Age of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) in response to Mufti Abu Layth

Muftī Abū Layth’s recent video lecture has rekindled a modern debate surrounding the age of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) when she married the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The purpose of this piece is not to speak ill or fulfil some personal vendetta against him (as I do not know much about him), rather I was simply asked by a student about the lecture, so I watched the video and was not convinced by the arguments put forth and thought a response was in order. The age of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) is not a new case in terms of modern history, but very new when looked at through the lens of Islamic intellectual history. In a future article it may be useful to map out the history of the debate and methods used from the early 20th century till our time so as to give the readers a better background to the topic at hand insha’allah.

Muftī Zameelur Rahman has done an excellent job in analysing the chains for this report and demonstrated that a number of narrators had reported the age of 6/7 at the time of her marriage to the Prophet ﷺ. The following are the narrators who have narrated this from her:

1. ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr (23 – 94 H)

2. Al-Aswad ibn Yazīd (pre-Hijrah – 75 H)

3. Abū Salamah ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥman (22 – 94 H)

4. Yaḥyā ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥāṭib

5. Abū ‘Ubaydah ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn Mas‘ūd (25 – 81 H)

6. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umayr (ca. 35 – 136 H)

7. Al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad (ca. 40 – 107 H)

It has also been reported from:

8. Ibn Abī Mulaykah (38 – 118 H)

Mufti Zameelur Rahman's article can be viewed here: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/560/ths-age-isha-iyall-anh

So we can say with some confidence that it was Ᾱ’ishah (rd) who had reported her age and this would be accepted as the most accurate unless there is stronger evidence to suggest that she was in error when informing people about her age. Alternatively one may want to lay the error on the narrators from Ᾱ’ishah (rd), but the burden of proof would be on the one claiming error to critically analyse the above chains and state who is responsible for such an error and why.

Muftī Abū Layth decided to begin by discussing the early history of Islamic legal thought, stating that there were two groups of scholars; the Ḥadīth absolutists and the Ḥadīth relativists. The former were very conforming to the Ḥadīth and treated them as embodiments of the highest level of truth. The Shafi’īs[1] and Ḥanbalīs are said to represent this Ḥadīth-centric strand. The other two Madhabs, Ḥanafīs and Mālikīs[2], are those who look at Ḥadīth as bound by the wider principles of Islamic law, so if any given Ḥadīth is to contradict one of these wider principles, the Ḥadīth would be interpreted away or even rejected. Naturally this is a very simplified image of their positions and fails to capture much of the nuances of these schools[3] (a fact I am sure Muftī Abū Layth would agree with). That being said, I don’t see the relevance of the above discussion, as interesting as it may be, to the point at hand. As even Ḥadīth ‘absolutists’ would not be shy to state that some Ḥadīth had some historical date which is incorrect, considering that there was some weighty alternative to such a thing. Likewise the Ḥadīth ‘relativists’ would not reject a Ḥadīth because it sounded a bit weird, it would have to contradict some verses they had considered to be extremely clear or a principle which they believed to be overriding[4].

Be that as it may, let us turn to the evidences put forth by Muftī Abū Layth and see if there is enough weight so as to correct Ᾱ’ishah (rd) or her students for having given her age incorrectly. He presents three Ḥadīth in Bukhārī which supposedly contradict the Ḥadīth under discussion.

Before this he mentions some background to the marriage which is meant to indicate towards the fact that the Prophet ﷺ had suffered greatly via the loss of his wife Kadījah (rd) and his uncle Abū Țālib, so the idea of marriage was meant for him to find a companion. He appeals to the Ḥadīth of Khawlah bint Ḥakīm (Musnad Aḥmad #26769) where this information can be found. Two important facts are left ignored, which would in fact make this point redundant. Firstly Khawlah did ask the Prophet ﷺ if he would want to marry and then presented two options to him, Ᾱ’ishah (rd) and Sawdah bint Zam’ah (rd). In the same narration he does go onto marry Sawdah (rd) as well (which Muftī Abū Layth mentioned). Sawdah (rd) had previously been married and of an older age (Sīrah Ibn Isḥāq 1/254). So if the idea was companionship, as stated by Muftī Abū Layth, then that would have been fulfilled with this marriage.

More importantly this very narration utilized by Muftī Abū Layth has the age of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) at six! So it is a very strange to use a narration when it explicitly states the very opposite of what is being claimed. The full narration is as follows:




We now move onto the Hadīth in Bukhārī which are meant to challenge the age-of-six Ḥadīth. The first Ḥadīth has Ᾱ’ishah (rd) stating that she was a Jāriyah that was still playing (to emphasise the fact she was really young) when a specific verse of Sūrah al-Qamar was revealed. Muftī Abū Layth makes a few points based on this narration, firstly he states that a Jāriyah in Arabic refers to a girl approaching adolescence and approximately between the ages of 6-13. The second point is that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) said she remembered when these verses were revealed and finally that this verse of Sūrah al-Qamar was revealed 7 years before the battle of Badr (assuming that al-Qurtubī’s citation of this date is accurate to Ibn ‘Abbās (rd)) and would have had her being approximately 4 when the verse was revealed, which would have been absurd.

In response it would be suitable first to mention the Ḥadīth in question in its original form (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #4992/4993):




Regarding the first point, on the definition of the term Jāriyah as being between 6-13, then if we are consistent with that figure, it would disprove Muftī Abū Layth’s claim that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) was 18-19 when she got married. Consider the following famous Ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī when Ᾱ’ishah (rd) narrates the incident when she was accused of the sin Allah had freed her from (Ḥādithat al-Ifk).

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #2661:



Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī[5] states that the above incident occurred in the 5th or 6th year of Hijrī and as can be seen, Ᾱ’ishah (rd) refers to herself as a Jāriyah at the time. Based on Muftī Abū Layth’s calculations Ᾱ’ishah (rd) should be in her twenties but yet refers to herself as being a Jāriyah. But we also learn from other Ḥadīth that the term Jāriyah can refer to female babies, those who have yet to begin to eat. Imām al-Tirmidhī narrates the following (Sunan al-Tirmidhī #610, he classifies it as Ḥasan):




The Ḥadīth is in regards to the urine of the male and female baby and how one is meant to clean it. The point of interest is that the female baby is referred to as Jāriyah which demonstrates that the word can be used more generically.

As for the second point that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) mentioned she remembered those verses when they were revealed, then the actual words of the Ḥadīth do not say this. All she says is that she was young when those verses were revealed, that could be from her remembering the incident (which would not be farfetched if she was four or five years old) or she was told by the Prophet ﷺ. Either way it is far from convincing to suggest that this Ḥadīth outweighs Ᾱ’ishah’s (rd) own testimony.

The second Ḥadīth in Bukhārī utilized by Muftī Abū Layth is where Ᾱ’ishah (rd) states that as far back as she could remember, she recalls her parents practicing Islām. She then goes onto to mention that when the Muslims got persecuted, her father, Abū Bakr, decided to migrate to Abyssinia. The Ḥadīth then goes onto mention that he met someone on the way who convinced him to stay and the story goes on. The point Muftī Abū Layth focuses upon is that firstly the Abyssinian migration took place five years before Hijra, so for Ᾱ’ishah (rd) to understand what was going on she must have been older. The second point is a follow up to a possible counter argument, that the migration took place gradually so it could be the case that Abū Bakr (rd) decided to migrate later. To respond to this he states that the wording of the Ḥadīth suggests that Abū Bakr (rd) decided to migrate when the Muslims were initially harmed, suggesting an earlier date, as the wording of the Ḥadīth is (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #3905):




It is interesting to note that Muftī Abū Layth’s strong attachment to the letter of the Ḥadīth to prove his point sounds very Ḥadīth ‘absolutist’. It is also interesting to note that the one to narrate this Ḥadīth is the same Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī who narrated the ‘erroneous’ Ḥadīth of six to begin with. Anyhow, to deal with the Ḥadīth head on, if one reads the full Ḥadīth, it is clear that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) is merely summarising events, rather than intricately mention time spans and chronology. For example the same Ḥadīth states that when Abū Bakr (rd) came back under the protection of Ibn al-Daghinah, the Mushrikīn began complaining of his loud recitation of the Qur’ān. When Ibn al-Daghinah requests Abū Bakr (rd) to stop, Abū Bakr (rd) states that he is not in need of his protection anymore. Ᾱ’ishah (rd) then states straight after:




She states that the Prophet ﷺ was in Makkah at the time and he, at that moment, sees their place of Hijrah (Madīnah). Then everyone migrated. This Ḥadīth then gives the impression that the Hijrah took place straight after the incident with Abū Bakr (rd), although it would make more sense to say that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) was merely summarising the events. Again the utilizing of the above Ḥadīth to class erroneous the clearest Ḥadīth of the topic is something the Ḥadīth ‘relativists’ would even not be seen doing.

The final Ḥadīth in Bukhārī which supposedly challenges this narration is the following (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #2880):




The argument is that Ᾱ’ishah (rd) was participating in the Battle of Uḥud, not as a fighter but tending to the wounded. But ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar was refused permission to fight when he requested as he was fourteen years of age and was only allowed to participate when he was fifteen (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī #2664, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim #1868). Naturally the two cases are different, as one is wanting to fight while the other is attending to the wounded, but Muftī Abū Layth states that if that was the case, why was ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar not told to also tend to the wounded? Well there are numerous possibilities, as if we refer back to Ibn ‘Umar’s Ḥadīth as found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim then he adds that this Ḥadīth was presented to ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz (rh) and he stated that those below the age of fifteen should stay back with their families, so that is a possibility.




Something more interesting, which demonstrates that this not allowing Ibn ‘Umar (rd) to participate was purely for fighting, can be found in the Ḥadīth of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) quoted above. The narrator who states that he saw Ᾱ’ishah (rd) and Umm Sulaym (rd) was none other than Anas ibn Mālik (the son of Umm Sulaym (rd)). Anas (rd) was ten (or eight) years old when the Prophet ﷺ migrated[6]. The Battle of Uḥud took place in 3AH, which would mean that Anas (rd) would have either been thirteen or eleven at the time of the Battle. Despite this, he was present where the wounded were being treated.

The next point is regarding the chains of transmission, which Muftī Zameelur Rahman has aptly discussed (in the link above), so need to repeat.

The last main point, to do with historicity, is the age difference between Ᾱ’ishah (rd) and her older sister, Asmā’ (rd). In response to this I will just translate Shaykh Ḥatim al-Awnī’s response, as it is filled with benefit insha’allah. Link to the original article: dr-alawni.com/articles.php?show=190


[edit: Mufti Zameelur Rahman translated the same portion of Shaykh Ḥatim al-Awnī’s response. I decided to use his translation instead as it seemed more fluid. Link to his translation: ahlussunnah.boards.net/post/1166 ]

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 As‘ad from Banū Mālik ibn Ḥasl. 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! End quote


With the historicity covered, we move on to the last point which is in fact the actual reason presented for doubting the original Ḥadīth of Ᾱ’ishah (rd). As I am pretty sure that if the above type of arguments were made against any other Ḥadīth, then even Muftī Abū Layth would not reject the Ḥadīth. This is to do with the ‘greater narrative’ of the Sharī’ah, or in other words ‘Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah’. I have previously discussed the idea of Maṡlaḥah and Maqāsid and its usage in the modern period. See: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/287/najm-din-tufi-theory-maslahah

As some of the examples demonstrate in the link provided above, the role these ideas have produced in the modern period is about the applicability of certain rules for us. So as an example in the modern world slavery is considered unethical and many cannot fathom any justification for it. Some have stated that the abolishment has great Maṡlaḥah so in line with the Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah. But to now claim that the Prophet ﷺ or the Ṣaḥābah never had slaves and to deny its historicity would be bizarre to say the least.

Likewise one can argue that in the modern period giving the right for the father to marry his daughters off before they reach the age of maturity opposes Maqāsid al-Sharī’ah, hence we would state it is impermissible. But then to go back and deny the historicity of the age of Ᾱ’ishah (rd) at the time of her marriage or downplay the fact that the whole Muslim tradition allowed such a practice in principle (save a couple of names who also did not deny the historicity), then it is likewise desperate and bizarre.

This is why I stated in the beginning that the distinction between the Ḥadīth ‘relativists’ and ‘absolutists’ is a red-herring. As the ‘relativists’ were embodied in the Ḥanafī and Mālikī schools, who both allowed the practice for fathers to marry their young daughters off. (A fact conceded by Muftī Abū Layth at the end of his video). What follows is a snippet from Muftī Zameelur Rahman’s article to really demonstrate this point.


‘Imām al-Shāfi‘ī quotes the ḥadīth on the age of ‘Ā’isha to prove that for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage is valid (al-Umm/Ikhtilāf al-Ḥadīth, Dār al-Wafā’, 10:142) Quoting a consensus on this issue, he then says: “No one differs that it is valid on them.” (ibid.) In the major founding document of the Ḥanafī madhhab, al-Aṣl, Imām Muḥammad quotes the ḥadīth on the age of ‘Ā’isha to prove the same point. (al-Aṣl, 10:186) Imām Mālik is also of the view that when a minor is given in marriage by his or her father, the marriage is binding. (al-Mudawwanah, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2:215) In fact, just like al-Shāfi‘ī, others have quoted consensus on this ruling.’ End quote


There were other points mentioned but they were either not referenced or merely side points. One final point I would like to focus on is how one is to respond to non-Muslim criticism. I do accept the point that non-Muslim critique or even internal Muslim ‘heresies’ have resulted in Muslim scholars giving a second look at their sources and being more precise in defining their views. But just as non-Muslims are more aware of Islam (through the medium of the internet and the general accessibility of information), it would not be long before they see the weakness of the arguments above. The problem then would be that we have accepted their premise that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriage to Ᾱ’ishah (rd), as mentioned in our sources, is problematic and our attempt to dismiss its historicity is also problematic. This, I believe, is far more dangerous.

An interesting and related point has been mentioned by Dr. Jonathan Brown in his work Misquoting Muhammad. His method I believe here is far more consistent and convincing. He begins by stating that pre-20th century; the criticism put against the Prophet ﷺ was vast and included attacks on his character (due to his marriages). Then he states [7]:


‘Yet I have found no instance of anyone criticizing the Prophet’s ﷺ marriage due to Aisha’s age or accusing him of paedophilia until the early twentieth century. Even in the nineteenth century, British, German and French orientalists mostly passed over the matter in silence. Others assumed a Montesquieu-like sense of climate determinism. In the 1830s the British ethnographer and lexicographer E. W. Lane prefaced his observation that Egyptian women married as young as ten (only a few remained single by age sixteen) with the remark that they ‘tend to arrive at puberty much earlier than the natives of colder climates.’ The first condemnatory note comes in Muhammad and the Rise of Islam (1905) by the British orientalist David Margoliouth. He calls Muhammad’s ﷺ marriage to Aisha an ‘ill-assorted union… for as such we must characterise the marriage of a man of fifty-three to a child of nine.’ End quote 

He goes on to say:

‘The lack of Christian and Western vituperation against Aisha’s age prior to 1905 is not surprising. And Margoliouth’s pioneering disapproval was very English. Even as late as the nineteenth century, societies in which the vast majority of the population worked the land in small agriculture communities (‘peasant’ societies) were generally characterized by marriage ages we would consider extremely young. Whether in India, China or Eastern Europe, in the pre-industrial period (and in many areas, even today) marriage age for women tended to be mid-teens, immediately after puberty. Shah Wali Allah married at fourteen, and when a scholar in the fifteenth-century Damascus raised eyebrows by becoming a father at eleven it was because folk at the time were impressed, not outraged. In some US states, such as Georgia, the legal age of consent for a women was as low as ten well into the twentieth century. In all these areas, this was probably due to the need for as many hands as possible to work the fields, hence a premium on high birth rates, as well as a relatively short life expectancy and a need to start families early’. End quote

He continues to go into more detail, for which one can refer back to the book (references are also provided).


The above demonstrates that non-Muslims were aware of this case pre-twentieth century, but only became a problem later on. This criticism made many Muslims refer back to the sources to see how accurate this dating was. Those that bought into the premise that such a marriage would be a blemish, attempted to cast doubt on Ᾱ’ishah’s (rd) age by utilizing arguments and methods they would not have been seen using elsewhere.

And Allah knows best. 

---

[1] Ahmed El Shamsy has mapped al-Shāfi’ī’s journey from being a student of Mālik to becoming the leader of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth, a change transformation which took place before his entering Cairo, see El Shamsy, Ahmed (2013) ‘The Canonization of Islamic Law: A social and intellectual history’, New York: Cambridge University Press

[2] For Imām Mālik’s inclusion amongst the Ahl al-Ra’y, see Ibn Qutaybah, Abdullāh ibn Muslim (1882) ‘Kitab al-Ma’arif’, p.169-170. This has also been quoted in al-Kawtharī, Zāhid (2009) ‘Fiqh ahl al-‘Irāq wa Ḥadīthuhum’, Cairo: Dār al-Baṡā’ir, Ed. Muḥammad Sālim Abū, p.19

[3] Melchert demonstrates how the distinction of Ahl al-Ḥadīth and Ahl al-Ra’y in the early period is quite difficult, see Melchert, Christopher (1997) ‘The Formation of the Sunnī Schools of Law’, Leiden: Brill, p.3-7

[4] For a study on Abū Ḥanīfah and his school’s approach, see Al-Turkmānī, ‘Abd al-Majīd (2012) ‘Dirāsāt fī Usūl al-Ĥadīth ‘alā Manhaj al-Ĥanafiyyah’, Damascus: Dār Ibn Kathīr

[5] Ibn Rajab, Zayn al-Dīn (1996) ‘Fatḥ al-Bārī’, Cairo: Maktabat Taḥqīq Dār al-Ḥaramayn, 2/198

[6] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Abū ‘Umar (1992) ‘al-Istī’āb fī Ma’rifat al-Aṡḥāb’, Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1/109

[7] Brown, Jonathan (2014) ‘Misquoting Muhammad’, London: Oneworld Publications, p.144