http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Refutation_to_Muslim_Apologetics_against_Aisha%27s_Age_of_Consummation
Refutation to Muslim
Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation
>From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search
This article refutes modern Muslim apologetics which attempt to distort Aisha's
true age of consummation.
Contents
* 1 Introduction
* 2 The Arguments
* 2.1 The First Argument
* 2.2 The Second Argument
* 2.3 The Third Argument
* 2.4 The Fourth Argument
* 2.5 The Fifth Argument
* 2.6 The Sixth Argument
* 2.7 The Seventh Argument
* 2.8 The Eighth Argument
* 2.9 The Ninth Argument
* 2.10 The Tenth Argument
* 2.11 The Eleventh Argument
* 2.12 The Twelfth Argument
* 2.13 The Thirteenth Argument
* 3 Conclusion
* 4 See Also
* 5 External Links
* 6 Acknowledgments
* 7 References
Introduction
Before we begin, one must realize that the majority of Muslims today (for
example, Shaykh Gibril Haddad, whose work is referenced here) agree that Aisha
was nine lunar years old when her marriage to the Islamic prophet, Muhammad,
was consummated. However, some modernist Islamic apologists try to cast doubt
on the age of Aisha when she married and had sex with Muhammad despite the
many sahih hadiths in which Aisha explicitly and directly states that she was
nine years old at the time. They are clearly embarrassed that their prophet
married and had sex with a nine-year-old pre-pubescent child, and they
sometimes seek to explain that Aisha was in fact not nine-years-old as the
Sahih hadiths of Aisha’s own testimony claim, but some other ages derived from
misquotations, indirect sources, fuzzy dating techniques, and downright
slander.
The most common of these arguments is propounded by the “Learner”, or Moiz
Amjad, based on the work of Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi (urdu) as presented in
his booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat". Other transmitters of these
arguments include T.O Shavanas,[1] “Imam” Chaudhry (word-for-word plagiarism of
Amjad's work),[2] Zahid Aziz,[3] and Nilofar Ahmed.[4]
We will now proceed to show the polemics of Moiz Amjad to be illogical
rubbish. The question that escapes the minds of the simpletons accepting
Amjad’s polemics is ‘why they would believe sources that clearly derive
different ages for Aisha when she first had sex with Muhammad.’
When one examines the work of Amjad, one sees that his arguments contradict
and debunk each other. His argument No. 5 says she was 14 to 21 years old.
However, his argument No. 6 says she was 15+, his argument No. 7 says she was
17 or 18, his argument No. 8 says Aisha was 14+, his argument No. 9 says she
was 12+, and his argument No. 12 says she was 12.
In other words, each and every one of his evidence contradicts and debunks all
the others. Which of these so-called arguments is correct? They can’t all be
correct. Sadly, Amjad does not have a clue.
The simplest answer is that Amjad has used doubtful data and assumptions for
his calculations. In reality, all his arguments are false. Instead of using
Sahih hadiths, Amjad uses non-sahih source material. Instead of using specific
and clear age testimony, Amjad uses events that cannot possibly be dated with
any degree of accuracy. Instead of using traditions of acknowledged
authenticity, Amjad prefers to believe unsubstantiated slander and
misquotations. Hardly solid foundation for establishing Aisha’s age when she
first had sex with Muhammad. No wonder Amjad cannot provide a consistent
answer to the question of Aisha’s age.
His argument appears to be that because he himself, using spurious
information, derives multiple conflicting ages for the one specific event in
Aisha’s life, then we must throw out what we know about her age at this event.
In effect, Amjad is saying that just because he is using rubbish data, we have
to throw out the sahih hadiths. We're afraid to inform Amjad’s followers that
this is not the logical outcome. Rather than discarding the good with the bad,
we will merely throw out the bad; in this case, Amjad’s feeble attempt to
obfuscate our understanding that Aisha was aged nine when she married and had
sex with Muhammad.
The Arguments
The First Argument
Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on
the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported,
should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
Moiz Amjad
This is a classic Straw man. There is no requirement in Islam for multiple
narrations. Even a single sahih hadith is sufficient to establish Islamic laws
and practices.
Teacher of Fiqh at Sunnipath.com and Livingislam.org, Shaykh Dr. Gibril Fouad
Haddad, who was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in
the world,"[5] also debunks the claim that most of these narratives are
reported only by Hisham ibn Urwah.
Try more than eleven authorities among the Tabi`in that reported it directly
from `A'isha, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same,
nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha.
Gibril Haddad
The Second Argument
It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived
the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event [from him],
even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn
Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from
Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for
seventy one years.
Moiz Amjad
Another Straw man. There is no requirement for a hadith to be narrated in
Medina for it to be considered sahih. Also, many events in the Prophet’s life
were narrated by single narratives as well. Does that make them invalid? No.
To demand multiple, independent narrations from Medinans is just setting up a
standard that does not exist – i.e. a straw man.
Shaykh Haddad also refutes this argument by listing the people from Medina who
reported this event.
Al-Zuhri also reports it from `Urwa, from `A'isha; so does `Abd Allah ibn
Dhakwan, both major Madanis. So is the Tabi`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it
from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa`d ibn
Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, one of the Seven Imams
of Madina, from `A'isha. All the narratives of this event have been reported.
In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna
from Khurasan and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya from Tabarayya in
Palestine both report it.
Gibril Haddad
The Third Argument
Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and
reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports
that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are
reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It
further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham
which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 - 51).
The actual statements, their translations and their complete references are
given below:
Yaqub ibn Shaibah says: He [i.e. Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives
are acceptable, except what he narrated after shifting to Iraq. (Tehzeeb
al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqalaaniy, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami,
Vol. 11, pg. 50)
I have been told that Malik [ibn Anas] objected on those narratives of Hisham
which were reported through people of Iraq. (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar
Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50)
Moiz Amjad
According to Shaykh Haddad, Amjad’s third argument is either misrepresentation
or a lie. Apparently, the slander against Hisham ibn Urwah is unfounded and
unsupported by closer reading of Amjad’s own reference.
Rather, Ya`qub said: "Trustworthy, thoroughly reliable (thiqa thabt), above
reproach except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from
his father and was criticized for it." Notice that Ya`qub does not exactly
endorse that criticism.
As for Malik, he reports over 100 hadiths from Hisham as is evident in the two
Sahihs and Sunan! to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of
his alleged criticism of Hisham.
Indeed, none among the hadith Masters endorsed these reservations since they
were based solely on the fact that Hisham in his last period (he was 71 at the
time of his last trip to Iraq), for the sake of brevity, would say, "My
father, from `A'isha? (abi `an `A'isha)" and no longer pronounced, "narrated
to me (haddathani)".
Al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (30:238) explained that it became a foregone
conclusion for the Iraqis that Hisham did not narrate anything from his father
except what he had heard directly from him.
Ibn Hajar also dismisses the objections against Hisham ibn `Urwa as negligible
in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (11:45), saying: "It was clear enough to the Iraqis that
he did not narrate from his father other than what he had heard directly from
him".
In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn `Urwa are reliable
except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is major nonsense
as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since
Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu `Umar al-Nakha`i who was from Kufa,
and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and
those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of
Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu`ba in Basra, all of whom
narrated from Hisham!
Gibril Haddad
The Fourth Argument
Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the [life sketches of the] narrators of
the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's
memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 - 302)
The actual statement, its translation and its complete references is given
below:
When he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal,
Al-Zahabi, Arabic, Al-Maktabah al-Athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4,
pg. 301).
Moiz Amjad
This is another slander in which the slanderer does not correlate Hisham’s
memory loss with the ‘Aisha’s age’ hadiths. Hisham was born in 61 A.H. and
died in 146 A.H. at Baghdad – meaning he was 85 years old when he died. He
moved to Iraq when he was 71 years old. When did his memory fail him? The
slanderer provide no answers.
In fact, Shaykh Haddad accuses Moiz Amjad of outright lying.
An outright lie, on the contrary, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal (4:301 #9233)
states: "Hisham ibn `Urwa, one of the eminent personalities. A Proof in
himself, and an Imam. However, in his old age his memory diminished, but he
certainly never became confused. Nor should any attention be paid to what Abu
al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan said about him and Suhayl ibn Abi Salih becoming
confused or changing! Yes, the man changed a little bit and his memory was not
the same as it had been in his younger days, so that he forgot some of what he
had memorized or lapsed, so what? Is he immune to forgetfulness? [p. 302] And
when he came to Iraq in the last part of his life he narrated a great amount
of knowledge, in the course of which are a few narrations in which he did not
excel, and such as occurs also to Malik, and Shu`ba, and Waki`, and the major
trustworthy masters. So spare yourself confusion and floundering, do not make
mix the firmly-established
Imams with the weak and muddled narrators. Hisham is a Shaykh al-Islam. But
may Allah console us well of you, O Ibn al-Qattan, and the same with regard to
`Abd al-Rahman ibn Khirash's statement from Malik!"
Gibril Haddad
The Fifth Argument
According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about
eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari
(Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time
Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young
girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah.
According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the
revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not
an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be
true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn
`urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on
the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative
to be more accurate.
The actual statements referred to in the above paragraph, their translations
and their complete references are given below:
Ayesha (ra) said: I was a young girl, when verse 46 of Surah Al-Qamar, [the
54th chapter of the Qur'an ], was revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab al-Tafseer,
Arabic, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-saa`atu Maw`iduhum wa al-sa`atu adhaa wa amarr)
Moiz Amjad
The precise date of the revelation of Surah al-Qamar is unknown. Ibn Hajar,
Maududi, and other traditionalists said it was revealed 5 years before Hijrah
(muslimhope). Zahid Aziz said it was revealed before 6 BH. Khatib said it was
revealed in 8 BH. Amjad does not name his source for his claim that the verse
was revealed in 9 BH. The point is that the precise date of revelation of
Surah al-Qamar is unknown, and using an imprecise date to calculate Aisha’s
age is not only ridiculous but stupid. However, if an estimate must be used,
then why not use Ibn Hajar’s estimate which is more authoritative and
traditionally accepted than Amjad’s unnamed source?
Shaykh Haddad confirms this. He also proves that the traditional estimate of
the revelation of Surah al-Qamar is consistent with Aisha’s age being nine
years.
Not true. The hadith Masters, Sira historians, and Qur'anic commentators agree
that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy
Prophet's (upon him blessings and peace) Hijra to Madina.
Thus it is confirmed that our Mother `Aisha was born between seven and eight
years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jariya or little girl five
years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Surat al-Qamar
was revealed was around 2 or 3.
A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which
is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or
7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation.
Gibril Haddad
Thus, Amjad’s attempt to throw doubt on Aisha’s age by using a non-traditional
(i.e. spurious) estimate for the date of revelation of Surah al-Qamar is
easily debunked.
This is what Amjad later said, which totally debunks his own argument above.
The incident of the shaqq-al-Qamar (splitting of the moon) that has been
mentioned in it, determines its period of revelation precisely. The
traditionists and commentators are agreed that this incident took place at
Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's Hijra to Madinah.
Ibn Hajar in his commentary "Fath al-Baariy" has indeed mentioned that the
incident of the splitting of the moon took place around 5 years before the
Hijrah. Nevertheless, this statement does not qualify as an "agreement" of
'traditionalists and commentators'. Maududi's referred statement, in my
opinion, is not adequately substantiated. A more accurate statement would have
been that all the commentators and traditionalists agree on the point that the
incident of the splitting of the moon took place while the Prophet (pbuh) was
in Mekkah.
As for the time of the revelation of Surah Al-Qamar, it can be estimated
through the sequence of the revelation of the Surahs as given in Ibn Shihaab's
"Tanzeel al-Qur'an"[2], Suyutiy's "Al-Ittiqaan"[3], and Al-Zarkashiy's
"Al-Burhan fi Uloom al-Qur'an"[4]. According to each of these sources, the
period of revelation of Surah Al-Qamar was the same as that of Al-Balad (90),
Qaaf (50), Al-Humazah (104), Al-Tariq (86), Al-Jinn (72) and Saad (38 ). All
of these Surahs are generally held to be revealed during the initial period of
prophethood. Maududi, in his commentary, has acknowledged that each of these
Surahs was revealed during the initial period of the Prophet's ministry.
Moiz Amjad
So now we have Amjad backtracking on his claim that the date of revelation of
Surah al-Qamar can be determined precisely. Initially he claimed it was in
9BH. Now he says it’s some undefined time in the Meccan period. Thus, it can
be seen that Amjad himself has finally seen the absurdity of his own argument.
The Sixth Argument
According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in
the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of
hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take
part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back.
Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate
that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to
accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.
A narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in Badr is given in Muslim,
Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Bab karahiyah al-isti`anah fi al-ghazwi
bikafir. Ayesha (ra) while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the
important events that took place in that journey, says:
When we reached Shajarah.
It is quite obvious from these words that Ayesha (ra) was with the group
traveling toward Badr.
A narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of `uhud is
given in Bukhari, Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Baab Ghazwi al-nisaa
wa qitalihinna ma`a al-rijaal.
Anas reports that On the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground
around the Prophet (pbuh). [On that day,] I saw Ayesha (ra) and Umm-e-Sulaim
(ra), they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to save them from any
hindrance in their movement]."
As far as the fact that children below 15 years were sent back and were not
allowed to participate in the battle of `uhud, it is narrated in Bukhari,
Kitaab al-maghaazi, Baab ghazwah al-khandaq wa hiya al-ahzaab, Arabic.
Ibn `umar (ra) states that the Prophet (pbuh) did not permit me to participate
in Uhud, as at that time, I was fourteen years old. But on the day of Khandaq,
when I was fifteen years old, the Prophet (pbuh) permitted my participation."
Moiz Amjad
Dr. Ali Sina, founder of Faith Freedom International and author of
"Understanding Muhammad", refuted this argument:
This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Uhud occurred Ayesha was 10
to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warrior, like the boys. She went to
keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent
back, but this did not apply to her.
Ali Sina
Women and young children went to the battlefields to perform other functions.
The women and young children went on the battlefield after the battle and gave
water to the wounded Muslims and finished off the enemy wounded. al-Tabari
vol.12 p.127,146. During the days of the battle, the women and children were
there to dig graves for the dead. al-Tabari vol.12 p.107.
Muslimhope
Therefore, it is clear that the fifteen-year age threshold applied only to
boys, and Amjad’s line of argument is clearly false.
Shaykh Haddad also showed that Amjad had used false or incomplete information.
First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to
non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `A'isha did
not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they
were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud
(year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing
an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their
dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated
by al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Gibril Haddad
So, Aisha did not participate in Badr at all, despite Amjad’s assertion. It is
also illuminating to know that Amjad had partially quoted the Uhud hadiths to
falsely convey the impression that Aisha participated at Uhud when the hadiths
are clear in that she was merely carrying water skins to the combatants. The
last part of the hadith was omitted, either deliberately or inadvertently, an
act some people may consider disingenuous.
Narrated Anas: On the day (of the battle) of Uhad when (some) people retreated
and left the Prophet, I saw 'Aisha bint Abu Bakr and Um Sulaim, with their
robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying
with their water skins (in another narration it is said, "carrying the water
skins on their backs"). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the
people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour
water in the mouths of the people.
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:131
The Seventh Argument
According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha
(ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb
al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73
hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years
old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of
hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra)
should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she
got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at
the time of her marriage.
The relevant references required in this argument are provided below:
For the Difference of Ayesha's (ra) and Asma's (ra) Age:
According to Abd al-Rahman ibn abi zannaad:
Asma (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha. (Siyar A`la'ma'l-nubala',
Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, pg. 289, Arabic, Mu'assasatu'l-risala'h, Beirut, 1992)
According to Ibn Kathir:
She [i.e. Asma] was ten years elder to her sister [i.e. Ayesha]. (Al-Bidaayah
wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 371, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy,
Al-jizah, 1933)
For Asma's (ra) Age at Her Death in 73 AH
According to Ibn Kathir:
She [i.e. Asma] witnessed the killing of her son during that year [i.e. 73
AH], as we have already mentioned, five days later she herself died, according
to other narratives her death was not five but ten or twenty or a few days
over twenty or a hundred days later. The most well known narrative is that of
hundred days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.
(Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 372, Arabic, Dar al-fikr
al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933).
According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy:
She [i.e. Asma (ra)] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH." (Taqreeb
al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy, Pg. 654, Arabic, Bab fi al-nisaa, al-Harf
al-alif, Lucknow)
Moiz Amjad
Amjad’s objection to Sina’s analysis is similar to that of the previous
argument.
When someone gets that old, people don't care too much about her exact age. It
is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The
difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure.
Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. Since in
those days people did not carry birth certificates, it is very much likely
that the person who reported her age to be 100 did not know that she was 10
years older than Ayesha and did not sit to make the calculations and
deductions. She was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone
that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy. This
could be a genuine mistake by the narrator of the Hadith.
Ali Sina
Once again, the author is only pointing out towards a possibility. It should
be kept in mind that the author is trying to establish that Ayesha (ra) was
nine years old at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh). The author
should be reminded that pointing out mere possibilities of error in the given
information would not serve his purpose. Obviously, contrary to what the
author contends, it is also "Possible" that the information given in the given
in the cited paragraph is correct. The author should also keep in mind that
the target of my writings on the issue is not to "prove" that Ayesha (ra) was
"X" years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet
(pbuh). On the contrary, my objective was merely to show that the generally
held view regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the
Prophet (pbuh) is not based upon contradiction-free information.
Moiz Amjad
Apparently Amjad is not worried that his arguments all derive conflicting ages
for Aisha, thus debunking each other.
Shaykh Haddad also challenges the accuracy of the information, thus casting
doubt on Amjad’s source material.
Well, Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was
ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala'
said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19,
and he is more reliable here. Ibn Hajar reports in al-Isaba from Hisham ibn
`Urwa, from his father, that Asma' did live 100 years, and from Abu Nu`aym
al-Asbahani that "Asma' bint Abi Bakr was born 27 years before the Hijra, and
she lived until the beginning of the year 74." None of this amounts to any
proof for `A'isha's age whatsoever.
Gibril Haddad
Using inaccurate data, Amjad assumes Asma was older than Aisha by 10 years
when a more reliable source says the age difference is up to 19 years. Taking
this more reliable information calculates Aisha’s age at around nine years
old, completely in accordance with the sahih hadiths where Aisha herself said
she was nine years old.
The Eighth Argument
Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra)
reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the
Jahiliyyah - the pre-Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the
period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the
time she most likely got married.
The original statement in Tabari, its translation and reference follows:
All four of his [i.e. Abu Bakr's] children were born of his two wives - the
names of whom we have already mentioned - during the pre-Islamic period.
(Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 50, Arabic, Dar
al-fikr, Beirut, 1979)
Moiz Amjad
Shaykh Gibril Haddad says that the evidence Amjad provided above is false.
Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in
Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya,
Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each,
`A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.
Gibril Haddad
There is also no need to make oblique calculations using Tabari when Tabari
explicitly states Aisha’s age several times.
These are Tabari’s direct accounts. He reported it at least four times, making
it clear that this was what he deemed authoritative.
‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was
consummated when she was nine years old.’ Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the
transmitters.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 129-131
‘My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches
and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and
started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my
breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My
mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The
Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years
old.’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131
‘Aisha was 6-7 when married, and came the marriage was consummated when she
was 9-10, three months after coming to (sic – from) Mecca.’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 7 The chain of transmission includes an unnamed man
from the Quraysh
‘The Prophet married Aishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning
of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the
marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated
the marriage with her she was nine years old.’
Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 171-173
The Ninth Argument
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some
time before `umar ibn al-Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted
Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra)
marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have
been born during the first year of Islam. According to Ibn Hisham, Ayesha (ra)
was the 20th or the 21st person to enter into the folds of Islam (Al-Sirah
al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 227 - 234, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh
al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh) While `umar ibn al-khattab was preceded by forty
individuals (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 295, Arabic,
Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh).
Moiz Amjad
Muslimhope shows that even if we were to believe that Aisha accepted Islam
before Umar, it doesn’t mean this took place during the first year of Islam
since Umar converted in 617AD, about 4 years after Aisha’s birth in 613AD.
Thus, Amjad had made a miscalculation here.
1. Nobody today really knows the order. In general there is lengthy
disagreement on the order of who accepted Islam, as al-Tabari vol.5 p.80-87;
vol.12 p.38 discuss. If they cannot even agree on the first five men, how can
they know the 21st?
2. A’isha never converted to Islam, because she never remembered a
time when Mohammed did not come by twice a day and her
parents were
not Muslims. This is prior to the first migration to
Ethiopia (617
A.D.) (Bukhari 5:245 p.158).
3. ‘Umar became a Muslim just after the first migration to Ethiopia (617 A.D.)
according to Ibn Ishaq p.155,156. So what Ibn Hisham counts as A’isha’s
"conversion" could be between birth and three years old.
Muslimhope
Besides disputing the claim that Ibn Hisham reported that Aisha accepted Islam
quite some time before `umar ibn al-Khattab, Shaykh Haddad also casts doubt on
Amjad’s logic.
Nowhere does Ibn Hisham say this. Rather, Ibn Hisham lists `A'isha among
"those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." This does not mean that she
embraced Islam during the first year of Islam. Nor does it mean that she
necessarily embraced Islam before `Umar (year 6) although she was born the
previous year (year 7 before the Hijra) although it is understood she will
automatically follow her father's choice even before the age of reason.
Gibril Haddad
The Tenth Argument
Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to
Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Ayesha
(ra) was engaged - and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's
wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently
his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at
the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr
decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only
reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before
hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage. Unfortunately,
I do not have the primary reference to this argument at the moment. The
secondary reference for this argument is: Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat,
Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, Urdu, Pg. 38, Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi,
Pakistan
Moiz Amjad
Muslimhope shows that Amjad’s logic is wrong and not based on fact.
Even if this account is accurate, Arabs both then and today often betrothed
girls soon after they were born. Abu Bakr had other daughters and it might
have been one of them.
Muslimhope
Shaykh Haddad also casts doubt as to the veracity of Amjad’s Tabari evidence,
admittedly derived from a secondary reference that Amjad never checked.
Not at all, there is no mention of emigration in Tabari's account of Abu
Bakr's discussion with Mut`im. Nor did he ever ask him to take `A'isha because
there had been only some preliminary talk, not a formal arrangement. Umm
Ruman, Abu Bakr's wife, reportedly said: "By Allah, no promise had been given
on our part at all!" Rather, al-Tabari said that when news of the Prophet's
interest in `A'isha came, he went to see Mut`im. Then Mut`im's wife manifested
her fear that her son would become Muslim if he married into Abu Bakr's
family. Abu Bakr then left them and gave his assent to the Prophet, upon him
blessings and peace. Your assumption fizzles at the root when you read
al-Tabari's positive assertion: "On the day he consummated the marriage with
her, she was nine years old."
Gibril Haddad
The Eleventh Argument
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of
Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to
marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her
mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already
been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin
was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic
language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used
for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl,
as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an
unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady". The complete
reference for this reporting of Ahmad ibn Hanbal is: Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal,
Vol 6, Pg 210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut.
Moiz Amjad
Sina has refuted this argument.
This explanation is absolutely incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, just as in
English is not age specific. In fact Ayesha was the second wife of Muhammad
(after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for
three years because she was too young. Instead he had to content himself with
Umma Salamah, until Ayesha matured a little bit more. It would not have made
sense to marry a beautiful woman like Ayesha and wait for three years to take
her home.
Ali Sina
And Amjad has agreed:
The author is quite right. Bikr in the Arabic language does, in fact, mean
'virgin'. However, I was actually referring to the usage of the word, not its
literal meaning. It is correct that literally the word 'Bikr', like the word
"virgin" refers to a biological reality, however, also just as the word
'virgin', the word 'Bikr', in the Arabic language, is used for a young woman,
who has not yet had sexual contact, not for a child.
Moiz Amjad
Shaykh Gibril Haddad also adds:
This is ignorant nonsense, bikr means a virgin girl, a girl who has never been
married even if her age is 0 and there is no unclarity here whatsoever.
Gibril Haddad
The Twelfth Argument
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra).
Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35
years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra)
could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or
16 years old at the time of her marriage.
Ibn Hajar's original statement, its translation and reference follows:
Fatimah (ra) was born at the time the Kaa`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet
(pbuh) was 35 years old... she (Fatimah) was five years older that Ayesha
(ra). (Al-Isabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, Pg.
377, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-Haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)
Moiz Amjad
Using Fatima’s age difference with Aisha to refute the Aisha’s Age sahih
hadiths is a logical fallacy because the biography of Fatima is conflicting.
Nobody knows for sure when Fatima was born (when her father was a nobody), and
though her death was well-recorded her age at death is not known for certain.
The traditional account is that she was born on Friday, 20th jumada `
th-thaaniyah in the fifth year after the declaration of the prophet - hood
(615 AD), which means she was about the same age as Aisha.[6][7]
The most predominant view in the traditions transmitted by our traditionists
is that Fatimah az-Zahra' was born in Mecca, on the twentieth of Jumada
'l-Akhirah, in the fifth year of the Prophet's apostolic career. It is also
asserted that when the Prophet died, Fatimah was eighteen years and seven
months old.
It is reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Yazid that (the fifth Imam)
al-Baqir was asked: "How long did Fatimah live after the Messenger of Allah?"
He answered: "Four months; she died at the age of twenty-three." This view is
close to that reported by the traditionists of the (Sunni) majority. They have
asserted that she was born in the forty-first year of the. Messenger of
Allah's life. This means that she was born one year after the Prophet was sent
by Allah as a messenger. The scholar Abu Sa'id al-Hafiz relates in his book
Sharafu' n-Nabiyy that all the children of the Messenger of Allah were born
before Islam except Fatimah and Ibrahim, who were born in Islam.
Reference: Abu Ali al-Fadl ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Fadl at-Tabrisi (c. 468/1076 -
548/1154)
Fatimah The Radiant, Daughter of the Apostle of Allah
Some say she was born ten years earlier than Aisha. Those who believe this
also believe Fatima was aged 29 years when she died, not the 18 years
traditionally believed.
Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #29 p.115-116 actually says that Fatima was 29 years old
when she died (six months after Mohammed), which makes her ten years older
than A’isha. So somebody forgot a date somewhere. The authoritative hadiths of
Sunan Nasa’i would generally be trusted more than Ibn Hajar, Regardless,
though A’isha was younger.
Muslimhope
Sina has refuted the accuracy of Amjad’s information:
Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Ayesha was five
years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years
old, then Ayesha was only 30 years younger than the Prophet. So at the time of
her marriage when the Prophet was 54, Ayesha must have been 24 years old. This
is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it
contradicts the Hadith that the apologist quoted about the age of Asma,
Ayesha’s sister, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older that Ayesha
and died in 73 Hijra. So at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 –73 =
27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old.
Ali Sina
Shaykh Gibril Haddad showed that Ibn Hajar was merely reporting what some
narrators reported, not his own conclusion, and Amjad chose the wrong
narration and also wrongly attributed that narration to Ibn Hajar, who was
merely the reporter.
Ibn Hajar mentions two versions: (1) al-Waqidi's narration that Fatima was
born when the Prophet was 35; and (2) Ibn `Abd al-Barr's narration that she
was born when he was 41, approximately one year more or less before
Prophethood, and about five years before `A'isha was born. The latter version
matches the established dates.
Gibril Haddad
In conclusion, Fatima’s birth date is uncertain. Despite this, Amjad used a
non-traditional estimate to cast doubt on Aisha’s age, when the traditional
account exactly matches the established facts. Note that Amjad omitted the
traditional account in his Ibn Hajar reference, choosing instead one that is
clearly in error. Some might view this deliberate omission to be disingenuous.
The Thirteenth Argument
In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage
at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry
Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this
marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.
Moiz Amjad
Although we agree there is no evidence to support the claim (usually made by
Muslims in defence of Muhammad's pedophilia) that it was an Arab tradition to
give away pre-pubescent young girls in marriage to old men, no credence should
be given to mere ‘opinion’ of Aisha's age of consummation when there are sahih
hadiths that explicitly state that Aisha married and had sex with Muhammad
when she was aged only nine.
Although an ad hominem, this neatly summarizes what an actual Muslim scholar
thinks about Moiz Amjad’s scholarship.
Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they
are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves
to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single
point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.
Gibril Haddad
Conclusion
Moiz Amjad has presented a series of arguments as to why the generally
accepted understanding of Aisha’s age (i.e. nine-years-old) when she married
and had sex with Muhammad, based on commonly known narratives, is erroneous
and contradictory.
However, on closer inspection, it appears he has produced arguments that can
be broadly categorized into these categories:
A. Unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators.
B. The use of non-sahih information to refute otherwise sahih hadiths.
C. The use of secondary, indirect sources in preference of direct testimonies.
D. The use of ‘imprecise’ dating in preference to specific dates and
statements of age.
E. The use of misquoted references and erroneous information.
F. The use of incorrect logic.
G. Personal opinion.
For these reasons, we reject Moiz Amjad’s attempt to discredit the ‘Aisha age’
hadiths, particularly those of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
It astounds us that Moiz Amjad is apparently unperturbed that his arguments
derive conflicting ages for when Aisha married and had sex with Muhammad. A
reasonable person would see that this means his arguments debunk each other,
while all the sahih hadiths in regards to Aisha's age of consummation are in
perfect harmony.
This page is featured in the core article, Islam and Pedophilia which serves as
a starting point for anyone wishing to learn more about this topic
See Also
* Aisha's Age of Consummation
* Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha
* Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha - Islamic sources relating to
Aisha
* Refutations - A hub page that leads to other articles related to
Refutations
External Links
* Shaykh Gibril Haddad - Biography of Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad at
SunniPath, The online Islamic Academy
* Evidence Muhammad was a pedophile - FFI forum thread which deals
with further apologetics
* Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine - Robert Spencer debates a
typical non-Muslim apologist for Islam
* Responses to "The Learner" (Moiz Amjad) and others - Collection of
Answering Islam articles
Acknowledgments
This article is greatly indebted to the following:
* Dr Ali Sina, founder of Faith Freedom International and author of
Understanding Muhammad, for Controversies about the age of Aisha
* Dr. Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad, teacher of Fiqh at Sunnipath.com and
Livingislam.org, for Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The
Prophet
* The Muslimhope website, for A’isha: Mohammed’s Nine-Year Old Wife
References
1. ↑ T.O Shanavas - AYESHA’s AGE: THE MYTH OF A PROVERBIAL WEDDING
EXPOSED - Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.
2. ↑ Imam Chaudhry - What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May
Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon
him)? - Islamic Supreme Council of Canada
3. ↑ Zahid Aziz - Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage - Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha`at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A. (for a refutation to the issues
raised by Aziz's tu-quoque defence, titled "Mary and Joseph", click here)
4. ↑ Nilofar Ahmed - Of Aisha’s age at marriage - Dawn, February 17,
2012
5. ↑ Edited by Prof. John Esposito and Prof. Ibrahim Kalin - The 500
Most Influential Muslims in the World (P. 94) - The royal islamic strategic
studies centre, 2009
6. ↑ Fatimah az-Zahra - (A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles,
p. 47-53)
7. ↑ A Brief Biography of Fatima (A.S) the daughter of the Last
Messenger and the Mother of Imams - Ummah.net
Categories:
* Muhammad and Aisha
* Pedophilia
* Muhammad
* Islam and Women
* Hector
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
