Talk:Muhammad/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Reorganisation of Non Muslim views of Muhammed section, item 19 above.

Hi, I'd like to establish as consensus that the Non Muslim views of Muhammed sections are a mess, please feel free to comment at section 19 above.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Khadija's age

I noticed that some reliable sources avoid stating "40 years old" as fact, but include other accounts as well. A common view is 28 years old at the time of marriage. For example,[1][2]. Should we avoid stating 40 as fact and mention the possibility that she was younger? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 08:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a non-issue. I am not sure why we are indulging in non-issues here, we should go with what most sources state definitively and that is 40 years old or leave the age question alone. I checked your source and it doesn't even say that she was 28 or I am looking at the wrong page? Sheriff | report | 09:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The linked sources say 40 or 28. Some of the primary sources, such as Ibn Saad, mention two accounts (40 or 28). Furthermore, medieval Muslim historians discussed this issue at length, giving a range of 25 to 45, with 40 and 28 more commonly held. Recently, the possibility of her being younger than 40 is preferred by many notable historians, including Montgomery Watt (Muhammad, p.12) and Muhammad Hamidullah, who considered 28 to be more sound. I guess the issue here is why should we ignore this debate and mention 40 as fact? If you mean by "leaving the age question alone" that we should omit her age, then that would be OK too. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Founder of Islam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest this change to the lead because:

1. The prior text is contentious.
2. It's based on just one trivial source by a random author who is not even notable and does not know much about Islam or The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) to have any say about the topic, she also cannot speak on behalf of all non-Muslims.

At the minimum, i would at least like to see a couple more sources describing that "he is considered "Founder of Islam" by almost all non-Muslims." Sheriff (report) 13:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The current text neutrally describes both the Muslim POV and the non-Muslim POV. The text you are proposing portrays the Muslim POV as fact and is obviously not neutral. Providing more sources to back up the 'founder of Islam' claim wouldn't hurt though a single source is still sufficient. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That single source is trivial and from a non-notable author, a one liner in some random author's book should not define the lead of such a significant article.

He is regarded as The Holy Prophet by more than 1 billion people, if other 6 billion consider him "Founder of Islam", i should be able to (at the minimum) see 10 notable non-Muslim authors if not Muslim authors describing him such as, i mean come on just 10 authors out of 6 billion people. Do you take it as a challenge? Sheriff (report) 20:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you consider this statement to be contentious. It strikes me as one of those observations that are too widely accepted to prompt most authors to state it explicitly. For example, all academic history books I've seen start the history of Islam with Muhammad and not with biblical history. It's just how the word Islam is used outside of Islamic doctrine. Since ABC-CLIO is a WP:RS publisher, I don't see the sourcing as problematic unless one can show that the statement is indeed contentious by providing a contradictory WP:RS. We can't use WP:OR to challenge a reliable source. Eperoton (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Armstrong (who I don't think is trivial) is unusual in actually stating that it is a position only of non-Muslims. Reliable secondary sources normally state, without qualification that it is limited to non-muslims, that he is the founder. Therefore, tertiary sources, such as Britannica normally just reflect this and simply state that he is the founder of Islam. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as per Human10.0. We have a good, neutral NPOV text, so the proposal to replace it with a strong POV version is a non-starter. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Support/Wording Change - Not all non-Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as the founder. For example, the 14th century Chinese emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, wrote in his [[3]] in regards to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "Since the creation of the universe God had already appointed his great faith-preaching man." Since it is not the view of all non-Muslims, the statement can't refer to all non-Muslims as having this view. Similarly, Annie Besant, states "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." in [4], which sees Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a "one of the great messengers". Xtremedood (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither author brings up any instance of a group, even on the small scale of believing what they said. Those are essentially personal opinions of the author's and would make the wording change to almost universally instead of a definitive statement. Definitive statements aren't the best anyways so I would support that change, but most people talk in books about Christianity and Judaism explicitly rejecting him as a prophet. Most non abrahamic faiths give even less thought as they view all the religious figures from abrahamic faiths as regular people. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. By saying that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ "is seen by non-believers as its founder" you are saying that all non-Muslims believe this, which is not the case. You can't simply make definitive statements on the beliefs on all 5 billion+ non-Muslims in the world. Xtremedood (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my statement as I explicitly stated I wanted to stay away from the absolute statement. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While we discuss the complete removal of "Founder of Islam" reference, i suggest that we should at least immediately change the wording from "almost all non-believers" to "some non-believers" as it is clear that "almost all" is not a fact in this matter. Sheriff | report | 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous. To base "some non-believers" on two obscure quotes isn't going to fly. Reliable sources consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. Almost all those who have a belief in Islam, as part of that belief, don't consider him the founder. That's what the opening should reflect - and it does. No change necessary. DeCausa (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The criterion for change should be similar to the counterpart statement that follows. There are sources for the alternative views among Muslims, so the statement is qualified. So far, I have not seen a source about non-Muslims who don't view Muhammad as the founder of Islam. There are obviously non-Muslims who admire him, but that's not the subject of this discussion. In fact, it's not about the figure of Muhammad, but rather about usage of the word Islam. The sources needed to modify the statement would show non-Muslims consistently using the term Islam to refer to some general form of the Abrahamic tradition, e.g. by identifying Abraham as a Muslim. Eperoton (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: in fact, how about following the example of the article on Jesus, and using the wording "Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, seen by almost all Muslims..." The observation that non-believers regard him as the founder of Islam doesn't provide encyclopedic value. Then we wouldn't have to split hairs about the meaning of "founder" and "Islam". It would also avoid placing the words "Prophet of Islam" at the outset, which seems like an odd opening for a history text. Eperoton (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he ﷺ is not just the "central figure of Islam", he ﷺ is a lot more than that to Muslims. Sheriff | report | 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "central figure" works better than "founder". Xtremedood (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bahai views

A user has added a section on Muhammad in Bahai, it seems well-sourced and in line with, for example, the sections on Jesus in Islam and Jesus in Bahai faith in the article on Jesus. As Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai faith, it's hard to understand how it would be undue. As no valid reason has been given for its removal (apart from harassing the user who added it) I'm restoring the section. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the section's too long currently, and needs to be cut down to say a couple of paragraphs. As it stands it's the longest section of the non-Muslim views, and looks to almost equal the length of the Muslim section. Having less than 5m adherents makes that WP:UNDUE I think. DeCausa (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to take both perspectives into account, that Prophet Muhammad is a major prophet in the Bahai Faith and that on the other hand, the Faith is small. So a middle ground between the current and the previous version is appropriate. I propose to keep the first paragraph and part of the third paragraph, both of which seem to be introductory. As for the rest, a new page should be created:

Bahá'ís believe in Muhammad as a prophet of Allah, and in the Qur’an as the word of Allah. They venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Baha'i faith. Nevertheless, Muhammad is taken to be one of the most important messengers of Allah not least because the Bab, a central figure in the Baha'i faith, is believed to have been both a descendant of Muhammad through Imam Husayn, and to have been someone whose coming was foretold by Muhammad. Abdu'l-Bahá, the son and successor of Baha'u'llah, wrote that 'His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning His Holiness the Bab and the Bab was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the tidings of His coming.’ In the Baha’i faith Muhammad is regarded as one of the class of 'independent Prophets' – that is, those prophets 'who are followed' and who 'establish a new religion and make new creatures of men'. They also 'change the general morals, promote new customs and rules, [and] renew the cycle and the law.' Along with Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are classed among the ‘independent Prophets’. The Baha'i faith teaches the unity and the oneness of all the prophets of Allah. As such, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are believed to have proclaimed the same message at different times. It is only due to the 'difference in their station and mission' that their 'words and utterances' ever 'appear to diverge and differ.'

Thanks.--Peaceworld 18:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This ties in with the discussion whose pointer is given in the immediately preceding talk section. The whole non-Muslim views section is a mess. For the Bahai addition, I think the added text should be put into its own article and summarized here. I'm not sure if post-medieval Western views about Muhammad which aren't "criticism" merit their own article at this point, but they should be labeled as such, if only to avoid implying that Voltaire was a Christian. The last paragraph is a yet different topic because it summarizes (relatively) current scholarly views. I'm adding some subsection titles to reflect this. Eperoton (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith mentions the name only twice compared to 88 in Islam– by this measure, any addition will be undue here. That information should first go into Bahá'í Faith or a fork, and only summarised here as pointed above. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peaceworld111, Eperoton and Fauzan that the Baha'i section should go into its own spinoff article, leaving a summary + hatnote on this page. It is well-sourced and is almost as big as the separate Judaism's views on Muhammad article. The Muhammad article is already a whopping 162 kb and if it is possible to spin out some parts, then yes please! - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As we see that no other changes are being allowed in the page without consensus then why this long piece of text was added without consensus? Sheriff (report) 15:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion above, I'm creating a new article with the text added by User:Peaceworld111 Eperoton (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Semi protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Add Category:Self-declared messiahs.

He is, after all, a self-declared vehicle of salvation142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a source for that? As far as I know, he didn't declare himself a messiah. Others who followed him considered him a prophet. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.--Religions Explorer (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, where is the evidence? Just because an anonymous IP address says something, doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, any person with knowledge of the basic tenets of Islam knows that the Prophet Muhammad is considered in Islam to be the "Redeemer". The Quran says about Muhammad: "and We haven't sent you expect as a Mercy to the worlds." And the Prophet Muhammad says about himself: "I am the lord of the children of Adam, and this is no boast. I will be the first one for whom the earth will be split open on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast. I will be the first to intercede and the first whose intercession will be accepted, and this is no boast. The banner of praise will be in my hand on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast." There are actually a lot of Quranic verses and Ahadeeth affirming this fundemental belief in the Islamic theology. You can find many of them in the Arabic Wikipedia's article about the Prophet Muhammad.--Explorer999 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Any claims made in the article have to be supported by citations of reliable sources. Please consult the policies WP:RS and WP:OR for details. I doubt that you'll find a RS stating that Muhammad declared himself to be a messiah because that Judeo-Christian notion was not taken up directly by early Islamic theology, as is illustrated by the uncertainty regarding the meaning of the Arabic equivalent masih in early Islamic writings. The closest Islamic equivalent is the Mahdi. Eperoton (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken here. The concept that "Muhammad is sent by God to the worlds as the long awaited Savior" is essential and fundamental in the Islamic theology. I just quoted a Quranic verse in order to make it clear that this belief is fundemental and I am pretty sure that I can find plenty of secondary sources for it. Read, for example, this book: The Prophet Promised. By Ali Ünal.--Explorer999 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP policy, you need to supply a reliable non-primary source which explicitly says that Muhammad declared himself to be a messiah (not just some other words that you are interpreting to that effect), with a page citation or quote. If it's not in English, it should be accompanied by an English translation of the supporting passage. Please consult the relevant policies: WP:RS, WP:OR (in particular WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY), and WP:NONENG. Eperoton (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying that Muhammad declared himself to be the "long awaited Savior" or what?--Explorer999 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain what you need to do in order to make an edit compliant with WP policies. If you don't try to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and follow them, this discussion is not going to make any headway. Eperoton (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I have read these policies and I am good with them. Have you read my question?--Explorer999 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is an additional secondary source: Muhammad: An Evolution of God. By Omar Mahmoud.--Explorer999 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer your question because it's not relevant to the discussion. I've done my best to explain what needs to be done if you'd like to get consensus for your proposed edit and now I will bow out of this exchange pending further developments in that direction. Eperoton (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for sources is the right step, but a book published by a vanity press is not a RS and note that the statement needing support is that Muhammad declared himself to be a messiah. Eperoton (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "messiah" means "One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator." as per this reliable dictionary, Are you denying that "Muhammad declared himself to the long awaited savior or liberator of mankind"?--Explorer999 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Denial doesn't enter into the picture. I'm waiting for sourcing. Messiah is a technical religious term and should be sourced as "messiah". It is also used figuratively in various senses (e.g., Merriam-Webster gives "a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause"), but figurative usage shouldn't be confused with theological terminology. Eperoton (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What does your phrase "denial doesn't enter into the picture" mean? I am not a native speaker of English, so I couldn't understand what excatly you mean! Are you denying that "Muhammad declared himself to be the long awaited savior or liberator of mankind" or not?--Explorer999 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want to answer that question, then you may want to answer this question: "are you denying that Muhammad declared himself to the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies?"--Explorer999 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You may also like to watch this lecture in which Ahmad Deedat argues that Isaiah 7:14, which is one of the most famous messianic prophecies Christians claim it was fulfilled by Jesus, was fulfilled by Muhammad.--Explorer999 (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It means that his opinion about what Muhammad said about himself, your opinion, or mine, are irrelevant. He neither denies nor agrees, therefore the question need not be answered, because this is not a forum. All that matters is what independent reliable sources say, and none have been forthcoming in this conversation. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While the Prophet Muhammad didn't address himself with the word "messiah" itself, he did indeed declared himself to be the "fulfillment of the messianic prophecies", and "the redeemer of the faithful". That is why I was asking him these two questions.--Explorer999 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a reliable source written (in Arabic) by an an academic scholar (reputable in the Arabic world) "doctor in comparative religion": هل بشر الكتاب المقدس بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم. By Munqidh as-Saqqar. Here is an article about the author of the book on the Arabic Wikipedia: ar:منقذ السقار--Explorer999 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad declared himself to be the "fulfillment of the messianic prophecies"? I wasn't aware that phrase even existed in classical Arabic. Please provide a RS for that, and sourcing doesn't mean giving just a book title, but rather a specific page and upon request (please) a quote. Eperoton (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the book of Dr. Munqidh as-Saqqar (a reliable academic Doctor in comparative religion) here. The whole book is actually a source for this topic, but I will give you some quotations from inside the book. In page 5 he writes: "Jews and Christians acknowledge the existence of these prophecies and affirm that they indicate the coming of "the final prophet" or "the great prophet"; however, they still insist that he is a man who is a descendant from the children of Israel. The Christians claim that he is Jesus son of Mary, while The Jews are still expecting him. We aim here to prove that he, the expected prophet, is Muhammad and not any of the previous prophets peace be them all." In page 7, he writes: "In this research, we will name the coming prophet as "the expected prophet", or the expected messiah, following the celebrated studies of Dr. Ahmad Hejazy al-Saqqa, who has amazingly researched this subject, and because the term used by the Jews to indicate the promised prophet." In page 9, he writes: "The holy Scriptures call the coming prophet by many names, such as the King or the Prophet, the Mesia, and the Messiah, which means the "Savior", all these names are titles given to the coming prophet, and they also give a description of this great prophet. However, the title "the Messiah" is the most famous title, and that is because of the importance of the title for the Jews." Then in the rest of his book, the author comes accross the messianic prophecies one by one and exlplains why they were all fulfilled by Muhammad whom he considers to be that expected messiah and not by Jesus or anyone else. There is a specific chapter titled "Did Jesus claim that he is the expected Messiah" in page 27. The author closes that chapter with the conclusion note that Jesus never claimed to be the expected messiah and that he doesn't even fit these prophecies. This chapter is followed by another chapter titled "Did Muhammad call himself the expected prophet". In this chapter, the author shows that Muhammad, unlike Jesus, declared himself to be that expected prophet and fulfilled the messianic prophecies. He says in the beginning of this chapter: " We have seen that Jesus didn't claim that he was the expected prophet. Did Muhammad inform us that he was the promised prophet as the previous prophets stated? The prophecies of the coming of Muhammad, which we find in the books of the prophets, are one of many important issues emphasized by the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad. The Quran mentions that every prophet reminded his people about the coming prophet. These prophets had vowed that when Muhammad comes, they would all believe in him: And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when God took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [God] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." (Quran 3:81)." You may continue reading this chapter and the whole book from the link I gave to you. The author discusses the messianic prophecies one by one, citing the Quran and the hadiths, and proving that they were all fulfilled by Muhammad (not a single one was fulfilled by Jesus) --Explorer999 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As you're new, you may not be aware of WP:NOTAFORUM, but I recommend reading it. The question posed here was whether Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, and in response we get a long argument of Muslim apologetics. Don't get me wrong, there are topics where a PhD holding Muslim apologetic could be a reliable source, so I'm not objecting to the source as such, but I find the thinly veiled excuse for preaching a clear WP:NOTAFORUM violation as most of it is beside the topic and nothing of it addressed whether Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. Jeppiz (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Do us a favor and stay away from topics you aren't familiar with. Till now, you are the one violating WP:NOTFORUM. I provided sources and quotations. You provided your personal opinions.--Explorer999 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Listen, you do not need to like other users, but you do need to respect them. You're repeatedly telling users who disagree with you to stay away. You have absolutely no right to do so (see WP:OWN). You're just back from a block for your disruptive behavior, and you're already back to behaving badly. Wikipedia is for everybody, you have absolutely no right to tell other users to stay away or to behave disrespectfully towards others. As for the actual topic, every user in this discussion has told you very clearly that you need to present sources saying that Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, not sources you chose to interpret as Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: waiting your response to the quotations I provided for you from the sourcebook above.--Explorer999 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Religions Explorer: As Jeppiz has noted, your quotations skipped over the part about "declaring himself". More generally, books on theology (some of them anyway) would be considered RSs for the article Muhammad in Islam. However, this article is about the historical Muhammad and RSs for it are writings by mainstream academic historians. One immediately sees from your summary of the book that the author is not a mainstream historian, and this is confirmed by the Arabic WP which identifies him as an Islamic "evangelist" (داعية). On the other hand, as 142.105.159.60 points out above, the definition of the category is so vague as to include even figures unconnected with the Abrahamic tradition (which seems odd, but I'll let others worry about that). You may in fact be able to find RSs whose phrasing is close enough to that definition to convince other editors here, but that still remains to be accomplished. Eperoton (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 January 2016

Admins, please restore the following diff, which conforms to wiki guideline for News Organizations i.e. attributing their opinions to the author (in this case the BBC itself, as no author is listed) and not as a statement of fact. User who reverted this edit did not discuss reasoning on the talk page before reverting.

• 22:14, January 29, 2016

The change made in the diff above:

• From: " Muhammad owned, sold and freed other slaves as well, illustrating that freeing slaves was a virtuous act."
• To: "According to a BBC summary: "the Prophet Muhammad did not try to abolish slavery, and bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves himself. But he insisted that slave owners treat their slaves well and stressed the virtue of freeing slaves. Muhammad treated slaves as human beings and clearly held some in the highest esteem.""

References

cӨde1+6^TP 16:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC) "

 Done, seems reasonable--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir, much appreciated. cӨde1+6^TP 16:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if we could have arrived at this point previously, it would have been a favorable/successful outcome for everyone. IMHO in cans remain like this for the final form. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I would like Peace Be Upon Him (or PBUH if you must) to be stated after every time you type the Prophet's name. I, personally, am not a Muslim but I know that their religion grants Muhammad (PBUH) a lot of respect and that most Muslims prefer Peace Be Upon Him to come after the Prophet's name. Also, it doesn't take much effort to put (PBUH) after his name and shows that you respect even the further reaches of a religion's requests.

Thank you, EV HRPWD

EV HRPWD (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed repeatedly and the consensus is against it. See WP:PBUH. HighInBC 16:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2016

58.65.179.161 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC) sir please also include prediction in Sura al-Rum regarding the battle of rumin and iranin defeat in fiew year

regards

muhammad arif58.65.179.161 (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Christian censorship of Wikipedia in general and of this article in particular

• What I want: To establish autonomy of wikiproject Islam and wikiproject Muhammad and to create "Muslim arbitration committee" consisted of Muslim individuals in particular to manage the articles related to these two projects.
• Rationale: Seriously! What are the Christian trolls doing in the Muhammad article?!! Censoring it?!! Have you ever seen Muslims censoring the Jesus article?!! No!! Then what are they doing here?!?! We want to counter this Christian systemic bias of the English Wikipedia and to remove this Christian censorship of this article in particular and of the Islam-related content in general. While Christians and atheists dominate both the administration noticeboard and the arbitration committee, we Muslims consider ourselves unrepresented at all in the English Wikipedia. Muslim editors here are receiving unjust treatment from the Christian-atheist majority and the Islam-related content is heavily censored by them. We want this to finish. See Millet (Ottoman Empire). Christians in the Muslim communities have always enjoyed religious autonomy. Why don't we demand the same from them?!.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you have any specific complaints that can be addressed in the article? Tivanir2 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have a lot of complaints about the article. I actually expect that the whole article will be rewritten once the "Muslim arbitration committee" is established.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Without additional information it is hard to see if RS support or reject any specific claim. Tivanir2 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Both the software and the content are freely-licensed. There's nothing stopping you from copying some or all of the data and using it as a starting point for your own, Muslim-centric encyclopedia.—Chowbok ☠ 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly you log in from your account then comment. There is already autonomy for editors on Wikipedia. Common editors, common people run and edit Wikipedia. It is not run by any institution or government. Even Jimbo Wales can't do any unsourced POV edit even if he wish, he will get reverted. So don't blame anyone here. Any policy based edit stays on Wikipedia. Moreover, if so called "Muslim Arbitration Committee" is established, then some Shias will complain that "it is dominated by Sunnis and there is systemic sunni bias in Muslim articles, and we Shias and Ahmadis need separate Arbitration committee for our articles.." And this will go on.--Human3015 ^{It will rain}  18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A "Muslim Wikipedia" - someone should do one as a parody, it would be fun to read. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I want a "Muslim Wikipedia". I said I want a "Muslim arbitration committee" to manage ONLY the Islam-related content on the English Wikipedia. You can consider this an effort to counter the Christian-atheist censorship of the Islam-related content here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force was established as an effort to counter the gender systemic bias although its effectiveness in doing so is obviously null. I think that establishing a "Muslim arbitration committee" only (and I emphasize "only") to manage the Islam-related content could bring better results in countering the more serious systemic bias against Muslims.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am for people trying things I can almost guarantee that a religious based arbitration committee will not fly. Tivanir2 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to give specific complains, such as "please change X for Y reason." Just saying "I have a lot of complaints" is totally useless because it doesn't tell us anything.

You have provided no evidence of bias on this site either by Christians or against Muslims, which would be resolved simply enough by admins strictly applying WP:NPOV and bringing in as many mainstream academic sources as possible. After that, any accusations of bias would need to be directed at mainstream academia, not us. Oh, wait, that's already the case, as can easily be seen by looking at the article's sources. If your problem is with mainstream academia, that's something we're not going to help you with.

The comparison to the Gender gap task force is fruitless, because that was addressing a demonstrated problem with this site that could not be readily fixed through stricter application of any policy or guideline. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. This has to be the most ridiculous proposal I've yet encountered (and I say this as a Muslim.) cӨde1+6^TP 13:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

|}

The spelling of his name

At the beginning of the article his name is spelled "Mu ammad" (with a space), but for the rest of the article it's spelled "Muhammad" (without the space).  What is the reason for this discrepancy?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is spelled "Muḥammad", with a dot below the "h" which looks like "ḥ". Your browser might not be rendering "ḥ" properly. Do you get the same problem if you use a different browser? Is your browser up to date? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 10:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fauzan.  I looked at the article using another computer, and you are quite correct; what looks like a blank space on my computer actually is an "h" with a dot below it.  But the broader question still remains: why is his name spelled one way at the beginning of the article and a different way throughout the rest of the article?
Richard27182 (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Richard27182: allow me to answer for Fauzan. In Arabic, there are two types of "h" (ح, ھ), which are pronounced a bit differently. Transliteration rules dictate that one is romanised as "h" and the other as "ḥ" (h with a dot). If you want to spell it correctly, you should apply this distinction, BUT since computers still do not always support the extended unicode alphabet (and because editors are either unaware of or too "lazy" to insert the modified letters), it was decided at WP:MOSAR to give the strict transliteration once and use a simplified transliteration in the rest of the text. - HyperGaruda (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

[inserted 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)]

Hi HyperGaruda.  Thank you for your reply.  It explained things very clearly, and completely answered my question.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

While some editors may be unaware or "lazy", others may be unaware of how to enter unicode alphabet characters. For those who don't know, it's Unicode 1e25. Entry varies by operating system.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion to all users

@Eperoton: @Trinacrialucente: @SheriffIsInTown: @FreeatlastChitchat: @Amatulic: @NeilN: @Tivanir2: @DeCausa: @Xtremedood: @Human10.0: @Wiqi55: @Code16: @Peaceworld111: @GregKaye: @NebY: @UberCryxic: @92slim: @Khestwol:@Human3015: @Tiptoethrutheminefield: @Richard27182: @Fauzan: @Hunc: @CounterTime: @Wzrd1: @HighInBC: @Quinto Simmaco: @Ian.thomson:I've pinged all registered active users whom I've seen have commented at least twice in the last months, nothing else is implied by the ping. My apologies for any mistake in pinging The full protection rightly put in place by Ymblanter has expired, semi-protection remains. Yesterday, I discussed with EdJohnston about this page. My view is that there are no vandals here, all users genuinely believe that their edits are improvements. I respect that. I also think that there are no easy identifications of one group who is "right" and one who is "wrong". Perhaps in individual questions, but not in general. The problems at this page is neither due to one set of users being right or wrong, even less due to one set being 'vandals'. Still, some users (and I'm not out to blame anyone) tend to combine discussing with editing while discussion is ongoing, to the point of (repeatedly) ignoring WP:BRD, or believing that a reached consensus only last a week, and then it can either be ignored or should be discussed again. And others see it and react, and the whole thing spin away again. I personally think a general 1RR and perhaps coupled with a block on those with less than 500, as on the Israel-Palestine conflict would be a good idea. For my own part, I will voluntarily follow a 1RR policy on this article throughout February (while supporting making it an official policy for all). I realize the topic of Muhammad engages many users, but my feeling is that the more a topic engages users, the less should it be edited without consensus. Again, this applies to all users, obviously myself as well. Last but not least: the 1RR/500/30 suggestion concerns editing the article. For this talk page, I think a strong enforcement of comment on content, not on editors would be helpful. Speculation on the motives of other users is not helpful. Use of sarcasm, LOLs, or calling others' arguments (or persons) funny or hilarious or ridiculous or uninformed is not helpful either, adds nothing to the factual discussion but increases tensions. The last thing this talk page need in additional tension. Once again, I don't aim these suggestions at anyone, I don't think anyone is here for the wrong reasons, and my suggestions would of course apply equally much to all users. Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think they are good suggestions. However, we both know we cannot assume WP:GOODFAITH based on the the blatant lies which have occurred just on this talk page alone. So, unfortunately, I'm not optimistic.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH is a fundamental wiki-pillar. 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

My involvement on this page has been administrative in nature. I keep a half an eye on this page and I do expect a higher than normal level of civility in such a heated topic. This includes not casting aspersions without evidence, and keeping behavioural discussion separate from this talk page. I cannot agree more than comment on the topic and not the contributor is the way to go.

If somebody is not acting in good faith then it should be discussed on their talk page, brought to a concerned administrator such as myself, or brought to a noticeboard. However this talk page is not the place to discuss who is acting in good faith, or who is lying. Please keep things on topic here. HighInBC 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My involvement (which hasn't been particularly administrative) has mostly been countering smaller and clear-cut cases of drive-by POV-pushers, and not much over content disputes with more dedicated editors. In fact, I've not really been paying much attention to any recent conflicts. While the 500 edit requirement would eliminate most of the stuff I deal with here, I'm not sure how applicable it is to this situation and I think it requires arbcom backing at any rate. If there is a consensus that 1rr should be enforced on this article, then I'll try to help carry it out. If there is no consensus for it, I will not enforce it on those who nobly volunteer for it (because that kind of self-control and awareness is a net benefit to the project). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree (on the basics) I will adhere to 1PR after I come back to editing. However I reserve the right to lol lols should be allowed, and lmfaos too, its the pesky omgs that are the problem. On a serious note, this is not a nursery so we should be allowed to say "Dude! this is a ridiculous comment. How do you expect us to do this?" which implies that what you just said is ridiculous, we expected better from someone like you. This is entirely different from saying "Dude! you are ridiculous", which implies that everything that this person says is stupid. So please do not censor critique of comments, but WP:NPA should be followed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support part about 1RR and requiring registered accounts at least 30 days old
  Vehemently oppose requiring at least 500 edits.
  Counting edits is a terrible way of evaluating an editor's experience.  I realize there is precedent for it (I've followed the link to the ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement thing), but I think it would be a bad precedent to follow.  An editor can easily rack up hundreds of edits just playing around in their sandbox, and in the process learn little if anything about the ways of Wikipedia.  On the other hand there are editors (like me) who rarely save anything to their sandbox, and who only hit the "Save page" button when they have a complete finalized piece of material to contribute to an article or post on a talk page.  To require a minimum of 500 edits will undoubtedly exclude good editors who have legitimate contributions to make, unfairly punishing them simply for not habitually hitting the "Save page" button at the drop of a hat.
  Richard27182 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The impression I've been given (granted, only glancing over, someone please let me know if I'm wrong) is that the recent conflicts aren't a result of an influx of new WP:SPAs and/or (meat/sock)-puppets. That was a serious problem with the Arab-Israeli arbcom deal. There are a few new-ish users, and I see that some users believe that those users are not familiar with policy. There are also drive-by users who do cause problems here, but those are unrelated and perennial. I could be wrong, but I'd like to see some WP:SPI cases filed first. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - the 500 edits and 30 day account rules hinder effective dialogue in matters pertaining to the article as well as hinders development of the article. Xtremedood (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What about 1rr to maintain article stability while discussion goes on? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

500/30 does not apply to talk pages, is that what you are assuming? 500/30 will force (newer) editors to give proper justification along the lines of policies to push an edit through, and avoid the current chaos where a large number of editors just revert back and forth. That will lead to a proper discussion. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, new editors take time to learn and may have something valuable to add. The 500/30 rule is not justified in this case. Xtremedood (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am fine however for the 1RR on ongoing discussions only. Xtremedood (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support on 1RR, oppose on 500/30 because it doesn't seem to be addressing a major problem here. Eperoton (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• I was the one who asked for full protection of article and I strongly support 1RR restriction for this page for indefinite time. And also with strong heart I support 500 edits/30 days limit. When article gets restricted to 1RR then many POV pusher editors create another accounts which gets autoconfirmed in 4 days and they start using that account for making reverts. I had such experiences in past on other pages. They also use meat puppets. I think 1RR rule should be surely applied on this article permanently and we can make 500/30 rule as an experiment for 1 month. Or we can decrease limit to 250/15. --Human3015 ^TALK  08:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping: @Human3015:  If your main concern about implementing 1RR is editors evading it by using sock/meat puppetry, why not just restrict editing to accounts at least 30 days old, without the 500+ edit requirement?  During my first two months of editing I only accumulated about 300 edits.  And that included contributing to nearly 20 articles, and even initiating a DRN resulting in an RfC which I participated in and eventually "won."  Five hundred edits is too much to expect of an account two months old, let alone one month old.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Question.  I realize that this is slightly off topic and I apologize for that, but the ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement active arbitration remedies referred to in the first posting in this section seems unclear to me.  Part of it refers to "articles" subject to arbitration remedies, while another part refers to a prohibition on editing "page[s]."  Did it prohibit certain editors from editing just certain articles, or did it also apply to those articles' talk pages as well?
  Richard27182 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support, I think that's a great suggestion, which would solve many problems encountered recently. 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

• Support. Do we really want to go from 500/30 to 5000/300? We need sane discussion, consensus that abides by Wikipedia policies, all dedicated to improving the article. We don't need our egos or religious views to interfere with that goal. If one tells another that their view is ridiculous or "LOL" at it, you've summarily dismissed a peer and consensus becomes impossible.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

AE request filed

Thank you for all your comments and the support from most of you. Based on the comments here and my discussion with Eperoton, I filed a request at AE. Based on the convincing arguments of Richard27182 against 500 edits and of Human3015 to keep the 30 days to avoid socking to get around 1RR, my request at AE is for 1RR and 30 days seniority to edit, but nothing about 500 edits. If you want to read and/or comment, you can find the AE proposal here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Medieval Christian views: Necessary?

As we seem to be in a state where potentially substantive changes (hopefully towards accuracy are taking place, I have to wonder at the relevance of having an entire subsection dedicated to the "medieval Christian views" of Muhammad. That is of course a standalone article itself and a subject on which there is a lot of material to discuss...just not here. For this article, it seems as though there are really two points to discuss; the Muslim view and the non-Muslim view of Muhammad. We could create subsections for the "Medieval Christian View" the "Post-colonial Hindu view" The "Ummayad-era Buddhist view" etc...just would be very redundant and not really on-topic. Since the last couple of edits on this subject have been to shorten the entries, is there anyone here who thinks the article might benefit from taking it out entirely and possibly simply mentioning it with the appropriate link to its own article?Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained substantive changes to the lead by Religions Explorer

Three times now, User:Religions Explorer has made substantive changes to parts of the lead that have been the focus of much past discussion, without any edit summary explanation, and without any talk page explanation. Changes include, among other things, removal of the long-standing consensus based description of Muhammad being regarded as the "founder" of Islam (removed along with the cited source) and introducing a non-neutral term "Seal of the Prophets".

I see no consensus on this talk page for these changes. I will remind Religions Explorer of WP:BURDEN, which hasn't been met. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić. Given the extensive edit warring and personal attacks that Religions Explorer continues to engage in, I recommend no more time is wasted on this disruptive SPA and that any further policy violation be reported to ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the contested wording, but the new form of the first two sentences is simply bad English. Eperoton (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest version seems to have lost some of the work done before Religions Explorer edited it. As Eporoton points out, it's bad English, opening the second sentence with a dangling modifier. Also, the bald and unqualified "widely regarded" has connotations of "regarded by all except maybe a fringe minority" or of a matter of taste (Wikipedia examples here), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. I'll restore the opening to its state as of 04:21 UTC, 9 January 2016, before Religion Explorer's first edit. NebY (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version which I think is neutral. I have made some minor changes to grammar and asked for page protection. Perhaps you guys will be kind enough to discuss the changes going on instead of just implementing them. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad selling slaves

For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point:

Mohammed selling slaves is located here: http://sunnah.com/nasai/21

a man freed six slaves of his when he was dying, and he did not have any wealth apart from them. News of that reached the Prophet and he was angry about that. He said: "I was thinking of not offering the funeral prapyer for him." Then he called the slaves and divided them into three groups. He cast lost among them, then freed two and left four as slaves.

Grade : Sahih (Darussalam) Reference  : Sunan an-Nasa'i 1958 In-book reference  : Book 21, Hadith 142 English translation  : Vol. 3, Book 21, Hadith 1960 Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Highly laughable. Perhaps you do not understand English? Just where is it written that he sold slaves? You do know what the meaning of selling slaves is? right? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit. Dividing the slaves up and casting lots to see who gets them is the same as selling/barter. They are a commodity in this example. Selling does not mean money changes hands, especially when you don't live in a cash economy. Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok where does it say that he "bartered them"? Casting lots to see who gets the slaves is 'NOT SELLING them or bartering them'. use a dictionary. Is this the only evidence you have? You are just abusing primary sources, nothing else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. From SAHIH Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 351: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/034-sbt.php#003.034.351

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:

A man decided that a slave of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money, so the Prophet took the slave and said, "Who will buy this slave from me?" Nu'aim bin 'Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the Prophet gave him the slave.

You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, Abuse of Primary sources. You need to provide a Reliable secondary source. And stop your ad hom comments, or I will say soemthing harsh and you will feel sad. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth. But here's another from SAHIH Bukhari: http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/046-sbt.php#003.046.711

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 711:

   Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

   A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.

really not sure how much clearer this needs to be.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

'Again, Abuse of Primary sources. You need to provide a Reliable secondary source. And stop your ad hom comments, or I will say something harsh and you will feel sad.'FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Aisha "reaching age of puberty"

@Eperoton: you recently undid my edits claiming WP:OR. There is no Original Research there. NONE of the citations mention the word "puberty" or that Aisha menstruated. The ahadeeth say the opposite: that she was playing with dolls, which meant she was pre-pubescent. If you or anyone can find a contemporary citation or a passage that mentions Aisha reached puberty as stated in the article, then it should stay. But if you can't, then we need to delete the word.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How does playing with dolls confirm that someone is pre-pubescent? Sheriff (report) 14:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Your edit description suggested that it was based on your interpretation of primary sources, which runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY and falls under WP:OR. There are five non-primary sources cited for this statement. I haven't checked them myself, but, according to my understanding of the policies, removing the phrase would require either verifying that the non-primary sources don't support it or disqualifying them as WP:RS. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Then are we to take it you simply reverted out of principle and not out of knowledge of the facts? Let me clarify; the relevant sources (namely the ahadeeth in source 232 and the Encyclopedia of Islam WILL corroborate that Aisha was 9 or 10. I am familiar with both sources (and they are easily verifiable since the online links are added as well). What they do NOT say ANYWHERE is that she reached puberty. Not once. Once again: they DO support her being 9 or 10, but do NOT support the word puberty ANYWHERE.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente:there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty. Would you like em to link them or will chapter numbers and tradition numbers suffice? Be kind enough to reply as looking up these hadith on the net might be kinda hassle-ish and take me a couple of hours, however if you have the primary sources with you I can just give you the chapter and "hadith" number. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

you don't have to cite a huncred ahadeeth (FYI...hadith is singular, ahadeeth is plural) just one that has the word "puberty" in it will do. I use http://sunnah.com/ Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: According to Tabqat ibn-e-saad volume 8 Page 54, she was born during the fourth year of "prophethood" and according to Zurqani volume one page 374, volume 3 page 230; Allamah aini Sharah bukhari volume one Page 45 and Alkhamis Volume one Page 403 (who quotes Muwahim ludniyyah, Tarikh Yafee and Usud-Al-Ghabah), the marriage was consummated at the end of fourth year of Hijra and according to these sources she was 12 at that time. Now it up to you to show me where in the entire world it is the norm that 12 year old girls DO NOT reach puberty. Perhaps a quick look at the Puberty article will let you cool your jets. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No...her age is not in dispute. I will not play that game with you since I already stated that clearly above. You said there are "like a hundred of "hadith" (sp) that say she reached puberty". I'm waiting for ONE. Not her age (the ahadeeth do not agree on her age...we know that)...one more time: puberty. Since there are "like a hundred" you shouldn't have any problem.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I think you are taking FreeatlastChitchat's words out of context, saying that hundreds of ahadith confirm that Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا) reached puberty before her marriage does not mean that there are hundreds of ahadith which has the word "puberty" in them as it can be confirmed indirectly by just referring to a person's age. To describe that someone reached puberty, you do not need a source with the word "puberty" in it, a source can confirm puberty by other ways such as age. So if there are sources describing Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age as 12 years at the time of marriage then it confirms her puberty and you should not insist on sources with the word "puberty" in them. Sheriff (report) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The age Aisha reached puberty is irrelevant. This is a biography of Muhammad, not Aisha. Furthermore, the primary-source interpretations of Wikipedia editors are also irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So let's completely remove the irrelevant information, let's remove any reference to her not reaching puberty or reaching puberty. Sheriff (report) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: When someone says that a person is 12 they are saying that she has reached puberty. I am pretty sure that is the norm in the world. So putting in puberty is not much of a problem because it is the norm. But feel free to provide any hadith which says she "did not" reach puberty. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: OK. See above. Like I said, you will not find any references saying Aisha reached puberty. Can we close this or do you have any further objections?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: These secondary reliable sources agree that she had reached puberty. 1, 2, 3, 4. So your Original Research is kinda not welcome. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I'm not going to discuss primary sources here, because we can't base our edits on them per WP:PRIMARY. If you have reason to believe that the wording doesn't reflect the non-primary sources and you can't verify them yourself, you should see if others here can. I can confirm that Armstrong's book does support the statement (how reliable she is on these matters is a different question). Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand you don't find it welcome because I just exposed a falsehood. You said there are "like a hundred hadith(sp) that say she reached puberty". And now you know there are none. Your "secondary sources" are op-eds by apologists. None are contemporary sources and you know this. @Eperoton:under your logic I can write a book saying anything I want and it will qualify as a "secondary source". I can see we are not going to reach consensus so we'll take this to arbitration. I don't think there will be any difficulty settling it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: If you write a book that meets the criteria of WP:RS, by all means. You're not following the law of the land. If you want to dispute a sourced statement, you should either do one of the things I mentioned above or find a non-primary source that supports it and highlight a scholarly controversy. As for arbitration, I think you'll want to consult WP:DR first. Eperoton (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm absolutely following the rules of Wikipedia if that's what you mean. I do not suffer apologists reinventing history. I can cite any number of anti-muslim cites that state Aisha was in fact pre-pubescent, and they would be just as reliable as your apologist cites mentioned above for "secondary sources". Neither are scholarly or of any benefit to discussion. If you are honest you know the Sahih hadeeth and Tafseer are the only source of reliable narration to Mohammed's life, although in this case they don't support your view/reality. So, I've taken this matter to arbitration.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Where it will be probably rejected as 1) This discussion is barely a day old and 2) You haven't followed the DRN instructions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:How did I not follow DRN instructions? and where is there a prohibition against putting a dispute resolution request on the DRN that is less than a day old?Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: "Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page?" In barely 24 hours? Not really. And you're supposed to list and notify each participant in the dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Which "Relaible, Secondary Sources" can you provide that say she had not reached puberty?. Do keep in mind biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is a single source reporting puberty it is likely to be undue. We can just remove the portion about puberty entirely, and call it a day so it is labeled neither pre pubescent or having reached puberty. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I see that user:FreeatlastChitchat has already provided 4 secondary sources to prove the notion that Mrs. Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet Muhammad. In response to user:Trinacrialucente, I would like to add also the following citation from a primary source: specifically stating that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. Here it is:

Original text: قَالَ الدَّاوُدِيُّ وكانت عائشة قد شبت شباباً حسناً رضي الله عنها
English translation: Narrated Imam Dawudi: and Aisha - God bless her - then had physically matured well indeed’.

— Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207: citing Imam Dawudi in the context about the age of Mrs. Ayesha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet.

I hope that was a good lesson for user:Trinacrialucente.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: Our problem here is that we're speculating about some of the secondary sources, which are offline. WP:GOODFAITH enjoins us to default to the assumption that the sourcing was and remains correct unless we have solid evidence to the contrary (at this point, I don't think we do, except about Watt/IE, per Trinacrialucente), including with respect to WP:UNDUE. The right approach would be to do a solid review of secondary literature, and if both positions have reasonable acceptance among authors of WP:RS, take out the puberty phrase out of the sentence, and add a sentence like "Some scholars believe that X, while others Y", possibly indicating their reasoning, if it's clear from the source. Is anyone up to this challenge? Eperoton (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I can provide you scanned pages of Watt and IE(My edition is 2013, not the latest but I am sure they do not remove things like this on whim). Also I can upload scanned pages of the secondary sources I quoted because they are very old and no copyrights problem. I would like to ask, however, what proof does Trinacrialucente have for Watt not having this sentence? Can he upload relevant pages from watt which show that this phrase is missing? Assuming bad faith must have some root, did he read the book and find the phrase missing or is this just his own personal pov? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention Watt; I mentioned the ahadeeth and the Encyclopedia of Islam, since they are theoretically primary sources. You yourself stated very clearly above "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." I was very generous with you and said you only needed to cite one...which you still have not. If we are going to revert to secondary sources, once again...I can provide sources which are arguable just as reliable as Watt. How do you feel about Robert Spencer?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages. Secondly As per wiki policies, biased sources "ARE ALLOWED" in wikipedia, however "ISLAMOPHOBIC" books by authors who are not considered to be scholars of Islam are bound to be rejected as "Expression of facts", rather they will be solely used to describe the said authors "personal opinion". Which means that Robert Spencer writes hate literature therefore we do not take his words as "facts" rather we take them as "his opinion on Islam". So no Herr Spencer is not allowed here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to get consensus that Robert Spencer writes "hate literature". How about Daniel Pipes? Or Brigitte Gabriel? Could I use either of them as "secondary sources"? And I'm still waiting for your one hadith source, since you said "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she reached puberty." Are you still having trouble finding one?Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I think you did not bother to read my first reply, I will copy paste it here for your eyes only , as all other editors already know that removing/changing long standing consensus needs to have some rationale So here goes, I'll bold it up for ya this time, so its easy on the eyes. First of all please answer the question, "DO you have First Hand Knowledge that WATT and EI DO NOT mention this?" This is the basic question. If you say no, then this debate is moot and you should learn something about AGF before going further. If you DO have this knowledge please mention the edition and page number of the relevant pages. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I missed your question since I was waiting for you to answer whether or not you were able to find a single hadith passage that says what you claimed (since you say there are like a hundred, it shouldn't have been difficult). And absolutely I am familiar with the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I did not know "Watt" because he is not one of the principle authors) http://library.ut.ac.ir/documents/381543/3581025/Brill_-_The_Encyclopaedia_of_Islam_Vol_9_San-Sze_.pdf. If the claim is if in the section about Aisha that it mentions her being pubescent or contains the word "puberty" the answer is absolutely no. I have read it and it says nothing of the sort. Just like I have read Sahih Muslim and Bukhari...and none of them say this either. So yes...go ahead and scan the passage on Aisha (it's in the 2nd volume). We'll wait.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To determine if something is of use we would need consensus either as a group or on the RS noticeboard. I honestly don't know if any of the above would qualify at this time as a RS but we can always pose the question if people want to quote them. Strike that. Apparently the publisher is to say the least problematic so that would probably make it a no go right there. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you being so level-headed in this discussion. I for one would accept the Encyclopaedia of Islam (I stated as much among my first posts) as well as any hadith source. I'm familiar with the EI and it is very conservative and "old school" (i.e. even the newer additions do not attempt to insert new "faddish" ideas). I'm not sure what the publisher has to do with it, as it was originally published by a University in the Netherlands if I am not mistaken. And as I mentioned, the editor in question will not find what he is looking for. Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice: user:Trinacrialucente requested to provide him/her with a quotation from a primary source specifically asserting that Mrs. Ayeshah was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage, and I have just provided him/her with that quotation he/she was looking for. In addition, user:FreeatlastChitchat gave 4 secondary sources available online in the English language saying the same (i.e that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage). Given that the request of user:Trinacrialucente was to "provide a quotation from a Muslim primary source", and that I have just answered his request, I can broadly say that the dispute of this discussion has been resolved. Any additional efforts to push the false claim that Ayesha wasn't adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage to the Prophet can only be read as a sign of bad faith or incompetence. @Trinacrialucente: Have you read the quotation that I provided above in my previous post here or are you just not willing to read it?!--5.107.112.147 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to just go ahead and remove the puberty, pre pubescent reference entirely. It doesn't add anything to this article and is causing significant issues. This is the easiest way to resolve this issue.

Whatever else one might say, I don't think one can seriously claim that the puberty phrase is irrelevant or doesn't add anything to the article. This has been a lynchpin of anti-Islam polemics, based on the assumptions that modern readers have about nubile age, and it's no coincidence that one sees explicit discussions of it in writers who seek to assess moral character of Muhammad, like Armstrong and Spenser. It's very much relevant to that latter topic. If someone is in a position and willing to look up the other secondary sources, highlighting the controversy would be the best approach (perhaps with a side discussion of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE issues). As a lazy-man's compromise, one could change "Traditional sources dictate" (which is unidiomatic anyway) to "According to the traditional view" (indicating the traditional reading of the sources), but frankly I doubt this would be accepted by all. Eperoton (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: how can you be so obtuse?! didn't you read the quotation in my previous post?! If somebody is going to rely on the books of hadith to determine how old Mrs. Ayesha was at the time of her marriage, then he or she should not ignore that according to the scholars of hadiths themselves, Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage. The quotation above from the book of Imam Nawawi is very clear on that point.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again comment on content not on contributer. I read it but simply put whether Aisha was pre pubescent or had reached puberty is irrelevant in this article. Full stop. This is an article on Muhammad and while she is his wife this information would be best presented at the Aisha article. I have no issues with whatever consensus occurs, it is just not relevant and contentious on an article that isn't about the individual it pertains too. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mention of age is irrelevant and controversial and Trinacrialucente accepts that "You cannot dispute something that disputes itself." then why include something disputed which disputes itself? Sheriff (report) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I suggest that whole paragraph with the mention of puberty and Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age should be removed. This information is irrelevant to this article and need not be mentioned in this detail. This article is about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and not about Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). I went ahead and boldly removed it but was reverted by NeilN. What do you guys say about removing that paragraph in its entirety? Sheriff (report) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The age of Aisha at the time of marriage is oft-discussed in biographies of Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason as NeilN and also because the article on Aisha doesn't include a thorough discussion of the point under dispute here. Eperoton (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL...no one is disputing the age of Aisha at marriage since no one can legitimately prove or disprove her age, given the ahadeeth mention 3 different ages. You cannot dispute something that disputes itself. What IS in dispute (for the "nth" time, not sure why it even begs repeating since it's RIGHT here in the subject title) is her reaching puberty upon marriage as the article currently states. There is NO primary source (including the Encyclopaedia of Islam, which I am willing to accept as a primary source) which states anything about her reaching puberty, DESPITE the mischaracterization of the citations.Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why include something disputed which disputes itself? Sheriff (report) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I'm honestly baffled why you don't want to open WP:PRIMARY and see the Wikipedia definition of primary source. The EI is a tertiary source. Eperoton (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand it can be considered a tertiary source (although arguably it could be considered a secondary source since it is directly quoting the Qur'an and ahadeeth). Regardless, I was stating I am willing to accept it in this discussion were it to say Aisha reached puberty. So far the other poster claimed there were "like a hundred hadith(sp)" that say she reached puberty. Then he said the Watt citation in the EI said it (which it does not). I'm just waiting for ANY citation from either source. Trinacrialucente (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the other poster. You have confirmed that one cited source doesn't support the phrase. We have also confirmed that Armstrong's book does, although its status as WP:RS is debatable, as the archive of RS noticeboard confirms. That still leaves three cited secondary sources to be either verified or disqualified as RS. The policy does not allow us to change statements with cited secondary sources based on our interpretation of primary sources. Trust me, I've been tempted to do it myself elsewhere, including a case where an EI author clearly misread an Arabic text, and this bit of nonsense spread into other books. But it's the law of the land. Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, once again, the EI is not a blanked "tertiary source" simply because it has the word "encyclopaedia" in it and "thus sayeth wikipedia". As the EI quotes directly from the Qur'an, Tafseer, Ahadeeth etc, it can arguably be counted as a secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source . And I have confirmed TWO (not one, but TWO) cited sources do not support the phrase (NONE the cited ahadeeth NOR the "Watt" citation of the EI mention the word "puberty"/pubescent/menstrual etc). The other poster said he was going to scan his copy that he claims DOES mention it (and if it does it will be the only copy in existence) but so far all we see is a bunch of double-talk and then crickets chirping. I don't know how many times we have to restate this; none of the original sources will cite Aisha having reached the age of puberty. We can speculate whether or not she reached puberty based on her age (which we have established cannot be 100% verified either given the contradicting ahadeeth) and other descriptions, which is exactly what MANY secondary sources do. So, if you or anyone else wants to keep the word "puberty" in that description you are opening yourself up to any number of secondary sources which argue she did NOT reach the age of puberty. Then we get to argue over which secondary sources are acceptable (yet another endless topic which will never be resolved/reach consensus). Does this spell it out for you yet? Would you rather have it stated very specifically in the article "some historians/authors speculate Aisha had not reached puberty by the time Mohammed took her into his house."? At this point I am seriously fine either way and can add at least 5 sources (again arguable as reliable/unreliable as your secondary apologist sources there now). Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like I've said repeatedly, I think discussing opposing scholarly views on this point is the right way to go (and, yes, there will probably be some debate about RS). There is already some discussion of this kind in the footnotes, and this article needs much more of it. No competent modern historian would base a biography of Muhammad on a mechanical reading of the hadith literature, so the general Wikipedia policy against trying to interpret primary sources directly is especially well justified here. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "mechanical reading". But if you are implying there are/will be differing views on hadith interpretation then that falls into the "obvious" category, since this has been the case long before wikipedia came along.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "obvious" in the hadith as far as history goes. Many historians reject them altogether as unreliable and work only with the sira and maghazi. Those who use them will carefully analyze whether they would have been interest to fabricate or distort the facts in the course of transmission, whether some things that weren't expressed explicitly would have been understood by contemporaries, and many other issues. That's what historians are paid to do and we shouldn't try it at home. P.S. I didn't use the word "obvious" in the same way as you, but I'll let this stand as a comment on mechanical reading. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose What a strange idea to just delete it. It's a always a prominent topic in any bios of the historical Muhammad. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not a strange idea. It's irrelevant to discuss Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا)'s age on the page about The Holy Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), yes, we can mention Prophet (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم)'s age at the time of marriage to Syeda Aisha (رضی الله عنہا). That would be relevant. Sheriff (report) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've given a rationale for my position. You've just said "I don't like it". No one cares or has any interest whatsoever in whether you like it. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: And i was giving a rationale about why not to include it, there is nothing about like/dislike here. Sheriff (report) 13:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose not censored we are. Although I must agree that this paragraph is problematic. @Eperoton, DeCausa, User:NeilN Why don't we structure the paragraph like this "Sources disagree about the age of Hazrat Aisha(RA). According to sources she may have been six(REF), seven(REF), or nine(REF) when she was betrothed to Hazrat Muhammad (SAW). Sources also disagree about her age at the consummation of marriage, with reports ranging from ten(REF), eleven(REF), twelve(REF) to nineteen years (REF). The majority of modern scholarly sources agree that she had reached puberty either before her betrothal(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF) or before her marriage.(REF, REF, REF, REF, REF, REF)" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but we do need REF REF REF. Eperoton (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton I'll wait for DeCausa and User:NeilN to give their input then edit my comment to include refs so that we can form a consensus. ok with you I hope. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that you are asking but i would agree with this format as well, if we can just include all disagreements on age but my preferred position would be to completely remove it. Sheriff (report) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

yeah...no. The "majority of modern sources do NOT "agree that she had reached puberty". Once again, you are making things up that are not there. You mention the word puberty, then you open yourself to the opposing view as well. This will not be a one-sided forum for apologists. Of course if you can cite just one of those "like a hundred hadeeth(sp) or scan that EI page from "Watt" that mentions it, then we can all go home. Or are you finally going to simply admit you are wrong?Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente you clearly seem to be unable to get a point therefore I will not interact with you. You have been presented like 10 Reliable sources which agree with puberty even EI and Watt say she was 12 and mature. Therefore my question has been directed towards editors who wish to form a consensus instead of editors who want to disrupt. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with FreeatlastChitchat, sources were presented to Trinacrialucente over and over again by different editors and were ignored by him. It's like a broken tape record now. Sheriff (report) 17:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

nope, everyone else save a few of your likeminded travelers got my point (doesn't mean they agree...but if you read through the comments, they definitely get it). I don't care if you interact with me or not. Doesn't make your voice/opinion any more valid or important.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Broadly, I think Freeatlast's proposal is ok subject to the following. (1) The REFS need to be filled in and they need to be secondary WP:RS that are not WP:UNDUE (2) of course, no "Hazrat", "RA" etc, (3) why is there even any mention of whether she reached puberty? It has no bearing. We're addressing a 21st century global readership not medieval theologians discussing angels dancing on a head of a pin. It's primitive and irrelevant - the only notable point is her age. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the issues of age and puberty go together, because their prominence is in large part due to the exploitation of modern assumptions about nubile age by anti-Islam polemics. Additional discussion is needed to put them in context. Here are some other bits I found: 1) "Little attention was paid[…] to the age difference between bride and groom.[…] Such marriages were common in the seventh century and, for that matter, in biblical times." [[5]] (from a general history that seems like RS); 2) "The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but had waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity." [[6]] (from a book by Jonathan Brown, who seems like a respected historian on the subject); 3) "Aisha did not consummate her marriage to Muhammad until after reaching puberty, which is when every girl in Arabia without exception became eligible for marriage." [[7]] (from an essay by Reza Aslan, who like Armstrong, is only borderline reliable, I think). I'm not sure if there's acceptance of the opposite view outside of polemical literature, but those are the only books I'm seeing it in so far. Eperoton (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what some people may say or write puberty is still irrelevent. The FAQ already talks about Muhammad's age at the time of marriage, as multiple times people would try to insert negative OR into the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. How is it that a little girl's age at consummation of marriage is relevant but her physical readiness for it is not? Unless someone shows that there's mainstream acceptance of the view that she hadn't reached puberty, I would suggest making the phrasing in the main text along the lines of Brown's #2 quote above and putting the debate about the age of consummation and other quotes from sources into a footnote, so we don't have to go through this again. Eperoton (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't even mention puberty status on Aishas' article. What would be the purpose of displaying information, that is not about the article's subject, that isn't even considered important enough to make the main article body? This is seriously a tempest in a teacup. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose removal This seems to be a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal. The paragraph is well-sourced and directly relevant to the subject. So a definite no to removing it, and a temporary no changing it, but the latter could be discussed and reevaluated after references are presented and discussed. Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Including it is not relevant. Why aren't the ages of other wives included? It was a non-issue throughout most of history, however, Western orientalists and Islamophobes are utilizing it to propagate their anti-Islamic doctrines. It is entirely based on Western-normative concepts of morality and it neglects the praise and veneration that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ have had towards him. It is totally biased. Xtremedood (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Muhammad "selling slaves" redux

Not doing any more reverts here tonight, so just a note. An unsigned text on the BBC website is not a RS on history. I've checked a few mainstream sources on that subject. I couldn't find any mention of this in historical discussions of Muhammad and slavery. The only mentions I found discuss the single hadith quoted above in the context of fiqh, as here [8]. Using these RSs to support the phrase "sold slaves" would be synthesis both formally (the plural) and substantively, being a misrepresentation of how Muhammad's relationship to slavery is described in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You are either intentionally lying or being evasive, since I cited several ahadeeth (not "the single hadith")....so many in fact that I was accused of "abusing primary sources" which is not even a "thing" except an admission that the accusers are clearly in the wrong and have nothing else to accuse. And here is yet another source from a Muslim website about the story of Fatimah http://www.sunnah.org/history/Life-of-Prophet/Life_Story_of_Fatima_bint_Muhammad.htm You really need to just accept facts rather than cower. Trinacrialucente (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente it doesn't matter if its one hadith or a thousand. Eperoton reverted because hadith is not a reliable 3rd party secondary source, which you need in order to support primary sources (and that "unsigned text on the BBC website" doesn't cut it.) I don't think you understand the core concept. So relax with the personal attacks and learn how to edit. Also, there is enough material questioning the veracity of hadith as a primary source to begin with. cӨde1+6^TP 13:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The "sold slaves" edit isn't reverted yet, and should be because BBC is not a reliable source on history, but Code16's point about hadith is correct. I don't know why Trinacrialucente is still having trouble understanding WP:PRIMARY, which could hardly be any clearer: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Eperoton (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

you people really take the biscuit. Did YOU even bother to read the policy? "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION NEEDED. I simply CITED MANY ahadeeth which stated the SAME type of event. THAT could not be clearer. You are grasping at straws.Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand that basing a statement of historical fact on a hadith involves evaluating its historicity, this is a WP:COMPETENCE problem, and that's quite aside from your interpretation of the other hadith which was disputed earlier. Eperoton (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here can imagine you are editing in good faith at this point, since I stated repeatedly that this was not one hadith, but MANY. And though you still don't want to admit it, I know far more about Islam than you, and am aware of the classifications and isnad of the ahadeeth I cited, which you waffle on considering primary or secondary sourcing depending on which side of a losing argument you are on. The BBC is of course as reliable of a source as any other collaborative academic research...such as Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Your arguments are as shallow and transparent as a glass dish at this point.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

BBC eminently satisfies WP:RS and Eperoton's censorship of it looks very much like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could I remind everybody that WP:RS is not dependent on whether it agrees with our views or not, and those arguing that the BBC should not be considered WP:RS have something of an uphill battle to face, given that the BBC is very frequent source. This argument becomes downright ridiculous when the users want to disregard BBC to instead rely on an Islamic pamphlet from Leicester back in the 70s, which most definitely does not satisfy WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: BBC is a RS for current events. It's not a RS for 7th century history, unless we can verify academic credentials of the author. If you disagree with that assessment, we should take it to the RS noticeboard. The Leicester ref is not a RS, either, and should be replaced, but that's not pertinent to the disputed addition. Eperoton (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Good thing we agree that the Leicester ref is not a RS. The problem is, there is no RS saying "Muhammad bought slaves to free them" even though DD2K keeps inserting it and even deleting tags about it being missing (flagrant violation of WP:OR and very close to vandalism) while still refusing to talk. Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I think you should pay a closer attention to the sources before making such judgements, here's a quote from the Maududi reference given for that claim: "Freeing a slave by one's own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him. The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The number of slaves freed by 'Aishah was 67, 'Abbas liberated 70, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar liberated one thousand, and 'Abd al-Rahman purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of that period", this of course confirms that the claim is contained in the reference, so the tag is redundant. 22:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: You removed a tag by referring to an unreliable source, as everybody involved in the discussion already agreed. A religious pamphlet from the 70s is in no way a reliable source. Kindly restore the tag you erroneously removed. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Counter, contrary to popular belief, we are trying to work together on this article to bring out ALL facts as accurately as possible. So, for the sake of argument, let us say the citation you quote above is 100% accurate: all this shows is that a) freeing slaves is an act of good merit in Islam (we know this...NOT in dispute) b) Muhammad "liberated up to 63 slaves" (exact wording). What it does NOT say is that Muhammad EVER purchased ANY slaves just to free/liberate them. And it certainly does not say slaves "whom he bought usually to free" per the former text. You see? You can INFER this if you'd like, but that is WP:POV and simply not stated in the text you provide. I hope this makes sense, and I sincerely DO appreciate you adding to this conversation.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: You're absolutely correct, and I can't but agree with you, however the burden (WP:BURDEN) to provide much more accurate sources isn't just on me, but also on you. So the wording will stay the same until we gather enough reliable references to come to a consensus. Do you agree? 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime:, that's not how it works. If a statement is unsourced (as this one in fact is, no sources support it) then it can be removed. In fact, it usually should be removed. There is no policy saying unsourced claims should remain until sources may be found. Quite the contrary, we have a policy against that (WP:OR). However, I could agree to the claim staying a week if you restore the tag that you erroneously removed. The tag correctly said the claim was not found in any of the sources, and we all agree it's not found in any of the sources, so the removal of the tag was a clear mistake. Either the tag should be restored, or the whole claim should go. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: If you actually read WP:BURDEN then you'd know that: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." (emphasis added) 23:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Ok, then add a citation needed tag instead of the tag you removed. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been ample time (over 2 months) to provide this information since it was first inserted. However, I have re-worded it so there is no need for a citation needed tag in its present form. And the statement of the BBC only being a source for current events is beyond ridiculous since they devote an immense amount of material to history (documentaries, films, news...and an online encyclopedia as sourced). Can someone say "desperately grasping at straws"? Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:,@Trinacrialucente:,@CounterTime:,@Eperoton:

• The cited excerpt from the BBC piece is not a sufficient source for a statement of fact (as is currently presented in the article) as per Wikipedia guideline for News Organizations clearly stated below:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

The BBC piece doesn't even have an author cited, let alone citing the specialist scholars who back up the excerpt being forced into the article as a statement of fact. The only sources being cited within the relevant section are the hadith, which is not a reliable source. I support Eperoton's position that this BBC excerpt doesn't even belong in the article, but since there are 2 editors (from a total of 5) who for some weird reason are pushing for its inclusion, the only reasonable compromise is that the opinion should only be attributed to the BBC itself, and not presented as a statement of fact. And even this is being generous, as the guideline actually requires the opinion from News Organizations to be attributed to an author specifically. cӨde1+6^TP 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Though it would be preferable to use a RS, the quoted BBC passage now broadly reflects the mainstream view found in RSs, and the word "sold", though dubious in itself, is not given the inappropriate prominence it had before. Of the historical RSs I've checked (1. Watt, Muhammad at Medina 293-296; 2.`Abd in EI2; 3. Bernard Lewis "Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry"; 4. "Slaves and slavery" in Brill's Enc of Quran) only Watt mentions selling, as follows: "There was no objection in principle to the selling of adult males, as is shown by the sale of Muslim prisoners by B. Lihyan to the Meccans in 625/4." Eperoton (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, if this issue is to be tackled, it deserves a much more detailed reading than simply cherry-picking excerpts from non scholarly sources. There is a debate in academia on this issue, and the subject is clearly mired in controversy as it is (W.G. Clarence Smith has done some work on the controversy surrounding this topic.) To grossly oversimplify the matter (as is being done currently) does more harm than good. cӨde1+6^TP 03:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"LOL" indeed. Fishing out a single dubious word from the BBC text is fine but quoting it in context is "POV". Actually, it occurs to me that this whole dispute is going in the wrong direction in trying to summarize the subject "Muhammad and slavery" on the head of a pin. That's not what the section is about. It's about Muhammad's household. So, if we can find generalizations about slaves in his household in RSs, we should use them. Otherwise, we should stick to discussing prominent members of the household individually. What Muhammad is reported to have said about slavery or done with other slaves is not relevant here. Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course we could create a separate section on Muhammad and slaves, but I think it's in the right place. Slaves were an integral parts of households at the time, and for a long time thereafter, in almost every culture. Jeppiz (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Trinacrialucente reverted the edit WITHOUT answering the point about the guideline, shows bad-faith and POV pushing. The citation of guidelines for News Organization has already destroyed his point on the BBC. At this point, he's just delaying the inevitable with his edit-warring. cӨde1+6^TP 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage

To follow up on my comments in the "Removal of paragraph" thread, let me flesh out a proposal, which seems reasonable based on sources presented so far. We can revise if someone presents RSs advocating a different view. Main text: It is thought that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached physical maturity.(current refs, plus Brown [[9]], Reza Aslan [[10]]) Footnote: Such marriages were common in the seventh century. (A Concise History of the Middle East [[11]]; Reza Aslan [[12]]) The traditional view estimates that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was about nine.(refs) However, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.|(“Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texax Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏}}</ref>) Denise Spellberg has reviewed Islamic literature on Aisha's virginity, age at marriage and age when the marriage was consummated and speculates that Aisha's youth might have been exaggerated to exclude any doubt about her virginity.[11] (copied from Aisha) Eperoton (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose That would seem to violate WP:NPOV by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view. (saying that such marriages were common at the time would make sense for a 'normal' historical person. For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant. )Jeppiz (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. If it's UNDUE on age, we can emphasize that the traditional estimate is also the mainstream view among modern scholars. If it's the main text, please provide sources showing a mainstream academic view that she hadn't reached puberty. I initially conceded on removing the first statement in the footnote, but having reread your objection more carefully, I take that back. We're not writing for a person in direct contact with God. We're writing for Wikipedia users, not all of whom are familiar with 7th century nuptial customs, but all of whom have assumptions about nubile age based on their own environment. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous "oppose" vote rationales I have come across. I wish there were emotes allowed so others could see my complete astonishment at this. "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." lol. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that WP:NOTAFORUM violation, and for so blatantly misrepresenting my view. In case it really escaped you, I wrote "That would seem to violate WP:NPOV by creating a false balance between a mainstream academic view and a minority view.". Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that violation of common sense. What does this mean "For a person claiming to be in direct contact with God and receiving eternal truths, something that is wrong or right would have been wrong or right at any time, making the issue highly relevant." Just explain this to me and we shall discuss other matters after that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I will create an RFC tonight and link to it here once completed. We have wasted many hours that could be used to improve the article over this. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Gladly, but first explain to me why it would be relevant to point out that marrying small kids was the custom at the time. My comment was a direct response to the suggested change, and the irrelevance of that claim. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz Because it actually WAS a custom lol. When the average age was 30 people were married off at the first sign of maturity, and children were not brought up in huggly cuddly life style of today, rather they grew up in a tough and rough environment which hardened/matured them mentally at an early age. Today the average age in some places is 50, 60 in others and even more in developed nations. So there is no need to marry early, and marrying early is viewed as a stigma. To create a balanced perspective it is necessary to add this footnote. Btw did you look at the FAQ given above the talkpage? there is a question specifically targeting this kind of POV mindset. Perhaps a perusal is in order? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I have already explained that thrice in the preceding discussion. This point has gained prominence in modern times because modern assumptions on this issue have been systematically exploited by polemical literature. It's the job of historical writing to provide historical context in cases where the readers are likely to misinterpret raw data without it. Eperoton (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: By that logic the passage should go on to clarify that what Prophet Muhammad did was still child sex abuse, seeing as how the "it was okay in the past" excuse has been systematically exploited by Islamic apologetic literature and because readers are likely to misinterpret the passage by thinking that having sex with children is acceptable if the prevailing culture at the time allows it. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: No, that must be some other logic. Historical texts provide historical context. They don't provide legal advice. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Mentioning child sex abuse isn't equal to providing legal advice since no one is saying you have to mention how child sex abuse is illegal in most countries. I think we're both using the same logic by demanding unnecessary contextualization to counter polemical literature. Have you demanded such contextualization in wiki articles of other people who married and/or had sexual intercourse with minors? Why not demand it for every one of them as a preventive measure, so that nobody has the nerve to ever criticize any of them for their relationships with minors in the future. Personally I do not think people who read the current article will "misinterpret raw data" as I doubt most readers would think what Prophet Muhammad did was unusual for his time and since it is not a "misinterpretation" to think what he did was morally wrong. I feel that the text you're proposing specifically aims to morally justify Prophet Muhammad and Aisha's relationship (by acting as a request to practice moral relativism) than anything else.

There's another issue: I do not see how saying that 'child marriages were common in the past' counters modern non-Muslim polemical literature since all such literature I've come across doesn't deny that child marriages were common in the past, rather it criticizes Prophet Muhammad on moral grounds for engaging in something that is immoral by objective moral standards even though he was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals. If some piece of polemical literature has tried to deny the commonness of child marriages and sex with minors in the past, then I think we need to judge whether that piece and its denial is notable enough to warrant the text you're proposing before making any changes.—Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Polemicists highlight Aisha's age on "objective moral" grounds? Please, don't make me laugh. That might pass for someone like Richard Dawkins, who would then go on to accuse biblical figures dear to most of those polemicists of "child sex abuse" in the next breath -- for instance, Isaac, who married Rebecca at an age variously estimated at 3, 10, or 14 years old by traditional commentators ([[13]]). Marrying off girls as soon as they reached puberty was considered the right and proper thing to do in many times and places from biblical times to Renaissance Italy, and yet only in this one case is this detail deemed notable, nay essential information. What a curious application of "objective moral standards". Let's not play games here. It's been systematically highlighted in order to misrepresent the founder of a world religion as a pervert to the casual reader of history (though I suppose pleading ignorance would be a plausible excuse for many of those writers). Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place. That's your own right. But, as I'm sure you're aware, others have a different conception of ethical history, and that's why history texts provide historical context (and not any random contextualization) for potentially misleading details to let readers make an informed choice based on whatever their philosophical persuasion may be. Are you seriously arguing that pointing out the obviously different state of contemporary norms would serve an informative purpose in a history text? Eperoton (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eperoton:You don't think it is an objective moral standard to think having sex with children is immoral? Wow.

And yes, generally criticism of Prophet Muhammad's relationship with Aisha (by literature and lay people) relies on the objective moral standard that holds sex with children to be immoral, regardless of time period and other excuses. I have not seen non-Muslim polemic literature denying that child marriages were common in the past and accusing Muhammad for doing something strange for his time by marrying and deflowering Aisha nor are readers likely to misinterpret anything so I still see no reason for the proposed footnote, especially if your reason for providing one was to counter non-Muslim polemic literature and prevent any misinterpretation by readers.

I have already mentioned why people criticise Prophet Muhammad in particular instead of say, a painter from "Renaissance Italy" who married and/or had sex with a minor when I said "[Muhammad] was/claimed to be a prophet and teacher of morals." If I must spell it out: Other people aren't criticised on moral grounds because they did not claim to be a source of timeless morals and a universal standard of moral conduct for others to emulate, unlike Prophet Muhammad. If those people claimed so then they would have been criticised on moral grounds too (actually religious personalities are often criticised on moral grounds).

It's very telling that you said "in order to misrepresent the founder of a world religion as a pervert." It seems you personally believe someone, or rather Prophet Muhammad specifically, having sex with a minor is not 'perverted.' I feel this is why you want to provide that proposed apologetic footnote: to influence others to think the same as you. It's also telling when you said "Now, you may well insist on judging figures from the past based on the moral standards of your time and place." It's clear from this that you are practicing moral relativism. I do not see any reason why this article needs to be presented in a way that pleases "others" who have a faulty "conception of ethical history." The last part of your reply makes it abundantly clear that your aim for providing a footnote is to prevent moral judgement of your prophet and to compel the reader to practice moral relativism in his specific case like you yourself are doing. I find it interesting that on this very page on one hand some (if not all) Muslim editors are trying to deny that Prophet Muhammad married a six-year-old and on the other hand the same (and additional) Muslim editors are also trying to justify the marriage by arguing that it was common at the time. I do not like this attempt to manipulate Wikipedia for apologetic purposes at all. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that this group won't reach a consensus on the disputed points, so I will stop here unless there's an escalation of WP:DR. Eperoton (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support I wanted to propose something along these lines myself but some editors may have taken a wrong view, just because I am a muslim. Anyway, strong support due to it being NPOV. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate just how it would be NPOV? Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the mainstream view is that the marriage was consummated after maturity. No matter how many islmophobic sources you provide saying that she was not mature I will trump you with more sources that say she was. The vast, vast majority of sources agree on the fact that she was mature. Furthermore, she had already been engaged before so it is pretty clear she was mature(Yes you can check primary as well as secondary sources, they all agree that she had been engaged before). So NPOV is saying what the majority of Reliable sources agree upon. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I believe the ball is in your court here. Multiple secondary sources have been presented to support one view on puberty. All I've heard for the other view so far are allusions to polemical websites. Eperoton (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out the obvious relevance here: because in the Muslim world Muhammad is seen as the "perfect example of a human being"/without sin and the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her, Shari'a law in MANY Muslim countries allows girls to be married at 9 years old; Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan to name but a few (reaching puberty or not has NO bearing in this decision...it is purely based on the age of Aisha in the ahadeeth). Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: That is the very reason why we should include the opposing views that according to some sources, she was well over eighteen and according to some sources she reached the age of puberty before consummation of marriage so that we can dispel that stereotypical view that a Muslim girl can be married at 9 years of age no matter if she reached puberty or not. Sheriff (report) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: I would like to point out that the consensus of Islamic scholars is still that she was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 at the time of intercourse. It's only a handful of contemporary writers and scholars (not necessarily Islamic scholars) who have tried to argue otherwise. Most of the arguments presented to portray Aisha as older than 9 are the arguments originally made by one guy (who I will not name lest people google him and parrot the remainder of his arguments on this page to push their POV) and those arguments, as well as apologetic arguments about Aisha's age made by other people, have already been categorically and comprehensively refuted by the Islamic scholar Shaykh Gibril Haddad (see here and here). —Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0:Why are you bringing me into this conversation? I don't know how many times I have to mention this: I am not/nor was I ever disputing Aisha's age at the time she was engaged nor her marriage consummated. I've stated this at least three times already. I don't care what "most Muslim scholars" agree on this subject, since a) you can find a "muslim scholar" to support any view on this topic and b) the ahadeeth are the closest anyone can come to actually believing one way or another...and as I said, there are differing accounts of her age IN the ahadeeth. So, as far as I or anyone who thinks rationally is concerned, the matter cannot ever be settled with 100% certainty for that reason alone. So, I guess I'll repeat this once more: my objection was the phrase "until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old" since there is NO PRIMARY SOURCE that mentions her reaching puberty. As far as I'm concerned, since there are people (i.e. Admins) who are obsessed with her age and want to keep it in the article even though there are differing accounts on it, then there is no reason EACH "age" attributed directly to her in the hadith should not be cited. I personally would also be fine with "some 'muslim scholars' calculate her age at...based on the hadith narration of..." whatever. I've heard it all. But what this encyclopedia can NOT do with ANY credibility is say ANYTHING about her reaching puberty, since NO primary source ever mentions this. Even if she got married at the age of 50, no one can guarantee she went through puberty (and yes...medically there have been women who lived well into old age without hitting puberty http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2083909/Shes-puberty-needed-bar-Woman-trapped-body-12-year-old-appeals-help-cure-rare-condition.html). The way I see it this conversation has crossed-over into the unscholarly and ridiculous, and unfortunately the one Admin involved is more interested in finger-wagging than actually being constructive or useful, so I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Sorry but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I wasn't disputing the point you made, I agree with what you said. I just wanted to make a small correction, i.e., you said "the majority consensus among Muslim scholars up through last century was that Aisha was in fact 9 years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her" so I wanted to clarify that the consensus of Islamic scholars is still very much that she was 9 at the time of consummation (as explicitly stated in the sahih ahadith of the six authoritative books of ahadith). I am on your side of this debate. Regarding the thing you said about differing accounts of her age in ahadith, I highly doubt any of the ahadith that state she was older than 9 (or at best 10) are sahih/authentic. Was their grading (sahih, hasan, daif, etc.) mentioned when you came across them? I'm asking sincerely, this isn't me trying to be argumentative or anything. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: The following extract from Brill's EI3 gives a more accurate assessment of the traditional sources:

ʿĀʾisha’s marriage to the Prophet was not consummated until approximately three years later, when she was either nine or ten years old, as the majority of sources report (Ibn Saʿd, 8:58–62; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, 8:139). However, according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61).

This indicates that 10 or 12 years at the time of consummation can be supported by some of the early sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Thank you for providing that extract Wiqi55. It is interesting but an important point that is worth noting is that the extract does not make any reference to whether those claims of Ibn Khallikan (in his book) and Hisham bin Urwah (in Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqāt) are reliable or not. It could be possible that their accounts of Aisha's age are considered unreliable by Islamic scholars; given how such accounts are in contradiction with canonical ahadith, I am already doubtful of their authenticity. And given that the Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa‘d (which is referenced in the extract) explicitly states at (8:217) that Aisha was six years of age at the time of marraige (nikāh) and nine at the time of consummation, I have an even stronger feeling that the account attributed to Hisham was unreliable. I would not use those two as sources to back up the claim about Aisha's age being 10 or 12 without confirming their reliability.

I'd actually like to see the alleged report by Hisham bin Urwah that states Aisha was nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation, and I would also like to see how Islamic scholars have graded that report, because all of the ahadith narrated by Hisham bin Urwah about Aisha's age at marriage and consummation in the six canonical books of ahadith (Kutub al-Sittah) explicitly state that she was six at the time of marriage to Muhammad and nine at the time of its consummation. Indeed Islamic apologists have tried to cast doubt on Hisham bin Urwah's reliabilty specifically because most of the Kutub al-Sittah's ahadith that state Aisha was six at marriage and nine at its consummation have been narrated by Hisham bin Urwah (unfortunately for the apologists however, there are sahih ahadith in the Kutub al-Sittah and other books of ahadith that state she was six and nine yet do not have Hisham bin Urwah in their chain of narrators).

I like the fact that your extract acknowledges that the majority of sources report that Aisha was six at the time of marriage and nine or ten at its consummation. Chronological calculations using al-Dhahabi's Siyar a`lam al-nubala have concluded the same. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Human10.0: We definitely need more details. However, the extract refers to Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", i.e., his arrangement and dating of events, rather than a specific report. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Honest question (I am not being argumentative, seriously asking): How do you know this? Have you read the book? What does it say that makes you believe that Ibn Khallikan's "chronology", means his arrangement and dating of events? —Human10.0 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente yours is the most "off topic" comment in the entire talk page. congrats. Would you care to add something meaningful to the conversation or will these nonsensical tirades about Sharia law have to suffice? To be frank Sharia law has got diddly squat to do with this. The text under discussion(in this universe) is given at the start of the discussion. perhaps you will be kind enough to read it before commenting on it? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out 1) you claimed there are "there are like a hundred "hadith" which say she (Aisha) reached puberty." and of course there are none. 2) you claimed the citation was in the EI under "Watt" and that you would personally scan in the page as a reference...and of course you never did this because it's not there. 3) you then whined " I will not interact with you"...and yet here you are again addressing me directly. Why should we take ANYTHING you say seriously at this point? I know I don't. Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Aisha was engaged to someone (i.e. Jubayr) before Muhammad" argument you're using to imply that Aisha was mature when she was married off to Muhammad was refuted by Shaykh Gibril Haddad a long time ago. The argument relies on a highly unreliable report with an "extremely weak" chain of narrators. Two of the narrators were declared “discarded” (matrūk), are considered to be liars and one of them even admitted to lying about this incident (among other things). Haddad has further stated: "The reasoning that a betrothal to Jubayr would suggest anything about age is also faulty and shows ignorance of the fact that betrothal could take place from the cradle or even before birth. To read a more detailed refutation of the argument, follow the citation provided.—Human10.0 (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - This has been seen as a non-issue throughout history. It was primarily Western orientalists and modern day Islamophobes that have used this as a point of contention. It does not belong in this article. Aisha has also stated about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ that "his character is the Quran," and "his morals are the Quran.". Why is this not included? If we include all of the positive statements that Aisha had about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (which by the way is far more relevant to the household section) then the whole article would be too large to be deemed as reasonable for WP standards. Also, why aren't the ages of other wives mentioned? Why is there so much focus on one wife? Clearly the age of Aisha when she got married is of no significance to the section. It is an attempt to divert and to promote an anti-Islamic agenda. This belongs in the criticisms article, not here, and it is already there. Xtremedood (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Eperoton's proposal. I totally missed this discussion... From what I've read on the subject, reports of Aisha's 'youth' have been greatly exaggerated. Historical sources on this issue are very inconsistent, unable to agree on the year of Aisha's birth. Although scholars like G. A. Parwez have convincingly argued that Aisha's age was most likely around 18, and that the criteria used by Muslims at the time wasn't just that of "puberty" but mental maturity, as the age of marriage is the same as the age when an orphan is given control of their property, according to the Quran. cӨde1+6^TP 03:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Deletion without discussion

I see a sizeable portion of criticism was removed without any discussion [14]. I have no immediate comment on the validity of the edit. I agree that Ibn Warraq is controversial, and I'm not sure his publisher is RS. At the same time, "controversial" is not enough for deletion, and I'm not sure his publisher is not RS either. I know that WP:BOLD is the overall policy on Wikipedia, but given how much tension there has been at this page, I really think it would be beneficial (not "required", but "beneficial") to discuss removing or adding sections before doing them. Every good rule has exceptions, and I'd say this article and a very few others could be the exception to WP:BOLD. Again, I'm not saying the deletion was wrong (and it's certainly not vandalism in any way) but it's not obvious that the deleted text doesn't belong either. Jeppiz (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it may help to improve the climate here if changes that the editor expects to be controversial are preceded by discussion, though of course that's up to discretion of individual editors and newer participants won't even be aware of this recommendation. On this subject matter, I don't agree with details of CounterTime's edit description, but I've been eyeing this passage myself for a while. Though Said is somewhat better qualified than Ibn Warraq to undertake an analysis of Dante, I don't think either of their viewpoints really belongs in this article. Dante's Comedy is obviously an influential work, and including a brief factual note about it is appropriate, but I think the rest is giving too much prominence to debates surrounding it. Eperoton (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I remember that you set standards pretty high when it comes to making references in the subject of jizya (no objection to that on my part, in fact I admire that). However this behavior should be reflected on your part in all articles, for instance in this case Ibn Warraq work isn't even peer-reviewed, nor is he a scholar of any renown, please see here http://www.jstor.org/stable/23063581 . I should also be clear on a point, if we accept to add as references works by Ibn Warraq, then I see no excuse not to add refs to works by Robert Spencer. If one wanted to add a counter-view to Said's thesis then why not include recognized academics or scholars such as Bernard Lewis who were very critical of Said's work? Why instead choose a non-academic non-scholar who is known for his pov? 18:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: The criteria for reliability grow a bit hazy when it comes to literary criticism (perhaps; frankly, I haven't given this much thought before), which is what the Said and Ibn Warraq passages are. The source is reliable for Ibn Warraq's POV. Is it undue? Perhaps, especially since the relevant field for this particular passage is "occidental" rather than oriental studies. Looking into it a bit closer, I'm leaning toward agreeing that Ibn Warraq isn't taken seriously as a specialist in Islamic studies by most academic specialists in the field, and his reputation as a Dante scholar isn't likely to be higher. Still, I don't think Said's commentary on Dante belongs in this article, either. Eperoton (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Right, my point was only that Warraq isn't a reputable source, and that if the Said quote ought to remain then we should search for an alternative reference. 19:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Eperoton: and @CounterTime:, good points, thanks. My view is that Ibn Warraq is not really due and I agree with you that Said isn't due either. In the article on Muhammad, Muhammad is of course the topic. What Dante said about Muhammad is most likely due in the section on "Medieval Christian" views. But then we move on first to what Said said about what Dante said about Muhammad, and then what Ibn Warraq said about what Said said about what Dante said about Muhammad. I don't think Ibn Warraq and Said are due; neither of them are Medieval Christians, and while both are famous, neither of them was an expert on the Italian renaissance. So I think we should keep out the section about Ibn Warraq, but also remove Said's analysis of what Dante wrote, as it doesn't seem due and, despite his great qualities in English literature, Said was not an expert on neither Dante nor Italian literature. Jeppiz (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis on Aisha's age equalling 18 at marriage, 21 at move

Here's some key points from an article in DAWN written by a scholar on the issue, whose analysis can be added to this and other relevant wiki articles. As per guidelines, we can attribute the conclusions to the author as a specialist source: https://www.dawn.com/news/696084/of-aishas-age-at-marriage.

• " It must be noted that establishing the authenticity of hadiths, the narrators’ circumstances and the conditions at that time have to be correlated with historical facts. There is only one hadith by Hisham which suggests the age of Hazrat Aisha as being nine when she came to live with her husband."

• "Many authentic hadiths also show that Hisham’s narration is incongruous with several historical facts about the Prophet’s life, on which there is consensus."

• "With reference to scholars such as Umar Ahmed Usmani, Hakim Niaz Ahmed and Habibur Rehman Kandhulvi, I would like to present some arguments in favour of the fact that Hazrat Aisha was at least 18 years old when her nikah was performed and at least 21 when she moved into the Prophet’s house to live with him."

• "in Surah Al-Nisa, it is said that the guardian of the orphans should keep testing them, until they reach the age of marriage, before returning their property (4:6). From this scholars have concluded that the Quran sets a minimum age of marriage which is at least puberty. Since the approval of the girl has a legal standing, she cannot be a minor."

• "Allama Kandhulvi says that the words spoken in connection with Hazrat Aisha’s age were tissa ashara, meaning 19, when Hisham only heard (or remembered), tissa, meaning nine. Maulana Usmani thinks this change was purposely and maliciously made later."

• "Historian Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah has given a list of the people who accepted Islam in the first year of the proclamation of Islam, in which Hazrat Aisha’s name is mentioned as Abu Bakr’s “little daughter Aisha”. If we accept Hisham’s calculations, she was not even born at that time."

• "In Arabic bikrun is used for an unmarried girl who has crossed the age of puberty and is of marriageable age. The word cannot be used for a six-year-old girl."

• "Some scholars think that Hazrat Aisha was married off so early because in Arabia girls mature at an early age. But this was not a common custom of the Arabs at that time. According to Allama Kandhulvi, there is no such case on record either before or after Islam. Neither has this ever been promoted as a Sunnah of the Prophet. The Prophet married off his daughters Fatima at 21 and Ruquiyya at 23. Besides, Hazrat Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, married off his eldest daughter Asma at the age of 26."

• "In 2 A.H, the Prophet refused to take boys of less than 15 years of age to the battle of Uhud. Would he have allowed a 10-year-old girl to accompany him?"

• "There is consensus that Hazrat Aisha was 10 years younger than her elder sister Asma, whose age at the time of the hijrah, or migration to Madina, was about 28. It can be concluded that Hazrat Aisha was about 18 years old at migration. On her moving to the Prophet’s house, she was a young woman at 21. "

cӨde1+6^TP 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DAWN (newspaper) is not a scholarly source under WP:RS. And even if this were a proper scholarly article (and it's not) it would still fail WP:FRINGE. Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is hilarious, Jeppiz have you still not understood the "News Organizations" section of WP:RS? This is your second fumble regarding the same point, of the same guideline! First you defended that BBC article's opinion being presented as a statement of fact, against guidelines. And now you are arguing against presenting sourced content from a News Organization, while attributing it to the author, in accordance with guidelines! LOLz. As for "fringe" there's enough scholars cited within the article itself to show that it is not fringe and the historical facts cited are based on scholarly consensus, as mentioned by the author. cӨde1+6^TP 18:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we can stick to the factual arguments and the personal ones out, right? It's really quite simple, no news organization is "scholarly". However, news organizations do have different credibility, and yes, the BBC is infinitely more reliable than DAWN. However, that's quite beside the point, as we all agreed that the BBC is not great as a source either, though we have a loss of good sources on that matter. There is no way we'd use BBC on any academic matter if BBC contradicted mainstream academia. Concerning Aisha's age, we already have a lot of good sources. There is quite simply no way we're going to replace what mainstream academia says with what is written in some some newspaper, and that goes for every topic. Newspapers articles are not "scholarly", it's as simple as that. Jeppiz (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz your previous error regarding comprehension of this guideline is highly relevant because you are continuing to misunderstand the same guideline. ONCE AGAIN: No one is proposing that the conclusions of the article above should be presented as a "statement of fact" (which is what you were doing with regards to the BBC piece, against guideline.) These views will be presented while being attributed to the author, which is a "scholar of Quran", who is citing many other scholars as well within the article, and not as a statement of fact, and this is completely in accordance with guidelines. So your argument is moot because it fails to grasp the guideline itself, yet again. cӨde1+6^TP 18:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So to make this clear: we will not cite a Pakistani newspaper (and the problem is "newspaper", not "Pakistan") for speculations about Aisha's age. Eperoton suggests real works, and that is something we can discuss (though the RfC about it was largely negative) but we're not going to cite this Pakistani article you propose. You can of course bring it to WP:RSN if you really want to. Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing "clear" here is your misunderstanding the guideline. And no, we will not be excluding this just because you don't like it. As I said, the more citations the better, for this controversial point. cӨde1+6^TP 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is repetitive, and I already explained my reasoning. Your continued assumptions of bad faith violates WP:NOTAFORUM. I told you that WP:RNS is the place to go for comments on whether a source is WP:RS or not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Code16: @Jeppiz: I suspect there maybe a miscommunication. I don't think anyone disputes that the Dawn article is a RS on the views of its author and could be used accordingly. The question rather seems to be whether a statement of the form "According to Nilofar Ahmed" would give undue weight to her views, given that she doesn't seem to have sufficient stature as an Islamic scholar to single her out for inclusion into the main text. Eperoton (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a compendium of alternative calculations by Islamic scholars cited on this TP and at Talk:Aisha. I'm not sure what is mainstream or fringe on the issue of age among modern Islamic scholars or academic historians, but I think we don't need to get into these weeds here. We have a clear statement from a mainstream RS by Asma Barlas quoted above: "Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age [...] maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married". Her book and the book by Denise Spellberg (also quoted above) are mainstream academic monographs, perhaps the only ones available on the topic. So, we could use Barlas' phrasing (without "a small number", which is OR) to reflect those views. Attributing them individually or getting into argumentation details would be UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No harm in adding the conclusions of this scholar above as well, since this is clearly a controversial point, the more citations the better. cӨde1+6^TP 18:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Except for the fact that there was a recent RfC about it that did not result in any consensus for it. But of course we can discuss it again, no harm in discussing actual sources. Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Also check A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad, pp. 143–7. 18:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Jeppiz: This topic has been added to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad selling slaves. I'm sure we can work out at least some improvement to this paragraph. Eperoton (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes we can discuss this weight issue, if Jeppiz abandons throwing around the RS guideline he clearly doesn't understand..... Moving on, I think if someone is cited as a "scholar of the Quran" by DAWN then their opinions do have some weight. She has published numerous articles on DAWN. Many other citations from newspapers are present in many other articles (including this article). Besides, the author has cited many other scholars within her piece. And as I've said, this controversial issue can benefit from further citations on this controversial topic. We don't have to include everything, just a sentence or two should be sufficient, I think. cӨde1+6^TP 19:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Code16: Or goal here per WP:NPOV is to reflect all significant views in proportion to their prominence in RSs. Since the topic of Aisha's age is tangential to the article, we shouldn't devote more space to it than we already do. Of that space, the topic of alternative calculations gets one sentence. Barlas' book is a RS and it makes a generalization that we can use. We also have about a dozen sources cited on these talk pages and articles, representing views of individual Islamic scholars. I don't see why Ahmed deserves a preferential treatment among them. There may be reason to be more comprehensive and cite more sources in Aisha, where there's a whole section devoted to this subject, but here brevity and consequently due weight is of the essence. There's a possibility of using a footnote, though it makes sense only if we're failing to reflect some significant views or details in the main text. Eperoton (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Fair enough, I see your point, these details are superfluous for this Muhammad article.cӨde1+6^TP 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"This was also based on the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. The couple had concluded the marriage contract when Aisha was only six but had waited to consummate the marriage until she reached physical maturity." A.C. Brown - Misquoting Muhammad, p.143. 13:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Yes, but proposals for the earlier portion of the paragraph reached a deadlock in an RFC and probably won't get anywhere without moderation. Eperoton (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: But I'm not very sure why we would still have to make an RFC again, this topic has been discussed times and times again (just look at the archives of this talk page), why should we discard previous consensus and waste time discussing things that have been already established through consensus? 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@Eperoton: The RFC yielded no consensus on the first sentence, so there's no point of having another one. I don't think anyone likes the current phrasing, but it remains because we couldn't agree on how to change it. Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I was talking about previous RFC (that can be found in the archive). (Did you just ping yourself? lol) 14:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Yes, I guess I was feeling lonely. Which RFS are you referring to? Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Never-mind, I'm too lazy to search deeply into the archives. 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I am here because of an RFC. It seems clear to me that this discussion should be held and resolved on the Talk:Aisha page, and that this article should summarize the consensus represented in the larger article, Aisha. That article currently describes the age at consummation of the marriage to be 9, with one source suggesting 10, and briefly mentions that some contemporary scholars dispute the historical authenticity of this. The details of this disputation really belong in that article, not here. HGilbert (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a social network not an encyclopedia and its articles are not reliable at all. You can't rely on one of wiki's articles to write another. This is not acceptable. Wiki's articles are not sources. The Aisha article is in a very poor situation. Relying on a poor situation there will not improve the poor situation here.--Spring 857 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that that article is accurate, only that its talk page is the place to sort out this question. HGilbert (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi HGilbert, I've linked this discussion on Aisha's TP, as per your suggestion. cӨde1+6^TP 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hgilbert, there is no longer a dispute concerning the age of Ayeshah as the discussions on both this talk page and the talk page of Ayesha article revealed clearly that there are two groups of editors: One is giving an argument based on irrefutable evidence and widely acknowledged mainstream academia (Asma Barlas, Denise Spellberg, ...etc) and another group that is only giving their personal narrow knowledge and biased opinions without sources of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There were no objections in this thread to replacing the current statement on alternative age calculations by one based on Asma Barlas, so I'll go ahead and do it. Eperoton (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection for Muhammad Timeline in Mecca template?

Now that the Muhammad page is protected against IP editors should the Template:Muhammad_timeline_in_Mecca not also be protected? The same IP repeatedly tries to add material on Muhammad's supposed birth date which is largely based on selective reading and original research. AstroLynx (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected against IP editors. You write as if unregistered editors are some evil gang. They are the lifeblood of the community. I see it's more than a year since this protection was imposed. Can we get a consensus to remove it? As for Muhammad's birth date, the allegations above leave me lost for words. Original research? This was discussed at Talk:Islamic calendar. Nobody came up with an argument as to why this should be "original research" there, and nobody has come up with such an argument here, either.

Selective reading? The sources were obtained by googling the topic. If you think there are more authoritative sources out there, please tell us about them. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody responded at Talk:Islamic calendar because nobody knew to which discussion you were referring.

With "selective reading" I mean that by googling you can easily find sources supporting a birth year either in 569, 570 or 571 (if you search long enough you can even find earlier or later years).

This has been discussed several times in the past: here, here, here and here (I have not checked earlier archives). The consensus was to date M.'s birth at c. 570 AD. AstroLynx (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As so frequently happens, we are called upon to deal with conflicting sources. Our job is to evaluate the sources and isolate the truth. In cases of this nature the job is made easy because the calendars have run on without error for thousands of years. That first link you gave is fairly specific that the birth was in the year of Abraha's invasion, which nails it to AD 570. Burnaby looked at the oldest (and therefore most reliable) sources and found a specific reference to 12 Rabi'I. This is the date generally observed in Islam. Everyone agrees it was a Monday. Other dates are easily discounted, for example the moon was in the wrong phase or the day of the week is wrong. 22 April AD 571 gained some support but that was a Wednesday. Somebody put in 29 August AD 570 a few months ago but that was a Friday and the phase of the moon was way out. Given that 12 Rabi'I AD 570 was a Monday, I think we can put the year in without qualification. Comments? 81.133.34.23 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Referring to Year of the Elephant I find it difficult to believe that your reference to Abraha's invasion "nails it to AD 570" as contemporary and archaeological sources date this event to several years earlier. AstroLynx (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your first link is an interesting reference to a jazz album. Your second link is to an article which does indeed give the date as AD 570. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I initially linked the wrong page (but provided the correct link nearly 30 minutes ago). AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Kistler gives AD 571, D.A.C.B. says "c. 570", Wikiversity says AD 570. The Oxford History of Islam, which the article cites in reference to alternative theories, mentions AD 570 when discussing Muhammad's birth. 81.133.34.23 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Frants Buhl and Alford T. Welch in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 7, p. 361, are less sure and also reject the tradition that Muhammad was born in the "Year of the Elephant". In summary, they conclude "Since the traditional accounts differ widely and also contain elements that are clearly based on later legend, it is best to leave open the question of the year of Muhammad's birth".

Also have a look at the long footnote in M.R.M. Abdur Raheem's 1988 Muhammad The Prophet, starting on p. 54, n. 1, listing some of the conflicting traditional accounts on Muhammad's birth.

Summing up, I still believe that c. AD 570 is the best that we can state. Claiming an exact year (and a month and a day) is pious fiction which does not belong in WP. AstroLynx (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Islam mentions AD 570 in connection with Muhammad's birth. The second source has been discussed already. We have consensus to go with the majority of the sources and AD 570 is by far the most preferred date. The writer says the year of the Elephant must have been "considerably before 570". You've cited two writers who claim this but neither has put forward evidence to support this claim.

On dating the Year of the Elephant earlier than 570 AD and dating the birth of Muhammad many years afterwards, see: M.J. Kister, "The Campaign of Ḥulubān: A New Light on the Expedition of Abraha", Le Muséon, 78 (1965), pp. 425-436; Lawrence I. Conrad, "Abraha and Muhammad: Some Observations Apropos of Chronology and Literary Topoi in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 50 (1987), pp. 225–240. These references are given in the German WP but are lacking in the English version of this page.

As only the two of us seem to be debating here, I fail to see how you can claim that there is consensus for your suggested change of c. 570 to 570. I think that a least a few other editors should have their say first. AstroLynx (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduce a better lead

Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, believed by Muslims to be the model of the perfect human being, the chief of God's apostles, and the sealer of his prophets, whose advent, they believe, fulfilled their prophecies about him and whose mission was mercy to all the creation.

(A historical summary goes in this paragraph): Born approximately in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca for a noble Ishmaelite clan, Muhammad was orphaned at an early age; he was raised under the care of his paternal uncle Abu Talib. When he was just a boy of about twelve years, he and his uncle, Abu Talib, made a journey to Bosra where he encountered Bahira the Monk. After his childhood Muhammad primarily worked as a shepherd. In his youth, he received the title al-Amin, (Arabic: الأمين), meaning "the Faithful". In his twenties, he joined the League of the Virtuous. Later, he went to work for Khadija, a widow who owned a caravan business. Later, the two were wed and this marriage provided Muhammad a secure livelihood. At age 35, Muhammad was involved with a well-known story about setting the Black Stone in place in the wall of the Kaaba. As an Abrahamic monotheistic Hanif, he would occasionally retreat to a cave named Hira in the mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer; later, at age 40, he reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave delivering to him the divine order to recite the Qur'an, the central religious scripture in Islam. At this point of his life, Muhammad started his ministry. Historians divide the ministry of Muhammad into two periods. The first is Muhammad's Meccan period and the second is Muhammad's Medinan period. The two periods are split by a major event known as the Hegira; which defines the beginning of history in Islamic Calender.

(The beliefs of Muslims goes in this paragraph): Muslims believe that Muhammad has a "unique significance" in the world. Muslim doctrines include the beliefs that Muhammad...etc

(The views of non-Muslims goes in this paragraph): Non-Muslims have generally regarded Muhammad as the founder of Islam and maintained various views on him...etc

--الكاتب السابع (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Present your opinions below this sentence:

• Comment I don't see how this would be a better lead than the current one? In an encyclopaedia, it would seem better to start with a neutral and factual overview (the same goes for Jesus, where the lead is not great either but that's for discussion on that article). Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In this revert of yours, you restored a statement about a Christian belief to the lead in Jesus article and said in the revert summary: (Rv I agree it's debatable if Jesus found the Christian church, but that section doesn't say he did, just that Christians believe it, which seems factual.) So, if according to your mental judgment, mentioning "what Christians believe" in the lead is factual, then according to the same mental judgment, mentioning what Muslims believe in this lead is also factual.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

الكاتب السابع, if you follow me around for some reason, at least try to present my edits correctly. False representations like the one above could be construed as a personal attack. At Jesus, I reverted to the consensus version in a paragraph about what Christians believe about Jesus, not about who Jesus was. So that edit was in a different context, but even if it weren't, it wouldn't matter one bit and your whole argument is mainly about my editing, which is utterly irrelevant. Try to be a bit more serious and discuss this article, not me or other articles. I'll remove any further about me as per WP:NOTAFORUM. Jeppiz (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed presented your edit correctly and I have quoted your exact words exactly as you said them. All what I did is that I found the mistake in your argument and explained why it is mistaken using quotes. So, according to Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement, I have refuted you. And as for your personal attacks against me in your reply, they don't worth an answer.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion: presenting "what Muslims believe" in the lead in this article seems factual just as presenting "what Christians believe" in the lead in Jesus article seems factual. Muhammad is central to Muslims just as Jesus is central to Christians.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This lead already presents what Muslims believe, so your argument is moot. And I never said the lead to Jesus (where my rv only restored a consensus version, not expressed a personal preference, and was in the third paragraph, not the first sentence) was good. If there's a bad lead elsewhere, that's not a reason to make this one bad as well. Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No! the current lead doesn't presents what Muslims believe. One inadequate line doesn't make a representation. And you said in the quoted revert summary that "presenting what Christians believe in the lead is factual"-these are your words. My argument is that, in the same way, "presenting what Muslims believe in the lead is also factual. Otherwise, you are favoring the double standard policy against the policy of neutrality.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @الكاتب السابع: The comparative material in this article (as it currently stands) would be the line "He is known to Muslims as the "Holy Prophet", almost all of whom consider him to be the last prophet sent by God to mankind to restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith" -- If someone removed that or downplayed the part "restore Islam, which they believe to be the unaltered original monotheistic faith," the revert you showed would be precedent for Jeppiz to restore that line. The revert you show does not address why he should support your proposed lede at all, nor does it address concerns over neutrality.

You quoted his words in a different and inapplicable context, with emphasis that was not originally there -- that's a Strawman argument.

And besides, Jeppiz's actions elsewhere are irrelevant. You did nothing to address the issue of neutrality that he raised here, but latched on to something that wasn't important -- that's a red herring.

It is ironic that you bring up Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, because all you did was address Jeppiz's actions elsewhere (an ad hominem), not his actual point (which was neutrality). You did nothing to demonstrate that your proposed lede is neutral on its own (not in comparison to other articles, but by itself). Now, address the issue of neutrality (not what other people do elsewhere or pointing out problems in other articles), or drop it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to neutrality as it seems that you haven't met it before. Neutrality is to present the views of Muslims in the article about Muhammad just as the views of Christians are presented in the article about Jesus. If you don't do so then you are biased towards your religion against the religions of others. Neutrality is not to promote the Christian views in Jesus article while hiding, misrepresenting, or manipulating the views of Muslims because they don't satisfy your views and opinions. Your current version of the lead misses a lot of the vital information about the status of Muhammad as viewed by Muslims. Look at this article: ar:محمد and see how Muhammad is represented in it:

The first two lines say: "ويؤمنون بأنّه أشرف المخلوقات وسيّد البشر، كما يعتقدون فيه العِصمة. Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be the most noble of all the creation and the lord of humanity, and they believe he is sinless"

Also, see his titles in the infobox: نبي الرحمة Prophet of mercy, سيد ولد آدم lord of the children of Adam, المصطفى the Elect, حبيب الرحمن Beloved Man of the Most Compassionate, صاحب الشفاعة والمقام المحمود The Possessor of the Praised Station and the Possessor of the Intercession, إمام المتقين، سيد المرسلين lord of the apostles, lord of the pious, الرسول الأعظم، السراج المنير، النور the Greatest Messenger, the Light Giving Lamp, صاحب التاج والمعراج Owner of the Crown and the Ascension.

My version of the lead is far more neutral than the current one as there is one paragraph reserved for the views of Muslims and one paragraph reserved for the views of non-Muslims.

Because Muhammad is central to Muslims and not central to non-Muslims, the opening should be "who Muhammad is: Muhammad is the central figure of Islam" then "why & how is he the central figure of Islam". the second paragraph is a historical summary of reliable sources. The third paragraph summarizes "the Muslim views on Muhammad". the fourth paragraph summarizes "the non-Muslim views on Muhammad". This is a neutral and factual representation of the views without bias or manipulation.

Neutrality is not to claim that your non-Muslim views are factual and deserve heavier weight, while claiming that the Muslim views are not factual and should not be represented in an adequate manner. Neutrality is symbolized by balanced scales, not by imbalance scales.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• To wordy and preachy. I believe the lede is good as is with the one exception being I don't know why we are including/bowing to a WP:MINORITY opinion, namely Ahmaddiya, which by definition are not Muslims, and certainly don't belong in the lede.Trinacrialucente (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I just mentioned "what Muslims believe" in the opening & in the third paragraph. The second paragraph is a historical summary, and the fourth paragraph is reserved for "the views of non-Muslims". Since Muhammad is central to Muslims, mentioning what Muslims believe about him is a priority. This lead would be very much consistent with the lead in Jesus article.--الكاتب السابع (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Muhammad is not the central figure of Islam, maybe you want to re-word that with khātam an-nabīyīn, this is how Muhammad view himself and how Muslims view him. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • • Where are your sources?! I don't see any source at all in your comment! I don't see any argument or reasoning at all in your comment! all what I see is a personal "false" view of yours. Can you find any reliable source at all supporting such a baloney?! Notice that I have attested the statement that Muhammad is the central figure of Islam with sources in spite of the fact that it is as clear as crystal for anyone who is familiar with the topic:

The Prophet Muhammad is the central figure in Islam both theologically and historically. His personality, saying, and deeds, are regarded as the primary source of Islamic law and jurisprudence next to the Holy Book, the Qur'an.

— A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. Aviezer Tucker (Editor). Blackwell Publishing (A famous academic publishing company). ISBN: 978-1-4051-4908-2 . 2008

Quotation from the source here: https://books.google.com/books?id=FeVdNxyFiKsC&pg=RA3-PT412&dq=%22The+Prophet+Muhammad+is+the+central+figure+in+Islam+both+theologically+and+historically%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirorbRpO3KAhXJbRQKHQRJAywQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Prophet%20Muhammad%20is%20the%20central%20figure%20in%20Islam%20both%20theologically%20and%20historically%22&f=false

Description of the source here: [15]: The fifty entries in this Companion cover the main issues in the philosophies of historiography and history, including natural history and the practices of historians:

1. Written by an international and multi-disciplinary group of experts
2. A cutting-edge updated picture of current research in the field
3. Part of the renowned Blackwell Companions series--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Quotation from another source:

Muhammad is the central figure of Islam, and he is the prime model for how to live in accordance with God's will.

— Religion and Generalised Trust. LIT Verlag Münster (Another academic Publishing company). Handi Hadiwitanto.

Qutation from the source: https://books.google.com/books?id=1HVBCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=%22Muhammad+is+the+central+figure+of+Islam%22&source=bl&ots=Bu8NVzjEjU&sig=yx7NTmKICn-9v5awsO6Q0vsyB8I&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6gfv1pu3KAhXFWhQKHRWuAi0Q6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=%22Muhammad%20is%20the%20central%20figure%20of%20Islam%22&f=false

--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Qutation from another source:

Muhammad is the central figure in Islam. Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'ān, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man.

— Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. Andrew Rippin. Third edition.‏ ISBN 0-415-34888-9

Quotation from the source: https://books.google.com/books?id=1KTX7M-Mr-YC&pg=PA44&dq=%22is+the+central+figure+in+Islam.+Chosen+by+God+to+receive+the+revelation+of+the+Qur%27%C4%81n,+he+has+been+taken+by+all+Muslims+to+be+the+ideal+man.%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM_rieqe3KAhVJuhQKHWaTAaYQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22is%20the%20central%20figure%20in%20Islam.%20Chosen%20by%20God%20to%20receive%20the%20revelation%20of%20the%20Qur%27%C4%81n%2C%20he%20has%20been%20taken%20by%20all%20Muslims%20to%20be%20the%20ideal%20man.%22&f=false

--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Quotation from another source:

"Muslims consider Muhammad to be 'the definitive Muslim' and the prototype of human perfection in all moral, social and political spheres." - "Muhammad, and not Christ, that is the central figure and the seal of the Prophets."

— Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: 2nd Edition. Oddbjørn Leirvik‏

Quotation from the source:

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=Gzd_I2AFswwC&pg=PA47&dq=%22Muhammad,+and+not+Christ,+that+is+the+central+figure+and+the+seal+of+the+Prophets.%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqsMvLrO3KAhXEtxQKHWKXBzwQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Muhammad%2C%20and%20not%20Christ%2C%20that%20is%20the%20central%20figure%20and%20the%20seal%20of%20the%20Prophets.%22&f=false
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=Gzd_I2AFswwC&pg=PA47&dq=%22Muslims+consider+Muhammad+to+be+%27the+definitive+Muslim%27+and+the+prototype+of+human+perfection+in+all+moral,+social+and+political+spheres.%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimgoaHre3KAhVK6xQKHbGrAhAQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Muslims%20consider%20Muhammad%20to%20be%20%27the%20definitive%20Muslim%27%20and%20the%20prototype%20of%20human%20perfection%20in%20all%20moral%2C%20social%20and%20political%20spheres.%22&f=false

--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • Quotation from another source:

The center of the book, the twentieth chapter, is devoted to the central figure in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad

— Mystical Dimension of Islam. Annemarie Schimmel‏

Quotation from the source: https://books.google.com/books?id=V59xBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&dq=%22to+the+central+figure+in+Islam,+the+Prophet+Muhammad%22&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixhMKasu3KAhVIVhQKHVKMALEQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=%22to%20the%20central%20figure%20in%20Islam%2C%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammad%22&f=false

--الكاتب السابع (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

All the sources are in the Khatim page I posted you better calm down man. It's good that you have sources, but I see no evidence that Muhammad viewed himself as a central figure as oppose as seal of the prophets. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. Who and what the person was should always take precedence over the dogmatic beliefs built around them. This proposal is dramatically worse than what is already there. Resolute 15:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe the proposed lead is better for the following reasons: 1. It is ignoring Ahmadi's completely; 2. Most of the second paragraph is either too specific on singular events or UNDUE. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well first of all, check the sources used, since none of them contain the widely recognised as its founder reference. I am not sure where it came from, but those sources don't contain it. If you wish to keep that, change for a source that does contain it. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much history section and too little actual lead.--BurtReynoldsy (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011223853/http://almizan.org:80/Tafseer/Volume3/Baqarah50.asp to http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume3/Baqarah50.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201123841/http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf to http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)