Talk:Aisha

• Talk:Aisha/archive 1

What consummated really means

tr.v. con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, con·sum·mates

  1.
        1. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.
        2. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.
  2.
        1. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.
        2. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.

These are two possible meaning for the word consummated. Almost everyone thinks it's about sex. Consumated can aslo mean complete. Remember in early days of Arabia. A women was a tool. If a family got a daugther when they wanted a son they could bury her alive but doing that for a son was considered murder. Alot of people the Prohpet(PBUH) married were widowers who lost their husbands mostly from the battles. He married alot of them but he didn't have sex with all of them. Frankly this issue with Aisha is over blown by Anti-Islamists who look for reasons to discredit Islam.

"Almost everyone thinks it's about sex." If this is a misunderstanding, it could quite possibly be easily cleared up by going back to the original texts. The double meaning of the English word is not likely to exist also in the arabic word.

Story of the honey

a Sugestion:

no more of the honey. For this, the Prophet is addresed in a revelation with the rethorical question "why do you prohibit yourself" and answered in the same verse with "it is to please your wives, whatever had been made lawful by Allah was his to eat". Later (Qur'an 66:1). The viwes are then rebuked rebuked and warned in the folowing verses as "your hearts are inclined (to oppose him)"

Of course, it needs copyeditiong.

Latest revision

I have rewritten Striver's version. The article still needs some work. It's now quite long, and there's too much verbatim quoting of hadith. I hope that Striver will accept my rewrite as a faithful representation of the Shia viewpoint, even if not as long and detailed as his. Zora 23:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx for you time. May i propose to make a second version of the diffrent subjects att the end of the article where i can add all the details i want? --Striver 23:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, no. You can't add all the details you want. Or if you do, I'll trim them. Articles should be short, readable and NPOV. If you want complete control over an article about Aisha, you should write it and put it up on your own web page. If it's good enough, we'll link to it <g>.

It is also possible to write what are called "breakout" articles. If one particular issue threatens to take over an article, it can be given its own page. Muhammad's marriages were given just such treatment, as it would have swamped the main Muhammad biographical article. I don't think there's any issue relating to Aisha that deserves its own article, however.

As you seem to be quite interested in the early history of Islam, up through the Abbasids, you might want to look over the Wikipedia pages on these topics and make sure that the Shia viewpoint is well represented. I think there IS a Sunni bias to some of the articles. There are also a lot of early Islamic topics that need to be filled out in much greater detail. We could certainly use help there, especially from someone who reads Tabari. Zora 01:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the tips, ill try to get there when i feel i have done an acurate and comprehensive work on representing the Shia view on Aisha in this article. I work that way, on thing in depht, then the next.

About this article. Why is it a problem in having realy big articles? I dont get the point of restrictiong it. If its about readability, then why not have a short and then a detailet version of the same topic?

As it is i realy feel that i dont get to add all the hadith that show why we argue as we do.

Wikipedia tries to keep articles under 31 or 32K. That's why when you edit the Aisha page now, a warning pops up saying that it's too long. If an article starts to get too long and complicated, we do breakout articles. Also, we try to link to web pages, or give references to books, that take up the issue in greater detail. Wikipedia is the starting point for research, not the end of it. Zora 04:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my oppinion ther is a great deal to tell to show what she felt and why she felt so in regards to manny diffrent people. For example Fatimah, Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and so on...

Then write a novel about Aisha. Actually, that would be very interesting. Zora 04:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you can gues, ther are several persons and several diffrent ocasions (spellin?).

Whe Shia dont have a simplistic view of the people, that is "they alla loved eachothered and came along as great friends", no, we see theme more like in a soap oprah version where evreybody hade difrent views and angles on evereybody else, and in my oppinion its important to cover all importan persons that Aisha interacted with and how she did that to give a good picture of her aligeances. Its almost imposible to understand her psycology and why she rebeld agains Ali without having a simpistic view if we arent suposed to thuroughly go thruogh the background.

The background should be covered in OTHER articles about Islamic history. That's why we put links to the other articles in the text, so that someone who wants to find out more about Shia or Ali or Fatimah can do so easily, without having to conduct a separate search. That's why you really really should look at the other Islamic articles, not just this one, if you want to be sure that the Shia viewpoint is adequately represented in Wikipedia. Zora 04:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My spelling suck big time. I know. I dont have Word :(

Thx, and peace. --Striver 03:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't tell us what subject and what details. The policy of wikipedia is NPOV (i.e. neutral), not Shi'a bashing of Aisha OneGuy 01:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course its not, but would'nt you agree that its within the NPOV to acurratlý describe the Shia stance on the topic and also why we belive as we do and what our arguments are? --Striver 03:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. It's not the place to justify and promote Shi'a beliefs. It's not the place for Aisha bashing by Shias. Imagine a Christian apologist arguing that he would like to show why Islam is a false religion and Christianity is true. Would that be acceptable? Absolutely not. You need to take your pro-Shi'a apologetics to your own website OneGuy 03:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have somewhat misunderstood Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If in fact the majority of Shi'a think X about Aisha (I am not familiar with this facet of Islamic history/theology, so I will have to speak in abstract terms), then it is entirely NPOV to note that fact in the article (provided of course that it is noteworthy enough). Note: In this hypothetical example, I am not saying that "X about Aisha" is a fact, I am saying that "the majority of Shi'a believe X about Aisha" (my emphasis) is a fact. Noel (talk) 15:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do understand it. By pushing Shi'a POV I meant quoting tons of hadith/other things (rambling on) on a very minor point in the article just to show that Shi'as are "right" (in his opinion) on that minor point in the article. He was doing the same thing in Muhammad article OneGuy 20:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whell, ther is no problem having a christan saying his mind as long as he is stating that it is the cristian view. Anyway, i dont get the problem since i only quote Sunni sources. I mean, c'mon, why is the Sunni version supposed to be the correct one? Why is are the Shia not equally entiteled to give the Shia version?

Sunni vesion = evereybody are best friends. Shia version = they loved some and hated som people.

Whats whrong whith telling both sides?

Im not saying i want to take over the artikel, no at all. I just want to tell my version. Anybody else are welcomed to tell theirs.

--Striver 03:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a problem if a Christian says he wants to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Same rule applies to Muslims, Sunni or Shi'a. You can describe Shi'a belief but certianly not go into long rambling detail to justify them. I will delete any Shi'a apologetics if I see it OneGuy 03:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Giving all sides of a question is the Wikipedia way. But we have to give equal space to all sides AND we have to keep the articles under 32K. That can mean ruthless editing at times. That is, the Shias don't get as much space as they want, and the Sunnis don't get as much space as they want, and everyone is equally unhappy. Zora 04:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where do i see how big the article is right now? --Striver 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When you click on "Edit this page" a new page opens, and there's a warning at the top. You can't see it until you start to edit. Zora 18:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hodge podge

This article is supposd to be about Aisha, yet is reads like a venomous debate between Shia and Sunni. Everytime some thing is mentioned about Aisha, there is another para nitpicking it. Every single historical figure has controversy surrounding it. But when writing about it one writes about facts. Here, the venom especially from the shiite side makes the article read like one of those "Opposing viewpoint" series essay. The article doesn't seem to inform about Aisha as much as it wholly bashes her character and the controversies surrounding this historic feminist and leader of Muslims. There should be only one section labelled "Controversies surrounding Aisha" thats it. It would give it more cohorence, NPOV and not read like a venom laden garbage that it currently reads like. IMO, the sunni historians read more like modern day secular western historians, where the purpose is pursuit of the truth rather than maligning a personality for one's favourite side and beleif system.

omerlives Omerlives 07:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Aisha is an extremely controversial figure. We can't just decide that one version of the history is true, and disregard any other versions. Wikipedia tries to be NPOV -- neutral point of view. If there's a a dispute, we step back and try to give all sides in a neutral fashion, with links to outside sites and books if possible. That way a reader can look for more evidence and make up his/her own mind.

I do think that our Shia critic tried hard to turn this article into a critique of Aisha and that there's perhaps too much of that left. I'll take out some of the endless hadith "evidence" when I have time. But we can't just ignore the Shia point of view. To do so would be unfair to encyclopedia users, who might offend Shias out of ignorance if they assume that the Sunni view of matters is undisputed fact. Zora 07:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From his other edits and some of the articles he has created, it's pretty obvious that this guy Sriver is blatant Shi'a apologist who doesn't understand what NPOV means. Also, since 90% of Muslims are Sunni, so yes Sunni version would usually be used to describe what "Muslim" view is on the topic OneGuy 21:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, OneGuy, NPOV means taking account of minority views, not just majority ones. Not only are 10% of Muslims Shias, but Shias are in the news these days. I don't think the Shia views should take over the article, and Striver 'is' long-winded, so balance has to be restored. But at least he doesn't try to delete everything he doesn't agree with.

As I wrote on Striver's talk page, I think a large part of the problem is that he is trying to write history articles by jamming everything into biographical articles. I will start a bunch of articles on early Islamic history which are NOT biographical; you can too. You've already been doing some of this with your work on the Caliphs. Let's move Islamic history out of the biographies and into event-centered articles. How about starting with the Ridda Wars? Zora 22:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry OneGuy, but i have told several times, im quoting history books and more ore less established facts. You have not argued even one time with me on the validity of ANNY topic, only forwarded your opinion that im an "apologetic biased shia POV pusher". Get real and argue the topic, prove me wrong, tell me that Ali did NOT opposed Abu Bakr instead of raision votes for delition. Bukhari says that Umar said that Ali DID oppose Abu Bakr, so ´who are you to disagree? What does it matter if 90% of the Muslims dont want to aknowlege facts stated in their own books? Here we state facts, not Sunni POV, and, for example, Bukhari Says Ali DID oppose Abu Bakr.

Start seing the diffrens betwen Sunni POV and what Sunni books says.

And by the way, i usualy dont say "sunni says" or "muslim says", only "bukhari says" or "history of tabari says"

--Striver 21:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are contradictory hadith and contradictory history that both Sunni and Shi'a use to justify their own belief. You think we don't know that? You keep stuffing the articles with hadith and other quotes that Shi'a use to justify their belief and call it "true history." This is blatantly obvious Shi'a POV pushing, apogetics, and propaganda OneGuy 21:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Omerlives, its not my intent to bash umm ul-momeenin Aishas character, rather its to stop the sunni sides "Aisha is best" aproch. And i use all Sunni sources to show facts about her, i dont give any single oppininon. An strangly some people, like OneGuy are critizing me for my efforts to include establishd historical facts, in for example, the article about Mohammed.

I mean, c'mon, since when is it bias to portray established facts? Im genuinly hurt by the fact that my efforts to include established, non-disputed facts from sunni sources are dissmised as "biased shia apologetic POV". *sight*

I mean, since when is "man kuntu mawla, alion mawla" a Shia POV? FFS, that makes me so mad and makes me feels poorly treated. So what that the Sunni OPINION is that mawla means friens, is that an excues to exlude that FACT that he said so? Since when do Sunni OPINIONS ´have bigger levereage that FACTS?

Like the fact that Aisha recruited Hafsa and two other wives to harras the Prophet, somthing that made the Prophet leave them for one month and at the end, for the SECOND time, made him think on terminating the marriage to Aisha. Even Umar admits it and gives some very heavy words to Hafsa for it, but still sunnis rather forget the whole thing, only because it remninds them to the fact that Aisha was not an angel. Anyway, the honny episode is now included, no thanx to the Sunni contrubutes. I mean, all of Surah of "the prohibition" is due to this incident, but still Sunnis whant it to be forgoten. I glad that OneGuy isnt here as well, otherwise he would have dissmised the whole honny episode as well as "Biased irrelevant shia apologetic POV. :(

And i havent even started talking about why she is called "Humayra". "The red lady". Use your imagination. Or Aisha hand her fatwa on nursing male adults. *sight* THAT would make Sunnis go berzerk if i started showing what Aisha realy said about that.

Fact: Aisha hated Ali, Fatimah, and Hasan (pbut). ITS FACT. Its all over sunni books. Sunnis dont want to aknowledge that, so instead of being facts, its "biased Shia POV".

Let me aske one thing: If one day, the "Flat Earth Society" would make 85% of the world to belive that the earht is flat, would the FACT that the earth is round to become "irrelevant, biased apologetic Ruond-Earther POV"?

Im talking ESTABLISHED FACTS in SUNNI BOOKS!

Geting tired of this. Only cause Sunnis dont like it, dosnt make it POV! Its SUNNI POV in that case, NOT SHIA POV!

(

--Striver 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FACT FACT FACT FACT! stop labelling everything about your selective POV as fact. Unfortunately I donot have the time being a superbusy undergrad to start and correcting your article. My god! Books by most Western Historians read so much more better as one sees that they have made an HONEST attempt to present an NPOV. Just consider what if Ali by any happenstance was a controversial figure (which he too is) and say Sunnis had angst against him (which they dont) the way Shias do about virtually every other muslim figure save Ali's family. There could be produced a gazilion hadiths and rawayat's about Ali's incompetence, failure, impotence and what not. Just like any figure against whom any community has decided a negative mindset from the beginning. If you dont beleive it, ask any Chritian fundie about Mohammad and let im give you a course bout the vile Muhammad based on FACTS FACTS FACTS from sunni shia hadith quran and what not sources. Yet that article would NOT be balanced, neutral, honest by any chance even if countered in the second para by sunni writers. Read for example the acount on MOhammad by M. Hart in his book THE 100 in which he declares mohamad the most influential person and goes neither in overt sycophancy nor his personal POV. THAT is the honest attempt and that's the way an encyclopedia should read.

This is an encyclopedia, and try to educate people with honesty in your heart and that means honesty about all, the likes of Salman Rushdie, Hassan bin Sabah, Yazeed, Ali, Muawiyah, Khomeni,Bin Hanifa et al. omerlivesOmerlives 03:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uthman's death and the Battle of the Camel

It wasnt khwarij rebels that surounded Uthman, they khwarij group did come into existense util the forced arbitration of Ali and Muaviya.

Its in both Sunni and Shia sources that Hasan and Husain defended Uthman live, not only Shia sources.

--Striver 17:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agurzil's edits

There is a non-NPOV in the article, first it says that tabari was an "early" chronicler (what an ingnorance!), second it clearly makes a logical mistake : the tilte says aicha married when she was 9, and in the text it says 6!!!! if the word marriage doesn't suits you, change it! the reader has to know that Aicha ACCEPTED to marry when she was six. I will change all the non-NPOV.--Agurzil 08:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agurzil, please be polite. Early is relative. Tabari is later than Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, but not all that much later, and he's a primary source for much of what we know about early Islamic history. As for your insistence that Aisha was married at 6, using "marriage" for the ceremony that occurred is misleading -- betrothal would probably be more exact, as the marriage wasn't consummated and Aisha continued living with her family. Insisting on using "marriage" in this context is irresponsible, especially as this is a contentious question.

"early" was used in a misleading manner, insinuate that tabari lived before Boukhari or muslim, and that it was him who reported the hadith, whereas he just reported the work of Ibn Ishaq... and Tabri lived FOUR centuries after the death of Mohamed.

Consumed or not consumed, a marriage is a marriage, and it was explicitely said that she had sexual relations 3 years later after the marriage the reader cannot be mislead. in my family the same thing happens, sometimes couples start living together for one or two years after the marriage... it's not just a betrothal that could easily be cancelled, and the reader HAS to know that Aicha agreed when she was only 6 years, this is a very important fact that should not be disguised. --Agurzil 17:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The hadith doesn't say she lived with Muhammad before she was nine. OneGuy 20:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, and I don't think that is what Agurzil claim eighter. Stereotek 07:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accusing everyone else of ignorance and illogicality befits your namesake, the Berber god of war, but it doesn't help us work together to produce useful articles. Zora 11:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I accused the guy who reverted my edit.--Agurzil 17:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agurzil claims that hadith says that Aisha lived with Muhammad when she was 6. That's not what the hadith says:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. OneGuy 22:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Really? Where does Agurzil make the claim that Aisha lived with Muhammad when she was 6? As I understand it, his claim is that Muhammad married (or betrothed) Aisha when she was 6, and started living with her 3 years after, when she was 9. That is (as I understand it) also the claim of the hadith, that you just mentioned. Stereotek 07:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what I should call you. Djames, Mahay, or Stereotek, but read above. Here is where Agurzil makes that claim: All the hadiths say that aicha lived with mohamed before having sexual relations with him. [1] OneGuy 08:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to call me whatever you like. :-) Anyway, when I look back through the history of this discussion, I must admit that you are right. But this being said, I think we should also consider that fact that he, himself, removed that comment 4 minutes after he wrote it. [2] Another fact is that he did not include that claim in his version of the article. Stereotek 09:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will explain why I did a confusion in writing that aicha lived with mohamed before having sexual relations (Only for 4 minutes as noted by Stereotek): it was because of this hadith

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.Book 008, Number 3311:

I couldn't imagine a man having sexual relations with a girl still playing with dolls, that is why I thought she lived with him between 6 and 9 years old, I think we should add these two hadiths because it is a good evindence of her non-puberty (physically and psychically) at the age of 9.--Agurzil 17:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC

I think we should add a new section called "the implication of Aicha's marriage in sharia", for example, a girl can be married at the age of 9 in Iran.--Agurzil 17:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A 14 year old girl can also play with "dolls." In the US, there are older women who collect dolls. In any case, like Striver, here we have another POV pusher who is turning the article into unreadable mess by copying and pasting repetitive hadith that he thinks will push his POV. What's the point of cutting and past the exact similar hadith narrated by the same person and from the same hadith collection? If Aisha or Bukhari are wrong/lying in one place, they are wrong/lying everywhere. OneGuy 18:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please, let's not start calling each other too many strange names. (POV pusher and such...). Another thing is that the hadiths that you just deleted, was not all from Bukari and all of them was not narrated by Aisha. As a matter of fact two of them was not...

1) Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

2) Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

I just added these two again. Stereotek 19:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually the situation is even worse. All of these hadith on Aisha's age were reported by Urwa (also known as Abu Hisham). If you look at the chain of narration, even the hadith where the first narrator is claimed to be Aisha, the person who is quoting Aisha (in the chain see Isnad) is Urwa (or Abu Hisham). I was correct. It's basically a repetition of the same information from the same source (Urwa) and should not be repeated OneGuy 19:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All the hadith on Aisha's age include Urwa in the chain of narration? That surprise me! Anyway, out of interest, could you please mention your source for that information?

Another ting is that you changed Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 from Narrated Ursa to Narrated 'Urwa. I find it a bit hard to track down a source that support that specific change. Maybe you could mention yours? Stereotek 09:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I removed the bit re the age of marriage in Iran -- that's irrelevant to Aisha. I also rewrote much of what Striver contributed. I hope the article flows more smoothly now. Zora 19:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not even sure these claims about Iran are entirely true.

Legal age for brides lifted to 13
24jun02
IRAN'S arbitrating body has approved a reformist law increasing the minimum marriage age from 9 to 13 for girls and from 14 to 15 for boys. The new law stipulates that marriage of girls under 13 and boys under 15 will require court permission, the government-run daily Iran has reported. It gave no further details.

The law's approval is seen as a victory for Iran's reformists, who have sought to promote women's rights. The elected legislature passed a similar Bill in August 2000, but the hard-line Guardian Council rejected it as contradicting Islamic sharia law. Now, the Expediency Council, which arbitrates between parliament and the Guardian Council, has passed the measure into law. Officials were unavailable for comment. "This is yet another fulfillment of promises of reformists, especially female lawmakers, who had promised to protect women's rights," said lawmaker Fatemah Khatami. "Still, we have a long way to go to provide adequate legal protection for women." [3]

OneGuy 19:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP attacking article

Some anon editor with a strong attitude is trying to revive the "Muhammad is a pedophile" controversy. He seems to be intent on removing one portion of a sentence in which it is noted that some Muslim commentators insist that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine. I was the one who wrote that; I was the one who read exactly that defense on several Islamic web pages. I recall some wording like "girls grow up faster in the desert". Now I think this would be a symptom of a severe hormone disorder myself, and thus highly unlikely, but I was just reporting what I read.

I believe that this could possibly be a resurgence of Pename -- wasn't he banned for a year? I don't understand why this IP is able to post. Zora 08:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, this is another POV pusher who is already on POV and vandalism parole. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 OneGuy 08:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zora, your friend OneGuy is now roping you into his 3RR violationn, FYI. He is using you as a reference as to what a bad "vandal" I am... LOL.. See [4] 168.209.97.34 08:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy simply reverted without bothering to discuss it, besides garbled comments in the edit summary. He reverted 4 times and has been reported. I originally put back in there that it was highly unlikely that Aisha was post-pubescent at the age of 9. It was there for months and only removed two days ago. As soon as I put it back OneGuy went on the attack. And I am not trying to revive the "Muhammad is a pedophile". I simlply said some critics say that is a possible reason, just as some islamic apologists think aisha was post pubescentn at the age of 9. I didn't add the pedophile part to the article though, I just asked him why only put one point of view in there. 168.209.97.34 08:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate to revert vandalism (removing factual information) more than three times by a known abuser already on POV and vandalism parole OneGuy 08:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You might want to check your "facts". Most muslims don't believe Aisha was 9 year old, so they don't even touch on the issue of if she was post-pub at the age of 9. Your edits show that you too doubt she was 9 years old. So not only did you not give both arguements, you gave your side with factually INcorrect information. 168.209.97.34 08:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this happened in the 7th century, man. You were not there. We only even know about it through 'muslim sources'. It's very simple. The sources should be listed, it should be put into the proper 7th century Arabian context (i.e. nobody even raised an eyebrow, at the time!), and usual interpretations (she was post-pubescent etc.) should be given. We are not discussing whether she was indeed post-pubescent, this would be futile. We are just citing authorities on the subject. OneGuy, the removal of the "post-pubescent" passage is not strictly vandalism. Especially since "usual response" seems a bit weasly. But if it is indeed the usual response, it should of course be here, and I'll help putting it back. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about this. We put it back to the way it has been for months on end. It used to say something to the likes of "the usual response was that Aisha was post-pub (although medically it is unlikely) ...". It was that way for months and then was removed 2 days ago. As soon as I re-added it OneGuy started a revert war until he finally got blocked. 168.209.97.34 09:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether this statement was in the article before. It's factually incorrect to claim that nine year old girls can never reach puberty NICARAGUAN GIRL, 9, RECEIVES ABORTION. OneGuy

Just because there are a few freaks of nature doesn't mean it's a normal occurrence. It is simply speculation. One could also speculate that Muhammad was sterile because despite all of his wives he only had one child, who died shortly after birth. We could also speculate the mother of that child was sleeping around (like Aisha is accused of) and the father wasn't even Muhammad. We could also speculate that Aisha never had children because of internal damage she received when having the marriage consumated at an early age. I'm not saying any of that is true, all I'm saying is the fact that Aisha was post-pub is speculation and is not supported by any authentic scripture or any other valid source. 168.209.97.34 07:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fine. can we also do some actual, unbiased research on it? I would be interested about the history of this in islamic writing. I.e. was it even seen as an issue, were there disputes about the puberty thing, and who are the authors who advanced either view? "usual response" somehow just isn't good enough. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

It would be a monumental task to track down the history of this controversy. My suspicion is that it's fairly recent. It's reminiscent of the 1980s and early 1990s hysteria over multiple personalities/satanic ritual abuse/pedophile rings/day care trials &c. I would guess that this criticism was first raised by Christian polemicists and then the Muslims started responding to it. Several of the sites I found referred to this as a recent slander by Orientalists.

I found three websites where the "early menarche" explanation is given:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

I trust that's sufficient evidence? Zora 10:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sure, I don't doubt it is the usual response. I just meant that it'd be nice to be able to be a bit more specific. Also,

Prophet’s marriage to `Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, has always been a subject of attack and criticism by the enemies of Islam. seems to gesture at a longer history of the controversy, but I doubt it has been brought up before modern times, but maybe we can dig up some 16th century Christian rants about this? dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, this is very modern internet phenomenon. If you read older polemics, you won't find it there. At least I haven't seen it in older Christian/secular books published online OneGuy 21:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, then the whole thing is not very notable, is it? A short paragraph saying that internet proselytizers recently have been calling 'child abuse' should suffice. This article should focus on the cultural background, what authors wrote about Aisha, the sort of thing now dealt with in two sentences, "in Shia..., in Sunna...". I mean seriously, who cares if a girl back in the 7th century was 9 or 14 when she married. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The material is there because the article is a frequent target of anti-Islamic POV warriors. Before this topic was split off from the main Muhammad article, the POV warriors were busily trying to insert "Muhammad is a pedophile" in the main article. Rather than go through the same fight over and over again, we have it all laid out, both sides.

That sufficed for a while at least. Sigh .... Zora 08:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~

Nobody reeacting to the pedofilia link in "How old was Aisha when she was married?"? --Striver 16:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Striver, I looked at that, thought it was a bit of a low blow, and then considered that anyone who read the pedophilia article would realize that it didn't describe a man who usually married older widows! But if you want to remove it, please do. Zora 18:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed a website added by anon editor

An anon editor added a link to another website arguing that Aisha was older than 9 when married. The addition was in the wrong place, in the wrong form, and the website to which it linked was diffuse and confusing. There is already a link to a very succinct and well-written presentation of the evidence. Surely that is sufficient example of this POV. Zora 11:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eagleamn's edit

A new editor named Eagleamn added "Battle of the Camel" to one section of the article. I reversed his/her edit, because the battle is already mentioned twice, once in a section heading and once in the course of the narrative. I don't think the addition is necessary, and it throws the rhythm of the sentence off. Eagleamn, of course you're free to come here and argue about it <g>. Zora 21:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon editor's addition re Aisha's age

An anon editor added another item to the list showing that Aisha was post-pubescent. Some of the information in that item simply duplicated info already given. There was new information, re a ten-year age difference between Aisha and Asma, and an assertion that Asma died at the age of 100 in 73 AH. However -- this new information was not sourced. I find the assertion that Asma lived to the age of 100 a little hard to believe. It seems more likely to me that neither Aisha nor Asma knew precisely how old she was, given the way people dated at that time, and the frequent controversies re dating various events in early Islamic history.

If there's a new argument to be made, it should be sourced. Zora 07:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another anon

This time the anon argued that Aisha was clearly Muhammad's favorite wife and that um, "his potency was increased 40 times over". Ugh. That sounds like a Viagra ad and it's highly debateable. Zora 06:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just have to ask: why this contempt against anon users? EliasAlucard|Talk 09:34, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just cranky from a lot of reverting vandalism lately, but it seems to me that for every anon IP who's just a new editor, a bit confused, doesn't know how to set up an account, may break rules out of ignorance, there are ten or twenty anon editors who are sockpuppets, pushing POVs or committing vandalism. But you may be right that I was too acerb in rebutting an edit that was "unfortunate" but not clearly vandalism. Zora 07:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to acknowledge: most vandal edits come from anon users, but every now and then, some anon user adds pure facts. This pretty much makes it difficult to differentiate between what's vandal, and what isn't. Now, I'm not saying that this was or wasn't vandalism, all I'm saying is that you should be wary to not judge every anon edit as vandal. Personally though, if I were in charge, I'd make Wikipedia an account edit only encyclopedia.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:01, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

How old was Aisha when she was married?

It seems that more context is needed here. What were common practices around the world, especially with arranged marriages? What were common practices with the nobility class? My belief is that whether the age was 9 or 14, in the age of survival of the fittest, in the age before female education and autonomy, before the development of modern medicine and psychology, the ancient notion was that there was likely nothing wrong with this practice. --Noitall 21:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

About the only context we have is anthropological, for various pre-modern societies. Many of them marry off females at an extremely early age, while they are still pre-pubescent. However, my understanding is that these marriages are not consummated until the bride is post-pubescent. Early marriage is usually seen by the parents as a kind act, assuring the girl's future. It can also be a way of ensuring that arranged marriages go ahead as planned, while the girl is still young and docile, and hasn't formed her own preferences. Both nobility and peasants practice early marriage.

Since what counts, socially, is the marriage, that's what is recorded. I would guess that recording the date and time of consummation would be much less common, and much harder to document -- especially for societies we only know through fragmentary records and archaeological evidence. I dunno how much physical anthrologists can figure out from bones -- age certainly, having born children, possibly -- but virginity is NOT something they could possibly deduce.

I need to get a copy of Robertson-Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, and put it through Distributed Proofreaders. It's old, but it's still one of the few sources for pre-Islamic Arabia. Zora 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was reading a "hadith" in which some contemporary denounces Ibn Ishaq as a liar the other day. The reason he gave was that Ibn Ishaq claimed to have heard a hadith from the contemporary's wife, who, supposedly, had never spoken to a strange man since her marriage at the age of nine. From the tone of the narration, I think we can safely assume that early marriage was considered fairly normal in Ibn Ishaq's time. - Mustafaa 23:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The facts in Arabia are certainly relevant. But the people espousing this point are really comparing it to Western values, if there was such a thing at that time. I do not like anachronistic analysis and that is what happens when we look at yesterday through the knowledge and values of today.

--Noitall 01:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I commend Noitall and Mustafaa's courage in asserting that having sex with nine year-old children is a morally neutral act, and not to be judged out of cultural context. I may find their opinion disgusting and perverse, but I admire their conviction. Babajobu 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For anyone who reads and thinks about what I stated above, I made no such assertion about morals or my own personal convictions. Further, morals require enlightenment and my argument was that a milenium ago they were not enlightened as some of us are today. Of course, your backhanded slap without addressing the argument or offering any context or history or providing sources or research may show that not everyone today is enlightened either.

--Noitall 14:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what you're objecting to. You say you dislike it when "we look at yesterday through the knowledge and values of today." I'm applauding your bold willingness to disregard simplistic and presentist notions of the instrinsic distastefulness of sex with small children. You complain that I offer no context...of course not, I'm affirming your point about the importance of context; surely the importance of context is true regardless of context, no? Perhaps context is only "important" in the eyes of people enmeshed in our own present historical context, just as sex with nine year old girls is only pederasty when considered in the same arbitrary context. Babajobu 15:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I take back my compliment. You say: "morals require enlightenment and my argument was that a milenium ago they were not enlightened as some of us are today." So you're saying that Muhammad's behavior was the product of not being enlightened. He does one thing you disagree with and so suddenly he's uncivilized. You, sir, have no appreciation for the importance of context. One man's "enlightenment" is another's ignorant heresy. Go join the Bush administration, you neocon fanatic. Babajobu 15:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, both points refer to marrying nine-year-olds. As Zora notes, finding information on the age of consummation is much more difficult. The youngest marriage I know of (from the Guiness Book of Records) was of a 1-year-old to a nine-month-old, I believe; we can safely assume it wasn't consummated for some time...- Mustafaa 19:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu is very confused about many things. You are attacking me and you don't even have any idea of what ideas you are attacking. My point is that Muhammad's behavior in this particular aspect was the product of his times. People were commonly betrothed prior to the age of 9, even at birth, see the entire history of European prince and princesses. Kings ran countries and executed people by this age. It was not a time where you needed to be 18 to get a driver's license or drink a beer. Sickness felled a large percentage of families and they did things early. Even though I am a Christian, I am no bible expert, but I bet you would find a lot of passages in the Old Testiment where it was pretty normal to marry and, presumably, consumate the marriage, early. --Noitall 19:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• • Betrothal is not the issue here; we're talking about sex with a small child. How young a child was Aisha when first Muhammad copulated with her? Traditional answer: nine years of age. It is this simple fact that neocon presentist fanatics like Noitall insist on condemning as "unenlightened," even as they acknowledge the importance of cultural context in understanding and evaluating an individual's actions. When will the judgmental madness end?? Babajobu 01:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Yabbut, the same people who insist on believing the hadith that she was nine also assert that she was post-pubescent, because "Arabian girls matured earlier". Yes, this is bogus, because all the evidence is that the age of menarche in traditional societies was higher than it is now, in these days of good nutrition. But that seems to me to be good evidence that:

• For religious reasons, the traditionalists cannot doubt the hadith, because so much of Islamic law is derived from Aisha-sourced hadith.
• They want to believe that Muhammad is the pattern of human perfection.
• They think sex with pre-pubescent females is squicky.

The only possible solution is claiming that Aisha was post-pubescent at nine. This says more about the ulema, IMHO, than it does about Muhammad. Zora 01:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Zora's assessment is right on the money. There is no earthly reason to suspect that Aisha would have been post-pubescent at nine years of age; the plainsense truth is that she was likely to be far less physically developed than today's girls of wildly early menarche (eleven or twelve years old, in many modern cases). The inevitable jerry-fix is that Allah expedited Aisha's physical development so that Muhammad could get his freak on. However, this is not of encyclopedic value. Anyway, who are we to judge? Babajobu 11:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just want to address personal attacks by Babajobu. I don't mind personal attacks, I am a big person. But please make them somewhat relevant to the issue. I have made no edit here on this article, and only initiated a discussion to find out other POVs and other people's research or knowledge. Thus Babajobu's cannot be based on some edit he fundamentally disagrees with or the fact that I reverted his cherished bit of words or POV. Babajobu has called me all sorts of names, and I really do not know why, and made all sorts of scattered assumptions based on the articles I have edited, not on the what I have actually edited in those articles. Basically, all Babajobu has proven here is that he/she virolently leaps to conclusions without thinking. For the rest of you, thank you for your comments. --Noitall 13:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I read Noitall's talk page, and agree that that's a pretty fun use of "nonetheless." Babajobu 23:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at Babajobu's user page, and tried to talking him/her/it reasonably, I can only conclude that he/she/it feels contempt for the rest of us puny humans and is just toying with us for the entertainment value. This is a change from the usual wingnut POV warrior we get on Wikipedia. He/she/it is to be briefly relished and then ignored. Zora 01:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was being serious when I said that I agreed with Zora's assessment. Babajobu 04:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter what age Aisha was when she was married to Mohammmed (peace be upon him). To imply that Mohammed was a very very bad man is offensive. Many people back then were very young when they got married. Many times, marriages in Europe of Kings were at a young age. Saduj al-Dahij 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• The point I was leading to was an anachronistic analysis that this was a common practice when norms were entirely different. For instance, almost 1000 years later, see Captain John Smith and Pocahontas. --Noitall 18:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

redirect

I do agree that this article is just fine as it is, absolutly.

I made that change to try to standardize all article, following "Name ibn/bint Fathers name". Its more practical in the long run, specialy if you have lots of articles....

Dont you agree its better to standardize?

--Striver 30 June 2005 01:11 (UTC)

You should have talked to other editors before you started moving and revising articles to fit them in your new grand scheme.

I agree that it would be a good idea to post genealogies -- such as the one I started for Ali ibn Abi Talib -- so that readers could make sense of the relationships between early Islamic figures, IF THEY WANTED TO DO SO. However, this does not need to be the very first thing in the article. Someone consulting Wikipedia to find out who Aisha was, doesn't want to start with a genealogy. This is extra material.

Redirecting from the name that everyone knows and encounters to a name that no one knows is also a bad idea. Zora 30 June 2005 01:24 (UTC)

You are absolutly correct, i apologise for redirectin Aisha without consulting. And you initative about Alis geneology is far better than mine, ill move the "family tree" to an article resebling yours and, as you did, link to it from the main article. Again, a great initiative!

About Aisha, dont you agree its better to redirect to "Aisha bint Abu Bakr" to make it fit my "new grand scheme" ;P  ?

Peace!

--Striver 30 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)

request

i want to add this:

"=== Muawiya ===

Thenceforth she lived a retired life until both his brother where killed by Muawiya ibn Abu Sufuyan. She became furious and became vocal, causin her to be killed by Muawiya in approximately 678."

after the end of the battle of the cammel. Any comments?

--Striver 30 June 2005 02:19 (UTC)

I see that part was totaly ignored... well, ok, lets just say she died in a "unknown event"... *sight*

Regarding sharia faling apart if Aisha not being trustworthy, that does not apply to shias, we dont consider her trustworthy to begin with.

--Striver 00:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry, I didn't SEE your comment until now. His brother? Whose brothers? That is not clear at all. Nor is it at all clear that Muawiya killed Aisha. The more hadith I read, the more conspiracy theories I find. Anyone who is said by one faction to have died of illness or old age is said by another faction to have been poisoned. At this time, unless we could find the grave, exhume the body and test it to see if any poisons have survived the millenia, we can't be sure about ANY of the poison theories. I don't see that there's any point in mentioning them.

As for the point re Shi'a not considering Aisha-sourced hadith reliable for law, that's a good one, I'll make changes. Zora 01:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr. About the old age thing, who said Aisha died of old age? I have never heard of a alternative view. Regarding the second, thank you. --Striver 02:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I found one reference in Madelung to Aisha's rage at Muawiya's murder of her brother, and desecration of his body -- only the one brother cited. Wasn't the other brother killed by Marwan, not Muawiya? Would take some research to dig up. Madelung has nothing re the death of Aisha. After much googling, I came up with one Shi'a account saying that Muawiya dug a pit for Aisha, into which she fell and was killed. This was held up to Sunni derision on the talk forum where I found it. Re poison, you may be remembering stories that Muawiya had Husayn ibn Ali poisoned, by bribing his wife -- also a Shi'a story, denied by Sunni.

This is a period not covered by my Ibn Ishaq. My copy of Ibn Sa'd isn't here yet, and I only have one volume of Tabari, for a different period. I can't find any record of an English translation of al-Waqidi. Do you have any cites OTHER than late, Shi'a oral traditions? It sounds to me as if the claim that Muawiya murdered Aisha is just one more attempt to blacken the name of Muawiya. Zora 05:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no first hand sources regarding this, only shia books in shia sites. And the book calims Mauwiya also poisoned the second brother and also gives a context to it. You can find a link to it in the brothers article. Wheter its true or not is irrelevant, we are not here to judge its auteticity, only to report it. You can write "shia cite sunni sources claiming Aisha was burried alive by Muawiya".

--Striver 17:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the two articles on Aisha's brothers, and they refer to extremely biased and unscholarly sources. There's nothing in either one about Aisha's death. Please give me some references that would prove that Shi'a as a whole believe that Aisha was murdered by Muawiya. Zora 00:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Right now i cant offer more proof that all shia i have talked to and all shia sources i have read, whenever they have mentioned her death, they have claimed Muawiya did it. That is good enough for me. Sister, i cant find a "scholarly" referens for every single thing i know, in this case it should suffice that al-islam.org, answerig-ansar.org and shianews.com claim it. They all three are among the most prominent shia sites on the net.

By the way, could you add that she liberated Barirah mawla Aisha before hijra?

--Striver 21:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Striver, no, I don't want to link to that article. It has zilch relevance to Aisha, and it's a bad article. It seems to be part of your campaign to import all the hadith you encounter, good and bad, into Wikipedia, one by one. Turning us into Hadithipedia, I suppose. For hadith, LINKS are enough. Putting them in Wikisource is also good. But an article for every hadith you like ... please, no, Striver.

If you can't offer proof, I'm not going to do any more googling. You seem willing to believe anything as long as it strikes your fancy. I can't be sure if what you say is majority Shi'a opinion, or better yet, educated Shi'a opinion, or if you just found it in a chat room. That's why I want cites! Links! Zora 22:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The story of the honey

It's good that Zeno brought up the alternate explanation of sura 66. I wasn't aware of the two explanations until now, but I think this makes perfect sense. I think the two explanations should be explained in more detail, rather than just a link to the concubine/wife Maria being given. I'll do it when I can. However, I don't think it's true that the Shi'a reject the story of the honey, since it was a Shi'a, Striver, who added it in the first place. Of course, Striver does not necessarily reflect the views of all Shi'a. Again, research would be needed. Zora 18:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Im a little bit unsure, i have seen a shia mentione the alternative version, but i was prone to see it as a rare stance, since i have not seen other shia oppose the honey version. I judge that most shia also belive the honey version to be accurate, but i might very well be wrong. I have mentioned the honey version in front of very educated shia, and nobody even hinted that it might be incorect. More investigation is needed to prove that shia belive in the alternative version, and how manny of them do so. I personaly object to the alternative view --Striver 03:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I dont get this, the siege guys have changed all over WP that "shias", impling all of them, question the story of the honey, and they have not used one single source for that, it bothers me that when i whant to add something, then 30 outside sources proove nothing about shia view, but when siege wants to add, then 0 links is adequate sourcing. Bah!

--Striver 12:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno of Elea changed

"Some secular scholars believe that the historicity of the story of the honey is questionable."

to

"Secular scholars and Shiah Muslims believe that the historicity of the story of the honey is questionable."

and added the remark "rv striver maybe youre not such a shia expert after all". I would like to see some source that proves that all shia and all Secular scholars belive its questionable. Some secular scholars i could buy since zora also made some similar claim, and she usualy sources from secular books, but i have yet to find sources that any notable numbers of Shia regard it as false. Im goint go reveret him and exepect him to source his stands before revering me.

Oh, and thanks for the personal remark, i love those. --Striver 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, the "story of the honey" comes from Sahih Bukhari. Can you please tell us what the Shiah view on Sahih Bukhari is? --Zeno of Elea 09:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, thats weak, and you know it. We all know that Shia belive Bukhari to be the most un-authetic collection around, followed only by Muslims collection. I mean, Bukhari ommiting Ghadire Khum is ... lol, it tells how biased he was. How one can omit the MOST authentic and widely reported event ever, no mater what kind of Muslim you are, without even hinting it happened, well... you get it.

As for you week implied conclusion, "its false since its in Bukhari", well, Badr is in Bukhari and i havent seen any Shia reject Badr.

Im not claiming that all muslim belive in the Bukhari version of surah 66, i just want some source before you claim as facts that all Shia belive it to be the non-honey version. --Striver 10:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Shiahs believe the non-honey version either. I'm saying that they believe in neither the story of the honey NOR the alternate story regarding Maria the Copt, which comes from Ibn Ishaq. I'll try to find the source where I read this. --Zeno of Elea 13:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

aisha fought her son in law?

the only war i can remember was the war of the camel, between her and ali... i dont see how he's her son in law if that's who it was referring to --GNU4Eva 03:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Fatima was Muhammad's daughter; Ali married Fatima; Ali was Muhammad's son-in-law. Aisha was Muhammad's wife, therefore Ali would have been her son-in-law too -- or at least her step-son-in-law.

If that's confusing you, change or drop it. I can see where the linguistic expedients of modern-day blended families might not make sense when you're talking about polygamy. Zora 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (who took her ex-mother-in-law shopping the other day.)

I thought that maybe what they were referring to but it does seem a bit confusing, as it seems to imply that Ali was Muhammad's son. Step-son in law seems redundant (don't step son and son in law mean the same thing?). I don't have a problem with it but I just thought it was a bit confusing. --GNU4Eva 03:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (as for the shopping, let's just say to each their own...)

Zeno, surely a more informative version is to be preferred

Zeno, you reverted to your version of the Maria note, and I can't see why. Is it just that you like the look of your own prose? I don't see why we can't explain the alternate theory in the Aisha article and repeat the explanation in the Maria article. I can see asking users to click to another article when the explanation would be too long -- such as dealing with the whole succession to Muhammad problem -- but one para is not too much to add. Zora 02:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oho, I just looked at the Maria article and I can see why you want people to go there. You've turned it into a subtly malicious anti-Muhammad screed. Some NPOVing will be necessary there, I think. Zora 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Shouldent have done that revert.

--Striver 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo's edits

Stevertigo spent a lot of time giving the Muslim apologetic gloss, as well as removing the earlier note re the use of Ayesha as a woman's name. I removed the gloss, and here's why:

This article has been a hotly contested area for years. It is the scene of ugly clashes between anti-Muslim bigots (Muhammad was a pedophile, nyah nyah!) and pious Muslims (nothing that makes Muhammad look even remotely human or fallible can be included). Not to mention the Shi'a versus Sunni wars.

After a great deal of editing work, we had arrived at what seemed to be a stable NPOV version, one that all sides could accept. Stevertigo's edits threatened to return us to that state of all-out war. I don't feel that they added any information -- they just insisted on the Muslim version of Aisha's history.

Stevertigo, I know that you think you're defending Islam with your edits, but your efforts would just plunge us back into the wars and lead to the posting of more scurrilous interpretations of Muhammad's behavior. Please, unless you have extra information to add (which I don't think is possible, since we've covered the earliest sources), let this version be. Zora 07:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your above characterization of my edits carries a number of improper assumptions - I have already responded on your talk page about the basic nature of the edit itself, and my reasons for reverting it. For the record I have now also explained my second revert at User talk:Zora. -St|eve 16:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What gives? You seem to be playing tit for tat. I reverted your edits, so you'll revert mine, nyah nyah nyah. This time, rather than reverting your edits, I reworked them -- and also, noticing a problem, corrected the format of some references and added a missing page number. But you reverted that undeniably useful edit, among others. Zora 23:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Faithfreedom.org link

A new editor just added a link to a page on the Faithfreedom.org website that accuses Muhammad of being a pedophile. I was going to delete this as malicious slander and then I thought -- it's perhaps a good idea for readers to know just what sort of venom is being spread on this matter. In fact, the page is so transparently prejudiced that I don't think it has the effect it wants to have.

I'd like to hear what other editors have to say on this matter. I hope that people can consider it from the freedom of speech/access to information angle and not the "we must not disrespect the prophet" angle. Zora 23:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina has just been banned from wikipedia, and his hate site will not be tolerated on any page. Yuber^(talk) 00:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But his page is still there, and I don't recall any ruling saying that faithfreedom.org links were not allowed. Could you explain further? Zora 02:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ali Sina's website expresses one out of many different types of views on the subject of Islam which are presented in Wikipedia. Unlike what Yuber seems to think , Wikipedia does not resolve around what he would like the world to be.--CltFn 04:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He is neither banned, neither crazy, neither good, nor bad. We care about notability. Cheers -- Szvest 04:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Ali Sina is quite notable , a published author and a recognized source of dissident views on Islam and he gets quite a lot of hits on Google too.--CltFn 04:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that notabilty is a relative term. In order to be fair, Ali Sina is not notable enough to be quoted in Wikipedia. You've got plenty of notable writers, journalists, scholars, experts that can be found at Critics of Islam's Category. 99% of people belonging to that category are notable enough to be quoted in these kind of articles. Someone who runs a website from behind the curtains doesn't merit to be referenced in Wikipedia. Cheers -- Szvest 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Ali Sina had a username? Which was it? When was it banned?

My view is that FFI is not notable and definitely not scholarly. The problem I have is that some of the other sources here aren't either. So, if we are going to cite cheap Islamic sites we can use FFI. Once we rise out of the gutter we can scrap both of those. (Note: If the cite is being linked to for a notable book that's another matter... but remember; choose the least partisan site when linking to an online book. We don't link FFI over Gutenberg). gren グレン 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

well that is one way of looking at it gren, though I just don't see what people object to with Ali Sina ,he is just an apostate encouraging Muslims to leave Islam by presenting them with an alternate view of Islam which they may not have been presented before. He does his best to provide factual and accurate information and testimonies from ex-muslims.Whats wrong with that? And whats wrong with saying what you think about anything that exists in the world? If the information from the site is accurate and verifiable then it should have equal ranking as any other source on Wikipedia.--CltFn 06:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

CltFn, you have to understand that this is not a political forum or podium to make people more notable. There are guidelines in Wikipedia. We don't accept controversial websites, blogs and forums like this one or the ones belonging to Al-Qaeda, ETA, etc... to have predominant referencing in Wikipedia for controversial religion-related articles. People are entitled to exercise free speech but we mainly here are guardians of this free speech against hate speech. As explained above, notable critics of Islam or Paganism are accepted. His bio intro does not help this case as it says nothing if you compare it with respected and notable critics. Just a note; there are plenty of similar rants from other opponent websites. We do not accept to participate on that battle between people who pretend to advice others. Cheers -- Szvest 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

You seem so eager to label Ali Sina's website Faith Freedom Org as hate speech , but I have not found that to be the case at all on the contrary I see Ali Sina taking a courageous stand for decency and humanity and against hatred and barbarism through his site and work. As a matter of fact perhaps you could point out something on the site that you would classify as hate speech. I see blunt criticisms, documentation and depictions of brutal realities, discussions , graphic photos and videos , testimonials but I do not see hate speech or racism. --CltFn 06:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to go back again to list all what is considered as hate speech and post them here again. Please refer to Ali Sina and Talk:Ali Sina for details. Apart from this point, the guy is no scholar, no expert, no journalist, no professor, anonymous -in contrast with most of critics of Islam-. He says As an engineer, I do have much more interest in current practical issues rather than the historical. Please, save us some time CltFn. As I said even before, I don't care who he is as long as he is notable enough, quoted by mass media before wikipedia, etc... Cheers -- Szvest 07:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Karl, I assume that you understand very well that when discussing Ali's notability, we subsequently discuss his website. Cheers -- Szvest 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

The article that we have an external link to is written by Ali Sina but it's subject is not ALi Sina, so how notable he is or not, is not very interesting in this case. The article is about the Aisha/Muhammed pedophilia controversy which is obviously very well known, and of course worth mentioning in this article. I don't see any reason why there should be any resistance to having a link to an article that clarify and provide information to our readers, about one of the POVs that exist regarding this issue? Other articles re this issue can of course be added to add some balance and provide information about other POVs re this, however I don't see any reason to remove the external link. -- Karl Meier 21:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, Karl. When you say that it is written by him than we have to go back to discuss his notability! Regarding the question about the resistance, I must say "why not insert a reference to a more acceptable and notable authour/website"? I am totally with a balance but we should agree about issues like notability (is he or his site usually quoted or referenced in the mass media or even in the specialist media?). As I said above, there are plenty of well notable critics of Islam. Ali is no different than Israel Shamir and his website. I don't see Shamir being referenced in articles because as it is common sense. Cheers -- Szvest 21:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Direct/indirect evidence/claim of older age

Guys! For everybody who is into reverting. Nobody from both sides is giving us in detail the reason(s) why she/he is reverting. Please discuss here to sort that out. I have no knowledge about that particular issue but I see the article is being unstable because of simple things. Please, discuss the issue here. Cheers -- Szvest 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

My revert

I have reverted to the version before MSK's last edit, because he violated 3RR and has been blocked. That doesn't mean I can vouch for its accuracy or that I agree with its contents. My only concern was to ensure MSK gains no advantage from the violation, so the regular editors should feel free to retain or delete the edit as you see fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And Mr Data has been blocked as a sockpuppet account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With no proof nor check at all I bet, because if you actually DID check you would find out they weren't me: Just two internet friends. All I was doing was similar to what Yuber and your friends have been doing, getting friends to help when people are reverting: Yuber has been deliberetely starting revert wars and you have been abusing your admin privileges to support him and F in this.

I notice both are still banned, why didn't you even try talking to them or actually CHECKING?

Obviously you're biased in this matter and this is just yet another case of SlimVirgin abusing her admin privileges for revert wars her or her Wiki-clique is involved in.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What the!!!!!!

An anon date crusader changed CE to AD. I changed it back. At which MSK arrives and reverts to an extremely old "Muhammad was a pedophile" version while accusing ME of reverting and using misleading edit summaries. Someone is confused and it isn't me. Zora 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that changing CE to AD is no cultural crusade but simply an attempt at accuracy. The modern calander used in most of the world today is divided in BC and AD. Simple fact and nothing to do with crusading. Oh by the way I am Muslim and resent the inference that I am some sort of crusader.

I think we are trying to use (B)CE dating in this non-Christian article the way we use Commonwealth English in articles about British people. That's how I rationalise it. --King of All the Franks 06:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine but this is still inaccurate. Furthermore for a consistance approach do you would have to make attempts to remove all references to the Islamic calander. ie has AH been changed to some equally meaningless thing? To change the islamic calander is wrong. But so is to change the Christian one.

I honestly don't know how much we are using the Islamic calendar in the article. The Common Era calendar is, I think, the most neutral we can get in this controversial subject. --King of All the Franks 06:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sir/Madam this has nothing to do with neutrality but to do with accuracy. What you are stating is simply incorrect and artificial. The dating from the Islamic calander is extensively used in other articles on Islamic history...and may I say entirely appropiately. Had the dating in this article been based on the islamic calander I would have no argument. However if you use the Christian calander, you have to use the appropiate abbreviations if you claim accuracy

User:Yuber has noted that having no abbreviations is better. That works for me. --King of All the Franks 06:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this an entirely reasonable solution to this problem. I will change the rest of the dates in accordance with this

Thank you for your patience. --King of All the Franks 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We've had CE there for ages -- I put it there when I extensively rewrote the article a year and a half ago, something like that. We have CE in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia. We've had an Arbcom case rebuking a date crusader, and an era ruling to the effect that editing an article JUST to change the date notation is wrong. I don't see why we have to remove the notation for someone who's breaking rules just with his date crusading. Zora 09:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noted the above discussion with interest. I am not sure what date crusading is. But I do agree with the chap who has pointed out the inconsistancy of having references to the Islamic calender (I have to admit that I too am a Muslim) and artifically removing all references to the Christian Calander. Simpily because this error has been perpetuated in the past does to signify validity. Compromise is important. And it would seem that if CE creates as much annoyance as AD then we should remove both. Inshallah.

Engagment

If I am correct , Aisha was ingaged to somebody else befor her ingagment to Muhammad . Am I right or wrong . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, Jubair. It's in the article. Zora 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy

Marriages occured much earlier at that time because the life expectancy almost 1500 years ago was less than half of that today [[8]]. What's wrong with that statement? The sentence before says that early marriages were common at that time & the life expectancy is probably the reason for that. I don't understand what you mean by the shorter on European Demographics. Rajab 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Life expectancy is an average, and infant deaths pull the average way down. People who survived to age one or two lived longer than 25, I believe. The Wikipedia article you reference explains that. Furthermore, life expectancy has no necessary connection to age at marriage. Different societies have had different marriage strategies. In societies with early marriage, early marriage has meant high fertility rates. When resources are limited, that can lead societies to resort to abortion (Tokugawa Japan) or infanticide (ancient Hawai'i, pre-Islamic Arabia) in order to keep the population in line with available resources. It can also result in highly pronounced demographic cycles: explosive population growth, succeeded by civil war and epidemics, succeeded by explosive population growth. Various social scientists have claimed that European society got out of that "trap" by adopting a "European family system" characterized by the oldest son inheriting a whole farm or firm (keeping productive assets together), late marriage, and younger sons and extraneous daughters being sent away as servants, craftsmen, or monks and nuns. I thought that it was Edward Shorter who popularized these ideas, but I was wrong -- he writes on the "modern" family system. Other authors wrote about earlier marriage patterns. See [9] and [10].

You seem to be assuming that most people died by the time they were 25, therefore people had to marry early in order to keep up population levels. This is simply NOT true. The problem for pre-industrial societies was curbing population growth, not enhancing it. You are presenting an original argument that is not supported by what we know of demography. Zora 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that people lived to the same age 1500 years ago as we live today? This is simply NOT true. Just look at peoples who live in primitive societies today - in these countries someone who's 40 is really elderly. On the other hand the number of people who live to age 100 or older increases every decade!

For this reason I suggest the following compromise: [... early marriages were common] One reason for this is that life expectancy almost 1500 years ago was much less than today [[11]].

What do you think? Rajab 11:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should I compromise? The WP way is to give all sides of an issue -- when the sides are notable. Your "explanation" is your original theory; it is not supported by any demographer. Lower life expectancies, yes -- but this does NOT translate directly into lower age at marriage. Your theory is not notable, so far as I can tell. Come back with cites from reputable sources and then we'll add your theory.

What's relevant is "age at marriage". This has tended to be fairly low in many pre-modern societies, with women married off as soon as they were pubescent. But not all societies! It varies. However, in no societies that I know is sex with pre-pubescent females approved. Nine is pre-pubescent, very much so. Puberty actually comes later to undernourished women, not earlier. (See Aisha's account of the necklace for a comment on how little she weighed, and how thin women were in those days.) That's why I think, personally, that Aisha was bragging and exaggerating her youth at marriage. But that's just MY theory. Zora 11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon's edits

Anon, I removed the last part of your edits re Aisha's age at marriage. You can't argue that "Muhammad would not have done anything nasty", as that assumes that Muhammad is perfect. There are many non-Muslims who would not accept that argument; it does not belong in a secular encyclopedia. The argument that marriage to a pre-pubescent child would have been shocking is unreferenced, and would be hard to demonstrate. We know very little, really, about marriage customs in pre-Islamic Arabia, though there is much speculation.

If you want to research an article on Pre-Islamic Arabian society, that would be wonderful. But until we have something like that, we can't really make statements about what was or wasn't accepted. Zora 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I moved your edits re Urwa to the "arguments for greater age" category, which is where they belong. Also, I reversed your change of heading from "consummation" to "marriage". All accounts say that the marriage/betrothal ceremony preceded the actual consummation of the marriage by several years. It's the "consummation" part of this that bothers critics. I think the article is inconsistent in this regard and needs a cleanup edit to make sure that we distinguish carefully between marriage and consummation. Zora 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please don't remove the extra piece of information I added concerning Urwa. It is an important piece and it took quite a while to research. Ibn Abbas is a renowned and trustworthy figure, and the work Tazeeb al Tazeeb is very recognized as well. And I agree with Anon that the Qur'an would not allow child marriages and that that piece of information is NOT AT ALL insignificant! And whether Muslim or not, nobody would deny that Muhammad acted according the the Qur'an. Had he not, that would have been a thing of great controversy among Muslims and an easy point of criticism for his opponents! Many tried to include that but you always deleted it!

Where in the Qur'an does it say that child marriages are not allowed? I don't think you can come up with a cite. I'm sorry, but you can't insert arguments to the effect that Muhammad would do nothing wrong as if they were the opinions of Wikipedia. Zora 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the article needs clean up. I am not a good writer so I just added the infos in the hope someone else would rewrite without removing information.

Why trash Ibn Ishaq here?

In this case, Ibn Ishaq can be used to prove that Aisha was older than nine, and avert a scandalous interpretation of Muhammad's behavior. What does it profit a Muslim to criticize him here? Are you trying to argue that Aisha was indeed nine years old?

If there are any questions about Ibn Ishaq, his article is the place to discuss it. Zora 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who introduced Ibn Ishaq to this article. I merely noting that the article claims Ibn Ishaq is "convincing", and am noting what the implications of that are. If Ibn Ishaq were not being used as a source, then there is no need to note the limitations of using that source. But he is being used as a source here, and readers should be fully informed. I am not trying to argue Aisha is any particular age. I am not here to push a POV. I am here to see that Wiki readers have the information they need to critically assess the different sources about Aisha.Bdell555 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not all sure that you have accept or reject Ibn Ishaq in toto. He was, after all, collecting stories of things that happened many years ago, and while he might have been as honest as he could in reporting what he heard, those giving him information might have been deluded. In some cases, Ibn Ishaq gives two contradictory accounts of something and says, "But Allah alone knows the truth". I don't think that any historians accept him uncritically. Zora 07:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

This may be an unpopular proposal, but I think we should remove everything which is not sourced from this article. I had a difficult time tracking down many of the facts, but its probably undesirable to mark every other sentence with {{fact}}. These generic references like "according to some hadiths" are especially troubling. Unless they cite a specific one it seems like any level of original research or non-sense can be justified. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, I removed:

Aisha has become known for having at the side of Muhammad in the battle of Badr (see for example hadiths by Muslim) as well as in the battle of Uhud (see e.g. hadiths by Bukhari). Bukhari also reports (Kitâb al-maghâzî, Bâb Ghazawat al-Khandaq wa-hiya l-Ahzâb) that the Prophet did not allow 14 year olds to participate but allowed them to join on their 15th birthday. Common sense would also forbid that the Prophet Muhammad would take children into his fighting ranks which would only be a hindrance not to mention that this would clearly be against the spirit of Islam.

This seems like the definition of original research. So what if Muhammad didn't let 14 year olds join the army? That says nothing about Aisha's age. Clearly, she would be a special case. The rest of it is even worse. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I pulled these out, put feel free to put them back in if you can back them up with cites.

• Evidence that Aisha was much older comes from many sources, which thus reinforce each other. But all hadith supporting an early age at marriage and consummation can be traced to Urwa (also known as Abu Hisham) and date back to the period after he migrated to Iraq at the age of 71. There are no such hadith collected while he still resided in Medina. Ibn Abbas and others (see Tazeeb al Tazeeb) consider Urwa's hadith from Iraq to be weak; his memory is presumed to have weakened as he aged.

• Some scholars say that the hadith collectors Bukhari and Muslim applied less stringent standards to hadith relating to history than they did to hadith relating directly to prayer and family law. Hence a historical tradition included in Bukhari or Muslim cannot be presumed to be "strong".

savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a voice of reason. Those lists of references were pasted into the article by editors long since gone, and I just haven't had the energy to try to track down every reference and replace it with a properly cited one. We need bibliographic information and page numbers. I don't have the relevant volumes of Tabari; all I have is Ibn Ishaq and some volumes (in dicey translations) of Ibn Sa'd. I don't quite trust the translations in the MSA hadith library either, but at least they're searchable. Most of the hadith, if they're from Muslim and Bukhari, can be found.

Just what I need, an impetus to buckle down to Arabic again. I'd have everything we needed if I could just read Arabic.

Do you have some energy to do research? I'd hate to just wipe everything and not replace some of it. Zora 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not wiped out. It'll be here on the talk page until someone can verify out. I was unable to and suspect that its original research, usercruft rather than from scholarly sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also removed this:

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

I see how the first part is referenced. But the third sentence does not in any way follow from the first two. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I pored over my copy of Ibn Ishaq to confirm that. Muhammad started preaching publicly in 613, but there were three years before that in which he gathered converts, including Abu Bakr. Aisha is listed as one of the earliest converts. If she was old enough to walk and talk, she must have been three or four when she accepted Islam -- or older. There are nine years between 613 and 622, so 9+3 is at least twelve, with the likelihood that she was older.

You know that I'm not out to defend Muhammad at all costs -- this really does seem likely to me.

As for the questions re Urwa, that you wanted to sideline -- there's an extended discussion in Watt's Muhammad at Mecca re Urwa's reliability. I think that this has been a long-standing question even for Muslim scholars, though I'd have to be versed in hadith to give cites. Zora 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, thanks for trying to track down sources for this. However, the part of that which is sourced is true, but the part about that fact having an impact of Aisha's age is entirely speculative. The way it is in the article now makes it seem like that source makes a claim about Aisha's age when it does not. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

72.129.170.249

This IP keeps readding things without adding sources. As well, he/she also keeps changing the section title without explanation. This one thing is particularly heinous: the part about "it is unanimously agreed...". That is so clearly not the case and does not belong in the article. I don't want to revert more than twice, but other users should really step in and revert this anon. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the totally disputed tag to the article. If the disputed sections are going to remain in the article, the tag will have to remaina s well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

they should revert me for what? You deleted parts of the article. You claimed that there was no source. I added the source, but despite that, you again deleted it. Why? If you have a problem with something, fix it instead of deleting stuff 72.129.170.249 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Exactly where is the source for: "It is unanimously agreed that Aisha had reached the age of puberty at her marriage" or the last two bullet points in the "Evidence Aisha was much older than 9 section? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the part about Ibn Hisham even after I added the exact reference. Even Muslims who believe that Aisha was 9, believe that she was reached the age of puberty. That is unanimously accepted by all Muslims -- regardless whether they accept Bukhari hadith or not. 72.129.170.249

Tag would remain here why? Are you some kind of bully here who when he doesn't get his say to delete everything he wants, sticks the disputed tag to the artice? I will wait for your explanation before removing the tag 72.129.170.249 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Look if the article contains unsourced and POV original research I have to insist on the dispute tag. I'm not trying to be a bully, but I just don't have the time to revert anonymous users who insist on reinserting biased material. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is POV? The article quotes opinion of Muslims on this issue (whether Muslims are wrong or right is irrelevant). All Muslims (at least those who believe in Islam) believe the marriage was consummated when Aisha reached puberty (even Muslims who believe she was 9 believe that). So what exactly are you complaining about? 72.129.170.249 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt to define people who do not believe Aisha reached puberty at the time of her marriage to Muhammad as non-Muslims is POV and unsourced. The article itself provides several examples of people who believe the opposite. The article should not just be written from a Muslim point of view, but from a universal point of view. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually your last edit is a major improvement, so I won't readd the tag. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)