Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:17, 4 March 2008 editCyberSach (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers1,456 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 202.125.156.14 identified as vandalism to last revision by Chowbok. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:02, 4 March 2008 edit undoSJMNY (talk \| contribs)242 edits →What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?Next edit →
Line 249:		Line 249:
	1400 years ago women were married once the entered puberty, and it was normal <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		1400 years ago women were married once the entered puberty, and it was normal <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Indeed. The archives of ] are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the ]. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. ] <small>]</small> 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)		:Indeed. The archives of ] are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the ]. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. ] <small>]</small> 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

			::the current mention of her age (" Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage...") is just fine (though perhaps requires a source in the sentence such as "accordig to the koran" or "according to muslim scholars"... i'm no expert on the mater. theres nothing "wrong" with this, according to some biblical traditions, Isaac's wife was only 3 years old when they married, this isn't mentioned in the article on Isaac, it probably should be. ] (]) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:02, 4 March 2008

Skip to table of contents

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Important notice: Misplaced Pages's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Image archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

Muhammad's other roles: Lede worthy?

I noticed that the line regarding Muhammad as Diplomat, General, Merchant, etc. was removed , with the comment that it was tangential to Muhammad's role as prophet. I beg to differ. Were it not for his skill at those, it is unlikely that the faith he professed would have swayed his neighbors. Should the line go back in the summary as a great deal of the article has to do with the relatively secular acts of trading, conquering and cajoling? -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just think it looks out of place. I didn't say they were tangential to his central role, I said they were generally secondary to it. IMO it unnecessarily distinguishes his role as a prophet from his activities as a general, orator, diplomat, and so on, when in many instances we see them inexorably connected. So I don't think it can be simplified so easily in this manner. Some of them don't fit well, like philosopher. Muhammad didn't engage in the Greek or Aristotelian dialectic you associate with philosophers from that era, it only entered Muslim thought some time afterwards. Apostle/Rasul needs not be listed again for obvious reasons. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "tangential" was the wrong word. I apologize. I did mean to quote, not paraphrase badly.

On the issue, I think most of the changes you made were good. They tightened up bits that were klunky and just didn't flow. However, because of the historical POV the article takes, it is important to note Muhammad's multifaceted skill set in the lede summary. After all, had he been a lousy general and gotten himself and his followers killed and his book destroyed, this article would be a lot smaller. ;-) -MasonicDevice (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MasonicDevice, the purpose of that sentence was not to show the skills Muhammad had that helped him in his mission. And I am not sure if any such information should be added to this article because it becomes very subjective and personal. If being a good general was the key to his success, we should let the readers themselves to come up with that conclusion. We don't take any instance on that. If that sentence carries that kind of connotation, I think we should avoid it per neutrality policy. As an aside point, I think the Qur'an itself at one point mentions a reason of Muhammad's success (Qur'an 3:159):"Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust."--Be happy!! (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it subjective as half the article deals with military campaigns. Pray-tell though, what was the point of that sentence if not to show the skills that helped Muhammad on his mission. We cannot "let" readers "determine" what was important. If it isn't in the article, they won't "determine" anything at all because it's just not there.-MasonicDevice (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Since half of the article deals with military campaigns, it is already shown that he was a good general. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's no reason to remove it from the summary. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MasonicDevice, is there any reason not to add a summary of Muhammad#Modern_times to the intro? This seems to touch the issue of Muhammad's means of success as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wha? I must say that you have me a bit baffled as to your point as it is a little bit red herring and a little bit distortion. It seems you picked a small, random section of the article to suggest that I am demanding that all sections be represented in the summary? Is this the case? If so, please understand that this is not what I am suggesting in the slightest, as there is a very big difference in size, scope, and historical importance between my examples and your counter-examples. I am merely suggesting that the summary and lede follow the style guideline WP:LEAD and accurately establish some of the many roles of Muhmmad. Perhaps the sentence in question shouldn't stand as a paragraph of it's own. It was a bit clunky that way, ugly to look at, and was set off as too important. Sticking it to the preceding paragraph would work wonders. Then, after reading how he is the last and greatest of the Prophets of Islam, a Prophet to the Druze, and manifestation of God to the Bahá'í, there follows a brief listing of the skills that allowed the man to get the job done. I think you might not be giving the readers enough credit. Write it well, and in the proper order, and they'll be able to figure out which is the most important. Please riddle me this: were Muhammad an unsuccessful diplomat/general, would his role as Prophet still be as important?-MasonicDevice (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

MasonicDevice, I would not personally revert if one makes that additions but I would not make it myself. One reason of avoiding such attitudes in reference to Muhammad is that in Muslim tradition he sometimes appears as God's channel; he is thus not an orator but reciter of what God has told him to say to people. To me however it is say fine to report Muhamamd's military strategies but to summarize it as Muhammad's own skills might be POV... Secular historians surely do that all the time... I dunno. I am also not sure about the reliability of the source used there to attribute those stuff to Muhamamd. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno.... I think attributing Muhammad's millitary skills to divine intervention might be a little bit more POV than summarizing them as his own skills. The article touches on Muhammad's role in Muslim tradition as well as his historical role. I'm adding the sentence back in so that the summary doesn't ignore what is also an important attribute.-MasonicDevice (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See, part of the problem I think lies in how it's being presented. You refer to some of them (i.e. diplomacy or military) as secular, whereas in many instances his activities in these fields had a distinctly religious motivation or foundation (letters to rulers, constitution of Medina; ghazwa/battle of Badr, and so on). I don't think it's accurate to necessarily "secularise" these qualities by presenting them as separate from his role as prophet. I think a better solution would be to just overview the diplomacy/military aspects (i.e. quickly summarising the battles and treaties/agreements/charters/letters etc.) and let readers judge for themselves. But I'll remove "philosopher" and "apostle" as per the reasons explained above. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the removals you mentioned. Those are obviously redundant. The rest, should stand, as they are not redundant to "prophet". While Muhammad's motivations may have been religous, the actions themselves, and skills demonstrated, are not. All the faith in the world won't help bad stratigic thinking or tactical generalship (Examples of bad tactics or strategy leading to defeat in spite of divine inspiration : Hirohito, David Koresh). While wars and battles may have religous motivation, solidering and generalship is a secular activity. Again I ask: Had Muhammad been a lousy general, would his role of prophet be important? I think that as the article stands now, a reader would be able to see that Muhammad combined a strong faith-based motivation with good tactics of his own creation. Much as we might like to invoke them, gods don't fight wars. Men (and women) do.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent)~Itaqallah - while the roles aren't "seperate", they are "distinct" and those of which his importance is substantial should probably be mentioned in the lead. That he was a merchant - maybe not, as historical merchants go, he's not terribly important. That he was a religious leader is - as historical religious leaders go, he is terribly important. I'll argue that as a political leader/general, he is historically important, but I'm not sure I can back it up without using my own perception. It's worth noting that the American Supreme Court's fresco of eighteen important historic lawmakers picks him as one of these eighteen, although it was carved in 1930s America (not exactly a hotbed of respect of Islamic culture or thinking). His roles as religious leader, political leader and lawmaker, while intertwined, all independantly make him a historically noteworthy person. They all should be acknowledged from the get-go. WilyD 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see both of your (MasonicDevice and WilyD) points. I don't think it's much of a big deal really, perhaps I'm just being pedantic. I'm happy to let it stay though. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Muhammad probably wasn't even the best Arab general of his time period; Khalid ibn Walid is generally considered the greatest Arab general after his victories against the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire, with the Battle of Yarmouk, Battle of Walaja, and Battle of Firaz being perhaps his greatest victories. Muhammad wasn't a terrible general, but I don't see why this has been made into a big deal when it seems like a rather innocuous edit. Certainly he was a good general, but I'm not sure whether or not people here are pushing this for the sake of implying that Muhammad "spread his faith by the sword," which is just as POV as insisting divine intervention was the reason for his success. I would not care about this edit either way, IMO. With that said, Muhammad was a messenger before he was a general; that is probably how he saw himself, but without a doubt that is how his followers saw him. Secularizing Muhammad's history simply makes no sense. Muhammad was not a secularist. Secularism as an ideology did not exist in pre-modern society. Even when one looks at military campaigns, I believe the Qur'an discusses the Byzantine-Sassanid wars, and describes the Byzantine (Christian/Roman) victory in one of the later campaigns as a victory for believers, due to Islam's recognition of Christianity (there is a Hadith I believe that predicts the Byzantine victory, but I don't think its reliable). -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming he was the "best" general, as that's a judgement call that's not supported by included sources, and doesn't really matter to the scope of the article. It might matter in an artcle on Muslim conquests of Arabia. I'm only suggesting that the lead accurately reflect the rest of the article. You're right that "speading faith by his sword" is POV, but in the limited sense it's being used here, it is the POV supported by the evidence and the construction of the rest of the article. He's recognized as a skilled enough general and diplomat to not get himself and his follwers killed. He's recognized as a skilled enough legislator to earn a spot on the SCOTUS frieze. Whether he had religious motivations is really beside the point, because the role of Prophet and the role of General, Diplomat, or to a lesser degree, Legislator are distinct roles. And yes... while secularism as a concept may not have existed before the modern era, history critizies generals who ordered their troops slaughter, not the gods that inspire them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

' ` and ʿ

This article represents ʿayn in multiple ways. Can we agree that ʿ is the standardized form of this? ' is obviously a poor choice because it doesn't differentiate ʿayn from hamza (ʾ). I know Misplaced Pages is a rather hard place to standardize such issues but--let's get it straight on this article and try to keep it up. gren グレン 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Go for it! нмŵוτн τ 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

use ʿ. Anything else is just laziness. I do use ` sometimes, but only because I cannot always be bothered to dig for the proper character. Standardization cleanup work towards ʿ is always appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Images on the Arabic Misplaced Pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=192924201

I cannot find this discussion in the archives, so I'm copying it from history now. /X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images on the Arabic Misplaced Pages

I have made some edits on the Arabic language Misplaced Pages, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Misplaced Pages is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images

One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.

Template:ImageWarning

Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden. (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)

هذه الصورة قد لا يتقبلها البعض، قم بالإظهار إن كنت متأكداً Warning: This picture may offend some people.

Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article. I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate. I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Misplaced Pages is not censored".

I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Misplaced Pages does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution. If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Misplaced Pages censored. Reso lute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The only solution which has been offered upto this point was to not show any images at all. I like the opt-out solution, and I can agree that an opt-in solution would be objectionable to many. Could we define an additional skin, which has a class "sensitive visual material" to be used on each image, which in the normal skin is "collapsible" and in the additional skin is "collapsible collapsed"? Then a warning at the top of the article for users to select a different skin could do the trick. Or am I mistaken?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an was not authored by Muhammad

The Qur'an is not the sayings of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)as mentioned in the[REDACTED] article 'Muhammad'. The qur'an is the word of God and was revealed to Muhammad through angel Gabriel who delivered the divine inspiration to Moses, Jesus, etc. before Muhammad (PBUH).

Muhammad's sayings are called 'Hadiths' and they are extremely respected by Muslims and are considered the second source for the Islamic faith after the Qur'an. But unlike the Qur'an which is preserved from error and corruption by God Himself, some changes happened in some 'Hadiths' and these changes are known. There are sayings that are 'Sahih' completely accurate, 'Da'if' the source of narration is not very trusted, and 'mawdoo' which are completely false and were never told by Muhammad (PBUH).

The Qur'an contains 114 chapters. Although Muhammad was knows as the honest and the trustworthy even before the message of Islam was revealed to him and that he never committed major sins, Some verses of the chapters of the Qur'an contain admonition from God about the way Muhammad (PBUH) handled a certain situation.

If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?

Chapter(80.1-12)

"ABASA" (HE FROWNED)

'(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,

Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).

But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-

Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?

As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,

To him dost thou attend;

Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).

But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,

And with fear (in his heart),

Of him wast thou unmindful.

By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:

Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.'

These verses of this chapter treat a certain incident which took place in the early days of Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) was busy with a few dignatories of the tribe of Quraish, explaining to them the message of Islam, when Ibn Umm Maktoom, a poor blind man, interrupted him. Unaware that the Prophet was busy with those people, the blind man asked him repeatedly to teach him some verses of the Qur'an.

The Prophet (peace be on him) was not very pleased at this interruption. He frowned and turned away from Ibn Umm Maktoom.

This chapter opens by criticizing the Prophet's behaviour in this incident. It lays down clearly the values and principles upon which Islamic society is founded and states the true nature of the message of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashaanwar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?"

What? Don't Muslims have the concept of a tell-all auto-biography? I kid. But more seriously, I don't think we say that "Muhammad authored the Qur'an". What we do say is that "the relevations (or Ayats, lit. Signs of God), Muhammad reported recieving until his death, form the verses of the Qur'an." Is there something wrong with that, or something I'm missing? -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?

Is there any general agreement (for instance between islamic scholars) to how "consumation" (sp.?) of the marriage with then nine year old girl should be interpreted? I heard someone claim that it clearly means he had sex with her, but the person claiming this is strongly anti-islamic, so it would be interesting to know what other interpretations would be possible (if any) and how moslems (sp.?) would typically interpret it. / JBobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.62 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it honestly even really matter in the end? Time's were a lot different 1400 years ago in terms of taboo and sexual encounters with an age of consent. I can't find much information in either direction personally, and I doubt that anything could be added without sounding POV. Jmlk 1 7 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses this topic. The article talk page is not the forum to raise such questions that do not deal specifically with article edits, adding, or removing information from the articles. See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Veritas (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about Muhammad, the person (and not a theological treatise). If he had sex with a nine-year-old girl it is most certainly worthy of note. And all the sources - including Aisha herself - say that he did. Do Muslims deny this? TharkunColl (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the initial comment, and then look at what Veritas said. This is not a forum to discuss the general issue, nor whether or not Muslims deny it. ITAQALLAH 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. This article is about Muhammad, and should give equal weight to those opinions that are against him as for him. He has been criticised for being a paedophile in many places, and the article should discuss this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can show us quality material from scholarly journals, textbooks where the matter is discussed - bring them to the table, in many places tell us nothing. what quality material specifically do you feel should be added to the article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Try these images - many of them play on Muhammad's paedophilia in some way. Incidentally, your insistence on only using academic sources is POV. An encyclopedia should address all relevant views of him. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just used scholarly journals as a short-hand and you can present any quality sources you have - Is that website the idea of a quality source when dealing with one of the most studied men in history? a site that starts it's articles with titles like Where's this bitch? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It would come under "Muhammad in popular culture". Why doesn't this article have one of those? TharkunColl (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because that is a quality notable site that we would report on in such a section? Is that your proposal? that's the source you want us to consider for inclusion in such a section? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, why isn't there such a section? Is this article already censored? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's actually requires a separate article because of the length it would reach, feel free to start the section here or a new article on the matter. So, back to my question - is that site the sort of material you consider to be a quality source that should be included in an article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

and it seems the marriage issue is covered here --Fredrick day (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick, given this, it might be best to just not feed him. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was called a hypocrite by another user, and responded in kind. He didn't even have the honour to do so in English, but insread used an Arabic term that I had to look up. TharkunColl (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A primary source of opinion (such as the images on the website you linked) does not fall within the bounds of reliable sources, and so runs afoul of Misplaced Pages policies on original research and neutral point of view. If you really feel that those images have a place in this article, find a secondary source, i.e., one that discusses those images in a neutral context. In terms of "Muhammad in popular culture", you would still need secondary sources that establish the notability of those images in a popular culture context. You don't achieve entry into popular culture simply by doing something avant garde or anti-establishment - if something is truly a part of popular culture, then it will be popular enough to have ample secondary sources discussing it. --Dachannien_Contrib 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I was already pretty sure that there'd be some really good reason why we shouldn't include such things. TharkunColl (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be trolling - you are a long-term editor, you know our policies on sources, you know how we write articles. So put up or shut up, you want to write such a section - you write a section and you provide RS for it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

{{trivia}} (Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections) says we discourage trivia ("in popular culture") sections. Nothing to do with censorship. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this really more than footnote worthy? It doesn't have much to do with Muhammad's role in history. It might fit in a section on his family/clan but anything more than a sentence on the subject is clearly pushing a POV.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It has more to do with Aisha than it does with Muhammad. Even so, it is rather irrelevant to Muhammad's importance in history. The Virgin Mary didn't exactly give birth to Jesus when she was 18+, did she? Let's be a little realistic, rather than politicizing this issue. Up until 19th century Europe, it was still commonplace for women to be married off "as minors." -Rosywounds (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1400 years ago women were married once the entered puberty, and it was normal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.119.197 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The archives of Talk:Aisha are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the 7th century. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

the current mention of her age (" Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage...") is just fine (though perhaps requires a source in the sentence such as "accordig to the koran" or "according to muslim scholars"... i'm no expert on the mater. theres nothing "wrong" with this, according to some biblical traditions, Isaac's wife was only 3 years old when they married, this isn't mentioned in the article on Isaac, it probably should be. SJMNY (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: