| Revision as of 08:40, 5 October 2007 editCuchullain (talk | contribs)Administrators83,892 edits response← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:41, 5 October 2007 edit undoCuchullain (talk | contribs)Administrators83,892 edits →Age at marriage: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :::::::::::::Yes, certainly. But this comes up enough to warrant discussion, perhaps in a different section, and after making it clear that the primary sources all say she was that young.--] ]/] 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | :::::::::::::Yes, certainly. But this comes up enough to warrant discussion, perhaps in a different section, and after making it clear that the primary sources all say she was that young.--] ]/] 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::Arrow, if by historian, you mean those who study Islam in west it is correct. They accept it because the primary source say she was that young, because early marriage were not in anyways un-normal at that time, that there are reports of Aisha playing with dolls etc. But as a matter of fact there are contradictions in the reports implicitly touching the age of Aisha in the primary sources, and again as a matter of fact a minority of Muslims accept those reports. --] 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | :::::::::::::Arrow, if by historian, you mean those who study Islam in west it is correct. They accept it because the primary source say she was that young, because early marriage were not in anyways un-normal at that time, that there are reports of Aisha playing with dolls etc. But as a matter of fact there are contradictions in the reports implicitly touching the age of Aisha in the primary sources, and again as a matter of fact a minority of Muslims accept those reports. --] 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::::::Again, it's not just "Western historians". You've never been able to provide a single historian, non-Western or otherwise, who concludes that Aisha was older.--] ]/] 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <reset>Reliable sources have already answered the question for us. The only people disputing it are people who are not scholars of Islam, and have an axe to grind. We can't give their wishful thinking ]. ] 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | <reset>Reliable sources have already answered the question for us. The only people disputing it are people who are not scholars of Islam, and have an axe to grind. We can't give their wishful thinking ]. ] 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :You're not following me. It wouldn't be giving them any weight at all, it would just be giving the basic points of a notable modern discussion. If anything, I think that just saying she was six and not bringing up how this looks to modern eyes makes it seem like we're dodging an issue, covering it up to avoid offense.--] ]/] 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | :You're not following me. It wouldn't be giving them any weight at all, it would just be giving the basic points of a notable modern discussion. If anything, I think that just saying she was six and not bringing up how this looks to modern eyes makes it seem like we're dodging an issue, covering it up to avoid offense.--] ]/] 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:41, 5 October 2007
 | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Islam: Salaf Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
Two sections were removed + I reverted
Accusation of adultery and story of the honey were removed (and I reverted this). If this is to be done it needs to be agreed upon. gren グレン 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. -- Szvest - 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- O_o, oh... I am not vouching for the sections. I just wanted to report why I re-added them--although, my section heading and text was probably confusing. I think? gren グレン 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
PBUH's in the article
Several places in this article insert "peace be upon him" after naming Muhammad. I am aware that this is the custom among Muslims, but shouldn't this article take a more religiously neutral point of view? I mean, Misplaced Pages doesn't refer to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" when talking about him in a purely historical sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchip (talk • contribs).
- Removed. If you see any more, please take them out.--Cúchullain /c 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Aisha according to Central Mosque
Interesting link hope this helps. Hypnosadist 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hideous prose
Compare the following sentence:
The age of Aisha is believed by the majority of Muslims and by the Western scholars of Islam to have been six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.
with what it replaced:
Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.
Why are we using the passive? Why are we reifying an abstract as the subject, when perfectly concrete subjects (two of them, in fact) are available?Proabivouac 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Because not everyone is sure, they had the first thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.211.213 (talk • contribs)
- You're not getting my point. If we wish to say that someone believes something, we say "A believes B", not "B is believed by A." That's writers' workshop 101.Proabivouac 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Puberty
There appears to be a bug in the software, as this revision contains changes not shown in the diff window. One of them is, "stayed in her parents' home till she had reached puberty at nine…" From which of the cited sources did you get that, Aminz?Proabivouac 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am quoting F.E. Peters here: or here:
- Karen Armnstrong says that unconditionally. --Aminz 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note the 3 day delay in response. At the time he was quoting Spellberg, Asma, and the hadith, , which either don't mention puberty or, in the case of Spellberg, clearly state that the Muslim biographies draw attention to the fact that Aisha had not reached puberty. Arrow740 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Well, that appears to be a good source, though for the life of me I cannot discern upon what basis he draws that presumption. However, Peter's "presumably" is less than an assertion of fact, and I don't see that we can in the business of blindly repeating other's presumptions. We can attribute them, though.Proabivouac 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years when she was Muhammad's wife? --Aminz 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- You answer me this question, Aminz: Why did she never have a child? Arrow740 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- For whatever reason. Muhammad didn't have many childs either. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- You answer me this question, Aminz: Why did she never have a child? Arrow740 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- How should I know?Proabivouac 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years when she was Muhammad's wife? --Aminz 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Now tell me: why is it enyclopedically important at what age Aisha reached puberty? A couple of lines below the puberty speculation, Peters writes that Aisha was about eighteen when Muhammad died, so she was about nine when the marriage was consummated. If the insertion was meant to make her appear older than she was, then it was a nice try. Beit Or 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. It makes sense of the reason Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- He couldn't guarantee her safety in Mecca. Arrow740 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is enough to say that she stayed until reached the age of nine. If puberty were the commonly accepted explanation, then we would certainly cite it. Otherwise, it's out of place. Note that Peters does not state causality. Beit Or 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- He couldn't guarantee her safety in Mecca. Arrow740 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Paedophile
There's a fairly common modern attack on Islam of "Muhammad is a paedophile", based on his six-year-old bride. Shouldn't this be addressed, probably with some historical background (was this controversial in the past).
It seems unbalanced to just say "He married her when she was six" with no further comment on the age, which seems outrageous to modern eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.166.240 (talk) 22:21, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
- The section used to be much larger, and there was even a page dedicated to her age at marriage. There ought to be some further discussion, I feel, but it seems that primarily only dedicated critics or defenders of Islam have published about it.--Cúchullain /c 22:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- To answer one of your questions, tho, the marriage was not seen as controversial at the time, even for Muhammad's critics. I believe the article once had a reference to that point (probably from Montgomery Watt), but it also had a lot more of the polemical nonsense from one side or the other which we can do without.--Cúchullain /c 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I went through most of the posts related to Aisha's age at the time of marriage. The article does not address that there is a difference of opinion about her age at the time of marriage. Many scholars, for example Maulana Muhammad Ali, Khalid Masood, and others, have published research quoting from earlier sources the conflicting reports about Aisha's age at the time of marriage. Many people accepted six and nine because it is in Bukhari, but that does not discount other sources, such as Ibn-e-Kathir, who have noted events or reports which conclude a much higher age. In addition, even Bukhari's reports have been interpreted by Ghamidi, a philological scholar of Quran and Hadith, as in fact using a style of Arabic where assumed part (i.e. 10) is ommitted and the narrator only ends up saying six (which implies sixteen). In support of his opinion he presents the reports in which Laylat-al-Qadr has been told as one occuring on 3, 5, 7 or 9th night, whereas in fact, it refers to 23rd, 25th, 27th or 29th night during the month of Ramadan. I can point to resources of these scholars - I believe, given the large number of scholars and a significant number of Muslims accepting this view, it is only neutral to put in that point of view and explain the difference of opinion. I would like to put this in, unless there're objections to it. Omer 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there a mention of the song "Islam's not for me?"
It has to go in greater depth the criticism of Muhammad this marriage created. Jknight 98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.210.199 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Age at marriage
I have restored the section on Aisha's age at marriage. There has been a controversial debate on this issue for at least a decade or two, and I see no reason for it to be excluded from the article. It seems the section may have been removed due to a lack of prominent adherents of the opposing view, but now I've added Maulana Muhammad Ali as a prominented adherent, and may add more adherents later. Jagged 85 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was removed previously not because there were no "prominent" adherents the the view, but because the opinions of the people presented were not notable in and of themselves. Was Maulana Muhammad Ali a historian? Your version certainly gives Ali's view undue weight with that long, uncontextualized quote. I don't object to the controversy over her age being discussed, but that's different than making it seems like only "'Western' historians" and "Muslim conservatives" believe Aisha was married young. I'm sure Japanese historians and many other Muslims will come to the same conclusion based on the evidence.--Cúchullain /c 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would be original research to remove the arguments presented on the basis of personal opinion of how "convincing" we find them. How the section is written or whether it should stay depends on how the debate is viewed by scholars in reliable sources, not by how we personally view them. I am currently planning to re-write and shorten Muhammad Ali's argument in a non-quote form, which should balance out any undue weight issues. Jagged 85 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Maulana" Ali is not a historian. Please read the record of the development of the concensus on this issue. Thanks. Arrow740 07:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is best to summarize the minority view as following (sourced to Asma Barlas): "A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19. These Muslims base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina; Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry, genealogy, and the the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics at her marriage." --Aminz 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feminist political scientists can be safely ignored on these matters, thanks. Arrow740 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not Barlas's opinion. She is reporting of Muslims who do so and so. No analysis of her own is involved here. --Aminz 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- We've been over this too many times already. If you have anything to add to the old discussion, where you forwarded that Barlas was talking about people even less reliable than herself, add it. Otherwise please spare us the effort of pasting the old rebuttals here. Arrow740 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise. --Aminz 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, I take it that you're satisfied with the quite conclusive past discussion and have nothing to add. That is the case for me. Arrow740 08:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- "CONCLUSIVE?" --Aminz 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there should be more discussion on the subject, considering it has come up with critics of Muhammad and critics of Islam. If it were expanded, then perhaps we could have a sentance that some Muslims believe she wasn't so young, and probably point out that it wasn't seen as a problem at the time even with Muhammad's contemporary enemies.--Cúchullain /c 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- We have to separate polemics from history here. Every historian of Islam unequivocally states that she was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 at marriage. Arrow740 08:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. But this comes up enough to warrant discussion, perhaps in a different section, and after making it clear that the primary sources all say she was that young.--Cúchullain /c 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Arrow, if by historian, you mean those who study Islam in west it is correct. They accept it because the primary source say she was that young, because early marriage were not in anyways un-normal at that time, that there are reports of Aisha playing with dolls etc. But as a matter of fact there are contradictions in the reports implicitly touching the age of Aisha in the primary sources, and again as a matter of fact a minority of Muslims accept those reports. --Aminz 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it's not just "Western historians". You've never been able to provide a single historian, non-Western or otherwise, who concludes that Aisha was older.--Cúchullain /c 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- We have to separate polemics from history here. Every historian of Islam unequivocally states that she was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 at marriage. Arrow740 08:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there should be more discussion on the subject, considering it has come up with critics of Muhammad and critics of Islam. If it were expanded, then perhaps we could have a sentance that some Muslims believe she wasn't so young, and probably point out that it wasn't seen as a problem at the time even with Muhammad's contemporary enemies.--Cúchullain /c 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- "CONCLUSIVE?" --Aminz 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, I take it that you're satisfied with the quite conclusive past discussion and have nothing to add. That is the case for me. Arrow740 08:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise. --Aminz 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- We've been over this too many times already. If you have anything to add to the old discussion, where you forwarded that Barlas was talking about people even less reliable than herself, add it. Otherwise please spare us the effort of pasting the old rebuttals here. Arrow740 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not Barlas's opinion. She is reporting of Muslims who do so and so. No analysis of her own is involved here. --Aminz 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feminist political scientists can be safely ignored on these matters, thanks. Arrow740 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is best to summarize the minority view as following (sourced to Asma Barlas): "A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19. These Muslims base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina; Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry, genealogy, and the the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics at her marriage." --Aminz 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Maulana" Ali is not a historian. Please read the record of the development of the concensus on this issue. Thanks. Arrow740 07:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would be original research to remove the arguments presented on the basis of personal opinion of how "convincing" we find them. How the section is written or whether it should stay depends on how the debate is viewed by scholars in reliable sources, not by how we personally view them. I am currently planning to re-write and shorten Muhammad Ali's argument in a non-quote form, which should balance out any undue weight issues. Jagged 85 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Reliable sources have already answered the question for us. The only people disputing it are people who are not scholars of Islam, and have an axe to grind. We can't give their wishful thinking undue weight. Arrow740 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're not following me. It wouldn't be giving them any weight at all, it would just be giving the basic points of a notable modern discussion. If anything, I think that just saying she was six and not bringing up how this looks to modern eyes makes it seem like we're dodging an issue, covering it up to avoid offense.--Cúchullain /c 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the real and authentic "scholars of Islam" include exactly those who study Islam in west, nor have they ever made this claims of themselves. They look at the events from a certain perspective and based on certain principles and assumptions; and so do others.--Aminz 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)