Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iskandar323 (talk | contribs) at 05:48, 6 June 2023 (→Edit warring on Aisha Section Edits.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request approval for following addition on improper sexual conduct with minors in Islamic sources

My addition has been reverted multiple times without a serious justification. As you can see, it is fully sourced:

"====Sex with pre-pubescent girls and age of Muhammad's wife Aisha==== Critics have noted that the 4th verse of the 65th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah at-Talaq) seems to imply the permissibility of consummating marriages with girls who have not reached puberty. This criticism is significantly reinforced by classical Muslim commentaries on the verse, such as Tafsir al-Jalalayn and the tafsir of Maududi[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankystein3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remain opposed to this content. First, I think the sources are being misinterpreted, as neither Tafsir al-Jalalayn or Maududi are explicitly about pre-pubescent girls. Second, neither is about criticism of Muhammad, the topic of this article. There appears to be plenty of reliably sourced, on-topic content to summarize, so I'm not seeing a reason to pull in content that's not obviously about Muhammad. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Nothing in either of the citations says that this was (1) the view of Mahommed or (2) that he has been critised for it (which is the topic of this article). It may have a place in Criticism of Islam provided that it is supported by a reliable source that say so, as I explained in my 16:58 message (below). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact the topic is disussed extensively at Sexuality in Islam#Puberty and Islam and children#Marriage, so you may struggle to find anything new to say. The important point is that it is not for us as editors to criticise (or praise) but only to report honestly and fairly the consensus of expert sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, no it is not discussed extensively there. There are *ZERO* references there to the key verse and its overwhelming scholarly interpretations. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will concede that if you are unfamiliar with the topic and the way the Muslim scholars write commentaries on Quranic verses, Jalalayn's may seem obscure, BUT if you read MAUDUDI's section on the link, particularly this part: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible", and if you STILL don't want to see what's in front of your eyes, then I'm sorry, but this is plain dishonesty.
    Furthermore, if you think this has no link to Muhammad, you're wrong because of the already included sexual intercourse with Aisha, which was 9 years old by consensus at the time.
    Thirdly, even if you ignore this, a valid criticism would still be the VAGUENESS of his doctrine that inspired such mainstream posterior interpretations, at the very least. Frankystein3 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see it, and I'm being honest. In context Maududi is talking about women who are divorced or widowed and who are not menstruating regularly due to pregnancy, onset of menopause, or other reasons. Onset of puberty is never mentioned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sura 33:49 in the Qur'an is related to Sura 65:4 in the sense that a waiting period (iddah) is only for women who have had sex with men. This is to prevent doubt about the fatherhood and problems arising with this. Now, with that being said, I'll post Maududi's commentary on this again with extra emphasis: "Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls **WHO HAVE NOT YET*** menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but ***it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her***. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible". He even PREEMPTS criticism by essentially saying at the end: "If this disgusts you, tough luck! The Quran overrules your opinion!!" Frankystein3 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially you are criticising Mahommmed because one Salafi scholar (who may have had his own motives) gave that interpretation of the Quran. Sorry, WP:Wikipedia is not a forum: nobody is interested in your opinion [or mine].
    Let me repeat: you must cite a reliable source which reports overwhelming consensus among scholars and – critically – that they criticised Mahammed for having written those verses, despite believing that he merely wrote down the words of Allah. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am writing an (increasingly, as sources become more widely available in English) common criticism of Muhammad. I have already said countless times that this isn't the fringe opinion of "one Salafi". This has been the mainstream opinion for centuries and centuries. I find it extremely arbitrary that I have to find a book by someone saying in more or less exact words that Muhammad's doctrines promote practice X, which large numbers of scholars have likewise interpreted to mean X". Furthermore, that Muhammad wrote only Allah's words is dogma, and would clear him of all responsibilities. Why allow pages of criticism in the Quran here if you can use that argument? Oh, verses A B and C in the Qur'an endorse violence under circumstances 1, 2 and 3? That's only Allah's words revealed to him, he just wrote it down, don't shoot the messenger. It's absurd. 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We still seem to be talking past each other. The sources you provide do indeed say or suggest that consumated marriage to a child is permitted (though other sources say that, although the marriage is permitted, consumation before Baligh is not). But all that analysis is irrelevant for this article because this article is what it says at the top: Criticism of Muhammed. That means criticism by notable people. The personal opinion, interpretation, synthesis, conclusions of Wikipedia editors like you and me cannot go into articles. See policies WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis.
    (I may have been responsible for the confusion. I don't for a moment consider "but it is the revealed Word of the Lord / Allah / Yahweh / [insert favourite imaginary friend here] " defence as justifying anything, especially not paedophilia. My focus was on the 'criticism of Mhuhammed', that you will not find criticism of him in the work of Islamic scholars.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I got it. So I'd have to find some published book or article from someone that basically agrees with what I said, rather than me just saying that there "exist" critics without mentioning them, right? And what kind of person would that be? What are the necessary qualifications of that person? We have guys in these type of articles like Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq who, accurate and valuable though their inputs might be, have no formal degrees in their areas. So can I simply quote an author like these? And if not, how does this not limit pages of criticism in age where academia tends to avoid these polemics as much as possible, as opposed to the 19th or 20th centuries with people like William Muir, an academic who was also a polemicist? 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Provided you are cautious about wp:cherrypicking, that's more or less correct. First, a good clue to whether someone is wp:NOTABLE enough is to see if they have their own Wikipedia article. (eg Christopher Hitchens Ibn Warraq does not but Christopher Hitchens does.) It is not essential that they do but it is a clue to how big a hill you have to climb to show that their opinion matters. If it is just one person, then you have to say who said it (e.g., "according to Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the people"). A statement in wp:Wikivoice like "it is generally believed that liquid water is prerequisite for life as we know it" would need the support of maybe two citations, each of which clearly shows that the authors have distilled the clear consensus of experts. Doing this for objective science is hard enough: doing it for religious beliefs is very hard indeed – especially if the religion in question has fragmented into multiple sects and multiple interpretations. And do it all while maintaining WP:neutral point of view. You are setting yourself probably one of the most difficult challenges on Wikipedia: I certainly would not attempt it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok appreciate it, glad we at least straigthened it out 2001:8A0:6800:AA01:985F:F2E:A641:754B (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for coming to the talk page to find how best to express this sensitive issue. It appears from your talk page that you don't understand why your first edit was reverted, so let me explain: you wrote the Quran is unanimously viewed in classical Muslim commentaries as allowing sexually active marriage (and concubinage) with pre-pubescent girls. So the citation would need to (a) say that the Quran is unanimously viewed in this way; (b) that it allows sexually active mariage with pre-pubescent girls. The citation you gave said neither of those things, which is why I reverted it. I would have done the same if the article was about the craters on the far side of the moon: the topic is irrelevant because it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that citations are reported honestly and accurately. You did not do that, so I reverted your edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am against this addition beacuse it is original research. It might be a valid point, but Wikipedia isn't for promoting ideas, but collecting ideas which got popular and noticable by scholars. This tafsir seems to be rather a new found source to undermine, that Islam has some issues with sexual relationships and authorized it. But there isnt a notable ongoing debate about these tafsirs.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ al-Suyuti & al-Maḥalli, Jalal & Jalal (n.d.). "Tafsīr al-Jalālayn". early 16th century. altafsir.com. Tafsir archived in the official Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
  2. ^ Maududi, Abul A'la al- (1972). "Tafhimu'l-Qur'an". quranx.com (note: bottom of the linked page). Idara Tarjuman ul Qur'an, Lahore, Pakistan. Retrieved June 6, 2022.

@Frankystein3: Uh huh, fascinating. And you know whether a girl in the 7th century had gone through puberty or not how? A verse about dolls? Stop wasting your breath. This whole pre-puberty nonsense is WP:OR of the most gratuitous kind, and clearly has far more to do with making a point that building an encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether a particular girl in Arabia - including Aisha - had or had not gone through puberty at the time of consummation. Aisha is irrelevant here, I only posted it there to prove that it is ACCEPTED BY MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP that she was pre-pubescent in her own marriage, contrary to your claims about the necessity of puberty. The point is that Sura 65:4 CONDONES this practice for all mankind and all time (according to universal consensus of Islamic theology). This is a perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam/Muhammad/the Qur'an and I will post it again as soon as I get input from guys like John Maynard here again. It seems to me that YOUR interest is not "building an encyclopedia", but rather protecting your own tribal interests at all costs (contributor to Palestine and Arab world, what a coincidence!), or in other words, good old apologetics. Frankystein3 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you're also barking up the wrong tree, the specifics of a case involving Aisha are not indicative of what mainstream scholarship believes; only a secondary source stating what mainstream scholarship believes is. Any given sura does absolutely nothing by itself, as it is a primary religious text; it only has any meaning through its secondary interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Looks like his personal attacks got him blocked indefinitely. I warned him and mentioned the attacks to the Admin who had also warned him. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I pinged that Admin when I warned. Not direct contact. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't really sure exactly what aspersion of tribal membership they were implying (tribe of editors, religion, tribe tribe?), and didn't want to ask. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of accusations of pedophilia in lead

Regarding this edit: Source #1, the video is made private. Source #2 links to the Washington Post's homepage. Source #3 reports ECHR's comments. Source #4 reports Nupur Sharma's opinions. Sharma isn't a reliable critic of Islam, nor is she a scholar. The "pedophilia" in the lead is WP:UNDUE. Please cite any scholars that accuse Muhammad of pedophilia. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several scholars acknowledge he's been accused of pedophilia. (references to follow) This isn't a debate about whether or not he was a pedophile. The article discusses what Muhammad's critics have accused him of. Accusations of pedophilia is the most common criticism for years. NebulaOblongata (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No debate? Pedophilia is a psychiatric condition with a very much modern definition. It is not a catchall term that encompasses marriage at a young age in ancient cultures, where such practices were fairly common. The notion is a frankly silly proposition. And this encyclopedia is here for presenting facts, not inflammatory content. Please present your scholars. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not for us to debate whether he was a pedophile or not. That's not the goal of this article. We should be stating what critics accuse him of. I am honestly surprised that you are in denial of such allegations. NebulaOblongata (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sources, but yes, any critics covered in reliable, secondary sources can be placed, but only apportioned as much space as is due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... which, given that this is daft fringe, may not be a lot. But happy reliable source hunting, and good luck establishing due weight for the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I am compiling reliable sources that discuss how critics/Islamophobes have time again accused the Prophet of pedophilia. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NebulaOblongata remember, it’s a psychological disorder, read our article. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what pedophilia is. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently reading "The Lives of Muhammad" by Kecia Ali and "Misquoting Muhammad" by Jonathan A. C. Brown. Both the books, especially Kecia's extensively cover the accusations of pedophilia by critics and provide refutations. "Accusations of pedophilia" is in fact a topic in the index. I shall make edits after having read these books. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NebulaOblongata: Please note that a reliable Islamic scholar should state that Muhammad is accused of pedophilia because of his marriage to Aisha when she was ..... You cannot source it from far-right politicians or pastors. Politicians, missionaries, racists, and Islamophobes would call people names for their agenda, but that is of zero significance to our article. Criticism of Islam cannot have points noting Trump's version of Islam, for example. As others mentioned, "pedophilia" is a psychiatric disorder, and merely marrying a 6-year-old and performing marital obligations is not a psychiatric disorder. (Because Aisha wasn't Muhammad's only wife; he also had other adult wives, which is a critical thing to be noted.)--WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 14:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also important to note that her exact age, one way or another, in fact remains a total unknown, as do many of the other details spun for polemical reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a scholar states that "Certain critics have accused Muhammad of pedophilia" then this fact should be included. Your views on what counts as pedophilia and whether Muhammad was a pedophile are irrelevant because WP:OR. NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NebulaOblongata how is it OR? It’s not an interpretation of the word. That older or even current sources don’t use the modern definition isn’t our problem. It’s like a 19th century woman being labelled as having hysteria, then considered a physical illness. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's OR because WikiLinuz isn't a reliable source. We aren't here to discuss whether Muhammad was X or not. We should be stating what reliable sources have stated. If a reliable source says "Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia" then it should be included. NebulaOblongata (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the term is misused? “ Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.” How, even if you ignore the fact that it’s a psychiatric disorder, that doesnt seem backed by the facts about him. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for you or me to decide any of this. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We aren't stating "Muhammad was a pedophile," and that's valid because it is not a verifiable fact. We are stating "Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia by some critics" which is a verifiable fact. So, please stop arguing about pedophilia. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven’s sake. I’ve got over 240,000 edits more than you do, do you really think you know more than I do? Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for flashing your Wikipedia edit count at me. I am really impressed. Are you single? ;) NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. But it does take quite a bit of experience to understand our policies and how they apply and interact with each other. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, your experience is admirable. Also, it's nice to see that you have a funny bone! NebulaOblongata (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't actually provided a source for that - we need some reliable sources linked to sufficiently notable critics to be worth the fuss. The best source we've got right now is a Vanity Fair review of a widely panned film, making us still quite long way off giving this particular accusatory category any sort of due weight time of day. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a work in progress. Like I mentioned above, I am reading a couple of books that cover the topic of "accusations of pedophilia". NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are borderlining WP:FORUM at this point. We can talk if you've got any scholar who reports in a scholarly journal or publication that "Muhammad was accused of pedophilia for XYZ." If you cannot show that, please work in silence until you're ready and don't display fuss. Thanks, --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play. I will desist from any further comments on this topic till I am ready. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Just remember pedophilis involves a sexual preference for young children.
Muhammad's wives suggests otherwise. And of course this seems to have been part of building his relationship with Abu Bakrvas Aisha was just one of his two daughters he married. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are not here to determine or comment on Muhammad's sexuality. I can't recall Doug Weller being listed as a reliable source. NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm will get you nowhere and is not conducive to collaborative discussion. It can also be a way of diverting discussion. Are you really arguing that we shouldn’t be discussing the issue of labelling him a pedophile, ie someone whose sexual preference is children? Doug Weller talk 19:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People interpret Muhammad having consummated his marriage with a 9-year-old child (when he was ~56) as pedophilia, as I already stated: far-right politicians, missionaries, racists, and Islamophobes will call people names for their agenda. But that has zero relevance to our entry on Muhammad's criticism. Trump's version of Islam cannot be cited in this article. It must be sourced from a scholar, and I doubt any scholars would call him a pedophile; it'd rather be he [Muhammad] was criticized for his marriage to Aisha. And we still haven't progressed in this discussion. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in discussing Wikipedian's thoughts/theories on Muhammad's sexuality. Thanks! NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. But User:WikiLinuz isn't doing that but is clearly discussing the content of the article. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NebulaOblongata: We agreed to work in silence until you've got a reliable source to discuss. People have this page on their watchlist, and it's disruptive to use talk pages as a discussion forum WP:NOTFORUM. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 21:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to a user who was indulging in WP:SYNTH. I am allowed to respond to texts here. NebulaOblongata (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to articles. Of course there are sources about his building his relationship through marriage. There's no SYNTH. This is just further evidence of your lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see you quoting sources - I might have missed that. They came across as your personal synthesis. NebulaOblongata (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NebulaOblongata blocked

As NOTHERE, but is also apparently editing on behalf of Ex-Muslims of North America, ie COI/PAID. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pastelitodepapa (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert.

I included the Christianity part because, relating to a criticism from a particular side, we often when also mention about their practice related to it too.

Regarding the issue of concubinage, it is important to determine the source of this criticism before including it in the article. If a reliable source cannot be found to support this claim, it has to be removed.

Also, I thought that "the natural order of things" was unnecessary and a bit vague, but we can put that back in if you wish. However, most of the changes were reflecting the sources precisely. StarkReport (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if my edit remains, but the phrase 'Although slavery was a common practice among Christians' is removed per as your request, even though I think it is relevant and necessary. And, the para: According to Murray Gordon, Muhammad did improved the condition of slaves, and exhorted his followers to treat kindness and compassion, and encouraged freeing of slaves, he still did not completely abolish the practice, will be followed by "He "saw it as natural order of things""
As for the concubinage, is the exact source is found of the criticism, then we can let it be in the third paragraph where I made some additions. StarkReport (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in understanding sources

@ StarkReport your edit seem to make changes in sources.

  • Removed : "Bilal b. Rabah, Encyclopedia of Islam "
  • Added : Janeh, Sabarr. Learning from the Life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW): Peace and Blessing of God Be upon Him. Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse, 2010. Print. ISBN 1467899666 Pgs. 235-238

Can you help understand this change.

Bookku (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not find anything wrong with the source, there was a "[full citation needed]" message ahead so I thought it would be better to replace it with a full and complete citation for the source in question. StarkReport (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Aisha Section Edits.

It seems that Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson lack recognition or notable accomplishments in the relevant field, and thus may not meet the standard for reliable sources. Additionally, the information provided appears to lean more towards an opinion piece rather than actual criticism. See WP:OR and WP:RS

The inclusion of the line about Aisha's behavior with dolls, stating that she was "childish enough to play with dolls along with her young girlfriends," seems unnecessary in light of the well-established information provided in the first line. The first line, supported by numerous credible sources, establishes the background regarding Aisha's age at betrothal and consummation. The subsequent line is just hinting at a variance from a minority perspective. The details you seek to add are thoroughly and comprehensively covered in the dedicated Aisha article. Therefore, it is advisable to prioritize the conciseness, relevance, and accuracy of the Criticism of Muhammad section.

Lastly, the the unwarranted line "It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire" completely fails WP:Neutral. It is recommended to focus on comprehensive criticism while avoiding potentially misleading or cherry-picked quotes. StarkReport (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, Afzal-ur-Rahman piece is not a criticism. Therefore, claiming it as such in the line "Critics note that even Aisha" is false.
Second, I did not imply an exact verbatim mention of your line in the dedicated Aisha article. I meant that the argument about to her being young is exhaustively examined in its Age at the time of marriage section. The central purpose of this article is to contain valid criticisms.
Overall, your edits are contrary to WP:Relevance, WP:NPOV and WP:Original StarkReport (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ StarkReport: you lie several times 1) Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages 2) the dolls addition stresses her immaturity and is a counter to those who claim that even at 6-9 yrs of age when married, aisha was somehow uniquely mature. My sentence presents original, relevant critiques to the article. 3) Aisha saying God hastens to fulfill Muhammad's desire is evidence from within Islam that critics have used to criticize Muhammad's polygamy. I don't see how this is irrelevant or lacks notability. 4) where exactly are my arguments mentioned in other articles? Your attacks are hollow are read like someone trying to minimize damage to Muhammad's image. --Appleweb (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A simple response to all of the above is that Wikipedia is written in summary style, so it shouldn't generally be going into the minutiae of anything, just summing it up, and here particularly, there's already another page mentioning much of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: wikipedia is written in summary style? this is news to me! Can you show me where this Wiki policy exists? Judging by countless Wiki articles, it goes into great subject detail. --Appleweb (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUMMARY Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Appleweb existence of an individual's Wikipedia page does not automatically render their opinion as universally notable and applicable in all contexts. Neither of the individuals are recognized historians or scholars in the relevant field. Although, Ophelia's viewpoints may hold value in the context of critiquing women's issues in Islamist regimes.
Also again carefully read my above reply where I explicitly stated, "I did not imply an exact verbatim mention of your line in the dedicated Aisha article. I meant that the argument about to her being young is exhaustively examined in its Age at the time of marriage section. "
Meanwhile, also bear in mind the importance of WP:GOODFAITH. StarkReport (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Some people are solely notable for their bad scholarship or conspiratorial thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in understanding

@ StarkReport, Making separate sub-section, since I am not involved in above said edit war ( and as of now no plans to edit this article). I am just trying to facilitate discussion and better conceptualization. Please help in understanding following aspects.

1) Criticism by 'then' contemporary people does constitute criticism or not? I have not gone through this article minutely but I am not sure this article covers Criticism by 'then' contemporary people. Can it be covered if a supported by WP:RS?
2) Help understand this intriguing proposition

.. The central purpose of this article is to contain valid criticisms. ..

and does not risk cherry picking?
2a. Who decides which criticism is valid? what are the criteria of deciding validity? and under which Wikipedia policies?
2b. Suppose a consensus WP:RS is available for valid criticism and also another consensus WP:RS is available for counter argument. If some individual editors decide counter arguments have more weight, so weight for criticism becomes less so invalid for the article. Would not that lead to compromising on WP:BALANCE?

Bookku (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bookku. Regarding your first question, criticism by "then" contemporary people holds validity if it is in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:RS. In the case of this specific article, it does cover the criticism expressed by individuals during the time of Muhammad.
As for the second point, Appleweb is looking to to expand even more on the background details concerning the Age at the time of marriage. However, these details are not within the main focus of this article and deviate from its intended objective, steer in another direction and does not adhere to WP:Relevance. Whereas, the primary focus of this article lies in the inclusion of valid criticisms. While it is essential to include criticisms, it is equally important to maintain neutrality and provide a balanced view of the subject matter. By focusing on comprehensive criticism, we ensure that the article reflects a fair representation of various perspectives and avoids the perception of a selective or biased presentation.
The determination of valid criticism is based on objective criteria outlined in Wikipedia policies such as verifiability (WP:V) and neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Factors like source credibility, contextual relevance, and consensus within relevant communities are considered.
If counter arguments appear to hold greater weight than the primary criticisms, and if a individual editor wishes to delve into the counter arguments in more detail, it would be advisable to create a separate article, or section such as "Responses to the criticism." StarkReport (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad&oldid=1158781326"