Hazrat Ayesha's Age at Marriage.

[blain2]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

If he is also prone to ethical fallacies then how can I have full faith in him ?

That is your personal call. Nobody is taking a gun to your head and asking you to believe one way or the other. Its a personal journey. For me this is a non-issue.

This issue is an Ethical fallacy in your opinion because its based on the norms of the day. Why is polygamy such a big issue today when quite a few biblical prophets exercised this right?

Its all relative to the times.

[blain2]

Originally Posted by aryan2007

One can also show that..Drawing a parallel with what Hindu texts say.. Woman from even an impure should be accepted if she is auspicious.. and a Woman of your tribe should be rejected if she is wicked...(gimme some time for the source k?)

The Quran says the exact same...pick a righteous slave for marriage over someone who may have it all but righteousness.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Blain 2 That is your personal call. Nobody is taking a gun to your head and asking you to believe one way or the other. Its a personal journey. For me this is a non-issue.

This issue is an Ethical fallacy in your opinion because its based on the norms of the day. Why is polygamy such a big issue today when quite a few biblical prophets exercised this right?

Its all relative to the times.

I think you are confused between Morality and Ethics . Morality is relative . Ethics is universal . Divinity is based in Ethics not morality ,that's what separate cults from Faith

[aryan2007]

Originally Posted by blain2

Its all relative to the times.

Nah mate what is right is right throughout the ages...
What the prophet did could be thought of as a challenge/a test... if I want to employ you first I will test you/interview you... think of them as pitfalls which you should avoid...

Now since the prophet was a realized soul therefore his actions are forgiven whether we consider right or wrong.. he was divinely guided...
Even Hindus say never follow what Krishna did..


Let me give you a few egs from my religion ..

Guru Nanakji had 2 sons, 1 was a renowed ascetic(Baba Sri Chand) and the other younger son was a householder.. the younger son loved hunting to which he was rebuked by Guru Nanak's elder son saying it is wrong..
Further verses of Guru Granth Sahib strictly condone killing of animals..
Yet Guru Gobind Singh used to love hunting... to which he was questioned by his followers he replied by Killing them I am giving them deliverance... then he recounted a tale of how this animal was blessed by a Hindu sage that he would be rescued by him...


Now whether you believe it or not is another topic but what I am trying to prove is that Godly men do everything under the Will of God, his hukam... for you to follow it is your call.. they have divine protection ..


So I have come to a conclusion that Prophet was divinely guided and his actions have divine protection...

-------------------------

now, Let me give you an example to prove that Humans are naturally guided to do right ...

For example if I am a thief. and take delight in stealing but if my own house is burgled how will I feel?? or Do you not feel ashamed when stealing something?

another we lie all the time but if some one lies to us do we like?? or don't you feel you will be caught when lying??

Even a kid without knowing the constitution etc doesn't lie or steal naturally..

This shows that naturally all humans except and want to do good.. it is our free will and blinding of our intellect that makes us follow the wrong path...

-----------------------------------------------------

So till your ego, and free will is dissolved aka your will is annihilated
and his will guides you aka Islam..submission.. letting his will guide you...


Quran, Vedas, etc. all books cannot describe him ... he is beyond.. if by reading Quran one achieves Godhood then all Mullahs would have been equivalent in splendour to the greats like Farid Sahab and Chisti Sahab...

till then you must do what is ethically morally correct as to what you naturally perceive to be correct... or what your religion explicity states... the theological aspects of all major worlds religion have many similarities...

to achieve Islam/submission.. through Fana/bhakti/seva/naam/mantra/devotion/worship etc. is the ultimate. aim of many religions.. that is to merge one's soul with the cosmic.. annihilate one's ego... this is Islam of Muslim, the Fanaa of Sufi, the Nirvana of Buddhist, the Moksha of Hindu, the Goloka of Vaishnava.. this can be done only through devotion, service and worship of God....

That is why Prophet sahab said a true Muslim can only be judged by God... who is truly submissive to him.. who has annihilated his ego.. otherwise if one becomes Muslim by reading quran etc.. Prophet sahab would have mentioned it..

Quran, Manu smriti, Constitutions etc. give us a way in which we can live properly follow ethics etc. these are secondary to the primary the primary is submission of your will.. these are all there as a guide as a crutch.. Farid Sahab, CHisti Sahab, Sai Baba, Kabir Sahab didn't follow all Quranic injunctions though one cannot argue their divinity... because they had already become Muslims they had achieved Islam.. they had merged with him.. for them these were nothing more than mere formalities inconsequential infront of him...

Look at the beautiful poetry of Khusro Sahab.. for him the main aim was Islam through devotion and love.. for him Allah was not his mother or father or his child or his master.. Allah was his beloved aka he loved Allah the way one loves one's beloved.. that is 2 souls in 1 body.. that is one lives for the other.. all actions are performed for the benefit and praise of the beloved..

"One who laughs at the plight of lovers, himself needs to be cried at..."

"Khusrau raen suhaag ki, jaagi pi ke sung,
Tun mero mun pi-u ko, dovu bhaye ek rung."

"Khusrau (the bride) spends the eve of her wedding
Awake with her beloved, (in such a way that)
The body belongs to her, but heart to the beloved,
The two become one."

"Khusrau aesee peet kar, jaisay hindu joye,
Poot karaye kaarnay, jal jal koyla hoye."

"Khusrau, what you need to do is,
To concentrate hard, like a Hindu does –
He even burns himself to offer to god."

"Apni chhab banaikay, jo main pi kay paas gayi
Chhab dekhi jab piyu ki so apni bhool gayi.

With my beautiful face all adorned, when I went to the beloved,
I saw his face, and forgot all about my own beauty."

"Khusrau baazi prem ki main khelun pi ke sung,
Jeet gayi to piya moray, haari, pi kay sung.

I, Khusrau, play the game of love with my beloved,
If I win, the beloved’s mine, defeated, I’m beloved’s."


and finally to end

"Khusrau darya prem ka, ulti wa ki dhaar,
Jo utra so doob gaya, jo dooba so paar."
-------------------------------------

even poets have symbolic meaning in their poems.. this is the secret of Godhood it must and cannot be revealed so simply to all.. one has to be truly blessed to receive it... Now though I can put more complex arguements but I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.. hope no one is too offended and pardon for my shortcomings from the most merciful..

[aryan2007]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Morality is relative . Ethics is universal . Divinity is based in Ethics not morality ,that's what separate cults from Faith

Divinity is not based on ethics... if it was Krishna would not have broken his oath to protect Arjuna ... nor would have Krishna practised deceit in times of Mahabharata...if Divinity was based on morals and ethics .. the chaste Sita would not have to go through Agni parikhsha..if Divinity was based on ethics.. Ali would not have been martyred at the battle of Karbala...


if Divinity was based on ethics and morals the God could and would not be most merciful..he can have powers of interference.. this world would be cause and effect with no escape.. he could not deliver us... from cause and effect.. taking his name would be in vain..


If you understand what Divinity means you can overcome it/harness it/achieve it/use it etc.. you can master it...you can claim it..you can understand how it works.. etc.. you can achieve Godhood... etc.


Divinity/divine actions are beyond the realm of cause and effect.. even as defined by Karmic religions..like Hinduism and Sikhism.. and the various schools of thoughts therein...
Ethics and Morals are there to protect us and help us realize our true aim/goal of life...

[aryan2007]

Originally Posted by blain2

The Quran says the exact same...pick a righteous slave for marriage over someone who may have it all but righteousness.

Cool... at least kuch toh common mila..

[Asim Aquil]

Originally Posted by aryan2007

Dude... What symbolism do you find??


In effect I draw the symbolism that you can have as many wives as you can take care of that is, only if you love her/them and she/they loves/love you(if your are multiple bodies one soul...) irresp of adjectives...

You can't remarry without the existing wife's permission.

[aryan2007]

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

You can't remarry without the existing wife's permission.

as ur post did not mention this info .. hence I did not too...

I was merely trying to find the symbolic meaning in the small post of yours and differing from your understanding and not passing my interpretation or judgements...

[Chanakya]

Divinity is not based on ethics

Yes it is .. without ethics there cant be divinity . other wise any tom dick and harry can claim to be devine .
Krishna and Arjuna were unethical in there behaviour during Mahabharata . they paid the price for it .

[Chanakya]

Cause and Effect

Advaita believes that God is the cause and the universe its effect, but as the effect can't be different from the cause, God is immanent in whole universe.

Vishishtha Advaita or qualified monism we can say he propounded Bhakti Yoga as the path to reach the Truth. Therefore it gives a synthetic view of the spiritual experiences of God or Brahman. Heavily depending upon theory of Karma, this philosophy applies the law of cause and effect to Ethical experiences. It brings to light the inner working of righteousness of God and affirms the impossibility of cruelty and bias in Divine nature. As you sow, so would you reap! This law applies to explain suffering for many and comfort for others.

[Asim Aquil]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Yes it is .. without ethics there cant be divinity . other wise any tom dick and harry can claim to be devine .
Krishna and Arjuna were unethical in there behaviour during Mahabharata . they paid the price for it .

Ethical behavior transforms from time to time.

Hindu scriptures are filled with orgies committed by Gods and Goddesses, but one doesn't take that divine example as a permission slip to do the same here on Earth.

Morality and Ethics are subject to time.

Each Prophet came to the world with a message a divine mission. The Prophet is not divinity and he is a human being too.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Chanakya,

Please do not pass off other peoples arguments and writing as your own - it is distasteful and dishonest. Your "rebuttal" is essentially a cut and paste from the discourse between the gentleman whose arguments I quoted and one of the Islam bashing bigots on the answering Islam site.
Here is the link to that response:

A 'Refutation' of Your Analysis of <i>Ayesha's</i> (ra) Age...

There is also included a rebuttal of the objections raised by the gentleman you "quoted".

[aryan2007]

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Ethical behavior transforms from time to time.

So telling lies is acceptable for some time....

NOpe.. Morals and Ethics are teh same...
Theological aspects remain the same because they are grounded in the eternal truth.. in the unchangeable

Ethical/Moral Aspects change because it is our interpretations and requirements that change from time to time.... and they are responsible for us maintaining order in this changing world...

So in effect RIght conduct, ethics, morals are the change.. their frame of reference changes hence we think they also transform..

Hindu scriptures are filled with orgies committed by Gods and Goddesses, but one doesn't take that divine example as a permission slip to do the same here on Earth.

Can you post the source where it say the Gods and Goddesses had sexual orgies??

these kind of posts again serve just 1 purpose.. you can frame it otherwise..thodi tehzeeb ke saath... I haven't seen people calling Muslim prophet names..

Morality and Ethics are subject to time.

Morality and Ethics and their science is the same..
their fundamental symbolism remains true eternally..
simplistcally One must speak the truth, non stealing, be peacefuletc..
our interpretations and requirement of them changes..

Each Prophet came to the world with a message a divine mission. The Prophet is not divinity and he is a human being too.

Prophet is protected by divinity... Like the waves and the ocean are the same so are the prophets..

Please refer to my post here and here for my detailed arguement... against and for, Chanakya and you(for this post)..

Hazrat Ayesha's Age at Marriage.

Hazrat Ayesha's Age at Marriage.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

These comments by the scholar bring up a related question -

1.There is no reference to child-marriage (and consummation of marriage) in the history of the Arabs, due to which it cannot be said that child-marriage was an accepted norm among the Arabs;

2. Under these circumstances, if the Prophet (pbuh) did indeed marry Ayesha (ra) when she was only six or seven, then this marriage was clearly not n keeping with the norms of the Arabs and should have stood out as an out-of-the-ordinary act of the Prophet (pbuh). A strange and 'out-of-the-ordinary' incident, which is also considered significant, should logically be reported by a large number of people

While I have always believed that child marriages were common practice by the Arabs in those days, as do many others apparently, does anyone have any analysis or links to substantiate this?

Moiz Amjad ( the gentlemen who I have been quoting) obviously strongly disagrees that child marriages were the accepted custom.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

This is Moiz Amjad's final rebuttal of the arguments made by Mr. Silas:

Answer:

I shall try to present my point of view regarding Mr. Silas' response.

The First Argument
The first argument that I had presented in my article was as under:

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

In response to this point, Mr. Silas has cited two separate chains of narrations from "Tarikh al-Tabariy", which have reported Ayesha's (ra) age as nine at the time of her marriage. After citing these two chains of narrators, Mr. Silas writes:

I don't see the name of Hisham ibn-Urwah in there, or his father's name.

I've provided two other narratives that do not use Hisham in the chain. Consequently, by the Learner's own requirement, I've established the case that Aisha was nine when she consummated her marriage with Muhammad.

Unfortunately, Mr. Silas seems to have overlooked that I had myself acknowledged in one of my later responses that there indeed are a few alternative chains of narrators, which have reported Ayesha's (ra) age as nine years at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh). However, none of these chains of narrators can be considered as 'reliable'. In my response titled: "Further Exchange on 'What was Ayesha's Age?'", posted on 3rd June 1998[1], I had written:

It should be kept in mind that when I say that all these narratives have been reported through `Urwah, it actually implies that it is only the narratives of Urwah in which the chain of narrators is generally considered to be acceptably reliable. Besides the narratives of Urwah, there do exist five other chains of narrators reporting the same incident. However, those chains include people who have been criticized by some of the scholars and compilers of the lives of the reporters of Hadith.

Nevertheless, considering that Mr. Silas has quoted two of these alternative chains as a rebuttal to my 'First Argument', it would only be fair to present the weaknesses in these chains for the benefit of the readers. The first among the two alternative chains presented by Mr. Silas is:

Mr. Silas has quite accurately translated this chain as:

According to Abd al-Hamid b. Bayan al-Sukkari - Muhammad b. Yazid - Ismai'il (that is Ibn Abi Khalid) - Abd al-Rahman b. Abi al- Dahhak - a man from Quraysh - Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad: "Abd Allah b. Safwan together with another person came to Aishah and Aishah said...

In this chain, the fifth person has not been identified and has merely been mentioned as: "A man from Quraysh". For obvious reasons, such lack of clear identification of any of the narrators is considered a significant weakness in the chain of narrators. It is this particular weakness in the referred chain, which renders it unreliable and, consequently, unacceptable.

The second chain of narrators cited by Mr. Silas is:

Once again, Mr. Silas has accurately translated this chain as:

Sa'id b. Yahya b. Sa'id al-Umawi - his father - Muhammad b. Amr - Yahya b. Abd al-Rahman b. Hatib - Aisha: When Khadijah died

The third narrator in this chain is Muhammad ibn Amr. The full name of Muhammad ibn Amr is Muhammad ibn Amr ibn `alqamah ibn Waqqas Al-Laithiy. His appellation has been reported as Abu AbdAllah and Abu Al-Hassan.

Muhammad ibn Amr has been criticized as an unreliable narrator. Ibn Abu Haatim, in his book "Al-Jarah wa al-Ta`deel" writes:

I asked Yahya: "What do you think about Muhammad ibn Amr?" He replied: "He is not among those, whom you would desire [to report from]."... Yahya further said: "I asked Maalik regarding Muhammad ibn Amr and he gave me a similar response to what I have given you."

Ibn Abu Haatim further writes:

Yahya ibn Mu`een was asked about Muhammad ibn Amr. He replied: People refrain from accepting his narratives.

Al-Dhahabiy, in his book "Siyar Aa`laam al-Nubalaa", writes:

Juzjaaniy has said: "He [i.e. Muhammad ibn Amr] is not strong [in reliability].

In "Meezaan al-Ai`tidal", Al-Dhahabiy writes:

Yahya ibn Qattaan has said: "As for Muhammad ibn Amr, he was a pious man, but was not very careful in reporting narratives."

`Uqailiy has mentioned Muhammad ibn Amr in his collection of weak narrators (al-Du`afaa al-`uqailiy, Vol. 4, Pg. 109)

It is because of such criticisms on any alternative chains of narration due to which they do not come up to the level of acceptability.

The Second Argument
In my second argument, I had written:

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event [from him], even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

Responding to this argument, Mr. Silas writes:

I have provided several isnaads that do not include Hisham. I do not have texts that detail the lives of the narrators so I cannot examine their locals. On the other hand, there are different chains of narrators, and Muslims in those days did move from one local to another, so living in Iraq does not mandate that the narrator was originally from Iraq.

Even though the chains cited by Mr. Silas also include Iraqi narrators and, therefore, are not an all-Medinan chain, yet in view of the cited criticisms, there is no reason to waste any further time on compiling any further details regarding these chains.

The Third Argument
The third argument in my response related to criticisms on Hisham. Mr. Silas has responded to my response in the following words:

I've seen Muslims engage in "narrator" wars by quoting one scholar critical of a narrator against another who supported the narrator, and so on. To find a text supporting their criticism of a narrator is not extraordinary and carries little weight.

It is an acknowledged principle of the scholars of Hadith that if positive as well as negative opinions are reported about a narrator, then the negative opinions shall be given more weight over the positive ones. The author of Al-Kifayah fi `ilm al-Riwayah - recognized as one of the most influential books on the science of Narration - Khatib Al-Baghdadiy, writes:

The scholars agree on the point that if a narrator is criticized by one or two people and the same number of people consider him to be reliable, then the negative remarks on the narrator shall be given more weight... when a considerable number of people consider a narrator to be reliable, while a smaller group has criticized that narrator, the majority of scholars agree on the point that even then the negative remarks shall be given preference, [over the positive ones]. A small group considers that in such a situation, the positive remarks shall be preferred, but this opinion is not correct...

Thus, even though there may be a difference of opinion regarding the reliability of some of the narrators of Hadith, according to the established principle of the scholars of the field, in such a situation, the negative remarks shall play the decisive role.

Mr. Silas further writes:

Further, I find it odd, that all of the earlier named scholars were not aware of Hisham's unreliable Hadith through Iraq. How could all of those scholars miss that? After all, they dedicated most of their adult lives in pursuit of the most authentic, sound Hadith. And, most of the references I've read about Aisha's age written by later Muslim scholars state that Aisha was nine when the marriage was consummated. What I do find extraordinary is that the Learner wants his audience to believe that several of the greatest Islamic scholars in history (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, an-Nisi, and Tabari), missed the weakness through Iraq (if it truly is a weakness), without the Learner having any hard textual evidence to the contrary.

All those, who spent their lives compiling books of Hadith were great people. Nevertheless, even with their greatness, they were fallible human beings, prone to all the mistakes that humans make.

Furthermore, Mr. Silas seems to have missed the point that I had made in my earlier writings. It is not merely the unreliable nature of the narratives of Hisham that come through the narrators of Iraq, but it is in fact this point in combination with other factors, which makes these narratives quite questionable. I will once again try to summarize all these factors so that the complete picture is appreciated more clearly:



1. There is no reference to child-marriage (and consummation of marriage) in the history of the Arabs, due to which it cannot be said that child-marriage was an accepted norm among the Arabs;

2. Under these circumstances, if the Prophet (pbuh) did indeed marry Ayesha (ra) when she was only six or seven, then this marriage was clearly not n keeping with the norms of the Arabs and should have stood out as an out-of-the-ordinary act of the Prophet (pbuh). A strange and 'out-of-the-ordinary' incident, which is also considered significant, should logically be reported by a large number of people;

3. The incident of the marriage of the Prophet (pbuh) comes only through one (or at the most, a few) narrator;

4. Even this secluded narrator did not mention this incident to anyone in Medinah where he lived most of his life and where Ayesha (ra) - the prime subject of this narration - lived most of her life, and waited to narrate this incident till the time that he shifted to Iraq - which was at a very late stage in his life, when his memory is also reported to have significantly deteriorated;

5.It is held by the experts of the field of Narration that those reports of the narrator in question, which come through Iraqis are not reliable.

These points are a summary of my arguments criticizing the chain of this narrative. Each of these points is either based on common sense or is substantiated in my previous responses. It is on the basis of these points that I do not consider the referred report to be reliable enough to allow us to extract any historical facts on its basis. Whether or not these points make a strong case or provide any 'hard' evidence is for the reader to decide.

Mr. Silas has stated that if my analysis of the chain of narrators is correct, then it would naturally implicate that most of the compilers of narratives "were not aware of Hisham's unreliable Hadith through Iraq". I do submit that this could indeed be the implication. It is obvious that the most respected scholars and compilers of narratives were not exposed to the whole corpus of the relevant knowledge, which was organized centuries after their times. It was indeed the hard work of these great scholars, which later brought into existence the extensive relevant database, which we can so easily consult, but unfortunately, during their own times, they were themselves not always aware of all the opinions regarding a particular narrator, for the obvious reason that these opinions were being compiled during their times. Nevertheless, their hard work and strenuous efforts were only meant to serve knowledge - which indeed they did - not to guarantee perfection and flawlessness - which indeed they can't.

Mr. Silas further writes:

I have not seen in any of the Learner's work any actual age documented for the time when Aisha consummated her marriage with Muhammad. He's only presented theory. On the other hand, all of the Muslim scholars above document that Aisha was nine when the marriage was consummated.

Mr. Silas is absolutely correct. The fact is that the objective of my writings on the issue was not to "determine" Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh). On the contrary, my objective was merely to show that the generally held view regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is not based on strong and reliable sources.

I also agree with Mr. Silas that most of the Muslim scholars have held the stated opinion regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of the consummation of her marriage. Nevertheless, the basis on which these Muslim scholars ascribe to the stated opinion, is only the narrative, which I have analyzed in my responses. Therefore, the opinion of this "vast majority" of the Muslim scholarship would only carry weight as long as the narrative is considered reliable.

The Fourth Argument
Regarding my point relating to the deterioration of Hisham's memory and, therefore, the unreliability of his narratives during his old age, Mr. Silas writes:

I've know people in their nineties who were able to clearly recall events early in their life and in history. Even if a person has trouble remembering some details when they are old, does not mean that all of their memory is gone, or inaccurate.

I agree with Mr. Silas' clarification. Nevertheless, I did not intend to imply that each and everything that the narrator said during his old age was inaccurate. All that I had intended to establish was that in view of the deterioration of the narrator's memory during his old age, it can no longer be ascertained whether a given narrative, which he narrates during his old age, is accurately reported. This fact, obviously, creates doubts about the reports of such a narrative. This "doubt" is enough to reduce the reliability of the report.

The Fifth Argument
In my next argument, I had stated:

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah.

Mr. Silas writes:

For the record, can the Learner present one of the traditions that specifically state that Aisha was born eight years before the Hijrah, or perhaps an exact date of birth? I have not found one

I really could not understand Mr. Silas' question. My referred statement is based on simple arithmetic. If a person is considered to be nine years old in 1991, it would logically imply that the person is held to be born in 1982. Similarly, If it is generally believed that Ayesha's marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) was consummated when she was nine years old, almost one year after the Hijrah. Does this not logically imply that according to this belief, Ayesha (ra) was born eight years before the Hijrah?

Under this argument, I had further written:

But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah.

Responding to this point, Mr. Silas writes:

Using a sura to determine exact chronology can be very unreliable. Not all the verses in each sura were revealed at the same time. Muhammad took "revelations" from one time and mixed them into a sura with revelations from another time.

Mr. Silas' stated principle that "Not all the verses in each sura were revealed at the same time", is not true for every Surah of the Qur'an. The shorter Surahs - like the Surah under consideration - were, in fact, revealed all at one time.

Mr. Silas further writes:

Further, Maududi disagrees with the statement that this sura was revealed nine years before the Hijrah:

The incident of the shaqq-al-Qamar (splitting of the moon) that has been mentioned in it, determines its period of revelation precisely. The traditionists and commentators are agreed that this incident took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's Hijra to Madinah.

Ibn Hajar in his commentary "Fath al-Baariy" has indeed mentioned that the incident of the splitting of the moon took place around 5 years before the Hijrah. Nevertheless, this statement does not qualify as an "agreement" of 'traditionalists and commentators'. Maududi's referred statement, in my opinion, is not adequately substantiated. A more accurate statement would have been that all the commentators and traditionalists agree on the point that the incident of the splitting of the moon took place while the Prophet (pbuh) was in Mekkah.

As for the time of the revelation of Surah Al-Qamar, it can be estimated through the sequence of the revelation of the Surahs as given in Ibn Shihaab's "Tanzeel al-Qur'an"[2], Suyutiy's "Al-Ittiqaan"[3], and Al-Zarkashiy's "Al-Burhan fi Uloom al-Qur'an"[4]. According to each of these sources, the period of revelation of Surah Al-Qamar was the same as that of Al-Balad (90), Qaaf (50), Al-Humazah (104), Al-Tariq (86), Al-Jinn (72) and Saad (38). All of these Surahs are generally held to be revealed during the initial period of prophethood. Maududi, in his commentary, has acknowledged that each of these Surahs was revealed during the initial period of the Prophet's ministry.

The Sixth Argument
The sixth argument in my response was as follows:

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

In response to this argument, Mr. Silas has first of all pointed out that my citation of the narrative reported by Bukhairy has been cited out of its context. He writes:

It is always best to quote the entire context of the Hadith. Below is a similar Hadith from Bukhari.

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle called me to present myself in front of him or the eve of the battle of Uhud, while I was fourteen years of age at that time, and he did not allow me to take part in that battle, but he called me in front of him on the eve of the battle of the Trench when I was fifteen years old, and he allowed me (to join the battle)." Nafi' said, "I went to 'Umar bin 'Abdul Aziz who was Caliph at that time and related the above narration to him, He said, "This age (fifteen) is the limit between childhood and manhood," and wrote to his governors to give salaries to those who reached the age of fifteen.

So, the reason that a fourteen year old boy was sent away was because he had not started puberty. But, when a boy reaches the age of 15, he is then considered to be an adult: "This age (fifteen) is the limit between childhood and manhood.

It seems that Mr. Silas, unfortunately, is not aware of the fact that the 'context' of Hadith does not include nor is it affected by any explanation given by a narrator or a third person. The readers can clearly see that the part "This age (fifteen) is the limit between childhood and manhood" is not a part of this Hadith, but is, in fact, a narration of the understanding and interpretation of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, years after the Prophet (pbuh). The fact remains that the Prophet (pbuh), as should have been, did not allow children to accompany the Muslims to the battles, as they would, obviously, have been an unnecessary burden on the Muslim army. Thus, even though the referred Hadith does state the age at which people were allowed to accompany the Muslims to the battlefields, yet it does not expressly relate the criteria of this selection with either a boy's puberty or a girl's menstruation.

Mr. Silas' following discussion on this point is, therefore, irrelevant. We will have to take it into consideration only after its relevance is established.

The Seventh Argument
Mr. Silas has not yet given any comments on this point.

The Eighth, the Ninth and the Twelfth Argument
In response to my eighth and ninth argument, Mr. Silas has stated that there are mutual contradictions in the reports of the various sources.

This is precisely the point that I had tried to establish. In fact, it is on the basis of this point that, in my opinion, we cannot be sure about what actually was Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of the consummation of her marriage. However, if, on the other hand, someone contends that my opinion is incorrect and that Ayesha (ra) was indeed nine years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh), then it would be his responsibility to resolve the conflicting information in these sources by establishing that only those reports, which present Ayesha (ra) as nine years old at that time are correct and the reports, which conflict this information are incorrect. Till such time, the issue, as Mr. Silas would most probably agree, remains in 'doubt'. This is precisely the point that I had always intended to make regarding the issue under consideration.

The Tenth and the Eleventh Argument
Mr. Silas' responses to my tenth and eleventh arguments respectively are irrelevant. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that I could not find the primary reference to my contention in argument number ten, therefore, I do not think that my referred argument carries any weight and, hence, Mr. Silas does not need to write a rebuttal to it.

Mr. Silas' Conclusion
In his response to my arguments, Mr. Silas has contended that because:


1. The overwhelming weight of Islamic scholarship supports the marriage and consummation date of nine years for Ayesha (ra);


2.The only age of Ayesha (ra) at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) that has ever been presented is the age of nine and because I have not presented and established any alternative age; and


3.There are differing chains of narrators provided supporting the age of nine.

therefore, we should accept that Ayesha (ra) was, in fact, nine years old at the time of her marriage.

I do not consider Mr. Silas' line of reasoning to be correct. My observations follow:



1. All the Muslim scholars, who hold that Ayesha (ra) was nine years old, at the time of the consummation of her marriage, do so, on the basis of a narrative, which I have shown to be quite doubtful. The source of information for the issue under consideration, as the readers would agree, is not the 'Muslim scholarship', but the narrative. If the source is doubtful, then the opinion of the Muslim scholarship, based on that doubtful source, would lose all weight.


2. Mr. Silas' second point can be restated as: "If, on a given issue, there is only one opinion among the scholars, then that opinion is necessarily correct". Obviously, this is not the case. The mere fact that the only age of Ayesha (ra) mentioned in a narrative and referred by Muslim scholars is nine years, does not necessarily imply the accuracy of this opinion/information. As for my lack of presenting an alternative age of Ayesha (ra) at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh), it is simply because of the fact that I do not have any reliable information regarding this age. My writings on the issue under consideration are not meant to propose an alternative age of Ayesha (ra) at the time of her marriage, but are, on the contrary, merely meant to show that the generally held opinion regarding Ayesha's (ra) age is not based on strong evidence.


3. The case of the 'differing chains' has already been discussed.

Mr. Silas signs off with the words:

Given the above, there is no substantial reason to believe that Aisha was anything other than nine when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated.

Let the readers make up their minds and give a judgment.

I thank Mr. Silas for his kind words.

Regards,

Moiz Amjad (still "The Learner")
December 23, 2001

[1] The referred response may be accessed at: http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...=375&dis_id=91.

Mr. Silas’ Response to <i>‘Ayesha’s</i> (ra) Age’…