This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Muhammad remarks controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 30 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2022 Prophet remarks row. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, & don't be in hurry, there is more I'll bring one by one
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I know adding all related projects to the talk page can be inconvenient, still taking call on which all projects are relevant for talk page communication and which projects are relevant enough to be added in WikiProject banner shell is important to avoid systemic bias. If other users are finding taking call on this long list in one go in convenient then we can discuss those in subsets. If I do not find any discussion taking place then I will assume all are okay as relevant.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Section for Maharashtra seems to have been deleted ( edit dif) with almost alarming speed as soon as admin removed full page protection. Deletion summary too give link to some unrelated RfC? If the user was so certain that the section is not warranted why they did not approach admin to remove the section or they were less than confident about admin response?
Since issue was under discussion earlier Section for Maharashtra (archived discussion)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Data used to support the notion of the proposed name being the most common was disputed by many opposers and countered by independent investigations supporting the exact opposite conclusion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
2022 Muhammad remarks controversy → 2022 Prophet remarks row – As mentioned towards the end of the previous 8 June move request discussion, and as per WP:CRITERIA, this topic already has a recognizable, natural, precise and concise descriptive title that is used widely in the sourcing. The exact phrase Prophet remarks row has 56,900 news hits (at the last count), compared to exactly 3 news hits for the title that the page was recently moved to. So commonplace is Prophet remarks row that even some non-English, non-Latin script articles are using the tag for search purposes, see: here. " 2022 Prophet remarks row", with the date at the front, is meanwhile consistent with Wikipedia's more general event title formats. Flipping it around, I have not seen any good reasons for NOT using the terminology used most commonly by the referenced sources, or for sticking with a title clearly at odds with this terminology, which serves little purpose and could potentially sow confusion among prospective readers. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use.(my highlighting). So WP:COMMONNAME and prevalence-based naming are in fact explicitly endorsed over competing guidelines. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
::Even in the news saturated 21 century, there aren't 3m articles on this issue. Even if we disregard
WP:HITS,
prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as
muhammad remarks, once we filter out pre-2022 results.
Hemantha (
talk) 10:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
::::: Blocked sock
The news results for <prophet remarks "nupur">
- Good luck convincing the closer that
these results - all of which are contained in your search - are about this article.
Hemantha (
talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
prevalence in a significant majority, which a title used less than a tenth of the time definitely does not have. WP:COMMONAME is not the only possible naming convention, and if it cannot be applied, the article will be named in accordance with other guidelines, in this case NPOV. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 10:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
*Support per previous support arguments and usage in reliable sources (
prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as
muhammad remarks)
Hemantha (
talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
References
**This article is indeed an article on current news event and there are millions of Muhammads; so, without resorting to subtextual interpretations. it's not immediately clear what you are opposing.
Hemantha (
talk) 03:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
**CapnJackSp has done no such thing; in fact he
appears to have dropped common name as an argument. Bookku's argument has been countered; at least respond to the counter instead of repeating it. It's interesting to see so many similar votes, when even Sharma and Jindal said 'prophet' and not Muhammad in the original remarks.
Hemantha (
talk) 04:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
**I linked
WP:HITS above for this very reason. There are
some limits to how many articles the google web interface shows; so while 56900 might be a very loose estimate, 190 is entirely wrong. Given the media attention, I'm quite sure that there are more than 190 articles about this topic in just the regional languages in India, let alone English and in international sources.
Hemantha (
talk) 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
neutral terms are generally preferable; using "Prophet" in reference to Muhammed is not neutral, while using Muhammed is. POVNAMING does allow us to sometimes use non-neutral terms when a neutral term will cause recognizability issues, but since the current title is at least as recognizable as the proposed title that exception doesn't apply here. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"just like we write "Woodrow Wilson" or "the then-President Wilson", and not "the former President, Professor Governor Woodrow Wilson", not a specific NPOV judgement. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: as per multitude of reasons detailed above Tow ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Should the sentence "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was six years of age when she was married to Muhammad, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
[1], others say she was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;
[2] and she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony.
[3]
" be added to the lead or under Naveen Jindal's tweet in the Comments about Muhammad section?
Mossad3 (
talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
differ among themselves about her precise age, some authors finds it
futileto try to establish Aisha's real age, and Aisha's age has recently become
a tool of polemicists. So if we were to include the proposed sentence on traditional hadith sources we would cease to describe the Muhammad remarks controversy in a neutral way and we would start to participate in that controversy with our own view - which is Mossad3's view:
she did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Interested readers can always read the article on Aisha, where that matter is adequately explained (note that I've just restored the sentence from the lead section [6], to which IMHO it belongs). Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
differ among themselves about her precise age"- Mossad3 ( talk) 10:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
All of these specific references to the bride's age ... suggest the variability of A'isha's age in the historical record. Plus Ali's book contains a detailed discussion on the early Muslim textual tradition (pp. 156 ff.) E.g. in Tabari's History Aisha is said to have been born before the coming of Islam, which might imply that she was 12 or 13 at the time of her marriage. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted content
Response in Hindu right media
According to a synopsis of 'Hindu right media' by Unnati Sharma in ThePrint; an editorial of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, the erstwhile spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her family are being threatened with rape, death when Sharma had only repeated what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik too had said earlier; where as other Muslim leader threatened of iconoclasm against Shivling.(Sic) [5]
Academic response
According to Ahmet T. Kuru, it is not possible to know Aisha's factual age at the time of marriage, Kuru says Sharma used a single narration, of a hadith record, which says Aisha was 9 years old by the time she got married, and that some Muslims do accept since child marriages were common in premodern times. Kuru says, but Sharma ignored alternative Muslim explanation that Aisha might have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time of marriage. [6]- Mossad3 ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of "perceived offence" is unclear. Is it that Nupur Sharma wrongly accused the Prophet of child marriage or is it that she rightly accused him (in the Muslim view) but it is blasphemous to do so? Benson and Stangroom [7] quote Kecia Ali describing the dilemma: [8]
If one accepts the hadith account of his marriage to Aishah, one confronts the actions of the Prophet in doing something that is unseemly, if not unthinkable, for Muslims in the West. Suggesting that he was wrong to do so raises profound theological quandaries. Yet accepting the rightness of his act raises the question: on what basis can one reject the marriage of young girls today? At stake are broader issues regarding the relevance of the prophetic example to Islamic sexual ethics and the relevance of historical circumstances to the application of precedent.[23]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
References
... Former BJP national spokesperson Nupur Sharma only dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik had said, read an editorial in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, referring to the former's suspension from primary membership of the party over her remarks on Prophet Muhammad. .. "A BJP spokesperson and her family were threatened with rape, death because she dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik has been saying. On the other hand, a Muslim leader says that if he had known about the Shivling, he would have broken it already," it added. ..
.. According to a hadith record, Aisha was 9 years old when she got married. Some Muslims accept this record and see it normal for a pre-modern marriage, whereas other Muslims believe that Aisha was either 18 or 19 years old by referring to other records. It is not possible to know the true facts of Aisha's age. As Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl stresses, "we do not know and will never know" them. Sharma thus used a single narration, while ignoring alternative Muslim explanations, in her remarks. ..
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this:-
References
This edit introduced an image on 22 March with no edit summary and certainly no consensus and appears to be WP:DECOR: it is of non-existent relevance to the subject, which is a controversy about a public figure, words said, and violence engendered - none of which the introduced image represents. This controversy is not about images of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and, in the absence of any source attached to the caption, I can only assume that this image has not at any point been used in the media or at any of the protests or counter-protests in connection with the prophet remarks row, which are the only ways in which such an image could really be relevant in the context. In sum, I see nothing to indicate that MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE has been satisfied, or frankly even been approached. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Muhammad remarks controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 30 June 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2022 Prophet remarks row. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry, & don't be in hurry, there is more I'll bring one by one
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I know adding all related projects to the talk page can be inconvenient, still taking call on which all projects are relevant for talk page communication and which projects are relevant enough to be added in WikiProject banner shell is important to avoid systemic bias. If other users are finding taking call on this long list in one go in convenient then we can discuss those in subsets. If I do not find any discussion taking place then I will assume all are okay as relevant.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Section for Maharashtra seems to have been deleted ( edit dif) with almost alarming speed as soon as admin removed full page protection. Deletion summary too give link to some unrelated RfC? If the user was so certain that the section is not warranted why they did not approach admin to remove the section or they were less than confident about admin response?
Since issue was under discussion earlier Section for Maharashtra (archived discussion)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: not moved. Data used to support the notion of the proposed name being the most common was disputed by many opposers and countered by independent investigations supporting the exact opposite conclusion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
2022 Muhammad remarks controversy → 2022 Prophet remarks row – As mentioned towards the end of the previous 8 June move request discussion, and as per WP:CRITERIA, this topic already has a recognizable, natural, precise and concise descriptive title that is used widely in the sourcing. The exact phrase Prophet remarks row has 56,900 news hits (at the last count), compared to exactly 3 news hits for the title that the page was recently moved to. So commonplace is Prophet remarks row that even some non-English, non-Latin script articles are using the tag for search purposes, see: here. " 2022 Prophet remarks row", with the date at the front, is meanwhile consistent with Wikipedia's more general event title formats. Flipping it around, I have not seen any good reasons for NOT using the terminology used most commonly by the referenced sources, or for sticking with a title clearly at odds with this terminology, which serves little purpose and could potentially sow confusion among prospective readers. Iskandar323 ( talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use.(my highlighting). So WP:COMMONNAME and prevalence-based naming are in fact explicitly endorsed over competing guidelines. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
::Even in the news saturated 21 century, there aren't 3m articles on this issue. Even if we disregard
WP:HITS,
prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as
muhammad remarks, once we filter out pre-2022 results.
Hemantha (
talk) 10:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
::::: Blocked sock
The news results for <prophet remarks "nupur">
- Good luck convincing the closer that
these results - all of which are contained in your search - are about this article.
Hemantha (
talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
prevalence in a significant majority, which a title used less than a tenth of the time definitely does not have. WP:COMMONAME is not the only possible naming convention, and if it cannot be applied, the article will be named in accordance with other guidelines, in this case NPOV. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 10:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
*Support per previous support arguments and usage in reliable sources (
prophet remarks shows twice as many hits as
muhammad remarks)
Hemantha (
talk) 11:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
References
**This article is indeed an article on current news event and there are millions of Muhammads; so, without resorting to subtextual interpretations. it's not immediately clear what you are opposing.
Hemantha (
talk) 03:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
**CapnJackSp has done no such thing; in fact he
appears to have dropped common name as an argument. Bookku's argument has been countered; at least respond to the counter instead of repeating it. It's interesting to see so many similar votes, when even Sharma and Jindal said 'prophet' and not Muhammad in the original remarks.
Hemantha (
talk) 04:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
**I linked
WP:HITS above for this very reason. There are
some limits to how many articles the google web interface shows; so while 56900 might be a very loose estimate, 190 is entirely wrong. Given the media attention, I'm quite sure that there are more than 190 articles about this topic in just the regional languages in India, let alone English and in international sources.
Hemantha (
talk) 08:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
neutral terms are generally preferable; using "Prophet" in reference to Muhammed is not neutral, while using Muhammed is. POVNAMING does allow us to sometimes use non-neutral terms when a neutral term will cause recognizability issues, but since the current title is at least as recognizable as the proposed title that exception doesn't apply here. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
"just like we write "Woodrow Wilson" or "the then-President Wilson", and not "the former President, Professor Governor Woodrow Wilson", not a specific NPOV judgement. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: as per multitude of reasons detailed above Tow ( talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Should the sentence "Some traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was six years of age when she was married to Muhammad, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
[1], others say she was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of 6 or 7;
[2] and she was 9 when she had a small marriage ceremony.
[3]
" be added to the lead or under Naveen Jindal's tweet in the Comments about Muhammad section?
Mossad3 (
talk) 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
differ among themselves about her precise age, some authors finds it
futileto try to establish Aisha's real age, and Aisha's age has recently become
a tool of polemicists. So if we were to include the proposed sentence on traditional hadith sources we would cease to describe the Muhammad remarks controversy in a neutral way and we would start to participate in that controversy with our own view - which is Mossad3's view:
she did not make a false allegation but stated a fact. Interested readers can always read the article on Aisha, where that matter is adequately explained (note that I've just restored the sentence from the lead section [6], to which IMHO it belongs). Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 14:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
differ among themselves about her precise age"- Mossad3 ( talk) 10:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
All of these specific references to the bride's age ... suggest the variability of A'isha's age in the historical record. Plus Ali's book contains a detailed discussion on the early Muslim textual tradition (pp. 156 ff.) E.g. in Tabari's History Aisha is said to have been born before the coming of Islam, which might imply that she was 12 or 13 at the time of her marriage. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted content
Response in Hindu right media
According to a synopsis of 'Hindu right media' by Unnati Sharma in ThePrint; an editorial of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, the erstwhile spokesperson Nupur Sharma and her family are being threatened with rape, death when Sharma had only repeated what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik too had said earlier; where as other Muslim leader threatened of iconoclasm against Shivling.(Sic) [5]
Academic response
According to Ahmet T. Kuru, it is not possible to know Aisha's factual age at the time of marriage, Kuru says Sharma used a single narration, of a hadith record, which says Aisha was 9 years old by the time she got married, and that some Muslims do accept since child marriages were common in premodern times. Kuru says, but Sharma ignored alternative Muslim explanation that Aisha might have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time of marriage. [6]- Mossad3 ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of "perceived offence" is unclear. Is it that Nupur Sharma wrongly accused the Prophet of child marriage or is it that she rightly accused him (in the Muslim view) but it is blasphemous to do so? Benson and Stangroom [7] quote Kecia Ali describing the dilemma: [8]
If one accepts the hadith account of his marriage to Aishah, one confronts the actions of the Prophet in doing something that is unseemly, if not unthinkable, for Muslims in the West. Suggesting that he was wrong to do so raises profound theological quandaries. Yet accepting the rightness of his act raises the question: on what basis can one reject the marriage of young girls today? At stake are broader issues regarding the relevance of the prophetic example to Islamic sexual ethics and the relevance of historical circumstances to the application of precedent.[23]
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
References
... Former BJP national spokesperson Nupur Sharma only dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik had said, read an editorial in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated journal Panchjanya, referring to the former's suspension from primary membership of the party over her remarks on Prophet Muhammad. .. "A BJP spokesperson and her family were threatened with rape, death because she dared to repeat what Islamic preacher Zakir Naik has been saying. On the other hand, a Muslim leader says that if he had known about the Shivling, he would have broken it already," it added. ..
.. According to a hadith record, Aisha was 9 years old when she got married. Some Muslims accept this record and see it normal for a pre-modern marriage, whereas other Muslims believe that Aisha was either 18 or 19 years old by referring to other records. It is not possible to know the true facts of Aisha's age. As Islamic scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl stresses, "we do not know and will never know" them. Sharma thus used a single narration, while ignoring alternative Muslim explanations, in her remarks. ..
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this:-
References
This edit introduced an image on 22 March with no edit summary and certainly no consensus and appears to be WP:DECOR: it is of non-existent relevance to the subject, which is a controversy about a public figure, words said, and violence engendered - none of which the introduced image represents. This controversy is not about images of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and, in the absence of any source attached to the caption, I can only assume that this image has not at any point been used in the media or at any of the protests or counter-protests in connection with the prophet remarks row, which are the only ways in which such an image could really be relevant in the context. In sum, I see nothing to indicate that MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE has been satisfied, or frankly even been approached. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)