The following is taken from David Wood’s blog and can be
accessed here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2019/11/was-aisha-really-only-nine.html.
Introduction
Sometimes you will
read that there is debate over Aïsha’s age and that she may have been much
older than nine when she married Muhammad.[1] Some
of these claims are very strongly worded.
Recent researches
have established beyond doubt that the age of ‘A’ishah (rta) at the time of the
consummation her marriage with the Prophet (sws) was around nineteen or twenty.
The Ahadith which report her age to be eight or nine years at the time of
marriage are absolutely baseless.[2]
People can “debate”
what they like; but this is not an issue among scholars. Aïsha’s age on her
wedding day is one of the best-attested facts of Muhammad’s life. All the early
traditions state that she was nine,[3] except
for Ibn Hisham, who says she was “nine or ten.”[4] This
suggests that Ibn Hisham was not sure and so wrote an approximation. Aïsha
herself was completely sure. To be precise, she was nine years and three
months, plus or minus five weeks.
Muhammad
Ali’s Theory
The idea that Aïsha
must have been significantly older – at least nubile and perhaps as old as 23 –
was first introduced in 1923 by the Ahmadiya writer Muhammad Ali.[5] He
seems to have been motivated by an intense embarrassment over the implication
that Muhammad was a paedophile, which was not acceptable to him personally and
which he knew would not be acceptable to Westerners.
Ali was unwilling to
recognise that that his own morals were better than his Prophet’s, so he set
out to rewrite history. He was not a scholar, and nearly every statement in his
section on “The Prophet’s Marriages” is incorrect. He was apparently unaware
that research must begin with a review of the literature, for he ignored the
huge body of traditions that agree that Aïsha was married at nine. These
traditions are supposed to be sound. If we make an arbitrary decision that they
cannot be trusted, there is no reason why the traditions that Ali cited should
be any more reliable than the ones he rejected.
However, by using
only his favourite sources and ignoring the rest, he raked out three arguments
for Aïsha’s being older.
1. Aïsha
was engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad.
Argument
If Aïsha was old
enough to be engaged, she must have been nearly grown up and much older than
six.[6]
A later writer has
pointed out that she was engaged to Jubayr as early as 616, so she must have
been by that date “a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.”[7]
Answer
The sad truth is
that betrothals were often arranged over cradles – not only in mediaeval Arabia
but throughout human history. The pre-Islamic Arabs took this principle to an
extreme, for they sometimes married off hypothetical daughters who had not yet
been born.[8] So if Aïsha was engaged to Jubayr in
616, this does not prove that she was any particular age at that date. Indeed,
it is not by itself proof that she had even been born.
2. Aïsha
was close to Fatima’s age.
Argument
According to Ibn
Hajar, Muhammad’s daughter Fatima:
was born at the time
the Ka’bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old … she
(Fatimah) was five years older that Ayesha (ra).[9]
The Kaaba was
rebuilt in 605, so Aïsha must have been born in 610.[10] That
would make her 13 at the time of her marriage-consummation in 623.
Answer
Something like this
can be found in Ibn Hajar, but the “quote” is a deliberate misrepresentation.
What is the meaning of the ellipsis? Which words were omitted? Ali did not
mention that Ibn Hajar was quoting two separate traditions about Fatima. This
is what Ibn Hajar actually wrote.
There has been a
difference of opinion concerning Fatima’s year of birth. [Waqidi says] Fatima
was born at the time the Kaaba was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old.
[Abdalbarr says] Fatima was born when the Prophet was 41, shortly before the
Prophet received revelation, a year or more. And she was 5 years older than
Aisha.[11]
Waqidi’s tradition
says that Fatima was born in 605 but it does not mention Aïsha. Abdalbarr’s
tradition says that Fatima was born in 609 and that she was 5 years older than
Aïsha, which places Aïsha’s birth in its accepted date of 614.[12]
In other words,
Aïsha’s birthdate is not disputed, but Fatima’s is. To calculate Aïsha’s age
from Waqidi’s version of Fatima’s age and then Abdalbarr’s version of the
age-difference, knowing that they disagree about Fatima’s age, makes no sense
at all.
3. Aïsha
remembered when chapter 54 of the Quraan was first recited.
Argument
Chapter 54 was
recited no later than 615, and Aïsha narrated that she was then a girl
(jariya). So Aïsha must have been born no later than 610.[13] Later
writers have added that a jariya is not a baby but “a young woman
around adolescence or older”.[14] This
would make Aïsha a teenager in 615, placing her well into her twenties in 623.
Answer 1
In fact there are
very few parts of the Quraan that can be precisely dated. Sometimes the Quraan
contains direct references to identifiable current affairs, but not often. More
usually, historians rely on traditions that relate, “On occasion X, Allah sent
down chapter Y.”[15] If we know the date of X (we don’t always) then we can
infer the date of Y.
An important clue to
the date of chapter 54 is that Aïsha remembered people talking about it.[16] Since
Aïsha’s birthdate is known precisely, that means we can use it to work out a
much vaguer event, such as when chapter 54 was written. The scholarly consensus
from this and other similar clues is that chapter 54 was not written in 615 but
in the year 617-618, when Aïsha would have been about four.[17]
Answer 2
As for the
word jariya, the Arabs used it to mean a “little girl” who was old enough
to walk.[18] If Aïsha was four, nobody would have called her a baby
(sibya), a woman (amra’a) or a lady (sayyida). She was certainly a jariya.
Modern
Apologetics
Modern bloggers and
journalists still use Ali’s arguments in attempts to prove that “Aïsha was
older”. They often bolster his case with an array of additional arguments, none
of which is accepted by serious scholars. This mass of historical revision
dates only from the late twentieth century, for it is not a longstanding or
mainstream “controversy”.
4. Hisham
ibn Urwa is an unreliable source.
The major narrator
about Aïsha’s age is her grand-nephew Hisham. There are two main arguments against
trusting Hisham.
Argument 1
A single narrator is
not sufficient proof. There ought to be several narrators for an important
event, otherwise it cannot be accepted.[19]
Answer 1
First, it is not a
valid historical method to decide that “one narrator is not enough”. Yes, it is
always preferable to have two independent witnesses; but there are many
historical “facts” for which we have only one source. If that narrator was in a
position to know the facts, and if he had no reason to mislead his audience,
and if nothing is known that contradicts his narrative – then we would normally
take the word of that one narrator.
Answer 2
More importantly,
this is not true. Hisham is not the only
narrator. Here are some versions of the tradition that did not pass through
Hisham.
We were told by Abd
ibn Humayd, who was told by Abdalrazzaq, who was told by Muammar, from Zuhri,
from Urwa, from Aïsha, that the Prophet married her when she was seven, and she
entered his house when she was nine, and she played with her toys; and he died
when she was eighteen.[20]
Habib, the servant
of Urwa, said: “… Aïsha was born at the beginning of the fourth year of
prophethood, and she married the Messenger of Allah in the tenth year, in
Shawwal, when she was six.”[21]
We were told by Yahya
ibn Yahya (who said Ishaq told him), and by Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, by Abu Bakr ibn
Abi Shayba and by Abu Kurayb, who were told by Abu Muaawiyah, from Al-Aamash,
from Ibrahim, from Al-Aswad, from Aïsha, that she married Allah’s Messenger
when she was six and entered his house when she was nine, and he died when she
was eighteen years old.[22]
We were told by
Ahmad ibn Saad ibn Hakam ibn Abi Maryam, who was told by his uncle, who was
told by Yahya ibn Ayyub, who was told by Imara ibn Ghazan, from Muhammad ibn
Ibrahim, from Abu Salama ibn Abdalrahman, from Aïsha, who said: “Allah’s
Messenger married me when I was six years old and I entered his house when I
was nine.”[23]
We were told by
Qutayba, who was told by Aabthar, who was told by Mutarraf, from Abu Ubayda,
from Aïsha, who said: “Allah’s Messenger married me when I was nine years old,
and I lived with him for nine years.”[24]
It is said that at
least eleven narrators reported from Aïsha and told the story of her wedding at
age nine. There were additional narrators who learned the information from
someone other than Aïsha.[25] To discredit
the “Aïsha was nine” tradition, it would be necessary to discredit every single
one of these narrators. Many of them are such important narrators that this
would amount to discrediting the whole body of Islamic traditions – leaving us
with no information about the life of Muhammad, not even a certainty that he
existed.
The only real
discrepancy is that while most traditions state that Aïsha was legally married
when she was six, a few say she was seven.[26] This
could mean that Aïsha was not completely sure of the date of the contract (after
all, she was not present when it happened). Perhaps there was some legal hitch,
due to the need to break off Aïsha’s first engagement and then to collect
witnesses on a day when everyone was in town. It could be that what was first
informally contracted in May 620 (when Aïsha was six) was not absolutely
finalised until, say, November, when she had turned seven (lunar) years old.
But there is no uncertainty about the date of consummation, which is always
said to be at age nine.
Argument 2
Hisham’s memory
became unreliable when he was elderly (when he narrated about Aïsha’s age).
Malik ibn Anas talked about people who criticised the elderly Hisham.[27] Therefore
no evidence from Hisham can be used.
Answer 3
This point is trying
to fool the reader into assuming that if Hisham can be discredited, therefore
all narratives about Aïsha’s age are unreliable. This is illogical. On the
contrary, the fact that Hisham agrees with so many other narrators on this
point strongly suggests that, whatever mistakes he might have made elsewhere,
this particular narration is accurate.
Answer 4
In any case, the
remarks about the elderly Hisham’s memory are misleading. Malik only wrote
about the criticisms of Hisham’s memory to explain why he disagreed with the
critics; in fact Malik reported over a hundred traditions from Hisham, so he
must have trusted him by and large. Hisham was never accused of dishonestly
inventing details to replace what he had forgotten or even of being confused.
He just lost the perfect recall of his youth.[28] Ibn
Saad’s summary is that Hisham “was reliable and firm, with a lot of narrations,
and he was an authority.”[29]
Hisham’s memory lapses
do not affect the traditions that still exist. What has come down to history is
what he still remembered – not what he had forgotten!
5. Tabari
says that Aisha was born before 610.
Argument
The Persian
historian Tabari reports that Aïsha was born before 610, which would make her
at least 14 when she was married in 623.[30] This
is how Blankinship translates Tabari’s words.
In
the Jahiliyyah, Abu Bakr married [Qutaylah]. She bore him Abdallah and
Asma. He also married in the Jahiliyyah [Umm Ruman]. She bore him Abd
al-Rahman and A’ishah. All of these four of his children were born
in al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named.[31]
This certainly
suggests that Aïsha was born before the end of 610. Blankinship comments on his
own translation:
This statement
appears to contradict the alleged age of ‘A’ishah of nine years at the time of
the consummation of her marriage to the Prophet in Shawwal 1 (April–May 623),
for which see al-Baladhuri, Ansab, I, 409-11; Ibn Hajar, Isabah, IV,
359-60. Even if she was born at the end of the Jahiliyyah period, in 609 C.E.,
she would have been at least thirteen solar years old by the year 1/622-623.[32]
Answer
It is surprising
that Blankinship wrote such a footnote, for he ought to have seen that the
Arabic text is ambiguous. An equally valid way of translating Tabari’s last
sentence would be:
All of these four of
his children were born from his two abovenamed wives from al-Jahiliyyah.[33]
That is, Abu Bakr
married the two wives in the Jahiliya, but no statement
is being made about when any of the children were born. Note that Tabari goes
on to emphasise that Abu Bakr married two further wives after Islam.
Therefore this
passage is too ambiguous to be used as a case for Aïsha’s earlier birth-date
because it does not assert that the four children were also born before Islam.
If this were the only tradition we had about Aïsha’s
age, we would have to conclude that we did not know whether she was born
before or after Islam.
However,
Blankinship’s interpretation contradicts such a huge body of evidence that
Aïsha was not born until 613 or 614 that it emerges as the less likely
meaning of the sentence.
6. Aïsha
and her sister Asma.
Argument
Many historians say
that Aïsha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma. Asma died in 73 AH aged
100 (i.e. in 692 AD aged 97 solar years) so she must have been born in 595 AD.
That gives Aïsha a birth-year of 605, making her 18 when she was married in
623.[34]
Answer
The “many
historians” who say that Asma was 10 years older than Aïsha are not independent
witnesses; they are all quoting a single tradition from Abdalrahman ibn Abi’l-Zinaad.[35]
For example,
Dhahabi’s dictionary of biography includes an entry on Asma. He begins with
information that was not disputed, such as the names of her parents and a list
of people who learned narrations from her. He
includes this statement.
She was 13 to 19
years older than Aïsha.[36]
He continues with
information for which he cites his sources, including:
Abdalrahman ibn
Abi’l-Zinaad said she was 10 years older than Aisha.[37]
Obviously this is
different from what he wrote earlier. It is significant that the first
statement is the one in the “undisputed” section, while the second is added as
an isolated variant; it implies that Dhahabi preferred the first and mainstream
tradition.
So who was Ibn
Abi’l-Zinaad, the man whose arithmetic disagrees with everyone else’s? He was
the son of a servant of a wife of Caliph Uthman. He was born in the year
718-719, so he never met anyone who had known Muhammad. The historian Ibn Saad
says that many of his narrations were weak.[38] Later
generations did not consider him a great authority: he was described as
“disturbed” in his narrations and “not a proof for scholars.”[39] The
fact that some historians quoted him does not prove that they agreed with him.
It only proves that they knew what he had said.
The fact that an
unreliable narrator heard or calculated that the age difference was 10 years (a
suspiciously round number) does not prove that everyone who disagreed with him
was wrong. If there is a discrepancy, it is necessary to ask who is more likely
to be accurate. Many sound narrations tell us Aïsha’s
age. Only one doubtful narrator mentions the age-difference. Besides, common
sense indicates that the report of a person’s age is more likely to be accurate
than the report of an age-difference.
If the age-difference
between Asma and Aïsha is uncertain, then the alleged age-difference cannot be
used to calculate Aïsha’s age. Even if the age-difference were certain, this would
not prove that Aïsha had misreported her age. It might be that the less famous
Asma was the one whose age was wrongly reported.
How old was Asma?
The only narrator who reports her age as 100 is her grandson Hisham, the same
Hisham whose memory was supposed to be “unreliable” concerning Aïsha![40] If
his multiple narrations about Aïsha are untrustworthy, then his single
narration about Asma cannot be trusted either. Asma’s age is far less
established than Aïsha’s.
The truth is, the
daughter of Abu Bakr should have known her age, and there is no reason to doubt
that Hisham reliably reported what he heard. But what did he hear? Elderly
people did tend to round up their ages, especially in a context where the exact
age did not matter. Perhaps Hisham heard Asma saying something like, “Never in
all my hundred years have I seen …” Nobody would accuse her of “lying” if she
had really been only 95 or even 90.
Further, if Asma had
literally lived to be 97 solar years, she would have been 49 when her son Urwa
was born in 644,[41] which is possible but improbable.
The traditional view
is that Asma was born in 595 and that she was 19 years older than Aïsha. This
could be correct. But perhaps she was born as late as 601, making her only 13
years older than Aïsha (close enough to the unreliable “10”), a plausible 43
when she gave birth to Urwa, and a venerable 91 (or 94 lunar, close enough to
the round 100) when she died in 692.
In summary, we know
Aïsha’s date of birth, but we not quite so certain of Asma’s. However, the
really doubtful information is the claim of a “10-year age difference”. This is
completely unreliable and it does not help us calculate the age of either
sister.
Continue to part 2 (https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/was-aisha-really-only-nine-pt-2/).
IHS
No comments:
Post a Comment