Aisha's age

Apr 2018
1,480
Mythical land.
Its not a direct quotation its a summary of someone who read the book stating and so .............
then give us the name and author of that book,why did you write book name to kitab al-khubra then if this is from some other book?

Multiple sites have stated that the dates, ages, info etc given in the Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra make Aisha 10 on engagement and 14-15 on consummation.
The catch is "which" kind of sites,islamic apologia kind of sites? or academic ones?
if its the latter then you should post the source so we could know where you got your information from.

This site apparently has multiple scholars, links or peoples in the footnote who have cited different to her age however apart from the source I mentioned I don't know if these other's they've looked at are older sources or contemporary ones, you will have to look yourself, same as regarding the English translation of the Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra I'm sure there's one out there.
Actually the site itself is very vague,and books it recommeds do not have english translations.
and most of the points have already been answered before,like asma's age and other things.
you can check my previous post to see the reply on why al-zinaad is not reliable.
and i might add that none of them are older than bukhari

kathir- 14th century
tabari- little late to bukhari
walid-udin - 14th century
Maulana muhammad ali- 20th century

so there you go.

Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage

I'd like to make clear though, this particular inquiry is not my agenda, for some reason Bart Dale is biting on this like its the point .......... it is not, I was just clarifying his ridiculous accusation that I'm lying, I've backed up with evidence practically every point I've made in this thread.
I would like to see evidence of debates by muslim scholars around her being a virgin or not in 8 to 9th century,this is something you have yet to back up from my POV.
and also the change to push back her age to 9.

Even if all I said was incorrect on this particular issue (which its not) that doesn't change the core of this debate which is proving Aisha's age (which we've all agreed is not possible) as historical fact.
Yes without islamic literature aisha herself doesn't exist,so no point in even thinking anything about age of a fictional character as historical.

I've just stated evidence of an apparent variance prior to Bukhari ......... but even if there wasn't, it changes nothing in the main, again that conclusion was done a while ago.

Good luck with your research, I'm out.
k
 
Jun 2012
7,066
Malaysia
without islamic literature aisha herself doesn't exist
You are still yet to set up a separate thread to discuss whether or not Aisha really existed, which is really what you really shud be doing, becos this thread was not meant for that. And yet you keep resorting to that point as a place of temporary reprieve for you.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,480
Mythical land.
You are still yet to set up a separate thread to discuss whether or not Aisha really existed, which is really what you really shud be doing, becos this thread was not meant for that. And yet you keep resorting to that point as a place of temporary reprieve for you.
since you can't wrap your head around this logic,i am going to write this one last time.

1. Without islamic literature like hadiths and sirah aisha does not exist,its a fact.

2. I do not claim that hadiths and sirah are incorrect simply because they were passed as oral tradition

3. hence for me aisha existed and her age was 9,and this should be for anyone claiming to know anything about muhammad.

4. Mamluk doesn't hence its onto him to to set up or not any thread for that.

and for the last time,reply to my points instead of repeating yourself,that is a very non-serious behaviour which is very "non-forum" behaviour.


and as far as what this thread was meant for.

1. it was not meant for discussing the reliability of islamic text either,something your favourite mamlukwarrior was doing for 35-40 pages, so if you have no problem with that and problem with this then start reading again without agenda.
 
Nov 2016
470
Germany
It seems obvious to me that the older-than-9 party in this discussion is mainly motivated either by the wish to purge Muhammad of what they think to be a flaw in his character, or, more likely, the wish to eliminate something (Aisha´s age of 9) what many Islam critiques serves as a target. To this purpose that party relies on sources which are undoubtedly weaker (that is, a lot later) than those which state a consummation age of 9. I call this ´wishful thinking´.

So I repeat some arguments that - of course - have been ignored by the older-than-9 party when posted in the middle of this thread.

Firstly, an age of 9 of a girl in sexual relationships was generally licit in 7th century Arabia. So it makes no sense to think of Muhammad as a ´pedophile´, since sex with a 9yr old girl was quite customary in his days in Arabia and the most part of the rest of the world. I several times mentioned that an age of consent of 10 yr was licit even in most states of the USA in the 19th century, in Delaware being lowered from 10 to 7 (!) in 1871.

Secondly, as to the sources, the earliest source for the 9 years is Ibn Hisham´s version of Ibn Ishaq´s Muhammad biography, the first from around 800 CE, the second from around 750. The temporal distance to Muhammad´s death is only about 170 years, while the older-than-9 party relies on sources that are far more distant (see below). On page 792 of his well reputed "Life of Muhammad" Hisham writes:

He married Aisha in Mecca when she was a child of seven and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin he has married.

The assertion (on which the older-than-9 party strongly relies) that Aisha was only 10 years younger than her half-sister Asma, comes from the scholar Alī al-Qārī, who wrote his "Mirqat al-Mafatih: Sharh Meshkat al-Masabih" around 1600 CE, that is, almost 1000 years after Muhammad´s death. Does this enormous temporal distance make this source more reliable than Ibn Hisham and the Hadiths?

Another source for that is Ibn Asakir´s "Tarikh Madinat Dimashq" which was written about 1150 CE, that is, more than 500 years after Muhammad´s death, thus also far more distant from the reported events than Hisham and the Hadiths.
 
Last edited:
then give us the name and author of that book,why did you write book name to kitab al-khubra then if this is from some other book?
It says it clearly on the site I pasted for you.

That quote is someone translating what the kitab al-khubra is saying in English, not word for word but a summary stating that the kitab al-khubra basically makes Aisha older.

Your best bet is to find an English version of the kitab al-khubra and read from it directly.

I've seen multiple sites (not islamic apology sites) stating it according to the kitab al-khubra makes Aisha older, this is a source older than Bukhari.

In fact one of the Imam's who have stated this is a Twelver Imam who's actually critical of Islam, he was the one who had an interview on Youtube with Tommy Robinson .......... you should watch it, he explains it quite clearly that Aisha's age was doctored and for the reason I've stated.

Its the sort of thing some muslim clergy has always known, possibly from the beginning but didn't want to go against he grain for obvious reasons (people used to get killed for such things) so don't announce it.
 
It seems obvious to me that the older-than-9 party in this discussion is mainly motivated either by the wish to purge Muhammad of what they think to be a flaw in his character, or, more likely, the wish to eliminate something (Aisha´s age of 9) what many Islam critiques serves as a target.
That is a fallacy, I don't care how Muhammed looks.

Its purely down to an accusation that cannot be backed up as historical fact amidst claims from Muslims (a section of them both clergy and normal muslims) that in fact her age has been doctored.

Low and behold, through research the FACTS show clearly that edits, omissions, variations and doctoring have indeed taken place in almost every major works of the Hadith and Sira, even admitted by the authors ........ and that's the few written ones not even the unreliable oral translations most of these stories come from.

This has been accepted by every party that has kept up with this thread from the beginning ......... those who haven't are simply people who have missed out on parts of this conversation.

As of now I'll not be taking part, but any accusations that this matter hasn't been concluded I am happy to copy and paste you to death with the compilation of proof in this thread ALREADY shown and proven.

Good luck everyone.

Secondly, as to the sources, the earliest source for the 9 years is Ibn Hisham´s version of Ibn Ishaq´s Muhammad biography, the first from around 800 CE, the second from around 750.
His "version" of Ishaq which he admitted he doctored, nobody know's what Ishaq's written version actually said because its been lost, only a few fragments exist, none of them mentioning Aisha.

Ishaq's work itself was actually discredited by some other scholars of his day...... this again has all been demonstrated.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,480
Mythical land.
It says it clearly on the site I pasted for you.
No it doesn't,the line is not from kitab al kubra,but from a 20th century muslim scholar where age of aisha was not fitting with modern perception.


That quote is someone translating what the kitab al-khubra is saying in English, not word for word but a summary stating that the kitab al-khubra basically makes Aisha older.
no it isn't,the conclusion is based on revealation of surah al qamar which i have in page 4 of this thread already debunked.
and it never says that its the translation or quotation of 8th century book anywhere.

Your best bet is to find an English version of the kitab al-khubra and read from it directly.

I've seen multiple sites (not islamic apology sites) stating it according to the kitab al-khubra makes Aisha older, this is a source older than Bukhari.
Then give those sites,it would be better,infact academic sites or academic sources would be better,translation done by them would be acceptable to all.

In fact one of the Imam's who have stated this is a Twelver Imam who's actually critical of Islam, he was the one who had an interview on Youtube with Tommy Robinson .......... you should watch it, he explains it quite clearly that Aisha's age was doctored and for the reason I've stated.
I am more interested in his sources,the sources he has used to come to this conclusion,so far the whole thing about debates around aisha's virginity has no proof to believable.
especially so that muslim scholars would push the date backwards.

Its the sort of thing some muslim clergy has always known, possibly from the beginning but didn't want to go against he grain for obvious reasons (people used to get killed for such things) so don't announce it.
May be,maybe not,i am more interested in sources of your claims about debates and that resulting in age change of aisha.

i am very much willing to buy this if you can give sources to prove the same.
 
Zanis your best bet then is to pursue the translation of the kitab al kubra that every person / site is sourcing.

I wouldn't just take their word for it either but as they are practicing muslims who speak arabic and are obviously aware of what it says, multiple people have alluded to it from different sites so have a look for yourself.

This is the only one I'm interested in because its pre-Bukhari, I don't care what the modern scholars say but they are the ones who can point out any original sources.

Without seeing it in black and white myself I'm happy to state the kitab al kubra is obviously saying different to Bukhari because if not they wouldn't all be citing it.

There may actually be more than one variation from before Bukhari, from what I've seen I actually suspect this to be true ......... but again, I'm reluctant to spend time researching it because its not my aim to prove this, so it doesn't matter to me as much, the one from the kitab al kubra demonstrates the point of variation enough for me.

In the main it matters little to my argument, these are all internal muslim sources, none of which are reliable for me to state as historical fact, and the facts are my only interest, not what a bunch of Muslim scholars arguing or not being coherent on the details of possible historical figures that can't be proven externally.

Who is there to confirm whether the kitab al kubra is correct or Bukhari?

No one.

If only we had that all allusive written document from the time of Muhammed before any editing, omissions or doctoring ........ before any agenda.
Unfortunately we don't and from the apparent practice of Muhammed not liking things being written down probably explains why they don't exist, I'd even be willing to accept a Rashidun source seeing as Aisha was still alive in that time, again though, they don't exist.
 

Similar History Discussions