Why did prophet Muhammed (pbuh) marry Aisha at such young age (9)?

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary
Hey OldSchoolContemporary!

About your confusion as to my points, I guess it is because you mixed up where I was talking about deriving narratives from within the context of scripture with where I was talking about the existence of an actual historical Jesus that resembled even the slightest the figure described in the Bible.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So Joseph, an old man, having sex with a 14-16 year old is ok?
KrazyshOt June 30, 2015--
Quote
I think your God is the worst thing created by man. This means that I could give a damn if the marriage (meaning at this time same sex) is recognized by your God. Your God appears to be an intolerant asshole. I want nothing to do with THAT
Unquote
My, My do the hypocrites roar.

Did you SERIOUSLY just dig this post up so you can try to catch me in some sort of contradiction and/or hypocrisy? Besides, I'm not sure how you think I'm being hypocritical here. PS: Learn to use the quote feature better.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's why I brought up Joseph and Mary (who actually lived centuries BEFORE Muhammad did).

I am glad you have seen the light.

A few days ago you posted -
Quote
6/30/15 -- "Your God appears to be an intolerant asshole. I want nothing to do with THAT.
Unquote

What's your point?

Sahih Al-Bukhari

Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)

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 consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)

Sahih Muslim

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309; see also 3310)

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)

Sunan Abu Dawud

Aisha said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: Or six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 2116)

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915)

Sunan Nasa'i

When Hadrat Aisha passed nine years of marriage life, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fell in mortal sickness… ‘A’isha was eighteen years of age at the time when the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed away and she remained a widow for forty-eight years till she died at the age of sixty-seven. She saw the rules of four Caliphs in her lifetime. She died on Ramadan 58 A.H. during the Caliphate of Hadrat Amir Mu‘awiya… (Sunan Nasa'i: English translation with Arabic Text, compiled by Imam Abu Abd-ur-Rahman Ahmad Nasa'i, rendered into English by Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui [Kazi Publication, 121-Zulqarnain Chambers, Gampat Road, Lahore, Pakistan; first edition, 1994], Volume 1, p. 108)

Found in an ATS topic titled "the Aisha myth." Sunan Ibn Majah, Ibn Hisham (already named), al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim and many others complete the list, of which I've quoted the explicit messages and not the more unseemly ones. If myth or lie that's a lot of fabricated Muslim history, yet if true with regards to Aisha's age that's justification for child abusers everywhere. It's a case of picking one's poison really, neither seems overly desirable to the sincere Muslim believer.

The question is why some people believe Hisham ibn Urwah after he left to iraq later when he is old more than other?

Seems got no connection isnt it? It is seems like no connection if one dont dig deep enough, these days we dont even have to go to library.

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary

Hey again, OldSchool!

You'll notice the hadith you're quoting do not contain the whole chain of the narrators, just the last person. They were all by Hisham ibn Urwa (well, I dunno about the one from Sunan as-Sughra, I don't have that handy right now, but I assume it is the same).
It does not seem you read the "The Aisha Myth" topic very deeply, because even in the very first post the author presents one or two hadith that suggest Aisha's age was 6 when she married, and then literally dozens that contradict that view. Certainly, one can pick any choice they like depending on their predispositions, but in this case, there'd be a mountain of evidence contradicting them.

a reply to: babloyi

Hello again, I hope you're doing well. Well, rather than going too far into the other topic, as the writer isn't here to help explain themselves, I'll simply quote the conclusion of their three evidences.

CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age.

I'm sure you can note that attempts to discredit the material is no proof against certain details within those same materials. Contradiction is by far the least sophisticated method by which to search your way through a body of evidence. To make a superior case the writer would have to bring several lines of positive evidence for their conclusions, simply picking holes in the body of remaining evidence that has come to us via time is easy, it's an easy task as we have the manuscript data! A Muslim who didn't pick and choose between his sources can't poke holes in the traditions of Aisha being 32 when married because no such traditions exist. It's only because we have these marriage traditions (amidst others) that people can pour over them in the hopes of finding issues. Returning briefly to an evidence:

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

Discovering contradictory reports of an event somehow makes the event a myth?! I'm sure you yourself can see how bizarre this conclusion is when seriously considered, and as sincere, well meaning and intelligent as this poster is their reasoning must have seriously failed them on this account. A myth by anyone's reckoning is decided based upon embellishment, apologetical elements and well known religious motifs being found within the material, not based on contradictions found across a range of sources.

Certainly, one can pick any choice they like depending on their predispositions, but in this case, there'd be a mountain of evidence contradicting them.

The problem is that the wealth of contradictory evidence which you mentioned isn't coming in the form of historic alternatives, that's the sort of contradiction that causes people to stand up and take note. Rather the wealth of evidence that you and others appeal to will read something like so:

So, based on one account of Al-Tabari the numbers show that Ayesha must have born (613 CE) three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). And yet another place Tabari says that Ayesha was born in Pre-Islamic time (in Jahilliyyah). If she were born in pre-Islamic time (before 610 CE), she would have be at least 14 years old. So, Tabari contradicts himself.

The above however doesn't impress mainstream scholarship, although it's not fair to write that without also including what would. What would have people reconsidering these traditions is an independent, early piece of Muslim tradition that offers an alternative to the marriage tradition without having been compromised in some other way. Yet as you've written this is all that the Islamic world has! There's no smoking gun by which we might derail these runaway traditions, there's only pebbles which barely make a dent. It's the explicitness whereby these traditions highlight the age of marriage which regardless of imperfection leaves so many Muslims believing.

Sunan ibn Majah

1876. ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) is reported to have said: Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) contracted marriage with me while I was (yet) a six years [sic] old girl. Then we arrived at Medina and stayed with Banu Harith b. Khazraj. I fell victim to fever; then my hair (of the head fell off (and became scattered). Then they became plenty and hanged down upto [sic] the earlobes. My mother ‘Umm Ruman came to me while I was (playing) in a swing alongwith [sic] my play-mates. She (the mother) called me loudly. I went to her and I did not know what he [sic] wanted. She seized my hand and stopped me at the door of the house and I was hearing [sic] violently until the agitation of my heart was over. Then she took some water and wiped it over my face and head. Then she admitted me to the house when some woman [sic] of Ansar were present in the house. They said, "You have entered with blessings and good fortune." Then she (the mother) entrusted me to them. So they embellished me and nothing frightened me but Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (when he came there) in the morning and they (the women) entrusted me to him. On that day, I was a nine years [sic] old girl."

1877. Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, "The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) married ‘A’isha while she was a seven years [sic] old girl and took him [sic] to his house as a bride when she was nine years old and he parted with her (after his demise) when she was eighteen years old."

According to Al-Zawa‘id its isnad is sahih in accordance with the condition prescribed by Bukhari, but munqata because Abu ‘Ubaida did not hear from his father. Shu‘ba Abu Hatim and Ibn Hibban mentioned him amongst the authentic and reliable authorities. Tirmidhi in al-Jami’ and al-Mazzi in al-Atraf (has expressed the same opinion). Nasa‘i has transmitted this hadith in al-Sughra from the hadith ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her). (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Imam Abdullah Muhammad B. Yazid Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini, English version by Muhammad Tufail Ansari [Kazi Publications, 121-Zulqarnain Chambers, Gampat Road, Lahore Pakistan, first edition, 1995], volume III, pp. 133-134)

Ibn Hisham

He married ‘A’isha 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 that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad), translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 792)

Ibn Kathir

Yunus b. Bukayr stated, from Hisham b. ‘Urwa, from his father who said, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) married ‘A’isha three years after (the death of) Khadija. At that time (of the contract) ‘A’isha had been a girl of six. When he married her she was nine. The Messenger of God (SAAS) died when ‘A’isha was a girl of eighteen."

To derail material after material that confirms the age of marriage you would have to first bring a counter narrative which was comparable to the above, yet not simply comparable, they'd have to be superior for us to be able to choose one over the other. We have no such wealth of counter tradition however, we have nothing that so explicitly retells the marital age of Aisha. Other Muslims may be content in themselves to shame these traditions as lies and falsehood, or at least honest mistakes, but others aren't, moreover nothing's going to dismantle these traditions until the naysayer can produce a home run argument.

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary
Hey again, OSC!
I'm doing fine, hope you're good too.

As for the topic, I really do think that you should post in that thread, because you're attacking the wording and structure of an argument someone else made in another thread, and posting it here to me. However, if we ignore all that, and focus purely on the statements on hand, we can see the following things:

1. The claim that Aisha was 6 when married comes from ahadith with Hisham Ibn Urwa in the chain of narrators (you quoted several sources, seeming to believe there is a wealth of sources backing your claim, but again, with Ibn Urwa in the chain, they really don't count as "several sources", those're all the same source, even if they were collected by different Hadith collectors- if I posted 50 sources from 50 books that said "A guy who attended one of Lincoln's speeches told me that he heard Lincoln say bananas are horrible", those might be 50 different quotes, but they all stem from 1 source, and it isn't necessarily Lincoln).
   
2. Hisham Ibn Urwa's narrations after he moved to Iraq are not considered trustworthy.
   
3. Other narrations do not mention Aisha's age at time of marriage, but extrapolation shows that they do not match with the 6 number.
   

Considering the previous points, it can be concluded that the idea that Aisha was 6 when married, and 9 when the marriage was consummated is false.

Do you have something that argues against those points or that conclusion?

a reply to: babloyi

As for the topic, I really do think that you should post in that thread, because you're attacking the wording and structure of an argument someone else made in another thread, and posting it here to me.

Rather than a desire to attack it's actually because you would like to advance this variety of argument that I simply had to highlight how the writers who formulate these structures without fail get their conclusions wrong, as is plain to see, so though you've felt convinced by them and written to the contrary it's not through lack of interest that people find themselves disagreeing with these conclusions, instead it's precisely because people have taken the time and interest to engage that they come away utterly unconvinced by the faulty arguments that these apologists readily express. The theories that you and others in the previous topic thought to defend were originally penned by writers suchlike Maulana Muhammad Ali, Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi, Moiz Amjad (The Learner) and T.O Shavanas, though in the case of the Aisha myth T.O Shavanas appears to have been the apologist under fire. About these same writers:

Maulana Muhammad Ali: The first ever pro-Muhammad and provably faulty objection raised to Aisha's age was by Maulana Muhammad Ali who lived from 1874 to 1951. He is neither a respected nor a notable figures as far as Islam is concerned, since he belonged to the Ahmadiyya whose beliefs drastically differ from mainstream Islam. The Ahmadiyya and their writings are also heavily focused on missionary work.

Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi: Adding to Ali's objections, there is Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi (1924-1991) who in his Urdu booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat" (English trans. 1997), laments that he is "tired of defending this tradition" that is "laughed" at and "ridiculed" by English-educated individuals he meets in Karachi who claim it is against "sagacity and prudence" and "preferred English society to Islam over this", and he readily admits his "aim is to produce an answer to the enemies of Islam who spatter mud at the pious body of the Generous Prophet". A posthumous fatwa was issued against him in November 2004, labelling him a "Munkir-e-Hadith" (hadith rejector) and a "Kafir" (infidel) on the basis of being a rejector of hadith.

Moiz Amjad: More recently, there is Moiz Amjad (who refers to himself as "The Learner"). He readily admits to having lifted these faulty arguments from them, summarizing and presenting them in response to a Muslim asking him how he can respond to Christians who called Muhammad a pedophile (i.e. all of his arguments, like Ali's and Kandhalvi's before him, were apologetic in nature rather than scholarly). It was at this very recent point in history that the arguments originating from the Ahmadiyya in the 1920s and 1930s finally achieved a little popularity among a few orthodox Muslims. However, this popularity seems to be strictly limited to articles or arguments on the Internet. Clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the avalanche in online criticism of Muhammad's life, as opposed to a tangible shift in beliefs.

T.O. Shanavas: 'T.O. Shanavas in his book, Islamic Theory of Evolution: the Missing Link between Darwin and the Origin of Species says that there is no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and Quran's numerous references to the emergence of life in the universe.' So T.O. Shanavas who's the subject of the other topic, and who you have been so convinced by, is an unorthodox sort of writer, even an anti-Muslim the orthodox might go so far as to say after having read their complete work. That doesn't mean their methods and final product are wrong however, though that generosity of trust first begins to be undermined when the apologists for a late age consummation (or no age) explain their various modes of thought. Once over T.O. Shanavas explains:

'A Christian friend asked me once, “Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?” I kept my silence. He continued, “If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?” I told him, “I don’t have an answer to your question at this time.” My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith. Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet’s marriage with Ayesha.'

It's the "thorn" in their faith that drove this particular writer in reverse from their religions crystal clear tradition on the subject, not any scholarly pursuit. It's due to the fact that Muslims are "tired of defending this tradition" or that they're laughed at and ridiculed by those who have engaged with their religion that they concoct a multitude of arguments so to remove the problem, that problem being that they were mocked for the material. T.O. Shanavas continues:

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct.

The customary misuse of the word myth found above. So what the writer originally wanted to be the case turned out to be the case, how convenient! The French mathematician Blaise Pascal appears to have been foreshadowing these apologists when he wrote "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive." More incoming.

a reply to: babloyi

In truth every one of your three points are vulnerable to good honest criticism, but rather than lay out a wide range of points that may then be restated I'll quote from both the Muslim and non-Muslim world, since they've equally answered your inquiry. Some context to begin:

'Some apologists have recently claimed that Aisha was actually older than nine lunar years at time of the consummation of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad. They have attempted to explain that Aisha was in fact not nine-years-old as the Sahih hadiths of her own testimony claim, but some other ages derived from misquotations, indirect sources, fuzzy dating techniques and slander. These dubious research techniques have led to several conflicting ages to be proposed for Aisha at the time of consummation, including 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years. This article analyzes every single argument that has been put forward, and provides additional information on the origins and history of the "Aisha was older" apologetic arguments, and the only logical purpose behind making them.'

'The arguments raised by some apologists have given many the false impression that Aisha's age is a long contested issue in Islam, and that it is a valid argument over interpretation that could eventually lead to reforms within mainstream Islam. This is certainly not the case. There is no argument over interpretation. The text clearly say one thing and one thing only. For those who have actually read the source material, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Lying about what sources say may be effective in apologetic pieces, but they are useless if the intentions behind them are to reform the religion. There is not a single serious Muslim scholar, someone who is accepted in the Muslim world and by mainstream Muslims as being representative of their beliefs, who would repeat these claims. Thus, the only purpose they serve is to deflect valid criticism from a belief that continues to result in millions of young girls being forced into pedophilic child marriages by individuals, and even entire nations, all of whom explicitly use Aisha's relationship with Muhammad as justification.'

OSC: The above can be read in full by the end of this message and/or messages, nevertheless I'll gladly lay out various additional information in a more readable version.

'In July 2005, Shaykh Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad responded to Moiz Amjad's polemics with, "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet", published at SunniPath.com. Including many facts that are easily verifiable for those who have access to the hadith and sira literature, he dismantled the distortions being spread by apologists. For example, his analysis highlighted the fact that many of the arguments were based solely on faulty assumptions taken from hadiths completely unrelated to Aisha's age, or were misrepresenting the sources that were being cited (i.e. they actually supported the fact that Aisha was 9). To this day, his scholarly reply remains unanswered by Moiz Amjad. Haddad, who was listed amongst the inaugural "500 most influential Muslims in the world", is a Muslim scholar and muhaddith (hadith expert) who is taken very seriously by mainstream Muslims. He is also a vocal critic of Salafi fundamentalism. Since the publication of Haddad's definitive response, Moiz Amjad's highly convoluted arguments, with all of their obvious faults intact, have continued to be rehashed by countless apologists on the Internet with the same missionary and apologetic focus.'

OSC: Because your points have been carefully numbered they'll be listed in that same order concerning the rebuttals that follow.

Number of Narrators [With regards to point one]

First response:
This is a classic Straw man. There is no requirement in Islam for multiple narrations. Even a single sahih hadith is sufficient to establish Islamic laws and practices. Shaykh Gibril Haddad also refutes the claim that most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn Urwah.

Second response:
Try more than eleven authorities among the Tabi`in that reported it directly from `A'isha, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha.
Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, SunniPath, Question ID: 4604, July 3, 2005.

OSC: Briefly exiting the lengthy article to add an issue of my own with your first point. Now if for a moment you and I were to ignore the above points and agree that only a single person has transmitted these traditions, doing so independently of any other source, that wouldn't make the event itself non-historic. To think that the lone narrator does harm somehow to their case is to misapply the historical method how a textual critic like Bart Ehrman might. Yours and Bart's complaint about the volume in which a historic narrative is written upon wouldn't be of much weight therefore. Thus Bart after having misstated the criteria must then be corrected:

'Notice it makes the criterion a comparative measure between two different events. It says an event mentioned in several independent documents is more likely to be historically accurate than some other event mentioned in only one. As such, by making it a comparison between two different events, it is obviously false because the singly attested event could pass other criteria which make it as likely, or even more likely, than the multiply attested event. The event which is found in only one source might pass other criteria, like the criterion of embarrassment or the criterion of dissimilarity, and then be highly historically probable even though it is only singly attested rather than multiply attested. So Ehrman has simply misformulated the criterion of independent attestation.'

Locality [With regards to point two]

First response:
Another Straw man. There is no requirement for a hadith to be narrated in Medina for it to be considered sahih. Also, many events in the Prophet’s life were narrated by single narratives as well. Does that make them invalid? No. To demand multiple, independent narrations from Medinans is just setting up a standard that does not exist – i.e. a straw man.
Shaykh Haddad also refutes this argument by listing the people from Medina who reported this event.

a reply to: babloyi

Second response:
Al-Zuhri also reports it from `Urwa, from `A'isha; so does `Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan, both major Madanis. So is the Tabi`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, one of the Seven Imams of Madina, from `A'isha. All the narratives of this event have been reported. In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna from Khurasan and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya from Tabarayya in Palestine both report it. According to Shaykh Haddad, Amjad’s third argument is either misrepresentation or a lie. Apparently, the slander against Hisham ibn Urwah is unfounded and unsupported by closer reading of Amjad’s own reference. Rather, Ya`qub said: "Trustworthy, thoroughly reliable (thiqa thabt), above reproach except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from his father and was criticized for it." Notice that Ya`qub does not exactly endorse that criticism. As for Malik, he reports over 100 hadiths from Hisham as is evident in the two Sahihs and Sunan! to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of his alleged criticism of Hisham. Indeed, none among the hadith Masters endorsed these reservations since they were based solely on the fact that Hisham in his last period (he was 71 at the time of his last trip to Iraq), for the sake of brevity, would say, "My father, from `A'isha? (abi `an `A'isha)" and no longer pronounced, "narrated to me (haddathani)". Al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (30:238) explained that it became a foregone conclusion for the Iraqis that Hisham did not narrate anything from his father except what he had heard directly from him.
Ibn Hajar also dismisses the objections against Hisham ibn `Urwa as negligible in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (11:45), saying: "It was clear enough to the Iraqis that he did not narrate from his father other than what he had heard directly from him".
In fact, to say that "narratives reported by Hisham ibn `Urwa are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq" is major nonsense as that would eliminate all narrations of Ayyub al-Sakhtyani from him since Ayyub was a Basran Iraqi, and those of Abu `Umar al-Nakha`i who was from Kufa, and those of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman from Kufa (the Shaykh of Abu Hanifa), and those of Hammad ibn Salama and Hammad ibn Zayd both from Basra, and those of Sufyan al-Thawri from Basra, and those of Shu`ba in Basra, all of whom narrated from Hisham!

Hisham's Memory [With regards to point two]

First response:
This is another slander in which the accuser does not correlate Hisham’s memory loss with the ‘Aisha’s age’ hadiths. Hisham was born in 61 A.H. and died in 146 A.H. at Baghdad – meaning he was 85 years old when he died. He moved to Iraq when he was 71 years old. When did his memory fail him? The accuser provides no answer.
In fact, Shaykh Haddad accuses Moiz Amjad of outright lying.

Second response:
An outright lie, on the contrary, al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal (4:301 #9233) states: "Hisham ibn `Urwa, one of the eminent personalities. A Proof in himself, and an Imam. However, in his old age his memory diminished, but he certainly never became confused. Nor should any attention be paid to what Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan said about him and Suhayl ibn Abi Salih becoming confused or changing! Yes, the man changed a little bit and his memory was not the same as it had been in his younger days, so that he forgot some of what he had memorized or lapsed, so what? Is he immune to forgetfulness? [p. 302] And when he came to Iraq in the last part of his life he narrated a great amount of knowledge, in the course of which are a few narrations in which he did not excel, and such as occurs also to Malik, and Shu`ba, and Waki`, and the major trustworthy masters. So spare yourself confusion and floundering, do not make mix the firmly-established Imams with the weak and muddled narrators. Hisham is a Shaykh al-Islam. But may Allah console us well of you, O Ibn al-Qattan, and the same with regard to `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khirash's statement from Malik!"

Tabari's Account [With regards to point three]

There is also no need to make oblique calculations using Tabari when Tabari explicitly states Aisha’s age several times.
These are Tabari’s direct accounts. He reported it at least five times, making it clear that this was what he deemed authoritative.

The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him
Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 7

I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap... Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131

The Messenger of God saw 'A'ishah twice-[first when] it was said to him that she was his wife (she was six years old at that time), and later [when] he consummated his marriage with her after coming to Medina when she was nine years old.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131

[The Prophet] married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwil. She was eighteen years old when he died.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 131

The Prophet married Aishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 171-173

OSC: The above really goes to show that the explicitness of the traditions can't realistically be undermined by way of whimsical calculations or other attacks on the source material. Echoing the earlier point concerning incorrect conclusions: 'Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.'

a reply to: babloyi

Conclusion

Apologists have presented a series of arguments as to why the generally accepted understanding of Aisha’s age (i.e. nine-years-old) when she married and had sex with Muhammad, based on commonly known narratives, is erroneous and contradictory. However, on closer inspection, we find they have produced arguments that can be broadly categorized into these categories:

A. Unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators [a feature of the topic already.]
B. The use of non-sahih information to refute otherwise sahih hadiths [a feature of the topic already.]
C. The use of secondary, indirect sources in preference of direct testimonies [a feature of the topic already.]
D. The use of ‘imprecise’ dating in preference to specific dates and statements of age [a feature of the topic already.]
E. The use of misquoted references and erroneous information. [a feature of the topic already]
F. The use of incorrect logic [a feature of the topic already.]
G. Personal opinion [a feature of the topic already.]
When one examines their claims, one sees that their arguments contradict and debunk each other. Argument No. 5 says she was 14 to 21 years old. However, argument No. 6 says she was 15+, argument No. 7 says she was 17 or 18, argument No. 8 says Aisha was 14+, argument No. 9 says she was 12+, and argument No. 12 says she was 12. In other words, each and every one of the evidences contradicts and debunks all the others. Which of these so-called arguments is correct? They cannot all be correct. Clearly the apologists do not have a clue.

They have used doubtful data and assumptions for their calculations. In reality, all the arguments are false. Instead of using sahih hadiths, they use non-sahih source material. Instead of using specific and clear age testimony, they use events that cannot possibly be dated with any degree of accuracy. Instead of using traditions of acknowledged authenticity, they prefer to believe unsubstantiated slander and misquotations. Hardly a solid foundation for establishing facts. No wonder they cannot provide a consistent answer to the question of Aisha’s age.

Their argument appears to be that because they themselves, using spurious information, derive multiple conflicting ages for the one specific event in Aisha’s life, then we must throw out what we know about her age at this event. In effect, they are saying that just because they are using rubbish data, we have to throw out the sahih hadiths. However, this is not the logical outcome. A reasonable person would note that whilst their arguments debunk each other, all of the sahih hadith in regards to Aisha's age of consummation are in perfect harmony. Thus, rather than discarding the good with the bad, we will merely throw out the bad; in this case, the weak apologetic attempt to obfuscate our understanding that Aisha was aged nine when she married and had sex with Muhammad.

Material quoted:

The Work of Bart Ehrman
Aisha's Age of Consummation
Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet
AYESHA’s AGE: THE MYTH OF A PROVERBIAL WEDDING EXPOSED

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary
Hey OSC! It's been a while since your last response, and I guess I can see what it was that was taking your time!

First off, you spend an entire post attacking some people I've never heard of. I hope you don't mind if I ignore that post, because those names mean nothing to me (although it is interesting that then later in another post you say that no islamic scholar seriously makes that claim, yet you posted the names of several who do).

As for the rest of your post, you really could've just posted the link from wikiislam where you got the text (definitely not an islamic source) and added your own commentary afterwards. Would've made for a much shorter post.

In regards to your commentaries, yes, having only 1 source for a narration does make it suspect if the person who narrates it is suspect (for that time and place). Besides, if it is such a common thing, why isn't there a chain with anyone else?
Also, we seem to be discussing 2 separate things, here, though. Authenticity and correctness of a hadith through Hadith sciences vs Historical analysis.

Also, I never claimed that being in Iraq makes a hadith unreliable. Just that that was the timeframe given for when Ibn Urwa's hadith became less reliable.
And having an explicit hadith (which could very well be wrong) doesn't negate using extrapolation from other non-explicit hadith. In fact, it may be the only way to do it, especially when there's one hadith that could have been mistaken, and the others don't really think it a huge issue to be mentioning the age at which someone got married, because there was nothing extraordinary about it. Besides, the claim that this debate about the age of Aisha is a modern one is silly. There are several classical scholars and jurists who went against the 6-9 age.

a reply to: babloyi

It appears the above material has rebutted your case my friend, though when you consider that the writers who have popularized these claims cannot write in their defence it's no surprise.

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary
If you think an anti-islam website with a very clear and explicit agenda, selectively referencing one person in an argument with another person somehow "rebuts" the idea that there has been much debate and discussion on the age of Aisha even back when the hadith that mention it were originally collected (it certainly isn't a modern thing with modern authors who are 'unable to write in their defence' as you say), then I guess there's not much left to say here, OSC .