Child brides- Aisha six whenshe married and nine when consummated?

ISAW

I came across this issue before and believe I was recently told it had been discussed here and was referred here.
The following is from a christian writer:
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

Apparently Islam is practiced based on Hadith and on custom established from that. the above source begins by showing Islamic countries today allow child brides. He shows where
hadiths discuss it and the majority of "strong" (these are the ones which are more trusted by scholars over 20 references ) sources support the contention and only one "weak" source contradicts it.

So
1. Is the history (hadith) a true account or are these "strong sources" all wrong?
2. Is it acceptable that such a practice (child brides) become established?

hivizman

This topic came up last in June 2010, on this thread.

I really don't think there's anything new to be said on the issue, but I'm prepared to be surprised.

ISAW

hivizman wrote: »

This topic came up last in June 2010, on this thread.

I really don't think there's anything new to be said on the issue, but I'm prepared to be surprised.

That thread says:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66389044&postcount=6

Sure, there are hadith about the age of Aisha being 6 at marriage, but the SINGLE source for this was a man from Iraq, and it is known that he was old and frail when he related the stories.

Other studies, taking into account the contemporaneous knowledge of Aisha's family (especially her sister), the historical events (such as battles, etc) and using techniques to compare and contrast, scholars have deduced that Aisha was not anything like 6 - but more like 16.

No studies or scholars are referenced.

The above source I supplied does not have ONE source for the six year of age. It has the following in level of reliability:
1. Sahih al-Bukhari 810-870 A.D. 256 A.H.
And lists FIVE sources saying the six/nine age

2. Sahih Muslim 817-875 A.D. 261 A.H.
This is claimned to be "the second most reliable source"
FOUR sources listing six and seven years of age and mentioning playing with dolls etc.


3. Sunan Abu Dawud 817-888/9 A.D. 275 A.H.

SEVEN sources with the age seven mentioned
Conclusion on Abu Dawud: 7 references and no counter-references affirm that A’isha was nine

4. Tirmidhi 825-892 A.D. 209-279 A.H.
Conclusion on Tirmidhi: 1 reference and no counter-references affirm that A’isha was nine.

5. Sunan Nas’ai 830-915 A.D. 215-303 A.H.
Conclusion on Sunan Nasa’i: Not counting English translation notes, the Arabic has 5 references and no counter-references to affirm that A’isha was nine.

I havent time to post the three orher hadiths

hivizman

The question of how old Aisha was when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated has been debated for well over a millennium. An early Christian critique of Islam was the Risalat al-Kindi, dating back to the tenth century. This purports to be a letter from a Christian monk refuting Islam and inviting the addressee to convert to Christianity. To the author, it was simply inconceivable that someone with as many as fifteen wives could "find the time to fast, pray, worship God, meditate and contemplate eternal things and those things appropriate to prophets. I am certain that no prophet was as attached to the pleasures of this world as was [Muhammad]" (quoted in John V. Tolan "European accounts of Muhammad's life", in The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad (ed. Jonathan Brockopp, Cambridge University Press, 2010)). So over a thousand years ago, polemicists used Muhammad's wives as ammunition in their criticisms of Islam.

Based on my reading on Islam over the past few years, there seems to be various ways in which Muslims deal with the issue of Aisha's age:

1. Questioning the evidence. This can take the form of fairly radical questioning, suggesting that Aisha was actually ten years older than the standard narrative when her marriage was consummated, to rather less radical questioning, suggesting that she was in her teens (so certainly not 9)but not as old as 19. Those who support the radical line of questioning tend to cast doubts on the reliability of the chains of transmission of the hadiths reported in the standard collections, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim. This leads to a difficulty, because these collections are treated as fairly definitive by many Sunni Muslims, so suggesting that Bukhari and Muslim have included hadiths with weak chains of transmission is tantamount to suggesting that the collections are not in fact reliable.

The less radical questioning does not deny that the hadiths have been transmitted accurately in terms of their wording but tries to raise doubts about the relaibility of the ages stated in the hadiths. These doubts are based on the fact that birthdays were not celebrated in 7th century Arabia, and people did not always know their ages precisely. There is doubt as to when Muhammad himself was born, so if Muslims cannot even be certain of something as basic as this, it may be that when Aisha's age was given as "six" in the hadiths, this simply indicated that she was a child, while "nine" was understood to mean that she had started menstruating.

2. Accepting the evidence but arguing that, 1400 years ago, the culture was different and 9 year old females were regarded as women rather than as girls. The fact that the various hadiths about Aisha were included in the classic collections, on this view, is evidence that no-one at the time they were collected (which was around 200 years after the death of Muhammad) considered it strange to consummate marriage with a 9 year old female (if this had been considered behaviour unfitting to a prophet, then the hadiths would have been rejected as fabrications and never ended up in the classic collections). This line of argument is sometimes developed by asserting that there were various ways in which Muhammad was allowed exceptional privileges as regards marriage (for example, being permitted to have more than four wives at one time), which did not apply to other Muslims. Hence the marriage to Aisha (which for those who accept this view was not in itself objectionable given the cultural circumstances of the time) need not be regarded as a precedent for subsequent generations of Muslims. Those who accept this position will point to the character of Muhammad as someone very gentle with and respectful of women, who would never abuse a position of authority.

3. Accepting the evidence and arguing that, if Muhammad was able to consummate marriage with a 9 year old, this is permissible (indeed, something to be recommended as part of the Prophet's Sunnah) for all Muslims. I know of at least one (fairly extreme) Islamic website that goes as far as to claim that anyone who denies that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated has committed an act of disbelief in Islam.

4. Feeling embarrassed about the whole thing and basically ignoring the issue.

ISAW

hivizman wrote: »

The question of how old Aisha was when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated has been debated for well over a millennium.

Great. lets see the references

An early Christian critique of Islam was the Risalat al-Kindi,... To the author, it was simply inconceivable that someone with as many as fifteen wives could "find the time to fast, pray, worship God, meditate and contemplate eternal things and those things appropriate to prophets.

Nothing to do with the subject of the thread unless the wives were between six and nine years old.

Based on my reading on Islam over the past few years, there seems to be various ways in which Muslims deal with the issue of Aisha's age:

1. Questioning the evidence. This can take the form of fairly radical questioning, suggesting that Aisha was actually ten years older than the standard narrative when her marriage was consummated, to rather less radical questioning, suggesting that she was in her teens (so certainly not 9)but not as old as 19.

I posted 5 hadiths of eight supplied.

From what source do you get this plus ten years on age?
It isnt in the hadiths I referenced.

Those who support the radical line of questioning tend to cast doubts on the reliability of the chains of transmission of the hadiths reported in the standard collections, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim. This leads to a difficulty, because these collections are treated as fairly definitive by many Sunni Muslims, so suggesting that Bukhari and Muslim have included hadiths with weak chains of transmission is tantamount to suggesting that the collections are not in fact reliable.

So are you are suggesting these are not to be trusted or not?

The less radical questioning does not deny that the hadiths have been transmitted accurately in terms of their wording but tries to raise doubts about the relaibility of the ages stated in the hadiths. These doubts are based on the fact that birthdays were not celebrated in 7th century Arabia, and people did not always know their ages precisely. There is doubt as to when Muhammad himself was born, so if Muslims cannot even be certain of something as basic as this, it may be that when Aisha's age was given as "six" in the hadiths, this simply indicated that she was a child, while "nine" was understood to mean that she had started menstruating.

So dates are not to be taken literally?
okay then As the source suggests if this is true :
1. What does "Sunni" mean if not the Muslims’ tradition of the hadiths?
2. Why Would Allah Let the Hadiths Warp Islamic Society for over 1,200 years?
3. According to Islam, What Happens If You Follow the Wrong Sect?
4. Might the Correct Path be Called Something You Did Not Expect?

2. Accepting the evidence but arguing that, 1400 years ago, the culture was different and 9 year old females were regarded as women rather than as girls.

Cultural relativism. So then is there no moral law? Is child sex permissible sometimes or is it always wrong? If things can be wrong today but right yesterday then why even follow the Koran which was written some time ago?

3. Accepting the evidence and arguing that, if Muhammad was able to consummate marriage with a 9 year old, this is permissible (indeed, something to be recommended as part of the Prophet's Sunnah) for all Muslims.

See answer to 2

4. Feeling embarrassed about the whole thing and basically ignoring the issue.

Hmmm.Not much of a reply there then

hivizman

Thank you for raising the issue of evidence of early polemics actually addressing the age of Aisha. Certainly there are several early attacks on Muhammad from the point of view of his marriages, polygamy and general sex life (another example given by John Tolan in the chapter cited in my earlier post is Ramon Marti's De Seta Machometi, written by the mid-13th century). I have not read the original sources, so I simply don't know whether Aisha's age when her marriage was consummated was specifically referred to as a ground for attacking Muhammad.

However, if these early writers didn't bring up Aisha's age, then this opens up an interesting question - when did Aisha's age begin to be used by anti-Muslim polemicists? Absence of evidence is, of course, not evidence of absence, but if it turns out to be the case that Aisha's age did not become a debating point until relatively recently, although Muhammad's sex life was more generally part of the armoury of anti-Muslim polemic, what does that tell us about the attitudes of non-Muslim critics of Islam in earlier periods?

As a non-Muslim, I am particularly interested in how Muslims respond to the "Aisha's age" criticism. To recap, I have come across several strategies:

1A. Deny the validity of the hadith evidence and claim that Aisha was much older than nine when her marriage was consummated. This strategy is specifically referred to in the document originally linked to by ISAW: "A minority view denies that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old, usually claiming that A’isha [was] 17 to 19 years old." As I pointed out in an earlier post, denying the validity of hadiths reported in the classic collections, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim, is a risky strategy because they are considered authoritative by most Sunni Muslims.

1B. Accept the hadiths but reinterpret them ("nine years old" is interpreted as meaning "after the onset of puberty").

2. Accept the hadiths as they stand but suggest that, in 7th century Arabia, a nine year old female would not necessarily be regarded as a child. Interestingly, the wording of one of the hadiths could perhaps be seen as supporting this: "Narrated Hisham’s father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." [Bukhari vol.5 book 58 ch.43 no.236 p.153.] Note that Aisha is described as a girl of six years of age, but not as a girl when she is nine years old. As an example of this strategy, one could look at this pro-Muslim apologetic website.

People who adopt this strategy are usually happy to accept as a moral principle valid for all time that child sex is wrong, but they deny that Muhammad's consummation of his marriage to Aisha was "child sex" according to the standards of 7th century Arabia. They would probably argue that the definition of "child" is not constant through time and space, and even today it is not stable. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989 - ratified by all countries except the USA and Somalia) states (Article 1): "For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." However, in most countries, even though that age of majority is 18 or more, a young person can legally consent to sex at a lower age than 18 (see Wikipedia article on age of consent). Under the UN's definition of "child", legal sex involving someone under the age of 18 would be "child sex". Hence, what counts as "child sex" has grey areas (it would be possible to claim that, even if the law permits people who are, within the UN definition, children to have sex, such sex could still be morally wrong).

3. Accept the hadiths as they stand and use them as authority for a view that, if Muhammad consummated a marriage with a female nine years old, then this is perfectly acceptable for all Muslims at all times. On this basis, if Aisha is accepted to have been a child when her marriage was consummated, then it cannot be an absolute moral principle that child sex is wrong, since Muhammad, as a prophet, would not be capable of breaching an absolute moral principle.

4. Accept the hadiths but feel embarrassed. As an example of this, look at Tariq Ramadan, in his recent book The Messenger: The Meanings of the Life of Muhammad (OUP, 2007): "Aishah, Abu Bakr's daughter, who was then six years old, was offered to him [Muhammad] in marriage. . . . Aishah had already, in keeping with Arabian customs, been promised by Abu Bakr to Mutim's son, and her father had to negotiate with Mutim in order to break off the engagement. Aishah then officially became Muhammad's second wife, though the union would not be consummated for several years" (pp. 74-75, my emphasis). Ramadan accepts that Aisha was six when betrothed to Muhammad, but equivocates over how old she was at the time of consummation.

Are there any new arguments out there?

ISAW

hivizman wrote: »

Thank you for raising the issue of evidence of early polemics actually addressing the age of Aisha. Certainly there are several early attacks on Muhammad from the point of view of his marriages, polygamy and general sex life (another example given by John Tolan in the chapter cited in my earlier post is Ramon Marti's De Seta Machometi, written by the mid-13th century). I have not read the original sources, so I simply don't know whether Aisha's age when her marriage was consummated was specifically referred to as a ground for attacking Muhammad.

However, if these early writers didn't bring up Aisha's age, then this opens up an interesting question - when did Aisha's age begin to be used by anti-Muslim polemicists?

It does but while interesting that is a general point related to the issue. Interesting as it might be it still isn't addressing the specific issue of what people believe her age was.

Absence of evidence is, of course, not evidence of absence, but if it turns out to be the case that Aisha's age did not become a debating point until relatively recently,

One could say the same for christian writings. I came to this debate from a thread in Christianity forum when there was a parallel debate on hiliocentrism which only became a subject of debate since Galileo -relatively recently Mind you let us not commit a genetic fallacy i.e.the confusion of origin with cause. If Galileo was first to say that the earth moved around the sun it didnt just begin moving when he said so. If Aisha was six when married she didnt just become six when the commentator said so.

[quotre]
although Muhammad's sex life was more generally part of the armoury of anti-Muslim polemic, what does that tell us about the attitudes of non-Muslim critics of Islam in earlier periods?
[/quote]

I don't know. I do know two wrongs wont make a right.

As a non-Muslim, I am particularly interested in how Muslims respond to the "Aisha's age" criticism. To recap, I have come across several strategies:

1A. Deny the validity of the hadith evidence and claim that Aisha was much older than nine when her marriage was consummated. This strategy is specifically referred to in the document originally linked to by ISAW: "A minority view denies that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old, usually claiming that A’isha [was] 17 to 19 years old." As I pointed out in an earlier post, denying the validity of hadiths reported in the classic collections, particularly those of Bukhari and Muslim, is a risky strategy because they are considered authoritative by most Sunni Muslims.

And if the hadith is WRONG then what is a sunni Muslim?

1B. Accept the hadiths but reinterpret them ("nine years old" is interpreted as meaning "after the onset of puberty").

If Hadith is not to be trusted or writings not to be taken literally then where does that leave the idea of law based on hadith or that the Koran was dictated by God?

2. Accept the hadiths as they stand but suggest that, in 7th century Arabia, a nine year old female would not necessarily be regarded as a child.....

People who adopt this strategy are usually happy to accept as a moral principle valid for all time that child sex is wrong, but they deny that Muhammad's consummation of his marriage to Aisha was "child sex" according to the standards of 7th century Arabia.

Moral relativism. which begs the question "if some things are not to be taken for all times then where does that leave the Koran or hadith"
Furthermore while you reference some international law the source I provide begins by citing several muslim countries today with child brides. If it is wrong today why is law based on hadith allowing it?

3. Accept the hadiths as they stand and use them as authority for a view that, if Muhammad consummated a marriage with a female nine years old, then this is perfectly acceptable for all Muslims at all times. On this basis, if Aisha is accepted to have been a child when her marriage was consummated, then it cannot be an absolute moral principle that child sex is wrong, since Muhammad, as a prophet, would not be capable of breaching an absolute moral principle.

Fundamentalism. Who here supports this ?

4. Accept the hadiths but feel embarrassed. ...

But then you are in a position of Mohammad not being the kind of person one should emulate. where does that leave Muslim's today?

Are there any new arguments out there?

They seem to boil down to .

Writings are wrong
Writings are right
We can pick out the bits we consider right and ignore the wrong bits based on today's standards.

the problem to me seems to be what are "today's standards" for a Muslim if they are NOT based on these writings?

The thing is with the Koran and hadith as I understand it they are believed to be sacred writings influenced or actually dictated by God.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

They seem to boil down to .
...
We can pick out the bits we consider right and ignore the wrong bits based on today's standards.

I have offered argument as to wht this is a problem but let us just accept the principle of moral relativism.

If such a practice is wrong by today's standards then how come Islamic countries today still promote child brides as an acceptable practice? ( as referenced in the original source)
http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm

Iran, Ivory, coast Nigeria.

If Islam seeks a return to a Caliphate of Islamic Law are such countries bad examples of it?

P.S. i am aware Iran is not Sunni Islam.

Hobbes

ISAW banned for one week for not following the charter (main rule to get you banned). muslimhope.com is an anti-Muslim site.

Thread locked. This issue has been done in great detail before and more authoritative links are posted in the stickies.