|
Post by Zameel on Jan 15, 2017 22:24:11 GMT
Shaykh Idlibi is a respected and methodological Sunni scholar knowledgeable in hadith, history and aqidah. Is ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) not a "respected and methodological Sunni scholar knowledgeable in hadith, history and aqidah"? Is her testimony – perhaps, her (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) repeated testimony – not sufficient in a matter she was very well-acquainted with and in something no one contradicted her? Would you rather trust someone a millennium later over her? Can you clarify the evidence from the age of Asmā’ (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) and how that bears on the age of ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) - from reliable sources. Gibril Haddad has been proven to spread misinformation and untruths without, on the most part, retracting. Please see: barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/lies-distortions-and-slanders-by-gf-haddad/ He is definitely not a reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 15, 2017 22:26:06 GMT
Salam Alaykum I was asked by someone whether such marriages actually took place in the history of the early Arabs and early Muslims - the inference being that an exception cannot be made for Ayesha (RAA) if such was never the norm and she spoke of the marriage as something customary (i.e. her age would have been like that of other women of her time). Some examples can be found in the book I referred to in the opening post. Mullā Khāṭir, for instance, demonstrates in the said book that of the daughters of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), three were married before he received revelation. At the time of revelation, the ages of these three daughters ranged from approximately six to ten, yet they were all married before this. This shows they were given in marriage as minors. ( Zawāj al-Sayyida ‘Ā’ishah, p. 18) Another example he mentions is Ṣafiyya bint Ḥuyayy (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) who married the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) aged sixteen, yet she was married twice before him; it is most likely that at least the first marriage was when she (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) was a child. (ibid. p. 19). It is reported ‘Alī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) gave his daughter, Umm Kulthūm, in marriage to ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu). Umm Kulthūm was born shortly before the death of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and she married ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) when she was not yet bāligh. ( Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 5:229-30) Sa‘īd ibn Manṣūr reports with a strong chain that ‘Urwah said: al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām entered upon Qudāmah ibn Maẓ‘ūn, visiting him [while he was unwell]. While with him, Zubayr was given good-news of a daughter [of his that was just delivered]. Qudāmah said to him: “Give her in marriage to me.” Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām said to him: “What will you do with a small girl, when you are in this state?!” He said: “Indeed! If I survive, then (I have) the daughter of Zubayr! And if I die, then [she is] the one I desire most to inherit [my wealth] from me.” Zubayr then gave her in marriage to him. ( Sunan Sa‘īd ibn Manṣūr, 1:175) Both al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) and Qudāmah ibn Maẓ‘ūn (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) are from the senior ṣaḥābah. Al-Bayhaqī writes: “Al-Shāfi‘ī said: ‘‘Alī gave Umm Kulthūm in marriage to ‘Umar without consulting her.’” He further says: “Al-Shāfi‘ī said: ‘Zubayr gave his minor daughter in marriage, and a number of the companions of the prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) gave their minor daughters in marriage.’” ( al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 7:185) ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī narrates with an authentic chain that ‘Urwah gave his minor son in marriage to his niece, who was also a minor. In another narration, it clarifies that the age of the boy was five and the age of the girl six. ( Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Dār al-Ta’ṣīl, 5:230)
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 15, 2017 22:28:56 GMT
Whatever one may have against Shaykh GF Haddad, I would say if we just look at the link at eshaykh and the reference he gives to his own 2 articles, there he is showing the falsity of the "older age" view, and he is very clear about that.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 17, 2017 7:55:14 GMT
If you disagree on the other evidences, such as the age of Asmaa, then evidence or suitable evidences need to be provided. The contemporary researcher, Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, has provided a detailed response to the argument from the age of Asmā’. His response has been shared on another thread. Here is a translation of what he wrote: Answering an Objection
Someone said: “Shaykh Ḥātim, Ibn Ḥajar, the commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the commander of believers in ḥadīth, narrates, as does Abū Nu‘aym, that Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr – the elder sister of ‘Ā’ishah – was born 27 years before the Hijrah. This entails that ‘Ā’ishah reached approximately 17 years of age at the time of Hijrah – that is, at the time of her marriage with Muḥammad – because Asmā’ was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah. See: al-Iṣabah of Ibn Ḥajar, 8:14.”
The answer is:
This is the reasoning of one who has no understanding of the science! Thus, he adheres to incoherent conjectures, and abandons the testimony of the very individual in question – that is, Mother of the Believers, ‘Ā’ishah, Allāh be pleased with her – which a multitude of trustworthy reporters narrated from her.
[This is] because Abū Nu‘aym, whom Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852) is quoting, is Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī (d. 430 H), as found in his book: Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3252). How can someone who came four centuries later cast doubt on the testimony of the very individual in question (Allāh be pleased with her)?!
This is the passage of Abū Nu‘aym, so we may discuss it. He (Allāh have mercy on him) said: “She was older than ‘Ā’ishah. She was born 27 years before the dating [i.e. Hijrah], and 10 years before the messengership of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). She was born when her father, al-Ṣiddīq, was 21 years [old] on the day of her birth. Asmā’ died in the year 73 at Makkah some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr was killed. She was 100 years old and her sight had gone.”
There is a clear contradiction in this statement. Had it not been that I confirmed the accuracy of it from the book of Abū Nu‘aym, from both its printed and manuscript [copies], and from Ibn ‘Asākir’s verbatim quote from him in Tārīkh Dimashq, I would have speculated that some distortion occurred in it. The reasons for contradiction are a few:
1. One born before the dating – i.e. Hijrah – by 27 years will, at the time of messengership, be 14 years old, not 10 like Abū Nu‘aym said, nor would it be, as appears in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī, where he said: “Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī Fustuqah narrated to us, saying: Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, died in the year 73 some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr. She was the sister of ‘Ā’ishah on her father’s side, while the mother of Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr was: Qutaylah bint ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā ibn ‘Abd ibn As‘ad from Banū Mālik ibn Ḥisl. Asmā’ was on the day she died 100 years old, and she was born 27 years before the dating, and 17 years before the messengership of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).”
2. If she was born 10 years before the messengership as stated by Abū Nu‘aym, her age would be 23 years at the Hijrah, and her age in the year 73 would be 96 years, not 90 and not 100.
3. And one who was 17 years old at the messengership, her age in the year 73 would not be 90 nor 100.
Despite this inconsistency in the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and part of it contradicting the other part, if Abū Nu‘aym’s statement is still accepted, it should be accepted with regards to the age of ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her) on the day of her marriage. Abū Nu‘aym himself mentioned that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) married her when she was 9 years old, as found in his book Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3208).
If we went ahead to study the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and to identify his source in specifying the age of Asmā’, it would become clear that Abū Nu‘aym specified her age based on what Ibn Mandah before him transmitted in Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah – and the book of Ibn Mandah is from the most important sources of Abū Nu‘aym as is well-known – to Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, he said: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” This is an authentic report from ‘Urwah. Based on its apparent, Asmā’ was born 14 years before the messengership, because one who died in the year 73 H at 100 years would be 27 years old at the time of the Hijrah, and when you take out 13 years for the messengership before the Hijrah, she would be born 14 years before the messengership.
Notice that this chain is also from the ḥadīth of Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, like one of the chains specifying the age of ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, the one who weakens that must weaken this, especially since it goes against the rest of the narrators from ‘Ā’ishah as well as ‘Urwah, as has come before.
The truth is we ought to harmonise [the two narrations], and this is what will come shortly.
Regarding the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it has only been transmitted from the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād, as transmitted by al-Rib‘ī in al-Muntaqā fī Akhbār al-Aṣma‘ī (65) and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Istī‘āb and others.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is from the successors of the Tābi‘īn, and died in the year 174 H, that is, there are 100 years or more between him and the death of Asmā’ and her sister ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, it is a manifestly broken chain, not valid in establishing the difference in age between them at all, and in terms of authenticity, it cannot be measured against what is authentic and well-established from ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her), the very individual in question, in mentioning her age, through numerous routes from her.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is also one of those from whom it is established that he narrated the age of ‘Ā’ishah at the time of [the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace)] moving in with her, and that she was 9 years old, as has come earlier. I wonder at one who claims to [follow] an academic methodology, how he gives priority to the weak over the authentic, and how he weakens the authentic and authenticates the weak!
Furthermore, Ibn Abi l-Zinād was not sure of this difference in age. He said, as found with Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr: “She was 10 years or so older than ‘Ā’ishah.” The statement, “or so” proves he had no certainty, and thus bears interpretation to the extent that doubt over such a thing can accommodate for.
One who wishes to follow an academic methodology should rely on the authentic transmissions on the calculation of the age of ‘Ā’ishah at her marriage, as compared with the age of Asmā’. Thus, since the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) moved in with ‘Ā’ishah in Shawwāl of the second year of Hijrah, meaning about a year and a half after Hijrah, and she was 9 years [of age], her birth would be 5 years after the messengership – and that is by subtracting 8 from the 13 years of messengership [before Hijrah]. And since she was born around 5 years after messengership, and there were 10 years between her and Asmā’, Asmā’ would have been born 5 years before messengership. Since she was born 5 years before the messengership, and we add the 13 years of messengership and what we are sure of regarding her death in the year 73 H, her age would be 91 years old [at the time of death].
Also based on this calculation, since Asmā’ passed away when she was 91 years old and passed away in the year 73 H, this entails that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah, not 27. This date – that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah – is the date that matches with what ‘Ā’ishah reported about herself as is established from her.
This calculation is the one that the true people of learning have come to, not those concealed from knowledge. Imām al-Dhahabī quotes the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād about Asmā’ in al-Siyar (3:380), “She was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah,” and follows it up by saying: “I say: Based on this, her age would be 91 years [at the time of death].”
‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr’s intent when he mentioned that she reached 100 was to round-up as common amongst the Arabs in units within the tens [being rounded up] to the tens [i.e. 10, 20, 30 etc.] or to its halfway point [i.e. 15, 25, 35 etc.]. This is a well-known Arab style based on ease. It is supported by [the fact] that ‘Urwah’s statement appears in the context of wanting to explain her old age despite her healthy body and mind: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” Such a context is most likely one in which the small difference [from 100] is rounded-up to 100. It is as if he is saying: She exceeded 90 years and was coming towards 100.
If we understand Ibn Abi l-Zinād’s statement as his intent to approximate the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it is possible Asmā’ was about 15 years older than ‘Ā’ishah, so that her age at the time of her death in the year 73 H would be 96 years. Academically, this is a possible mathematical operation, based on making the established reports, not the weak ones, the basis of the calculation. This second calculation was alluded to by Imām al-Dhahabī when he mentioned that Asmā’ was 10 and “some” years older than ‘Ā’ishah, as found in al-Siyar (2:288). “Some” (biḍ’) is between 3 and 9.
I go back and repeat: I don’t know how one who follows and claims an academic methodology can permit dismissing the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah about herself, and resorts to a calculation which can be validly understood to strengthen the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah, as opined by Imām al-Dhahabī; and can also validly be understood to conflict with her (may Allāh be pleased with her) testimony; and then adheres to the conflicting understanding, despite it being in conflict with the very individual in question and despite its weakness and unreliability! If this is an academic methodology, then may peace descend on academia! This is all assuming that the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād is sound in specifying the gap between the age of ‘Ā’ishah and Asmā’, all the while it is not sound, because he was not at the same time as her, and also because he was in doubt over its specification! After this explanation, I hope you recognise the difference between [true] knowledge and fallacies!
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Jan 17, 2017 9:45:02 GMT
Al Tabari mentioned in his History “During Al Jahilia (the time of Ignorance) Abu Bakr married Qateela bint Abdul Uzza, who bore him Abdullah and Issma, also during Al Jahilia he married Um Roman bint Aamer who bore him Abdulrahman and Aisha, those were his four children, born of his two wives during the Jahilia as we mentioned” This is a clear historical account affirming that Aisha was born before the prophetic message This is another example of the flimsy “evidences” presented by those who wish to dismiss ‘Ā’ishah’s explicit testimony. They fail to note, firstly, that al-Ṭabarī himself explicitly states in his Tārīkh that ‘Ā’ishah was six when she married the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and nine when she moved in with him ( Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, 3:163-4)! [1] The particular passage of al-Ṭabarī that is used is as follows: “During Jāhiliyya [i.e. the period before messengership], Abū Bakr married Qutaylah…She is Qutaylah, the daughter of ‘Abdul ‘Uzzā ibn ‘Abd ibn As‘ad ibn Jābir ibn Mālik ibn Ḥisl ibn ‘Āmir ibn Lu’ay. She delivered to him: ‘Abdullāh and Asmā’. During Jāhiliyya, he also married Umm Rūmān bint ‘Āmir ibn ‘Umayrah ibn Dhuhl ibn Duhmān ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Ghanm ibn Mālik ibn Kinānah…She delivered to him: ‘Abd al-Raḥmān and ‘Ā’ishah. Each of these four were from his children. They were born from his two wives that we named from Jāhiliyya.” ( Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, 3:425-6) The last sentence, it is claimed, suggests all four of these children of Abū Bakr (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) were born in Jāhiliyya, whereas al-Ṭabarī, as clear from the context, is saying nothing of the sort. He is only saying that these are the four children Abū Bakr (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) fathered from wives he married during Jāhiliyya. Thus, in the next couple of paragraphs, he goes on to mention the two wives he married during Islām (i.e. the period after messengership). Does it make sense to reject al-Ṭabarī’s explicit comment on the basis of an incorrect reading of another passage of his from the very same work?! Should a "respected and methodological Sunni scholar knowledgeable in hadith, history and aqidah" be expected to present such flimsy arguments? [1] ونكح عائشة متوفى خديجة، كان رسول الله رأى عائشة مرتين يقال له: هذه امرأتك، وعائشة يومئذ ابنة ست سنين، ثم إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بنى بعائشة بعد ما قدم المدينة وهي يوم بنى بها ابنة تسع سنين (تاريخ الطبري، ج٣ ص١٦٣-٤
|
|
|
Post by muslimanswers on Jan 17, 2017 10:26:59 GMT
Wa ‘alaykumussalām A person’s common sense (‘aql) on this issue would dictate that, given the overwhelming evidence provided, it is conclusively and incontestably true that ‘Ā’ishah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) herself stated her age as being six or seven at marriage, and nine when moving in with the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), and that she probably said this on several different occasions. I think one issue about the 'Aql is that well-meaning Muslims cannot conceive how the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) could have ever married 'Ayesha (RAA) at that age; meaning for them the sure evidence from the Quran and many sources that the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is Rahmatun lil-'Alameen preponderates over textual evidence about the timing of this marriage (which could potentially be called into question as far as they see it by means of other evidence - this includes even the testimony of Ayesha (RAA) herself, meaning they would rather say she was mistaken rather than say the Prophet (SAW) did something that is to them unquestionably against Rahmah... I am not sure how one would define it in Usool terms but perhaps for them, a certain Unquestionable General conception of 'Rahmah' as connected to the Prophet (SAW) cannot be overturned even by Preponderant yet Probabilistic Textual evidence to the contrary). Perhaps it is necessary to look into what the 'Aql "instructs us" to consider as "Rahmah to the Worlds" in the general sense (after all, there are potentially thousands of events in the Prophet's (SAW) life that could 'shake one's faith' in this respect if they don't know what the 'Aql truly considers as a general rule in this regard).
|
|
|
Post by abumuawiyah on Jan 17, 2017 17:05:29 GMT
If you disagree on the other evidences, such as the age of Asmaa, then evidence or suitable evidences need to be provided. The contemporary researcher, Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, has provided a detailed response to the argument from the age of Asmā’. His response has been shared on another thread. Here is a translation of what he wrote: Answering an Objection
Someone said: “Shaykh Ḥātim, Ibn Ḥajar, the commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the commander of believers in ḥadīth, narrates, as does Abū Nu‘aym, that Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr – the elder sister of ‘Ā’ishah – was born 27 years before the Hijrah. This entails that ‘Ā’ishah reached approximately 17 years of age at the time of Hijrah – that is, at the time of her marriage with Muḥammad – because Asmā’ was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah. See: al-Iṣabah of Ibn Ḥajar, 8:14.”
The answer is:
This is the reasoning of one who has no understanding of the science! Thus, he adheres to incoherent conjectures, and abandons the testimony of the very individual in question – that is, Mother of the Believers, ‘Ā’ishah, Allāh be pleased with her – which a multitude of trustworthy reporters narrated from her.
[This is] because Abū Nu‘aym, whom Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852) is quoting, is Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī (d. 430 H), as found in his book: Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3252). How can someone who came four centuries later cast doubt on the testimony of the very individual in question (Allāh be pleased with her)?!
This is the passage of Abū Nu‘aym, so we may discuss it. He (Allāh have mercy on him) said: “She was older than ‘Ā’ishah. She was born 27 years before the dating [i.e. Hijrah], and 10 years before the messengership of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). She was born when her father, al-Ṣiddīq, was 21 years [old] on the day of her birth. Asmā’ died in the year 73 at Makkah some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr was killed. She was 100 years old and her sight had gone.”
There is a clear contradiction in this statement. Had it not been that I confirmed the accuracy of it from the book of Abū Nu‘aym, from both its printed and manuscript [copies], and from Ibn ‘Asākir’s verbatim quote from him in Tārīkh Dimashq, I would have speculated that some distortion occurred in it. The reasons for contradiction are a few:
1. One born before the dating – i.e. Hijrah – by 27 years will, at the time of messengership, be 14 years old, not 10 like Abū Nu‘aym said, nor would it be, as appears in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī, where he said: “Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī Fustuqah narrated to us, saying: Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, died in the year 73 some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr. She was the sister of ‘Ā’ishah on her father’s side, while the mother of Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr was: Qutaylah bint ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā ibn ‘Abd ibn As‘ad from Banū Mālik ibn Ḥisl. Asmā’ was on the day she died 100 years old, and she was born 27 years before the dating, and 17 years before the messengership of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).”
2. If she was born 10 years before the messengership as stated by Abū Nu‘aym, her age would be 23 years at the Hijrah, and her age in the year 73 would be 96 years, not 90 and not 100.
3. And one who was 17 years old at the messengership, her age in the year 73 would not be 90 nor 100.
Despite this inconsistency in the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and part of it contradicting the other part, if Abū Nu‘aym’s statement is still accepted, it should be accepted with regards to the age of ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her) on the day of her marriage. Abū Nu‘aym himself mentioned that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) married her when she was 9 years old, as found in his book Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3208).
If we went ahead to study the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and to identify his source in specifying the age of Asmā’, it would become clear that Abū Nu‘aym specified her age based on what Ibn Mandah before him transmitted in Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah – and the book of Ibn Mandah is from the most important sources of Abū Nu‘aym as is well-known – to Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, he said: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” This is an authentic report from ‘Urwah. Based on its apparent, Asmā’ was born 14 years before the messengership, because one who died in the year 73 H at 100 years would be 27 years old at the time of the Hijrah, and when you take out 13 years for the messengership before the Hijrah, she would be born 14 years before the messengership.
Notice that this chain is also from the ḥadīth of Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, like one of the chains specifying the age of ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, the one who weakens that must weaken this, especially since it goes against the rest of the narrators from ‘Ā’ishah as well as ‘Urwah, as has come before.
The truth is we ought to harmonise [the two narrations], and this is what will come shortly.
Regarding the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it has only been transmitted from the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād, as transmitted by al-Rib‘ī in al-Muntaqā fī Akhbār al-Aṣma‘ī (65) and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Istī‘āb and others.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is from the successors of the Tābi‘īn, and died in the year 174 H, that is, there are 100 years or more between him and the death of Asmā’ and her sister ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, it is a manifestly broken chain, not valid in establishing the difference in age between them at all, and in terms of authenticity, it cannot be measured against what is authentic and well-established from ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her), the very individual in question, in mentioning her age, through numerous routes from her.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is also one of those from whom it is established that he narrated the age of ‘Ā’ishah at the time of [the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace)] moving in with her, and that she was 9 years old, as has come earlier. I wonder at one who claims to [follow] an academic methodology, how he gives priority to the weak over the authentic, and how he weakens the authentic and authenticates the weak!
Furthermore, Ibn Abi l-Zinād was not sure of this difference in age. He said, as found with Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr: “She was 10 years or so older than ‘Ā’ishah.” The statement, “or so” proves he had no certainty, and thus bears interpretation to the extent that doubt over such a thing can accommodate for.
One who wishes to follow an academic methodology should rely on the authentic transmissions on the calculation of the age of ‘Ā’ishah at her marriage, as compared with the age of Asmā’. Thus, since the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) moved in with ‘Ā’ishah in Shawwāl of the second year of Hijrah, meaning about a year and a half after Hijrah, and she was 9 years [of age], her birth would be 5 years after the messengership – and that is by subtracting 8 from the 13 years of messengership [before Hijrah]. And since she was born around 5 years after messengership, and there were 10 years between her and Asmā’, Asmā’ would have been born 5 years before messengership. Since she was born 5 years before the messengership, and we add the 13 years of messengership and what we are sure of regarding her death in the year 73 H, her age would be 91 years old [at the time of death].
Also based on this calculation, since Asmā’ passed away when she was 91 years old and passed away in the year 73 H, this entails that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah, not 27. This date – that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah – is the date that matches with what ‘Ā’ishah reported about herself as is established from her.
This calculation is the one that the true people of learning have come to, not those concealed from knowledge. Imām al-Dhahabī quotes the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād about Asmā’ in al-Siyar (3:380), “She was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah,” and follows it up by saying: “I say: Based on this, her age would be 91 years [at the time of death].”
‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr’s intent when he mentioned that she reached 100 was to round-up as common amongst the Arabs in units within the tens [being rounded up] to the tens [i.e. 10, 20, 30 etc.] or to its halfway point [i.e. 15, 25, 35 etc.]. This is a well-known Arab style based on ease. It is supported by [the fact] that ‘Urwah’s statement appears in the context of wanting to explain her old age despite her healthy body and mind: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” Such a context is most likely one in which the small difference [from 100] is rounded-up to 100. It is as if he is saying: She exceeded 90 years and was coming towards 100.
If we understand Ibn Abi l-Zinād’s statement as his intent to approximate the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it is possible Asmā’ was about 15 years older than ‘Ā’ishah, so that her age at the time of her death in the year 73 H would be 96 years. Academically, this is a possible mathematical operation, based on making the established reports, not the weak ones, the basis of the calculation. This second calculation was alluded to by Imām al-Dhahabī when he mentioned that Asmā’ was 10 and “some” years older than ‘Ā’ishah, as found in al-Siyar (2:288). “Some” (biḍ’) is between 3 and 9.
I go back and repeat: I don’t know how one who follows and claims an academic methodology can permit dismissing the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah about herself, and resorts to a calculation which can be validly understood to strengthen the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah, as opined by Imām al-Dhahabī; and can also validly be understood to conflict with her (may Allāh be pleased with her) testimony; and then adheres to the conflicting understanding, despite it being in conflict with the very individual in question and despite its weakness and unreliability! If this is an academic methodology, then may peace descend on academia! This is all assuming that the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād is sound in specifying the gap between the age of ‘Ā’ishah and Asmā’, all the while it is not sound, because he was not at the same time as her, and also because he was in doubt over its specification! After this explanation, I hope you recognise the difference between [true] knowledge and fallacies! JazakAllah khayr Mufti saab would you have a link to the original article?
|
|
|
Post by abumuawiyah on Jan 17, 2017 17:36:22 GMT
The contemporary researcher, Ḥātim al-‘Awnī, has provided a detailed response to the argument from the age of Asmā’. His response has been shared on another thread. Here is a translation of what he wrote: Answering an Objection
Someone said: “Shaykh Ḥātim, Ibn Ḥajar, the commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and the commander of believers in ḥadīth, narrates, as does Abū Nu‘aym, that Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr – the elder sister of ‘Ā’ishah – was born 27 years before the Hijrah. This entails that ‘Ā’ishah reached approximately 17 years of age at the time of Hijrah – that is, at the time of her marriage with Muḥammad – because Asmā’ was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah. See: al-Iṣabah of Ibn Ḥajar, 8:14.”
The answer is:
This is the reasoning of one who has no understanding of the science! Thus, he adheres to incoherent conjectures, and abandons the testimony of the very individual in question – that is, Mother of the Believers, ‘Ā’ishah, Allāh be pleased with her – which a multitude of trustworthy reporters narrated from her.
[This is] because Abū Nu‘aym, whom Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852) is quoting, is Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī (d. 430 H), as found in his book: Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3252). How can someone who came four centuries later cast doubt on the testimony of the very individual in question (Allāh be pleased with her)?!
This is the passage of Abū Nu‘aym, so we may discuss it. He (Allāh have mercy on him) said: “She was older than ‘Ā’ishah. She was born 27 years before the dating [i.e. Hijrah], and 10 years before the messengership of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). She was born when her father, al-Ṣiddīq, was 21 years [old] on the day of her birth. Asmā’ died in the year 73 at Makkah some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr was killed. She was 100 years old and her sight had gone.”
There is a clear contradiction in this statement. Had it not been that I confirmed the accuracy of it from the book of Abū Nu‘aym, from both its printed and manuscript [copies], and from Ibn ‘Asākir’s verbatim quote from him in Tārīkh Dimashq, I would have speculated that some distortion occurred in it. The reasons for contradiction are a few:
1. One born before the dating – i.e. Hijrah – by 27 years will, at the time of messengership, be 14 years old, not 10 like Abū Nu‘aym said, nor would it be, as appears in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr of al-Ṭabarānī, where he said: “Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī Fustuqah narrated to us, saying: Asmā’ the daughter of Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, died in the year 73 some days after her son ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Zubayr. She was the sister of ‘Ā’ishah on her father’s side, while the mother of Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr was: Qutaylah bint ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā ibn ‘Abd ibn As‘ad from Banū Mālik ibn Ḥisl. Asmā’ was on the day she died 100 years old, and she was born 27 years before the dating, and 17 years before the messengership of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).”
2. If she was born 10 years before the messengership as stated by Abū Nu‘aym, her age would be 23 years at the Hijrah, and her age in the year 73 would be 96 years, not 90 and not 100.
3. And one who was 17 years old at the messengership, her age in the year 73 would not be 90 nor 100.
Despite this inconsistency in the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and part of it contradicting the other part, if Abū Nu‘aym’s statement is still accepted, it should be accepted with regards to the age of ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her) on the day of her marriage. Abū Nu‘aym himself mentioned that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) married her when she was 9 years old, as found in his book Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah (6/3208).
If we went ahead to study the statement of Abū Nu‘aym, and to identify his source in specifying the age of Asmā’, it would become clear that Abū Nu‘aym specified her age based on what Ibn Mandah before him transmitted in Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah – and the book of Ibn Mandah is from the most important sources of Abū Nu‘aym as is well-known – to Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, he said: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” This is an authentic report from ‘Urwah. Based on its apparent, Asmā’ was born 14 years before the messengership, because one who died in the year 73 H at 100 years would be 27 years old at the time of the Hijrah, and when you take out 13 years for the messengership before the Hijrah, she would be born 14 years before the messengership.
Notice that this chain is also from the ḥadīth of Hishām ibn ‘Urwah from his father, like one of the chains specifying the age of ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, the one who weakens that must weaken this, especially since it goes against the rest of the narrators from ‘Ā’ishah as well as ‘Urwah, as has come before.
The truth is we ought to harmonise [the two narrations], and this is what will come shortly.
Regarding the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it has only been transmitted from the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād, as transmitted by al-Rib‘ī in al-Muntaqā fī Akhbār al-Aṣma‘ī (65) and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Istī‘āb and others.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is from the successors of the Tābi‘īn, and died in the year 174 H, that is, there are 100 years or more between him and the death of Asmā’ and her sister ‘Ā’ishah. Thus, it is a manifestly broken chain, not valid in establishing the difference in age between them at all, and in terms of authenticity, it cannot be measured against what is authentic and well-established from ‘Ā’ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her), the very individual in question, in mentioning her age, through numerous routes from her.
Ibn Abi l-Zinād is also one of those from whom it is established that he narrated the age of ‘Ā’ishah at the time of [the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace)] moving in with her, and that she was 9 years old, as has come earlier. I wonder at one who claims to [follow] an academic methodology, how he gives priority to the weak over the authentic, and how he weakens the authentic and authenticates the weak!
Furthermore, Ibn Abi l-Zinād was not sure of this difference in age. He said, as found with Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr: “She was 10 years or so older than ‘Ā’ishah.” The statement, “or so” proves he had no certainty, and thus bears interpretation to the extent that doubt over such a thing can accommodate for.
One who wishes to follow an academic methodology should rely on the authentic transmissions on the calculation of the age of ‘Ā’ishah at her marriage, as compared with the age of Asmā’. Thus, since the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) moved in with ‘Ā’ishah in Shawwāl of the second year of Hijrah, meaning about a year and a half after Hijrah, and she was 9 years [of age], her birth would be 5 years after the messengership – and that is by subtracting 8 from the 13 years of messengership [before Hijrah]. And since she was born around 5 years after messengership, and there were 10 years between her and Asmā’, Asmā’ would have been born 5 years before messengership. Since she was born 5 years before the messengership, and we add the 13 years of messengership and what we are sure of regarding her death in the year 73 H, her age would be 91 years old [at the time of death].
Also based on this calculation, since Asmā’ passed away when she was 91 years old and passed away in the year 73 H, this entails that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah, not 27. This date – that she was born 18 years before the Hijrah – is the date that matches with what ‘Ā’ishah reported about herself as is established from her.
This calculation is the one that the true people of learning have come to, not those concealed from knowledge. Imām al-Dhahabī quotes the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād about Asmā’ in al-Siyar (3:380), “She was 10 years older than ‘Ā’ishah,” and follows it up by saying: “I say: Based on this, her age would be 91 years [at the time of death].”
‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr’s intent when he mentioned that she reached 100 was to round-up as common amongst the Arabs in units within the tens [being rounded up] to the tens [i.e. 10, 20, 30 etc.] or to its halfway point [i.e. 15, 25, 35 etc.]. This is a well-known Arab style based on ease. It is supported by [the fact] that ‘Urwah’s statement appears in the context of wanting to explain her old age despite her healthy body and mind: “Asmā’, the daughter of Abū Bakr, had reached 100 years. Not a single tooth of hers had fallen, and we did not notice any change in her intellect.” Such a context is most likely one in which the small difference [from 100] is rounded-up to 100. It is as if he is saying: She exceeded 90 years and was coming towards 100.
If we understand Ibn Abi l-Zinād’s statement as his intent to approximate the gap between the age of Asmā’ and ‘Ā’ishah, it is possible Asmā’ was about 15 years older than ‘Ā’ishah, so that her age at the time of her death in the year 73 H would be 96 years. Academically, this is a possible mathematical operation, based on making the established reports, not the weak ones, the basis of the calculation. This second calculation was alluded to by Imām al-Dhahabī when he mentioned that Asmā’ was 10 and “some” years older than ‘Ā’ishah, as found in al-Siyar (2:288). “Some” (biḍ’) is between 3 and 9.
I go back and repeat: I don’t know how one who follows and claims an academic methodology can permit dismissing the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah about herself, and resorts to a calculation which can be validly understood to strengthen the testimony of ‘Ā’ishah, as opined by Imām al-Dhahabī; and can also validly be understood to conflict with her (may Allāh be pleased with her) testimony; and then adheres to the conflicting understanding, despite it being in conflict with the very individual in question and despite its weakness and unreliability! If this is an academic methodology, then may peace descend on academia! This is all assuming that the statement of Ibn Abi l-Zinād is sound in specifying the gap between the age of ‘Ā’ishah and Asmā’, all the while it is not sound, because he was not at the same time as her, and also because he was in doubt over its specification! After this explanation, I hope you recognise the difference between [true] knowledge and fallacies! JazakAllah khayr Mufti saab would you have a link to the original article? It's ok I seem to have found it jazakAllahu khayran
|
|
|
Post by Abu Zaid on Feb 28, 2017 15:36:09 GMT
|
|