Aisha's age

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Yes I have, but thanks for coming.



I'm not going to repeat the rest of your ridiculous quote except to say two things ..........

1. Was it not you telling me not to use words like "liar"?, hypocrite.

2. I have provided sources older than Bukhari in both Hadiths, Sira and the age variation for Aisha.
You haven't provided sources older than Bukhari that state Aisha was older than 9. You just claimed you did. I agree that you have provide sources written after Bukhari that seem to imply Aisha was older, but so far the sources you provided that talk about Aisha's age weren't der than Bukhari.

Nor have you provided any premordern Muslim source that discredited Bukhari.

You have only to repeat and provide the sources you claimed to have provided earlier to stop this conversation. Given how many post there are in the thread, it is possible that I have other looked that post, but for your last half dozen posts, you merely have made claims without providing evidence to back them up


If your to absent minded to not have seen the multiple times its been posted that's not my fault, but I'd prefer it if you refrained from insulting me about it ....... although I wish you had seen it, because it would of saved you 10mins of your time typing up that long rant of nothing.

........... and no, I'm not doing anymore leg work for you, you go back and find it, that's why no one, even from your side is agreeing with you, because they've all seen the evidence I've posted, what the hell do you think we've been discussing for 50+ pages?

I've been copying and pasting previous posts for the last 3 days, I'm done doing it now.
For the last half dozen post, you have been.merely repeating the same thing without any actual support for your claims. We can end this conversation I'd you will provide actual sources for what you claim.

You may of missed it (somehow) but everyone in here, for or against has been discussing sources older than Bukhari for two different threads now, Bukhari is late news.
If what you say is true, it shouldn't be hard to.provide the sources. So far, in the fashion of a con artist, you keep making claims without actual facts to support what you say.

What sources are you claiming are older than Bukhari? Not the Koran or Christian sources you cited earlier to support the existence of Muhammad, since they don't discuss Aisha. No where does the Koran give Aisha's name or age, and I don't see pre Bukhari's discussing Aisha's age.


I
This is another reason I'm not taking part in this thread anymore, these discussions have been had, I'm not parroting for your benefit.
You are not repeating it because you can't. If you could actually provide a source that predated Bukharia that discussed Aisha's ate, you would have done so. It would have taken you less time and writing just to give the sources, instead of merely claiming over and over that you had given the pre-modern.Bukhari sources that discussed Aisha's when you haven't.


Your question on "What muslim said Bukhari's work is unreliable" is the worst question I've seen in this thread and that is saying something, what makes it even worse is that I never said they did?? why would they, this is the version they all signed off on....... 200 years later :suspicious:
You are not quite accurate in what you said. I repeatedly asked what "remodern" Muslim said Bukhari work was unreliable, something a bit different, and despite you con artist attempt to evade the question, it is a very relevant question. If no premodern Muslim criticized Bukhari, then it implies they accepted what's​ he said, including Aisha's age being only 9. It is a case of blatant dishonesty to imply that a many pre-modern Muslims did.not believe that Aisha's age wasn't 9. If the premodern Muslims didn't think Aisha's age was 9, they would have commented and objected to what Bukhari said, and criticize him for false reports about Muhammad, but they didn't, which means they thought Bukhari was reporting the truth.

Pretty much more all.of what we know about Muhammad, except for a few snippets that did not include Aisha, are from.more than a hundred years after Muhammad, actually more like 200 years. Although Ishaq was supposedly written 100 years after Muhammad, we only have quotes of Ishaq from quotes.of others 200 years later. And I don't see anywhere in Ishaq's work where he mentioned the age of Aisha being older than 9 when Muhammad had sex with here.

This entire post you you have just attacked what I said, and made claims without providing actual evidence. I sincerely apologise if you had named those premodern sources in some previous post I overlooked, but when you claim in a half dozen previous post to have named those sources without actually providing the name, I can only conclude you really don't have such a pre Bukhari source that gives Bukhari's name, otherwise you would have given the name of those sources in your previous post.

It cannot be denied that Bukhari said that Aisha was only 9, and that many Muslims took Bukhari as a reliable source. It would be a case of dishonesty that deny that there were and still are, Muslims that thought Aisha was only 9 when Muhammad had sex with her.

So far, you haven't answered a single one of my questions I asked you in my last several post, evading the questions or trying to dismiss them as irrelevant, and at best only claimed to have answered some of them in some earlier post which I can't find. Some Gallup and other polls indicate that some 10% of Muslims support suicide bombings and other Muslim terrorist attacks by groups like ISIS and others, so we shouldn't be surprised that some Muslims are dishonest about Muhammad having sex with 9 year old girl.

It isn't just Aisha, there are are number of actions of Muhammad reported in Muslim sources that portray Muhammad in not a positive light. Tell me, are you also claiming that Muslim sources did not claim:

1. Sanction the killing of people whose only crime was to merely criticize Muhammad, such as the woman poet who was killed while sleeping with here young child

2. Having sex with a woman against here will, i.e. rape (Mary, the Coptic slave)?

3. Killed all the men, and made slaves.of.all the women.and children of a village? And spared the lives of another village only after taking all their property?

4. Had thieving murders brutually tortured to death?

I.am just curious if you reject everything thing that is negative about Muhammad I old Muslim sources, or only this one item about Aisha's age? There are a number of things in pre-modern Muslim.sourcez about Muhammad modern people.would find objectionable, but standards in medieval times are the same.
 
You haven't provided sources older than Bukhari that state Aisha was older than 9. You just claimed you did. I agree that you have provide sources written after Bukhari that seem to imply Aisha was older, but so far the sources you provided that talk about Aisha's age weren't der than Bukhari.
Bart Dale .......... just go home mate seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

For the record I have not once provided a source "after" Bukhari, so your talking absolute nonsense, anyway here I come with the copy and paste again ..............

One and I mean one last time, I'm going to do this ................

Post #549 page 55

I'll even go into more detail than what was posted ...........

Author: Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi
Born: 789 AD
Book: Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra

Compared to Bukhari, born: 810 AD ........ I believe that qualifies as before Bukhari, but thanks for calling me a liar.

This is the apparent translation of what was said in the book.

"Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

He claimed his sources for his book on the life of Muhammed were his source Hisham ibn Urwah (a grandson of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam).

........ its actually getting boring reigning in your wild accusations and winning these debates so thoroughly, quite embarrassing for you I imagine?
Maybe you missed it ......... just like you seem to have missed every bit of information in this entire thread?
 
Jun 2012
7,099
Malaysia
since you can't wrap your head around this logic,i am going to write this one last time.
I can. Even around logic as convoluted as yours. I just do not agree with it. You are the one continuously bringing it up, the Aisha existence part, not MamlukWarrior. So, you are the one who shud be setting up a new thread for that. So, why don't you just do it. Unless you're scared of what's possibly going to happen.
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Bart Dale .......... just go home mate seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

For the record I have not once provided a source "after" Bukhari, so your talking absolute nonsense, anyway here I come with the copy and paste again ..............



Maybe you missed it ......... just like you seem to have missed every bit of information in this entire thread?
Thank you for the post, but other sources that quoting Ibn Sa'ad al Baghdadi do not have him specific age of Aisha when Muhammad had sex with her, although it did say she was 9 at her marriage. The words you quote as coming from the Tabaqat appear to be the translator's comments, and not the actual words of the source. Modern Muslims try to make Aisha older when Muhammad had sex with her since they know how disgusting it is for a man of 50 to have sex with a 9 year old, or even best case 15 year old.

Ishaq, which predates Ibn Sa'ad, specifical gives Aisha's age as 7 when she was married to Muhammad, and was 9 or 10 when she began living with Muhammad, i.e, began having sex with him. This is consistent with what Bukhari, and Bukhari's slight differences shows that Bukhari was just quoting from Ishaq.

So our oldest Muslim sources have Aisha around 9 or 10, and Ishaq is older than the Tabaqat. And Ibn Sa'ad is only a few decades older than Bukhari, and still s 150 years after the events. The difference between 150 -175 is not that much better than 175-200.

Just give it. Even if some Muslims thought Aisha was older than 9, other Muslims clearly did not. There is no reason to believe Ibn Sa'ad over Bukhari. Clearly some Muslims thought Aisha was only 9, and given that most pre-modern Muslims found Bukhari was reliable, the Muslims who believed Aisha was 9 when Muhammad had sex with her were not some fringe Muslim groups.
 
Last edited:
Ishaq, which predates Ibn Sa'ad, specifical gives Aisha's age as 7 when she was married to Muhammad, and was 9 or 10 when she began living with Muhammad, i.e, began having sex with him. This is consistent with what Bukhari, and Bukhari's slight differences shows that Bukhari was just quoting from Ishaq.
Prove it.

Prove that Ishaq even said Aisha was 7!

......... I know you can't because its impossible, Ishaq's documents don't exist save for a few fragments, none of which mention Aisha, the only person who told you Ishaq said Aisha was 7 / 6 is Bukhari or Hisham, both of whom have edited, omitted and doctored their work through their own admission, both of whom worked for the same Abbasid Caliphate / Muslim clerics who wanted her age settled and with a possible agenda in mind.

So no, you have nothing in writing that pre-dates the Tabaqat just hearsay.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
I can. Even around logic as convoluted as yours. I just do not agree with it. You are the one continuously bringing it up, the Aisha existence part, not MamlukWarrior. So, you are the one who shud be setting up a new thread for that. So, why don't you just do it. Unless you're scared of what's possibly going to happen.
no you couldn't.

My point was only to prove how inconsistent mamlukwarrior's logic is,and i have successfully done it.

and i am not asking it,i am stating it as a fact that aisha didn't exist without islamic literature like sirah and hadiths.

so go ahead and bring to proof to prove me wrong or just leave the topic altogether.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
Zanis your best bet then is to pursue the translation of the kitab al kubra that every person / site is sourcing.
Actually thats the point,the site you redirected me to didn't talk anything about kitab al kubra in the first place,it only talks about muhammad ali's conclusion based on revealation date of surah al qamar.
(from his book,your quote is from)

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.
I would trust academics over random muslims anyday,so anything by them is welcome.

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
yes,so any scholar who has translated the kubra?i have to yet to see any of that.

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.
Speak a lie 100 times for it to become the truth.
not much hard to copy paste something one person has said.

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.
yes kubra will prove the point of variation but for that you have to prove the source of your quote in the first place.

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.
Point here is proving the variation within muslim sources,right?for that you have to provide something more than your own word,or apologia from random muslims.

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.
yes they don't,but i am asking for the points you have stressed on till now (debate by scholars on virginity and this subsequently used to push her age back.)
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
511
Germany
Author: Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi
Born: 789 AD
Book: Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra

Compared to Bukhari, born: 810 AD ........ I believe that qualifies as before Bukhari,.
I already wrote that the oldest source for the age of 9 is Ibn Hisham´s "Life of Muhammad", written in or very short after 800, when Ibn Sa´d was only 16 or 17 years old. So if the author´s birth date is a crucial argument as you yourself suggest by indicating that Ibn Sa´d outdoes Bukhari for that reason, you should admit that Ibn Hisham (died in 833, exact birth date unknown) outdoes Ibn Sa´d (born 784, not 789, as you write) for the same reason...

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.
 
Last edited:
I already wrote that the oldest source for the age of 9 is Ibn Hisham´s "Life of Muhammad", written in or very short after 800, when Ibn Sa´d was only 16 or 17 years old. So if the author´s birth date is a crucial argument as you yourself suggest by indicating that Ibn Sa´d outdoes Bukhari for that reason, you should admit that Ibn Hisham (died in 833, exact birth date unknown) outdoes Ibn Sa´d (born 784, not 789, as you write) for the same reason...

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.
That wasn't the question though was it?

Bart Dale specifically said "Before Bukhari", so no, I have my facts well in order.

........ and Hisham is no light bearer anyway, we've already discussed the writer of the Sira Hisham based his work off who's even older than him so again, you're not offering any new stones that haven't already been un-turned.

The matter has already been settled.
 

Similar History Discussions