Talk:Aisha

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

Aisha was approximately 13-17 years old, not 7, when she married the Prophet. No valid accounts say she was younger than 13. She was also pre-engaged to someone else before she and her parents cancelled it and switched it to the Prophet, and still after marriage she did not live with him until 2 years later. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths. 96.255.139.57 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is not what reliable sources say.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

you have no idea what reliable sources say, Hakikatco (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of "Hayat Al-Qulub" to support a Shia claim that Aisha poisoned her husband (Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024)

The source to Hazrat Ayesha and Hazrat Hafsa poisoning the holy prophet is not credible as the book is an anonymous compilation and the claim is not supported anywhere else , there are great doubts surrounding this claim and is rejected by 99.9% of scholars, please remove this weak allegation source 39.48.18.64 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have not said what edit you want.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

the passage should be entirely removed as its completely baseless,it is vandalism 39.48.18.64 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the statement the IP editor is talking about to this talk page for discussion. It is as follows:

Ayyashi has narrated through authentic chains of narrators from Imam Ja’far Sadiq that, "Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death."

References

Hayat Al-Qulub is a late 17th Century book by a Shia cleric from Persia. The version by Ansariyan Publications was published in three volumes, and the citation did not say which volume chapter 65 was in. Its English-language title is variously called "Stories of the Prophets" or "Life of Hearts". The reliability of this book has been questioned by al-islam.org, which describes parts of the book as "very hagiographical"; al-islam.org also says that parts of the book contradict fundamental Islamic beliefs, and says that it would be foolish to take some parts of the book literally because they appear to be legends or myths.^[1] -- Toddy1 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First and foremost if one picks up Hayat al Qulob the first notable thing is the entire book is a collection of materials Majlisi found, none of which have any chain of narration as such we have no means of analysing the chain to look at the accuracy of such a narration.Secondly the book has distinct biases and charged with sectarianism in favor of Shia views,thirdly as you mentioned yourself the book has unreliable legends and myths that automatically render the whole thing unreliable,and fourthly the claim of Ayyishi has no corroboration and thus a single source cannot be used to put forward such a claim,thank you for your edit Camaro911 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The statement appears to have been inserted by @Kawrno Baba. Al-Islam.org is not a reliable source and should not be used to judge the reliability of the sources we use. For Hayat Al-Qulub itself, it is at best a primary source. Reliable independent secondary sources are needed (see WP:SOURCE) and so far, I've found two (, ) that seem to talk about the issue.

Some Shii polemicists went as far as countering the Sunni designations of her as the 'vindicated' with a particularly incendiary remark, something that was taken up in the early twenty-first century by a controversial Kuwaiti Shii author based in the UK, Yasir al-Habib, who rehashed a polemical debate in which some Shii authors had claimed that Aisha and Hafsa had poisoned the Prophet.

Hafsa is particularly reviled by the Shi'a, because along with the Prophet's wife 'Aisha she is believed to have caused him various sorts of tribulations. She is sometimes even accused of conspiring to poison him.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a basic problem - people want to cite sources that most of us have never heard of. So it makes sense to do a search on Google and Amazon to find out what they are. The comments that can be found by that method are not classed as reliable sources, so (in general) they should not be used in articles. Nevertheless they are useful in finding out about sources, and provide a starting point for further research.

Or would you prefer that we accept any old rubbish inserted by POV editors with throwaway accounts, on the grounds that it would be wrong to find out what the sources are if we do not already know?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So it makes sense to do a search on Google and Amazon to find out what they are.

Yes, Toddy1. But I think we also need to be selective. As an analogy, surely we cannot use user-generated content to determine whether an academic source is unreliable? Anyway, can we get back to discussing the content? We both agree that the text added by Kawrno Baba, based only on the primary source Hayat al-Qulub, doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standards, right? But this issue of some Shia writers accusing Aisha of poisoning Muhammad seems so noteworthy that it has found its way into academic writings like the two books I quoted above. So in my opinion, if the issue is to be included in our article, then I think these two books should be used instead and the statement should follow closely what they say. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Since reliable secondary sources talk about how a few Shia authors wrote fantasies about Aisha, there would be a good case for mentioning this in articles about those authors. It is not obvious that their fantasies are relevant to the article on Aisha.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually rather impartial on this issue, and just came by to provide some potential sources. But let's see if any other editors want to chime in. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am yet to understand wikipedia policy it seems. In one article I differentiated between two sub-sects of religion, then it got cancelled and I received the following message - For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses are nontrinitarian Christians, although various other Christians consider them non-Christian because they do not worship Jesus (only his father, Jehovah/Yahweh). For Wikipedia they are still Christians. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Now I thought the discussed reference is a useful one, it is also getting hated, but for the exact opposite reason. This time people are saying to differentiate between sub-sects, which someone told me to stay away from.

Besides, from a neutral point of view, why do Sunnis get preferential treatment compared to Shias? As PaleoNeonate said before, this is wikipedia. This is a neutral ground for information. Let the readers decide. If there is another peer reviewed source which states that Shias lie and it's a proven fact, please put that alongside with my edit. Again, present all facts, let readers know every aspect of it. Kawrno Baba (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

}Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request an edit to the Wikipedia page regarding Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Currently, the page mentions that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Aisha when she was nine years old. However, this information requires clarification and contextualization to provide a more accurate representation of historical accounts and Islamic teachings.

In Islam, the age of consent for marriage is a subject of interpretation and historical context. While it is true that some sources indicate Aisha's age at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad as nine years old, it is important to consider additional factors and perspectives.

Firstly, scholars and historians have debated the accuracy of Aisha's reported age, with some suggesting that she may have been older at the time of her marriage. The reliability of historical records from over a thousand years ago can be complex, and interpretations vary.

Secondly, Islamic teachings emphasize the importance of understanding historical events within their cultural and societal contexts. In seventh-century Arabia, customs regarding marriage and age differed significantly from modern norms. Marriage at a young age was not uncommon during that period, and it is crucial to recognize this when discussing historical marriages, including that of Prophet Muhammad and Aisha.

Thirdly, Islam places great emphasis on justice, compassion, and the well-being of individuals. While certain practices of the past may not align with contemporary values, it is essential to approach historical accounts with a nuanced understanding rather than imposing present-day judgments.

Therefore, I propose the following edit to the Wikipedia page:

Provide a balanced discussion on the age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, acknowledging varying interpretations and historical debates. Offer contextual information about marriage customs and societal norms in seventh-century Arabia. Emphasize the importance of understanding historical events within their cultural contexts and avoiding anachronistic judgments. Provide references to scholarly sources and reputable Islamic sources to support the information presented. By making these edits, Wikipedia can offer a more comprehensive and nuanced portrayal of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, reflecting the complexities of history and Islamic teachings.

Thank you for considering this request. Should you require further clarification or assistance, please feel free to reach out to me.} 103.166.244.135 (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You failed to read/obey the instruction: State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. What you have provided is a discussion about what might be desirable. It is not an edit request.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what the other editor said – you need to be clear about exactly what changes you want made. This includes providing your own sources (see WP:CITE if you need guidance for this). I'd also like to make sure you have seen the section Aisha § Age at marriage and consummation, which does have some discussion of this already & is likely where any additions you want to make could go. Irltoad (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Marriage age of Aisha

@Kaalakaa You stated that the sources I referenced are not independent  : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aisha&diff=prev&oldid=1217509852.

Can you state the reasons you believe that these are not independent sources ? Hakikatco (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

After looking over their website, my impression is that Tughra Books has a conflict of interest about the subject matter, since its sole purpose appears to be publishing non-critical books about Islam, to the point of publishing revisionist material that presents Islam in a less controversial light by modern standards. In that sense, it wouldn't be considered independent. I don't know if this is what Kaalakaa meant. This "age of Aisha" canard wasn't an issue for centuries until only recently, when suddenly we have Muslim "scholarship" contradicting previously accepted history, all in response to criticism from Islamophobes. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I more or less agree with what Anachronist explained above. And independent sources are the kind of sources we need to use, among other criteria outlined in our WP:SOURCE policy. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist Well the theory stating that the Aisha's marriage age was 18 not 9 is a critical theory to the common Islamic knowledge. There were scholars who disagreed with age of 9, e.g. Tabarani said 1300 years ago that she was 12 years old, some said she was 13 or 14, but no one said she was 18 ( at least in the commonly known books).

So this theory alone makes this book a critical book unlike your statement. In another words Tugra Books does publish critical books about Islam and is an independent publisher. I assume you are using the "independent" word here as having fixed mind set.

Regarding why did Muslims wait 1400 years to work on this, I guess multiple reasons:

It was the norm in Europe, Asia to get marry at 9-10-12 years until 100 years ago, Juliet was 13 in Shakespeare's book , but in the 21st century its not the norm , so naturally Muslims felt the need to double check the facts and once they did they found the proofs that she was 18 Hakikatco (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But the claim that Aisha got married when she was 18, if accepted, would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, and therefore needs multiple high quality sources commenting on this novel idea. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not imagine that 18 is the upper limit. Reşit Haylamaz, who wrote Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar (2012), also wrote a magazine article for IslamiCity that was published in November 2008: At what age Aisha marry Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? Comments by readers include one who says 19-22 and another who says 25. I hope that you can see why we need policies like WP:EXCEPTIONAL.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Well Resit Haylamaz already listed 4 different sources in his article to support his theory and used the most reliable references in his article according to the Sunni world like Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Nawawi . And as I said even 1300 years ago many scholars stated she was 12-13 not 9. So the alternate theories were always there.

I dont know about the other theories that she was 22 or 25 and without valid sources I don't think they should be listed here. Hakikatco (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hakikatco: Please read our WP:SOURCE policy. It requires us to:

Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

What is meant by "independent" here according to WP:IIS is:

An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).

Therefore, for example, apologetic writings by Aum Shinrikyo followers about their founder or the history of their religion clearly do not meet these criteria. And the same should apply to other religions as well. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@KaalakaaWell being apologetic does not make a source non independent, what you are saying is irrelevant to the "Independent" policy. There is no advertiser ,there is no conflict of interest here . You have to show the conflict of interest if you are claiming that it does exist

Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. An interest in this sense may be either positive or negative. An example of a positive interest is writing about yourself, your family, or a product that is made or sold by your company or employer; an example of a negative interest is owning or working for a company that represents a competing product's article. These conflicts of interest make Wikipedia editors suspect that sources from these people will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic. Sources by involved family members, employees, and officers of organizations are not independent.

Hakikatco (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sigh, looks like a WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issue again here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

you clearly have bias towards Islam , and dont want to see alternate ideas so I agree, @Kaalakaa Hakikatco (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, actually you have failed to grasp the meaning of "independent" in this context. It has nothing to do with financial interest, but vested interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats not true , the definition clearly says "personal, financial, or political gain" , if you believe any of these interest exists, its on you to prove it. Since you are not and started to attack my personality , there is no need to consider your statements so I am ignoring you Hakikatco (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Independent sources, it is clear that "personal, financial, or political gain" are examples of non-independence. They are not an exclusive definition of non-independence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So whats the conflict of interest here, I debunked your theory of non critical and later not having multiple sources, its on you prove it your claims, you keep saying there is a conflict interest or non-independence but not able to show why and how Hakikatco (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of Sahih Bukhari for age during marriage consummation

Sahih Bukhari is among the most adhered hadith collection in the Islamic world. It states that, her marriage was consummated at such age when she still played with dolls. In the commentary of the Sahih Bukhari it is written that, "Playing with dolls is forbidden in Islam, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she did not yet reach the age of puberty."

Can this part be added in the article? Does this part violates any WikiPedia policy? Kawrno Baba (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kawrno Baba, even if you bring another non-religious RS source for this, the content's lack of relevance detracts from the article's quality and appears gratuitous. StarkReport (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

//the content's lack of relevance//

Are you being serious right now? Whether or not Aisha reached puberty before consummation of her marriage is a huge debate worldwide. On that topic I cited reliable source widely accepted in the Islamic world. What's the issue then? The said content is not only relevant, but crucial.

If you don't find it relevant, then please delete all the 'controversy with Aisha's age of marriage and consummation' from the article; by your logic that whole part is irrelevant. Kawrno Baba (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kawrno Baba, Kindly note that the primary concern of the section is to provide a overview of the historical perspectives and scholarly discourse on Aisha's age at marriage, rather than delving into specific details such as her activities at the time. The unnecessary commentary on doll-playing in Islam veers off-topic. The issue of determining her age has already been more than addressed extensively.

Now whether she played with dolls or her hair or toys cars is not a factor in this "huge debate worldwide." StarkReport (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport, why playing with dolls is significant for Aisha at the time of consummation is of huge importance. And the reason is explicitly stated in the revision.

Playing with dolls is prohibited in Islam. But it is permissible for girls till puberty.

The debate concerning her age has several parts. One, the question is if we should debate over an ancient law based on present law. Two, that the ancient law has some morality in it. So in the light of second point, it is often told that, yes, her marriage got consummated when she was very young, but at least she reached puberty, id est, maturity.

For that claim the said hadith and the commentary is very relevant. Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My proposed revision:

The commentary for a hadith regarding Aisha's age during marriage explains that, the consummation of her marriage was done before she reached puberty.

I tried to be as brief as possible in one sentence. Kawrno Baba (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But the hadith and commentary do not mention the marriage being consummated. It says Narrated `Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13) (Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6130. In-book reference: Book 78, Hadith 157. USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 151.) Is this explained more fully in Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13? If it is, please can we have a translated quotation that is long enough for an educated person without specialised knowledge to understand that this is what is meant.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The part 'my dwelling place' means her dwelling place at Muhammad's house. Muhammad made separate dwelling places for his wives. Her marriage got consummated the day Muhammad took to 'her dwelling place' from her father's house. See 'The History of Al-Tabari, volume 39, page 172-173. Kawrno Baba (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So what we have here is a chain of statements, that could potentially be put in the article - but we are far from be ready to do that:

• Aisha's marriage got consummated the day Muhammad took her to 'her dwelling place' from her father's house. You say you can provide a citation to Tabari Volume 39 for that. If you use the State University of New York Press editions of Tabari, they have useful commentaries in the introduction - maybe they talk about this and its significance - if so you have a secondary source.
• A statement about Aisha playing with dolls. You can provide a citation to hadith and commentary from Fath-ul-Bari

But so far this is WP:OR, because you are combining statements from different sources to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in the sources. But maybe the introduction to Tabari Volume 39 gets you out of that hole. If not, you need to find another reliable secondary source that puts it all together the way you have.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comparison of the two versions

Previous version

Kawrno Baba's proposed new version

Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation. In a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at six years of age. Ibn Sa'd's biography holds her age at the time of marriage as between six and seven, and gives her age at consummation to be nine while Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad suggests she may have been ten years old at consummation. Al-Tabari notes Aisha to have stayed with her parents after the marriage and consummated the relationship at nine years of age since she was young and sexually immature at the time of marriage; however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

Islamic sources of the classical era list Aisha's age at the time of her marriage as six or seven and nine or ten at its consummation. In a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, Aisha recollects having been married at six years of age. Ibn Sa'd's biography holds her age at the time of marriage as between six and seven, and gives her age at consummation to be nine while Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad suggests she may have been ten years old at consummation. Sahih Bukhari states that her marriage was consummated at such age when she still played with dolls. In the commentary of the Sahih Bukhari it is written that, "Playing with dolls is forbidden in Islam, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she did not yet reach the age of puberty." Al-Tabari notes Aisha to have stayed with her parents after the marriage and consummated the relationship at nine years of age since she was young and sexually immature at the time of marriage; however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage.

Note that Kawrno Baba's proposed new version has two undefined citation names in the bundled footnote: <ref name="Watt-encyc-online" /> and <ref name="Spellberg" />. I assume that this because some of the text was adapted from another Wikipedia article.

@Kawrno Baba: that kind of bundling of references inside a footnote is not an acceptable style. It is better to have the citations in the text: Sahih Bukhari states that her marriage was consummated at such age when she still played with dolls.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]} Also, if you copy from another Wikipedia page, please could you state this in the edit summary, and check that your edit includes definitions of the named citations you are moving. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, I did not get that // bundling of references inside a footnote// part. Can you please be more elaborate/clear? I can't relate because so far I have not used any foot note in this article.

And as for copying from another article, thank you for that information. Kawrno Baba (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you look at your proposed text above, it says: Sahih Bukhari states that her marriage was consummated at such age when she still played with dolls.^[7][a] The "[a]" is the bundled footnote. If you look at the markup language in your edit,^[2] there is a bit that starts {{efn|. That is the start of the bundled footnote. You can see what it looks like in the note section below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Clear now. I shall be attentive to the matter. Kawrno Baba (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kawrno Baba: My guess is that most of the new citations do not actually support the sentences they are cited for, but instead support the generally accepted position about Aisha's age on marriage. i.e. most of them are probably irrelevant to the sentences they are placed next to. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I used only two references - Sahih Bukhari, and its commentary by Islamic scholar. So I can't tell about other citations.

But you brought a good point and I agree with it. Kawrno Baba (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Please could you do a version of your proposed text for the talk page that (1) is simplified down to one sentence, and (2) only cites the two references you used. Your edit had ten citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, Alright. Where do I do it? Here in reply? Or edit my topic-post (first post of this thread)? Kawrno Baba (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Here please. But out indent it, and make sure that it has all the citations, etc. that would be needed in the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes

References

Use of Shia sources as reference in the article

The following is from Hayat Al-Qulub, a Shia source:

Ayyashi has narrated through authentic chains of narrators from Imam Ja’far Sadiq that, "Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death."

As mentioned earlier in this talk page, some people want this content not to be in the article as 'it is a Shia source and hence not reliable'.

I don't understand, why should Sunni Muslims get preferential treatment compared to Shia Muslims? That's a sub-sect issue, not an issue for neutral knowledge. My point is let both Sunni and Shia versions stay side by side and let the readers decide based on the references.

Is there any WIkiPedia policy that dictates why the said content should not be in this article? Additionally, is there any globally accepted academic research which states that all Shia sources are wrong? Does WikiPedia prefers Sunni sources over Shia sources? Kawrno Baba (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Hayat Al-Qulub is a book of hadith, written in the 17th Century. It is a religious text. It is acceptable (subject to certain limitations) as a source for information about what Hayat Al-Qulub says (see WP:SELFSOURCE). But that is all. And that applies to religious texts of all denominations. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, any interpretation of religious texts needs to be done by reliable published secondary sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, What if I do not interpret in the article at all? Will it be acceptable if I copy text from that book and place it in the article with quotation marks or in block-quote format? Kawrno Baba (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Some people write religious articles for the internet that are full of block quotations from hadiths. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be written that way. If you want to add a quotation, please put it in the citation template in the field marked quotation, like this (only please give a page number instead page=XX):

• Majlesi, Mohammad-Baqer. Hayat Al-Qulub. Vol. 2. Translated by Rizvi, Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. p. XX. Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death.
• {{Cite book |last=Majlesi |first=Mohammad-Baqer |author-link=Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi |title=Hayat Al-Qulub |publisher=Ansariyan Publications |location=Qum |volume=2 |translator-last=Rizvi |translator-first=Sayyid Athar Husayn S.H. |page=XX |quotation=Ayesha and Hafasa had poisoned the Prophet with that poison, so it is possible that both poisons caused his death.}}

That might support a statement that 17th Century Persian author Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi believed that Aisha may have murdered her husband. But even that would depend on context. (For example, what if the quotation was from a paragraph about what fools believe, which would mean that Majlesi was saying that only an idiot would think that. You might want to consider a longer quotation to make the context clearer. You can also miss out irrelevant bits of the quotation and put in a "..."; this is known as an ellipsis. See Wikipedia:Quotations.)

That is a statement that you could put in the article on Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi. If you think that is belongs in the article on Aisha, then you need secondary sources to support its inclusion. Was it a real event? Or was it an allegorical event? Or was it like one of those films that incorporate people who never existed into real situations and have them play decisive roles in what happened? Does it matter what Majlesi wrote?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making things clear. Kawrno Baba (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)