better wording.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, just a quick review on the basics:

1. On this talkpage, suggest a specific addition of text to the main body of the article.
2. Once there is consensus, the text will be added to the article.
3. After the article has been finished, the introduction can be brought up to date.

Sorry I had to revert your most recent change to the article, but simply restoring disputed content to the intro isn't going to work. Doc Tropics 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with Doc Tropics on this. Just restoring isn't the right way to go about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User Doc, I am sorry to say this, but again you showed your disrespectful behavior again. Why you are calling yourself ALL USERS, and why you are deleting info in the article body? and why you are not removing the huge amount of unsourced info? for sure a sourced info is prior to the unsourced one.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A total of 5 editors have commented in this section; when I said "ALL other editors" I specifically meant the 4 who have disagreed with you on this topic. Why not try suggesting your changes here and getting consensus? Doc Tropics 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User HelloAnnyong, I didn't expect you such behavior. Did you read what you reverted? or no, just you followed user Doc. Less than several sentences were restored while huge amount of new sentences were added. Please list here any problem you see in my sentences. why both of you have problem with my sentences, but you are OK with the poor sentences which are written in the past? why you are deleting any single sentence I am adding to the article intro or article body? according to whic policy did you removed my sentences from article body?

User Doc, which consensus you are talking? Consensus to delete anything you don't like? I wish that you were reading at least the short intro of Wikipedia:Consensus. User Ibn Kathir was using primary sources which were not acceptable. You and user Cuchullain were always using a new excuse irrelevant to the previous one which you both failed in all of them. User Faizhaidar didn't show any disagreement. User HelloAnnyong agreed that intro must include a whole summary of Aisha's life and he was only afraid of incoming war. What do you have to say? A new title again? I am sure If I were deleting an unsourced small paragraph with similar claim of you, for sure till now I was being blocked. I always thought virtual world of Wikipedia is different from the real one, in which the organizations like Colonist union used to decide on behalf of the whole world with their divine right but now I understood I was wrong, and all must accept the whole world in all of its aspects belongs to you. What is the usage of my suggestion, while you and your friends have absolute power here? and you are always repeating same action to reach what you want finally, and then your action is followed by confirmation and encouragement.--Aliwiki (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali! That thing has to be re written I don't think restoring old text will work. We can use available RS (on the article, from history of article 7 new ones) and expand sections/sub-sections first then work on lede. We can't have a book with 5 pages of preface & 4 (may be 8) pages of content; to have 5 page of introduction/preface content should be atleast 50+ page (this is very moderate arithmatic imo). The crux is we all have first to expand the content & then lede and all these things imo should be by consensus. Now whetehr matter is added first and then consensus is reached or vice-versa can be decided. I want to add that if you are on Moon you should get used to lesser gravity or you will take a step and find your self jumping.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mohammad, but if you have a fast look to my last edit, you'll realize what's going on. A simple example, USA and its allied countries attacked Iraq with the excuse of existence chemical bombs (that they themselves gave Iraq), which were never found there, but their desired were fulfilled. Be sure, if I add a sentence to the external links section, they will find an excuse and delete it. I was used to excuses of user DOc, but after the edit of user HelloAnnyong, I understood what's going on. They do not even respect what they say, they just want to reach their desire. They brought the excuse of lead, but they deleted sourced info from article body. Any way, I was thinking our respected admin, HelloAnnyong,is neutral but his last edit proved something else. I won't interfere here any more, and let them enjoy their great victory in hiding reality by their so-called consensus.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: stop edit warring challenged material back into the article. If you do it even one more time, you will be blocked from editing. As has been said repeatedly, you are free to bring up suggested changes here on the talk page, and if other editors agree with them, they can be added to the text. It's as simple as that. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, don't edit Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Aliwiki, it's flattering that you think (thought?) highly of me, but the fact is that Wikipedia works based on consensus. And if you've got four editors agreeing on one thing, and then another editor comes through and readds text without either respecting the consensus or discussing the edits, it's kind of hard to keep going forward. And in full disclosure, Cuchullain is also an admin. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can one of you define Consensus? What was (were) the problem(s) of the deleted sentences? Till now, it is just deletion of what you do not like. User HelloAnnyong, you did not answer why did you remov texts from the article body, which was part of your friends previous consensus. Why all of you are just repeating the word consensus, but non of you explains a small problem in any of my sentences? And who gave you consensus over the current article? What was the problem with the case of Aisha reports about Quran, which was explained in article body? Instead of showing bravery for blocking, be brave to explain the problems you see in my sentences, which non of you have ever done.

Finally, can one of you provide a clear structure how a user can add something that you do not like while being sure that you will respect your own structure? --Aliwiki (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see your talkpage. Acting in good faith, I have made a serious effort to explain exactly how to add content by consensus. Thanks, Doc Tropics 18:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User Doc, first can you give a comment about my last sentence to specify a structure? Then let's start from Quran case; see here, the last sentence of the intro and last paragraph of Her respect as scholar and role model section, and tell me what's its problem.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I answered at length on your talkpage and described in detail the exact "structure" (approach) to use. Regarding your text: "...she lost 2 verses of Quran, and she has narrated deletion of 127 other verses." ...the first phrase seems impossible (how does someone lose a verse? who gave it to her? how did she lose it: did she drop it or leave it a friend's house?) and the second phrase is literally meaningless in English, I simply have no idea what idea you are trying to get across. This is another important reason to use the talkpage to discuss additions: even if your scholarship is meticulous, text still needs to be well-written, and that requires a certain grasp of English which you lack. No offense is intended, but the simple fact is it is often difficult to understand you and your text needs to significantly reworked. The right place for that is the talkpage, before millions of people see it in the main article. Thanks, Doc Tropics 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New deletion spree in coming days

It seems mainstream elites after their success in if not entirely removing then minimising fringe Shi'i beliefs from the article are now concentrating on new fringe group i.e. Ahmadiya views. Recently there has been deletion of Ahmadiya view from the article claiming it to be fringe belief & minority view this is against WP:RS.
As I have pointed out earlier also, it seems someone is running a drive against Wikipedia in general & this article in particular. (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?65221-I-need-help-in-editing-Aisha-s-page-in-wikipedia-urgently.)
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. The text that Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider rightly restored was the result of long discussion and several efforts at compromise; it represents strong concensus and shouldn't be removed or altered without further discussion and agreement. Although the higher estimates for Aisha's age are definitely a rather modern (and minority) view, generally regarded as apologetics, it is not necessarily a fringe theory and can be properly attributed to reliable sources. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 17:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

although i don't agree with the higher estimate it isn't a modern view or has anything to do with apologetics, Muslims scholars have been discussing this issue for more than a thousand years and her age is mentioned in many conflicting reports. Muslims have tended to rely on the more reliable and most common accounts although their are primary sources which clearly state otherwise.

I have added a word to the introduction btw.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about regarding the ahmadiya, but thier religion is no more than 200 years old, they are neither shia, sunni or Muslim they have their own prophet mirza ghulam [?] and if you where to include thier view you may as well include that of every religion on the same page and thiers would be more relevant since any one of the other two faiths, christianity and judaism existed well beffore islam itself and are clearly the subject of at least half the Quran. You have to cut the line somewhere and i would argue it is more important to add relevant facts about the individual in question rather than add more random views.

BTW it is not elitist to defend a historical figure who is clearly a part of your faith its just common sense.

Ibn kathir (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight for Maulana Muhammad Ali

I have deleted the Maulana Muhammad Ali addition, for several reasons;

• besides me at least 4 other editors agree with me that Maulana Muhammad Ali constitutes a Fringe Theory view. (see archive)
• Giving such prominence to Ahmadiyya clearly composes Undue Weight
• Ammadiyyas constitute only 0.5 percent of the muslim population with 10 million followers.
• Maulana Muhammad Ali is not the founder, nor an Emir, not even a Successor, meaning his doctrinal views are irrelevant even within the Ahmadiyya movement.
• There are thousands of individuals or islamic sects more prominent than Maulana Ali/Ahmadiyya with views on this issue.
• None of the dozens of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography books even mention Aisha.
• Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya does not even mention aisha
• The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam does not mention aisha
• Noor-ul-Haq does not mention aisha
• None of the major Ahmadiyya writings of Ahmadiyya mention Aisha.
• Not a single non-Ahmadiyya know the name Maulana Ali. Even ordinary Ahmadiyyas most likely won't know that name.
• Here is a List of modern-day Muslim scholars, each one of whom is more famous and prominent than Maulani.
• All the above points demonstrate it violates Neutral point of view policy, since Aisha plays no distinct role in the Ahmadiyya movement.

Several larger islamic sects are more deserving of a proportional viewpoint, for example;

- Shia views are more important.

- Sunni Madhab views are more important

- Ibadi views are more important

- Quranist views are more important.

- Sufi views are more important

If anyone wants to revert my edit, please make sure there is a new Concensus first. Zaza8675 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyah are not muslim they claim to have a prophet separate from the prophet muhammad, they simply believe their religion is a continuation of the Islamic faith just like the bahai of iran do while maintaining Islam is a religion from God. While it is clearly a doctrinal issue that to be a Muslim you have to believe Muhammad was the last prophet sent to man by god. several people claiming to be prophets have arisen since islam and all have been rejected by major companions of the prophet see the ridda wars and musailima for example. Ibn kathir (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Muhammad Ali's view is probably notable enough that it can be included, though obviously we shouldn't imply that it is more credible than other interpretations (which the previous version did not). However, I'd like to see a source for it beyond his own book to establish that it really is notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the info seems notable (and certainly useful to a reader), but a secondary source would definitely be a better ref. Doc Tropics 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

how is he notable ive never heard of him. Just so you know who the ahmadia are and don't confuse their names simply because they sound muslim...their so called prophet claimed to be no less than jesus christ. in either case his views would be even more fringe than that of the shia as the ahmadia dont even amount to half a percent of the world muslim population.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO Muhammad Ali's view qualifies w:Fringe theories, because it seems to meet following gudelines for fringe theory:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions

But it is only fringe until such claims are not available from other sources from different community/time/etc.

I remember quite long back I read a paper on age of Ayesha being so low i.e. 5/6/7 as khabar-al-wahid and case of akhbar-al-ahad by Hani bin (someone, I can't recall the name) from the days when he was in Iraq and news from that period being considered as unreliable in filed of rijaal. Will have to search for the paper and/or other sources.

Till then we can put a tag saying it is fringe theory.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If we had a reliable, secondary source saying that Muhammad Ali's thoughts on Aisha were notable, even if they are not historically credible, they could be mentioned here. I haven't seen anything yet, but if and when I do I plan on adding it in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Higher age content restoration

For now I'm restoring the "Muhammad Ali" stuff even if he may be fringe what he is saying is not fringe (even Ibn kathir confirms that in previous section).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Restored the stuff with minor tweaking.

Maulana Muhammad Ali was a major member of the Ahamdiya community, he held various important positions in Ahmadiya community groups. He headed the splited group known as Lahori Party and was Emir of the community from 1914 to 1951. This group believes that Muhammad to be the last of the prophets, and that after him no prophet can appear, neither a past one like Jesus, nor a new one and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is referred to as a Prophet in the metaphorical sense only (as other Muslims saints have been referred to as well), and not in the real and technical meaning of the word as used in Islamic terminology. So, technically speaking he is muslim. That nullifies logic presented by Zaza8675 and Ibn kathir in their comments above.Also he has authored/translated a vast amount of literature in English and Urdu which can qualify him as academician.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I think Ali is prominent enough that he probably should be mentioned, but your edit greatly overemphasized a minority view. If he is to be included, it would be better to find a reliable secondary source indicating that the view is notable. We can't be claiming that there are "many conflicting reports" and that "Some early reports and opinions have claimed that Aisha was older at the time of the marriage or consummation" based only on Ali's own book.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored text with some tweaking and many more references.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW here is the papers extract about Hisham ibn `urwah's report being case of khabar-al-wahid and akhbar-al-ahad:

Most of the narratives about low age of Aisha are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three. It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event [from him], even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years. Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51) "Yaqub ibn Shaibah says: He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq." (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol 11, pg 50) "I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq." (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol 11, pg 50) Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the [life sketches of the] narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302) "when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly" (Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Arabic, Al-Maktabatu'l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol 4, pg 301)
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How the matter that I added have two much weight when it has included comment of the person in question as just another reference and opted his name out of text? Regarding the higher age claim first the content was removed saying questioning notability of Muhammad Ali. I proved notability of Muhammad Ali and added content but then it was removed with an excuse that there should be other references. Then I added other references for the statement and removed MA from the text but lo! it is once more deleted. I there is consensus that this article is not to be edited, lock this or lock us out of the article, at least we will be happy that we are not able to touch the article. Things about lead agreed but this way article's main body will never be expanded. You want discussion? if comments above don't count as discussion then probably I need a tutorial on discussion.-Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Discussion is when more than one people are involved it seems for last five hours or so I have been talking to myself.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be entirely reasonable to include a few lines of well written content on this subject; I don't think anyone is objecting to that. But for you to unilaterally add 12 paragraphs about such a minor topic is utterly ridiculous. I offer you exactly the same advice I gave Aliwiki earlier: come to the talkpage with a specific suggestion and discuss it with other editors until there is agreement. Doc Tropics 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: reviewing the article history again, my assertion that you added 12 paragraphs of content was mistaken; my apologies for the error. I was viewing the changes in HTML rather than in the article and missed the fact that many of those paragraphs were tagged as references. However, as Cuchullain points out below, most of the "references" appear to be either original research based on primary sources, or unreliable sources like blogs and personal websites. Doc Tropics 21:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh. Discussion requires input from others. You need to give people time to respond. We're not all on the same schedule, you know.

The problem now is that you've added a lot of primary sources, which are problematic in that they can be interpreted in many different ways. In this case, you're pushing your own interpretation of theses sources, which is original research. For this reason Wikipedia relies on secondary sources published by the experts in the field. You've included some secondary sources, but I don't see any that look to be reliable, they all look like personal web pages and other kinds of self-published sources, which are generally not allowed. I also don't see that you've done anything to establish that Ali is notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

References were asked and so they were provided. Its just four lines of matter. People on this page were not convinced with previous small note. So, I put references from Shia, Sunni, etc as it was asked/suggested previously in this discussion. What type of discussion is required in addition to above? Or do you think entire matter I added is garbage. BTW it is turning out that this article is more tough than article Muhammad. People here don't want content to be too long, they want references, they want proof that content has got weight but they don't want footnotes. You have better suggestion place it. As pointed before the content earlier removed was there in first place due to earlier consensus but later it got removed due to elitist propaganda. So what exactly does that prove? Consensus or no consensus article will remain in the state where new additions will not be allowed and old ones will be selectively deleted. I will love to see this article turning from B class, to Start class to Stub. Consider my suggestion, lock the article or block us out of this article & talk page you guys will have spare time for other things then.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What we want are real sources, rather than inappropriate new content that just degrades the quality of the article. We don't need more primary sources or personal web pages, we need reliable, secondary sources from actual experts. This will be in the form of books, scholarly papers, and perhaps web content written by historians, Islamic studies specialists, and the like. Your time would be better spent trying to find some of those than accumulating masses of inferior material and trying to insert it here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Allamah Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-Amili & Ayatollah Sayyid Husseini Qazvini are reputed Shia scholars. I have already given details of Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Ali's book is published resource & just now I have got a link which has its content http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm this link also tackles primary resource analysis I included. The problem is difference between western & eastern scholarship. Any why did Doc put a CN notice on unsourced matter & left it in lead too, at least an unsourced matter should not be lead. Come lets discuss this.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim.org is the website of the "The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement". This is not acceptable. The other sources you've provided are links to other personal web pages; this is also not acceptable. You provided no actual citation from Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-Amili, just a quote you claim is from him. You're going to have to demonstrate that these men are reliable source in the way Wikipedia uses the term. That is, academic degrees in a relevant field, other publications in the field that have been vetted by the scholarly community, citations in other reliable sources, etc. And this is not a matter of difference between eastern and western scholarship.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So? Does wikipedia has negative listing for "The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement"? What do you think title Ayatollah means? Do you guys know anything about Shia Twelver Usuli Hawza system of education and scholarship? This indeed about Eastern & Western scholarship.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree with Faizhaider's attempts to reinsert Maulana Ali's views on Aisha. Shia and Sunni are the biggest sects in Islam and Aisha plays a major role in these sects. Aisha plays no role for Ahmadiyyas. At the very least, if you will insert Ahmadiyya views, at least insert quotes from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder. Once again i stress that Aisha plays no significant role for Ahmadiyyas. The citations used by Faizhader are not notable or original research or a simple thread. Secondly, all sunni haiths, from sahih muslim, to sahih bukhari, to Sunan Abu Dawood, Tafsir ibn Kathir agree that aisha was nine at intercourse. As for Shia hadiths, Kitab al-Kafi (the most reliable Shia book) states aisha was ten years old at intercourse [9]. In conclusion, these fringe views by Ahmadiyyas should not be included. Zaza8675 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Be happy, we have entirely different focus now. BTW I got interesting link http://www.scribd.com/doc/2404356/Age-of-Aishah it is by a Sunni and he seems to know his cards very well. May we can take it as a source? Any suggestion/comment from editor's guild ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced & illsourced content

Why did Doc put a CN notice on unsourced matter & left it in lead too, at least an unsourced matter should not be lead. Sections "Death" & "Views" don't contain single citation. Sub-section "Death of Muhammad" sites a reference but if you read it, it doesn't have Aisha mentioned once in the reference on contrary it says that, "the Prophet kept confiding in 'Ali till the time of his death. Then he breathed his last." what a parody? a reference is used to push aisha's claim contains name of her arch-rival Ali. Isn't it hilarious. So when does discussion begins and when will action take place?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Since material in the lede should reflect info in the body, it isn't always necessary to have references in the lede, if the material is properly referenced later in the article. Since it wasn't referenced in the article I added a CN tag, but the material doesn't seem controversial and was relatively well written so I didn't see a need to delete. On the other hand, if another editor deleted it as unsourced I would also support that action until a reference was provided; I have no "investment" in it either way. I hope this explanation helps. Since I didn't work on the other 2 sections you mention I can't really answer your questions about those, sorry. Doc Tropics 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understood you are waiting for consensus. But why sorry? you can see there is no reference for the two sections and contra-reference for the sub-section, you just need to click it and it'll take couple of minutes to read the page its probably 1500 words. Not feeling good to press 'Delete' or 'Backspace' button? Or afraid that article is turning into stub category. Most of the things on this article are conversational, some as per muslim view some as per sunni view some as per shia view some as per western view. So IMO we should avoid any big claim about her without proper RS.

BTW few other observations:

• Is http://www.light-of-life.com/ acceptable reference for this article?
• Is http://www.archive.org/details/haremaccountofin00penquoft appropriate reference for this article? It is an account of the institution as it existed in the palace of the Turkish sultans, with a history of the Grand Seraglio from its foundation to the present time. So does this reference qualifies as source for Early Islamic History especially about Aisha?
• Regrettably all other sources are either primary source like Qur'an, Bukhari, etc. or are secondary source with fascinating names but unverifiable (at least by me).

I am waiting for discussion over above points. Is anybody available? Because I can't touch the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't understand most of your questions and it's really not appropriate to speculate about another editor's "feelings" which seems to be your main thrust, so I'm only going to address the links you provided:

• http://www.light-of-life.com/ is a website which doesn't seem to provide sources or references for its content, and hasn't been updated since 1997 so it probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Is there any indication that the material on the website was written by a recognized scholar in the field?
• http://www.archive.org/details/haremaccountofin00penquoft links to the online equivalent of a card catalog, not the book itself. The book seems like it would probably be reliable for some things, but it would be necessary to cite the actual book and page number to use it as a reference (that's standard practice when referencing books), not just a general link to the website. Does the book have a specific section about Aisha, or is it simply a general discussion of life-at-that-time? The first could be useful, the second probably not.

Of course, other editors may have other views. Doc Tropics 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just meant that you need to just check it. Sorry for any offence.

So does that means iyo light-of-life.com is of no use as a reference here?

archive.org reference, is about Turkish sultans and their harem, Turkish Sultan means Ottaman Sultans they were there in Turkey (& not Arabia forget Mecca & Medina specifically) from 1299-1923 (over 600 years after Aisha). So, it neither about Aisha, nor is it a general discussion of life-at-that-time.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

General review of article

Analysis of existing matter

IMO before adding anything new to article we should critically examine article's present content because before we add new matter after discussion & consensus we should be sure that there is already no material in place which breaches the standard we setting for addition of new article. at present including me there are five editors involved in the discussion in preceding & succeeding discussions. I propose that we examine each section finalize it and then review lead for its content, if there is reduction of any content which is present in lead from main body I think it'll have to be removed from lead too. I think we should have some time frame also after all we can't keep waiting for responses or infinite discussion.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see positive dialogue and will certainly do what I can to help move things forward. The one thing I would ask is that you remember we are all volunteers here. We have jobs, families, and in some cases, hobbies besides Wikipedia. Also, we live all over the world and are contributing from many different time zones. Finally, WP has no deadline, and it's ok to take some time to get things right. The important part is that we are working together to create a better article. Thanks for your positive input, Doc Tropics 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody gets little disappointed when things don't happen as per ones desire but you can't keep on living in disappointment one has to move on. BTW here in India is already passed 04:30 AM ;).

Do we need to put some mechanism to track the development of revision, something like a table or like this? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Using such structure will increase the quality of our discussion.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll start from first section and then elaborate successively others one by one in order.

• Early life, it contains no source, may be few sentence regarding her parents don't need one but migration to Abyssinia, marriage to her fiance, etc. should be sourced. If source (& only RS ones) are not produced, should we delete related material? or any other action is also possible? Lets have discussion over it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, this section contains no references which is a problem that needs to be fixed. (Want to take a moment and savor our common ground? heh heh) In general, only controversial material is subject to immediate deletion; in uncontroversial cases a "CN" tag is more commonly used. Also, if an editor feels something isn't ready for the article yet, it can be removed from there and copied to the talkpage for review and improvement. In this particular case, we can also tag the entire section as being unreferenced which would show a reader that it is "weak", but we are working on it. I also agree that her lineage doesn't urgently need a reference, it's not as sensitive as other issues, but if we can find an RS for it, that only helps the article overall. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So we can place a CN tag on whole section or clean it from unreferenced matter. BTW as per my memory we had shared common grounds before :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Death, it contains no source. Going to put CN tag (similar case as Early life section).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

She was murdered (better to say terrored) by Muawiyah when he announced hereditary Caliphate an chose his son Yazid as his successor which was followed by protest of Aisha, and as Muawiyah was afraid of her influence, he digded a pit and covered it on the way Aisha was passing. Aisha felt into the pit and died.(ref:History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley page 375). You can reword it in better way and replace it in the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another reference [10].--Aliwiki (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The two references (one is not verifiable & other is semi-verifiable) seem to be secondary source. If we can get a good source where full story is there we may ad this stuff.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easily verifiable:[11].--Aliwiki (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another verifiable ref. [12].--Aliwiki (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ali! thanks for the links. My question to other editors, is History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley an RS? Is this source acceptable on the article? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here is a better link http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-4.htm#375 and it doesn't have pages missing like google books.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Our article about The History of the Saracens, and the related article about the author, both indicate that the book was originally regarded as authoritative, but modern historians think that his research was flawed and no longer consider his work reliable. However, Ali provides an independent source with nearly identical text, which seems reliable at first glance. I'd like to read the book in question since it could be useful. It seems we could accept the 2 sources together as "good enough for now", but next month I'd like to get my hands on some of these references in person; I think that would help a lot, but I won't have free time until then. Or, if the material seems controversial we can copy it to this page until stronger refs come up. Doc Tropics 19:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So we have three independent sources:

1. History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley [13] [14]
2. Sva by George Sir George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood & Frank Herbert Brown, P. L. Warner, 1915 [15] [16]
3. Encounter with Islam by Shri Bhagawan, Vedavyasa Itihas Samshodhana Mandira (BHISHMA), 1990 [17]

IMO, these three sources in combination are good enough to replace unsourced text in the section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Views, it contains no source. Going to put CN tag (similar case as Early life & Death section).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you got all the sections without any references tagged. The next step will be to add refs where needed, a somewhat longer-term project, heh heh. Doc Tropics 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya! that was easiest part, didn't need to establish anything. Hope so that further exercise also is that easy ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Marriage to Muhammad,

Following is the analysis of this sub-section:

• • the opening of section is well sourced (or appears to be) but sources used are either primary source like Qur'an, Bukhari, etc. or are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable. Also few sentences are without any reference e.g. Aisha was initially betrothed..., marriage was delayed..., etc. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

About betrothed with Jubayr ibn Mut'im, currently I don't have any academic source, but Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani ( the most comprehensive dictionary of the Companions Vol 8, p.17) and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (in The book of The Major Classes Vol.8, p.59) have reported this; maybe we can reword it.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any verifiable source?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not now, but I will try to find.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found, first see here. Vol 8, which has reports about prophets wives is translated. Google confirms [18].--Aliwiki (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

More Ref:p.58,p.92,p.129.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got time to look at the sources. First one (i.e. The women of Madina), I can't find the incidence but rest three of the resources have the incidence reported. Here are thre sources with precise link to the incidence:

1. The wives of the Prophet By Bint Al-Shati, D. Nicholas Ranson [19]
2. Payambar, the messenger, Volume 3, Zahra Trust, 1982 [20]
3. Book of contention and strife concerning the relations between the Banū Umayya and the Banū Hāshim, Aḥmad ibn ʻAlī Maqrīzī, University of Manchester, 1980 [21]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Status as "favorite wife" , same case, the two sources used are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have this to be added:It's notable that the reports which stress Aisha as Muhammad's favorite wife has emanated from Aisha herself as she was an abundant source of Hadith.(ref:Richard W. Bulliet, The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History to 1550, ISBN 0618771506 page 268).--Aliwiki (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Accusation of adultery , sources used are either primary source like Qur'an or are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in successive discussions( 1 & 2) that as of now no RS is available for this event. I think there should be some source but it seems we are not able to put finger on it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Story of the honey , first two sources used are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable. Third source i.e. http://www.light-of-life.com/ as aelaborated by Doc in preceeding doscussion is a website which doesn't seem to provide sources or references for its content, and hasn't been updated since 1997 so it probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be reworded, especilly its beggining Ibn Kathir wrote. Some verifiable sources: [22],page 124,[23]. If more source is needed, just write here.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I went thru the sources, imo first source is not reliable one it seems to be some book containing moral stories. Rest two sources seem to be goo, I'm listing them with precise link to incidence:

1. The women of Madina, Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, Muḥammad Ibn Saʻd, Ta-Ha, 1995 [24]
2. The heirs of Muhammad: Islam's first century and the origins of the Sunni-Shia split, Barnaby Rogerson, Overlook Press, 2007 [25]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Death of Muhammad , the subsection quotes Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah but fails to give any source for the quote. Second sentence has a reference http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/24.htm but it doesn't have Aisha mentioned once in the reference on contrary it says that, "the Prophet kept confiding in 'Ali till the time of his death. Then he breathed his last." As mentioned in preceeding doscussion this is clear case of false reference. Last sentence says she did not marry afterwards (ok with it) but then gives a justification from Quran (imo its not required, its enough to say that she didn't married afterwards).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• After Muhammad

Following is the analysis of this sub-section:

• • Aisha's father becomes the first caliph , there are already two CN tag in the para. But the real question is how is this connected with Aisha directly, okay Abu-Bakr was her father but what role she played in his selection or during his reign. IMO this sub-section is not required altogether.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali, has added some comments regarding this section (content & reference) in next section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The text is discussing Abubakr's election, and it's not related to Aisha. I mentioned two points (gifts, and her support) in Caliphate section.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Battle of Bassorah , now thisevent is quiet important & presumabaly most controversial part of her biography. First para is altogether free from any source listing. Only last line is actually related to her but it also is without citation. Second para has one reference (which like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable) but this para also has nothing to do Aisha specifically. Third para also has only one reference (which like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable) but most of the content of this most important para of the sub-section is unreferenced. And the last line of the sub-section is also unreferenced.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 references and neither of them are directly related to Aisha....not a good situation. Would it be better to tag the section as we have others, or copy it here to the talkpage until we find better refs? Doc Tropics 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

About this section, I have lots of references, just someone must write a good content for it.this and this can give good idea how to write it. In my opinion, we can write 3 paragraphs; 1. Background of the war: Aisha's hate and animosity toward Ali and ambition of Talha&Zubair to become Caliphate and their excuse was to revenge Uthman's blood from Ali; 2.Reporting what they did before the war, including their journey from Mecca to Basra and their massacre in Basra; 3.The war day and aftermath.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ali, those 2 links are very useful! It's also interesting because answering-islam.org is not usually considered a reliable source for Islam-related articles; they have a well known bias. However, the links you provided actually direct to William Muir's work The Caliphate which is definitely a reliable source.

Unless someone else gets to it first, I will read these thoroughly over the next couple of days, and then post some suggested text here on the talkpage for general discussion. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just going thru the links and found that preceeding to chapter (#32) refers to role of Aisha in the Siege of Uthman & her U turn afterwards, so we have in total four links for this section, they are:

THE CALIPHATE ITS RISE, DECLINE, AND FALL FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES BY WILLIAM MUIR,

1. CHAPTER XXXII, THE PLOT RIPENS. CONSPIRATORS ATTACK MEDINA DEATH OF 'OTHMAN, 35 A.H. / 656 A.D., [26], #231, Annual pilgrimage, xii 35 A.H. June, 656 A.D., She is accused of having formerly stirred up the people against 'Othman.
2. CHAPTER XXXIV, REBELLION AT AL-BASRA, 36 A.H. / 656 A.D., [27], full chapter
3. CHAPTER XXXV, BATTLE OF THE CAMEL, 36 A.H. / 656 A.D., [28], full chapter

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Her respect as scholar and role model, this section is also quite important part related to her. Only one sentence is referenced that too like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable. To be noted this section contributes to lede also (She is quoted...Muslim), which imo due to unreferenced state of the section is not appropriate.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

It needs some sources. In addition I would like to add that upon Muhammad's death, she collected over 500 written Hadiths and submitted to her father to be burnt.(ref:Shahid Ashraf, Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions, p.192/Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed, Encyclopaedia of Islam, p.152).--Aliwiki (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Phase I
I have put tags for verification required, etc in the article. I suppose I have made it mor messy looking but I think it precursor to actual cleanup. It may draw attention of editor community because now I have touched the article. In the process I have already erronously overidden User:Cuchullain's cleanup event, sorry for that. As of now I am done with the tagging business. Now I am goig to weed out lede from sentences (or jist) which don't exist in main body or is severely lacking any resource (this is as per previous discussion for lede in which we concluded that lede will only be having matter present in body which also is properly sourced and non-controversial). Please correct me for may faults. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for letting me know about it. I commented below at Talk:Aisha#References, not seeing your comment up here. As I said there I've removed the tags from the "age" sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start, and if the tags leave the article looking a bit ugly for now, that just gives us cause to work harder on the cleanup  :) Doc Tropics 14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Phase II
Three days and I'm back on the article ;) After tagging (& lede cleanup), now it is time to remove unsourced/illsourced matter and have final cleanup. I want to clean the article now before most of us go in December hibernation so that we have good base article to start with. After clean up I suggest to wait for two-three weeks. Deffinetely next step will be to add material (obviously a difficult part, considering source controversy but we need to draw line somewhere). Meanwhile (i.e. during next two-three weeks) we may develop new draft at Talk:Aisha/temp (I suppose this is standard practice). Any suggestions? Any ways there is always undo/revert option, feel free to use it if you (i.e. any body) doesn't agree but please drop a note here or at my talk page stating reason for reversion. Thanks. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with cleanup job. I have left all text having verification needed tag and few text with citation needed tag removal of these texts may have resulted in total blanking of sections which I din't intended to do. IMO, now we should leave article for two-three weeks and start doing draft work on Talk:Aisha/temp. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

Also, all this removal od matter from article has left article downgraded to Start stage from B level. I'm going to update project templates at talk head. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of new matter

• Quran distortion:

With the permission of my friends, Mohammad and Doc, I am also joining. I believe if we discuss subject by subjet, we'll be more successful. I will open a sub-section for some topics and for the beginning I am continuing with Quran case, which I was discussing above.

Two of the most important reports of Aisha about Quran is as follow: 1. Aisha lost two verses of Quran. During Muhammad's lifetime, after any revelation, some Muslims were writing or memorizing the revealed verses. After Muhammad's death, Muslims were submitting anything they had with them for the compilation of Quran. According to Aisha's report, she had two verses with her, one was about Stoning, and one was about nursing of a grown man by a woman. She has reported these two verses were under her bed, and once a goat entered her house and ate these two verses, and so the current Quran doesn't have them. 2.The last compilation of Quran was in time of Uthman. Chapter 33 of Quran has 73 verses. Aisha has reported this chapter originally had 200 verses.

Some notes which are not related, but can give you some ideas:Aisha's reports are authentic for Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims don't recognize her reports (the word report here is general, and not confined to this case). Also you may like to know that one of the main accusation of Sunnis against shia is that Sunni's claim Shias are rejecting authenticity of Quran.

Are my explanations enough? Is there any dark or unclear point? --Aliwiki (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I know the story but we are missing verifiable sources. BTW I think first we should focus on clearing up the present article matter. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you very much for joining the discussion in this manner....this is exactly the right way to proceed and your participation is most welcome! I agree that we will be more successful by limiting discussions to one topic at a time; this allows us to concentrate on a single question and avoid confusion. In that context, I think that Faizhaider is probably right. I don't want to ignore your concerns though, so let me offer a suggestion: we could work towards including some of this material in a new section of the article, to be titled "Shia views of Aisha" (or similar). Other articles like Ali have similar sections to provide that kind of information so it seems reasonable that this one could too. Sources and proper weight would need further agreement, but at least the material would have a home. Once that section is written and incorporated into the article, then it can be summarized for mention in the lede. Do other editors here think this seems like the right approach or not? Doc Tropics 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User Doc, also I am thankful to you. There references of this matter can be seen [29] (No. 19 to 30), and I avoided to list them here as they are a lot. You misunderstood a point; this has nothing to do with Shia-Sunni. These are reports (Hadith) of Aisha about Quran, and that's why I wrote them in Her respect as scholar and role model section. Any way, I will discuss more tomorrow night, else I will loose my university.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm back (after 8 hrs, thats the time I used to sleep, wakeup, eat, & travel to my work). I think Doc's suggestion of inclusion is good option that will avoid any freeze for addition of new matter. Also, I agree with Ali that this matter is specifically nothing to do with Shia view as these reports are found in Sunni sources also, may be there is differenc eof emphasis butimo that does not quntifies this matter to have new section. As this matter is related with her reports about Quran, so imo its more appropriate that it is included in Her respect as scholar and role model section, may be we can have sub-section (like event of honey) may we can name as event of goat eating two verses (just kidding), we can take name from some source (I hope that'll not be copyvio). But before adding new matter to section we will have to clean existing section. Meanwhile new matter to be added can be framed and finalised.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for correcting my mistake about Shia/Sunni differences; I appreciate your help. Doc Tropics 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Abu Bakr and Umar caliphate

She had good relationship with both. Aisha supported her abubakr and Umar caliphatepage 18. Abu Bakr made gift some lands for Aisha from her share of inheritance while he refused to give Fatima's land from her share of inheritance . (previous ref pages 51&362).--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a good reference, here is the exact link to the page [30]. This links basically deals with Aisha's role during all caliphs of her time i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali & Muwaiya. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Something more: Umar specified 10000 dirham pension for each of the Prophet's wife, with the exception of Aisha who was receiving 12000 dirhams.)Excellence and precedence:By Asma Afsaruddin p.48[31],p.156).--Aliwiki (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Uthman caliphate

I wrote something here. For the beginning, what's others opinion?If one doesn't have background, this online source could be helpful:[32]--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Ali caliphate

Let's discuss in the section of battle of Bassorah.

• During Muawiyah

here I reported two important occassions. Are they clear?--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha-Muhammad-Khadija

Aisha was a hater of Khadija and she was not so jealous about Muhammad's affection toward any of his wife as she was of Khadija, who was the first Mslim.A famous comment of Aisha about Khadija: Aisha shouted to Muhammad and said:Why do you always have to be remembering that toothless and Qurayshite with her red mouth? p.42,[33],[34],[35],p.138,[36].--Aliwiki (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha-Muhammad-Maria

Aisha was jealous of Maria because of Maria's beauty and that she bore a son. This jealousy led to two prominent occasions. In the first one Aisha and Hafsa were threatened to be divorced by Quran. The second one is related to Ibrahim, son of Maria, which made Aisha envious as she didin't have any child.[37],p.55,[38],[39]--Aliwiki (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha hate and jealousy twords other Muhammad's wives

Aisha was jealous of Umm Salama's beauty (ref:Mother of the Believers by Kamran Pasha p.289 [40],[41].) She was also hater and jealous of Juwayriya beauty [42]. Story of Aisha-Malica and Aisha-Asma:Aisha was jealous of their beauty. Aisha conspiracy against them led to divorce of both.p.106,[43].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Title

Before starting, as some may not be familiar with Islamic history, I would like to mention revelation of each verse of Quran was due to an occasion happened during lifetime of Prophet Muhammad.

The occasion of the verse which gave the title Mother of the believers (33.6) was as follow: After the revelation of the verse of Hijab, Talha, cousin of Aisha who for long time had desire of marriage to Aisha, protested against the restriction in his relationship with Aisha that verse of Hijab made for him, so he said, By God, if Muhammad dies, I will marry Aisha. Then, the verse 33.6 was revealed and the Prophet's wives were entitled Mothers of believers to prohibit them from any marriage after Muhammad's death. (A widow can marry another man after her husband death but marriage of Son-Mother is forbidden in Islam).(ref:[44],The Qur'an: an encyclopedia By Oliver Leaman, p.23 [45],Female stereotypes in religious traditions By Ria Kloppenborg p.93 [46] ).--Aliwiki (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further Matters

There are some matters about Aisha's life that I don't have source for them now, but I thought it would be a good idea to list them here as it's probable that someone has sources for them.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Aisha used to insult and mock Umm-Salama, as Umm-Salama's height was short. When Umm-Salama was walking her clothes was dragging on groung behind her as she was short and Aisha was saying Umm-Salama's walking is like a dog rolling its tongue. This let to the revealation of the verse 11 of chapter 49.
  • When Aisha heard news of Ali's assassination, she prostrated to thanks God for this good news. Additionally she had a famous poem for this.
  • Aisha accused Maria the Coptic to adultery.
  • Aisha's report about women, in which she compared a woman with a dog and monkey
  • List of gift Aisha received from Abubakr, Umar and Muawiyah
  • That Muhammad compared Aisha and Hafsa with wives of prophets Noah and Lut which was due to the revelation of the verse 10 of chapter 66
  • conspiracy of Aisha and Hafsa against Muhammad which resulted in revelation of the first 5 verses of chapter 66.
  • That Aisha encouraged and supported her father not to give Fatima's share of inheritance upon Muhammad's death.
  • Twice Aisha accused Muhammad not to be a prophet. (Once happened in Muhammad's last pilgrimage)
  • Aisha quarrel with Muhammad about his extreme attention to Ali.
  • Uthman's public cursing of Aisha and Hafsa.
  • That once Umm-Salama brought a bowl of soup for Aisha and Muhammad, but Aisha felt jealous and became angry and broke Umm-Salama's bowl. In 3 other occasions Aisha broke the bowl of food of Zaynab, Safiya, and Hafsa due to her jealousy.
  • Aisha cursed his brother, Muhammad ibn Abubakr, for killing Uthman.
  • That Aisha considered the title mother of the believers is only for the first Muslims generation, and that it's not related to next generations. (When next Muslim generation were calling her, Mother, she was replying:I am not your mother, I am mother of your fathers.)

Draft version at temp page

I'm done with cleanup job of the article. IMO, now we should leave article for two-three weeks and start doing draft work. I have created draft page on Talk:Aisha/temp with present version of the article. I invite all intrested parties to add & improve (& not remove) content on this page we will review the draft version at end of the two-three week time from now and then will finalise it as per WP policies/guidelines/conventions and general consensus. Meanwhile if main article is edited (mailnly if any content is added) & if edit is found valid we will keep it on article updating the draft accordingly (so that we don't miss anything at the end of excercise). All users specially (Ibn kathir, Doc Tropics, Cúchullain, Aliwiki and Humaliwalay) may add as per will. We have lot of matter & references scattered over all this talk page and related articles which can be incorporated per se Good faith, remember we already have a Shi'a view article for Aisha so that section needs not much expansion (we may have Sunni view article also if some editor feels it wanted). Please be rationale & calm while working even on draft (I once more request, no edit war plz content will be revised and edited before being moved to main Article to meet everybody's genuine aspirations). Thnks and happy editing, go hit it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mohammad; According to WP:BEBOLD I am going to start, and hope others to join soon.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your heroic efforts on this article! I will read and comment as soon as possible. Doc Tropics 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks comrades (sorry, if I offended anybody by choice of that word ;) for one more positive step and being constructive party to it. Enjoy editing, slowly I'm going in wiki-hibernation state, hopefully everything will be moreover as it is (if no positive development) while few of us are active in limited or no capacity. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

General related discussions

I don't agree with mentioning shia or sunni differences in the lead, i think it is against what the lead is about [wikki policy] very disruptive to its structure especially if the figure in question had nothing to do with shia or sunni differences in her own life, i.e its not a major issue in her biography.

i don't agree with the whole section as it is little more than politics and revisionism, if the shia and ahmadia would like to discuss their views on her they can start a separate page and link to this one.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. IK! read the discussion, we are not talking about adding it to lede (at least not now) and this has nothing to do with Shia & Sunni or Ahmadia view its a report narrated by ner & recorded by many. We are talking about adding it to another section (may be its subsection). And do you know about indent?

BTW, I just had a look onto the source they seem to be good secondary sources but they have same problem as already existing ones they are not verifiable. There have to be atleast couple of sources which we can verify on web then with these sources (by Ali) & new sources we will have good combination that hopefully will count as RS.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Mr. K, we are trying to "clean up" and improve the body, then will add some new content by agreement on talkpage, and only at the end will anything be added to the introduction. The idea of giving the new material its own section is mostly a matter of organization and totally open for disucssion, but a creating POV fork article just for minority views is discouraged by policy. Remember, Aisha's biography is a single story, the only difference is how other groups view her. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To Doc, as long as this doesn't turn into a shia propaganda article by extension, then we can discuss the article section by section. i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources their is a well documented history [going back hundreds of years] of shia misquoting sunni sources and even fabricating them [ see Peshawar-Nights-the-Art-of-Fictional-Narration ]. This along with the fact that they do not follow or adhere to the Islamic sciences therefor distorting the interpretations of Sunni primary sources,fringe or minority views are not just those held by different groups than sunni's, Sunni's have been identifying and categorizing opinions into minority and majority opinions for well over a thousand years so it should also be noted that any Sunni source is a minority or majority view an example is the issue of Aisha's age the higher figures being a minority view among Sunni scholars. Ibn kathir (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to participate. In articles like this, finding a way to balance opposing views is difficult, requiring extra care and patience. You are correct that identifying and distinguishing between majority views and minority views is an important part. I don't have time to offer a more concrete or useful response right now (it's getting late for me), but didn't want to ignore your comment altogether. Let's simply agree that we can and will continue to discuss the details cordially. Thanks, Doc Tropics 02:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr K, thanks for your valuable comments its great to hear from you once again I was just wondering about your well being.

I got your point, no Shia sources on this article. Shia do not adhere to sunni sciences & methodologies, that is correct because it seems that they have their own well established system. Can you list the sources which you will agree upon? Please don't list a book in you cupboard, we want verifiable resources, which all of us on this page can read & understand i.e. authentic RS. Its time that you contribute something to this page apart from counter-comments & negations. Hope to hear from you soon.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

the article is mostly fine, it needs improvement in language and structure we wont be re-writting it wholesale to represent your views if that is what your are implying the work of previous editors still stands. and i get it books in my cupboard are of no use or importance regardless of the author. Ibn kathir (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I shall be adding some details about Aishah from Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih al Muslim the most authentic books considered after Quraan as per few people. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

it wont be accepted in the article, you may use it to help in an argument but you need secondary or tertiary sources. read... wp:or Ibn kathir (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok Thanks you have made it easy for me then. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr HAW! Please put up any matter for discussion & consensus before adding it to article, we have a section going on for discussions for new matter addition.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To Humaliwalay:Welcome here. We have a section, as you can see above, that we need reference for the mentioned matters. You can help us to find some sources. And if you have new matter which is not listed above, you can add it and we'll try our best to find source for them. Thank you again.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr K, it seems you are not getting the point. The article is already under severe scrutiny and after analysis (refer preceding discussions) it has been found that article is mostly based on non-verifiable resources (and that is not fine) which has led to already sections being tagged and next step will be to remove such matter from the article, which will probably lead to downgrade for this article from B-class to Start-class if not Stub-class. That is the reason I asked for the RS from you because it seems you'll negate all other sources (although it is per se courtesy and non-binding). But it seems that you are unwilling to help the cause and provide us with your authentic RS list. In that case we will be forced to use the resources which are at our disposal. I'm trying to engage you in positive cause but from your comments it seems you are unwilling to do so and are happy being critical to every move (except your's). I once more request you to contribute something to this page apart from counter-comments & negations (a verifiable RS list will be good start). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

no what you are advocating is turning this into a shia propaganda piece since most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic and you know this very well so essentially what you will be doing is looking for any non shia source that agrees with you and attempting to pass it of as neutral and non biased. Ibn kathir (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't you understand simple English, I'm asking for sources from you which you think are correct but you keep on repeating same set of words and are entirely avoiding giving list of source you agree upon. BTW, I myslef have proposed nothing new to be added recently I just requested for analysis of present content. And if you see the analysis, I have done it in most neutral way possible. As per you all Western sources are unreliable, all Shia sources are unreliable, etc. So can you give us your list of sources (its third time I'm asking you for it) and lets see whether we can use it. Please try to cooperate and avoid being cog in the wheel. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just like how we have a separate criticism section in many articles we should have one here, because we have many negative things about Aisha which are indispensable to be mentioned because since this entire article is about we should have a neutral POV and list everything which is related to her and verifiable then one can claim that this article is almost fine as stated above. So far this article is incomplete. Certain points which can be considered for inclusion are listed below with references :

• “Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk. 53, No. 400)
• “Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 71, No. 660)

Aishah's accusations of Mohammad getting effected by hardest kind of magic above contradict the verse of Quraan that “Surely he{Satan} has no authority over those who believe and rely on their Lord; His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who associate others with Him” (Quran, 016:099-100).

• Aisha was very rude especially with the other wives of Mohammad, she was also warned as mentioned in Sahih al Muslim that Prophet said “O Aisha, do not be filthy and extremely rude, for Allah detests the use of harsh and evil words” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 07, p. 05)
• Aisha was so jealous of Prophet's other wives that she decided to hurt the Prophet once she came to know that he ate honey with his another wife Zainab bint Jahsh, that he smelled foul - Al-Bukhari reported Ayesha saying: "Allah's Prophet was eating honey at Zeinab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer". (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.
• Prophet Mohammad himself described Aishah as "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” - The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East). Narrated by Abdullah Hadith number 2894 Book of Sahih al Bukhari Also Narrated The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha's room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan's horn emerges"! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23). - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see a User pointing that all western sources and Shia sources are unreliable and User Faizhaider is asking which source are reliable. The sources which I have mentioned are from Sunni books I hope at least these are reliable. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My question for the list is just to avoid any dead-lock. I know what ever source is provided by Mr K will have reference to all the matter everybody is discussing (and probabaly Mr K knows this and that the reson till now no list has been provided, after all one can't disagree from the source onself has provided). I was just trying to resolve issue for now but it seems we will be getting nothing from Mr K other than his negative comments. I have already asked three times and thats it any way we can't keep waiting endlessly for the list (In Arab culture there is no fourth time, ;) and Mr K with name of that great Arab scholar in username probably may be aware of that custom, just kidding). So, we can move forward Doc ha salready explained the reference rules in next section. Just to point out we do need to clear/source existing article prior any addition so that we have a fixed atarting point.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I get, a :( for showing courtesy and asking a peer editor for opinion and feed-back for consensus.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments where not aimed at you. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't makes much difference. Anyways thanks for your words & opinion. We now know you stand nowhere near consensus and are not interested in any creative dialog. --12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ibn kathir, comments like that are hardly conducive to a respectful, collaborative environment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Currently several of us are engaged in reviewing the article with the goal of strengthening existing references and adding new ones, or eventually removing content that can't be properly attributed. There has been some confusion and the reliable sources policy is our primary guide in this effort.

Reliability is not determined by general factors like an author's religion denomination or nationality. We do not exclude sources simply because they are "Shia" or "western", instead we examine the credibility of the author and their work, and we consider their reputation among other scholars to determine their reliability. Then, when we write our text we attribute the information to that source: "Sunni scholar X reported Y about so-and-so." Or we may need to balance sources against each other like: "Shia tradition holds that X is true, but most Sunnis believe in Y", with an RS for each claim.

Also, works like the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are primary sources: it's only appropriate to quote from them in limited circumstances, usually to illustrate a point with the original text. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources...what reputable scholars have written about it.

Finally, although everyone would prefer to work with online resources because they are the easiest to confirm, we can use any published source which is deemed reliable, even if it is only available in print. In many cases, the most valuable references are found at the library....

Thanks to everyone for their contributions here, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, for such a good explanation. Hopefully all users will understand it and abide by. My insistence for online resource is to avoid any controversy, you know during my time at WP I have learned that many times people just put a reference tag having something in it (relevant or irrelevant & it is true for online resources also, an example of such instance is there on this article also which I have already pointed out in my section on references above). That doesn't mean that I am anti library book/resources we can deffinetely have them byt its good if we have something online available which confirms offline resource to some degree atleast. Just to avoid any more lengthy discussion, we have already a discussion multifold the length of article and made little headway. I think cleanup drive should be accelerated so that we have base article free from any unreferenced source, then we can start adding but that will be the difficult part as most of us will have to agree (consensus) on what & where to add. Thanks again. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Faizhaider, and for the invitation to take part in the discussion. I can verify the Spellberg book, and will be removing those "verify source" tags. I also read the Turner and Watt books on the subject when I added the cites; I don't have them on me, but unless there's reason to think that I or someone else has misquoted them, I'm removing those tags as well. I must note that online sources are in no way preferable to well received scholarly works such as Spellberg's and Watt's; convenience does not trump reliability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I have every intention of getting physical copies of several of these reference works after the holidays; it's bound to help. Doc Tropics 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Bassorah

The city is also known as Basra and Al-Basra; Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider and Aliwiki have mentioned that the battle there is an important topic. After reading through some of the material that they provided, I definitely agree. In fact, it seems we might reasonably create a Battle of Basra (656) (there are already 2 other "Battle of Basra" articles with more recent dates). The event is important historically and there is more detail than we could present in this article alone. Perhaps we could write a new article for the battle, based on the references they have provided, then this article could contain a brief summary of Aisha's role in the battle, along with a link to the new article. Any thoughts or suggestions from other editors? Doc Tropics 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you believe we already have Battle of Bassorah...I just spelled it wrong when first looking. Wow do I feel dumb. Doc Tropics 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great helps. Actually the correct spelling is Basra and I don't know what's the source for Bassorah. Writing a new article is a great idea and I can provide the needed references for it.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Among Muslim scholar and general public (atleast in Persian & Indic speaking regions i.e. Iran, Central Asia & South Asia) this battle is commonly reffered toa as, Jang-e-Jamal i.e. Battle of Camel (Jang = Battle, Jamal = Camel); and Bassorah is archaic spelling for Basra. At present we have a page Battle of Camel which redirects to Battle of Bassorah. I don't think we nedd to rewrite the article we just need to expand it and source it properly.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

to Doc, here is the sunni perspective of the battle, its not a scholarly work as it lacks references but essentially this is how the majority of sunnis believe events occured. the work is aimed at the general public hence its common wording. another work here. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the same above 2 highlighted Sunni works by User Ibn Kathir says here[47] that Ayesha herself admitted that she was the wretched woman in Hu'ab and would be on the wrong path in the Battle of Basrah of which Prophet Mohammad himself warned her against. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

These are Sunni POV websites & can't be held as RS until supported by academic work. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

look i dont want to sit here and baby sit every shia on the fundamentals of sunni beliefe, just stop quoting from sunni sources and half the issue will go away. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are dammed by your own statement, first you yourself highlight Sunni works then you are reluctant to accept the quotations. I hope you need some break. - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Mr K wants s/he says,

• Don't use Shia sources, then s/he says
• Don't use Westerns sources, now s/he insists,
• stop quoting from sunni sources

So, practically speaking we are left with no option but to delete all the content of the Article except few lines which don't require reference. ;) Or we should ignore all of her/his advices and move forward with all/any RS per se WP policy. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree now there is automatically a consensus building up that if we cannot quote Western references because they may be biased towards Shia and against Sunnis, OK then we cannot cite Shia sources, then when we proceed with Sunni references that too from those books whom they consider as the most authentic one after Quraan, User Ibn Kathir reflects his/her opinion in negative. The user is not throwing light precisely or is confused a bit as suggested needs a break. - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

how about you just stop doing primary research. Whats the next step stating sunni's amazingly believe the incident occurred the way you say it does becouse you think our primary sources agree with you? Ibn kathir (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't that way rather I provide references from Sunni books and include only those which are mentioned and narrate the incident as it was by the Sunni books. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll like to quote Doc,

“ Reliability is not determined by general factors like an author's religion denomination or nationality. We do not exclude sources simply because they are "Shia" or "western", instead we examine the credibility of the author and their work, and we consider their reputation among other scholars to determine their reliability. Then, when we write our text we attribute the information to that source: "Sunni scholar X reported Y about so-and-so." Or we may need to balance sources against each other like: "Shia tradition holds that X is true, but most Sunnis believe in Y", with an RS for each claim.

Also, works like the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are primary sources: it's only appropriate to quote from them in limited circumstances, usually to illustrate a point with the original text. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources...what reputable scholars have written about it.

Finally, although everyone would prefer to work with online resources because they are the easiest to confirm, we can use any published source which is deemed reliable, even if it is only available in print. In many cases, the most valuable references are found at the library....

”

I think the above statement serves as baseline for any further reference to be included in the article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

lets make things clear i wont agree to shia interpretations of sunni primary sources, i think that can be used as a baseline. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who agrees with what, its all based upon reliability and consensus. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

so you agree sahih bukhari is a reliable source since you have been quoting from it all this time. Ill illustrate my point for other editors and demonstrate how narrations can be twisted, explanations made up and manipulated to support an ideology,

User Humaliwalay said: Prophet Mohammad himself described Aishah as "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” - The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East). Narrated by Abdullah Hadith number 2894 Book of Sahih al Bukhari Also Narrated The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha's room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan's horn emerges"! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23).

the above misquoted hadith has nothing to do with Aisha, it is part of a well known group of hadith regarding the area in saudi arabia known as Najd the center of which is present day riyadh,

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336: Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East)."

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 499: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: I saw Allah's Apostle pointing towards the east saying, "Lo! Afflictions will verily emerge hence; afflictions will verily emerge hence where the (side of the head of) Satan appears."

Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: "O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen." They said: "And in our Najd?" and he said: "O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen." They said: "And in our Najd?" and I believe that he said the third time: "In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan]."’ [bukhari]

a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina passes some distance to the south of Riyadh [saudi arabia] or the land known as najd. Even the hadith itself clarifies that what was ment was the east and not Aisha's house the person reporting the hadith saw the first thing that obstructed their vision [Aisha's house] but understood what the prophet meant.

Aisha was 18 when the prophet died, she would have been maybe 14 at the time of the incident so essentially he would have been claiming a 14 year old girl was the spearhead of satan, while she was his wife, while he was still married to her, while he was still having relations with her and he lived with her for another 4 years. It is a fact the prophet died in Aisha's house and he is buried their today and any one visiting him will have to visit Aisha's house to see him, such a damning statement would have insured that he would be buried else where if the prophet held such hatred and contempt for his own wife.

It is hypocritical for shia to use a sunni source which they themselves believe to be unreliable and shia do not accept sahih bukhari to be a reliable source of narrations so clearly their are ulterior motives than writing the most accurate account of her life, each one of you should declare sahih bukhari to be an authentic work which you believe in otherwise stop quoting something which you believe is false.

Its even more interesting that you are quoting ahadith by Ibn Umar, why dont you share with other editors what you believe about ibn umar and explain why you think these narrations are accurate in your view.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dammed again, first of all no where did I say that Bukhari is authentic I am just stressing on Consensus based upon Reliability of quotation from Bukhari, Secondly, I was not narrating Ibn Umar rather I narrated from Abdullah that Hadith. Third, stop asking me my belief as done above, I no where mentioned my faith. Please confine you editing within good faith. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

so your quoting a source which you don't believe is reliable, my point exactly. Further i dont know of any other group of people who would label Aisha a "wretched women" so please enlighten me, in either case what you chose to respond to itself says enough.Ibn kathir (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I never added that and just proposed in the discussion whether it can be added if consensus is built. Secondly no group, rather a book called Sahih al Bukhari has labeled Aishah as a wretched woman. Well Its not worth arguing with you instead I shall appreciate opinion of other editors whoch will be much more valuable to pay heed to. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IK, if you take your point then that'll mean that no Mulsim should quote Bible (becuase its their belief that present day Bible is a corrupted version of original In'jil), no Christian (or any non Muslim) can quote Quran (as in their belif its not an authentic book, per se Muslim claim & that you have already indicated by discrediting western scholarship whic in general is non-muslim) and no Sunni can quote Shi'as (becuase in their view they are not even Muslims & as per some Wahabi fatwas are wajib-ul-qatl). These sort of arguments will lead us nowhere. In cases like this where consensus can't be met (or specifically speaking is being blocked) we need to go to WP policies/guidelines/conventions (which Doc has stated & I have repeated in foregoing comments). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

General review of article

Analysis of existing matter

IMO before adding anything new to article we should critically examine article's present content because before we add new matter after discussion & consensus we should be sure that there is already no material in place which breaches the standard we setting for addition of new article. at present including me there are five editors involved in the discussion in preceding & succeeding discussions. I propose that we examine each section finalize it and then review lead for its content, if there is reduction of any content which is present in lead from main body I think it'll have to be removed from lead too. I think we should have some time frame also after all we can't keep waiting for responses or infinite discussion.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see positive dialogue and will certainly do what I can to help move things forward. The one thing I would ask is that you remember we are all volunteers here. We have jobs, families, and in some cases, hobbies besides Wikipedia. Also, we live all over the world and are contributing from many different time zones. Finally, WP has no deadline, and it's ok to take some time to get things right. The important part is that we are working together to create a better article. Thanks for your positive input, Doc Tropics 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody gets little disappointed when things don't happen as per ones desire but you can't keep on living in disappointment one has to move on. BTW here in India is already passed 04:30 AM ;).

Do we need to put some mechanism to track the development of revision, something like a table or like this? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Using such structure will increase the quality of our discussion.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll start from first section and then elaborate successively others one by one in order.

• Early life, it contains no source, may be few sentence regarding her parents don't need one but migration to Abyssinia, marriage to her fiance, etc. should be sourced. If source (& only RS ones) are not produced, should we delete related material? or any other action is also possible? Lets have discussion over it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, this section contains no references which is a problem that needs to be fixed. (Want to take a moment and savor our common ground? heh heh) In general, only controversial material is subject to immediate deletion; in uncontroversial cases a "CN" tag is more commonly used. Also, if an editor feels something isn't ready for the article yet, it can be removed from there and copied to the talkpage for review and improvement. In this particular case, we can also tag the entire section as being unreferenced which would show a reader that it is "weak", but we are working on it. I also agree that her lineage doesn't urgently need a reference, it's not as sensitive as other issues, but if we can find an RS for it, that only helps the article overall. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So we can place a CN tag on whole section or clean it from unreferenced matter. BTW as per my memory we had shared common grounds before :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Death, it contains no source. Going to put CN tag (similar case as Early life section).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

She was murdered (better to say terrored) by Muawiyah when he announced hereditary Caliphate an chose his son Yazid as his successor which was followed by protest of Aisha, and as Muawiyah was afraid of her influence, he digded a pit and covered it on the way Aisha was passing. Aisha felt into the pit and died.(ref:History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley page 375). You can reword it in better way and replace it in the article.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another reference [48].--Aliwiki (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The two references (one is not verifiable & other is semi-verifiable) seem to be secondary source. If we can get a good source where full story is there we may ad this stuff.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's easily verifiable:[49].--Aliwiki (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another verifiable ref. [50].--Aliwiki (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ali! thanks for the links. My question to other editors, is History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley an RS? Is this source acceptable on the article? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, here is a better link http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-4.htm#375 and it doesn't have pages missing like google books.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. Our article about The History of the Saracens, and the related article about the author, both indicate that the book was originally regarded as authoritative, but modern historians think that his research was flawed and no longer consider his work reliable. However, Ali provides an independent source with nearly identical text, which seems reliable at first glance. I'd like to read the book in question since it could be useful. It seems we could accept the 2 sources together as "good enough for now", but next month I'd like to get my hands on some of these references in person; I think that would help a lot, but I won't have free time until then. Or, if the material seems controversial we can copy it to this page until stronger refs come up. Doc Tropics 19:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So we have three independent sources:

1. History of the Saracens Comprising the Lives of Mohammed and His Successors By Simon Ockley [51] [52]
2. Sva by George Sir George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood & Frank Herbert Brown, P. L. Warner, 1915 [53] [54]
3. Encounter with Islam by Shri Bhagawan, Vedavyasa Itihas Samshodhana Mandira (BHISHMA), 1990 [55]

IMO, these three sources in combination are good enough to replace unsourced text in the section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Views, it contains no source. Going to put CN tag (similar case as Early life & Death section).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you got all the sections without any references tagged. The next step will be to add refs where needed, a somewhat longer-term project, heh heh. Doc Tropics 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya! that was easiest part, didn't need to establish anything. Hope so that further exercise also is that easy ;) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Marriage to Muhammad,

Following is the analysis of this sub-section:

• • the opening of section is well sourced (or appears to be) but sources used are either primary source like Qur'an, Bukhari, etc. or are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable. Also few sentences are without any reference e.g. Aisha was initially betrothed..., marriage was delayed..., etc. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

About betrothed with Jubayr ibn Mut'im, currently I don't have any academic source, but Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani ( the most comprehensive dictionary of the Companions Vol 8, p.17) and Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (in The book of The Major Classes Vol.8, p.59) have reported this; maybe we can reword it.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have any verifiable source?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not now, but I will try to find.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found, first see here. Vol 8, which has reports about prophets wives is translated. Google confirms [56].--Aliwiki (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

More Ref:p.58,p.92,p.129.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I got time to look at the sources. First one (i.e. The women of Madina), I can't find the incidence but rest three of the resources have the incidence reported. Here are thre sources with precise link to the incidence:

1. The wives of the Prophet By Bint Al-Shati, D. Nicholas Ranson [57]
2. Payambar, the messenger, Volume 3, Zahra Trust, 1982 [58]
3. Book of contention and strife concerning the relations between the Banū Umayya and the Banū Hāshim, Aḥmad ibn ʻAlī Maqrīzī, University of Manchester, 1980 [59]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Status as "favorite wife" , same case, the two sources used are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have this to be added:It's notable that the reports which stress Aisha as Muhammad's favorite wife has emanated from Aisha herself as she was an abundant source of Hadith.(ref:Richard W. Bulliet, The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History to 1550, ISBN 0618771506 page 268).--Aliwiki (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Accusation of adultery , sources used are either primary source like Qur'an or are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in successive discussions( 1 & 2) that as of now no RS is available for this event. I think there should be some source but it seems we are not able to put finger on it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Story of the honey , first two sources used are apparently secondary source but they are not verifiable. Third source i.e. http://www.light-of-life.com/ as aelaborated by Doc in preceeding doscussion is a website which doesn't seem to provide sources or references for its content, and hasn't been updated since 1997 so it probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be reworded, especilly its beggining Ibn Kathir wrote. Some verifiable sources: [60],page 124,[61]. If more source is needed, just write here.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I went thru the sources, imo first source is not reliable one it seems to be some book containing moral stories. Rest two sources seem to be goo, I'm listing them with precise link to incidence:

1. The women of Madina, Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Sa'd, Muḥammad Ibn Saʻd, Ta-Ha, 1995 [62]
2. The heirs of Muhammad: Islam's first century and the origins of the Sunni-Shia split, Barnaby Rogerson, Overlook Press, 2007 [63]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Death of Muhammad , the subsection quotes Ibn Ishaq's Sirah Rasul Allah but fails to give any source for the quote. Second sentence has a reference http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/24.htm but it doesn't have Aisha mentioned once in the reference on contrary it says that, "the Prophet kept confiding in 'Ali till the time of his death. Then he breathed his last." As mentioned in preceeding doscussion this is clear case of false reference. Last sentence says she did not marry afterwards (ok with it) but then gives a justification from Quran (imo its not required, its enough to say that she didn't married afterwards).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• After Muhammad

Following is the analysis of this sub-section:

• • Aisha's father becomes the first caliph , there are already two CN tag in the para. But the real question is how is this connected with Aisha directly, okay Abu-Bakr was her father but what role she played in his selection or during his reign. IMO this sub-section is not required altogether.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ali, has added some comments regarding this section (content & reference) in next section.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The text is discussing Abubakr's election, and it's not related to Aisha. I mentioned two points (gifts, and her support) in Caliphate section.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Battle of Bassorah , now thisevent is quiet important & presumabaly most controversial part of her biography. First para is altogether free from any source listing. Only last line is actually related to her but it also is without citation. Second para has one reference (which like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable) but this para also has nothing to do Aisha specifically. Third para also has only one reference (which like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable) but most of the content of this most important para of the sub-section is unreferenced. And the last line of the sub-section is also unreferenced.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Only 2 references and neither of them are directly related to Aisha....not a good situation. Would it be better to tag the section as we have others, or copy it here to the talkpage until we find better refs? Doc Tropics 15:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

About this section, I have lots of references, just someone must write a good content for it.this and this can give good idea how to write it. In my opinion, we can write 3 paragraphs; 1. Background of the war: Aisha's hate and animosity toward Ali and ambition of Talha&Zubair to become Caliphate and their excuse was to revenge Uthman's blood from Ali; 2.Reporting what they did before the war, including their journey from Mecca to Basra and their massacre in Basra; 3.The war day and aftermath.--Aliwiki (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ali, those 2 links are very useful! It's also interesting because answering-islam.org is not usually considered a reliable source for Islam-related articles; they have a well known bias. However, the links you provided actually direct to William Muir's work The Caliphate which is definitely a reliable source.

Unless someone else gets to it first, I will read these thoroughly over the next couple of days, and then post some suggested text here on the talkpage for general discussion. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just going thru the links and found that preceeding to chapter (#32) refers to role of Aisha in the Siege of Uthman & her U turn afterwards, so we have in total four links for this section, they are:

THE CALIPHATE ITS RISE, DECLINE, AND FALL FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES BY WILLIAM MUIR,

1. CHAPTER XXXII, THE PLOT RIPENS. CONSPIRATORS ATTACK MEDINA DEATH OF 'OTHMAN, 35 A.H. / 656 A.D., [64], #231, Annual pilgrimage, xii 35 A.H. June, 656 A.D., She is accused of having formerly stirred up the people against 'Othman.
2. CHAPTER XXXIV, REBELLION AT AL-BASRA, 36 A.H. / 656 A.D., [65], full chapter
3. CHAPTER XXXV, BATTLE OF THE CAMEL, 36 A.H. / 656 A.D., [66], full chapter

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Her respect as scholar and role model, this section is also quite important part related to her. Only one sentence is referenced that too like most of the references on article is apparently secondary source but it is not verifiable. To be noted this section contributes to lede also (She is quoted...Muslim), which imo due to unreferenced state of the section is not appropriate.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

It needs some sources. In addition I would like to add that upon Muhammad's death, she collected over 500 written Hadiths and submitted to her father to be burnt.(ref:Shahid Ashraf, Encyclopaedia of Holy Prophet and Companions, p.192/Mufti M. Mukarram Ahmed, Encyclopaedia of Islam, p.152).--Aliwiki (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Phase I
I have put tags for verification required, etc in the article. I suppose I have made it mor messy looking but I think it precursor to actual cleanup. It may draw attention of editor community because now I have touched the article. In the process I have already erronously overidden User:Cuchullain's cleanup event, sorry for that. As of now I am done with the tagging business. Now I am goig to weed out lede from sentences (or jist) which don't exist in main body or is severely lacking any resource (this is as per previous discussion for lede in which we concluded that lede will only be having matter present in body which also is properly sourced and non-controversial). Please correct me for may faults. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 04:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for letting me know about it. I commented below at Talk:Aisha#References, not seeing your comment up here. As I said there I've removed the tags from the "age" sections.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start, and if the tags leave the article looking a bit ugly for now, that just gives us cause to work harder on the cleanup  :) Doc Tropics 14:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Phase II
Three days and I'm back on the article ;) After tagging (& lede cleanup), now it is time to remove unsourced/illsourced matter and have final cleanup. I want to clean the article now before most of us go in December hibernation so that we have good base article to start with. After clean up I suggest to wait for two-three weeks. Deffinetely next step will be to add material (obviously a difficult part, considering source controversy but we need to draw line somewhere). Meanwhile (i.e. during next two-three weeks) we may develop new draft at Talk:Aisha/temp (I suppose this is standard practice). Any suggestions? Any ways there is always undo/revert option, feel free to use it if you (i.e. any body) doesn't agree but please drop a note here or at my talk page stating reason for reversion. Thanks. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with cleanup job. I have left all text having verification needed tag and few text with citation needed tag removal of these texts may have resulted in total blanking of sections which I din't intended to do. IMO, now we should leave article for two-three weeks and start doing draft work on Talk:Aisha/temp. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

Also, all this removal od matter from article has left article downgraded to Start stage from B level. I'm going to update project templates at talk head. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of new matter

• Quran distortion:

With the permission of my friends, Mohammad and Doc, I am also joining. I believe if we discuss subject by subjet, we'll be more successful. I will open a sub-section for some topics and for the beginning I am continuing with Quran case, which I was discussing above.

Two of the most important reports of Aisha about Quran is as follow: 1. Aisha lost two verses of Quran. During Muhammad's lifetime, after any revelation, some Muslims were writing or memorizing the revealed verses. After Muhammad's death, Muslims were submitting anything they had with them for the compilation of Quran. According to Aisha's report, she had two verses with her, one was about Stoning, and one was about nursing of a grown man by a woman. She has reported these two verses were under her bed, and once a goat entered her house and ate these two verses, and so the current Quran doesn't have them. 2.The last compilation of Quran was in time of Uthman. Chapter 33 of Quran has 73 verses. Aisha has reported this chapter originally had 200 verses.

Some notes which are not related, but can give you some ideas:Aisha's reports are authentic for Sunni Muslims, but Shia Muslims don't recognize her reports (the word report here is general, and not confined to this case). Also you may like to know that one of the main accusation of Sunnis against shia is that Sunni's claim Shias are rejecting authenticity of Quran.

Are my explanations enough? Is there any dark or unclear point? --Aliwiki (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I know the story but we are missing verifiable sources. BTW I think first we should focus on clearing up the present article matter. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you very much for joining the discussion in this manner....this is exactly the right way to proceed and your participation is most welcome! I agree that we will be more successful by limiting discussions to one topic at a time; this allows us to concentrate on a single question and avoid confusion. In that context, I think that Faizhaider is probably right. I don't want to ignore your concerns though, so let me offer a suggestion: we could work towards including some of this material in a new section of the article, to be titled "Shia views of Aisha" (or similar). Other articles like Ali have similar sections to provide that kind of information so it seems reasonable that this one could too. Sources and proper weight would need further agreement, but at least the material would have a home. Once that section is written and incorporated into the article, then it can be summarized for mention in the lede. Do other editors here think this seems like the right approach or not? Doc Tropics 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User Doc, also I am thankful to you. There references of this matter can be seen [67] (No. 19 to 30), and I avoided to list them here as they are a lot. You misunderstood a point; this has nothing to do with Shia-Sunni. These are reports (Hadith) of Aisha about Quran, and that's why I wrote them in Her respect as scholar and role model section. Any way, I will discuss more tomorrow night, else I will loose my university.--Aliwiki (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm back (after 8 hrs, thats the time I used to sleep, wakeup, eat, & travel to my work). I think Doc's suggestion of inclusion is good option that will avoid any freeze for addition of new matter. Also, I agree with Ali that this matter is specifically nothing to do with Shia view as these reports are found in Sunni sources also, may be there is differenc eof emphasis butimo that does not quntifies this matter to have new section. As this matter is related with her reports about Quran, so imo its more appropriate that it is included in Her respect as scholar and role model section, may be we can have sub-section (like event of honey) may we can name as event of goat eating two verses (just kidding), we can take name from some source (I hope that'll not be copyvio). But before adding new matter to section we will have to clean existing section. Meanwhile new matter to be added can be framed and finalised.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for correcting my mistake about Shia/Sunni differences; I appreciate your help. Doc Tropics 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Abu Bakr and Umar caliphate

She had good relationship with both. Aisha supported her abubakr and Umar caliphatepage 18. Abu Bakr made gift some lands for Aisha from her share of inheritance while he refused to give Fatima's land from her share of inheritance . (previous ref pages 51&362).--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a good reference, here is the exact link to the page [68]. This links basically deals with Aisha's role during all caliphs of her time i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali & Muwaiya. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Something more: Umar specified 10000 dirham pension for each of the Prophet's wife, with the exception of Aisha who was receiving 12000 dirhams.)Excellence and precedence:By Asma Afsaruddin p.48[69],p.156).--Aliwiki (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Uthman caliphate

I wrote something here. For the beginning, what's others opinion?If one doesn't have background, this online source could be helpful:[70]--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• During Ali caliphate

Let's discuss in the section of battle of Bassorah.

• During Muawiyah

here I reported two important occassions. Are they clear?--Aliwiki (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha-Muhammad-Khadija

Aisha was a hater of Khadija and she was not so jealous about Muhammad's affection toward any of his wife as she was of Khadija, who was the first Mslim.A famous comment of Aisha about Khadija: Aisha shouted to Muhammad and said:Why do you always have to be remembering that toothless and Qurayshite with her red mouth? p.42,[71],[72],[73],p.138,[74].--Aliwiki (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha-Muhammad-Maria

Aisha was jealous of Maria because of Maria's beauty and that she bore a son. This jealousy led to two prominent occasions. In the first one Aisha and Hafsa were threatened to be divorced by Quran. The second one is related to Ibrahim, son of Maria, which made Aisha envious as she didin't have any child.[75],p.55,[76],[77]--Aliwiki (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Aisha hate and jealousy twords other Muhammad's wives

Aisha was jealous of Umm Salama's beauty (ref:Mother of the Believers by Kamran Pasha p.289 [78],[79].) She was also hater and jealous of Juwayriya beauty [80]. Story of Aisha-Malica and Aisha-Asma:Aisha was jealous of their beauty. Aisha conspiracy against them led to divorce of both.p.106,[81].--Aliwiki (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Title

Before starting, as some may not be familiar with Islamic history, I would like to mention revelation of each verse of Quran was due to an occasion happened during lifetime of Prophet Muhammad.

The occasion of the verse which gave the title Mother of the believers (33.6) was as follow: After the revelation of the verse of Hijab, Talha, cousin of Aisha who for long time had desire of marriage to Aisha, protested against the restriction in his relationship with Aisha that verse of Hijab made for him, so he said, By God, if Muhammad dies, I will marry Aisha. Then, the verse 33.6 was revealed and the Prophet's wives were entitled Mothers of believers to prohibit them from any marriage after Muhammad's death. (A widow can marry another man after her husband death but marriage of Son-Mother is forbidden in Islam).(ref:[82],The Qur'an: an encyclopedia By Oliver Leaman, p.23 [83],Female stereotypes in religious traditions By Ria Kloppenborg p.93 [84] ).--Aliwiki (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Further Matters

There are some matters about Aisha's life that I don't have source for them now, but I thought it would be a good idea to list them here as it's probable that someone has sources for them.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Aisha used to insult and mock Umm-Salama, as Umm-Salama's height was short. When Umm-Salama was walking her clothes was dragging on groung behind her as she was short and Aisha was saying Umm-Salama's walking is like a dog rolling its tongue. This let to the revealation of the verse 11 of chapter 49.
  • When Aisha heard news of Ali's assassination, she prostrated to thanks God for this good news. Additionally she had a famous poem for this.
  • Aisha accused Maria the Coptic to adultery.
  • Aisha's report about women, in which she compared a woman with a dog and monkey
  • List of gift Aisha received from Abubakr, Umar and Muawiyah
  • That Muhammad compared Aisha and Hafsa with wives of prophets Noah and Lut which was due to the revelation of the verse 10 of chapter 66
  • conspiracy of Aisha and Hafsa against Muhammad which resulted in revelation of the first 5 verses of chapter 66.
  • That Aisha encouraged and supported her father not to give Fatima's share of inheritance upon Muhammad's death.
  • Twice Aisha accused Muhammad not to be a prophet. (Once happened in Muhammad's last pilgrimage)
  • Aisha quarrel with Muhammad about his extreme attention to Ali.
  • Uthman's public cursing of Aisha and Hafsa.
  • That once Umm-Salama brought a bowl of soup for Aisha and Muhammad, but Aisha felt jealous and became angry and broke Umm-Salama's bowl. In 3 other occasions Aisha broke the bowl of food of Zaynab, Safiya, and Hafsa due to her jealousy.
  • Aisha cursed his brother, Muhammad ibn Abubakr, for killing Uthman.
  • That Aisha considered the title mother of the believers is only for the first Muslims generation, and that it's not related to next generations. (When next Muslim generation were calling her, Mother, she was replying:I am not your mother, I am mother of your fathers.)

Draft version at temp page

I'm done with cleanup job of the article. IMO, now we should leave article for two-three weeks and start doing draft work. I have created draft page on Talk:Aisha/temp with present version of the article. I invite all intrested parties to add & improve (& not remove) content on this page we will review the draft version at end of the two-three week time from now and then will finalise it as per WP policies/guidelines/conventions and general consensus. Meanwhile if main article is edited (mailnly if any content is added) & if edit is found valid we will keep it on article updating the draft accordingly (so that we don't miss anything at the end of excercise). All users specially (Ibn kathir, Doc Tropics, Cúchullain, Aliwiki and Humaliwalay) may add as per will. We have lot of matter & references scattered over all this talk page and related articles which can be incorporated per se Good faith, remember we already have a Shi'a view article for Aisha so that section needs not much expansion (we may have Sunni view article also if some editor feels it wanted). Please be rationale & calm while working even on draft (I once more request, no edit war plz content will be revised and edited before being moved to main Article to meet everybody's genuine aspirations). Thnks and happy editing, go hit it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mohammad; According to WP:BEBOLD I am going to start, and hope others to join soon.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your heroic efforts on this article! I will read and comment as soon as possible. Doc Tropics 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks comrades (sorry, if I offended anybody by choice of that word ;) for one more positive step and being constructive party to it. Enjoy editing, slowly I'm going in wiki-hibernation state, hopefully everything will be moreover as it is (if no positive development) while few of us are active in limited or no capacity. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

General related discussions

I don't agree with mentioning shia or sunni differences in the lead, i think it is against what the lead is about [wikki policy] very disruptive to its structure especially if the figure in question had nothing to do with shia or sunni differences in her own life, i.e its not a major issue in her biography.

i don't agree with the whole section as it is little more than politics and revisionism, if the shia and ahmadia would like to discuss their views on her they can start a separate page and link to this one.

Ibn kathir (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. IK! read the discussion, we are not talking about adding it to lede (at least not now) and this has nothing to do with Shia & Sunni or Ahmadia view its a report narrated by ner & recorded by many. We are talking about adding it to another section (may be its subsection). And do you know about indent?

BTW, I just had a look onto the source they seem to be good secondary sources but they have same problem as already existing ones they are not verifiable. There have to be atleast couple of sources which we can verify on web then with these sources (by Ali) & new sources we will have good combination that hopefully will count as RS.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Mr. K, we are trying to "clean up" and improve the body, then will add some new content by agreement on talkpage, and only at the end will anything be added to the introduction. The idea of giving the new material its own section is mostly a matter of organization and totally open for disucssion, but a creating POV fork article just for minority views is discouraged by policy. Remember, Aisha's biography is a single story, the only difference is how other groups view her. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To Doc, as long as this doesn't turn into a shia propaganda article by extension, then we can discuss the article section by section. i wont agree to any sunni sources that are quoted or sourced from shia or shia sources their is a well documented history [going back hundreds of years] of shia misquoting sunni sources and even fabricating them [ see Peshawar-Nights-the-Art-of-Fictional-Narration ]. This along with the fact that they do not follow or adhere to the Islamic sciences therefor distorting the interpretations of Sunni primary sources,fringe or minority views are not just those held by different groups than sunni's, Sunni's have been identifying and categorizing opinions into minority and majority opinions for well over a thousand years so it should also be noted that any Sunni source is a minority or majority view an example is the issue of Aisha's age the higher figures being a minority view among Sunni scholars. Ibn kathir (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your willingness to participate. In articles like this, finding a way to balance opposing views is difficult, requiring extra care and patience. You are correct that identifying and distinguishing between majority views and minority views is an important part. I don't have time to offer a more concrete or useful response right now (it's getting late for me), but didn't want to ignore your comment altogether. Let's simply agree that we can and will continue to discuss the details cordially. Thanks, Doc Tropics 02:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr K, thanks for your valuable comments its great to hear from you once again I was just wondering about your well being.

I got your point, no Shia sources on this article. Shia do not adhere to sunni sciences & methodologies, that is correct because it seems that they have their own well established system. Can you list the sources which you will agree upon? Please don't list a book in you cupboard, we want verifiable resources, which all of us on this page can read & understand i.e. authentic RS. Its time that you contribute something to this page apart from counter-comments & negations. Hope to hear from you soon.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

the article is mostly fine, it needs improvement in language and structure we wont be re-writting it wholesale to represent your views if that is what your are implying the work of previous editors still stands. and i get it books in my cupboard are of no use or importance regardless of the author. Ibn kathir (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I shall be adding some details about Aishah from Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih al Muslim the most authentic books considered after Quraan as per few people. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

it wont be accepted in the article, you may use it to help in an argument but you need secondary or tertiary sources. read... wp:or Ibn kathir (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok Thanks you have made it easy for me then. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr HAW! Please put up any matter for discussion & consensus before adding it to article, we have a section going on for discussions for new matter addition.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To Humaliwalay:Welcome here. We have a section, as you can see above, that we need reference for the mentioned matters. You can help us to find some sources. And if you have new matter which is not listed above, you can add it and we'll try our best to find source for them. Thank you again.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr K, it seems you are not getting the point. The article is already under severe scrutiny and after analysis (refer preceding discussions) it has been found that article is mostly based on non-verifiable resources (and that is not fine) which has led to already sections being tagged and next step will be to remove such matter from the article, which will probably lead to downgrade for this article from B-class to Start-class if not Stub-class. That is the reason I asked for the RS from you because it seems you'll negate all other sources (although it is per se courtesy and non-binding). But it seems that you are unwilling to help the cause and provide us with your authentic RS list. In that case we will be forced to use the resources which are at our disposal. I'm trying to engage you in positive cause but from your comments it seems you are unwilling to do so and are happy being critical to every move (except your's). I once more request you to contribute something to this page apart from counter-comments & negations (a verifiable RS list will be good start). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

no what you are advocating is turning this into a shia propaganda piece since most published works in the west are either shia sourced or heavily rely on on your perspective since anything positive would obviously be sourced from Sunni primary sources and the west at this point in time is not Islam friendly, their are no other third party perspectives or sources on this issue since it is entirely Islamic and you know this very well so essentially what you will be doing is looking for any non shia source that agrees with you and attempting to pass it of as neutral and non biased. Ibn kathir (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't you understand simple English, I'm asking for sources from you which you think are correct but you keep on repeating same set of words and are entirely avoiding giving list of source you agree upon. BTW, I myslef have proposed nothing new to be added recently I just requested for analysis of present content. And if you see the analysis, I have done it in most neutral way possible. As per you all Western sources are unreliable, all Shia sources are unreliable, etc. So can you give us your list of sources (its third time I'm asking you for it) and lets see whether we can use it. Please try to cooperate and avoid being cog in the wheel. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just like how we have a separate criticism section in many articles we should have one here, because we have many negative things about Aisha which are indispensable to be mentioned because since this entire article is about we should have a neutral POV and list everything which is related to her and verifiable then one can claim that this article is almost fine as stated above. So far this article is incomplete. Certain points which can be considered for inclusion are listed below with references :

• “Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Bk. 53, No. 400)
• “Narrated Aisha: Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 71, No. 660)

Aishah's accusations of Mohammad getting effected by hardest kind of magic above contradict the verse of Quraan that “Surely he{Satan} has no authority over those who believe and rely on their Lord; His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who associate others with Him” (Quran, 016:099-100).

• Aisha was very rude especially with the other wives of Mohammad, she was also warned as mentioned in Sahih al Muslim that Prophet said “O Aisha, do not be filthy and extremely rude, for Allah detests the use of harsh and evil words” (Sahih Muslim, vol. 07, p. 05)
• Aisha was so jealous of Prophet's other wives that she decided to hurt the Prophet once she came to know that he ate honey with his another wife Zainab bint Jahsh, that he smelled foul - Al-Bukhari reported Ayesha saying: "Allah's Prophet was eating honey at Zeinab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer". (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.
• Prophet Mohammad himself described Aishah as "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” - The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East). Narrated by Abdullah Hadith number 2894 Book of Sahih al Bukhari Also Narrated The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha's room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan's horn emerges"! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23). - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see a User pointing that all western sources and Shia sources are unreliable and User Faizhaider is asking which source are reliable. The sources which I have mentioned are from Sunni books I hope at least these are reliable. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

My question for the list is just to avoid any dead-lock. I know what ever source is provided by Mr K will have reference to all the matter everybody is discussing (and probabaly Mr K knows this and that the reson till now no list has been provided, after all one can't disagree from the source onself has provided). I was just trying to resolve issue for now but it seems we will be getting nothing from Mr K other than his negative comments. I have already asked three times and thats it any way we can't keep waiting endlessly for the list (In Arab culture there is no fourth time, ;) and Mr K with name of that great Arab scholar in username probably may be aware of that custom, just kidding). So, we can move forward Doc ha salready explained the reference rules in next section. Just to point out we do need to clear/source existing article prior any addition so that we have a fixed atarting point.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More idiotic shia misquotes of sunni sources, why dont you just quote from your own books and stop trying to put words in our mouths you seriously have an inferiority complex if you constantly seek our approval like this. Only an idiot would think our scholars havent been over every single hadith with a fine tooth comb in the last 1400 years and suddenly you have discovered something no one else has. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I get, a :( for showing courtesy and asking a peer editor for opinion and feed-back for consensus.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments where not aimed at you. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't makes much difference. Anyways thanks for your words & opinion. We now know you stand nowhere near consensus and are not interested in any creative dialog. --12:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ibn kathir, comments like that are hardly conducive to a respectful, collaborative environment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Currently several of us are engaged in reviewing the article with the goal of strengthening existing references and adding new ones, or eventually removing content that can't be properly attributed. There has been some confusion and the reliable sources policy is our primary guide in this effort.

Reliability is not determined by general factors like an author's religion denomination or nationality. We do not exclude sources simply because they are "Shia" or "western", instead we examine the credibility of the author and their work, and we consider their reputation among other scholars to determine their reliability. Then, when we write our text we attribute the information to that source: "Sunni scholar X reported Y about so-and-so." Or we may need to balance sources against each other like: "Shia tradition holds that X is true, but most Sunnis believe in Y", with an RS for each claim.

Also, works like the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are primary sources: it's only appropriate to quote from them in limited circumstances, usually to illustrate a point with the original text. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources...what reputable scholars have written about it.

Finally, although everyone would prefer to work with online resources because they are the easiest to confirm, we can use any published source which is deemed reliable, even if it is only available in print. In many cases, the most valuable references are found at the library....

Thanks to everyone for their contributions here, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, for such a good explanation. Hopefully all users will understand it and abide by. My insistence for online resource is to avoid any controversy, you know during my time at WP I have learned that many times people just put a reference tag having something in it (relevant or irrelevant & it is true for online resources also, an example of such instance is there on this article also which I have already pointed out in my section on references above). That doesn't mean that I am anti library book/resources we can deffinetely have them byt its good if we have something online available which confirms offline resource to some degree atleast. Just to avoid any more lengthy discussion, we have already a discussion multifold the length of article and made little headway. I think cleanup drive should be accelerated so that we have base article free from any unreferenced source, then we can start adding but that will be the difficult part as most of us will have to agree (consensus) on what & where to add. Thanks again. :) --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Faizhaider, and for the invitation to take part in the discussion. I can verify the Spellberg book, and will be removing those "verify source" tags. I also read the Turner and Watt books on the subject when I added the cites; I don't have them on me, but unless there's reason to think that I or someone else has misquoted them, I'm removing those tags as well. I must note that online sources are in no way preferable to well received scholarly works such as Spellberg's and Watt's; convenience does not trump reliability.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I have every intention of getting physical copies of several of these reference works after the holidays; it's bound to help. Doc Tropics 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Bassorah

The city is also known as Basra and Al-Basra; Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider and Aliwiki have mentioned that the battle there is an important topic. After reading through some of the material that they provided, I definitely agree. In fact, it seems we might reasonably create a Battle of Basra (656) (there are already 2 other "Battle of Basra" articles with more recent dates). The event is important historically and there is more detail than we could present in this article alone. Perhaps we could write a new article for the battle, based on the references they have provided, then this article could contain a brief summary of Aisha's role in the battle, along with a link to the new article. Any thoughts or suggestions from other editors? Doc Tropics 20:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you believe we already have Battle of Bassorah...I just spelled it wrong when first looking. Wow do I feel dumb. Doc Tropics 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your great helps. Actually the correct spelling is Basra and I don't know what's the source for Bassorah. Writing a new article is a great idea and I can provide the needed references for it.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Among Muslim scholar and general public (atleast in Persian & Indic speaking regions i.e. Iran, Central Asia & South Asia) this battle is commonly reffered toa as, Jang-e-Jamal i.e. Battle of Camel (Jang = Battle, Jamal = Camel); and Bassorah is archaic spelling for Basra. At present we have a page Battle of Camel which redirects to Battle of Bassorah. I don't think we nedd to rewrite the article we just need to expand it and source it properly.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

to Doc, here is the sunni perspective of the battle, its not a scholarly work as it lacks references but essentially this is how the majority of sunnis believe events occured. the work is aimed at the general public hence its common wording. another work here. Ibn kathir (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the same above 2 highlighted Sunni works by User Ibn Kathir says here[85] that Ayesha herself admitted that she was the wretched woman in Hu'ab and would be on the wrong path in the Battle of Basrah of which Prophet Mohammad himself warned her against. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

These are Sunni POV websites & can't be held as RS until supported by academic work. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

look i dont want to sit here and baby sit every shia on the fundamentals of sunni beliefe, just stop quoting from sunni sources and half the issue will go away. Ibn kathir (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are dammed by your own statement, first you yourself highlight Sunni works then you are reluctant to accept the quotations. I hope you need some break. - Humaliwalay (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Mr K wants s/he says,

• Don't use Shia sources, then s/he says
• Don't use Westerns sources, now s/he insists,
• stop quoting from sunni sources

So, practically speaking we are left with no option but to delete all the content of the Article except few lines which don't require reference. ;) Or we should ignore all of her/his advices and move forward with all/any RS per se WP policy. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree now there is automatically a consensus building up that if we cannot quote Western references because they may be biased towards Shia and against Sunnis, OK then we cannot cite Shia sources, then when we proceed with Sunni references that too from those books whom they consider as the most authentic one after Quraan, User Ibn Kathir reflects his/her opinion in negative. The user is not throwing light precisely or is confused a bit as suggested needs a break. - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

how about you just stop doing primary research. Whats the next step stating sunni's amazingly believe the incident occurred the way you say it does becouse you think our primary sources agree with you? Ibn kathir (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't that way rather I provide references from Sunni books and include only those which are mentioned and narrate the incident as it was by the Sunni books. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll like to quote Doc,

“ Reliability is not determined by general factors like an author's religion denomination or nationality. We do not exclude sources simply because they are "Shia" or "western", instead we examine the credibility of the author and their work, and we consider their reputation among other scholars to determine their reliability. Then, when we write our text we attribute the information to that source: "Sunni scholar X reported Y about so-and-so." Or we may need to balance sources against each other like: "Shia tradition holds that X is true, but most Sunnis believe in Y", with an RS for each claim.

Also, works like the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are primary sources: it's only appropriate to quote from them in limited circumstances, usually to illustrate a point with the original text. Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources...what reputable scholars have written about it.

Finally, although everyone would prefer to work with online resources because they are the easiest to confirm, we can use any published source which is deemed reliable, even if it is only available in print. In many cases, the most valuable references are found at the library....

”

I think the above statement serves as baseline for any further reference to be included in the article. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 03:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

lets make things clear i wont agree to shia interpretations of sunni primary sources, i think that can be used as a baseline. Ibn kathir (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who agrees with what, its all based upon reliability and consensus. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

so you agree sahih bukhari is a reliable source since you have been quoting from it all this time. Ill illustrate my point for other editors and demonstrate how narrations can be twisted, explanations made up and manipulated to support an ideology,

User Humaliwalay said: Prophet Mohammad himself described Aishah as "The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan” - The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East). Narrated by Abdullah Hadith number 2894 Book of Sahih al Bukhari Also Narrated The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha's room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan's horn emerges"! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23).

the above misquoted hadith has nothing to do with Aisha, it is part of a well known group of hadith regarding the area in saudi arabia known as Najd the center of which is present day riyadh,

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 336: Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointing to 'Aisha's house (i.e. eastwards), he said thrice, "Affliction (will appear from) here," and, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out (i.e. from the East)."

Volume 4, Book 54, Number 499: Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: I saw Allah's Apostle pointing towards the east saying, "Lo! Afflictions will verily emerge hence; afflictions will verily emerge hence where the (side of the head of) Satan appears."

Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: "O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen." They said: "And in our Najd?" and he said: "O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen." They said: "And in our Najd?" and I believe that he said the third time: "In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan]."’ [bukhari]

a straight line drawn to the east of al-Madina passes some distance to the south of Riyadh [saudi arabia] or the land known as najd. Even the hadith itself clarifies that what was ment was the east and not Aisha's house the person reporting the hadith saw the first thing that obstructed their vision [Aisha's house] but understood what the prophet meant.

Aisha was 18 when the prophet died, she would have been maybe 14 at the time of the incident so essentially he would have been claiming a 14 year old girl was the spearhead of satan, while she was his wife, while he was still married to her, while he was still having relations with her and he lived with her for another 4 years. It is a fact the prophet died in Aisha's house and he is buried their today and any one visiting him will have to visit Aisha's house to see him, such a damning statement would have insured that he would be buried else where if the prophet held such hatred and contempt for his own wife.

It is hypocritical for shia to use a sunni source which they themselves believe to be unreliable and shia do not accept sahih bukhari to be a reliable source of narrations so clearly their are ulterior motives than writing the most accurate account of her life, each one of you should declare sahih bukhari to be an authentic work which you believe in otherwise stop quoting something which you believe is false.

Its even more interesting that you are quoting ahadith by Ibn Umar, why dont you share with other editors what you believe about ibn umar and explain why you think these narrations are accurate in your view.

Ibn kathir (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dammed again, first of all no where did I say that Bukhari is authentic I am just stressing on Consensus based upon Reliability of quotation from Bukhari, Secondly, I was not narrating Ibn Umar rather I narrated from Abdullah that Hadith. Third, stop asking me my belief as done above, I no where mentioned my faith. Please confine you editing within good faith. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

so your quoting a source which you don't believe is reliable, my point exactly. Further i dont know of any other group of people who would label Aisha a "wretched women" so please enlighten me, in either case what you chose to respond to itself says enough.Ibn kathir (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I never added that and just proposed in the discussion whether it can be added if consensus is built. Secondly no group, rather a book called Sahih al Bukhari has labeled Aishah as a wretched woman. Well Its not worth arguing with you instead I shall appreciate opinion of other editors whoch will be much more valuable to pay heed to. - Humaliwalay (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

IK, if you take your point then that'll mean that no Mulsim should quote Bible (becuase its their belief that present day Bible is a corrupted version of original In'jil), no Christian (or any non Muslim) can quote Quran (as in their belif its not an authentic book, per se Muslim claim & that you have already indicated by discrediting western scholarship whic in general is non-muslim) and no Sunni can quote Shi'as (becuase in their view they are not even Muslims & as per some Wahabi fatwas are wajib-ul-qatl). These sort of arguments will lead us nowhere. In cases like this where consensus can't be met (or specifically speaking is being blocked) we need to go to WP policies/guidelines/conventions (which Doc has stated & I have repeated in foregoing comments). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 01:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)