Talk:Aisha/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uthman's death and the Battle of the Camel 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am not even sure these claims about Iran are entirely true. 
Legal age for brides lifted to 13 </br>
24jun02 </br>
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." 
OneGuy 19:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I removed a website added by anon editor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eagleamn's edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anon editor's addition re Aisha's age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zeno, surely a more informative version is to be preferred 

message: Shouldent have done that revert.
--Striver 21:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Stevertigo's edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Direct/indirect evidence/claim of older age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Of course.  But one can't just cite him as an authoritative source when convenient and reject him when it is not convenient.  That is why the reader needs to be provided with links to other works by this source so that the reader can further research the source.  As it stands now, you are trying to keep the reader in the dark about Ibn Ishaq in order to push the Aisha was post-puberty theory.  We are not here to push any particular theory.  We are here to provide readers with facts and to direct them to further research areas.  This is not your private propaganda vehicle and neither is it mine.Bdell555 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why trash Ibn Ishaq here? 

message: The Chicago Manual of Style, which is the standard reference for those copyediting academic works, wants all numbers below 100 to be spelled out rather than given as Arabic numerals. The text simply looks better.
As for claims that Aisha was the third wife of twelve -- both those numbers are disputed. Don't state those numbers as facts. Zora 17:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling out numbers 

message: Zmmz, your edits turned straightforward prose into ungrammatical muddles. Furthermore, I don't think anyone disputes the story of the lost necklace except those scholars, like Patricia Crone, who think that all the hadith and tafsir are suspect. Perhaps a reference to Historiography of early Islam] would be in order. However, it's not necessary to NPOV statements that no one is disputing. None of the doubting scholars have even touched on the story of the necklace.
The article does need a springclean and rewrite, but I have to finish some RL work (line editing a Hawaiian history) before I can get to it. Zora 21:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zmmz's edits 

message: Hi, please do not erase NPOV language used in the article, such that the age of the prophet`s wife is nowhere mentioned or hinted here.  The reader needs to have some indication of the wife’s age.  We must write articles in neutral language, and not solely rely on lopsided commentary.  Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the Wiki manual of writing policies. Zmmz 22:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to do something useful, how about sourcing all the hadith cited to exact numbers and URLs at the MSA hadith database . Cites of Arabic editions are basically useless. They were copied from an older article, long ago, and haven't been updated. Zora 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be written in a neutral language 

message: User:210.211.233.171/User:210.211.234.85, you have violated the three-revert rule.Timothy Usher 11:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR|The three-revert rule]] 

message: Anon, there are two things wrong with the version you like. One, if you want the controversy highlighted, then having it at the top is even more salient than having it in the second para. Two, that link accuses Muhammad of pedophilia. Putting it at the top, by itself, without any link to a competing viewpoint, gives it an unfair advantage. You're trying to use this article as a soapbox. 
I could let you revert one more time and get banned, but I'll try to play nice: you've reverted three times and if you do it again, you'll get blocked. So don't. 
Ashmoo suggested reorganizing the article and I think he's right. So sometime this weekend (after I finish the freelance editing work I'm doing), I'll try to reorganize the article so that the controversy represents all THREE sides of the argument, that is, 
* Aisha was nine, because hadith don't lie, but she was pubescent. This is the predominant traditional Muslim POV, I think.
* Aisha was nine, she was pre-pubescent, and Muhammad was a pedophile. This is a common anti-Muslim view.
* Aisha was older than nine, as proved by other documents, such as sira. The hadith, in this case, can't be trusted. This view seems to be held by liberal Muslims, and possibly a few non-Muslims (though most non-Muslims wouldn't care one way or the other). 
The link you want to insert would go in the second group. 
Other editors, does this make sense? If you guys like it, you can start the re-org yourselves. Fine by me if I have less work to do. Zora 11:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, the edit summaries, the account histories and the edits themselves make it clear that this is the same user.  He/she is not going on revert four, but on revert five.Timothy Usher 11:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem.  It took me a bit to learn/be informed of the rules as well.Timothy Usher 11:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determined anon 

message: I said I would do it and I did it. Took hours. Some of the sections still need citations, verifiable quotes, etc. I hope that this will satisfy all sides of the controversy. Zora 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete revision of age controversy section 

message: Shi'a also regard her as a "mother of the belivers", we just dont put the same conotation to the title, the title it self is Qur'anic. --Striver 08:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother 

message: It seems that the date of the marriage is pretty vague.  On the page, it mentions 622, but no exact date.  Are historians sure that the marriage took place in 622 rather than 624?
Also, according to Tabari, Alisha was born in the Jahilyyah (before Islam), so she may have been born in 610 or earlier.  So, one could argue that she was 14, or older, when she was married.
: Aisha was at the Battle of Badr, I believe, and she was already married to Muhammad. All the sources I have say that she was married to Muhammad soon after the Hijra, in the first or second year afterwards; I'm still trying to find the references for that in sira (I have Ibn Ishaq, but I don't have all the relevant volumes of Tabari). As for her age -- half the article is devoted to that. There are many views. Zora 07:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont need fact tags here but in the sub-section unless they it covers material not in the sub-section, this section should be just a summary to lead to the sub-section. --Tigeroo 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Aisha Married? 

message: The article read that Shi'a dislike Aisha; an anon erased that, and wrote that since Ali forgave her, they forgave her. I wrote the "dislike" bit, based on several Shi'a websites. However, the anon may also be correct. There might well be a difference of opinion among Shi'a. I rewrote to say that and added a citation tag. We need some quotes, if any is up for getting them. If we can't get quotes, we should erase any unreferenced views. Zora 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a view of Aisha 

message: For some reason, FairNBalanced seems to feel it's fair and balanced to respond to my edit summaries a. "rm or pedophile; one does not become a pedophile through actions", and b. "rm irrelevant reference to Ibn Ishaq being 100 years after Muhammad; Bukhari and Muslim were even later" with "rv". Rather than edit warring, I'd ask that he explain clearly the reasoning behind including the entirely unreferenced claim that "Critics insist [...] that Muhammad [...] became a [...] pedophile" in this article. (I think the "child molester" thing is ridiculous too — I expect most reasonable people would recognise this as an outrageous and provocative statement unsupported by mainstream opinion; wikipedia is not a venue for original research depicting the central figures of major world religions as criminal deviants — but the "became a pedophile" is just surreal.) We can deal with the well-poisoning of Ibn Ishaq later.  JEREMY 16:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having given it some thought, I agree with you, Jeremy.  While the "evidence" that Aisha's age was other than as directly stated by hadith is highly interpretive, having sexual relations with a child does not make one a pedophile, based on the most standard definitions of this term.  There can be no doubt that Muhammad enjoyed sex with adult women, and there's no reason to believe that he preferred children.Timothy Usher 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, Timothy. While I believe it's illogical to say that there "can be no doubt" about the personal details of a historical figure whose life is documented almost exclusively in first millennium religious texts, and that almost all "facts" about such people will necessarily be highly interpretive, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the issue. — JEREMY 04:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, "child molester" presumes that the child is unwilling.  The western assumption that the child is by definition unwilling, and is thereby being molested rests more upon jurisprudence that a principled philosophical concept of free will.  There's no indication that Aisha herself felt molested, except our own assumptions of how we think she must have/ought to have felt.  In any case, it's unnecessary: even were a historical figure known primarily for sex with children, we could just state that and let readers judge for themselves.Timothy Usher 05:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However, I suggest we deal with one description at a time, and right now, I think we should concentrate on the term "pedophile". If nobody provides reliable sources supporting it, we can remove it in a day or two, and that will provide a strong precedent to help prevent its unwarranted reintroduction in future. Then, we can discuss "child molester". — JEREMY 06:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FairNBalanced's "rv" 

message: I propose we remove all the unsourced material and original argument here, on "both" sides.  It's not quite nonsense, but it is unencyclopedic.  Do we really need an "age controversy" section?  Wikipedia isn't a debate club, and this article isn't (or shouldn't be) "Criticisms of Muhammad".  I honestly, in good faith, believe that the correct way to deal with this is to simply and without prejudice state and attribute the ages to Hadith (as this is the only direct statement which doesn't require our original research or a link to an unreliable source to parse), include some of the apparent contradictions (e.g. Tabari) in a footnote, delete all the weak sources and just leave it at that.Timothy Usher 06:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy, again I agree with you in principle but not in practice. Indeed, the "age controversy" is a figment of wikipedia's collective imagination, and is irrelevant in the context of everyday, mainstream and academic understandings of Aisha and Muhammad. However, this viewpoint unfairly dismisses certain editors with a good faith intent to add what they see as truthfulness to the article as cranks promoting fringe POV, which I don't think is fair to them. Instead, we need to discuss the changes thoroughly and explain carefully why they're being made, and whittle away at the egregious bias bit by bit. The establishment of clear and cogent explanations for our decisions regarding push-button populist issues such as this will improve the project in the long run. — JEREMY 11:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amibidhrohi has already started eliminating material from unreliable sources.  Let's get rid of them all and see what's left.Timothy Usher 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeremy, it seems a little one-sided to restore one poorly-sourced paragraph and not the other.  I strongly believe that they both should go.  Is there a reason you think one should stay, but not the other?Timothy Usher 04:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; don't know what you're referring to here. I'm trying to untangle the wording and add correct cite tags, and all you seem to be interested in doing is deleting vast swathes of other people's work. — JEREMY 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: May I dare to opine that speaking of "well-cited" information when well sourced info is called for is interesting? However, I appreciate your penchant for "clearliness" and "cogency". Then again, you won't go far relying on abhorred "populist" sites as sunnipath.com, islam-is-the-only-solution.com, islamonline.net or islamweb.net. And how will you "whittle away at the egregious bias bit by bit" successfully, relying on third-grade online POVsters? Jeremias, thou speakest in tongues. --tickle me 06:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Gosh, what was I thinking with that last one?)  His most recent edit aside, Jeremy's agreed to the principled solution of eliminating all poorly-sourced material.  So let's await his response.Timothy Usher 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have indeed. But you've just removed it all. Please self-revert your deletion of the whole "Marriage Controversy" section so I can keep working on it. — JEREMY 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated below, I've already killed the "evidence for" section.  The "evidence against" should be bundled into the "marriage" section somehow.  The "he said, she said" organization is unencyclopedic.  I left "evidence against" alone for now so you can do something with it without digging through the history.Timothy Usher 07:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the backing and forthing is poor writing. However, given how strongly some people seem to feel about this issue, I think the subject justifies it. I have restored the whole thing, and look forward to working with you (and others) to tidy, de-NPOV and cite this stuff. — JEREMY 08:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, "whatever site you were talking about, you didn't remove it"; yes, I did. The site was answeringinfidels.com, which you'd complained about four edit summaries previously. — JEREMY 07:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you’d meant to, but this diff only shows you re-adding things.  It's gone now, at least.  Proselytizing nonsense must be removed.Timothy Usher 07:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right; I re-added what you'd deleted, minus the bit you complained about. — JEREMY 08:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it.  Of course that doesn't show up in the diff.:)Timothy Usher 08:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeremy, you're talking about consensus to remove, but what about consensus to retain?  Poorly-sourced material must go, regardless.Timothy Usher 08:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the whole thing to a sub-article to reflect its relative importance. I intend to continue to improve it there, however. — JEREMY 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some good stuff, some bad.  It's honest effort, at least.  Let's move whatever's left after vetting over here.Timothy Usher 08:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did exactly that. — JEREMY 08:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Thanks for not moving the irrelevant United Nations, Catholic Encylopedia and Medeival Castles (!) cites along with them.  Now can we get rid of all the garbage?  And who's Zahid Aziz?  I haven't had a chance to check.Timothy Usher 08:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must delete unsourced material, weak sources and original argument 

message: Aisha ... was a wife of Muhammad, whom Muslims regard as the final prophet of Islam.
The sentence is a bit clumsy. It almost sounds like it's describing Aisha as being the final prophet. Should we just get rid of the part after Muhammad? Andjam 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it's not necessary here. Pecher Talk 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Everybody knows who Muhammad was, describing him at every stop is unnecessary. Pecher Talk 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily which Muhammad. You are allowed to use it once to appropriately align the reader, and it is only being used once where he is first mentioned and for valid reasons. Plus her position was and her title was important because of the of the role of muhammed, therefore it is required to be mentioned for context, and I have given more than one reason why it works here. I am not going to revert you but I have reported you for violation of 3RR.--Tigeroo 13:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad is linked and the link identifies him unambiguously. In addition, only Muhammad is usually referred to simply as "Muhammad"; other Muhammads are referrred to as "Muhammad" plus family name, nickname, kunyas, or whatever identifies them in the most unambiguous manner possible. Pecher Talk 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This argument is why the page protection was initiated by Pecher. Pecher you are talking about what editors know not what readers will know. Play it safe especially it does not hurt but improves and enchance the amount of information dispensed by the article, as it stands it is not user friendly relevant details deserve mention at least cursory on this page and the link can be followed for greater information on many other things. Plus mentioning prophet ties in with the role/status of Aisha in the muslim community and is directly related to her title. It is even allowed by the wikipedia style manual on islam you love to use. It is not used as a honorific, I do understand why when properly contextualized and NPOV'ed according to Wiki guidlines you have an aversion to even stating that he is a prophet of Islam. Your argument only addresses one issue of the many reasons for its inclusion, and I have stated why it is not enough in this case.--Tigeroo 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you meant here. Which argument, what issue of what reasons for inclusion of what? The paragraph above reads as a mere collection of words. Pecher Talk 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: Where does the belief that Aisha was a virgin come from? Did it arise in response to claims of pedophiles? 152.163.100.8 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Aisha? 

message: What's up with this recent attempt to re-POV the opening? The age is controversial so we can't list it as fact; what is true is that critics of Muhammad think there's an issue, and I've tried a couple of different versions saying that only to have them reverted (along with other editors material, I might add) with nonsensical or misleading edit summaries. I'm not going to revert again, but I'd like to see the issue discussed here before my short, accurate version is deleted again.  JEREMY 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeremy, I am too tired for discussion. I hope the last version looks good to everyone. --Aminz 07:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am too close to 3RR to revert it, but that additional argumentative and single-sourced material does not belong in the lead, as you should know, Aminz. — JEREMY 07:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, I am tired now. Feel free to change it as you wish. I'll just make a little change . --Aminz 07:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEAD second sentence 

message: :Sorry to put this at the top, but umm, in this article all we have is a quick summary and a lead to the other article which actual carries out this argument because it is big enough to handle it and keeps this page cleaner, all these edits and issues can be handled there. I suggest we cut and paste and move this argument to the relevant page (Aisha's age at marriage), which is not protected either and you can all have fun. Thats what that page is there for, to save this page those problems. It is enough here to mention the common view, the fact that there are other coins to the debate and link to the page which can handle the problem more adequately. Cheers.
--Tigeroo 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last assertion constitutes an ambiguous-collective logical-fallacy--Mike18xx 05:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Lemme guess: Watt didn't conduct secret interviews with the women. The fact that you've found a shill in Watt doesn't constitute a rationally valid defense of your ambiguous-collective logical-fallacy. I suggest you summon the necessary energy to familiarize yourself with it.--Mike18xx 07:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, if you're too tired to defend your position, don't edit contentious articles. The issue is far from solved. Every aspect of the historicity of Muhammed and Aisha (like that of Jesus) is debatable. Why should one set of hadiths be more respected than a set which contradicts them? Because they favour the political position of one Muslim denomination over that of another? You seem to have mistaken history for Truth, rather than accepting that it is simply not possible — without the assistance of some magical device — to know "what really happened", if anything. As such, the only way we can present an encyclopaedic treatment of this subject is to present every point of view, in proportion to the commonality of that view. — JEREMY 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first sentence, but there are problems with the latter half. --Mike18xx 08:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a variety of contradictory accounts relating to a set of distant, allegedly historical events; we have no rational basis (ie. physical evidence) on which to decide between them at this time. Your link to the "Argument from Ignorance" is inapposite, and indicates that you are making the same "appeal to truth" error as Aminz. History is not science. — JEREMY 08:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You really do need to read and understand what the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy *is* -- because you're indulging in it; your "History is not science" is simply a confession that you don't want to do any hard work in the matter of verification. I shouldn't have to point out that no credible encyclopedia will give truth and error equal-time (because, after all, that's what differentiates a credible encyclopedia from a slap-dash one), and that those who haven't the vaguest idea what's true have no business helping write them. Concerning Aisha's age, unless anyone has a credible reason to discount her own testimony, they should cease and desist editing it out.--Mike18xx 11:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Original research, Aminz. You must quote reliable secondary sources that say how old Aisha was. You may defend Muhammad as much as you wish, but justifications for his marriage says nothing about Aisha's age. Pecher Talk 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Which hadith contain contradictory accounts of Aisha's own claims to her age?--Mike18xx 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I freely stipulate that some hadith, written by authors perhaps unfamiliar with others containing Aisha's own accounts, may contain "guesstimates"; but this is irrelevent.--Mike18xx 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Zora, you're making a straw-man argument by mis-charcterizing the arguments of the other side. The only important thing is how academic and Muslim scholars have interpreted the hadith relating to Aisha's age at the time Muhammad consummated marriage with her. So far, the consensus view of both academic and Muslim scholars is that she was nine (at most, ten). If you ahve credible sources saying otherwise, cite them, but a general response that hadith are not reliable will cut no ice. Pecher Talk 12:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pecher is right that most Muslims believe that Aisha was married at very young age. But Zora is also right that if you criticize traditions of Muslims (which can be read in hadith literature), then why can't we criticize these hadith for which some people have found very reasonable explanations. Wikipedia is a place where arguments for minority are also entertained, otherwise for a novice reader, he will never be able to see the other side of the picture. And lastly, this discussion should be done at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage. SaadSaleem 06:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a dissenting view of a significant minority, then it must be sourced to reliable sources, citing the opinions of  prominent adherents. Original research and murky websites won't do the trick. It's all about how old Aisha was, not about whether Muhammad was a bad man. Pecher Talk 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone can please look at Talk:Aisha%27s_age_at_marriage and give us some feedback. That'll be great. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The story 

message: "They adduce the following episodes as proof that Muhammad and Aisha's marriage did not always go smoothly." needs to be clearified.
It is directly followed with adultery issue, implying that Shi'a argue She was guilty. Shi'a do no such thing, and it needs to be clearfied. It is acctualy one of the missconseptions against the Shi'a that Shi'a belive she was guilty, Sunnis are known to quote the Qur'an to "Correct" the Shi'a stance.
So the article needs to state that Shi'a do not regard her as guilty, and that Sunnis have not understood this, quoting the Qur'an to try to "overprove" Shi'a on a stance they do not even hold.
The acctual Shi'a stance is that due to their non-perfect relation, Muhammad (pbuh) did not immediatly dissmissed the allgations.
There is a big difference. We do NOT belive she was guilty, but we POINT OUT that the allegations were not outright dissmissed, and that she was not even supported. In fact, Muhammad wondering what to do about it summms it upp quit well. Also, the article needs to state that Ali did not try to defend her, rather adviced Muhammad that there are other women.
I can add references when the article gets unprotected. Any comments?--Striver 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Today an anonymous editor changed the name of Muhammad's wife in the "story of the honey" section from Zaynab bint Jahsh to Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya. Both were wives of Muhammad, but is this editor correct in which one was associated with that story?
On another note, Tigeroo has been inserting the word "presentist" into the discussion of critics of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha (he has also done it at Aisha's age at marriage". I feel this is not NPOV; I have never heard the word "presentism" used except to be disparaging. I think it's especially true in this case, because those who defend Muhammad by saying Aisha was older are not called "presentists", though they still clearly accept modern morality as the norm (or else they would see the need to defend him for this.) I've reworded it somewhat to be less judgemental, I hope it is satisfactory to all parties now.--Cúchullain t/c 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Accusation of adultery and story of the honey were removed (and I reverted this).  If this is to be done it needs to be agreed upon. gren グレン 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O_o, oh... I am not vouching for the sections.  I just wanted to report why I re-added them--although, my section heading and text was probably confusing. I think? gren グレン 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sections were removed + I reverted 

message: Several places in this article insert "peace be upon him" after naming Muhammad.  I am aware that this is the custom among Muslims, but shouldn't this article take a more religiously neutral point of view?  I mean, Wikipedia doesn't refer to Jesus of Nazareth as "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" when talking about him in a purely historical sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchip (talk • contribs).
:Removed. If you see any more, please take them out.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBUH's in the article 

message: Interesting link  hope this helps. Hypnosadist 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aisha according to Central Mosque 

message: There appears to be a bug in the software, as this revision contains changes not shown in the diff window. One of them is, "stayed in her parents' home till [sic.] she had reached puberty at nine…" From which of the cited sources did you get that, Aminz?Proabivouac 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quoting F.E. Peters here:  or here:  Karen Armnstrong says that unconditionally. --Aminz 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the 3 day delay in response. At the time he was quoting Spellberg, Asma, and the hadith, , which either don't mention puberty or, in the case of Spellberg, clearly state that the Muslim biographies draw attention to the fact that Aisha had not reached puberty. Arrow740 07:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Well, that appears to be a good source, though for the life of me I cannot discern upon what basis he draws that presumption. However, Peter's "presumably" is less than an assertion of fact, and I don't see that we can in the business of blindly repeating other's presumptions. We can attribute them, though.Proabivouac 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain why Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years when she was Muhammad's wife? --Aminz 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You answer me this question, Aminz: Why did she never have a child? Arrow740 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever reason. Muhammad didn't have many childs either. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is why he took so many wives? But anyway, I think having few children may have something to do with how many of his wives were older women? Does it say they consummated frequently? Perhaps Muhammad might embellish consummation so that his wives loyalty to him would not be doubted, but in reality he did not bother them with that because they were too busy spreading Islam to have sex for many babies? Tyciol (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: How should I know? Proabivouac 20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No. It makes sense of the reason Aisha stayed in her father's house for three years. --Aminz 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He couldn't guarantee her safety in Mecca. Arrow740 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is enough to say that she stayed until reached the age of nine. If puberty were the commonly accepted explanation, then we would certainly cite it. Otherwise, it's out of place. Note that Peters does not state causality. Beit Or 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It helps to contribute to understanding Aisha's advanced maturity, however being of advanced maturity does not mean you are of puberty. Usually that's determined by first menstruation. Tyciol (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puberty 

message: It has to go in greater depth the criticism of Muhammad this marriage created. Jknight 98.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.210.199 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that song is a satirical critique of Islam (I wish I could use harsher words) and not a scholarly presentation of history or facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshafique (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't there a mention of the song "Islam's not for me?" 

message: I have restored the section on Aisha's age at marriage. There has been a controversial debate on this issue for at least a decade or two, and I see no reason for it to be excluded from the article. It seems the section may have been removed due to a lack of prominent adherents of the opposing view, but now I've added Maulana Muhammad Ali as a prominented adherent, and may add more adherents later. Jagged 85 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed previously not because there were no "prominent" adherents the the view, but because the opinions of the people presented were not notable in and of themselves. Was Maulana Muhammad Ali a historian?  Your version certainly gives Ali's view undue weight with that long, uncontextualized quote. I don't object to the controversy over her age being discussed, but that's different than making it seems like only "'Western' historians" and "Muslim conservatives" believe Aisha was married young. I'm sure Japanese historians and many other Muslims will come to the same conclusion based on the evidence.--Cúchullain t/c 07:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be original research to remove the arguments presented on the basis of personal opinion of how "convincing" we find them. How the section is written or whether it should stay depends on how the debate is viewed by scholars in reliable sources, not by how we personally view them. I am currently planning to re-write and shorten Muhammad Ali's argument in a non-quote form, which should balance out any undue weight issues. Jagged 85 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maulana" Ali is not a historian. Please read the record of the development of the concensus on this issue. Thanks. Arrow740 07:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is best to summarize the minority view as following (sourced to Asma Barlas): "A minority of Muslims calculate the age of Aisha to have been over 13 and 14, perhaps between 17 and 19. These Muslims base their calculation on the more details we have of Aisha's sister (Asma); on the details of Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina; Aisha's reported knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry, genealogy, and the the fundamental rules of Arabic-Islamic ethics at her marriage." --Aminz 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminist political scientists can be safely ignored on these matters, thanks. Arrow740 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not Barlas's opinion. She is reporting of Muslims who do so and so. No analysis of her own is involved here. --Aminz 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this too many times already. If you have anything to add to the old discussion, where you forwarded that Barlas was talking about people even less reliable than herself, add it. Otherwise please spare us the effort of pasting the old rebuttals here. Arrow740 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. --Aminz 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I take it that you're satisfied with the quite conclusive past discussion and have nothing to add. That is the case for me. Arrow740 08:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "CONCLUSIVE?" --Aminz 08:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be more discussion on the subject, considering it has come up with critics of Muhammad and critics of Islam. If it were expanded, then perhaps we could have a sentance that some Muslims believe she wasn't so young, and probably point out that it wasn't seen as a problem at the time even with Muhammad's contemporary enemies.--Cúchullain t/c 08:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to separate polemics from history here. Every historian of Islam unequivocally states that she was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 at marriage. Arrow740 08:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly. But this comes up enough to warrant discussion, perhaps in a different section, and after making it clear that the primary sources all say she was that young.--Cúchullain t/c 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Arrow, if by historian, you mean those who study Islam in west it is correct. They accept it because the primary source say she was that young, because early marriage were not in anyways un-normal at that time, that there are reports of Aisha playing with dolls etc. But as a matter of fact there are contradictions in the reports implicitly touching the age of Aisha in the primary sources, and again as a matter of fact a minority of Muslims accept those reports. --Aminz 08:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's not just "Western historians". You've never been able to provide a single historian, non-Western or otherwise, who concludes that Aisha was older.--Cúchullain t/c 08:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're not following me. It wouldn't be giving them any weight at all, it would just be giving the basic points of a notable modern discussion. If anything, I think that just saying she was six and not bringing up how this looks to modern eyes makes it seem like we're dodging an issue, covering it up to avoid offense.--Cúchullain t/c 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the real and authentic "scholars of Islam" include exactly those who study Islam in west, nor have they ever made this claims of themselves. They look at the events from a certain perspective and based on certain principles and assumptions; and so do others.--Aminz 08:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've searched through the archives and I have found nothing on Maulana Muhammad Ali or Asma Barlas being unreliable sources. Ali is a notable Islamic scholar who has written many books on Islam, and is therefore a reliable source on Islamic issues by default. As for Balas, her book in question was published by the University of Texas Press and is therefore also a reliable source. There is absolutely no reason why the views from notable Islamic scholars or writers from reputable publishing houses should be excluded from the article, regardless of whether of not it is a minority view. Excluding significant minority views from the article is nothing more than a suppression of information which goes against the fundamental Wikipedia policy of neutrality, which holds that all majority views and significant minority views should be presented in Wikipedia articles. It is only tiny minority views without reliable sources that should be excluded according to the undue weight guideline, not significant minority views with prominent adherents. The fact that this view has prominent Islamic scholars adhering to it like Maulana Muhammad Ali, Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi, Khalid Masood, etc. means that this view is a signficant minority view and cannot be excluded under any circumstances. My suggestion is something along the lines of what Aminz suggested earlier, i.e. stating that there is a minority view which disagrees with the majority view. Not doing so would be a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Jagged 85 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wouldn't. Fringe theories which are not even addressed by serious scholars have no place here. Read the talk page from the old article and you'll see explained that Barlas is reliable for some things but not all, as is the case with anyone. History is outside her area of expertise. Further Maulana Ali is undeniably an apologist and highly partisan. We will not include his propaganda here. It is already included in the criticism articles to a worrying extent. Arrow740 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On who's authority do you claim it to be a fringe theory? Like I said, personal opinions and original research have no place of Wikipedia. If you're claiming that the consensus is that Aisha was nine, then you will need to cite a reliable source that confirms your claim of consensus. The only reliable source that even discusses any kind of consensus on the issue is Barlas, therefore you will need to reference her to confirm your claim either way, regardless of whether you agree with her views. I've read some of the previous arguments on her at Talk:Aisha's age at marriage and find their reasons to be biased and unencyclopedic. All I saw was just personal opinions being thrown around with hardly any references to Wikipedia's own policies. Barlas has written many books on Islam which have been published by reputable publishing houses like the Cambridge University Press and the University of Texas Press, therefore she is a scholar of Islam, and yet some users still try to claim she is not a reliable source based on their own biased opinions rather on Wikipedia policies? Like you said, propoganda does not belong here, and the suppression of information is by far the worst kind of propoganda. Suppressing such vital information is misleading and is, again, a breach of Wikipedia's policies. Jagged 85 03:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's a feminist political scientist. Those are her qualifications. Read a biography of Muhammad by a serious scholar. They all endorse the explicit statements in the sahih collections regarding her age. This makes the silly attempts at obfuscation by apologists such as the ones to which you are giving undue weight fringe theories. Arrow740 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not giving them any undue weight, as I have explicitly stated in the article itself that their view is only supported by a minority of scholars. The reason why Barlas is an important source is because she is the only one who actually confirms what the the majority and minority views are, therefore she cannot be ignored. I honestly don't see how her being a feminist is even relevant to the discussion. She is a scholar of Islam who has written plenty of books on Islam published by major scholarly publishing houses like the Cambridge and Texas university presses, therefore she qualifies as a reliable source in every way by Wikipedia's standards. Jagged 85 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She is an unqualified polemicist. Read the work you are citing for some bizarre statements. Arrow740 06:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure what exactly you are referring to, but like I said above, we should not be judging her based on our own personal views. It really does not matter whether we agree with her or not, but what matters is how other academics view her work. If her work has been published by reputable publishers (which it has) and not received any negative reviews from other scholars (which it has not as far as I know), then her book qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Jagged 85 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the case that everything published by a reputable press can be produced here. That has been an issue with Bat Ye'or and others. Barlas' statements are simply ludicrous. I have shown some of the humor on the other talk page. "Some Muslims..." and as Aminz found out, those "Muslims" likely includes other political scientists, sociologists, and the like. Something stated by the sahih hadith and confirmed by mainstream scholars is what we present. Something in direct contradiction of that needs quite a case, and you haven't presented one. Arrow740 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Arrow740. We don't need to include polemics from unqualified sources. -- Karl Meier 06:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Karl: Barlas is a fully qualified source by Wikipedia's standards. Read my reasons above. Jagged 85 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Arrow: Again, it would be original research to be presenting our own case for what we think about the topic. If you are not satisfied with Maulana Ali's argument however, you can read Allama Habib-ur-Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi's book for a full rebuttal of those hadiths and he presents substantial alternative evidence from the hadiths and other sources. Jagged 85 07:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't change the subject. Barlas has no qualifications as a historian. Arrow740 07:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Jagged 85: Please be careful about that strawman. I have read the comments and I believe that no one has argued that his personal opinions should be included. What we are dissatisfied here are the sources that you want to include. As mentioned, we do not have space for all published polemics by partisan sources such as the above mentioned: We are supposed to be concise and such things can be omitted per among other things WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, in order to avoid wasting our readers time. As for Barlas specifically, it is clear just from reading her article, that she doesn't have the necessary qualifications to be a useful source on the subject of Islamic history.  -- Karl Meier 07:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: Arrow: Again, on who's authority do you claim Barlas to be an unreliable source for Islamic history? She has written works on Islamic history published by the likes of Cambridge and Texas university presses. It is not up to you or me to review her work, and it would be original research to do so. Your opinions on her work are irrelevant unless you can find scholarly reviews that actually support your view. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Karl: The undue weight guideline states that only tiny minority views may be ommitted, NOT significant minority views. Using the undue weight guideline to justify the removal of ALL minority views would end up breaking another rule: the Space and balance. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Arrow & Karl: If both of you believe that there is a consensus regarding Aisha's age, then you will need to cite a reliable source to support your claim of consensus... And the only source that actually claims the majority view is nine years old is none other than Barlas. Jagged 85 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Forum-shopping. You lost the argument the first time and are losing it again, so you prolong it. The result will be the same for the same reasons. Arrow740 08:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all your imagination Arrow. --Aminz 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I'll continue the discussion over there. Jagged 85 10:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age at marriage 

message: I would like to remove the sentence "After the wedding, Aisha continued to play with her toys, and Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games.[7]"  Just because Watt was an expert on Islam doesn't mean everything he wrote can be stated as fact.  Arrow740, you can save me the trip to the library by telling me what source Watt used for this statement.  Is it a Hadith or a quote from a historian of that time? OpTioNiGhT (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way it doesn't look like it's very controversial point. I'm restoring it as it looks like a relevant fact from a very reputable secondary source.--Cúchullain t/c 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a cheap way of asserting the POV that Aisha was still a child.  Also, there is no similar reference to the spirit of Mohammad in any of the historical sources about his life.  It is a fringe point that is rather ambiguous.  What does it add to the article? OpTioNiGhT (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if it is relevant even if she were playing with her toys. Marriage to children is not allowed in Islam? The key issue is whether or not she remained a child when the marriage was consummated, not when they married. As in, it's okay if she played with toys while she was living with her parents (despite being married to Muhammad) however when she moved out and moved into Muhammad's home, while it seems clear she brought her dolls with her, did she continue to play with them, or were they brought out of sentiment for past times and to give to her future children? Tyciol (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I totaly agree since the Hadith mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari #6198 narrated by Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) says she used to play with her friends with toys during the presence of the prophet Peace be up on him. The Hadith has nothing to do with what Watt wrote that the prophet (Peace be up on him) entered into the spirit of these games. Please remove this sentence since it's not authentic according to the Hadith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.90.224 (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also question the sources for Watt. The point made above (the Hadith) stands against Watt's perspective, and if the source for Watt is not clarified and authenticated with more strength than the Hadith mentioned above, then this point is to be corrected (especially if it proves to be just a personal interpretation of Watt's understanding).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.90.224 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were just a personal interpretation of Watt's words that would be one thing. But if it's what Watt says it's relevant, as it reinforces the fact that Aisha was quite young.--Cúchullain t/c 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I reworded it to reflect what Watt says. There's no need for another source, he's an emminent authority on the subject. And reliable secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, as those can be interpreted in various ways (as brought up at WP:PRIMARY).--Cúchullain t/c 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the title of the book.  I still think we can come to an agreement on this statement. I am not asking to use primary sources.  All I'm saying is that Watt is not the only source on Islam. The reference to spirits is so unconventional that another source would be good idea.OpTioNiGhT (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toys and Spirit 

message: Substituted at 20:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment