Talk:Aisha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

baldness[edit]

I've come across something which implied she had some kind of illness that caused her hair to fall out: https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-5/Book-58/Hadith-234

The Prophet (ﷺ) engaged me when I was a girl of six (years).
We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj.
Then I got ill and my hair fell down.
Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends.
She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me.
She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house.
I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it.
Then she took me into the house.
There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck."
Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage).
Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

I don't see any mention of the illness or loss of hair in this article. Is this a reliable Hadith? It seems like a noteworthy mention.

This translation also uses the term "engage" rather than "marry" at 6 years. It is possible they were not actually married until she was 9 and 6 was the year of engaging to be married? -curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.193.44 (talk) 14:08, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is noteworthy for inclusion, though the hadith was related by Hisham ibn Urwah ibn Asma bint Abu Bakr, who is said to have suffered with weak memory in his old age when he compiled"the biography of the prophet" According to scholars Hafiz Aqeeli and Abul-Hasan bin Al-Qattan. (my source for this is not digital, a have a booklet which I cant find a digital copy of -- Shamshad M. Khan's Hazrat Aishah saddiqah (R.A.A), A study of her age at the time of marriage, published by IPCI.)
from what I understand, the Hadith claims that the nikah was at age 6 and her joining the household was at age 9, though the same source I mention above contends this to be 16 and 19, and that the source was either unintentionally modified through bad copying by scribes who didn't care for the content of the source, or that the '10' (or "Ashara" in Arabic) from '16' and '19' ("Sitta-Ashara" and "Tissata-Ashara")is understood from context in Classical Arabic. Ihaasa (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Majority of hadiths?[edit]

This statement is not supported The majority of traditional hadith sources state

I have only found one,traditional source

Therefore the stament needs to be amended to

One hadith source states — Preceding unsigned comment added by LR123 (talkcontribs) 09:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am doing a bit of work on the topic of her age at the moment and will be amending this further so that the lead section matches the Age section, when I have completed my work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Misquoting of sources and other issues about her age at marriage[edit]

I have just started to re-examine what has been written about Aisha's age at marriage and when the marriage was consummated, and have started finding errors already. Karen Armstrong's book, p.157, is cited but completely misquoted; other sources are not available for various reasons (dead url or paywalls) and I am now dubious of the reliability of the rest. I will be doing a bit more investigation and intend to update this section and the lead to match. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help looking up some sources. I may have a couple citations that aren't available online. I was planning myself to review the rewrite Dragoon17 made a few months ago. Much of it seems to have been good, but I do have some concerns. Eperoton (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me venture one general comment based on recollection of the sources. Our article currently presents the topic to a large extent as a historical debate, but the RSs we cite that discuss this topic at length (Jonathan Brown, Kecia Ali, Asma Barlas) treat it as a matter of differing religious interpretations. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much Eperoton. By the look of your profile, you are very well qualified to assist and make good calls in the quest for better presentation and information. I have a couple of printed resources (Armstrong and Ishaq), and may consult works in the library further down the line if necessary, but I'm sure that your resources will be very useful. I would first like to investigate more closely what is already cited in the article, and ponder further on what and how this matter can be best presented on Wikipedia in a reasonably succinct form.
I'll be coming back to this later, but what do you think about moving the mention of her age of marriage out of the lead section (which is already on the long side) altogether? I don't think that this issue really fits WP:LEAD. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Articles on Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad will also need looking at, with parts of what is recorded here either copied or transcluded into those articles, or we run the risk of presenting conflicting information in different articles. Incidentally, looking at the infobox on the Muhammad page, under Spouses, it looks to me as if the dates for Aisha are incorrect there? Anyway, I'll be treading carefully and making notes before I do anything too drastic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, great. Just a word of caution: on this topic it's especially important to observe WP:PRIMARY for sources like Ibn Ishaq and hadith collections. There are widely varying views on their authenticity, with differences between traditional Muslim views and modern historians on one hand, and between classical hadith scholars and some modern Muslim authors on the other. As discussed by the secondary sources we cite, they make the reader arrive at different conclusions depending on which narratives they choose to rely on, highlight or ignore. This is not an exercise we should be engaging in ourselves. At the moment, the end of the first paragraph is a PRIMARY violation.
Why do you think we should keep the topic out of the lead? I don't really see a rationale for it. It's been an enduring centerpiece of polemics and apologetics, and we devote a good chunk of the article to it. Let's work out a well-sourced, NPOV detailed discussion, and then I agree that we should look into other articles where this topic is discussed. Eperoton (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the caution. I do understand the complexity of these issues, although not not hugely knowledgeable and don't claim to have your level of expertise, let alone that of an expert historian on the topic. It's always going to be a challenge to convey enough without getting bogged down in that exercise, but I concur completely. I take it that you mean the end of the first paragraph of the Age at marriage section?
Re the lead: Well, I thought that it's not a topic that's stressed or argued about in any of the biographies or original sources (that I know of - and you are obviously better versed in these than I am) so it's not the place of Wikipedia to put this up in the summary - but I take your point, that is a valid reason. Great - good approach, agreed. (This could still take me a bit of time as my time here is somewhat fractured over the next few days, and it will take time to investigate all of the sources cited, and others... but I will be back! And please feel free to change the Under construction box if you wish to take the lead in this.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I'm removing the misuse of primary sources at the end of the first paragraph. I haven't seen any secondary source interpreting them as being relevant to this topic.
A couple of other changes I'm making after having read the chapter from Kecia Ali's book we're citing:
1) removing the last sentence in the section, which is WP:SYNTH. Ali isn't arguing against Spellberg or her view.
2) removing the phrase though Kecia Ali labels these attempts as "revisionist". Use of this term in WP in problematic in general, since it's generally used in different ways in scholarly literature and the public sphere (what our Revisionism article identifies as historical revisionism and historical negationism, respectively). In this case, the latter interpretation is further reinforced by the word "labels". This is a misuse of the source, where the term is used with no suggestion of polemical connotation. Ali clearly states: "I make no attempt in this chapter to assess the historical record, nor do I take a position as to Aishah's actual age at the time of consummation of her marriage."
I'm going to read Ali's later discussion of this topic in The Lives of Muhammad. It looks like this topic has enough coverage in scholarly sources to expand our discussion and spin it out into a separate article. Eperoton (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your editing. I was thinking that I'd start by removing the quotes from primary sources, so glad you did that. I have been busy on other things and so still not across all of this. My concern started when I discovered that at least one source had actually been misquoted, which led me to wonder how many other misrepresentations there are. At this point I'm not clear if any of the primary sources state an age, or if all of the opinions have been inferred from other information presented in those sources, so that is something I want to dig into a bit further for my own understanding. Armstrong says she was 9 when she got married but it was a low-key affair, she stayed on with her parents and (according to Tabari) her marriage was consummated there later, when she had reached puberty. My abridged version of Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad (ed. Michael Edwardes) says she was married at the age of 10 - but this is in an italicised paragraph which was inserted by editor.
Your idea about a separate article may not be a bad idea. Then all of the other articles mentioning it can point to this. (Just the other day I saw someone commenting on Facebook that Muhammad was a paedophile, and Wikipedia supports her statement!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just removed a citation that doesn't appear to lead to the full texts of the hadiths, but will record it here for later reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim, 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, 41:4915, Sunan Abu Dawood, 41:4917 I've had a look at their new website but can only see summaries. ?? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Another word of caution: Armstrong is popular writer, but not a academic specialist in this field. The website that the Hadith-usc template pointed to in now defunct, and is not coming back up, based on what I've read elsewhere on WP. When compliant with WP:PRIMARY, we can replace it by citations like "Sahih al-Bukhari, book 7, volume 62, number 64". These are canonical hadith collections, easy to find on the web. The age is in fact mentioned is several primary sources, with some variations. Please take your time. I will continue looking into this topic as time permits, but I'm not in a rush. Eperoton (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I just remembered: most of the pages from the defunct hadith site are available via archive.org. For existing Hadith-usc templates, it's probably better to convert them into archived URLs. The relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Hadith_reference_template_broken. Eperoton (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I had realised this about Armstrong (having read other of her works) and also that the range and degree of authority and respect amongst historians and scholars always varies. In this field there are added layers of complexity, from differing primary sources to Islamic scholars through the centuries to recent or current ones from both the western and Islamic worlds. Not forgetting the different interpretations which have given rise to different denominations of Islam. You are no doubt more familiar than I am with all of this. Good about the hadith collections being available elsewhere - I thought that might be the case, but haven't looked yet. I thought that I'd checked Wayback Machine/archive.org for that site, but I'll come back to it later. (I usually do add archived URLs when I am editing myself, or look for them when I come across an expired page.)
I am starting (very slowly, and in between other things) just making some notes for myself summarising anything regarding the date of marriage, in whatever I can find access to from each of the refs in this article, and noting those I can't access (e.g. Spellberg - do you have that one?). If you want to have access to my notes at some poiont you can email me here and I can send or post in OneDrive or Dropbox. Glad you're not in a hurry because I think it's more important to do a good job here! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I do have a copy of Spellberg's book. Eperoton (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Excellent - Spellberg will be useful. I have found that it's quite easy to source those hadith refs online, but will come back to that later. In the meantime though I did a bit of an edit to try to improve the flow and also removed another quote from a primary source. The refs in the middle of the 1st para. still need reviewing to assess if and how they support the preceding sentence, amongst other things, but I need to work through the last 2 paras first... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Just to let you know that I've made quite a bit of progress with my notes and thinking, but then got diverted to another major editing project which still needs some tidying (and another one waiting in the wings that I need to chip away at - but not pressing). I do still need to look at other pages which mention her (e.g. Muhammad, etc.) and just check if there's anything useful to be incorporated from them. Just wondering though, in the course of re-shaping the section, rather than a very extensive discussion here, should we work on it on one of my or your user pages (create an extra dedicated sandbox for it) perhaps? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in documenting our discussion on this talk page, but please feel free to work in your sandbox if you prefer. At this point, I see myself in a supporting role, and I'd like to give you space to do the work you'd like to do on this section. When I have time, I'll try to "load" in my head all the sources I have and come up with a NPOV summary for a separate article, later putting a compressed version here. It may turn out different from what we have now -- it's hard to tell at this point. I'll be working on a draft in my sandbox and I'll be sure to let you know when I start. I'm currently working on a major update for another article, and there are several others jostling for top priority in my head. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, that's fine with me. I'll start by jotting down a few notes in a dedicated sandbox and start sketching out a structure that seems logical to me, and we can discuss further once one of us makes some progress. We'd better just check that the article has at least a minor update every few days or that Under Construction template might disappear. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Eperoton After multiple diversions, I thought I'd better get back to this. I've made a few minor changes to the lead and also the first para. of the Age section, but am now going to play in a sandbox for a while and re-familiarise myself with the sources, etc. before I make any further major changes to the actual article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)