Talk:Aisha/Archive 1

message: Hi and peace to everybody. Im a shia, and added some more text to the article.
I expect i to be un-appreciated by sunnis, even though i only quote sunni sources.
Mostly since i bring up events that sunnis rather would like to forget.
It would be intresting to get some feedback from sunnis but also from non-muslims.
: Striver, you've turned the article into a brief for the Shia point of view on many issues, many of them not related to Aisha at all. Furthermore, you've completely garbled the structure AND you can't write comprehensible or grammatical English. Aargh. This is NOT a Sunni point of view -- I'm a Buddhist. Furthermore, as I've been working on various Islamic articles, I've made an attempt to include Shia viewpoints rather than just the Sunni ones usually represented in outsiders' attempts to understand Islam. 
: I won't revert, since you may have contributed some useful information in addition to all the polemics. But I am CERTAINLY going to remove the weird account of Aisha's death. That strikes me as one of the many stories circulated by the Abbasids to justify their revolt against the Umayyids. Zora 21:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shias view

message: Notice vandal 168.209.97.34 is deleting material from the article because he doesn't have the book and can't check it. That really makes sense! Buy the book. Ask some other people to check it for you. Do not delete material because you don't have books or can't read arabic OneGuy 13:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does make sense.  168.209.97.34 13:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

message: Gone? But since I know you will be back next day, let me repeat it again. We can revert this article forever, or we can comprise. You can post Bukhari quotes on top. Given, (1) mention somewhere in the first three paragraphs that some traditions give contradictory age. (2) do not delete the contradictory evidence that I posted. The references are cited and can be checked. If you can't check them, ask someone, your Christian apologist friends, to check them.  If not, well, then we can start all over again tomorrow ... OneGuy 16:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recommend that (continuing a revert war, I mean).  I would recommend one of you taking the high road and voluntarily ceasing to revert while you discuss the matter on the talk page.  168.209.97.34, it wouldn't hurt to wait a few days and see if anyone else can verify the citations.  OneGuy, it wouldn't hurt to wait a few days to try to work together to find a wording that both of you can accept.  Please keep the long view in mind -- we're writing an encyclopedia that we expect to be around for decades.  Allowing the article to be "wrong" for a few days isn't going to hurt in the long run.  What is harmful is a revert war.  Instead of waging war, how about asking the community at large to take a look.  I'm sure you're not the only two interested or knowledgeable in this area.  You can ask for outside help at Requests for comment.  If neither of you is willing to compromise, you might want to make a request for  page protection -- but remember that the page might be frozen on the "wrong" version.   What should not happen is an edit war.  Please see Revert wars considered harmful and the Three revert rule.  An edit war is NOT productive -- communication is.  SWAdair | Talk  05:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Here, we have another user agreeing this version. I hope anon ends his desperate attempt to suppress material OneGuy 10:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he agrees... just look as his name... Mustafaa!!!  All Islamic apologists would support those unverifiable and probably forged quotes.  If I was a Muslim, I too would try to hide the fact that my prophet had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child.  Strange how ever since OneGuy showed up, half of the articles he edits ends up being protected.  168.209.97.34 10:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the sources forged? If you don't have the books and can't read Arabic, that doesn't make them "forged." Plus, Muslims have a right to post opinion agreeing and disagreeing with material posted on wiki. And I told you I am not Muslim, but if you think I am Muslim, fine. I still have the right to edit articles, like Mustafaa. You cannot remove material from articles just because you don't like them OneGuy 10:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Note Wikipedia:No personal attacks; note also that Ibn Ishaq is the oldest surviving biography of Muhammad, and, except among Muslims, is universally considered more reliable than the significantly later hadith collections; and note that you have completely failed to make any effort to verify these quotes, and that, judging by your record, your word is worth far less than OneGuy's. - Mustafaa 10:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a personal attack.  It it shows that you are a Muslim and therefore more likely to want to try to cover up for Muhammad's dirty deeds.  If, as you say, it is so reliable, why is there so little mention of  it on the Internet (google for it) and why has it not been translated into English and posted online?  What you are saying is "We can't prove it, but just trust me on this one".   While all the other quotes are from authentic Hadiths and are VERY clear regarding Aisha's age. 168.209.97.34 10:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another example of a tragically common Wikipedia fallacy; the mistaken notion that everything worth knowing can be found on the Internet.  Try going down to your local library and learn something new for a change. - Mustafaa 10:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  And I didn't delete the hadith, unlike you who deleted all the counter evidence by claiming without proof that they are forged. OneGuy 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now who is making personal attacks?  Why are all the other hadiths available online but this one, which information that would prove to the world that Muhammad didn't have sex with a nine year old, is kept offline (in fact, very little mention is made of it) and hidden away?  I guess the muslims WANT the rest of the world to see only the "unreliable" hadiths that say she was nine when she had sex and keeps the authentic one offline and untranslated.  Very very strange. 168.209.97.34 10:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one deleted the hadith you posted. You deleted material that is contradictory. You are trying to supress material, even the sources like Ibn Ishaq and Tabari OneGuy 10:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they didn't.. they can't because they know they are authentic!  You can find those exact quotes on a zillion other websites.  The entire hadith it is from is available free online 168.209.97.34 10:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you are argument is that if any source is not translated into English and posted on the web, we should delete them? Wow. The references are there. Go check them. If you can't, ask someone. Don't claim they are forged without proof OneGuy 10:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  Moreover, Bukhari, Muslim and the Qur'an are translated and online because they are religious text. There are many more historical sources on history, such as Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. These sources are not invalid (even if they are not considered "sahih" by Muslims) when we were are talking about a historical topic. Secular scholars use them, including your favorite Christian site like answering-islam.org OneGuy 10:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you personally read Sirat Rasul Allah (I know what your answer is going to be and I'm sure it's a lie!)?  Where did you find it?  Why is there so little mention made on the Internet regarding it?  Why is it that such a trustworthy and early biography of Mohammad is not posted online??  168.209.97.34 10:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I answered you why it's not translated and is online. It's a historical source (even attacked by some Muslims on some of it's claims) unlike religious text like Bukhari and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj. Plus, if you know I am going to lie, why are you asking me that question? OneGuy 10:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready to comprise?

message: Please can you all get usernames, so it's easier to talk to all of you?  It looks like you are all getting cites to back up your positions, which is well and good when controversial topics are being edited. I'm glad that the discussion here is getting somewhere, and it looks like it should soon be safe to unprotect this page.
I'd just like to make one request: when the page is editable again, can we put the discussion of her age at marriage and consummation further down the article, not at the start?  I know that the age debate is highly contentious, and it has a place in this article for that reason (the controversy is notable in itself), but a more comprehensive biography of Aisha should precede it. -- Karada 11:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions and requests 

message: On page 116 of the English version, there's a list of the people who accepted Islam after the first eight men (who included Abu Bakr). In the list are: 
Asma d. Abu Bakr together with his little daughter Aisha.
So that would be sometime around 613. The narrative proceeds chronologically, and some pages later we have the emigration to Abyssinia and the conversion of Umar, sometime around 615, page 155. 
We don't know how little is little, but presumably Aisha was something more than an infant, since she is said to accepted Islam. Perhaps she was old enough to speak? Two or three years old? If she was born in 610-611, and the Hegira was in 622, and she was married sometime in the year after the Hegira, that puts her age at anything from eleven to twelve or even older. Since 12-14 is the average age of menarche, and she is supposed to have reached puberty before she entered Muhammad's household, that would seem a likely chronology. (Re marrying at 12 -- in my biography of Guru Dutt, the famous Indian film director, the author notes that the director's mother was married at the age of 12, just after she reached puberty. This is not unusual, however strange it may seem to Westerners.)
The other point I should make, as an anthropologist, is that Ibn Ishaq doesn't give dates. It's just this happened and that happened, in sequence. All the dating comes later, as later Muslim commentators counted years from the Hegira, before the Hegira, correlated this and that, and finally came up with chronologies. Before universally accepted calendars, people date by significant events. (It says in Ibn Ishaq that Muhammad was born in the year of the elephant.) Or by years before and after significant events. So it's possible that Aisha might not really have known when she was born, or how old she was, and that when she said "9", she wasn't exaggerating so much as guessing. 
I'm pushing this argument because based on a lot of reading in anthropology and history, it was extremely common for betrothals or formal marriages to be contracted while the principals were still pre-pubescent, and that consummation of the marriage would be delayed until after puberty. If Muhammad's marriage was arranged with Aisha's family, and delayed until she grew up, it seems to me extremely likely that she would have been post-pubescent and at least 12. Muslims are stuck with the 9-year-old figure because they don't dare question hadith. Other scholars can be more iconoclastic. 
I should add that I've spent hours poring over Ibn Ishaq trying to find info re Muhammad's marriages, and it's in short supply. No one is much interested in Muhammad's wives. Instead, every single raid or military engagement is described in detail, together with lists of the dead and wounded. Apparently this is the sort of thing Muslim warriors liked to remember. Zora 13:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how different this is from Arabic version, but as cited by Moiz Amjad, according to Ibn Hisam, Aisha was the 20th or the 21st person to enter Islam, and Umar was preceded by forty individuals. So  Aisha accepted Islam before Umar (20 people in between). Anyway, the quote is correct. If you combine that with the other tradition in Tabari, where he claims that all children of Abu Bakr were born before Muhammad started preaching Islam, that clearly contradicts Hadith in Bukhari. Plus, also Ibn Hagar claims that Aisha was 5 years younger than Fatima, etc.  These different contradictions should be mentioned, not removed. Especially, given some Muslims use these arguments. OneGuy 14:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: By the way, Satanic Verses incident is not in Ibn Hisham.  Guillaume supposedly inserted that in English translation by taking it from Tabari. Does he mention he is inserting other material in Ibn Hisham, like from Tabari? OneGuy 15:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guillaume put his version together from Ibn Hisham and Tabari (who said he was using Ibn Ishaq), and any bits from Tabari are marked with a T before them. Zora 19:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References from Ibn Ishaq 

message: Since 168.209.97.34 wanted the reference in English, here it is: 
History of al-Tabari Vol. 11
http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=52359
It will only cost you $24.95 for Paperback. 
On page 141, it says that all four of Abu Bakr's children were born during the pre-Islamic period. There is text note (by the translators?) that says that Aisha would have been no younger than thirteen years old if she were born pre-Jahiliyyah. The note also points out that this contradicts other part where he quotes Aisha that she was nine. OneGuy 15:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: References In Tabari

message: In light of the discussion here, I've worked off-line to revamp the article. I gave an expanded bio of Aisha first and put the debate re her age at the bottom. I gave the pro-9-year-old-versions first and the conflicting versions second. I also included Sunni and Shia views of Aisha (which are quite different). Would everyone be OK with letting me post it and leaving it up for ONE DAY, while we argue on the talk page, before starting to play revert war again? Zora 23:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When you read the quotes he gave did it say anothing about Aisha or was it about other matters?  From what it sounds like, those quotes were talking about dates of certain other things happening and then someone else plugs in "therefore Aisha could/must/could not have been X years old" afterwards. 168.209.97.34 10:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was obvious. The facts were to certain events from which Aisha's age could be calculated. Such as Tabari's quote that all four children of Abu Bakr were born in pre-Islamic period, or that Aisha was five years younger than Fatima, etc. OneGuy 10:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  This goes back to the problem of the original sources not citing dates. Muslim scholars had to work out a timeline that fit the greatest number of facts, and then plug events into the Muslim "year of the hegira" calendar. Basically, where the Christians put the hinge of history at Jesus' birth, the Muslims put it at the Hegira. But obviously that chronology didn't exist until much after the Hegira. Ibn Ishaq and Tabari didn't use it. So we have to try to calculate where things might fit. Zora 11:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, PERF 558 strongly suggests that that Hijri dates were in use by 22 years after the Hijra... - Mustafaa 23:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  But obviously not unversally ... Alas.  But thanks for the note re dating. It makes sense that people would date from that, as one could say that it was the beginning of Muhammad's temporal rule, and dynastic periods used to be dated from the accession of kings. Zora 01:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I put up a new version? 

message: I've extensively rewritten the article and it's posted, temporarily on my talk page. Just click on my sig and go check it out. But please argue here, instead of on my talk page! Zora 06:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go directly to the proposed page by clicking here.  I moved the text to its own sub-page so we don't clutter Zora's talk page with non-messages.  SWAdair | Talk  08:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This rewrite seems a much improved treatment, and its format looks to me like it will be much more able to tolerate editing regarding the controversial issues.  -- Karada 16:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  Looks OK.  The separate age section is good, and the expansion is great, though it should have more red links... - Mustafaa 19:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I put up proposed Aisha page on my own talk page 

message: Shi'a historians take a much dimmer view of Aisha. They believe that 'Ali should have been the first caliph, and that the other three caliphs were usurpers. Aisha not only supported the usurpers, she raised an army against her son-in-law. In doing so, she meddled inappropriately in the affairs of men, rather than being a properly modest and retiring woman.
Who said this? Whose interpretation is it? In general, aside from that one line, this article is remarkably NPOV. --Alberuni 07:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See the link to the Shi'a website at the bottom. The article is not quoting, but paraphrasing that website. If you'd prefer a quote, it could be done. Zora 07:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation or Quote?